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.
not resolved'So that's alright then...'
As well as objectives to keep trams flowing, keep buses flowing, keep taxis flowing, keep general traffic flowing, allow loading, allow parking. This project has little to do with encouraging active travel. It's just window dressing. And get the bikes out of the way on some out of sight round the houses route that no one will use but we can say we provided an East West route. B*****ks.
It does make you wonder doesn't it. The design objectives appear to be all things to all people and the fact that in trying to achieve one you will inevitably fail to achieve another doesn't seemed to have occurred to anyone.
"Also Roseburn Place / Gardens is a defacto traffic-light free left turn for vehicles"
...and almost without fail cars turning right onto Roseburn Gardens cut the corner,
often at speed, without checking what is coming towards them.
"It does make you wonder doesn't it. The design objectives appear to be all things to all people and the fact that in trying to achieve one you will inevitably fail to achieve another doesn't seemed to have occurred to anyone."
when we did canal-meadows, it was explicitly stated that the objective was to bring a cycle route, but that other needs would be considered in deciding how to do it. so we discussed trade-offs like 'bus stops' v 'parking' and agreed on bus stops.
outcome was : 2 moved toucans, widened pavements on Home street, tarvit street closure to through traffic except bikes, and segregated lanes on Home st and Melville Drive.
It's not going to be perfect, but it should make a dreadful intersection better for cyclists and pedestrians.
If you trying to satisfy everybody it's never going work, you need to have some 'losers' for the winner of getting a useable route.
Thrre are places where space can be given over to cycling by narrowing existing wide roads so it appears easy, but they will always need to make some tough decisions.
I'd like to hope that this is appreciated and that there is a willingness to make these decisions.
In the masterplan (ATAP?) to increase active travel I assume there must be a drop in private car use, but is there any plans on how to achieve this?
The problem on Home street is busses. Big issues regarding what happens if busses back up over entrance to fire station, for example. and if you narrow road to one lane between Gilmore Place and the Cameo, what happens to buses?
Impression I got was that they were keen to widen pavements, and to build segregated cycle lanes, but that busses and fire stations trumped that.
The problem is, we end up with small, isolated segments of bi-directional cycle paths, rather than long arterial routes that commuters, shoppers etc will want to use.
Big issues regarding what happens if busses back up over entrance to fire station
That couldn't possibly happen - that's a box junction and professional drivers wouldn't take their vehicle onto a box junction if their exit wasn't clear, would they?
Hankchief - very good points. The design criteria states "Avoid excessive delay to general traffic, with particular regard to pollution and public transport". It's the general traffic that causes the pollution and holds up the buses - not cyclists and pedestrians.
okay, let me get that right. we were discussing potential for moving the cameo bus stop so as to widen pavement/make cycle lane, but were advised that it was unlikely to be viable because there wasn't enough room on the other side of thornybauk for 2 busses to pull in. we also discussed splitting the stops.
my point is that in that consultation, I felt that everything was pretty much open for discussion, but some options were not optimal.
Still the basic goal of putting in a cycle route trumped other preferences.
"It's the general traffic that causes the pollution and holds up the buses - not cyclists and pedestrians."
'
That's far too obvious so it can't be true.
Anyway we've got our fingers in our ears so we're not listening to sense.
The future is bright, the future is just the way it's always been. (With a bit of tinkering at the edges.)
'
It's amazing how accepting of traffic infringements society is.
Whereas (as an out group) 'cyclists' legally not using a badly designed piece of infrastructure seems to wind up people.
@Daisydaisy - All the best for tomorrow - it's a tough job, but you taking time to attend will result in a better outcome.
"It's amazing how accepting of traffic infringements society is."
That depends.
There are those who think they are society ('drivers' perhaps). And those who have quite a lot of power to design and deliver infrastructure that conforms to ideas that are not so much 'outdated' as never fit for purpose in the first place.
Then there are the politicians who a) believe that voters are "drivers" before they are people, pedestrians, parents etc.
Whether this is a grand conspiracy by the oil companies and motor manufacturers (and their lobbyists) is worth debating. There are people who would also add the power of the advertising money to distort the media 'narrative' on the 'place of cars' in society and the way they have 'changed lives for the better'.
Not forgetting that 'traffic flow' increases GDP so it's all good...
