Link to consultation on future of Roseburn Park over on other thread
CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » Infrastructure
Roseburn to Leith consultation begins (and the debate continues!) CCWEL
(5535 posts)-
Posted 8 years ago #
-
Back nearly on topic. I wasn't quite sure which wires we were getting crossed in our tweet exchange with Cllr Ross this morning.
It started from sharing a fairly innocuous (but very relevant) link to this Cambridge Uni Study that 85% of increase in cycling is down to infrastructure. (my tweet)
I happily responded to his initial reply by recognising his (party's) role in the increasing CEC's transport budget on cycling.
So far so good...
We then got on to quiet routes, which is in the ATAP as a policy but not as the only policy.
I got asked if I disagreed with it.
I tried to make the point that quiet routes can quickly build up a suburban network appealing to some cyclists, however the big gains will come once people can complete their A to B by bike on safe routes and that will need segregated routes through the city centre (as that's where people want go) and ultimately direct routes into and around the suburbs.
I hope he isn't thinking that because CEC has a quiet route policy they should only build round the houses routes...
Posted 8 years ago # -
I live next to one (QR20)
The problem is, it's not quiet at all. Broughton Rd - Restalrig has had no traffic reduction strategy applied and thus there's a constant barrage of impatient drivers, the ones that are there because they won't use London Rd. Worst of all are the bin lorries.
Quiet routes are not infrastructure until there is no through traffic.
Posted 8 years ago # -
Thanks Klaxon, I just learned 3 things based on your post:
1) http://www.opencyclemap.org/ which has quiet routes marked on it
2) I've been commuting along QR20
3) I can swap the nasty side of Easter Road (with blind chicane) for a little bridge and a parkWhat do you mean by a "traffic reduction strategy"? McDonald Road and Brunswick Road both have 20mph limits and traffic calming measures (speed bumps/tables, one way choke points).
Posted 8 years ago # -
@hankchief i followed that exchange and i fear that is exactly what someone has suggested to him (or he has picked up) for a political reply that sounds pro-cyclist.
and, certainly, if his own party is trying to sell 'cycling' to him, i can see why they might downplay the infra side and/or say 'well, you have to understand, the policy isn't just 'infra', it has all these other aspects as well, which he then picks up as 'sellable'.
roughly the PG approach in fact. bah!
Posted 8 years ago # -
@HankChief @SRD I'm always a bit puzzled by his replies, and in similar conversations with other people. Intelligent people who don't have any bad intentions and (I think) really want to support the right thing, but then at some point they just don't get that people use the bike not for sports/leisure but as daily transport to get to work, to the shops etc. so they can't make the mental connection that bike lanes have to go where people have to go, i.e. the busy parts of town.
It's the "canoeing perception of cycling" (canoeing is a nice healthy hobby and we should support it, but we can't dig canals all over the city) (we developed idea further in some other thread...).
This perception is really difficult to correct. Cycling as daily transport still isn't in the mental worldview of most UK citizens. And when people see a cyclist they just assume that they are doing exercise.
Once I cycled through Craigmillar Park and a mother told her child "Oh look this man is doing his exercise". I replied "shopping, actually..." upon which she corrected herself "Oh look, this man is doing his shopping". As I had a basket full of bags, bottles and a large pack of toilet paper on the bike, it was kind of obvious that I was shopping and not exercising, but it still didn't seem to occur to her naturally...
Of course many commuters in UK do look as if they are out for sport/exercise. Perhaps everybody should just always carry a couple of full shopping bags or other non-sporty-looking items around?
Posted 8 years ago # -
I carry myself everywhere does that count as non sporty?
Posted 8 years ago # -
On the Quiet Routes - I believe Rachel Aldred is doing some research for the LCC on how quiet a quiet road needs to be to be cycle friendly without infrastructure. This may help a bit (it doesn't help with the other quiet route problem which is how to get across the non-quiet roads when you meet them, without having to spend five minutes pressing buttons) as politicians are then confronted with the idea of really cutting traffic on the back road if they want to avoid building infrastructure on the main roads. And 'cutting traffic' basically removing through routes using bollards and one-way streets so that residential streets become mazes for cars, but direct connections for pedestrians and cyclists. Done well, of course, it benefits everyone except the poor sods living on the main routes, which opens a whole other can of worms
Posted 8 years ago # -
Perhaps everybody should just always carry a couple of full shopping bags or other non-sporty-looking items around?
But you have just said that you were and someone still didn't understand that you had been going shopping?
