CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » Infrastructure

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

(5559 posts)

No tags yet.


  1. neddie
    Member

    The other problem is that there are too many cross-town routes left open for private motors, particularly in the N-S direction (there are 3 -> Lothian Rd, Mound, Bridges) (4 if you count Waverley Bridge).

    The council would do well to close 2 of these 3 routes to through-traffic (except buses), freeing Princes St to have only lanes for buses & trams and to not have multiple lanes at the junctions to cater for private cars (e.g at the East end)

    No other city in civilised continental Europe would allow so much through-traffic

    Posted 8 years ago #
  2. PS
    Member

    East Princes Street pedestrian congestion tends to come from some pretty wayward queuing at the bus stops there. It's possible that the presence of a cycle track behind the bus shelters will instil a sense of order and positioning amongst the less considerate bus-awaiters. ;-)

    Posted 8 years ago #
  3. chdot
    Admin

    Can't remember the details, but one time they widened the northside pavement (long before the trams) the plan was based on the plan before the previous widening, so it didn't all go to plan...

    IF a bit of underused (controversial value judgement) pavement becomes a bit of cycleway then that is (probably) a SMALL compromise.

    Posted 8 years ago #
  4. Stickman
    Member

    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.

    Absolutely. But the problem is getting it implemented so that people will realise this!

    Like many on this thread I have a sense that if this fails it will set back proper commuting cycling in Edinburgh for years.

    Me too. If it gets rejected then I can't see any major segregated routes been proposed again. The precedent will have been set that "Roseburn fought back" and opposition will cite this scheme again and again.

    Posted 8 years ago #
  5. ih
    Member

    Does anyone have a grip on whether the people in Living Streets actually have a degree of sympathy with car drivers rather than people who cycle? I have a feeling - no more than that - that there is some commonality between LSers and drivers. Would like it to be demonstrated that I'm wrong.

    Posted 8 years ago #
  6. crowriver
    Member

    "I have a feeling - no more than that - that there is some commonality between LSers and drivers. "

    This is only the case inasmuch as they both have an interest in defending the status quo: i.e.. not seeing resources (cash, infrastructure) diverted away from their own specific interests towards the interests of another group/travel mode, i.e.. cyclists/cycling.

    I imagine there was a calculation that defending the interests of pedestrians came before accommodating any compromise with cyclists. The possibility that both interests might ultimately be defeated by the interests of motorists may not have occurred to them, or if it did, was seen as less of a threat, i.e.. the status quo was preferable to perceived encroachment by cyclists on pedestrian 'territory'.

    Posted 8 years ago #
  7. From the LSE website:

    "Our current campaigning priorities range across five issues:

    • the need for the council to devote more resources to inspecting, monitoring and improving the pedestrian environment
    • ensuring that cycling improvements are not gained at the expense of pedestrian safety and comfort
    • bridging the gap between exemplary policies (including Street Design Guidance) and practical implementation on the ground
    • pressing for better co-ordination between council departments impacting on the pedestrian environment
    • supporting the introduction of wide 20 mph limits for all the cities residential and shopping streets and their robust enforcement."

    I do find it unconvincing that the second priority is phrased negatively in relation to cycling, that this is so high on the list, and no priority clearly talks about "motoring at the expense of pedestrians".

    They could have said something more positive like "support cycling as active travel while making sure that the pedestrian environment benefits".

    Posted 8 years ago #
  8. Murun Buchstansangur
    Member

    These guys are just bike haters. They've got about as much understanding of sharing (in the context of shared space) as my 2yo daughter ('what's mine is mine and what's yours is mine too')

    "George St should therefore be for pedestrians and a properly managed, speed-controlled cycle route, potentially with a 10mph speed limit for cyclists. Generally the street should be designed to discourage fast cycling whilst making provision for family and social riding e.g. 10mph limit and clear pedestrian priority at crossings"

    Posted 8 years ago #
  9. gembo
    Member

    Any cyclist involved with living streets will have resigned on point two. Any gain for cyclists over motorists can surely only be a gain for pedestrians.

