@gembo It's the flood prevention. I didn't make it to the consultation so can't say what it entails. Tree felling now - 30 trees to go.
http://www.friendsofroseburnpark.org.uk/files/2015/12/Invitiation-160113_Final.pdf
CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » Infrastructure
Roseburn to Leith consultation begins (and the debate continues!) CCWEL
(5559 posts)-
Posted 8 years ago #
-
KNS is quite right to save Roseburn, we could see last weekend what cyclists are capable of when "between 20 and 40 masked rioters on bicycles burned 28 cars and smashed windows in the Kreuzberg district of Berlin."
(http://www.dw.com/en/berlin-plagued-by-radical-left-wing-violence-for-second-night-in-a-row/a-19032412)Let me tell you, if the bike lane gets built, there will be carnage on the streets of Roseburn!
Posted 8 years ago # -
"
We are a bunch of local residents who believe that reducing motor traffic in the area will have numerous and significant benefits for residents and visitors. We are campaigning for a scheme that will reduce the flow of motor traffic, make streets safer and more pleasant for all, improve air quality, and bring neighbours together.
"
Posted 8 years ago # -
"
Leading employers from across the finance, technology, creative, education and healthcare sectors support the plans for two segregated cycles lanes in central London.
"Posted 8 years ago # -
Via above link
"
Building for cyclists
I The quality and availability of workplace cycle facilities influences the career choices of more than half of respondents.
I An overwhelming majority of respondents (92.6%) say there has been an increase in demand for cycling facilities in the offices sector, mainly driven by occupiers rather than developers or investors.
I Most respondents think that providing high-quality facilities is not significant to rental values, suggesting that the provision of cycling facilities is well on the way to being regarded as the norm."
http://www.propertyweek.com/Journals/2012/09/17/j/s/a/BCO-Cycling-Report.pdf
Posted 8 years ago # -
Just catching up. Those minutes do show the level of misunderstanding that we are up against.
You'll have noted how much time was given to the objector and the tone set from Cllr Balfour at the start.
This is probably my biggest disappointment - the councillors could have done more to understand the issues and present a more balanced viewpoint.
The council clearly see the merit in doing this scheme and there are sound reasons behind it. Is it too much to ask that they understand what they are and explain it to the community rather than just bashing it.
It is all about getting the next person(s) on a bike. I'm thinking of starting a hash tag with that on it but can't get it snappy enough.
#nextpersonbybike
Posted 8 years ago # -
#thisinfrastructureisnotjustforpeoplewhoalreadycycle
Posted 8 years ago # -
I've never been a fan of the convoluted way that these schemes get funding as it seems to create unnecessary uncertainty and paperwork.
However, on this case it actually helps as the £9m price tag is not all coming from CEC but will have half the funding coming from Sustrans as well as other potential for other sources to chip in.
So it's not correct to make say that this money could be spent on other things in Edinburgh as it will other parts of Scotland that will get it if we don't. And even if it was spent on fixing potholes that's a short term fix which would need to spent again and you would still have the pollution and congestion.
Which is why we need the cycle route to be built so we get a modal shift and actually do something about our problems.
Posted 8 years ago # -
#4NewRiders
Posted 8 years ago # -
"Which is why we need the cycle route to be built so we get a modal shift and actually do something about our problems."
For some people the problem is bikes on their road/pavement!
Posted 8 years ago # -
This why we need a carmaggedon day. Everybody (inc those who don't just now) gets a car and there are no parking charges / enforcement.
Then you'll soon see that we simply don't have space for everyone to drive to where they want to go and park nearby.
The problem is that it's never my car that causes congestion/pollution etc. If nobody else had a car then driving would be idyllic.
Back in the real world we have to work out how best to fit more peoples into a finite space. Cars can't be the answer.
Some people are already taking space efficient & environmentally friendly transport options - this should be encouraged and not have barriers put in their way.
Posted 8 years ago # -
It's back to seatbelts, drink-driving, smoking - changing attitudes.
Drink-drivers were (and still persist as) a minority (potentially) harming the majority.
Smoker numbers have been declining for a long time and been sactioned (rising taxes) followed by the 'highly unpopular' pub ban. (May involve class factors too...)
'Inappropriate' driving is moving that way too, but the resistance is still strong.
Posted 8 years ago # -
Smoking had a series of advertising reductions. Drink-driving has had high-profile video campaigns. Driving like a sociopath has had a few, but they've been a bit vague and open-road-focussed (apart from that one with the kids repeating their parents' invective to the tune of "wheels on the bus"). There were the "use your legs" things, which just came across as a bit weird. Time for some directly aimed at single-occupant road-cloggers, unnecessarily accelerating-to-the-next-queue noise/fume-emitters, just-a-moment illegal parkers and so on, preferably properly stigmatizing them as the human-unfriendly selfish toads they are.
Posted 8 years ago # -
"Driving like a sociopath" has had a few campaigns, but the main problem is not bad driving as such but that too many people drive and/or see it as the only real mode of transport.
Posted 8 years ago # -
I like this turn of phrase in the MCC minutes - maybe the chairman is supportive of the scheme after all:
"The Chairman summarised the criticisms made by those against the proposals as “unsafe, unfair and unsustainable”."
I agree, the criticisms are indeed unsafe, unfair and unsustainable...
Posted 8 years ago # -
"Those minutes do show the level of wilful misunderstanding that we are up against."
FTFY
These people don't want to understand. They know they're right.