Posted 8 years ago # -
"it doesn't help with the other quiet route problem which is how to get across the non-quiet roads when you meet them, without having to spend five minutes pressing buttons"
Except that some of Edinburgh's 'quiet routes' don't even have buttons when they reach mainer roads.
Priorities and timings are other issues too!
Posted 8 years ago # -
@Min That's just my confusion trying to figure out what (if anything) can change peoples' perception...
Posted 8 years ago # -
@sallyhinch - exactly. Edinburgh's Quiet Routes currently mean that there is likely to be less traffic on them. It doesn't mean that the traffic will drive slower, give cyclists room or be more considerate around them. As such they aren't going to achieve a jump in cycling rates.
Posted 8 years ago # -
"Edinburgh's Quiet Routes currently mean that there is likely to be less traffic on them. It doesn't mean that the traffic will drive slower, give cyclists room or be more considerate around them. As such they aren't going to achieve a jump in cycling rates."
The above mentioned QR20 Brunswick Road/McDonald Road being a case in point. Despite the traffic bumps, I consider that 'quiet route' to be pretty hazardous, to the extent I refuse to let my kids cycle on it, and instruct them to cycle on the pavement instead, which is far safer.
Brunswick Road, while fairly quiet, is used as a rat run by drivers, because there are relatively few alternative direct routes towards Lochend that do not involve traffic signals and/or the congested upper part of Easter Road. Also there's a nasty pinch point on the corner before Elgin Terrace, where the road narrows to one car width due to a widened pavement plus car parking opposite. This inevitably leads to conflict with motor vehicles hurtling around the bend as fast as possible... In contrast the pavement on the south side only has one side junction, is fairly quiet, and has railings/bollards/crash barriers to keep motor vehicles at bay.
McDonald Road has a paint cycle lane each way, but the westbound one is plagued by left-hooking overtaking drivers racing to rat run up Hopetoun Crescent, again to avoid traffic signals. Also the road is a main route for bin lorries going to Powderhall waste processing centre. Luckily for children the pavement on the north side of McDonald Road is straight, reasonably wide, has very few side junctions, and not that busy with pedestrians.
Posted 8 years ago # -
I was surprised to see that roads like Liberton Road between Lady Road and Kirk Brae, and Gilmerton Road between Redgauntlet Terrace and Moredunvale Road are part of the quiet route network...
Posted 8 years ago # -
I consider traffic reduction to be re-engineering an area to be unattractive to through traffic. I've got a wee plan in my head for Hillside that I'll draw some time. Basically lots of filtered permeability points.
The measures currently in place are speed reduction measures which don't seem to be impacting the area's current appeal as a rat run in a few directions.
Posted 8 years ago # -
I find this thread useful for keeping track of the various developments in this saga, in particular whatever new reason is being raised in opposition, so I'll copy this here so it isn't lost:
"I was speaking to one of the campaigners against the plans on Tuesday and she said that Ruth Davidson was having a big breakfast in the café, with a scottie dog on her lap, and casting around for things to get oppositional about. Lack of ambulance access to Roseburn Cliff seemed to get her going (of course ambulances cant access blocks of flats either but the person I was talking to seemed rather hard of thinking; there are only 38 cyclists an hour so no need to make a change ignoring the idea that the change might encourage greater cycling in the future)"
So the argument seems to be that currently ambulances have to cross two lanes of traffic to access Roseburn Cliff. If the bike lane is built then they would have to cross one lane of traffic and a bike lane to access Roseburn Cliff. The published plans clearly show that access to Roseburn Cliff would be maintained.
If the concern is about congestion blocking access, well that's a problem now. Painting a yellow hatched box at the entrance would dissuade some drivers from stopping there, although clearly not all otherwise-law-abiding motorists observe yellow boxes.
Posted 8 years ago # -
"I was surprised to see that roads like Liberton Road between Lady Road and Kirk Brae, and Gilmerton Road between Redgauntlet Terrace and Moredunvale Road are part of the quiet route network... "
That quiet streets map is bonkers. The green and yellow path between Liberton Brae and Liberton Road simply does not exist. They've included Lady Susan's Walk in Craigmillar Castle Park that many people physically couldn't cycle up.
Posted 8 years ago # -
Major firm lobbies for changes to £9m cycle lane
Lothian Buses have left environmental campaigners disappointed after it emerged that the firm is lobbying for major changes to a city centre cycle project planned for Edinburgh.
