CityCyclingEdinburgh was launched on the 27th of October 2009 as "an experiment".
IT’S TRUE!
CCE is 14years 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.
Stephan: I didn't realise how bad Cllr Edie's "practical" alternative was. I knew he wanted to go behind the Tesco with a narrow cycle lane along West Coates. I didn't realise (as set out in the MCC minutes) that he then wanted it to cross the main road to head up Magdala Crescent. Utterly useless as a cycling route.
Also really annoyed with Balfour's comments in those minutes that give the impression that *all* consultation responses were against the plan.
Not sure how this will go down with some local campaigners -
"
Edinburgh chairman David Spaven said: “We support the principle of the whole cycle route, and we back sustainable transport in all its forms. We support 95 per cent of the route that’s being proposed.
“But we think potentially there’s a sensible alteration to be made which would actually link in better to the family-friendly cycle route through Roseburn Park.”
"
Whatever the merits of any/that f-fcr, this isn't about 'leisure cycling' or the fantasy fears of local traders or LS's nonsense about 'floating bus stops not being tried in Scotland'.
Of course the EN thinks it's being 'balanced' by covering the views of 'all sides' - but no idea why it thinks this is a new story!
Not a lot to do just now - just take pity on all those at CEC who have to sort through all the submissions everyone has sent in!
@Stickman I also saw the Magdala Crescent idea for the first time in the minutes. They don't get it that cyclists are not out for a little quiet light exercise around the block but actually want to go somewhere like Haymarket where trains and shops and routes to other places are...
Reading the minutes, I don't know where to start. It just reads like something from a completely different mindset that doesn't have cycling (as a transport mode) at all in their concept of the world. Things like the priority "walkers, buses, cars and cyclists (in this order)". It's not that they are openly against cycling, but just don't get and don't want to think about what's needed. A bit like anti-immigration rhetoric where people/politicians/media are not openly hostile or aggressive but as immigrant it still hits one really hard. It's very difficult to pin it down precisely because it's not specific statements (that could be argued rationally) but a kind of mindset behind it. Sort of "I have nothing against foreigners or cyclists but we don't want to encourage them to come here.."
Whatever the merits of any/that f-fcr, this isn't about 'leisure cycling' or the fantasy fears of local traders or LS's nonsense about 'floating bus stops not being tried in Scotland'.
The unfortunate thing is, it all sounds terribly reasonable to the casual viewer doesn't it? 95% is supported! There is already a perfectly good/quality/insert euphemism of choice for "complete rubbish" alternative!
Please make the right decision here council. This is your chance.
"Roseburn-Haymarket cycle route plan divides community"
Isn't it the A8 that divides the community? Right down the middle.
"Not a lot to do just now..."
Raise awareness amongst transport-committee-people and councillors of the need for a direct/respected/useful/visible on-main-road route to dispel this "but there's an NCN over the back there" or "links to the family friendly route" rhubarb? Point out that NCNs have been cobbled together from whatever was available, irrespective of suitability (like the unprotected Newcraighall Road section of NCN1); whilst they might contain Innocents they are not exclusively comprised thereof. Point out that family-friendly routes have been created with the same sort of signposting-labelling exercise and do not equal implemented infrastructure?
Any chance of getting Paul Edie on a bike to take him round Roseburn? HankChief has been having success with the Holyrood candidates.
"I have nothing against foreigners or cyclists but we don't want to encourage them to come here.."
Exactly.
In the case of Mr KNS, just preface that with the ludicrous "As a cyclist myself, ..." A bit like the minority that say "I'm an immigrant myself, but I don't think we should let any more foreigners in."
"it all sounds terribly reasonable" - just so Edinburgh.
"Please make the right decision here council"
For some inexplicable reason I am quite optimistic about all this. Most of the objections are based on misinformation, irrational fears and/or narrow self interest.
It's a pity LS/E is so concerned about the maybe-problem of how the bus stop will be dealt with, which as has been pointed out here, could mean no pedestrian improvements at all at Roseburn.
The good news is that the EN says "Roseburn-Haymarket cycle route plan divides community" - so there are no problems about the rest of the route(?), except perhaps George Street.
From the minutes:
"P Gregson asked for help in [...] contacting Sir Chris Hoy."
????
@ Wingpig, yes, but until the results of the consultation are available we won't know if we are needing to encourage councillors to back them, or trying to get minor changes or having all the arguments all over again.
"contacting Sir Chris Hoy"
Think his parents still live round the corner.
(Not saying which corner!)
He's not as committed to improving conditions as Chris Boardman, but I'd be a bit surprised if he'd back the 'locals' on this.
@chdot When councillors are popping up and suggesting daft routes during consultation phases it'd be useful to have them more aware of reality in plenty of time for the next issue, whether it's another consultation or a TRO phase or something else.
@wingpig
Depends
As I indicated above I'm moderately optimistic about the process - and the robustness of LH. Might be better to 'wait and see' rather than tell cllrs what they won't hear.
Meanwhile I hope Spokes, Sustrans etc have a nice time allaying the fears of LS/E...
