so there are really only 215 against and not the 3000 claimed by KNS...
CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » Infrastructure
Roseburn to Leith consultation begins (and the debate continues!) CCWEL
(5535 posts)-
Posted 7 years ago #
-
"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."
So does that count as 21 objections?!
Posted 7 years ago # -
This may have been one of the written submissions from a Roseburn business owner.
Note the standard "we're not anti-cyclist/we're cyclists too" final sentence.
Posted 7 years ago # -
One of those embarrassing LOL in the office moments when I read this bit of George's submission:
"...should the Roseburn area happen to be overwhelmed by an influx of cyclists, exactly where are all these cyclists going to park their bicycles or can we expect pavements to be blocked by dozens of bicycles ..."
Yep, fair cop. Everyone should travel by car because parked bicycles take up too much room.
Posted 7 years ago # -
Had a chuckle at the "what if you want to buy a tv" argument being trotted out under a slightly different trope, clear to avoid the bingo card.
Posted 7 years ago # -
Murrayfieldcc have got the details of options A & B and have already come out in favour of Option B.
EDIT
"
Public feedback on cycleway released
Wednesday, 22 June 2016Update from the City Council regarding the Roseburn to Leith Walk Cycleway. (Murrayfield Community Council prefers Roseburn Option B).
"
Posted 7 years ago # -
Option B is ridiculous.
Option A is the only way to go. Adding an off leak loading bay resolves so many issues and there isn't any compromise to the cycle lane.
Six months of screaming and shouting could have been avoided.
Posted 7 years ago # -
I don't know where on earth these different options have come from. We weren't invited to comment on them. If you're looking at the options, then Option C has some merits; segregated single direction tracks on both the north and south sides of Roseburn Terrace and West Coates. But C just seems to be ignored and B gaining momentum.
My view is that it should be A or nothing, that's what we commented on. And if not that, Sustrans should withdraw its joint funding offer, and what money there is should be spent on infrastructure elsewhere until this city matures enough to recognise what is really needed for active travel.
Posted 7 years ago # -
This week's Private Eye features a letter that forcefully rebuts the approving article about KNS that appeared in the previous issue. Some of the behaviours it describes seem familiar...
Posted 7 years ago # -
Island bus stop
Posted 7 years ago # -
I note that Option A contains no cycle contraflow of the new one-way section at Roseburn Pl - even though this is supposed to be council policy.
Posted 7 years ago # -
The ones MCC posted don't show points where cycle parking could be provided (except for A that's all the way to Roseburn Crescent?) but it's still better than the current situation and that idiotic option B that expects you to wait at the lights with the traffic going south-westbound away from the Terrace after taking 2 90 degree turns to come to 2 more plus two crossing all to go from A to B? Come to think of it it's going to be really bad coming the other way, it's like they didn't even look at it properly before saying so.
If option B is Picked I'm not passing through or shopping there, have to keep the road as harsh as it is just keep getting stuck as usual or at the worst knocking someone down? They deserve as much as the dogs.
Posted 7 years ago # -
In Option A, they also seem to have removed the section that connected Roseburn Tce to to Murrayfield Gdns.
Posted 7 years ago # -
Interestingly, the Murrayfield Community Council article has been changed to remove the comment saying they supported Option B.
Perhaps there is a difference of opinion in the community council? Or maybe someone making decisions without consulting others?
Posted 7 years ago # -
Sounds like someone may have gone ultra vires. Presumably the MCC can only decide what it thinks at a quorate meeting and unless it had a extraordinary meeting to consider the newly published docs it cannot have an opinion yet?
Posted 7 years ago # -
From earlier posts, it seems there are member(s) of MCC who make announcements or submissions "on behalf of" the community council while acting in a purely personal capacity.
Posted 7 years ago # -
since elections rarely contested, and there are no term limits, people sit on CC's for years and get a wholly inappropriate sense of 'ownership'.
Posted 7 years ago # -
@kaputnik got there before me - someone/people at MCC has form for this sort of thing.
Posted 7 years ago # -
This is an encouraging development. Option A is the only game in town. Option B is ludicrous. It should be easy to present to councillors, CCs etc why Option B is a non-starter for cycling AND that it doesn't provide the public realm improvements that the CC and LS said they wanted.
Posted 7 years ago # -
From Frank Ross on Twitter:
"new design is much better. However Sustran money is EU funded"
See the full exchange for context...
Posted 7 years ago # -
Sustrans money isn't EU funded - it comes from the Scottish Government.
Posted 7 years ago # -
Anyway, EU funding will carry on with current commitments anyway - might be hard to get future funding though. But that's another thread ...
Posted 7 years ago # -
If you can face it, KNS have updated their website following meeting with Council Officers on Tuesday night.
Let's just say he's not happy...
He does however have a link to the Council's briefing of changes to the plans following the consultation. Worth a read by themselves.
From the council's document you get this summary
"
Alternative options for RoseburnIn response to concerns expressed during the consultation, designs for Roseburn have been re-examined and two alternatives are now suggested
Option A retains the route via Roseburn Terrace but reinstates a loading bay on the north side of the street and makes several other changes. It provides the most direct and convenient cycle route and should improve the street environment, but reduces the length of loading bays from the present and removes 2 short-stay parking bays.
Option B takes an alternative route via Roseburn Place, Roseburn Street and leading onto Roseburn Terrace/A8 has been re-evaluated. This route had previously been considered but was not favoured because it did nothing to improve the street environment on Roseburn Terrace and was less direct for cyclists, involving three road crossings rather than one. However the route is a deliverable alternative and with this in mind could be considered if local concerns are felt to be of over-riding importance.
"
Posted 7 years ago # -
Oh well. At least that cheered me up on an otherwise depressing day...
Posted 7 years ago # -
"
so makes this junction unusable for long HGVs coming from Russel Road- and this is an official HGV route
"
Official??
Posted 7 years ago # -
I'm confused. I thought one of the objections to the 'track' was that so few cyclists would use it, because I thought the KNS surveys had recorded hardly any cyclists use this route. It's odd, then, that there's now a problem with the floating bus stop and elderly people having to dodge cyclists to get to it, because surely that would only be a problem if there were lots of cyclists and KNS said there aren't.
So, do KNS think there will be lots of cyclists, or don't they?
Posted 7 years ago # -
"So, do KNS think there will be lots of cyclists, or don't they?"
No point in asking a rational question...
Posted 7 years ago # -
@greenroofer - it gets better...
The improved Option A removes the Roseburn floating bus stop as the stop it is moved further West (i.e. Before the cycle route comes onto Roseburn Terrace).
Posted 7 years ago # -
Although the already narrow cycle track is made even narrower.
Posted 7 years ago # -
I honestly don't think we should be discussing option B. It's utterly crap and furthermore doesn't offer any future opportunities to extend along Costorphine Road.
Posted 7 years ago #
Reply »
You must log in to post.
posts
