CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » Infrastructure

George St cycle lane

(297 posts)
  • Started 9 years ago by wee folding bike
  • Latest reply from spytfyre

No tags yet.


123…10

  1. HankChief
    Member

    I *think* the logic is that the TRO runs out and so they have to put it back to 2 way traffic.

    In doing so they can either put it back with no cycle lanes or they can put one in & rather than putting it under parked cars they are putting it in the middle of the 2 lanes heading in the same direction. (Not sure why that is thought to be a good idea)

    The FINAL solution is still be decided and consulted on, but is likely to have some form of pedestrianising / cycle lanes, taking the learnings from the current experimental layout.

    I assume the Transport Committee papers will make it clearer once we get sight of them.

    Posted 8 years ago #

  2. chdot
    Admin

    "

    Please consider this email to be an invite to the final meeting of the quarterly George Street Stakeholder Group. All are welcome, including members of the public, and anyone with an interest in the future of George Street. Please do forward this invitation on to anyone you feel may wish to contribute.

    "

    http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=12983&page=26#post-188603

    June 15th

    Posted 8 years ago #

  3. neddie
    Member

    If they really want to make George St a "place", then they need to ban cars from at least the central two blocks altogether (Castle St to Hanover St).

    Fine, have some small car parks at the end blocks, if you really must.

    Posted 8 years ago #

  4. chdot
    Admin

    "

    Spokes CycleCampaign (@SpokesLothian)
    27/05/2015 12:11
    .@talkporty @CityCycling @EdinReporter We argued keep existing till final soln [p3 http://www.spokes.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/p.all_4.pdf ] but council said legally imposs.

    "

    Posted 8 years ago #

  5. Wilmington's Cow
    Member

    Have said it often, a pedestrianised George Street would be a boulevard to rival the best in Europe.

    Thanks Hankchief, that makes more sense!

    Posted 8 years ago #

  6. Claire
    Member

    I've been linked the info by @EdinReporter re their article from earlier today:

    http://www.edinburgh.gov.uk/download/meetings/id/47233/item_74_-_george_street_experimental_traffic_regulation_order_-_interim_cycle_lane_options.

    Posted 8 years ago #

  7. wingpig
    Member

    Meurgh.

    "1.1.2 and agrees that, taking account of the fact the range of options are limited by legal and financial restrictions, the cycle lane during the interim period will be an advisory cycle lane as per the design in Appendix One."

    Posted 8 years ago #

  8. SRD
    Moderator

    "It is the type of cycle way that has proved to be effective, safe and
    popular on the south side of the city, having been implemented from
    Causewayside to Kings Buildings."

    bah

    Posted 8 years ago #

  9. kaputnik
    Moderator

    Well that "lane" disappears well before every junction to allow a full 2 lanes of queueing single occupant vehicles. ASLs provided only at the far ends and for a left turn into Hanover Street from the St. Andrew Square direction.

    I don't know why they're even bothering.

    Posted 8 years ago #

  10. Morningsider
    Member

    Most odd - an experimental traffic regulation order can last 18 months, but the Council has chosen to end it after 12 months. I'm pretty sure the Council paper is wrong to state that the current experimental order cannot be extended. Section 9(4) of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 seems pretty clear that an experimental order can be extended, as long as it doesn't exceed 18 months duration in total.

    Does anyone think an advisory cycle lane between two lanes of general traffic is a good idea?

    Posted 8 years ago #

  11. chdot
    Admin

    "

    3.8 The preferred solution is an advisory cycle lane that is not kerbside, but sits in between the two lanes of carriageway in each direction (see Appendix One). It retains a dedicated cycle facility, it does not require a TRO, is cost-effective, and as an interim measure it provides a clearly visible and unbroken cycle lane while returning symmetry to the street. It has no impact on loading and parking facilities, and no impact on the public transport network (bus stops and taxi stances). It is the type of cycle way that has proved to be effective, safe and popular on the south side of the city, having been implemented from Causewayside to Kings Buildings.

    ...

    3.11 Given these factors, the unbroken cycle lane, located between live traffic carriageways, that has proved successful on the south side of the city, is the recommended approach as an interim measure, and is more likely to help establish the principle of a dedicated cycle facility with the broad range of other stakeholders on George Street.

    "

    I assume this means a cycle lane between where people stop/park at the kerb (legally or otherwise) and a single traffic lane.

    If so might actually be better than what is there now - no vehicles in the 'definitely cycling only bits' and no dodging round the statues.

    That seems to be what the drawings show.