I too am somewhat optimistic. I trust that the people who drew the plans can see the opposition arguments/alternative suggestions as the complete nonsense they are. Afterall, if they thought the NCN1 route was viable they would've used it.
I only hope they don't come under too much pressure from the other part of the council who may see this as a chance to win votes from the "motoring majority".
"... Peter Gregson, a former council employee who helped deliver the Kings Haugh to Innocent Railway cycle link"
This was news to me.
That would have been in the days when he lived in a flat on Rankeillor Street, presumably. At least 20 years ago.
I'm curious why he went with the "I'm a cyclist. Look, I'm wearing a helmet and I've just joined ... I'm a Spokes member" approach to increase his credibility.
Surely, "I used to design cycle routes" would've worked better?
'Surely, "I used to design cycle routes" would've worked better?'
Except he didn't. He worked in community video with young people.
Maybe he volunteered or campaigned for that route back in the day? Hence "helped deliver".
" I'm curious why he went with the "I'm a cyclist….."
Pretty clear to me. He wanted to give the impression that the only people who wanted this are the mad, bad, lycra-clad zealots, whereas lots of ordinary cyclists agreed with him. He did a masterful job in mobilising a small and sadly uninformed minority into a headline grabbing campaign. Considering all the deceit and blind ignorance was on his side, and all the informed arguments on the pro side, you have to hand it to him. The disgraceful intervention by LS Edinburgh, only capped it all off.
I used to be optimistic, now I'm not so sure. My estimation is that the feedback from consultation will still show the positives from the project would significantly outweigh and negatives (including for the Roseburn retailers) but I fear that the Committee won't have the bottle to agree to it as it stands. There will probably by a further time delaying investigation into compromises.
This is my main point of this post: I don't think that any group supporting cycling in Scotland should have any truck with a compromise that takes the route from the A8 anywhere between Roseburn and Haymarket. That aspect of the plan was the only really good part and the rest was already a massive compromise.
That would be this path:
http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=1058
The delivery of which seems to have been a requirement of a planning permission.
"
Carlton Reid (@carltonreid)
08/02/2016, 10:33 am
Overwhelming business support allows @TfL to push ahead with cycle plans. http://www.bikebiz.com/news/read/massive-business-support-allows-tfl-to-push-ahead-with-cycle-plans/019034
http://pic.twitter.com/UTB171CVU7
"
If it can't (won't) be built as proposed then Sustrans should absolutely not provide funding. This should be built as an exemplary project or not at all. The West End carry on is enough of a compromise, this would be too much for it to be worthwhile.
At the same time, Sustrans could do with clarifying that just because a route is signposted NCN1, doesn't mean it's a good route. That will never happen though.
I see your Chris Hoy and raise you Chris Boardman.
There's no guarantee this scheme will be funded by the Sustrans competition anyway. The scheme for Glasgow's west end, or the Falkirk Dutch style bike roundabout, could easily win over this scheme. So let's not assume that this will be an "exemplar" route at all. It may, of course, receive match through the general Community Links fund at some point in the future.
"... Peter Gregson, a former council employee who helped deliver the Kings Haugh to Innocent Railway cycle link"
Apparently it's true.
He reminded the right bit of the council (presumably when he worked in a different section) that it had been agreed that a path should be built there.
This was presumably related to a previous planning consent and might even have been (partly at least) paid for.
I don't know whether this was directly related to the signalled crossing nearby. I seem to remember it was about 7 years after 'approval' that it eventually appeared.
CEC is much better now (well some of it!)
Had an amusing chat with some more mature ladies eyeing up a bike (A Gazelle. Have you heard? They're lovely ;-) ) in the window on Saturday.
One was saying, "Och, but I cannae cycle these days, you know, the roads are terrible."
I said that's why they needed to support the cycle paths at Roseburn.
"Aye, I heard about that, but the shop owners are saying they'll all go out of business."
Not so, I explained. Pedestrians and cyclists spend more in shops as they make more journeys and have time to browse and make impulse buys.
It was funny to watch them come round to the inescapable logic, especially so when one was discussing buying a bike that she would never have considered had she not been... walking past!!
KNS is getting increasingly shrill in his latest outpourings on that EEN article.
People will die because fire engines will get stuck in the traffic, residents of Roseburn Place will be trapped in their homes, Spokes are going to cause the deaths of people and when Spokes members get older they'll regret it as they wont be able to drive.
He has upped his estimate of cyclists in Roseburn Terrace from 6 an hour to 40 per hour, so that's one thing.
There will come a point soon when even the local councillors will realise he can't be taken seriously.
Maybe that's his plan!
The fire engines thing is puzzling. I don't know about you but if I hear a siren I pull off the road sharpish.
What are they doing in roseburn park? A pipeline? All closed off yesterday at the old house that was the original orchard owner's house. Prone to flooding on the WoL. Looked like bank strengthening?
You must log in to post.
Cycling in Edinburgh Flickr group
Video embedded using Easy Video Embed plugin
posts