CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » Infrastructure

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

(5537 posts)
  • Started 8 years ago by SRD
  • Latest reply from Colonies_Chris

No tags yet.


  1. gembo
    Member

    @wc hope you get more joy out of living streets than we did before, they seem a tad anti cyclist, as in not liking the ones who harass pedestrians in their view.

    With Pete there is no hope. He has a very closed mind nowadays with a real downer on any council project which he uses various lies and rhetoric to whip up support from taxi drivers which he then takes as confirmation of his position. No reasoning with him now I am afraid. Was always a nice guy before. He appeared very briefly in a dream I had the other night but he was rushing out the door

    Posted 8 years ago #
  2. SRD
    Moderator

    Living streets ed certainly did not oppose the removal of staggered crossing as that article also claims.

    Posted 8 years ago #
  3. Living Streets also didn't mention congestion (if I remember correctly) but the point is really that they should be much much more proactive opposing such misrepresentations.

    In the end, for most people it doesn't matter at all what Living Streets really said if they never get to hear it, and if misrepresentations are left unchallenged.

    Of course it would have to be LS themselves to make that clear, not a random person who can't speak for them.

    Posted 8 years ago #
  4. Stephan, pretty much nailed it. What I'm kinda hoping is that they are annoyed that PG is putting words in their mouth. Not holding out too much hope though...

    Posted 8 years ago #
  5. Stickman
    Member

    Wow, that's quite a little rant. I had a look at some of the comments on his petition - some samples:

    it will also make the area a mess and ugly. (are roads things of beauty?)

    danger to schoolchildren and complete chaos on a narrow road. (Chaos!)

    This area depends on these shops, not a load of tree huggers who have ample enough room. And who don't even follow the highway code anyway.

    A cycle route is already available to non-road tax paying cyclists who flout basic road rules by riding on pavements, ignoring traffic lights and riding without lights at night. In my opinion this noisy minority are already over- catered for and money could be much better spent elsewhere.

    There's nothing like reasoned debate, and this is nothing like reasoned debate.

    Posted 8 years ago #
  6. SRD
    Moderator

    He's managed to frame it very cleverly by saying that it's 'spokes' project - and the media certainly gives the impression that they get whatever they ask for.

    Unfortunately no one has yet tried/managed to reframe it as a non-partisan transport project, delivering what was promised in ATAP and many other cross-party supported policies, much less as 100% inline with what Scottish government has been calling on local government to do.

    Posted 8 years ago #
  7. "A cycle route is already available to non-road tax paying cyclists who flout basic road rules by riding on pavements, ignoring traffic lights and riding without lights at night."

    He's right, the reckless cyclists have all they need. But there isn't a good route available to all the tax-paying cyclists who obey basic road rules by riding only on roads or designated cycle paths, stopping at traffic lights and riding with lights at night.

    Posted 8 years ago #
  8. crowriver
    Member

    I happened to pass through Roseburn today on the way back from Corstorphine, having come along the pleasant Carrick Knowe tram side path. The devastation wrought by the flood prevention works is really dreadful: all those mature trees cut down. That whole area will take decades to recover, it looks incredibly bleak. I thought the new wisdom was that trees actually help prevent floods, and building big walls just speeds rivers up, passing the problem along downstream? Anyway, I'm sure the engineers know what they're doing with the millions of our cash...

    I bypassed the Roseburn shops by continuing in the park, much more pleasant than mixing it with Saturday afternoon traffic. It continued to be pretty pleasant until the Roseburn Street/Russell Road junction, which has to be one of the most cack handed bits of shared use infrastructure in Edinburgh. It's of course better than mixing it with rat running traffic, but I'd forgotten how pointless it feels to turn that corner on the shared use only to have to rejoin the carriageway shortly afterwards. Rather than experience Haymarket Yards I joined the NEPN via that zig-zag ramp, which is steeper than I remembered.

    Anyway thank goodness for the NEPN, it makes my journeys twixt east and west so much more enjoyable. Dog walkers, folk out for a stroll, runners, etc. are all frankly much more agreeable to deal with than aggressive drivers.

    Posted 8 years ago #
  9. gembo
    Member

    @crowriver, trees at Source of rivers up at the tops of hills definitely slow things down. No trees at the source of the WoL. Trees further down not sure? Presume removed to help them shore up the banks? Agree very bare on stretch round passed the original orchard owner's house where PG The Ranter used to live.

    Posted 8 years ago #
  10. HankChief
    Member

    @srd:"Unfortunately no one has yet tried/managed to reframe it as a non-partisan transport project, delivering what was promised in ATAP and many other cross-party supported policies, much less as 100% inline with what Scottish government has been calling on local government to do."

    Good point.

    This is what I've been trying to do with my local Holyrood candidates who have given us lots of warm words about supporting active travel etc, but don't seem to understand how hollow it can sound if at the same time their local party Cllrs are working against actually making it happen in the neighbourhood.

    Maybe #walkcyclevote should have a question to candidates about how they are going to convince others in their party to support AT.

    Posted 8 years ago #
  11. gembo
    Member

    @hankchief, yes that is what to ask anyone supporting the overall aim of increasing healthy lifestyles, how does this work at the practical level when most projects will be about trying to persuade people to leave their cars at home and walk or cycle? In addition to any welcome support what actual steps will they take? What specific initiatives to reduce car use are they going to push through?

    Posted 8 years ago #
  12. acsimpson
    Member

    No mention of PG owning a car and by his own admission he doesn't always follow the law when cycling so presumably he is speaking as a member of the non-road tax paying cyclists who flout basic road rules by riding on pavements... group.

