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.
I'm warming to ACH, being at the top of the Lib Dem list for Lothian there is a good chance he will be at Holyrood soon. Hopefully he will be able to exert some pressure on his colleagues.
I have contacted Living Streets to let them know my thoughts on routing the cycle route away from Roseburn Terrace. I forgot to mention that their solution is bizarre as it will likely lead to no pedestrian improvements there.
Here's the thing...
Derek Mackay has talked about getting an exemplar scheme built in Scotland. I wasn't convinced about this as it seems like a delaying tactic.
Having chatted to the politicians at the Walkcyclevote event last year and asking them what support they needed from us for a cycle revolution, many of them said they needed help convincing others in their party. We can see the benefits but many are stuck in their car centric ways.
We can do this by raising it with any/all politicians that come knocking for our vote, which will certainly help get it on the agenda.
But how good would it be to have a route that we can bring politicians to look at and they can see streams of cyclists on, where once there was just polluting cars.
This route has the potential to kick start the Active Travel revolution across Scotland, but it needs to be built without further compromise or it will cease to be exemplar and merely be better than what was there before.
Bears Way in Glasgow seems to have had teething problems exactly because it's design has been compromised.
I would hope that the SNP see that if they want to see an exemplar then they need to back it to ensure it truly is exemplar.
It will be interesting to hear what Alison Dickie ' s (SNP Edin Central Candidate) says on the scheme - she has promised me a response tonight.
Wow. ACH actually gets it! Kudos!
He was the candidate I did the tour with last month. Shame diaries/weather didn't permit the other 2 before the consultation closed but they are now booked in for this weekend.
I agree with Living Streets to some extent on some of their points: the section from St Andrew Square along Princes Street is an unnecessary narrowing of pavement space, for example. In my response to the consultation I questioned why at that section and at York Place the proposals took space away from pedestrians rather than motor vehicles.
What I do find mystifying about LS's stance is that they suggest re-routing cycle lanes (e.g. at Roseburn) rather than taking space away from motor vehicles, and dropping proposals altogether (e.g. Princes St) rather than improving them by reallocating road space.
Oh and I disagree that LS are envious of the cycle lobby and "our" budget. We perhaps forget that statutory provision of infrastructure specifically for pedestrians in the form of footways, pedestrian crossings, and so on, has existed for a long time. Much of it may be substandard, but every year in this city a proportion of the footways are re-laid and resurfaced, brought up to current standards with dropped kerbs, etc. (e.g. on my street at the moment: not before time, the footway's in a dreadful state and probably hasn't been resurfaced in over 30 years).
For example in the recent junction improvements on Easter Road, footways were widened, crossings improved, and so on. While the junction at London Road was also made safer for cyclists by the removal of filter lanes, this is just an incidental benefit of footway realignment and road narrowing. The only specific provision for cyclists was ASL boxes, which are welcome but will doubtless have been largely worn away by motor vehicle tyres in a few years' time.
So in fact, the "cycle lobby" should be envious of the way that pedestrians are catered for as a matter of course, with little controversy, whereas when a proposal for specific dedicated cycle infrastructure is made......well peruse this thread to see how it is welcomed with open arms by non-cyclists.
"So in fact, the "cycle lobby" should be envious of the way that pedestrians are catered for as a matter of course, with little controversy"
Good point.
There's another extremely serious aspect of the LS response, which asks for removal of main-road segregated provision at Roseburn and at the east end of Princes Street - if the Council listens to the combined forces of LS and the shopkeepers.
The entire E-W project depends on the Council getting 50/50 Sustrans funding. Sustrans is now increasingly getting high quality funding applications from other local authorities, and Sustrans are becoming increasingly strong in what they will fund. e.g. I believe that the £3m for Leith Walk was on the condition there would be segregated provision from Pilrig to Picardy Place.
If Edinburgh's flagship east-west route becomes more of a back-street route, that will reduce Edinburgh's chances of getting Sustrans funding, if they are getting braver applications from other councils. In which case the entire E-W project could be lost, or put back, or only built in a very slow incremental fashion as smaller chunks of cash become available.
