"However, it does make me think that we (peds & cyclists) are fighting over the scraps in the corner whilst the motor vehicle gets all the spoils."
Pretty much.
I believe there have been various attempts to get a more joined-up-approach...
CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » Infrastructure
Roseburn to Leith consultation begins (and the debate continues!) CCWEL
(5559 posts)-
Posted 8 years ago #
-
"I agree 100% and have said exactly the same to them (albeit using political science pretentious terms)"
Eg?
Posted 8 years ago # -
Eg 'zero sum politics'
Posted 8 years ago # -
Am astonished by this response from LS. Any idea how many people were involved in writing it?
Posted 8 years ago # -
It was agreed by the committee over my objections. Following which I resigned, reluctantly.
I am not astonished, but very disappointed.
Do write and tell them.
Posted 8 years ago # -
From the LSE response: "3.1 ... Cyclists should be routed via Roseburn Place and Street"
Not just a detour, but cyclists going eastwards have to cross Roseburn Terrace twice... that's not going to work for anybody.
Posted 8 years ago # -
I will write to them. I guess a big twitter spat is not a good thing though, it just brings more attention to their objection, so I'll do it privately.
Posted 8 years ago # -
I get quite depressed by Living Streets. There are so many common interests between LS and people who cycle. I care about pedestrians - I am one 50% of the time - and look at the great work that srd and fountainbridge (amongst others) have done to highlight the difficulties pedestrians have in crossing roads in the centre of Edinburgh. And what do we get in return? Told to use some bloody back street out of sight; told that floating bus stops are not proven; told that sub-standard German bike lanes are good enough for cyclists.
I would be happy to go to LS meetings to try to sell our mutual interests, if that would help.
Posted 8 years ago # -
"...we suggest trialing non-standard zebras without belisha beacons (as found in many shopping centre car parks and indeed outside the front door of Victoria Quay)..."
...because we know how much respect pedestrians are afforded in car parks. Living Streets happy to live-trial non-Belisha (hence probably legally ignorable) crossings but not give floating bus stops a chance? They also need to look at a few modern car doors to see how wide they are.
Posted 8 years ago # -
What's the alternative to floating bus stops? You route the bike lane in front of the bus stop, either segregated (then people have to cross it when the bus arrives) or you dump it on the main carriageway before the bus stop expecting cyclists to pass the bus on the outside, in which case we are back to bus leapfrogging and conflict with cars.
What I see in Germany, where (old) segregated cycle lanes are on front of the bus stop, cyclists just cycle on the pavement around the back anyway in order to avoid conflict with the people waiting at the stop. For on-street painted lanes there is the kerb to stop that, but not for segregated lanes.
Are there any solutions for a segregated cycle lane without floating bus stops?
Posted 8 years ago # -
Well done @HankChief for getting those signatures. I emailed Alex Cole-Hamilton following his comment about working with local businesses to mitigate the impact on deliveries.
Dear Mr Cole-Hamilton
I am pleased that you have signed the petition in support of the East - West cycle route and associated street improvements.
I note that you say, "I'm also keen to work with campaigners and local businesses to mitigate the impact on local shops in terms of deliveries." I can understand your saying this, but please don't be misled by the exaggerations of the very vocal objectors who do not understand the efforts that have been made to ensure deliveries can continue as at present.
The current loading arrangements allow loading in designated bays between 9.30am and 4.00pm Monday to Friday. The new arrangements allow loading at the same times. Now, I accept there will be fewer loading bays on Roseburn Terrace, but "loading" has a legal definition; it is despatch or delivery of very heavy goods, it is not intended for use by customers to pop in for a few minutes, it is not intended for the retailers themselves to stop for longer or shorter periods with incidental items.
There is ample space under the new arrangements for deliveries on Roseburn Terrace itself for the few businesses who will have bulk deliveries, and there are even additional loading areas just around the corners on Roseburn Street and Roseburn Gardens, and a further loading area on West Coates (near Tesco).
This scheme will benefit all people in West Edinburgh, shoppers, commuters, retailers, in addition to helping reduce the scourge of pollution and congestion and help us all to lead more pleasant, healthier lives.
I hope therefore that you will actively support the project, and try to convince your Scottish Liberal Democrat colleagues to do the same.
Kind regards
ih
Posted 8 years ago # -
"
Protected bike lanes are a simple concept, really: they're like sidewalks for bikes.
Because they use planters, curbs, parked cars or posts to separate bike and auto traffic on busy streets, protected lanes are essential to building a full network of bike-friendly routes. Once that network is built, it makes riding a bike a pleasant and practical way for many more people (not just the bold or athletic) to make trips of a mile or two.