Posted 8 years ago # -
just saw a twitter account 'familiesforsafestreets' (new York). maybe that's what us militant pedestri-cyclists should form. bet we'd get into the EEN.
Posted 8 years ago # -
Or 'stopthechildmurder' maybe?
How about Kids Not Cars? :-)
Posted 8 years ago # -
One relevant to Mr KNS: 'roadsnotpavements' ;-)
Posted 8 years ago # -
@wingpig "Smoking had a series of advertising reductions. Drink-driving has had high-profile video campaigns. Driving like a sociopath has had a few, but they've been a bit vague and open-road-focussed (apart from that one with the kids repeating their parents' invective to the tune of "wheels on the bus")."
Problem is that ScotGov can't outspend the car industry or even dilute its relentless self promoting and product placement. (It does try though as you can't avoid ads ordered from Holyrood it seems).
Stage one should be to ban TV car adverts before trying to dilute it. Most are pointless and tell you nothing useful or in the case of VW spread misleading info. Basically they're just mood music to remind you that cars of all sorts are a necessity. Like a fridge - but more exciting. Ones you can never afford are also useful to make your own modest runabout seem affordable. .
Failing that - ensure ads show cars in real situations as you say. Like cigarette advertising add warnings on the end about how people with respiritory problems are harmed by car use - particularly in cities.
Of course any ban on TV ads will be circumvented so maybe better to use second option. When smoking ads were banned they shifted budgets but now with web they don't 'need' TV.
I'm pleased to occasionally buy / read a newspaper that has no car adverts. In fact it's got hardly any adverts at all (!) Just shows you what can be done for 60p. EN take note!
Posted 8 years ago # -
Thing is with smoking, drinking too much, and the other antisocial behaviours, they're all things which in our heart of hearts, we know we shouldn't be doing, so nudges will (eventually) work. But driving still has the status of a "good thing" and an aspirational one to boot.
I can't see its appeal diminishing until the many damages it does clearly outweigh its "advantages". I think in some demographics that is happening - young Londoners who have a good public transport system and perhaps prefer to spend their money on other things. Another factor would be the perceived - perhaps real - national investment in motorised transport in terms of exports and jobs.
Why are there virtually no advertsements for bikes and cycling except in specialist outlets? It'll never be seen as normal until it's normalised in adverts.
Posted 8 years ago # -
@ih "Why are there virtually no advertsements for bikes and cycling except in specialist outlets? It'll never be seen as normal until it's normalised in adverts."
LB did some ads in the Big Issue as it is one of the few publications I could afford which covered Scottish cities / towns. We plugged the Helios tandem as a car replacement for school run as we think that's in line with government policy / supposed social desire. Net effect was not a lot. Couple of queries.
Tried to get them to do article on 'practical cycling or alternative cycling'. No interest.
With a more enlightened press, family transport alternatives would get review. For example Urban Arrow vs Helios vs Gazelle Cabby. That though only happens in Denmark or NL. Here car ads support a lot of press. National though might be interested as they have regular green contributors.Posted 8 years ago # -
"Thing is with smoking, drinking too much, and the other antisocial behaviours, they're all things which in our heart of hearts, we know we shouldn't be doing"
They're also directly bad for the individual being encouraged to stop so they're easier to convince. With driving, it's too easy to think of it as something other people should do less.
Posted 8 years ago # -
An anonymous source submitted some video footage, cycling the proposed diversion of the A8 cycle track around the Roseburn shops...
Who could possibly imagine any issue with the proposed diversion and a 20% modal share, we ask?
Posted 8 years ago # -
Shouldn't it be NIMFYs?
(Not In My Front Yard)
;-)Posted 8 years ago # -
Useful vid! (Though l think the NIMBY point is 'why can't they keep cycling through Roseburn Park?')
Hope your source can do a couple of passes on the road and see how many people are loading bacon rolls. It won't take as long as that diversion.
Posted 8 years ago # -
Well Lesley seems set firm.
(Response to complaint about QBiC parking.)
"
Lesley Hinds (@LAHinds)
10/02/2016, 9:45 am
@R0SS_M @CllrJimOrr @CyclingEdin that is why off road segregated cycle paths are being implemented in Edinburgh"
Posted 8 years ago # -
Back to adverts for a second...
A while ago, Edinburgh Bikes sponsored the Sports News on Forth One for what must have been over a year.
If I had their resources I'd sponsor a news bulletin on Forth One, but it wouldn't be the Sports News, it'd be the Travel News!!
"And there's routine queueing (they actually say that now) on Queensferry Road, St John's Road and Maybury Road."
*Cue jingle*
**Music**
Avoid the jams, get your traffic-busting bicycle from Hart's Cyclery in Corstorphine!
**Music**
A marketing gift, if ever there was.
Posted 8 years ago # -
Someone should start crowdfunding this to make it happen! ;-)
Posted 8 years ago # -
Though l think the NIMBY point is 'why can't they keep cycling through Roseburn Park?'
Preaching to the choir, but that would only work for the minority coming from the south-west of Edinburgh, and fails to provide for everyone living on either side of Corstorphine hill, let alone the thousands of commuters that will be parking up at the Park & Ride and using the segregated cycle track for their "last mile".
Obviously to get a 20% modal share as has been targeted, it's not possible to send people through the park. If you consider that about 50% of people are walking / public transport, then 20% cycling implies 2 bikes for every 3 cars on the A8. That's a huge number of cycle journeys, and the council seem to be on the right track with the initial proposal (no pun intended ;-)
Posted 8 years ago #
Reply »
You must log in to post.
posts