    I admit I am a cyclist first and pedestrian second. I do not drive, but fortunately I have an understanding partner,

    Posted 8 years ago #
  10. newtoit
    Member

    To be fair, maybe if we actually had something to defend against change, we would be similar?

    However that's the whole point - at present there is nothing.

    Posted 8 years ago #
  11. crowriver
    Member

    Also from the LSE (London School of Economics???) web site:

    "Despite the many barriers to walking, 35% of journeys by Edinburgh residents are still made on foot, and the Living Streets Edinburgh Group is engaging strongly with the Council, pressing for the pedestrian environment to enjoy the kind of prioritisation given to cycling expenditure – now due to rise to 10% of the Council’s transport budget. "

    As stated above, pedestrian-only facilities already receive a substantial proportion of the transport budget as a matter of course. So quite why LSE need to kick up a stink about cycling receiving an (eventual - next year?) increase to a measly 10% of the budget is somewhat mystifying. Unless and until you see LSE as defenders of the status quo, pursuing narrow interest alone. Reactionaries, essentially. Then it makes sense.

    Having said all of that, I am heartily in favour of spending more, a lot more, on facilities for pedestrians. This should not however exclude spending more, much more, on facilities for cycling. It should rather entail spending much less on facilities for motor vehicles (except buses).

    Posted 8 years ago #
  12. ih
    Member

    "To be fair, maybe if we actually had something to defend against change, we would be similar?"

    But pavements are almost universally rubbish too. Can't understand why the attitude seems to be, "We'll have these improvements to our pedestrian space, thank you, but no one else can." The Roseburn section has a lot of advantages for the pedestrian, but do they think they would be implemented if the bike route went round the houses?

    Posted 8 years ago #
  13. As a long-term pedestrian, I was interested in Living Streets and ready to join until I saw the consultation yesterday and actually looked at the rest of their website too...

    I never joined mainly because I never got around actually doing it, but also because until recently it seemed a rather dozy organisation with nice campaigns of the kind "Dear parents, perhaps you could consider letting your children walk to school sometimes but only if it is not too much trouble".

    I did get the impression they were getting a bit more focussed in the last few years and interested in constructive work with cycling groups, but this now completely put me off.

    Posted 8 years ago #
  14. chdot
    Admin

    @ Stephan

    Please join!

    Posted 8 years ago #
  15. chdot
    Admin

    "

    ensuring that cycling improvements are not gained at the expense of pedestrian safety and comfort

    "

    "To be fair, maybe if we actually had to defend against change, we would be similar?"

    Well yes but -

    'We' started a thread a couple of years ago - "Shared Use - the debate begins".

    This was because CEC was quite keen on shared use to 'improve cycle facilities' without disadvantaging pedestrians much (and drivers hardly at all).

    "

    'Shared use' was mentioned in various contexts - Princes Street, George Street, Porty Prom, and 'our' current 'favourite' Seafield Street.

    I suspect this all could become a 'big issue' in Edinburgh, not least because it seems that various bits of the planned "Family Network" will be SU. Some important 'links' will be on existing non-shared pavements - the precise details about where and whether they will be widened are not known (or actually decided).

    There are a lot of conflicting views - conflict is a relevant word.

    "

    http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=10924

    I'm sure the words on the LSE site date from this time, and can easily be updated to say something like 'we campaign for Living Streets in Edinburgh where facilities for pedestrians and cyclists need to be prioritised more highly - which may involve reallocating some roadspace from motor vehicles'.

    Posted 8 years ago #
  16. chdot
    Admin

  17. chdot
    Admin

    New comment on the petition -

    "

    peter dunlop Netherlands, Leiderdorp Feb 02, 2016

    I support the principle of this proposal - more below as submitted to CEC

    I am a civil engineer FICE, retired. I live in the west end of Edinburgh where I walk, cycle, use my bus pass and drive my car. I take trains too. In the Netherlands where I spend nearly half my time I do the same but I cycle a great deal more.

