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.
The one from Gilmerton Station Road out past Dobbie's is more than 10 years old, but the section along Lasswade Road was built in around 2015.
At RIE - the wiggly path up to Danderhall is only a couple of years old, and I think the paths going east/west between the hospital and Greendykes are a mix of brand new and significant upgrades of old unsurfaced tracks.
The answer to question 9.22 (the status of all current active travel projects) is either a sign of impressive ambition or a mark of abject failure:
@Crowriver. I think it's a little over half a mile so certainly no more than 1km.
Incidentally the shared use section of the A90 path by B924 was new infrastructure as it had previously been on road. It's the oldest part though so could predate your 2012 cut off.
@Stickman, (5.22?) I can't see the A90 cycle path on this list, am I missing something there?
@acsimpson - the Burnshot bridge is a roads project that happens to include cycling infrastructure - the report is listing only the projects being carried out by the Active Travel team.
@Frenchy, not the Burnshot bridge but the path from there to the Dalmeny Main gate. This was installed/upgraded using a substantial part of the active travel budget over a number of years. I started regularly using it in 2014, that year the high level section was widened and I think the following year the final section by the A90 was done.
Prior to that the section up the B924 and the "Death Star Trench" were done.
Ah, I'm with you now.
Looks like only current and recently completed projects are on the list, despite the question asking for everything approved since 2010.
https://twitter.com/edinburgh_cc/status/1289603301395202049?s=21
Work starts on sections of Melville Crescent on 3 Aug for 7 wks - ahead of plans to build a cycle route from Roseburn to Leith Walk via city centre in 2021. Diversions will be in place and some parking bays suspended.
TRO/RSO for most of the remainder of section 3 is out. Statement of reasons gives a TL;DR:
• Installing a bi-directional cycleway along the east side of North St David Street;
• Reducing the carriageway width to three lanes (instead of four);
• Upgrading the crossing over Nth St David St to a toucan;
• Upgrading the footway on the east side of North St David Street;
• Removing redundant street furniture and reducing street clutter to create a more attractive environment;
• Introducing contraflow cycling on Thistle Street and North St Andrew Lane.
TRO: https://www.edinburgh.gov.uk/downloads/download/14574/tro1990---north-st-david-street
RSO: https://www.edinburgh.gov.uk/downloads/download/14575/rso1913-north-st-david-street
Will anyone use a contraflow on a cobbled rat run? Really? And wont it always be parked on anyway. Waste of money yet again, and a cop out from tackling Queen St, which is easily wide enough to have proper cycling facilities for its full length.
This is just painful - the RSO is for about 77m of actual segregated cycle lane. Surely no-one can look at this and think "Yep, this is the way we should do things" - well, apart from the chaps at Arup, sweco, Jacobs and the rest.
@mgj It will cost perhaps a few hundred pounds for signs compared to what would probably be £1m+ for infrastructure on Queen St (which was never in the scope of CCWEL anyway). Hardly an extreme expenditure.
“which was never in the scope of CCWEL anyway“
Yes, which is most of the problem.
Small amount of money spent on something that wont be used, will be used in the case against spending money on proper facilities.
1st (virtual) MCC for 6 months.
First topic... pavement cycling on Western Coates Terrace coming off NEPN...
How I have missed it...
Bit like the common cold hitting the second weans back at school
The gammon-ommeter I keep in the garage just started beeping
Fairly short chat about CCWEL. The Stanhope Street junction is being redesigned so that motor traffic can still exit and will then need to a new TRO.
Work on this has been delayed due to officers being reassigned. Shouldn't (now) be controversial and hopefully won't delay construction but who knows...
Well, estate agents like to exaggerate but...?
“
There is excellent local shopping in nearby Roseburn just around the corner
“
https://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-for-sale/property-84503131.html#_full-description
CCWEL – The Chairman reported that the TRO and RSO for the Roseburn to Haymarket section have been approved by the Council and Scottish Ministers respectively.
6.2 Stanhope Street – M Stevens reported that the Council’s original proposal to remove egress from Stanhope Street and make it one way had been seen off by residents two years ago, but had been resurrected in conjunction with the proposal for a new crossing over the main road at Donaldson’s. The Council are to consult residents again on two options – a crossing for pedestrians and cyclists with the partial closure of Stanhope Street or a crossing for pedestrians only with no closure of Stanhope Street. The consultation was to have taken place this summer but will now be delayed until later in the year.
H Whaley asked whether the consultation has to be finalised before work on the CCWEL can begin. M Stevens replied that he understood that another TRO will be required and work will not begin until that has been done.
Surely not?
I have to say this is incompetence by the council not to factor this in at an earlier stage.
I only thought it would hold up the signalised crossing near to Stanhope Street rather than the whole thing...(but I may have that wrong).
It shouldn't be that contentious a change so hopefully go through quickly.
It was to reverse a plan to make Stanhope St 1 way to allow the crossing nearer to the side street. It needs to move slightly further away so that turning traffic still see the lights.
It shouldn't be that contentious a change so hopefully go through quickly.
But can't anyone just oppose it PGtips style it for other reasons, with no logic applied to the legitimacy of their complaint until a reporter eventually bothers to do a simple box ticking job? TROs being as unfit for purpose as they are
I see no reason why a new TRO at that crossing would delay the rest of the project - it was already planned to be built in separate stages anyway.
It is a touch concerning though that there's so many outstanding legal orders. A new TRO/RSO at Rutland Sq (which could be contraversial with taxi-ists), a new TRO for West Coates+Magdala Crescent and a new RSO at Queensferry Rd all come to mind.
Ruridgh has spoken:
Jan start may still be delayed due to ongoing lack of approval for RSO for Section 2 by Scot Gov.
https://twitter.com/rurigdhm/status/1309618582226165765?s=21
New consultation for Stanhope St crossing: https://consultationhub.edinburgh.gov.uk/sfc/stanhopestreet/
Essentially, the new option allows two way access to Stanhope St from Wester Coates but removes the cycle crossing to/from CCWEL.
Opt A: https://consultationhub.edinburgh.gov.uk/sfc/stanhopestreet/supporting_documents/option%20a.pdf
Opt B: https://consultationhub.edinburgh.gov.uk/sfc/stanhopestreet/supporting_documents/option%20b.pdf
For those of us who are bears of very little brain, would it help to have a thread that explains TROs, TTROs, ETROs, the mechanism by which they are invoked, their legal scope and their modi operandi?
Would make a good topic for a SPICE briefing...
Practicalities of dismounting aside, how is a cyclist running errands from Leith who perhaps used the Leith Street lane in the morning and came via North Meadow Walk meant to arrive at Option B and figure out that, despite looking almost identical to the three crossings they already used today, they have to dismount on this one?
Small point but on Option A, good luck getting your cargo bike neatly around the 2m radius corner to join the main cycle path.
@Arellcat Not to mention RSOs! I think that the Scottish Parliamentary Cross-Party Group on Cycling Walking and Bus are taking the issues forward.
You must log in to post.
Cycling in Edinburgh Flickr group
Video embedded using Easy Video Embed plugin
posts