@Stickman
Cars will be going along Russell Road to Dalry as well as Roseburn Steret to WAR.
I don't find either of them appallingly busy. You get a tailback at Muireston at peak times but it isn't an impossible flow on both streets.
CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » Infrastructure
Roseburn to Leith consultation begins (and the debate continues!) CCWEL
(5559 posts)-
Posted 8 years ago #
-
Thanks Stickman, that was my memory from 2013 and earlier but I wanted to check nothing had changed.
Posted 8 years ago # -
I'm amazed how rabid the NIMBY campaign is getting. Randomly identifying members of the public online and challenging them to some kind of fight just seems bizarre.
If they do manage to sabotage the lane in front of the shops, I would be interested in helping crowdfund a parking enforcement camera that points along the frontage of these businesses full time.
Council isn't generally that big on this stuff, but if they were given money to do it, would they turn it down?
Hopefully it won't come to that. The NIMBYs' own figures hardly add up (if 70% of trade comes from people parking outside, you can work back from realistic minimum stopping times and the number of parking spaces to discover that they hardly serve any customers, certainly nothing like "thousands" of needy locals).
Posted 8 years ago # -
Can I just check that we have all completed the Consultation And the signed the petition.
I assume you have but worth checking...
Posted 8 years ago # -
Our good friend has added a slightly rephrased comment again, even weirder than the first version (which was deleted for "violating terms&conditions):
"Jacobyte. Get off your bike and visit these shops. Then you might begin to wonder how the 7,000 citizens who use them will feel should they disappear. Then you need to come to the City Chambers next Wednesday, at 3pm, with your placard espousing the track, and talk to some of them face-to-face. I am sure when they meet you in person they wil be overcome by the logic of your case.
It's hugely important that the wise sages of Spokes use this event as an opportunity to explain THEIR SIDE of the story.
So please Jacobyte, take a sickie and bring your chums, heyheyhey, Dave de Feu, Chris Paton, Stephan Matthiesen, Gordon Drummond, Ian Maxwell and Abbie Gills. Please fellow cyclists, come out of the shadows and show face. We will welcome debate in person. I think the BBC will come, as well as this magnificent journal, this mouthpiece for Edinburgh's citizens, this award-winning bible that is the Edinburgh Evening News"Posted 8 years ago # -
Is this satire or a pitch for a new soap opera?
Posted 8 years ago # -
Now he seems to be fantasising that there are lots of 'cyclists' against this project - trying to relive the days when 'proper' cyclists objected to 'segregation' on the basis that they would then be banned from the roads.
He's also repeating the nonsense (loved by EN commenters) that Spokes is 'responsible' for all infrastructure changes in Ed!
Basically this is just noise.
It will be interesting to see how many comments this consultation attracts.
I'm sure there will be some well argued objections, but probably more 'against' on the basis of misinformation and therefore of little value.
Posted 8 years ago # -
SEND FORTH YOUR CHAMPION.
Posted 8 years ago # -
"
Can I just check that we have all completed the Consultation And the signed the petition.
"
Yes -
"
It is important to make sure that pedestrian considerations are given particular attention.
Also that 20mph is introduced ASAP
It would be useful if Cllr Ross used his committee's resources to help local traders overcome the bad feeling and misinformation created by a local campaigner.
"
Posted 8 years ago # -
@Dave
The NIMBYness is disappointing but shouldn't be surprising. Edinburgh's always been an extremely small-c conservative place. Just look around this forum. Any projects that aren't cycling infrastructure tend to be heavily criticised on here - new St James centre, Calton Hill hotel, any new homes or student flats, the tram, buses, pretty much everything. As a rule, Edinburghers don't like change.
Posted 8 years ago # -
Lengthy comment on that Herald article:
It would be good to get a bit of clarity here. I am the petitioner, Pete Gregson. And no, I am not a businessman, I am a resident. I’ve lived in Roseburn for 16 years, had my kids here, raised them, and expect to stay here till I die.
