No apology necessary, that is a fantastic summary.
CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » Infrastructure
Roseburn to Leith consultation begins (and the debate continues!) CCWEL
(5537 posts)-
Posted 7 years ago #
-
"Apologies for long post!"
Once again, no need to apologise for thoughtful posts on CCE.
Sometimes they need 'extra' space (readers can skim/skip if they choose).
Posted 7 years ago # -
"Apparently, cyclists come through Roseburn Park at 30mph. I would be amazed if there is one historical incidence of this, but paradoxically providing these speedsters with a pedestrian free cycle track is also anathema."
Best data that's easy to find is this segment on Strava: https://www.strava.com/segments/11706045
The maximum speed of the fastest time for that segment is 41.4 km/h (25.7 mph). However, through the park itself he doesn't go over 12 mph.
EDIT: Found a flagged segment for the park itself - max speed of the fastest guy is 42 km/h = 26 mph.
Posted 7 years ago # -
30mph is one I've seen bandied about for cyclists on Porty Prom as well. It's the typical thing of a cyclist on a path is 'whizzing along' (so arbitrary fast figure is plucked out of the air); while on the road they are dawdling and holding up traffic (often hear people saying they were on a bus behind a cyclist going at walking pace).
So by my reckining only uber-fit racing snakes use shared use paths; and only uncertain newbies use the roads.
Posted 7 years ago # -
I agree that I'd like to see LSE taking a different approach to bus stops, but I thought David S's contribution was important and well-judged.
He expressed his strong support for the project.
He demolished the people who had been claiming it would be bad for pedestrians.
And he totally rubbished the 'Vision'. and criticised PG for repeatedly mis-quoting him.
Posted 7 years ago # -
"LS really needs to widen its horizons. It is immensely disappointing to me that people who walk and cycle cannot make common cause, and the fault is entirely in LS court."
I think it's best to describe the relationships between LS and those outside their world as 'work in progress'. Various people on here have involved themselves in 'constructive engagement' - with limited results.
"Their objection to "floating bus stops" is truly disgraceful. I don't believe there is any evidence that a well designed FBS causes any pedestrian/cyclist conflict,"
I think the biggest problem was the opportunities for objectors to the whole scheme to seize on the LS objections as 'being against everything' - which wasn't/isn't the case.
I hope that the modifications that CEC is proposing are improvements rather than just a cynical 'doing something' reaction to the complaints!
"but LS just can't see that the object of their ire is the motor vehicle, which does all the killing and injuring of pedestrians"
Yes, they do seem to come across as 'we like the status quo - with a few modifications' sometimes!
CCE is clearly about 'cycling' but I think most people on here have a decent understanding of pedestrian, transport and 'nice place to live' issues - more than some people who appear to maintain a single issue silo view of the world.
Posted 7 years ago # -
" He expressed his strong support for the project."
He doesn't support option A through Roseburn Terrace, only the round the houses option B. Like PG, he doesn't realise that he's arguing against his own vision. What chance is there of improving the environment on RT for pedestrians if they do option B?
On another pedestrian related issue; why do people and LS prefer 2 stage crossings on roads where a well designed single stage is much more convenient for pedestrians. The double wait at 2 stage crossing is a massive disincentive to pedestrian mobility, and to their crossing the road to use the shops on both sides.
Posted 7 years ago # -
LSE doesn't like double stage crossings - I thought he spoke quite explicitly on this point?
Posted 7 years ago # -
"why do people and LS prefer 2 stage crossings on roads where a well designed single stage is much more convenient for pedestrians."
Good question. I've always assumed the reason for councils proposing them is 'traffic flow' - I.e. they are unwilling to allow enough time for 'slow' people to get across. But that shouldn't be a good reason for pedestrian groups to prefer/accept them.
"The double wait at 2 stage crossing is a massive disincentive to pedestrian mobility"
Yep, puts non-car-users in their place though...
"and to their crossing the road to use the shops on both sides"
But is there any evidence that people are going to more than one destination shop?!
Posted 7 years ago # -
"LSE doesn't like double stage crossings - I thought he spoke quite explicitly on this point?"
Ah, good (I wasn't there last night).
Posted 7 years ago # -
ih: good report and captures the hostility and venom which HankChief and Phil Noble (council cycling officer) were facing.
