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

CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » Infrastructure

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

(5559 posts)

Started 9 years ago by SRD
Latest reply from gembo

No tags yet.

« Previous 1…192021…186 Next »

neddie
Member

Not sure if this has already been mentioned, but I believe the transport committee consists of:

17 members – 6 Labour, 5 SNP, 3 Conservative, 2 Green, 1 SLD

Councillor Lesley Hinds (Convener)
Councillor Adam McVey (Vice-Convener)
Councillor Robert Aldridge
Councillor Nigel Bagshaw
Councillor Chas Booth
Councillor Gavin Barrie
Councillor Steve Cardownie
Councillor Nick Cook
Councillor Marion Donaldson
Councillor Karen Doran
Councillor Nick Gardner
Councillor Bill Henderson
Councillor Allan Jackson
Councillor Karen Keil
Councillor Mark McInnes
Councillor Burns (ex officio)
Councillor Sandy Howat (ex officio)

Posted 8 years ago #
Morningsider
Member

The guy doesn't have a clue what he's talking about! There will be no buses weaving in and out of the cycle lane, as there will be bus stop bypasses, which the TRL defines as:

"...taking an on-carriageway cycle lane via a cycle track behind a bus stop. It enables journey continuity for cyclists travelling past a stationary bus at a bus stop where passengers are boarding or alighting from it, thus avoiding overtaking within traffic lanes."

The economic case isn't based on "crazed logic". Increased cycling does have health benefits and, as we have already proved, business and economic benefits. The proposed route plugs a clear "black hole" in the city's cycling infrastructure, linking existing and planned routes. Upgrades to random "black spots" might benefit a few existing cyclists, but will not encourage many out of their cars.

I do agree that Amsterdam had (still has) a grandiose vision for cycling. So should Edinburgh.

Posted 8 years ago #
Murun Buchstansangur
Member

That letter guy seems to want his own (private?) cycle lane for his own convoluted meanderings. Maybe 48 years on sub-standard infrastructure will do that to a person.

Posted 8 years ago #
Stickman
Member

When I told him that I'd been working in Bristol and had seen the benefits of some of the cycling changes they are making he told me that I was talking nonsense as he had been a student in Bristol. I suggested that my experience may have been more recent than his, but he ignored me and started waving his petition about.

Does a newspaper have any responsibility to do even basic fact checking on letters published?

Posted 8 years ago #
neddie
Member

Does a newspaper have any responsibility to do even basic fact checking on letters published?

When you see some of the splaff printed in letters about wind turbines, I think you can safely answer that as a no.

Posted 8 years ago #
steveo
Member

When you see some of the **** printed on the front page the rubbish in the letters page becomes less of an issue.

Posted 8 years ago #
Stickman
Member

UKIP's Otto Inglis is using last week's closure of Queensferry Road to blame cyclists for congestion.

I'm not giving the link as EEN don't deserve the hits for publishing such a ridiculous "Opinion" piece. I read it so you don't have to.

Posted 8 years ago #
kaputnik
Moderator

Well if UKIP aren't behind the plans, they must be great! ;)

I had no idea who Otto Inglis was until I googled him just there, seems like he's been losing deposits from Aberdeen to Edinburgh for UKIP for a number of years.

Posted 8 years ago #
chdot
Admin

"I read it so you don't have to"

Thank you.

Posted 8 years ago #
wingpig
Member

@Stickman Is there any logical progression to his arguments? Perhaps EEN staff were particularly badly affected at their new home, making them more susceptible to persuasion that one of their bêtes noires was somehow inexplicably behind a particular woe. Even Nogbad the Bad's ultimate responsibility for every problem befalling the land of Nog was at least traceable.

Posted 8 years ago #
Stickman
Member

The argument went:

I got stuck in traffic for ages because of an accident and my average speed for that time was 3mph therefore we must stop 20mph roads and cyclists.

That was the extent of it.

Posted 8 years ago #
kaputnik
Moderator

So what he was saying was the effect of an accident on 30/40mph road causes congestion that reduces average speed to 3mph. I'm assuming his logic is that the effect on the same road if the limit had been 20mph would have been to reduce the average speed to 2mph?

Posted 8 years ago #
cb
Member

-17mph surely?

Posted 8 years ago #
kaputnik
Moderator

you'd be home before you left :)

Posted 8 years ago #
Calum
Member

@kaputnik "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"

I doubt that will be an issue. They have a great deal in common. The Tartan Tories voted with the Blue Tories to defeat a Green motion on fossil fuels in the Scottish Parliament just the other day: https://www.holyrood.com/articles/news/nicola-sturgeon-rejects-calls-divest-fossil-fuels

Posted 8 years ago #
Claire
Member

That letter makes me want to cry.

I have emailed the transport and environment committee, as well as my local councillors. So far, four have responded all in the negative (two councillors, two committee members). When I get a bit of time tonight I will respond to their objections.

I attempted a bit of Facebook fire fighting on the Corrie page but it's a waste of time trying to engage with strangers online that are absolutely hell bent on their perceptions and not objective evidence or information.

There are a few days left before the consultation closes so I will try my best to get folk to respond in the positive.

But that letter. It's just awful. I've stopped reading EEN articles so the consultation opposition doesn't depress me further.

Posted 8 years ago #
cb
Member

People are aware that the awful letter is just from Peter Gregson, who is running the anti campaign?

He's also posted it into the comments on the pro-petition site.

Posted 8 years ago #
Claire
Member

@cb, yeah but it still makes me so sad. He cycles!

