CityCyclingEdinburgh was launched on the 27th of October 2009 as "an experiment".
IT’S TRUE!
CCE is 16years 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.
Very relevant article:
Killer quote:
There is a wider issue here: how much longer do politicians permit noisy objectors to veto or delay changes which provably make a town or city more safe? Business as usual means more pedestrians and cyclists killed, injured and intimidated, it means more early deaths from vehicle smog, it means older people, children, disabled people, the inexperienced and cautious, more or less entirely excluded from being able to cycle on their own streets.
From immediately above:
There is a wider issue here: how much longer do politicians permit noisy objectors to veto or delay changes which provably make a town or city more safe? Business as usual means more pedestrians and cyclists killed, injured and intimidated,
There was a case this morning where a member of this forum was seriously injured, at exactly the point where the Roseburn Terrace segregated track should be:
http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=16550#post-223396
The lorry that nearly killed her drove off!
Hope you're fully recovered as soon as possible @fiets.
Consultation results are out, with strong support for the route.
http://www.roseburncycleroute.org.uk/blog/strong-support-cycle-route
Ooh. That's a good result!
On page 10, 'Spokes Executive carried out a counter petition in favour of the scheme'. I'm sure I've seen that somewhere before....
All those petition signatories didn't respond to the consultation? Shocked I tell you, shocked.
Seriously: this is very good news. Now going to spend some time digesting this monster report.
so I wandered over to the 'kids not suits' FB page to see if PG had had anything to say about this, and discovered this post:
explicity encouraging fraudulent returns on a petition...
Still to work my way through the report - but a great result. As I mentioned way back, the only thing that really matters are the headline figures. What the politicians will remember is that twice as many people are in favour of the scheme as are opposed.
Edinburgh Trams feel they should have been consulted earlier in the process. They envisage a series of issues with the proposals which will have a negative impact on the tram network
Kind of like how they listened to those comments about the danger of the Haymarket tramlines layout, eh?
"They envisage a series of issues with the proposals which will have a negative impact on the tram network"
Except that encouraging people away from H. Yards must be good for ET?
Presume today's nonsense where trams couldn't run east of Haymarket was due to cyclists.
I would imagine their remarks are relating to the York Pl to North Bridge via St Andrew Sq portion of their scheme and not Haymarket onwards.
Also Edinburgh Taxi Association opposed; concerned about delays caused by a busy road going down to one lane.....kind of like Haymarket Terrace at the moment with the rank.
Road already congested at rush hour due to volume of traffic
Drivers today driving into yellow boxes preventing trams getting through. Apparently police being told to take yellow box action. Shocker - police asked to enforce Highway Code.
Stickman: Suppose they also omitted the congestion caused by their members' illegal unregulated rank at the top of the Waverley steps reducing Princes St to 1 lane as it prevents buses on a dozen routes moving over.
Taxi Association also oppose moving the rank further east as "passengers exiting the station will be unable to see if the taxis are for hire as they will only be able to see the back of the vehicle"
The taxis would be waiting in the rank. By definition they are for hire. Otherwise they wouldn't be in the rank.
Seriously, is this the best they can come up with?
"They envisage a series of issues with the proposals which will have a negative impact on the tram network"
Well, I'd imagine improved active travel options would encourage some public transport passengers away from the trams...
"Following this consultation process, CEC now intends to progress this scheme through the following steps:
I note that they didn't get any paper responses in favour of the scheme - when would be a good moment for us to dig out the envelopes and stamps?
Another report I haven't read much of, but I thought this was interesting -
Even support for all parts with increasing opposition towards Roseburn.
Not surprising considering some real concerns and the ensuing 'fuss'.
It is to the credit of a small group of people (several seem to be on here!) who assembled 'the facts' to counter the streams of misinformation/lies.
Thanks.
Not sure how they can get a story so wrong. Widespread support for the plans across the city.
Option A & Option B around Roseburn will be released soon by the council - no decision has been reached until the Transport Committee in August.
It's fair enough that the council consider alternatives in light of feedback but EEN seems to be prejudging the outcome before we have even seen the options and pros & Cons of each.
"Both proposals – which only affect a small, 100m stretch of the overall plans....."
Eh?
That EEN story is appalling. I'm guessing "Option B" is the Vision?
Option B is round the back and then out the front of Tesco's (not the alley).
It is awfully tight to get in between the Roseburn Bar & Tesco's.
@HankChief
It's almost like someone wants a self-fulfilling story to spread.
Option B: how on earth would they get a safe crossing round that junction?
Can't believe that it's even being considered.
The route around the back of Roseburn Terrace, on Roseburn Place was considered at the initial stakeholders consultation. The junction at Roseburn Street/Roseburn Terrace is a problem though, with Russell Road traffic joining there too. Getting cyclists up onto Roseburn Terrace at Roseburn Gardens gets them clear of that junction. So I think this plan B (Roseburn Place) will be worse for traffic flow, and remove more parking from Roseburn Place. And of course be a terrible missed chance to make Roseburn Terrace a nice place to be.
"
Responding to these concerns and other feedback, the Council's in-house project officers have revisited a number of aspects of the proposals.
For example, off-peak loading could now be reintroduced to the north side of Roseburn Terrace to assist local businesses (previously it was proposed to remove the current loading bay altogether) and all three bus stops in West Coates would be retained, rather than one being removed.
An alternative cycle route at the Roseburn end of the cycleway has also been scoped out and will be put before committee members. This 'Option B' amendment would see cyclists diverted away from Roseburn Terrace via Roseburn Place and Roseburn Street, instead of the protected cycle track along the north side of Roseburn Terrace which features in the current proposals (Option A).
"
If I was the official responsible for the original scheme and had been tasked with coming up with an "option B" due to gripes by a misinformed campaign then I would come up with something like this. You have done what was asked - but option B is so obviously a bad idea that option A is the only realistic choice. The Council can claim to have listened and acted on the campaign's concerns - but ultimately the original plans turned out to be the best.
Fimm asked when is the best time to get the pens out to support the scheme - I would say in the week before the proposals are considered by the transport committee. Emails are just as good - who writes letters these days? The best option is visiting a councillor surgery to voice reasoned support.
"Both proposals – which only affect a small, 100m stretch of the overall plans....."
That's like having a 40mph full carriageway closure contraflow on the M25, and then making it permanent.
Interesting to see Living Streets listed amongst the stakeholders supporting the scheme. I had assumed from their comments that they were against it.
"There were 235 letters received by CEC, all of which were in opposition to the scheme. The majority were in
a standard format letter signed by 215 Roseburn residents."
In otherwords cars not kids went round the doors with preprinted copies and possibly even did the posting for them too.
You must log in to post.
Cycling in Edinburgh Flickr group
Video embedded using Easy Video Embed plugin
posts