    Posted 8 years ago #

  12. Snowy
    Member

    "effective, safe and popular"

    Do they honestly think that if they say it often enough for long enough, people will start to believe them?

    Posted 8 years ago #

  13. chdot
    Admin

    "Do they honestly think that if they say it often enough for long enough, people will start to believe them?"

    Yes, but some of 'them' actually believe it.

    Perhaps more officials and councillors should read this -

    http://andrewburns.blogspot.co.uk/2012/12/cycling-boost-for-edinburgh-with-new.html

    Posted 8 years ago #

  14. kaputnik
    Moderator

    it provides a clearly visible and unbroken cycle lane

    Any fool looking at the plans can see that's not just cobblers, it's a downright lie. The lane breaks well before every junction and just disappears, reappearing once you've made way for the smoothly flowing traffic shepherded yourself unassisted across each junction.

    Best fire off a few emails to clarify the above quote from the document.

    Posted 8 years ago #

  15. ianfieldhouse
    Member

    I assume this means a cycle lane between where people stop/park at the kerb (legally or otherwise) and a single traffic lane.

    If so might actually be better than what is there now - no vehicles in the 'definitely cycling only bits' and no dodging round the statues.

    That seems to be what the drawings show.

    That's what the drawing in the plans look like. I'm not sure any drivers in their right mind is going to try and use the inside car lane as their preferred choice as it's just going to be littered with parked cars and loading vans/lorries. It's basically as much use to motorists as the majority of cycle lanes are to cyclists.

    Other than the cycle lanes disappearing at the junctions I don't think this is a bad solution since they aren't going to keep the dedicated cycle lanes.

    The part of the QBC similar to this on Mayfield Road just prior to Ratcliffe Terrace is actually pretty good.

    Posted 8 years ago #

  16. kaputnik
    Moderator

    https://twitter.com/cocteautriplets/status/603671192566951936

    I make it 6 breaks totalling ~486m in that "clearly visible and unbroken cycle lane".

    Posted 8 years ago #

  17. chdot
    Admin

    Nice work.

    Posted 8 years ago #

  18. Luath
    Member

    I agree with @ianfieldhouse, they're basically proposing: parking lane - advisory cycle lane - smoothly folowing traffic lane - end-on parking plaza - smoothly flowing traffic lane - advisory cycle lane - parking lane

    From my cursory look as I cycled along Hanover street I'm far from conviced there's enough width for all that. My guess is that there'll be a significant overlap between the parking lane door zone and the advisory cycle lane.

    Posted 8 years ago #

  19. wingpig
    Member

    What about the "make it nicer for pedestrians" portion of the experiment's aim? What about the fact that the world hasn't been ended by the majority of motor traffic not being able to get directly from Charlotte-Frederick and St David-Frederick along George Street? It's nice that they're trying to maintain some sort of cycling-is-allowed-and-expected-here continuity between the end of the ETRO and the hopeful eventual proper continuous segregated joined-up worthwhile facility (in 2018 or whenever) but this is likely to just highlight to drivers that advisory cycle lanes can be freely ignored, if they're even noticed.

    Posted 8 years ago #

  20. Morningsider
    Member

    How about the Council extends the current experimental TRO by 6 months, using this extra time to develop a "final" plan. Uses another experimental TRO to trial the final scheme (say segregated, one-way cycle lanes on either side of the street) using rubber kerbs, and the current planters, bollards etc. This would allow them to:

    1. fine tune the final scheme
    2. have plenty of time to obtain a permanent TRO while maintaining segregated cycle routes and improved pedestrian facilities
    3. remove the need to redesign the street three times

    It shouldn't cost any more than the current plans, provides a better interim solution and allows for the best possible permanent scheme.

    Posted 8 years ago #

  21. Wilmington's Cow
    Member

    Had cause to ride along just after lunchtime. Hitting the last section I could see a pedestrian ahead about to wander on looking in entirely the wrong direction. I (and another cyclist) had slowed in anticipation, he turned at the last minute and apologised profusely.

    Then he had a thought and shouted, not aggressively, more in a moment of clarity, that we were cycling the wrong way. I was going slow enough that I was able to hail back (in friendly tones, no aggression), that it was a two way lane. He looked down, then waved acknowledgement.

    Nice outcome really.

    Posted 8 years ago #

  22. paulmilne
    Member

    I really don't get this over-complication. What is wrong with Pavement, protected bicycle lane, parking/loading lane, traffic lane? If there is a problem with space, remove the central on-street parking. They don't have any on Princes Street, do they, so why do they "need" it on George Street? The pavements are super wide on George Street anyway, plenty of space for tables, walkers, and the odd bus-stop bypass.