The people commenting on this page have perhaps not grasped the impact the plans will have on the area. Three huge impacts: 1. Shop, hotel & Business closures 2. Congestion & air pollution 3. Less Safety for pedestrians.
ECONOMIC IMPACT
Council cycling officers admit no Economic Impact Assessment Study has been carried out on the effect on the shops both at Roseburn - and at Haymarket - of the proposed “street improvements”.
There are 7,000 people who live along the route and use the 34 businesses that line the route. £5% are elderly. Many of these elderly people bought houses and flats around Roseburn purely because of the proximity of the shops. Should the shops go, they will have no option but to walk (or cycle?) to Sainsbury’s a kilometre distant- which doesn’t even have a hairdresser. They are terrified of what the Council plans for their dotage.
An SNP Councillor has reservations regarding other parts of the proposal not least of which is moving the taxi rank away from outside Haymarket Station towards Haymarket junction. As he says “The Station is the only place in Edinburgh that can truly be called a public transport hub where trains, trams, busses and taxis (and indeed cyclists and pedestrians) come together. Moving the taxi rank away would be bad for those who suffer mobility problems and this would be to the benefit of the able bodied cyclist and disadvantaging those less able.”
CONGESTION
Edinburgh’s St John’s Road in Corstorphine is the most polluted road in Scotland. Roseburn Terrace, which feeds into it, is set to take the title if the Council forces through its plans for cycle lanes from Roseburn to Haymarket, thus reducing the traffic on this arterial route in and out of Edinburgh from 4 lanes to 2.
Whilst Transport Convener Cllr Leslie Hinds claims the Council has carried out traffic modelling to ensure pedestrian safety and minimal congestion, cycling officers confirm that no such modelling had been done.
Since the Council has done no traffic impact assessment on their planned "street improvements", the residents have now carried out their own. They counted over 1,200 cars, 80 buses and 40 lorries travelling along Roseburn Terrace during each hour of peak travel. Locals fear gridlock if the carriageway that carries this volume is reduced from 4 lanes to 2. All this for the 6 cyclists an hour that pass through Roseburn.
The truth is that most cyclists, like myself, use the NCR1 route. 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 would be safe from the bin lorries commuting to their depot.
Regarding traffic going down from four lanes to two lanes and the removal of the westbound bus lane: Buses, cyclists and taxis use the bus lanes – it will be buses and taxis that are affected by the reduction and suffer most.
• Causing delay to buses seems contrary to Council policy to encourage public transport.
• Having two lanes only means any right turn movements will delay traffic going ahead, causing delay and possible road safety issues, if vehicles try to undertake.
• Removal of on-street parking will have an impact on businesses, which is again contrary to Council policy to support economic growth.
• There is a National Cycle route nearby – it makes more sense to encourage people to use it.
• Hardcore commuter cyclists will tolerate riding in general traffic but, to encourage more people to cycle, there is benefit in directing them to quiet streets.
SAFETY
Residents all the way from Roseburn to Haymarket fear for the safety of their children, when they seek to cross, without traffic islands, what will be a heavily congested road with fast-moving traffic. There are already frequent near-misses when traffic fails to stop at Roseburn’s red lights and the Council’s proposed Toucan crossings will only make matters worse. The removal of the staggered crossing islands will make crossing much more dangerous all along this main road.
Surprisingly, Living Streets Edinburgh, supports the “straight across” pedestrian crossings that the cycle scheme would bring, rather than the “staggered ones with islands” there at present.
The petitioner has challenged him on this, pointing out that on arterial routes the islands were better because they allow traffic to continue to flow on one side whilst pedestrians cross to the island on the other carriageway. The islands allow traffic in one direction to be halted whilst the traffic in the other direction still flows. By removing the islands, twice as many halts would be called to get the same volume of pedestrians across the road. Result- double the congestion.
Such islands are also far safer in that they allow slow-moving elderly residents to pause for breath as they make their way across the A8.