    At the risk of lowering myself the the juvenility of PG himself, I'm trying to get my head round the punctuation in "non-road tax paying cyclists". Presumably they mean mountain bikers.

    Of course even if it means non VED paying it's a small subset of cyclists and I would guess most of those who ignore the rules learnt their trade behind the wheel of a taxed vehicle.

    Posted 8 years ago #
  13. sallyhinch
    Member

    @hankchief - it's hard enough getting them to answer the questions we're already asking them ... lots of nice warm words though

    Posted 8 years ago #
  14. Stickman
    Member

    http://www.edinburghnews.scotsman.com/news/roseburn-park-revamp-includes-public-toilet-cafe-bmx-track-1-4090793

    What would really help is a safe cycle route for people to get to the BMX track....

    Posted 8 years ago #
  15. cb
    Member

    "Friends chairman Pete Gregson said: [...] but there’s nowhere to get a cup of coffee."

    You could always nip round in the car to the Roseburn Café.

    Posted 8 years ago #
  16. wingpig
    Member

    I do hope all 7,412 local people will be properly consulted about this BMX track, unlike those poor Dumbiedykestrians.

    Posted 8 years ago #
  17. Stickman
    Member

    What will happen if BMXers start barrelling pensioners over like nine-pins?

    Posted 8 years ago #
  18. Big_Smoke
    Member

    The same guy who is campaining to stop a path being built for a safe cycling route is supporting plans for a safe cycling park. The comedy writes itself.

    "Hey kids come play some football and ride bikes in our new park! What do you mean the roads are too dangerous to get to on... a bike? A BMX is a bike? Well you need extra training to get to here anyway best of luck!"

    Posted 8 years ago #
  19. "The same guy who is campaining to stop a path being built for a safe cycling route is supporting plans for a safe cycling park. The comedy writes itself."

    In fairness, and I wouldn't normally say this about PG, the park is his suggested and preferred route for cycling through Roseburn - so cycling to the park would use the existing routes to and from, which he does believe are safe.

    Still, I'd love there to be announcements this was all happening, only for someone to start up a petition and say they weren't consulted and why don't BMXers go to Saughton etc. (except they do look like very good plans for the park - and the coffeeshop is a legitimate shout as well I'm afraid, if it means parents who are watching sprogs sportsing are able to grab a coffee and continue watching, rather than spending half a ball match walking round to the Roseburn café).

    There is a danger we become as blinded as PG and automatically assume everything he says is nonsense (even if 90% is). I've also got a lot of time for people who care about the city parks, being on the committee for my local park.

    Posted 8 years ago #
  20. Stickman
    Member

    @WC:

    Well said. I think the plans look good (even including a wee meadow area) so should be supported.

    A bit of sport at PG's expense is ok though: it just shows up his hypocrisy and inconsistency. Cycling through the park is fine, and the council plans don't change that at all. How to get there safely from the east side of town is the issue we're all concerned about.

    Posted 8 years ago #
  21. chdot
    Admin

    "

    There would be a BMX track, too, allowing people to cycle all the way round the park

    "

    ?

    Posted 8 years ago #
  22. Stickman
    Member

    ROSEBURN PARK UNDER ATTACK.

    NO TO THE BMX TRACK.

    SAVE OUR COMMUNITY.

    Posted 8 years ago #
  23. LivM
    Member

    Won't the cafe take all the business away from the cafes in Roseburn? Horrors.

    (personally quite happy to get a playpark upgrade etc).

    Posted 8 years ago #
  24. Stickman
    Member

    Imagine the business it would do from cyclists alone if the cycle path plans went ahead? Would be a great stop off point for heading to/from the city.

    Posted 8 years ago #
  25. kaputnik
    Moderator

    This is a local park, for local dog walkers. There's nothing for you here.

    Posted 8 years ago #
  26. Rosie
    Member

    Re Roseburn Park I don't know if a cafe would do enough business but a coffee van as at Saughton Park wouldn't be a bad idea. The park is reasonably well used by sports teams. There are quite a lot of cricket matches, which are pleasantly picturesque. Also, using the felled trees as seats would be something as well.

    I absolutely wail over the desert that used to be a nicely unkempt wild-life corridor, and would love it to be turned into a wetland, but that isn't going to happen.

    Perhaps I could join Friends of Roseburn Park in order to produce petitions against their aims? "Speaking as a friend of Roseburn Park, I think your plans are pants, and here's a load of inaccurate information to back my case."

    (I see some sarcastic comments under the EEN article.)

    Posted 8 years ago #
  27. minus six
    Member

    Bela Logosi's dead

    Undead undead undead

    Posted 8 years ago #
  28. minus six
    Member

    .

    The whole world is coming

    From the four directions

    Scream and shout

    Posted 8 years ago #
  29. crowriver
    Member

    "why don't BMXers go to Saughton etc."

    TBH, Saughton park is not very far from Roseburn at all. There is the small matter of a busy road to cross, but once the flood defences/Scottish Gas etc. are complete it will be possible to cycle nearly all the way there via the WoL path. Then there's a toucan crossing, a lumpy bit of old tarmac masquerading as a shared use path, and you're there.

    Posted 8 years ago #
  30. crowriver
    Member

    "How to get there safely from the east side of town is the issue we're all concerned about."

    These days I actually prefer to use the north Edinburgh paths to get to/from the west of Edinburgh. That's despite it being the 'long way round'. Much less stressful than city centre cycling. Which I suppose shows that a safe, segregated route from east to west through the city centre would be A Good Thing.

    Posted 8 years ago #

RSS feed for this topic

Reply »

You must log in to post.


Video embedded using Easy Video Embed plugin