In order to get the whole project through, the cycling lobby (Spokes, certainly) has made a major compromise in accepting the Council's plan not to use the main road direct route from Haymarket inwards. To make a big fuss about that at this stage could have risked the whole project. I wish LS had seen the political side as well as the technical side when drawing up their submission, as surely they would not want the whole project at risk?
Incidentally, another big worry for the future is whether the Council's budget % allocation to cycling will remain after the 2017 council elections. The Tory councillors voted against this year's increase, and now we have some (not all) SNP councillors who are negative on taking cycling really seriously on this top project. If the Council's cycling % falls or disappears after the Council elections, that could impact on the council's ability to get the Sustrans 50/50 cash even if it is still being offered!
Without the politics of cycling succeeding, it doesn't matter how good the technical designs may be!
Is there any response from LSE to the criticism?
"Some element of compromise is naturally required but the route as proposed almost IS the compromise."
This is the point really. For example, how the route reaches George Street is far from ideal. Any further compromise and it risks becoming the wrong kind of example (The "look, we already spent £9million of my road tax on them and they don't even use it" kind).
Melville Street/etc feels like a temporary measure until it can be justified extending through Shandwick Place. To justify that, Roseburn has to show significant use and succeed at reducing traffic from the west. To do that, it has to be built properly.
Exactly. This is why I was saying that we can't allow a further compromise around Roseburn Terrace.
Dave, do you have any direct lines to LS? Has anyone explained all this? I'm sure Sara did to some extent before she resigned on principle, but it does seem that they're being jolly naive.
"we can't allow a further compromise"
If only it were up to "us".....alas it is in the hands of council officials and councillors on the relevant committee, some of whom may already have been "got at" by "concerned residents" following the KNS line of argument...
I don't wish to sound pessimistic but I have the distinct impression the Roseburn issue is turning into another Foot Of The Walk. Very similar resistance from local traders led to designs which, while an improvement on the previous situation, are basically just paint (and red chips) on the road, in the door zone of parked (sorry "loading") vehicles, or even obstructed by said parked (sorry "loading") vehicles on a regular basis.
The excuse given for these compromised designs was that the "culture" of that section of Leith Walk was different to that further south, where segregated cycle provision is still, at time of writing, proposed, though yet to be constructed.
So, look forward to commuting via the lane at the back of Tescos folks! Or continue mixing it with buses, taxis, lorries and single occupant vehicles. :-(
I agree with what others say about the LS response, but when it comes to Princes Street they do say:
"... we strongly oppose the proposal to create a two-way segregated cycleway on what is probably Edinburgh’s busiest footway, on the north side of Princes Street .... Whilst we see the potential need for cycling facilities between these points, the space for these must be taken from private motor vehicles and taxis, and not from pedestrians."
(emphasis mine).
So, at what point do we start saying "Well, City of Edinburgh Council, if you are going to build rubbish you might as well stop wasting our council tax and just not build anything at all..."?
If only it were up to "us".....alas it is in the hands of council officials and councillors on the relevant committee,
So if you haven't already written to them or visited your local councillor's surgery there is still time to influence them. Please do it, it doesn't matter which part of Edinburgh you stay. Let them know why it is important to you and the future of cycle infrastructure in Edinburgh.
@ddf
Unfortunate that Spokes and LSE didn't discuss any of this.
I think you are right in your analysis that the 'technocratic' took priority over the 'politics'. perhaps pedestrian causes attract technocratic mindsets?
Of course, I also think that Spokes put their foot wrong in speaking against raised pedestrian crossings because they'd decrease cyclists speeds.
"north side of Princes Street .... the space for these must be taken from private motor vehicles and taxis, and not from pedestrians"
I'm confused. Isn't that what the plans say (emphasis mine):
Yep. Comparing the consultation map with the current footway on the atlas shows that the cycle lane is being added in the roadway as a nice thing for pedestrians to have between them and the sides of thundering buses.
