CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » Infrastructure

Roseburn to Leith consultation begins (and the debate continues!) CCWEL

(5536 posts)

No tags yet.


  1. EdinburghCycleCam
    Member

    I deleted the tweet after a few hours - mostly out of sympathy since they do seem to be taking it seriously. Also partly because I was fed up with the constant notifications (101 retweets!) and increasing number of "Why are you trying to ruin a small business?" comments.

    Posted 4 years ago #
  2. chdot
    Admin

  3. HankChief
    Member

    Section 2 - Haymarket to Charlotte square TRO & RSO is going to TEC next week.

    Because of 11 objections the RSO has to go to a hearing.

    Most of those objections seem to be about bins...

    http://www.edinburgh.gov.uk/download/meetings/id/61128/item_71_-_city_centre_west_to_east_cycle_link_and_street_improvements_project_%E2%80%93_section_2_haymarket_to_charlotte_square_and_melville_crescent_to_rutland_street_%E2%80%93_representations_to_traffic_regulation_order_and_redetermination_order

    Posted 4 years ago #
  4. chdot
    Admin

    Overall 15 representations to the advertised Orders were received. Of these 11 include objections, and three are letters of support. One is neither an objection, nor a letter of support. None of the representations which included objections have subsequently been withdrawn in response to proposed changes to the design. Of all objections eight include an objection to the advertised TRO and seven include an objection to the advertised RSO. The representations and the Council’s responses are summarised in this report, and in Appendices 8 and 9.

    Starts on P50 (of 146) should anyone care to read.

    I’m sure this didn’t happen in New York (etc.)

    Posted 4 years ago #
  5. chdot
    Admin

    My wife and I object to the plans proposed in Traffic Regulation Orders TRO/18/91A & 18/92B and Redetermination Order RSO/18/21 for the "City Centre West to East Cycle Link and Street Improvements Section 2 Haymarket - Randolph Place", primarily because of the proposed changes to Melville Street parking, which we believe would adversely affect our ability to park near our home at Flat 3F, 1 Drumsheugh Place, Edinburgh EH3 7PT and would diminish our overall quality of life.

    Oh dear the redacting didn’t work.

    P51

    Posted 4 years ago #
  6. CycleAlex
    Member

    Because of 11 objections the RSO has to go to a hearing

    Is that a council hearing or the Scot Gov?

    Posted 4 years ago #
  7. Frenchy
    Member

    Government hearing.

    Posted 4 years ago #
  8. Stickman
    Member

    Response from the council on air quality:

    https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/evidence_to_support_claims_that#incoming-1385247

    “The primary cause of poor Air Quality is motor vehicles.”

    Posted 4 years ago #
  9. HankChief
    Member

    Peak trolling?

    In response to an MCC member sharing round an anti cycle lane telegraph article on Birmingham's new cycle lanes, I explained how it was fake news.

    Next up was someone else posted a guardian article on £ms being wasted on painted cycle lanes (I assumed they just saw the headline of wasting money on cycle lanes), I explained that Paint was not Protection and segregated lanes were best.

    Someone else (guess who) chipped in with this jem...

    "As a cyclist, I love being able to cycle out of the painted zone into the cars zone. It means I can overtake slow cyclists, turn right etc - without worrying about bouncing over kerbs.

    What [Hankchief] proposes will only be used by toddlers"

    Give me strength...

    Posted 4 years ago #
  10. LivM
    Member

    You, sir, deserve a special medal for what you put up with there.

    Posted 4 years ago #
  11. Stickman
    Member

    Ask him why he is being so selfish and only thinking about his own needs.

    The cycle lane plans will still allow him to do all these things he quotes. They will also allow people who don’t want to cycle amongst cars to do so, especially those who want to cycle with their kids and toddlers.

    Posted 4 years ago #
  12. Stickman
    Member

    Council officer politely telling PGTips to get lost:

    https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/reason_for_removal_of_air_qualit#incoming-1386356

    Posted 4 years ago #
  13. LivM
    Member

    As a Murrayfield local, I had a leaflet through the door a couple of days ago asking me to sign a petition for an air quality survey. Another PG production.