Living Streets Edinburgh is also pleased about the floating “Bus Islands” on the route. Pedestrians seeking to get to a bus-stop will need to cross the cycle track. Tourists to Amsterdam and German cities will have seen this arrangement: it can be a scary experience, as cyclists don’t expect pedestrians to wander in front of them on a track that is reserved for their use. It also narrows the main carriageway even more at the points where the “islands” stick out into the main road.
On 27th October 2015, The Council’s Transport & Environment Committee approved the “Preliminary Justification Report”. 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 launch consultation on the plans.
The Report claims the route will increase cycling traffic by 88%. But at present there are only 6 cyclists an hour using the route at off-peak times. So for the sake of 11 cyclists an hour, one every 5 minutes, the Council plans to wipe out businesses from Murrayfield to Haymarket.
“Rather than spending £1M getting a cycle track on the main road, 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, the junction at Russell Road/ Roseburn St/Roseburn Terrace needs fixing. I saw a cyclist seriously injured outside the Roseburn Bar there.”
“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.”Posted 8 years ago # -
Well yes.
Basic problem with his view is that 'traffic has to flow - always has, always will'.
The implication that the shops currently there 'serve the needs of local people' is questionable and directly at odds with the idea that 'most customers come by car'!
Even the bank has abandoned this thriving local shopping area which will vanish if a bit of loading space is removed.
Mr. G raises some valid points/concerns and none of 'us' imagine that CEC's plans are perfect and couldn't be improved, but to base a whole campaign on half-truths, inaccuracies, unproven assertions and to encourage a siege mentality and create an 'enemy' is not likely to end well.
Posted 8 years ago # -
Can we get Sustrans to admit that just because something ended up being labelled an NCN it doesn't mean it's an ideal route, declared as the only path cyclists may follow forever after? There are several examples from round the country they could cite.
Posted 8 years ago # -
I think they'd agree, informally (I've heard as much about other parts of the NCN) but they're in an awkward position in this particular case because on Monday they're announcing the shortlisting of the community links plus projects.
Posted 8 years ago # -
"
Edinburgh's always been an extremely small-c conservative place. Just look around this forum. Any projects that aren't cycling infrastructure tend to be heavily criticised on here - new St James centre, Calton Hill hotel, any new homes or student flats, the tram, buses, pretty much everything. As a rule, Edinburghers don't like change.
"
All true!
The problem (not just in 'campaigning' or Edinburgh) is trying to find a balance between 'nothing must change' and 'everything new is good'.
Without the conservatism of Edinburgh's various interest groups notable the Corporation (as 'the council' used to be known) and those such as the Cockburn Association, Edinburgh might well have had its Inner Ring Road (above Melville Drive and along Rocheid Path etc.)
I'm sure there were people objecting to the New Town being built on green fields, and it's been the same ever since.
Housing is complex! In general it's good to maintain/conserve what is. Some housing (not really talking Edinburgh) gets beyond saving, but (particularly in London) 'unfashionable slums' have become very expensive housing.
It's easier/cheaper to build on fields and for all Governments' 'wishes' that there should be more building on "brownfield", they have not found an effective mechanism to counter the 'market view' of 'what people want' which leaves acres of Edinburgh un(der)developed while building on nearby sites that are easier/more desirable.
I sometimes get the impression that some of the discussion on here about "student accommodation" is ironic - former students complaining that 'they survived without such luxury'...
On cycling/transport it's inevitable that we (think we) know best. Becoming Amsterdam or Copenhagen is clearly fanciful, but pointing out that plans/policies that perpetuate 'car dominance' are neither desirable nor inevitable is a good thing.
On this its not about being against change more that change takes too long!
Posted 8 years ago # -
"on Monday they're announcing the shortlisting of the community links plus projects."
Interesting. I wonder if Edinburgh will feature on the list at all?
Posted 8 years ago # -
Re Cllr Eadie's proposal. Can I suggest that we don't engage with that and that we simply defend what the Council have put forward.
In an ideal world, we'd get get uni-directional lanes, but we're getting a bi-directional lane on one side of the road, so it's already substandard, albeit exciting for Edinburgh.