I think the majority of residents opposition is down to impact on cars. One Murrayfield resident stood up and said that the plans would make it difficult for him to drive to the Gorgie Sainsbury's. That is the extent of the inconvenience they are concerned about.
Lots of comments about delays to emergency vehicles, but no acknowledgement that the current congestion can cause delays.
As for PG? I'm not sure he has any principles or view that he is trying to push forward in this. His support for buses was a convenient way to try to win some people over, but he'll drop that depending on the audience. He's gone beyond any rational concerns now; it's a visceral hatred of anything to do with the scheme and he wants it stopped at all costs. Who knows what's driven this, but it appears to me it's the council he hates most and the cycle plans are just a convenient outlet for that.
Most important thing to remember is that this was a meeting organised by him, for the sole purpose of whipping up a storm. The presence of pro speakers was just to give the illusion of balance. The councillors should recognise that.
Posted 7 years ago # -
Apologies if LS position is against 2 stage crossings, but I didn't register his comments on them. What did he say? Without question though the mood in the meeting was that 2 stage crossingshow were to be preferred to single stage.
Posted 7 years ago # -
@SRD: yes, he definitely said they didn't like double stage crossings.
Posted 7 years ago # -
"and to their crossing the road to use the shops on both sides"
But is there any evidence that people are going to more than one destination shop?!
They might do if there was a convenient one-stage crossing...
Of course another aspect is that the only Sheffield stands are on the north side of the street, then two-stage crossing even to just pop into Scotmid (I used it once as a CollectPlus option as it's on the way home, and will never do so again as it's just a pain in the backside place to have to negotiate by bike then foot).
Posted 7 years ago # -
" Who knows what's driven this, but it appears to me it's the council he hates most and the cycle plans are just a convenient outlet for that."
yes, but it's become (or always was) personal.
and of course for most of those folk, any failure to do exaclty what they think best (they're all experts), will simply reinforce their beliefs about the council
what I'm still trying to grapple with is the level of incivility - that this bunch of well-heeled retired lawyers and doctors feel such animus towards the council and express it in such ways. i exopected people standing up and making silly speeches, full of their own importance (which we certainly had), but I did not expect the level of incivility - if de Tocqueville had seen this meeting hie would have little hope for Scotland's future as a democracy.
Posted 7 years ago # -
Anyone want to go through it all again next week?
http://www.murrayfieldcc.org.uk/inc/retrieve_file.php?id=224
Item 8 on agenda:
8. Proposed dedicated cycle-track: outcome of public meeting on 2 August
Posted 7 years ago # -
I don't understand the pedestrians' problem with crossing a narrow track with some bikes on it to get to a bus stop.
It seems practically a daily occurrence to see pedestrians gaily skipping through two or more lanes of moving motor traffic to cross the road (though I'm not being critical of that) without turning a hair.
Posted 7 years ago # -
Because in the land of PG if they get hit by a bike "they will likely do their hip and that'll be the end of them..."
I kid you not, he actually said that and expects to be taken seriously.
Posted 7 years ago # -
" I don't understand the pedestrians' problem with crossing a narrow track with some bikes on it to get to a bus stop."
And that's what annoys me so much about LS's position. Is there any evidence that well designed floating stops with good sightlines cause any problems?
Posted 7 years ago # -
As an unwelcome stranger from the East, I'd like to say how much I appreciate all your efforts on this.
While the route itself will do little to benefit me directly, it could pave the way for extensions across the rest of the city. I fear this will never happen if this initial section is compromised into uselessness.
Keep up the great work so we can start talking about extending it to Portobello (ever noticed how wide Regent Road, London Road and Moira Terrace are?).
Posted 7 years ago # -
Well, there are pedestrians and pedestrians (just like there are cyclists and cyclists). Not everyone on a bike can sprint at 20mph or willingly take the lane in front of a truck. Some pedestrians are elderly or have disabilities or are with children or are children.
However the floating bus stop thing is based on the assumption that all cyclists blast along with no concern for anyone else.
Posted 7 years ago # -
While the route itself will do little to benefit me directly, it could pave the way for extensions across the rest of the city. I fear this will never happen if this initial section is compromised into uselessness.