"
http://www.peopleforbikes.org/green-lane-project/pages/protected-bike-lanes-101
Posted 8 years ago # -
The Living Streets response is very disappointing.
I'm sure we all support what they are aiming for, and no one can argue with the principle of widening pavements etc.
I wonder how much notice they've taken of the tone of the campaign against the scheme.
People are fighting tooth and nail to stop some loading bays being removed for the bike lane. There is no way that they would go along with removing them "just" to widen the pavement. So Living Streets will just have to put up with the current terrible layout rather than accept an improvement. If the cycle lane doesn't go down Roseburn Terrace then there will be no changes made on that stretch of road.
Their objection to floating bus stops doesn't make any sense to me.
Posted 8 years ago # -
It's over!
"
Key Dates
Status: Closed
Ran from 17 Nov 2015 to 1 Feb 2016
Results expected 26 February 2016
Feedback expected 25 March 2016"
But probably best to keep using this thread until there are 'developments' - eg controversies over other sections.
Obviously the whole thing has been 'hijacked' by the (relatively speaking) tiny Roseburn concerns.
This has energised things in a way that might not have happened otherwise.
The fact that HC set up a 'rival' petition has turned out to be significant. It's not the numbers or even whether they are greater than the other one, but the number of people who have bothered to write comments.
I presume large numbers have also filled in CEC's consultation and many will have added useful comments on the other sections of the proposed route.
As others have said, I don't envy those who have to read them all and make sense of such a complex - and in places - controversial scheme.
But this was not any sort of referendum. Even assuming most people responding to the consultation were in favour, it won't just happen - and certain not overnight!
It has already shown that CEC (well some parts of it) are serious about improving things for walking and cycling.
I hope the local Living Streets group will modify its stance, maybe it needs new members with a less narrow focus.
It remains to be seen how much any off this becomes accepted and how much it will be a hot topic at next year's CEC election.
Already 'the fuss' has caused various Holyrood candidates to have a view. I'm sure it won't make a great deal of difference about which candidate/party people vote for, but whoever gets elected in Edinburgh will be well aware of 'active travel'.
Posted 8 years ago # -
Discussions at the one Living Streets event I've been to (along with a number of forumites) did indicate that a lot of LS members (? - or possibly just attendees) do not like cyclists. Some helpful interjections suggested that most of their concerns were caused by users with different movement patterns being put in the same space due to the council's favouring of shared-use paths, but I suspect there were some deep-set views held there.
Logic would therefore suggest LS should be in favour of segregated cycling facilities, and against anything that put cyclists off using them, but they clearly can't see the wood for the trees.
Posted 8 years ago # -
I think they see bus stop bypasses as a 'new' encroachment on pedestrian space and therefore easier to fight. But that's ignoring the elephant on the room, which has taken all their other space.
Also easy to envy the cycling lobby - at least in Edinburgh - with its active membership, good use of social media, and ear of the council, to say nothing of budget.
On the other hand, I've heard die hard opponents of the bus stop bypasses agree that if cyclists had more/better space, then they wouldn't encroach on peds so much, and that our 'culture' of aggressive cycling (which is what they object to) would diminish.
Posted 8 years ago # -
"do not like cyclists"
Let's say that that's 'perfectly reasonable'.
Such people seem unable to realise that the key is to replace/dilute/moderate behaviour of "cyclists" (whatever their definition is) with (lots of) people who feel willing/able to ride bikes along streets that they wouldn't currently consider. Especially people who are now not using bikes for any 'transport' journeys - and probably not doing much walking either.
Posted 8 years ago # -
I don't think any of the committee members 'don't like cyclists'. Several of them are active cyclists (including utility cyclists) and others used to be. But they do feel that pedestrians have been neglected and want to fight their corner at any costs.
(See also my final para in previous post above, which I added while CHDOT was writing his post...)
Posted 8 years ago # -
Was writing while srd was adding!
Posted 8 years ago # -
I support efforts to improve the pedestrian environment and am sure that Living Streets generally aim to do a good job. However, in my experience they often play the role of useful idiots for pro-car politicians.
Obviously, many politicians don't want to say they love cars, would happily park at the counter in Greggs if they could and don't care about pollution, congestion or road deaths and injuries - even though this is true for many. So Living Streets coming in and opposing chunks of this scheme is a blessing for them - no longer the selfish driver, they can point to the impact of the scheme on pedestrians and oppose the scheme using this as a fig leaf for their selfish opposition.
