CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » Infrastructure

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

(5535 posts)

No tags yet.


  1. @i Removing the right-turn lane: At the consultation I overheard the opponents complaining that right-turning cars lead to long tailbacks at the moment, and the council officer pointed out that they put in the lane here for the same reason. The protesters said this lane wasn't long enough, so they would get tailbacks anyway unless whole Roseburn Terrace keeps two lanes.

    So you have to expect some opposition, and it sounded as if the council really don't feel they can remove the right-turn lane. If Russel Rd is closed, wouldn't traffic then go along Roseburn St, as there aren't any other bridges over the railway nearby?

    Posted 8 years ago #
  2. ivangrozni
    Member

    A point which was raised by the officers at the consultation was that Edinburgh is lacking in circumferential roads (ring roads?) and that this particular right turn is one of the "rare" routes that let you cut around town. They seemed to be trying to preserve this.

    In the morning time most traffic is sitting in the right turn lane so it is heavily used! Parking/loading on the north side does limit the effectiveness of having a filter lane - if my memory serves me right its only close to the lights that you can move to the inner lane (a pinch point when you're on a bike!)

    Maybe there is a good argument for merging the two lanes? Why should there be a sepearte filter lane?

    Posted 8 years ago #
  3. Would it be possible to have a right-turn lane at morning peak time, and the straight-on lane then converts to a loading bay outside peak time?

    Posted 8 years ago #
  4. i
    Member

    It would mean less air pollution if there's only one lane of cars puffing away at a standstill.

    And if it becomes very congested, people can adapt by choosing a different route or choosing a different form of transport, especially if they see that nice new bike path along side them.

    The opposite of Induced Demand is Traffic Evaporation.

    Posted 8 years ago #
  5. Klaxon
    Member

    If the morning traffic flows are heavily directional in favour of the right turn then three way control would work well. Already used on main roads in Edinburgh, Kaimes crossroad comes immediately to mind, and on the A1.

    The fact it's been closed for 12 of the past 24 months makes me think Russell Rd isn't as unavoidable as they'd like to make it out to be.

    Posted 8 years ago #
  6. @i Absolutely agree about traffic evaporation, just saying that I get the feeling there would be opposition...

    @Klaxon: When Russell Rd was closed, did traffic really evaporate or did people use Roseburn Street instead? In which case traffic at this junction would remain the same.

    Posted 8 years ago #
  7. chdot
    Admin

    "When Russell Rd was closed, did traffic really evaporate or did people use Roseburn Street instead?"

    Well you'd hope CEC had the stats.

    But I wouldn't bet on it!

    Posted 8 years ago #
  8. Rosie
    Member

    I had the impression when Russell Road closed that everything spilled through Gorgie.

    Posted 8 years ago #
  9. neddie
    Member

    There is no real reason for traffic needing to to turn right out of Roseburn Tce and into Russell Rd. Traffic could just as easily turn right further back along the A8 at Balgreen Rd to carry on through Balgreen and then on to Gorgie Rd for Dalry, or Stevenson Rd for the WAR. Or it could turn right later at Haymarket for the WAR (and even Dalry is accessible by 'doing the loop' around Morrison St.)

    Russell Rd is residential and narrow at the Murieston end. It is mostly being used as a rat-run to avoid either going round the loop at Haymarket (and waiting for the tram - twice), or to avoid the snarl ups past Balgreen Primary and Gorgie.

    At the moment, there is effectively only 1 lane at the junction Eastbound on Roseburn Tce, because the loading bay almost always has someone "loading" even at peak times.

    So straight on traffic gets held up waiting for the right-turning traffic to find a gap in the oncoming traffic (until the filter comes on).

    In that respect, the junction is already sub-optimal in terms of maximising the flow rate.

    Posted 8 years ago #
  10. Klaxon
    Member

    No personal experience of the closure period, but Gorgie congestion is a disaster at the best of times. I'd say the tipping point into evaporation for discretionary journeys won't have been that high

    Posted 8 years ago #
  11. i
    Member

    @edd1e_h
    Just visualising what you said, I think.
    http://i.imgur.com/232heSi.jpg

    Posted 8 years ago #
  12. Its_Me_Knees
    Member

    The only meaningful contribution I can make to this debate stems from my years of patronage of the Roseburn Cafe, which is by far the best greasy spoon on that side of the Burgh and does a cracking full brekky. The cafe does indeed draw a lot of its custom from 'workies', and yes, a lot of them park up outside (legally or otherwise). Were the cafe to lose the workie trade I would guess a figure of maybe nearer 40% for the decrease in turnover, rather than 65%. Nonetheless, that could still represent most/all of the net profit for the establishment, hence the proprietor's concern.

    None of the above is indisputable fact of course (apart from the quality of the breakfasts) nor is it justification for a veto on the cycle link - there are wider priorities here than 'just' a small businessman's profits. But it would be a shame if small businesses went to the wall and Roseburn lost the 'village' vibe...

