Someone should start crowdfunding this to make it happen! ;-)
Or a consortium of LBS cooperate in a "visit your LBS now" type of way.
CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » Infrastructure
Roseburn to Leith consultation begins (and the debate continues!) CCWEL
(5535 posts)-
Posted 8 years ago #
-
@Chug that is an excellent idea. I may ask around...
Posted 8 years ago # -
I think we know that if there is a revenue stream attached to promoting cycling the EEN articles would be very different.
Posted 8 years ago # -
I thought that the Big Issue with its social conscious model would acknowledge our investment with at least one snippet of news about the shifting school run profile. Families on bikes etc - not just LB customers. Our spend proportional to our size that was reasonable. Of course when John White was selling the Issue in the Meadows he would flag me down - remember him?
The ad sellers though are just selling space and the editorial need celeb names to 'sell' any bike article idea. Ewan McGregor cycling to the shops etc...Posted 8 years ago # -
I see The Cockburn Association are wading into the debate and seem to be objecting to the segregated cycleway on Princes Street. If they decide to make a big thing of it then they'll get plenty of column inches in the chipwrapper, they always do.
Posted 8 years ago # -
The Cockburn Association
Are they the posse with the morbid fetish for badly-set cobblestones?
Posted 8 years ago # -
The Cockburn association motto - all new things are wrong?
Posted 8 years ago # -
The Cockburn Association has a proud history of objecting to new development on Princes Street - The North British Hotel (now The Balmoral) for instance.
Posted 8 years ago # -
Maybe they'll be distracted by Princes Street and will forget about George Street.
Posted 8 years ago # -
#CobblesNotKids
Posted 8 years ago # -
Maybe if we ask the consultants to only depict cyclists as riding high-wheelers the Cockburn Association won't notice anything untoward.
Posted 8 years ago # -
George Street was built half a century before the draisine, Craig definitely didn't design it for bicycles, only for horses.
Cyclists must do their bit to fit into the historic setting and must war one of those:
Posted 8 years ago # -
Cobbles should be no barrier to cycling:
http://www.copenhagenize.com/2014/04/bicycle-friendly-cobblestones.html
Posted 8 years ago # -
From link -
"
Have a look at the street in the top photo again. It is a one way street but it's clear that the Arrogance of Space exists even in Copenhagen. Stupidly wide street and that means the sidewalks look like this. Cars are prioritised still - at the expense of the pedestrians and bicycle users and basically everyone in the city. And this in a neighbourhood with only just over 20% car ownership.
"
Posted 8 years ago # -
More ammunition from the European Cyclists' Federation:
Shopping by bike: Best friend of your city centre
https://ecf.com/groups/shopping-bike-best-friend-your-city-centreWe all know that shopkeepers tend to overestimate the number of cars their customers use and underestimate the number of bicycles. This latest research bears that out.
Posted 8 years ago # -
I sent Frank Ross the above links. His response? "Your focus is too narrow this is about more than local business".
I replied to say yes, but addresses one specific point of objection.
Posted 8 years ago # -
"Your focus is too narrow this is about more than local business"
That's actually quite a useful reply!
Wonder what would happen if you sent Living Streets links to floating bus stops...
Posted 8 years ago # -
"@frankross06
@RangiRevo @PidginPosting @AndrewDBurns @LAHinds it's about local communities,the elderly,those with mobility issues, public transport etc"
Posted 8 years ago # -
Stickman - comedy gold!
S - Here's evidence that your objection to the scheme is based on hot air.
FR - is it!? Don't worry - I've plenty more ill founded objections for you.Posted 8 years ago # -
"Community concerns" trump everything, even if those concerns are misplaced or can be addressed.
I know Frank Ross can't be convinced, but it's useful to draw out his reasons for opposition. Ultimately, I think he just doesn't like cycling.
Posted 8 years ago # -
"comedy gold!"
The Twitter exchange is really weird. We both tried to make the point that cycling in the park has been raised as a constant concern in the MCC, so instead of getting even more people into the park it would be better to get cyclists on main route. On which he replied:
"ok so it's about speeding cyclists, lack of lights and lack of consideration to pedestrians"
My reply: "Huh? No, it's about numbers. More people cycling need more space and better routes."
Don't think any argument is getting through.
Posted 8 years ago # -
So really, his alternative to the segregated route on the main road is for cyclists to ride really slowly through a park, ceding priority to pedestrians whenever possible?
Yep, that's really going to encourage cycling.
"Ultimately, I think he just doesn't like cycling."
It really does look that way.
Posted 8 years ago # -
Cllr Ross clearly cyclophobic. He just shifts his ground from one straw man to the next as he realises he's destroyed his own arguments.
Posted 8 years ago # -
Silly, slightly OT question which might make me seem really old: how does one see both sides of a twitter conversation?
Posted 8 years ago # -
Bashing ones self on the head with a hammer seems to be the only way to see the "other" side of most twitter arguments....
Posted 8 years ago # -
It would be funny, but we're paying for that idiocy.
edit: I mean the council member for resistance-to-any-change-whatsoever-because-change-is-terrifying
Posted 8 years ago # -
Cllr Ross expresses "community concerns" and probably quite a lot of his own concerns, and as such there is nothing wrong with it.