    Posted 4 years ago #
  14. LivM
    Member

  15. Stickman
    Member

    Work going on in the unit vacated by the chemist which moved across the road. Possibly getting ready for a new occupant despite the impending doom of the bike lane.

    Posted 4 years ago #
  16. Rosie
    Member

    @Stickman - Perhaps they're selling gas masks....

    How I long for a cycle shop to open up.

    Posted 4 years ago #
  17. acsimpson
    Member

    Perhaps it's a printing press. Imagine how far PG could reduced his carbon wastage if he could get everything printed locally rather than driven in.

    Posted 4 years ago #
  18. Stickman
    Member

    @Rosie - that would be superb.

    Apparently the old sauna has been taken over by the TV/computer repair shop currently on the other side of the road. You remember, the guy who said that the cycle lane would be the death of his business and that no-one would ever come to Roseburn again.

    Posted 4 years ago #
  19. gembo
    Member

    Would be fab if say Harts Cyclery was having an expansion?

    Posted 4 years ago #
  20. Rosie
    Member

    @Stickman - I can't say anything against him as he was very helpful over a defunct laptop. I'm easily bribed.

    I'm glad to hear that - his present premises are a cupboard.

    Posted 4 years ago #
  21. Rosie
    Member

    Also at the last Murrayfield CC one of PG's tangental gems was that he'd been in London recently and didn't think there had been an increase in cycling.

    I'll now have a Forbes stat to wave at that latest fantasy. Of course that's hydra decapitation.

    Cycling up 5% in London.

    "2018 saw the highest growth in kilometers cycled since monitoring began, increasing almost 5% from the previous year. This is according to new statistics revealed by Transport for London."

    https://www.forbes.com/sites/carltonreid/2019/07/03/biggest-increase-in-cycling-in-london-since-records-began-reports-transport-for-london/#774db7d88aef

    Posted 4 years ago #
  22. Rosie
    Member

    Also, will the sauna's old customers be turning up offering £50 for a services, which was the going rate.

    Posted 4 years ago #
  23. EdinburghCycleCam
    Member

  24. chdot
    Admin

    Cycle lanes have been in the news recently, as have the many often entirely misguided arguments that opponents use against them.

    https://www.theguardian.com/environment/bike-blog/2019/jul/03/ten-common-myths-about-bike-lanes-and-why-theyre-wrong

    Posted 4 years ago #
  25. chdot
    Admin

    Original

    Posted 4 years ago #
  26. HankChief
    Member

    Let's argue about which side of the road a cycle lane should go on a 150m stretch of road rather than taking proven steps to reduce the volume of vehicles causing the pollution

    https://twitter.com/crabbitcopy/status/1148709852354613253?s=19

    Posted 4 years ago #
  27. Murun Buchstansangur
    Member

  28. Stickman
    Member

    Looks like the hearing will commence 4th November.

    http://dpea.scotland.gov.uk/CaseDetails.aspx?ID=119991

    (Timetable set out in document of 15 July)

    Posted 4 years ago #
  29. neddie
    Member

    Wonder if PG will get himself thrown out again?

    confirming actively participating at hearing session

    Posted 4 years ago #
  30. chdot
    Admin

    Don’t remember anything about this detail -

    MCC shares and supports the Donaldson Area Amenity Association’s view that the new short cycle lane section at the Stanhope Street junction is unnecessary, and the associated proposal for the existing pavement area to be shared with cyclists potentially dangerous and certainly unsettling for its substantial number of aged residents. Given that this proposal is for the sole benefit of the few cyclists resident in that area and is not supported by that area's residents association, it should be dropped since it has no wider consequences for the other CCWEL proposal.

    http://dpea.scotland.gov.uk/CaseDetails.aspx?ID=119991

    Posted 4 years ago #

RSS feed for this topic

Reply »

You must log in to post.


Video embedded using Easy Video Embed plugin