CityCyclingEdinburgh was launched on the 27th of October 2009 as "an experiment".
IT’S TRUE!
CCE is 14years 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.
@ih - I agree Option A is the only sensible option.
Option B is only useful if you want to cut off your nose to spite your face cyclists.
PG's view on Option A "we all know option A- the protected cycle track on Roseburn Place- not much change there: only a wee bit extra loading"
Which is interesting as the top line of his petition said the plans "will harm Roseburn businesses by preventing parking outside the shops by delivery vans and shoppers" and 38metres of loading is hardly a 'wee bit'.
@HankChief I'm confused about how the modified A will allow any "loading" on the north side. Surely that would really impede buses.
On a lighter note (god we need them today), it occurred to me, following @Laidback's claim that he had singlehandedly managed to raise the rentable value of shops in Roseneath, that it's possible the rather dull and unattractive businesses on Roseburn Terrace don't want bike tracks because the enhanced trade this would bring would increase their rents and business rates.
@ih - Option A takes the current 4 lanes, gives one to people on bikes, one to out bound traffic and 2 to Citybound traffic (and a little bit to widen the south pavement)
During peak times both citybound lanes are operational so you have 60 metres for the right turning traffic to queue which should leave the left hand lane free for straight on traffic (assuming no illegal parking/loading).
At off peak the first 38m of the left hand lane becomes (offpeak only) loading, leaving 22m for 2 lanes to queue for the lights.
You have to hope that drivers park obey the rules and it would be even better if they parked at the Western part of the loading bay.
I've read pgs latest and here's some thoughts. Make if them what you will.
The first two paragraphs here spend picking holes in option b so we finally have something to agree about.
If trucks carrying trains are such a common occurrence then presumably it wouldn't be hard to design kerbs so the segregation can withstand then and close the lanes as required. I guess they already need to close junctions to get the trains round.
"...flagrant misrepresentation of reality." Curious irony that pg should use such as phrase.
"..a dismissive 5- line appraisal ... expect that our scheme be evaluated and costed properly." that sounds like the proper evaluation to me.
@acsimpson
In nearly 20 years of living on the main road west I have only *once* seen a train being carried out on a lorry. It was such an unusual event that my wife and I commented on it at the time. It was about four or five months ago. Coincidentally, a picture of a train being carried on a lorry appeared on the petition about a week later.
How often does this happen? I genuinely don't know. It might well be weekly, but I'd like the facts
@ih, there's no point in trying to explain the business objectors' views by means of reason. A bit like trying to explain "Take back control" voters in the same way. People have formed their views irrationally, emotionally, by "othering" groups they dislike (in the Roseburn case the dreaded cyclists). They then adopt whatever ready made arguments they can find which fit with their emotional world view. It all comes down to "Make these people go away, this is my place, not theirs".
@Stickman
However rare, it is an important requirement of the railway depot to be able to do so. This doesn't mean you have to design the road as if it is a normal occurrence. So long as the long loader can get round at all it's not unreasonable to be asking the police to assist with a road closure for a couple of minutes.
They took a space shuttle through LA, I'm sure a bike lane in Roseburn isn't going to stop a train getting through.
"
The scheme is about giving people a choice on how they travel – the easier it is to choose cycling the more people will do it. It won’t be every journey but more people will cycle more often.
We simply don’t have space for current levels of car use and an increasing population so having a range of options including those less space intensive will improve things for us.
"
HankChief:
Superb article - calm, reasoned and positive.
Been online for 1/2 hour and still no comments.
(Won't last!)
Only one comment (worth having in full!) -
"
Tiredtaxpayer
9:17 AM on 27/06/2016
"A dedicated direct and safe route for residents to travel by bike will encourage people out of cars"
That what was proposed in the trambles "business case", however the much vaunted "modal shift" (whatever that means....) has failed to materialise despite a billion quid having been weed down the sewer.
Let's Just give this latest vanity project the heave-ho.
"
My guess is the commenteers are too busy talkingfighting each other about something else...
It's a shame that the story is just appearing in the Opinion section and not the Transport section too.
Transport Forum presentation from the Motorcycle Action Group. Contains slides against segregated bike lanes:
Central speed cushions trigger driving on wrong side of road
And yet the photo shows the "driving on wrong side of road" to be triggered by parked cars...
And the "Reality of Cycle Super Highways" shows a picture of the cycle super highway closed (so no cyclists on it) and queuing motor traffic not having yet adjusted* to the new world order - highly misleading
*reduced itself
Though central speed cushions DO trigger driving on the wrong side of the road.