The problem is when the debate then doesn't move on to analysing the underlying causes and to evaluating different solutions to these concerns.
If one party continues to "express their concerns" while the other party tries to find causes and solutions, you often get a basic misunderstanding that the first party feels that their concerns are dismissed, while the second party feels obstructed in finding a solution, and then the first party feels accused of being obstructive while the second party feels accused of ignoring legitimate concerns. Then (.. please continue endlessly until you're bored..)
Much of it is then no longer about the issue but about how each side thinks the other is misrepresenting the issue. How do we get through this?
Posted 8 years ago # -
Fight?
The suggestion about a meeting between the groups has merit, but equally it could just descend into a repeat of the community council meeting.
Posted 8 years ago # -
"how does one see both sides of a twitter conversation?"
Generally click on a post, scroll up to 'original' post click that and see replies to it, but if lots of people are involved can be messy.
Posted 8 years ago # -
I've had this sitting in my "drafts" folder for a while. I was intending to send it to Transport Committee members before the meeting, but perhaps it might act as a starting point for some kind of coordinated response to the opposition.
- LOSS OF PARKING SPACES: Parking restrictions currently apply during business hours on Roseburn Terrace. Parking is not allowed on the north side except after 1.30pm on a Saturday and on a Sunday. These restrictions suggest that businesses are overestimating the number of customers legally parking on Roseburn Terrace. Evidence from elsewhere suggests that segregated cycle paths actually increase footfall and trading at shops.
- LOSS OF LOADING: There will still be loading on the south side of Roseburn Terrace which can be used by all businesses. There are lots of businesses in Edinburgh that do not have a loading bay directly in front of their premises. Fulfilling deliveries is the responsibility of the delivery company. Having to cross a short stretch of road to make a delivery is not a reason to stop the segregated route. The addition of a new pedestrian crossing at the Roseburn Street junction will make it easier for businesses on the north side to use these bays.
- LOSS OF BUS LANE: The eastbound bus lane stops before the shops on Roseburn Terrace and where the cycle lane would begin. West Coates eastbound is not congested as the majority of traffic turns right at Roseburn Street. The bus lane here is not essential to speed up bus travel. Delays occur at Haymarket Terrace as the inside lane is not available to traffic because of the taxi rank. The new cycle lane will not worsen the current situation. Enforcement of parking restrictions elsewhere on bus routes would improve traffic flow and make up any short amount of time lost.
- NCN1 CYCLE ROUTE: Balbirnie Place is only classed as the “NCN1 cycle route” because of a few information signs and has no specific cycle infrastructure, is not being used to a great extent at the moment and is not suitable for the increased number of cyclists the scheme aims for. The “NCN1 route” is not segregated from traffic, is indirect, not easy to access, conflicts with pedestrians, has a dangerous westbound crossing with tram tracks at Haymarket Yards and dumps cyclists into traffic at Haymarket Terrace.
- ALTERNATIVE ROUTES FOR CYCLE PATH: An alternative route has been suggested that would go along Roseburn Place. Roseburn Place is currently a rat-run which is considered so unsafe that a lollipop-crossing is in place for school children. Making Roseburn Place safe would require giving up residential parking spaces in order to build a segregated path. The junction at Russell Road/Roseburn Street is dangerous and would require a complete redesign. This alternative route would not attract cyclists to use it over the simpler, more direct route along Roseburn Terrace. This would negate the purpose of the scheme. Taking the route behind the Tesco, as has also been suggested, would also be inappropriate. The alleyway is narrow and used by pedestrians, sightlines are poor on entry/exit and it would involve negotiating the Russell Road junction so again would not be used by current cyclists or attract new cyclists.
- CURRENT NUMBERS OF CYCLISTS: The plans aim to increase the number of cyclists so the current number of cyclists should not be used as a reason for opposition. Those people currently cycling are doing so despite the poor existing cycle provision and perceived safety issues from mixing with traffic. The new safe segregated cycle route will attract less confident cyclists. This will increase the number of people cycling, as has been demonstrated wherever safe direct cycle routes have been implemented elsewhere.
- FLOATING BUS STOPS: Living Streets Edinburgh expressed concern about the floating bus stop design. Floating bus stops are standard designs in much of Europe, are used successfully elsewhere in the UK and other Living Streets groups have reported positively on them. The design could be tweaked to address concerns but this should not stop the segregated route along Roseburn Terrace and West Coates.
- RED LIGHT JUMPING BY VEHICLES: Law-breaking by motorists should not be used as a reason to stop a scheme that will improve cyclist and pedestrian safety. Red-light jumping currently occurs frequently by eastbound traffic turning right from Roseburn Terrace. This is a safety issue already. An enforcement camera at this junction would help prevent this.
- PEDESTRIAN SAFETY: Concerns have been expressed about pedestrian safety. The new crossing at the Roseburn Street junction will benefit everyone. The redesigned single-stage crossing at Roseburn Gardens follows Living Streets guidance on crossing design. A pavement next to a cycle lane is safer than next to a lane of active motorised traffic. The segregated cycle lane will reduce the number of people cycling on the pavement.
Posted 8 years ago #
Reply »
You must log in to post.
posts