    Please study these considered comments which are a direct response to your proposals "Roseburn to Leith" but tempered by both experience and prior thought on cycling in Edinburgh

    The proposal is a start but I hope that it is not thought to be a final solution
    As a civil engineer I found the Atkins drawings difficult to use even on a large laptop. They are discontinuous. A scrollable "strip" of the whole route would be better

    The plan must be for safe cycling on all streets/routes

    This MUST be about commuting/shopping/school commuting and not leisure cycling
    Copenhagen junctions are widely discredited in the cycling world, in the Netherlands and even in Copenhagen. Try the Dutch way.

    Am I right in thinking that the 24 hour Red Route is a compromise for bus lanes in both directions?

    This plan is going to take a lot of "policing"

    In my view it will take a critical mass of cyclists before motorists are fully aware that they must be considered.

    The lycra brigade are a problem for the acceptance of cycling by motorists
    In the Netherlands what were footpath pavements are now shared between cyclists and pedestrians even tough the 2 paths are sometimes very narrow. Again this is a question of learning and mutual acceptance and fewer tear away lycra cyclists. Many pavements in Edinburgh are lightly trafficked, I can think of almost the whole length of the Queensferry Road.

    There is a lack of confidence in Edinburgh's cycle lanes because of their discontinuities. In the Netherlands they are marked across junctions.

    The Netherlands may be flat but flatness allows a lot of wind. Most new traditional looking Dutch bikes now have 3 gears and the low is low enough for most Edinburgh hills
    The plan does not allow for/show a link to the old railway cycle routes at Balbirnie/Roseburn Path. It MUST

    Why is there no cycle lane on either Coates Gardens or Rosebery Crescent?

    These 4 crescents should all be one way with no kerbside parking but 100% angled parking along the gardens. Eglinton, Glencairn, Grosvenor, Landsdown. My there resident cousin would approve!

    Cycle routes should be one way around West Register House
    The plan does not say anything about the bus queue at the east end of Princes Street. This must be solved.

    This is how. All smart ticketing, NO CASH. These days more and more people can make contact-less payments with their debit cards. This would allow Lothian Buses to charge by distance AND to gain accurate continuously updated ridership data allowing it to tailor supply to demand. Along with this have an IN and an OUT door. The two together would more than halve bus stop dwell time. Card readers at in and out, double beep for concession cards allows driver to check on cheats. Failure to check out means a maximum charge when next used. Berlin double deckers have THREE doors and TWO stairs!

    "

    Posted 8 years ago #
  18. Rosie
    Member

    @ chdot
    Interesting. The 2 doors on the bus is a sound idea though I understand LRB has invested a lot in a new fleet so won't be in the mood to splash out more.

    I was in Copenhagen. In our street the bus stop was on the pavement but the bus stopped on the other side of the cycle lane. Cyclists stopped to let the passengers walk across the lane. However there weren't hundreds of buses (as far as I could tell as one day we were there it was a public holiday).

    As for training people - every two minutes or so I'd shout at my sister DON'T WALK IN THE CYCLE LANE. She's from Auckland and wasn't used to them. She would exclaim, Aren't they lucky having all that space?

    "And the cars have THREE lanes to their one." I'd reply.

    Posted 8 years ago #
  19. crowriver
    Member

    Edinburgh buses used to have two doors but also steps. Low floor buses introduced to comply with disability access legislation. Second door removed to stop fare dodgers, maybe also to fit more seats in, as some were lost due to wider gangway/turning space/wheelchair space.

    Posted 8 years ago #
  20. SRD
    Moderator

    Going back up thread always. No, I don't think it is fair or accurate to portray LSE committee members as pro car (I can't speak for members). They really do think they are defending pedestrian space and priorities.