Whilst Leith Street is still a pile of garbage and there's still a very narrow pinch-point on the footway at the south-east corner of Register House the cycleway would dump cyclists at the top of Leith Street BEYOND the stop line for the Princes Street/Leith Street signals, allowing cyclists to head off down Leith Street without things thundering along at their mudguards. Some sensible re-placement of the Leith Street bus stop in conjunction with pedestrian paths through the St James Centre II could reduce pedestrian demand on that corner.
It would be nice if those objecting could actually do so on the basis of facts. Is that too much to ask?
Actually, maybe it's fine this way. The Council can just point out they're plain wrong.
"Is that too much to ask?"
Always!
Yes, that's what I hope will happen. They certainly did that with the 20mph consultation.
Never let the facts get in the way of prejudice.
Err.....actually if you have a look at Princes Street as currently configured, and then look at the proposals in the map linked to above, the cycle tracks would take away space that is currently allocated to pedestrians. The only reallocation of road space appears to be to remove the current hatched white lines in the central carriageway of eastern Princes Street and move the bus lane eastbound very slightly further south. Also the very narrow on-road cycle lane further east is removed and pavement presumably extended slightly there. Still four lanes of motorised traffic, including two lanes dedicated to bus stops/taxis/loading.
See here: https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@55.952905,-3.1916186,3a,75y,63.61h,57.03t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s8JesfrkF4e2x__ZY0ieIsg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
Still, let's not let facts get in the way, eh?
At South St David Street, road space is reallocated, lanes being reduced from three to four to accommodate the cycle track. The road lanes may have been narrowed very slightly on east Princes Street in order to widen north side pavement slightly. Also at Waterloo Place the junction appears to have been redesigned so as not to narrow the pavement at the north side of the junction. One can argue the pavements at east Princes Street are "too wide" but one cannot meaningfully argue the proposals do not reallocate what is currently pedestrian space to cycling infrastructure.
to be fair the south side of princes street could probably lose some pavement without any one noticing. It was made that wide to handle Saturday afternoon in high street shopping's glory days. I'd be very surprised if its half as busy as it was 20 years ago when the footpath was brought to its current width.
@crowriver The bit between South St David Street and South St Andrew Street is nowhere near as busy as the bit between Meuse Lane and Leith Street. The ultra-narrow pinch-point between Leith Street and East Register house is untouched.
@steveo Now that there are tram-poles to edge round in the central reservation it'd be nice if there was space retained on the south footway to walk past castle-gawpers and three-abreast wheelcase-luggers.
As far as the Roseburn to City Centre goes There Is No Alternative to the route through Roseburn Terrace. Anything else is a total botch.
It's not so bad looping through the West End once you get to Haymarket Terrace though certainly about 1/10 as good as a direct route along Shandwick Place. But the alternatives of that back route via behind Tesco or the switchback to Balbirnie Place are a nonsense.
Like many on this thread I have a sense that if this fails it will set back proper commuting cycling in Edinburgh for years.
Ultimately, the problem with Princes Street is the motor vehicles. There were clear recommendations from Jan Gehl some years ago now that all motor vehicles should be removed from Princes Street (including buses), with just trams, cyclists, and pedestrians allowed. Clearly the council received this message in rather embarrassed silence, and could not possibly countenance either a complete ban on general motor traffic, nor, heaven forbid, removing buses from Princes Street. All far too radical, obviously.
Hence we have the current piecemeal compromise which satisfies no-one and frustrates everyone. Hence cyclist and pedestrian lobbies battling over scraps of footway space while buses, lorries, taxis and single occupant cars and vans thunder past unimpeded...
No need to tie ourselves in knots here. What is proposed is the reallocation of a narrow section of road space, on short sections of a couple of roads in the middle of town. Pedestrians won't be mown down by maniacal cyclists, traffic will still flow, people will get their bus, deliveries will reach their destination and business will continue.
It might take a little adjustment to some people's daily routines, but give it a couple of weeks and no-one will even notice.
"to be fair the south side of princes street could probably lose some pavement without any one noticing"
Do you mean the north side? As far as I can see, the proposals leave the south side footway untouched.
Do you mean the north side?
Errm, yes. Pavements on the south side are hopeless.
You must log in to post.
Cycling in Edinburgh Flickr group
Video embedded using Easy Video Embed plugin
posts