    Posted 8 years ago #
  13. LivM
    Member

    Re the parking to shop issue (ie not about loading) I suppose most of the shops are convinced that customers wouldn't walk 100m to their door. The recent parking changes in Murrayfield (90 mins in the early afternoon for permit holders only on about 50% of the spaces) means that there are a lot more spaces than there used to be as all day commuter parking had to go elsewhere. If these shops are good enough, people will walk to visit them (and people with disabled badges can park in the loading bays anyway).

    Posted 8 years ago #
  14. Klaxon
    Member

    In my days of driving a van around if a shop was really worth stopping for at lunch having to park around the corner wasn't going to put me off.

    Posted 8 years ago #
  15. chdot
    Admin

    "If these shops are good enough, people will walk to visit them"

    "having to park around the corner wasn't going to put me off"

    Crucial realities. .

    Or as a group of shops. Meaning either working together like the "West End Village" did to combat the tram disruption or having a cluster of similar shops.

    The second is easier said than done - streets with lots of charity shops for instance weren't planned as such!

    Will the Roseburn traders get together to promote themselves?

    In additional to the plans for cycle lanes, perhaps CEC needs to look at the provision of short term parking 'around the corner'.

    Of course that would conflict with residents' desires. You can't keep all the people happy all the time!

    Posted 8 years ago #
  16. gembo
    Member

    There are some patterns in van parking e.g. QBC parked on even when it has double yellow lines by several shopkeepers and many customers in their vans. That is the trouble with working from a van, you always have the van hanging about. If you work from an office you can leave the office and go for a walk or go to your canteen etc, but the van needs monitored for traffic wardens so you park it At the shop, nip out, buy your lunch then nip back and sit in the van eating your lunch etc.

    We used to have a car park at our old office in macdonald road and when the area became pay and display the whole car pArk was full of workies vans.

    It is human nature or human nature plus van. This is in fact an argument in my head for building infrastructure that cannot be parked on. However, I see that the issue of what to do with the van will still be there and van displacement activity will follow.?

    Posted 8 years ago #
  17. crowriver
    Member

    "an displacement activity "

    Maybe the "Old ladies in big houses: are not keen on the idea of workies' vans parked round the corner outside their houses? Keep the plebs on the main road where they belong?

    Posted 8 years ago #
  18. gembo
    Member

    Yes crowriver, any group poses a threat to old people ( one say we might be old people too). So men in vans bad, though parking is ample and streets are wide. Cyclists are all going to run you over etc. Young people are rowdy. Other people are terrorists.

    Lot of big Tarmac lafarge lorries out on the road yesterday. We met some at the right turn down to kirknewton from the A70. We had right of way but they were big so we stopped before turning to make sure the drivers all clocked us. All very jolly, they were all on their cab radios to each other etc. Laughing and so on. Next thing the car behind us overtakes us, all safely as we have all taken the turn but the passenger window is down and the woman passenger is shrieking at us. She must have some life to be that angry about nothing.

    Posted 8 years ago #
  19. crowriver
    Member

    "( one say we might be old people too)"

    In about 12 years' time in my case.....I reserve the right to be grumpy and complain about EVERYTHING once I am old.

    (Though I won't be shrieking from a car window at anyone).

    Posted 8 years ago #
  20. Stickman
    Member

    House of Hound have a post on their Facebook page about the protest.

    The comments in reply are grimly as expected.

    Posted 8 years ago #
  21. crowriver
    Member

    "The comments in reply are grimly as expected."

    All three of them. Well, dog walkers tend not to be very well disposed towards cyclists, as we know. The feeling is usually mutual it must be said!

    Posted 8 years ago #
  22. Stickman
    Member

    Letter published in the EEN on 21st from K***N**S****. Misleading again.

    Dear sir,

    I hugely enjoyed reading your excellent feature on the opposition to the Council’s plans for a cycle track from Roseburn to Haymarket.
    However, I must take issue with two statements from Cllr Leslie Hinds.

    1. She wants to encourage people who are less confident when cycling. Her off-road cycle lane on Wester Coates will require such nervous types to negotiate LRT buses 12, 26 and 31, the Glasgow Megabus, and the First Group 38 - as these 12 ton behemoths weave in and out of their path in order to deposit passengers at every bus-stop into town. As a cyclist myself, I’d be advising my kids to live longer by taking the NCR1 by Balbirnie

    2. Clr Hinds tells us that the Council has carried out traffic modelling to ensure pedestrian safety and minimal congestion. But her cycling officers e-mailed me last Friday to confirm that no such modelling had been done. All that has been published to justify the scheme is the “preliminary justification report” submitted to Councillors in December 2014. It mentions The words “retail” or “cafe” do not feature. Neither do the words “traffic modelling”. The “Economic Case” it details rests on the research that cyclists will gain £18M in health benefits from the cycle track, for a measly £6.3M spend. So there is a cost/benefit ratio of 3. On this crazed logic our city fathers were persuaded to agree to get the detailed drawings done. The money has now been earmarked and Council will approve, on Thursday a 9% uplift on the cycling capital budget. The cycling officers have a blank cheque book before them and are wedded to their dream of cycle tracks on arterial routes.