    Posted 8 years ago #
  21. chdot
    Admin

    "They really do think they are defending pedestrian space and priorities."

    No doubt, but it's almost as though 'they' are 'extreme pedestrians' - bit like those cyclists who think that bikes should (only) be ridden fast, preferably on main roads.

    BiggerPicture.

    Posted 8 years ago #
  22. chdot
    Admin

    "

    Space4CyclingGlasgow (@S4CGlasgow)

    We strongly urge @LivingStreetsEd to reconsider objections to bus-stop bypasses #space4cycling

    "

    Posted 8 years ago #
  23. @SRD "No, I don't think it is fair or accurate to portray LSE committee members as pro car"

    As you know the committee (and I don't), I trust your judgement on that. Still, from their campaigns and public material the feeling remains that Living Streets doesn't really challenge car dominance clearly and sounds rather submissive, while they are much clearer on not wanting bicycles near walking people. Some campaigns just seemed very vague. It's as if they are used to and respect the needs of car drivers but haven't incorporated cycling in their thinking.

    Although, as I said above, I thought they were getting a bit bolder recently and e.g. stated that they prefer clearly a pedestrianised George Street.

    @chdot I can see a point in joining in order to push it perhaps a bit in a useful direction, but I'm really not so keen if it sounds like a big fight against long-held preconceptions.

    Posted 8 years ago #
  24. paulmilne
    Member

    The Living Streets organisation are simply creatures of the current paradigm that has long recognised the separation of the car realm and the pedestrian realm. This is a well understood and long-held model of how public space works.

    Now that the model for cycling is changing it's seen as a threat to this model by both car groups and pedestrian groups. Car groups don't want space taken away from them, neither do pedestrian groups.

    The Dutch experience provides a new model, but as a society arrived there after years of incremental change. Making the leap to full segregation in one-er is going to confuse and anger people, inevitably.

    But the threat posed by the automobile in in co-opting public space; polluting the air we breath; and contributing significantly to climate change has reached critical levels. We don't have the luxury of forty years to incrementally change to reach Dutch levels of cycling.

    For all its faults this plan, with any necessary adjustments, is absolutely crucial in changing the public mind-set towards bicycle use. I just hope enough councillors can be convinced and the council holds its nerve.

    Posted 8 years ago #
  25. Response from Friends of the Earth Scotland:
    http://www.foe-scotland.org.uk/node/2118

    FoE supports direct route, opposes protesters' circuitous route. Scheme encourages modal shift. Traffic modelling overestimates congestion & pollution as modal shift not included.

    Summary:
    In this response we support proposals for a new direct, segregated cycle path from Roseburn to Leith due to its potential to encourage modal shift, cut climate emissions, and cut air pollution. We note that further information on traffic modelling and expected air quality impacts needs to still be provided and question the accuracy of the current traffic model which does not take into account the potential for modal shift from the scheme.

    Posted 8 years ago #
  26. Harts Cyclery
    Member

    Anti-petitioners just mentioned on Forth 1 news...

    Posted 8 years ago #
  27. wingpig
    Member

    There's a webcam on the wrong side of the street just up from the council offices if you fancy attempting to catch a glimpse of the antagonists loudhailering their petition in without accidentally increasing their apparent number or wasting your flexitime.

    Posted 8 years ago #
  28. HankChief
    Member

    Just handed over our 817 strong petition to Lesley & Adam.

    Here it is in all its glory

    Thanks to all that have signed.

    Posted 8 years ago #
  29. @HankChief Hey, I signed before you!

    It seems that the comments from people who have not signed only appear on the website, right?

    Well done, thanks for your great work!

    Posted 8 years ago #
  30. HankChief
    Member

    I deleted a couple of the comments / signatures of those who don't understand has a petition works.

    Posted 8 years ago #

RSS feed for this topic

Reply »

You must log in to post.


Video embedded using Easy Video Embed plugin