Council proposals for a £9.4m cycle route through the centre of Edinburgh would provide a safe link for cyclists between existing cycle paths at Roseburn in the west of the city and new bike facilities planned for Leith Walk.
A Lothian Buses consultation response to cycle route designs obtained by The Ferret shows that company officials believe that the plans, “will impose significant constraints on the road network that will result in traffic getting stuck in a high level of congestion.”
The firm goes on to suggest that the congestion caused by the route, “will become a daily occurrence because it is not caused by a fluctuation in traffic volume but a permanent loss of roadway.”
Managers at Lothian Buses fear that the project will make it even harder for them to keep buses running to their schedule. They add: “At present this is difficult for Lothian Buses to achieve despite having a number of systems in place to manage the running of services.”
Continues here:
https://theferret.scot/lothian-buses-claims-cycle-lane-causes-congestion/
Posted 8 years ago # -
"While bicycles require a route to Haymarket Station, Haymarket Terrace does not readily provide the space to accommodate it.”
They are right - it's far more important that a lane of the road is occupied by parked taxis running their engines and illegally stopped cars "loading"
What would make a difference to the ability of LB to run to schedule is a reduction in the number of cars on the road, and for those remaining to park legally and not block bus lanes and junctions. LB can't dare say this though; don't want to be part of the war on the motorist.
Posted 8 years ago # -
"LB can't date say this though; don't want to be part of the war on the motorist."
Why not? Surely the "war on the motorist" is in their interest?
Posted 8 years ago # -
Exactly - but they don't want the "bad PR". The incredible power of the EEN and its commenters are to be feared lest they unleash their fury n
Posted 8 years ago # -
A complaint that the east end junction isn't working (#29), but no mention of the permanent line of taxis blocking back from the Waverley steps.
Posted 8 years ago # -
"but they don't want the "bad PR". The incredible power of the EEN and its commenters are to be feared lest they unleash their fury"
If it was just about avoiding bad PR, they'd have kept schtoom. They have voiced an opinion now. It is reasonable to now assume they are anti safe cycling infrastructure.
Posted 8 years ago # -
The letter repeatedly and strongly expresses concern about maximising 'traffic flow' for other vehicles around Lothian Buses.
Posted 8 years ago # -
Oopsie. Did I just hear the death knell of segregated cycle facilities?
Posted 8 years ago # -
I fear Dave is spot-on. Surely our favourite anti-track chap is all over this news?
Posted 8 years ago # -
Can I humbly remind Lothian Buses that its parent organisation is named TRANSPORT for Edinburgh, not PERSONAL MOTORING for Edinburgh.
Posted 8 years ago # -
I've now read the leaked Lothian Buses response. Much of it is technical responses to the consultation covering things like placement of bus shelters, turning circles etc. However the overall tone is exceptionally anti-cyclist and repeats some of the usual PG tactics: why not use Balbirnie Place, few cyclists at the moment, why would they use the lane etc.
I'd be very interested to know who at Lothian Buses is leaking this stuff and who to. There is a very limited distribution list on the leaked email so it shouldn't be hard to work out.
Combined with the recent perception that LB driving standards are falling then it's very disappointing.
Posted 8 years ago # -
I'd be very interested to know who at Lothian Buses is leaking this stuff and who to.
Lothian Buses likes like a sieve if their boardroom travails are any kind of a yardstick.
I do find it bitterly ironic that Lothian Buses is trotting out the same sort of tired and well-discredited lines against a cycle lane as the anti-bus lane mob would use against measures that prioritise and promote bus travel.
Posted 8 years ago # -
So it's better for the buses if cyclists have to cycle in the bus lane?
In Liberton Rd we have the absurd situation that there are enough slow cyclists in the bus lane that many buses have to trundle along at walking speed, but not enough cyclists to really make a difference in reducing motor traffic, because it's horrible.
There is the unspoken assumption that if there isn't a cycle path, then cyclists will disappear, or only the fast, vehicular cyclists will use the bus lane who are not holding up buses or other traffic. Motor-centric politicians think so, but many cycle campaigners too (although the former find that ok, the latter don't).
But is that true? Cycling is getting more popular for other reasons, and a proportion will then also cycle along major roads even if they don't like it (I count myself among them). Once people are on a bike, they will want to go where they need to go and not just where the bike lanes are.
So without protected lanes everybody loses. There are still enough cyclists that don't mix well with motor traffic so that both cyclists and motorists suffer, but society doesn't get enough people switching to bikes to make a difference.
Posted 8 years ago #
Reply »
You must log in to post.
posts