The cycle lane simply has to go along Roseburn Terrace. Anything else will be an intolerable fudge much like the bottom of Leith Walk and the circuitous nonsense of the Meadows-Innocent link.
Everything about taking the cycle path through Roseburn is supported by mountains of Council policy on Active Travel and Local Development, the community council agree that the status quo is unsustainable too.
We should call Gregson's campaign out for what it is. Hysteria-mongering, unevidenced nonsense, and make sure the councillors see it as such. The fact that he's managed to convince the local businesses to go along with his rubbish is neither here nor there.
The Council know what they're trying to do and they know they're doing it based on the evidence available. Let's defend that and not be deflected with 'why don't use just use this bit'...
Posted 8 years ago # -
@Hart's:
Well said.
Posted 8 years ago # -
On the plus side everyone now knows what shops are on the route. Worth quite a bit. PR win in some ways - everyone will be clamouring for a bike lane debate!
Of course bike users may feel less disposed to the 'no' camp but 'bike discouagers' may see them in a positive light.
My own limited shop experience tells me that there is never enough parking for some customers - even 'keen cyclists'. It's odd that some people want to exercise on a bike but moan if their car is any more than 100 yards away. I do though have some people with mobility issues that can't walk far but want to ride a trike (eg - those that have had a stroke).
Every business though will have a different profile of how people get to their shop. Obviously we have more coming on bike than some.
If 'parking' is such an issue then some shops must believe that if they could (say) double the spaces nearby then their business would go up proportionally. Is that 'their' vision? Surely footfall is main thing and for that you need more space for human beings?
Posted 8 years ago # -
One of the shops had a 'council meeting 3rd February' sign up. What's that about, or is it just a regular meeting?
Posted 8 years ago # -
The shopkeepers are storming the city chambers with their leader colonel Pete.
Posted 8 years ago # -
just a general meeting. report on consultation not due until late in the month
Posted 8 years ago # -
"just a general meeting"
Also handover of 'the petition' to Lesley Hinds (I think).
Posted 8 years ago # -
I think we might be in danger of imbuing this guy with imagined superhuman powers of persuasion. He appears to have had some previous run in(s) with the Council. He is unlikely to be flavour of the month with officials. He has undermined many of his arguments by lying or misrepresenting the facts. Something I imagine officials will only be too happy to report to councillors.
I've seen many petitions presented in my time. I've yet to see one that actually made any noticeable difference. Calling the media to the presentation will likely back-fire. These things tend to look pathetic without a cast of thousands. Despite the childish goading - no cyclists should be tempted to turn up on Wednesday, it will simply swell the number of cyclists in any photos.
Just to be ready for possible media interest, it might be worth SPOKES, or some other cycling group, preparing a simple "Five reasons why we support the proposed east-west cycle route" prior to Wednesday. Take the focus away from Roseburn. Move it to city and population wide benefits, while highlighting the positive experience of businesses and residents where such schemes have been implemented. A couple of supportive quotes from Roseburn residents wouldn't hurt either - disproving that everyone there hates the scheme.
Posted 8 years ago # -
I notice it is 397 vs 553 in favour on-line if we are talking about petitions.
Posted 8 years ago # -
@ Morningsider
Well said, and our pal's manner of presentation doesn't do his cause any favours.
Posted 8 years ago # -
This update appeared on the anti-petition today:
"Spokes Executive have set up a counter-petition to this one. It has 541 signatures at http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/support-roseburn-west-coates-protected-cycle-route They seek to outnumber us and confound Cllr Hinds "
Posted 8 years ago # -
Has Spokes got an "Executive"??...
Posted 8 years ago # -
Anyway who cares about confounding Cllr Hinds?
They have thousands of signatures on paper.
Haven't they??
Posted 8 years ago # -
"Has Spokes got an "Executive"??..."
Even if it does I'm certainly not on it and I set up the petition. Another falsehood...
I am a member of Spokes but then so is the other petitioner so that shouldn't be confusing him.
Posted 8 years ago #
Reply »
You must log in to post.
posts