    This is the solution we should be pressing for. The logical, widely-used model in high-cycling countries. We don't HAVE to re-invent the wheel. We even have the experience of Buccleuch/St Leonard's street for building the damn things. We know they can do it, so let them do it!

    Always ask for the very best - if you ask for less you'll get a lot less.

    Posted 8 years ago #

  23. neddie
    Member

    The very best is to ban cars altogether

    Posted 8 years ago #

  24. paulmilne
    Member

    Okay, I read the document linked to above, and get that this is just a temporary thing until the more permanent thing, which would ideally have protected kerbside lanes.

    Posted 8 years ago #

  25. chdot
    Admin

    @ Morningsider

    "How about the Council extends the current experimental TRO by 6 months, using this extra time to develop a "final" plan."

    I thought they were saying 'not possible to extend ETRO'(?)

    Posted 8 years ago #

  26. Morningsider
    Member

    I'm saying what they are saying is probably wrong. Section 9(4) of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984, which governs the operation of experimental traffic regulation orders, states:

    "(4) Subject to Parts I to III of Schedule 9 of this Act, where—
    (a) an experimental traffic order has been made for a period of less than 18 months, and
    (b) the order has not ceased to be in force,
    the authority by whom the order was made may from time to time by order direct that it shall continue in force for a further period ending not later than 18 months after it first came into force."

    Posted 8 years ago #

  27. ih
    Member

    Please @Luath, never say Edinburgh roads aren't wide enough. Most of them are really generous and George St in particular is magnificently wide.

    There is oodles of space for a fantastic solution but there is no political will and courage to implement it. As said by others there is room for a wide protected cycle lane/track in each direction. I've just been along there in both directions. The kerbside is littered with permitted parking areas for loading, taxis, buses, car club cars, and disabled driver bays. Why are all these necessary where they are? And additionally there is a significant amount of outright illegal parking.

    Posted 8 years ago #

  28. Wilmington's Cow
    Member

    Chatting with a delightful vaguely well-known cycling foodie over a coffee today who was most enthusiastic about the new lanes, and them making her feel 'wanted' as a cyclist in the city, who was dismayed they will be changing, and asking about activist groups who would be agitating to try to keep them as is.

    Posted 8 years ago #

  29. chdot
    Admin

    "

    Janette Sadik-Khan (@JSadikKhan)
    28/05/2015 15:27
    New York City: If you can make a people-friendly boulevard here, you can make one anywhere. Broadway #tbt streets

    http://pic.twitter.com/NpHbDlxkFO

    "

    Perhaps we need to invite her here.

    Posted 8 years ago #

  30. DdF
    Member

    Remember this open-meeting consultation mtg next Monday 15th re George Street future...
    https://twitter.com/SpokesLothian/status/603523855479664640

    Note that it is about the entire Geo St project, of which cycle facilities are just one element, though an important one. A lot of people go to these mtgs, with differing interests and agendas, so it is not possible, for example, to sit round a table and discuss a cycleroute map in detail.

    Recently I bumped into Ian MacPhail, the guy in charge of the George Street project (and wider city centre) and mentioned the unhappiness with the George St Interim cycle facility proposals, particularly at junctions. He said it was unlikely this could be discussed in detail at the above mtg, as the aim there is to get views on the long term future (of all aspects, not just cycling) ideas for which are being considered now.

    He therefore offered a meeting specifically to discuss the 'interim' cycleroute (which will probably be in place for a year or so, maybe more, before the 'final' solution). The mtg will be at 12.00 (noon) City Chambers on Thurs 18 June. Anyone interested is welcome, and I hope one or more CCE people unhappy with the plans and with alternative ideas can come along.

    Hence these tweets...
    https://twitter.com/SpokesLothian/status/609347521178152961

    If anyone wants more info about the mtg email Iain.MacPhail@edinburgh.gov.uk

    Obviously it'll also be possible to make points about the 'final' solution, though whether or not they have decided on options for that we won't know till the Monday mtg.

    Background point - the council insists that legally the experimental TRO cannot be extended. Therefore the interim solution has to be one that is compatible with the TRO which existed prior to the experiment and which returns into force once the experiment ends in September.

    Though there have been a lot of disappointments and ups and downs, the fact of having done an experiment is hopefully going to mean a final solution which is better than if we'd had an initial 'permanent' solution.

    Posted 8 years ago #

RSS feed for this topic

123…10

Reply »

You must log in to post.


Video embedded using Easy Video Embed plugin