St Andrews Sq - Princes St was removed as traffic modelling suggested it would cause large delays for buses.
CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » Infrastructure
Roseburn to Leith consultation begins (and the debate continues!) CCWEL
(5525 posts)-
Posted 4 years ago #
-
Traffic modelling ruins everything interesting.
Posted 4 years ago # -
I bet in most traffic models there’s never double parked taxis and everyone obeys loading / waiting restrictions to the letter
Posted 4 years ago # -
The written submissions for the hearing have now been published. 35pages from PG...
Posted 4 years ago # -
35 pages: front and back?
Posted 4 years ago # -
I don't recommend reading it if you get angry easily (or at all for that matter)
Posted 4 years ago # -
Page 4 describes the unique nature of Roseburn: four lanes of free-flowing traffic with no illegal parking during rush hour apparently....
The Reporter can’t take this <rule 2> seriously surely?
Posted 4 years ago # -
I didn’t read beyond this. (Shame some people have to.) -
“
Fraudulent Claim 1. In Dec 2014 the Council’s cycling officers presented Transport Committee with their PJR (Project Justification Report [PJR] at http://www.kidsnotsuits.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/Roseburn-to-Leith-Prelim-PJR.pdf ) which claimed that 88% more people would switch to cycling as a result of the CCWEL. They used this data to postulate health benefits equating to fewer staff going sick from work, which they then monetised to present a cost benefit ratio of the CCWEL at 3.3. There was no consideration of the economic impacts on traders who would lose their customer parking nor on the dangers of increased NO2 pollution arising from vehicle emissions in street canyons. It was pure speculation. The use of the “disaggregate mode choice model derived by Wardman, Tight and Page” is no substitute for traditional methods of counting existing cycling traffic and asking people who are likely to use the route if it will change their behaviour. Hard data trumps dreamland calculations every time.“
Posted 4 years ago # -
The Reporter can’t take this <rule 2> seriously surely?That would be my hope. It has all the baloney that PG has been spouted over the years and put it into 1 document. So enough inconsistency and obvious untruths in it that it should be easily discredited.
You'll note the reporter has turned down Spokes' offer to set the record straight by giving the positive arguments for the proposals.
Posted 4 years ago # -
"At these quieter times, Roseburn has more in common with a quiet village."
That is absolutely hysterical! I can only imagine that quiet village, with a constant line of cars and buses and trade vehicles.
I grip my small son's hand hard when we walk through Roseburn (off peak) in case he wavers out of line and gets side swiped by a bus going at 30mph...Posted 4 years ago # -
“which claimed that 88% more people would switch to cycling as a result of the CCWEL”
That’s a remarkably modest expectation. (Any timescale?)
Posted 4 years ago # -
I understood that the Reporter is only concerned with fairly tightly defined criteria: I hope that he’ll dismiss all this as irrelevant.
Posted 4 years ago # -
Half of what the objectors have submitted is complete nonsense. Shame supporters aren't allowed to challenge it.
But hey, at least my email bad mouthing them is now public record on the DPEA website!
What's the worst case scenario here, reporter dismisses the council's TRO/RSO as flawed and we're back to step 1?
Posted 4 years ago # -
If the Reporter dismisses it then I’d imagine it kills the scheme, at least the Roseburn-Haymarket section. Think the council will continue to throw money at it when they’ve already compromised so much?
Although on a positive note, at the Rejuvinating Roseburn drop-in I asked Ruaridh whether the council was confident of winning: his reply was “we’ve never lost a Reporter hearing yet”.
Posted 4 years ago # -
Reassuring, seems the Leith Walk objection report was fairly positive. If the council does win, it really shows how much of a waste of time and money this whole process is!
Amusing myself by reading more of his statement
"Cyclists say:
..We do not think the Council should be spending £1M on a track we do not need; rather the money should be spent improving the signage of the existing track (NCR1)..."That's some big signs.
Posted 4 years ago # -
@CycleAlex: as HankChief said above, this new effort seems to be a repeat of all PG’s earlier claims. They’ve all been refuted at some point over the 150 pages of this topic - maybe just pointing the Reporter to read it may be more useful!
Posted 4 years ago # -
To be fair, he is right about the lanes being too narrow and that they should be one way only/on both sides.
Posted 4 years ago # -
@mgj: it’s concern trolling.
Posted 4 years ago # -
I wonder how many years will pass before it's finally built (or should that be if)
Posted 4 years ago # -
It's an if, I reckon. Long Grass techniques are being employed.
Posted 4 years ago # -
2 more objections now added. More conjecture
Posted 4 years ago # -
From one of today's objections: "Although it is probably not within your remit, is there any way you might suggest that a cyclist be obliged to wear some sort of reflective clothing and have lights front and rear. During our winter days one has to be extremely observant to avoid cyclists wearing dark clothing"
If only there was a way to separate bikes and cars to help this...
Posted 4 years ago # -
<rule 2>
<rule 2>
<rule 2>
<rule 2>
<rule 2>
Posted 4 years ago # -
@CycleAlex - oh my actual <rule 2>... I'm looking forward to the time when I get to argue that all black cars should be banned because they're completely invisible in the dark if they drive with their lights off.
Posted 4 years ago # -
The council have submitted their written statement for the hearing: http://www.dpea.scotland.gov.uk/Document.aspx?id=626342 Makes for quite an interesting read!
The reporter is also allowing the council to present supporting evidence from Spokes in lieu of them being able to present at the hearing (which is good.. I guess?).
Posted 4 years ago # -
@CycleAlex: that’s a pretty comprehensive, thorough and professional document. I feel a bit more positive after reading it.
Posted 4 years ago # -
One of the other documents uploaded yesterday says that the objectors now have an opportunity to respond to the council response. Do the council then get to respond to the objectors’ response to the council response?
And we wonder why this all takes so long....
Posted 4 years ago # -
Do the council need to respond to the objectors response? It will be the same outpouring of lies which was in their initial submission with very little (if anything) changed.
Posted 4 years ago # -
I've not read pg's submissions not his acquaintances but scanning through the council document gives some flavour of just what they must contain. A lot of refuting inaccuracies or pointing out that concerns have been hugely exaggerated. I'm assuming that pg doesn't mention just how many vehicles current stop illegally outside the shops either.
Posted 4 years ago # -
@acsimpson
I enjoyed this part of the council doc.
7.4 It is worth noting that many of the vehicles stopping on Roseburn Terrace in the current scenario are doing so in breach of restrictions, either because they are using them during peak times (see Table 1), or because they are using them for parking rather than loading, as can be seen in Figure 1.
Posted 4 years ago #
Reply »
You must log in to post.
posts
