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.
Two objections to the Nth St David St TRO/RSOs: "Statutory consulation for the TRO and RSO for North St David Street was advertised during the autumn. Two objections were received and these will be reported to the Transport and Environment Committee on 12 November 2020."
If there were specific objections to the RSO, that probably means a fairly significant delay for this section.
Speaking of delays, construction has been pushed back (again) to mid-2021: https://twitter.com/Stellotape56/status/1322296338130894851?s=20
https://democracy.edinburgh.gov.uk/documents/s28760/7.3%20-%20CCWEL_Final.pdf
In accordance with the requirements of the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984, all
representations to a RSO must be referred to Scottish Ministers. It is therefore
recommended that the Committee agrees that officers will refer to Scottish Ministers
all representations which were received. The process that Scottish Ministers use to
reach their conclusion on the Redetermination Order is at their discretion. They
may decide to hold a public hearing to consider the representations but this is not a
mandatory requirement.
We wish to log a formal objection to RSO/19/13.
According to both Edinburgh Council policies and the Scottish Government policies the pedestrian
should be treated as the top of the transport ladder - this RSO fails to meet that policy.
Specifically, we object to:-
The conversion of footway to cycleway (area marked as A5).
The floating bus stop where the onus is placed firmly on vulnerable pedestrians to avoid cyclists
when existing from busses. This is especially poignant in this location as it's near the brow of a hill
and may not have suitable visibility lines.
The area marked as A3 seems very narrow, especially around the bus shelter.
Thanks
Living Streets Edinburgh
Did they mean 'poignant'?
Poignant, who knows
But
Existing from busses
Not sure what that means
Who is even existing in a bus just now apart from the driver. The driver could tell the existing passenger to look left before exiting? Buses.
Also is Liv8ng Streets Edinburgh just one person who is clearly anti-cyclist. Or do they have a pal who is also anti-cyclist and can the parent body not issue some cease and desist?
The RSO objections for section two are still outstanding two years later so Living Streets Edinburgh could cause the same situation for this section. Thanks a million.
Just asking
Does LSE ‘have a point’ that a redesign might help with (yes I know there has already been extensive consideration of this - and LSE just doesn’t like floating bus stops)?
Or are they just being objectionable??
Don't want to misrepresent them, so will just quote them directly:
"Should this be a planned "shared use" space, I object to that on principle as it provides conflict between cyclists and pedestrians, as can be seen at every other "shared use" space.
Pedestrians are supposed to be top of the transport ladder priority, not the bottom."
LSE, remember is just one individual with a hatred of all cyclists. They do not want to share space with cyclists. Living Streets Elsewhere keen to share space and unite against the driver hegemony, is my partial, biased and objectionable view
“LSE, remember is just one individual“
Fake News (slightly)
I abbreviated, one or two like minded individuals who run LSE (Which is therefore one voice) and take it in a direction against cycling that other Living Streets campaigns disagree with.
The LSE have only ever taken The chance to criticize cycling as if we are their enemy when we are their friends. They have never made any positive statement about cycling as they are I imagine fixed in their minds that all cyclists storm by on the NEPN etc. But there is nothing that can be done about them? Who funds LSE? That should certainly be stopped. As they are not representing the views of pedestrians just their own jaundiced opinion.
LSE are the little guy who follows a bully around, picking on the other little guy so they get left alone.
@rob, I see what you are saying and agree
Also LSE are the people (2) who drive around @nd bang on about walking around
LSE doesn't really have much funding (or didn't when i was briefly involved). It was 2-3 middle aged white men (plus me and one other).
The one 'progressive/creative' thing they have supported is the Causey.
I went to one of their public meetings/AGMs and it was the sort of people you expect who mostly all hated cyclists too.
Looks like the designs might be able to be tweaked slightly which may persuade LS to withdraw their objections.
“
@LivingStreetsEd has clearly become anti cycling on Twitter. Is this reflective of the whole organisation or is it simply one individual with control of the account? Just asking?
“
“
Completely untrue. We're simply fighting for walking to get the attention (and ££) it deserves, supposedly recognised as a priority by everyone - but repeatedly ignored in practice.
“
“
And we continue our long standing collaboration with cycle groups (esp @SpokesLothian) on big ticket issues from speed limits to Picardy Place to trams...
“
Whole thread -
https://twitter.com/livingstreetsed/status/1326823799757676546
LSE have never made a positive comment about cycling have they?
Cllr Whyte was at pains to point out that the Tories supported CCWEL and wanted it built as soon as possible.
I’d like to run that last Scott Douglas and Jeremy Balfour for their comment.
I'm not entirely sure of the implications of this but it sounds like a downgrade because cars:
CCWEL Crossing Proposals –
Stanhope Street/A8We asked for views on options for crossings in the
vicinity of Stanhope Street and Hampton Terrace (A8).
A preliminary plan was previously developed and
shared with the public. The plan showed a pedestrian
and a segregated cycle crossing with one way access to
Stanhope Street from the A8. In response to feedback a
second option was developed.Findings from the consultation reveal that the majority
(89%) of respondents favoured the second option of a
pedestrian only crossing that would maintain two-way
access on Stanhope Street.Those in favour of the second option commented that it
was important to keep two- way access for traffic at
Stanhope Street to prevent displacement of traffic,
congestion, noise and disruption on the neighbouring
streets. There was some support (11%) for the
preliminary plan. Respondents commented that a
segregated cycle crossing would provide a family
friendly crossing and a significant improvement to
safety.Following consideration of all the comments, we will
now progress with the second option as the approved
design to be taken forward.
I don't understand the talk about congestion/displacement as Stanhope Street is a small LTN?
The neighbouring streets they're referring to would presumably be Stanhope Place and Devon Place.
Devon place is narrow (due to parked cars) and has badly lumpy setts (due to heavy motor vehicles), so the residents wanted to keep Stanhope St 2way...
There have also been plans to make Osbourne House (the ugly 60s building) into a hotel which would have increased traffic on Devon Place. I think it was rejected but expect some development to come forward again soon.
So is the idea that people just cycle across the pedestrian only crossing?
I think the idea is that cyclists evaporate, or perhaps dismount. The reality is they won't and will instead end up in the minutes of MCC meetings.
I noticed the CCWEL Roseburn-Haymarket TRO/RSO has been 'made' - although its effective date isn't till 31/05/2022. Hopefully construction hasn't been delayed till then!
That doesn’t seem good.
Construction now due late 2021. Several legal orders also still waiting for ScotGov approval. They now need to value engineer the project as it's become too expensive. https://www.edinburgh.gov.uk/downloads/file/29262/3-march-2021
"They now need to value engineer the project as it's become too expensive."
Yeah got the e-mail today. I wonder if the A9 dualling project will also need to be value engineered? Don't hold your breath...
“I wonder if the A9 dualling project will also need to be value engineered?”
Already has.
Didn’t pass...
So 2800 households surveyed, only 1 in 10 respondents opposed, but still nothing has been done and we're what? Six years down the line and at least a year away from breaking ground?
No wonder community councils & nimbys have been so outraged by the rapid roll out of Spaces for People. You can normally rely on delaying a simple cycle lane by a decade or so...
You must log in to post.
Cycling in Edinburgh Flickr group
Video embedded using Easy Video Embed plugin
posts