The trouble for Living Streets is that their opposition won't result in an improved pedestrian environment. It simply results in a worse cycle scheme, more cars and no change to the lot of pedestrians.
Posted 8 years ago # -
"But they do feel that pedestrians have been neglected and want to fight their corner at any costs."
From what (little) I know I think that's a fair assessment.
This has been going on for some years unfortunately.
There have been various attempts to have some sort of 'common interest/united front' between walking and cycling interests/campaigners. Clearly work to be done - if anyone can still be bothered!
Of course an irony is that Living Streets as a UK organisation has money and staff. Most cycle groups (including Spokes) have relatively little money and rarely staff.
Obviously CTC and Sustrans are exceptions to this, but the CTC is only a relatively recent convert to segregated facilities and Sustrans is more focussed on routes/infrastructure creation and campaigning/influencing more at national than local level.
Posted 8 years ago # -
Was writing while Morningsider was -
"The trouble for Living Streets is that their opposition won't result in an improved pedestrian environment. It simply results in a worse cycle scheme, more cars and no change to the lot of pedestrians."
In short (in Edinburgh at least) years of cycle campaigning is beginning to show results!
LSE is probably wasting its time nitpicking over cycle schemes. If they have concerns/expertise, much better to work with (for instance) Spokes and come up with some great, positive ideas/improvements to CEC schemes.
Posted 8 years ago # -
I'm almost certain at least one Living Streets rep saw at least one floating bus stop at at least one of the stakeholder workshops without exhibiting sufficient antipathy towards it for it to have been recorded as a significant issue.
Posted 8 years ago # -
I'm quite angry with LS's response. It's the perfect excuse for those opposing the path through Roseburn. As has been said, they're making useful idiots of themselves by opposing that part of the route. As things stand they'll still have to duck the wingmirrors of buses if nothing changes at Roseburn. The cyclepath and pavement widening will make Roseburn a significantly more pleasant place to spend time - now if the path doesn't go along, other than the crossing changes, I can't see what they're going to gain.
Posted 8 years ago # -
Also, why is LS's opinion on how cycle paths work relevant anyway? They have no expertise (as demonstrated by their rather bizarre opposition to the bus stops). Hopefully the council thank them for their input and just crack on. I really hope so anyway.
Posted 8 years ago # -
Are they bringing up the bus stops as an issue in order to justify sending the route down a backstreet and maximizing the pedestrian space on Roseburn Terrace?
If so, that's pretty smart except that bus stop bypasses are absolutely critical to the success of the scheme. Without them we're back to old fashioned cycle infrastructure which gives up as soon as it gets tricky and dumps you back in traffic. The kind of infrastructure that puts people off cycling.
Essentially, without the bus stop bypasses, we may as well not build anything.
Posted 8 years ago # -
"and maximizing the pedestrian space on Roseburn Terrace?"
With or without losing loading/parking...?
Posted 8 years ago # -
I don't quite understand why they would rather have to cross 4 lanes of 30mph traffic than a 2.5m cycle lane...
It does come across as petty to have a problem with this scheme to improve things, whilst a busy road separates two none too pleasant pavements with few crossing points.
Also why the issue with floating bus stops? Do they seriously think that we need to run a "trial" on a project that may get done some time in the next 5 years, before starting any other projects? The trial exists from every other damn city in the world that has them and has done it properly.
I also love that they want the separation between cyclists and car doors reduced. Presume their members would love the idea of being hit by a car door being flung open? Nope - but it's fine for cyclists?
It's ridiculous. We should have similar aims in making a better non-motorised environment. Some element of compromise is naturally required but the route as proposed almost IS the compromise. Ideally it should be 3m wide and go down Shandwick Place. To compromise further would remove so much of the benefit that the scheme would have. If this is to be the catalyst for further cycle infrastructure then for heaven's sake let us do it properly. Then we can redo the QBC having set a good example...
Hopefully the council take on the feedback but can filter out the objections based on misinformation and misunderstanding! There are I'm sure some genuine concerns which will need to be worked around in some way (eg reallocating some parking spaces), but this scheme must not be compromised. Look forward to using it!
Posted 8 years ago # -
Reply from Alex Cole-Hamilton
Thanks [ih],
I signed precisely because I didn't think the challenge presented by the shop keepers standing in opposition to these plans was insurmountable. We have to get serious about active travel, this is one step we can take to do just that.
Thanks for getting in touch.
ACHPosted 8 years ago # -
Wow. ACH actually gets it! Kudos!
Posted 8 years ago #
Reply »
You must log in to post.
posts