Very good point Erob.
Posted 7 years ago # -
" Some pedestrians are elderly or have disabilities or are with children or are children."
@fimm Yep, we know that and we ride considerately (seriously, we do; the very few genuine examples of inconsiderate riding are by anti-social types who are probably a menace whatever they're doing).
Is there any evidence of problems?
Posted 7 years ago # -
However the floating bus stop thing is based on the assumption that all cyclists blast along with no concern for anyone else.
Also based on the assumption that people's behaviour does not change when you change their environment.
Posted 7 years ago # -
The same attitude exists towards pavement cycling. Why is a person riding a bike assumed to be barging through pedestrians, forcing them to leap for safety but the exact same person pushing the bike is assumed to be perfectly safe?
Posted 7 years ago # -
Excellent points all round guys. Hate to say I had to have a go at the idea of training when I had been hit by someone anyway. Two people had to have a go at me one being sot of polite and the other saying I shouldn't speak because I was a cyclist, bye bye passing trade.
Anyway, had to try to talk sense into some people including that supposed TV guy who seems to be bothered carrying object bigger than him but never thought to use a trolley that cargo-bikes actually exist.
Then there was the loon using the weather argument, when questioned that Denmark and Netherlands had more rain he gave up and left.
It gets better at the end.
One Hotel owner wanted to know what he was going to do with deliveries of linen and so on as apparently his current suppliers can't operated at the proposed hours. I'd imagine a businessman would have the ability to adapt to the environment instead of providing a bad service or product that breaks them i.e. BMC.
There was a couple that assumed they were being forced to ride a bike and couldn't because they were too old. NL has people in mobility scooters using the infrastructure and it's pleasant to walk in anyway (failed to mention the former mind). They couldn't see how a fast moving truck is more dangerous than a speeding bike. They and hotel owner think the bus stops are difficult to use as we know is of a certain word I'm not allowed to say.
The only pleasant person was a lady who seemed willing to listen was holding the bucket at the very end when almost everyone had gone. I was trying to see sense of the situation with her, and while we didn't agree the debate wasn't as heated.
Walking back to the Roseburn bar that wasn't busy even at the late hours? I spoke to one of the bartenders about the situation, seemed more of a listener than a talker if you follow.
Now for the kicker. Walking back to my car (more for the employers benefit than mine) saw that the estate agent (with bad service according to google) seems to have moved. What's the reckoning that the businesses against the scheme will die of stagnation before construction commences?
Posted 7 years ago # -
So what effect do those present think the meeting will have? After all, it was pretty much a stgaed event by Gregson. Does anyone who was there think it will have an influence on the final outcome?
Posted 7 years ago # -
@stiltskin
The positive from the meeting is that the councillors present got to hear the process that Phil Noble's team have gone through and the changes made in response to consultation responses. They'll know that concerns have been addressed.
I was earwigging on a few of the councillors chatting afterwards and heard one of them say "Phil and his team have done a fantastic job on this". I won't name the councillor involved, but I was surprised to hear it coming from him as I didn't have him down as a supporter.
I did hear another councillor telling "concerned residents" that the best way to stop things would be through objections at the TRO process in order to delay things until the next administration who might then bin the scheme.
Posted 7 years ago # -
Two tweets tonight just about summed up the bigger problem.
"@edintravelEdinburgh roads are very busy tonight with widespread delays and congestion. #edintravel"
&
"@ScoWorstDrivers
Rush hour bus demolishes city centre bus stop #Edinburgh"
Why can nobody see this... #carblind
Posted 7 years ago # -
what I'm still trying to grapple with is the level of incivility - that this bunch of well-heeled retired lawyers and doctors feel such animus towards the council and express it in such ways.
Being rude to politicians is like being rude to waiters, check out staff and anyone else who can't answer back. Politicians are not allowed to be rude, however provoked.
What gets me about these doctors, lawyers etc is that they would never allow amateur meddling in their own professions. Imagine if on some point of law someone said, I've put my own case together from Google, or to the respiratory professor, I'm an expert on my own lungs. They'd tell such a person to get lost, you ignorant serf. However they are quite happy to support road design concocted by a bunch of amateurs in a cafe.
Posted 7 years ago #
Reply »
You must log in to post.
posts