SRD - "there wasn't enough room on the other side of Thornybauk for two buses to pull in". I think they were having you on - the road there is enormously wide and it is certainly long enough to fit two buses. Might be a problem for the 23 and 27, which turn up Lauriston Place and would have to cross two lanes to use a stop there - but their nearest stops are close by and they could simply skip this one. The Cameo bus stop is a relative newcomer - I assume because it was always something of a problem to accommodate.
@morningsider do you think? was looking at it on googlemaps/streetview and there may be room for 2 (as showing), but not more.
But I think many of us also agreed that the Cameo 'shelter' is much appreciated.
As someone who often changes to and from a 23 or 27 there, I would not want those buses to skip that stop. Would be hugely unpopular.
"I would not want those buses to skip that stop. Would be hugely unpopular."
It took years of campaigning to get the stop!
How did this thread morph into fire stations and bus stops in Home St. What's the link?
But, there are too many bus stops in Edinburgh. You could scrap half of them. On the few occasions I take a bus instead of cycling or walking, it takes for ever.
"How did this thread morph into fire stations and bus stops in Home St. What's the link?"
Previous consultation/compromise was Meadows to Canal.
"there are too many bus stops in Edinburgh"
You may say that.
Partly a legacy of (generally) bus users being older and carrying more messages.
Of course (re)moving bus stops is 'problematic'.
"it takes for ever"
Got worse when they did away with conductors.
Got worser when they abandoned the central exit door (too many fare dodgers).
Would improve if they had an Oystercard style payment system.
ThisISedinburgh.
Got worser when they abandoned the central exit door (too many fare dodgers).
I thought the party line was it was too many fraudulent compensation claims for the door being closed on a disembarking passenger?
Apparently there were two parallel workshops: One on the Haymarket area, the other on the Roseburn area.
Here's what I heard about it:
"""
The final route which will now be designed in more detail for the public consultation will be:
But...
"""
Unfortunately a main road route passing through Haymarket and on to Shandwick Place (or even turning left up Grosvenor St) had been definitively ruled out because (they say) Haymarket junction could not cope with the loss of space for buses, tram etc.
"""
The workshops were in series.
Roseburn Gardens to Rosebery Crescent is way more A8 segregation than I would have expected. Come consultation-time remember to ask for a decent link from the A8 to the level access to the Roseburn path opposite Wester Coates Ave, and/or another toucan to reach Balbirnie Place.
Adam McVey on Twitter:
@adamrmcvey: Presentation at today's Transport forum on Roseburn-Leith cycle link. Forecast impact of 3000 more daily cycle trips in City when complete.
Was anyone at this forum or is the presentation available anywhere?
Ask him on Twitter.
I did - no reply.
Ah!
Maybe he only works Mon-Fri...
Fair point - he is allowed some time off...I suppose.
After seeing this tweet I started thinking about the route in from Roseburn. I cycle it every day and giving up a lane of traffic for a segregated bike route should be possible with a bit of political bravery:
- West Coates is never backed up with traffic even in rush hour. Outside of Greenway time it is just a car park.
- Haymarket Terrace gets busy, but that's usually because one lane is blocked by cars parked outside the shops or by the taxi rank
- Roseburn Terrace does get busy, but again mostly because of cars parked.
I would love to see a proper segregated route, but I'm expecting it to be a watered down QBC style "solution".
Fingers crossed though.
Are all segregated plans in Edinburgh bi-directional? This is a worrying trend if it is as next-to-street provision like this is simply not a good idea.
http://www.copenhagenize.com/2014/06/explaining-bi-directional-cycle-track.html
What sort of reasoning is given by the council for this approach - is it all about space ?
What a ridiculous article. I've used London Cycle Superhighway 3 on many occasions, which is largely bi-directional, and it is a joy to use compared to any on-street infrastructure in Edinburgh.
Drivers pulling out of side streets respect the stop lines, which require them to stop before crossing the cycle track. Drivers look before turning into side streets - well, as much as they always do.
I think bi-directional lanes are used for two main reasons. They take up less room than two separate segregated lanes and are cheaper to build. It would be great if we lived in a world where road space and public finances were no barrier to progress - but we don't.
Also - who knew that city cycle campaigning began in 2007 with our hero "...a lone voice in the wilderness regarding bicycles as transport in cities, with only testosterone-driven, frothing at the mouth sports and recreational cycling blogs for company in the woods".
deleted.
sorry - wrong thread
I am meant to be invited to the transport forums I think but I wasn't to this one :/
You must log in to post.
Cycling in Edinburgh Flickr group
Video embedded using Easy Video Embed plugin
posts