    But the cash would be better spent fixing the black spots around the city that cause cyclists to be maimed on a regular basis. For example, junction at Russell Road/ Roseburn St/Roseburn Terrace needs fixing. I saw a cyclist seriously injured outside the Roseburn Bar there. Also, every morning I negotiate my bike across Roseburn Street when crossing from Roseburn Place to Russell Road – like many cyclists who come from the west of the city via Roseburn Park - on my way down Russell Road into town. A dedicated bike crossing here would cost £100,000 here and would be money well spent.

    Furthermore, Russell road would benefit from a cycle lane to take cyclists safely to NCR1 (and thence to Haymarket)- and to the cycle lanes running north from here, along the old railway lines, to Granton and Newhaven. A cycle lane here would mean I wouldn’t be tempted to avoid the bin lorries by cycling on the enormous pavement (as HeyHeyHey gleefully pointed out in your comments string yesterday).

    As a cyclist myself, I have no problem with cycle lanes in the right places. But Roseburn Terrace is never going to be wide enough to support the Council’s vision. The city Cycling officers need to improve what’s there (and fix potholes) before embarking on grandiose schemes such as Amsterdam’s. When I walked about that place last year I was nearly knocked down several times. By cyclists.

    Yours sincerely

    P**** G******
    http://www.k********.co.uk
    Cyclist of 48 years experience and Spokes Member

    Posted 8 years ago #
  23. chdot
    Admin

    That's a long letter for the EN.

    Thought that junction was being dealt with as part of this scheme?

    Posted 8 years ago #
  24. Rosie
    Member

    @chdot - I think it is. It's an obvious thing to do.

    Also at the Roseburn Street/Roseburn Terrace the paint has disappeared and drivers go so far over the intersection that they block traffic turning from the A8.

    I wonder about G*s*n's awkward route to town up the switchback and winding through the housing estate and then up along the tram tracks. I simply cycle along the A8. It's much less of a faff, even though it's very nasty.

    Posted 8 years ago #
  25. Stickman
    Member

    Would be nice if he hadn't misrepresented how bus stops will be dealt with.

    Posted 8 years ago #
  26. I'll try to write a (short) letter to the EEN if I find time and would suggest a few more people consider doing the same.

    Whether we like it or not, printed newspapers are still a main source of information, most people are not in the social media bubble. Spokes and PoP are of course very active, but it's also important that it's not all coming from the same few well-known groups but from individuals with their own personal story why the route is important.

    Posted 8 years ago #
  27. chdot
    Admin

    "it's also important that it's not all coming from the same few well-known groups"

    Good point

    "but from individuals with their own personal story why the route is important"

    Try to add that this is not primarily for 'existing' cyclists - and also for pedestrians and residents etc.

    Posted 8 years ago #
  28. kaputnik
    Moderator

    I was wondering aloud to myself if Cllr. Ross might begin to reconsider his somewhat public opposition when it dawns on him he's voting the same way as the local representatives of the Conservative and Unionist Party.

    Posted 8 years ago #
  29. Harts Cyclery
    Member

    That letter! OMG. The longer you've been cycling, the less credence your thoughts should be given. The council aren't building this for those of us that already cycle. It's not about 'us'. It's the people that are currently sat in their cars, or putting up with the bus, that will hopefully be encouraged to change behaviour. Because we want to get MORE people cycling, not placate those that put up with the rubbish conditions at the moment.

    By any objective measure, as a scheme to encourage mass cycling, this is a good one. For Edinburgh it's really good. Not perfect, but, realistically, as good as we're going to get with the current levels of cycling and political reality. Anyone who wants to see more people on bikes should support it whole-heartedly.

    Posted 8 years ago #
  30. Stickman
    Member

    There is nothing new under the sun. Reading Bella Bathurst's "The Lighthouse Stevensons" this jumped out at me:

    "During the original inquiry into the need for a light on the Isle of May back in 1635 all the predictable excuses had arisen: the light would be too weak to be seen, the shipowners would be financially broken by the charges, there was no need for a light, the rock itself was not dangerous.

    Exactly the same crop of complaints arose with subsequent lights; even when the benefits were there for all so see, there were plenty of souls who resolutely refused to acknowledge their usefulness"

    How far we have come in 400 years.

    Posted 8 years ago #

RSS feed for this topic

Reply »

You must log in to post.


Video embedded using Easy Video Embed plugin