I get that people can have alternative views and disagree on stuff cycling-related, but the letter is full of inaccuracies and is actively aiming to derail the proposals and stop new riders from getting on a bike.

It's glaringly obvious that segregated provision increases cycling modal share. So I don't get it. He cycles!

Argh.

Posted 8 years ago #
chdot
Admin

"I don't get it. He cycles!"

On the pavement too...

Posted 8 years ago #
wingpig
Member

He says he cycles. Plenty of people even on here have heard "I'm a cyclist myself" from someone who's just tried to kill them or complained they weren't fluorescent enough or weren't using an unusable cycle lane in the gutter/door zone.

Come to think of it, he might have been the frothing complainant being rude to the council and Living Streets people at the St George's West drop-in - that one was about the right age, claimed to cycle himself and have cycling children who were all PERFECTLY HAPPY with the A8 as it was, thank you.

Posted 8 years ago #
ih
Member

@Claire What were the negative comments you received from councillors and committee members? I'm going to respond to consultation and write to councillors today.

Don't despair! For reasons I can't quite put my finger on, I feel positive about this but it needs everyone to express support.

Posted 8 years ago #
Stickman
Member

Claire:

Out of interest, who on the transport committee expressed an opinion? I've written to them all and had a response from a couple of them but none have come out to say they opposed the plan outright.

(The three local councillors oppose it and have said so)

@ih: don't forget to quote the community council's own report about the effect traffic is having on the street. My response was submitted before that little nugget appeared.

Posted 8 years ago #
Claire
Member

@wingpig When I met him he was kitted out in very obvious "I'm a cyclist" clobber. Vehicular cyclists are perfectly entitled to ride to their hearts' content on the road but I don't understand why they believe their behaviour is the de-facto "cyclist" behaviour and everyone should conform to their way of riding.

@ih One of the transport chaps came back with concerns around disabled access to Haymarket station and the taxi rank, which I need to check the proposals on but seemed legit concern. No mention of Roseburn. The other three said that businesses would die, children would be maimed on the roads and congestion would get worse at Roseburn.

If anyone has a crib sheet on how to counter these arguments with facts and evidence I'd be delighted to use it, haha.

I'm glad you feel positive. One of the reasons I'm not a very good campaigner is that I care a lot about cycling and get pretty sad when folk don't get it.

Posted 8 years ago #
Claire
Member

@stickman Gavin Barrie said he would bear my support in mind but he had major problems with the scheme proposals at Haymarket. He said: "Whilst I can and will support as many measures to encourage and assist active travel in the City I will have great difficulty supporting a scheme that disadvantages the disabled over the able bodied cyclist."

Adam McVey, now that I have reread his response, wasn't an outright no. He was actually pretty diplomatic and avoided saying whether he supported or rejected, haha. What an excellent policitican ;) So I stand corrected on that count. Apologies!

Posted 8 years ago #
Stickman
Member

@Claire: I got the same response about disabled access from Gavin Barrie, but believe he just wants a compromise and won't block the whole scheme - I think he will propose that the route goes up the earlier side streets rather than Grosvenor Crescent. The plans do show a revised pick-up point for disabled in the existing spot beside the station cycle racks.

Evidence? It would appear it doesn't matter how much evidence is presented. They are not willing to change their minds. Latest publication which should support us:

http://www.citylab.com/commute/2016/01/the-strongest-case-yet-that-excessive-parking-causes-more-driving/423663/?utm_source=nl__link3_011216

Posted 8 years ago #
Claire
Member

@stickman, that's quite encouraging. I have to respond to all the politicians so haven't had much context to their response. I'll go back to them all this evening and hopefully get a bit more info on where their real problems lie...

Posted 8 years ago #
ih
Member

@Stickman that Murrayfield Community Council report is actually brilliant. It is very recent and although it doesn't mention cycling specifically, it does discuss all the problems of the Roseburn area that "we" too are concerned about and which reducing motorised traffic and enhancing the street for pedestrians and cyclists would help to address. Notably it says that the current shopping area "is not fit for purpose" and is not a place that people want to visit.

@Claire disabled access to Haymarket Station specifically addressed with improved disabled drop off and pick up in the jug handle of the station itself. MCC's own report (see last paragraph) basically says businesses are dying already - this plan would be a real boost for them. "Children would be maimed"?? and cyclists eat babies.

Posted 8 years ago #
Stickman
Member

and cyclists eat babies

I thought cyclists kicked toddlers? I must have missed the memo.

Posted 8 years ago #
Morningsider
Member

Claire - the stuff about disabled access to Haymarket is nonsense. If you look closely at the plans you will see that a taxi rank is maintained in the "jug handle" right in front of the old station building. There will also be a car drop-off point right behind this rank. The crossing in front of the new station entrance is improved and the creation of continuous pavements across side streets all helps people with mobility problems.

Zoom in a bit here:

https://consultationhub.edinburgh.gov.uk/sfc/roseburntoleith/supporting_documents/Haymarket%20Terrace.pdf

Posted 8 years ago #
Claire
Member

Thanks folks, I can use these very sensible observations in my response re Haymarket access.

The Murrayfield CC document will be excellent! The local community has already stated it supports positive street environment changes. For some reason, as soon as there's a cycle lane it's suddenly a disaster, though...

I have the citylab link for the business case of cycle lanes and pedestrianisation that I can use as evidence in response to the councillors' objections.

Posted 8 years ago #

RSS feed for this topic

« Previous 1…192021…186 Next »

Reply »

You must log in to post.

// CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum

About This Forum

CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » Infrastructure

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

Reply »

RSS Feeds

Links