I ponder this often, as the streets around where I live are covered in speed cushions. On the side roads it's just two cushions, but the wider 'main' roads have three, and there's a strange tendency, even when there aren't cars parked to the side, for people to swerve into the middle of the road to go over the central one...
From the presentation:
Advisory cycle lanes work well for cyclists in practice
Every example in the Motorcycle Action Group presentation is flawed:
1) Motorcyclist hits central island despite big blue sign on lamppost and hazard marking on the road.
2)Car driving on 'wrong side of road'* because of parked cars, not speed cushion as claimed.
3)Claim that parking for motorcycles should be free as they cut congestion just like cycles, illustrated with a picture showing four motorcycles taking up the same space that could fit eight cycles.
4) Closed cycle lane with, surprisingly, no cycles on it.
5) I'm not sure what point was being made about soft segregation, other than it isn't an ideal solution for anyone.
I've no particular gripe against motorcycles and agree that they are preferable to cars from a congestion perspective but unfounded cycle bashing isn't helping their case.
*actually the car isn't on the wrong side of the road, it's in a central area marked as a hazard.
@Luath
My take on the slide was that the motorcyclist did not hit the central island, but had hit the debris from the "keep left sign" subsequent to it having been hit/driven over/detached by a motorist.
I think their point was that signs should not detach easily, or should not be there at all (removal of the island altogether).
There is an argument that these signs/bollards should not be made "flappy" so that motorists can drive over them with little damage to themselves, but should instead be solid obstacles...
But then a motorcycle hitting a solid object would also be a bad thing. Seems impossible to solve from a motorcycle perspective.
There's a real paranoid loser who just commented on Hankchiefs article. Seems to be scared when a bike rider is in front of him and he's stuck. I really don't understand is he trolling or just plain stupid?
http://www.roseburncycleroute.org.uk/blog/key-concerns-addressed
A clear view on the proposed options and why Option A is the only sensible one.
Please share...
Meanwhile PG has been busy talking to West End Community Council promoting his vision.
http://www.edinburghwestendcc.org.uk/
"
Proposed Cycle Route development – taken as extra item at start of meeting.
Peter Gregson has started a petition against the proposed plans for the Cycle Route development.
Proposed route is to impact 54 businesses, of which 20 are in the WECC region. Concerns were expressed that the cycle track may disrupt traders’ deliveries, parking spaces and taxi rank. The fire service and bus companies have shared concerns about the proposed route.
Peter Gregson’s group propose a new route, and has support of local business areas, he asked for WECC to support his proposal.
WECC generally supportive of new proposals, in particular ideas regarding Devon Place, however, concerns were expressed around lack of detail in the plans for the WECC ward and problems found with Eglinton Crescent and Haymarket Junction.
For full support WECC require more information.
"
Given they are one of stakeholders asked to opine on Option A & B it might be worth anyone interested in popping along to their next meeting on Tuesday 5th and ensuring that the discussion is a fair one.
He's not taking the consultation lying down:
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/data_informing_the_roseburn_to_l#outgoing-556686
It is reasonably likely in the next few years my job will move to the Gyle, dictating a commute along the absolutely full length of this scheme (and the south end of the Leith programme, whenever that comes)
That it could be vandalised by ultra local nimbys one well spoken man stirring fear in the hearts of vulnerable people would open up the entire thing to being gutted of any usefulness so my consultation response is of course just as valid as any other.
From what I gather of London with its relatively small local authority boundaries, they can and do roadblock large strategic schemes from being built through their areas. But these schemes mean so much more to so many people.
http://www.kidsnotsuits.com/stop-the-west-coates-cycle-track-petition-to-edinburgh-council/
"
To move things along, SNP Cllr Adam McVey (Vice-Convener, Transport) has agreed to come to a public meeting to be held on Tuesday 2nd August at 7pm in the Murrayfield Parish Church Hall at 2b Ormidale Terrace, EH12 6EQ. Cllr Jeremy Balfour (now an MSP too) will also attend. Other political attendees and speakers will be posted here as they confirm. We plan to have speakers to put both sides of the story.
"
First I've heard of this - will check with Cllr McVey that it is going to happen.
Wonder who they will get to speak for Option A...
Hmm, option a is a cycle lane designed to encourage cycling, option b is a path to help you put the buns out if you work at tesco'stescos and won't even encourage that.
Is that about right?
If so, option a fulfils the brief but option b doesn't but then we have been here before many times.
You must log in to post.
Cycling in Edinburgh Flickr group
Video embedded using Easy Video Embed plugin
posts