I started using part of this route a few times a week when mini-Morningsider started primary 2 at the Deanbank Annex of South Morningside Primary. Pretty much the same time the initial consultation on this was launched. If the date Frenchy has quoted is right, mini-Morningsider will have started high school before any work on the initial phase is completed.
CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » Infrastructure
Marchmont to King's Buildings consultation
(113 posts)-
Posted 4 years ago #
-
Mini-Roibeard didn't see any improvements in her childhood, Micro-Roibeard isn't either (although other areas of Edinburgh did see improvement in the 19 years being considered - and no, the QBiC doesn't count!).
Nano-Roibeard might possibly see something in the south of the city, although that's predicated in improvements being implemented prior to 2024!
Robert
Posted 4 years ago # -
I've been cycling that route on and off since the eighties. No material change.
Posted 4 years ago # -
And don’t forget -
This thread was “Started 5 years ago”
The city centre is important, but...
Posted 4 years ago # -
It is currently anticipated that the statutory procedures will commence in April 2015.
Ah Edinburgh.
Posted 4 years ago # -
There seems to be some movement on this...
It is being done in two phases:
Draft TROs have been drawn up for the phase 1 section between Melville Dr and Charterhall Rd (not public yet, but may well be shortly)
Still seems to be the same painted-on pish along Marchmont Rd / Kilgraston Rd / Blackford Ave. Really annoying, given the abject failure of the QBiC and the fact that Marchmont Rd could easily have the bike lanes on the inside of the parking...
Posted 4 years ago # -
Will JPGS travel committee be responding?
Posted 4 years ago # -
Will JPGS travel committee be responding
Yes.
But we haven't officially received the TROs
Posted 4 years ago # -
Still seems to be the same painted-on pish along Marchmont Rd
Worth opposing PG tips style, but with fact based evidence? e.g. https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/jun/17/painted-bike-lanes-waste-money-cycling-commissioners
Posted 4 years ago # -
What precisely is being changed to require the TROs? Presumably just painting lanes isn't enough to need one?
Posted 4 years ago # -
Worth opposing PG tips style, but with fact based evidence? e.g. https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/jun/17/painted-bike-lanes-waste-money-cycling-commissioners
I think at the end of the day, only so much 'proper' segregated infrastructure can be built within current budgets and funding.
While the advisory lanes are meh, extending and introducing new waiting restrictions should help (if enforced).
Objecting to the TRO, and ending up in a lengthy hearing, will no doubt just cause lots of legal fees that will probably get taken from the AT budget.
Posted 4 years ago # -
Objecting to the TRO, and ending up in a lengthy hearing, will no doubt just cause lots of legal fees that will probably get taken from the AT budget.
That's fair. I'm all for parking restrictions, but paint is beyond meh, it's actively regressive
" passing events on roads with a bike lane with no parked cars had a reduced mean passing distance of 27 cm (Q1: 25 cm, Q3: 29 cm), and passing events on roads with a bike lane and parked cars had a mean lower passing distance of 40 cm"
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0001457518309990?via=ihub
That's before considering the perceived right of way overtaking drivers seem to have when there's a car parked in the cycle lane and I have to merge back out, which is one of the most dangerous scenarios I encounter on the road.
Why not apply for more national funding for segregated lanes, or wait til the funds are there locally, rather than putting in something that reduces safety.
Posted 4 years ago # -
I think at the end of the day, only so much 'proper' segregated infrastructure can be built within current budgets and funding.
This is nonsense.
One of the reasons the government won't expand the active travel budget is because they say "if we increase it too much, it won't get spent"
Aim high, then negotiate down. Don't start from a low base, "oh well, that's all we'll get so why ask for more"
Posted 4 years ago # -
scrap Cycling Scotland, scrap Sustrans, use the money to build segregated infrastructure instead of spending it on well intentioned Quangos who in fact now appear to exist to prevent government money being spent on Infrastructure?
This is of course harsh and we all sup with the devil with our long spoons.
Posted 4 years ago # -
@gembo
Madness. The Sustrans Workplace Challenge is the way forward.
Posted 4 years ago # -
@iwrats, yes i am signed up for the Early Bird competition. Looking forward to my first prize - 50cm of segregated infra
Posted 4 years ago # -
gembo - unfortunately, you have also won the second prize. Which is attending the public inquiry into the TRO for your first prize. Due to be held in 2027.
Posted 4 years ago # -
@Morningsider, London is another country of course but they fairly quickly rolled out the cycle super highways
Posted 4 years ago # -
Any chance of some parking enforcement for the double parkers in the existing provision on Marchmont Road would be welcome. Same cars parked in the same places, outside of spaces often, every day. Road surface appalling.
Posted 4 years ago # -
Particularly the ones that double park directly opposite junctions, greatly increasing the incident risk.
Posted 4 years ago # -
The Meadows to King's Buildings thread reminded me of this Marchmont to King's Bulidings Scheme. Anyone know whether there's been any movement on it?
Posted 3 years ago # -
Last update was that it's expected to be completed in July 2021.
From page 44 of the list of active travel projects in the "Questions and Answers" pdf here: https://democracy.edinburgh.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=150&MId=5546&Ver=4
Posted 3 years ago # -
Excellent thank you, let's hope they can stick to that.
Posted 3 years ago #
Reply
You must log in to post.
posts
