CityCyclingEdinburgh was launched on the 27th of October 2009 as "an experiment".
IT’S TRUE!
CCE is 15years 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.
"fair bit of opposition from the older demographic in the area"
Especially sad as they would most probably have cycled when young - when there was a lot less traffic.
"
Are you someone age 60 or better considering trying out bicycling for the first time? Or perhaps you just haven’t ridden a bicycle in a few years (or decades).
"
https://www.portlandoregon.gov/transportation/article/155167
Imagine that happening in Roseburn Park...
"While I was there a younger guy turned up on a baker's bike."Might be someone on this page...
Haha. This is encouraging given that I'm now 34...
Yeah, I spoke to the café chap on the way out. It really is astonishing how some people think their fellow humans are incapable of walking. He was concerned that Roseburn residents might not be able to get a 42inch television delivered. I asked them how they might get it to their top floor flat if they couldn't drive up the stairs...
To be fair, I may pop in to his café for a bacon roll and point out that I cycled.
Re deliveries, I find this a bizarre objection of business owners. My suppliers have an obligation to deliver goods to my shop. It is absolutely not my concern how they do this and how far away they may have to park. I'm pretty sure that a decent trolley would solve any issue of reduced loading on the main road.
Claire,
I was having a chat with a more mature pair of ladies and pointed out that if Edinburgh was a proper cycling city, like Copenhagen, they'd use bicycles to get around. "This isn't Copenhagen!", they cried.
You're right, it is jolly depressing. I just hope the council stick to their guns on this. We really need a bold scheme to show the sceptics what can be done.
@harts Amazing! What did he say to the telly and stairs point??
Interesting experience this evening, and nice to bump into a few CCE folk -- who knew there were so many of us! I was the guy in the blue jacket, still with my helmet on because I was too lazy to take it off :-)
I also had a decent chat to the protester on the way in about 7pm. A lot of people seemed to be giving him their support and best wishes as they came in and out, and people were asking where the petition was so they could sign it. So we should be under no illusion that there is real sentiment against the proposals -- it's not just this guy on his own; he has a body of support.
I spoke a to a few folk about why they were against the scheme and loading/unloading came up a lot, which I can sympathise with to some extent. Some folk were worried about parking, but the council officers reckon that only 6 spaces are actually being lost -- the problem is that a lot of extra parking goes on illegally in the loading bays which will no longer be possible; people are in effect losing something they don't already have. And also a lot of worries about additional congestion caused by the road width being narrowed, though again the officers reckon the traffic models show that the the reduction in loading areas should offset this.
The most surreal complaint was when I suggested that the cycleway might make the area more pleasant to pedestrians as it would provide a buffer between the north pavement and passing buses and cars. One local said she would prefer the big bus going past as it's easier to see than a bike. Another local chipped in that she agreed as she was sick of cyclists running red lights and had been hit by a cyclist riding on the pavement.
On Wester Coates, one woman said she'd leafleted the entire street and everyone she spoke to was against the cycleway there. However it wasn't clear why -- there was a vague suggestion that there would be more congestion by the bus lane being lost; though I know that Lothian Buses have said this isn't an issue.
All that said, a few people mentioned the existing route via Balbirnie Place and I explained to them why this was rubbish. A few folk accepted in this and admitted they'd never been along it before, and I suspect this is true for many more that signed the petition.
So in summary it feels like the onus is upon the council (and perhaps us) to really help explain what the good side of this project is, as it feels like those that are against the route haven't seen the other side of the argument. Open to suggestion for how we go about that though!
Claire. He didn't reply, just went on to something else. I left at that point.
I accept the points folk make about there being a few hurdles to overcome in terms of convincing locals and councillors. That was perhaps the main failure of the consulation - that they didn't have any graphics explaining the benefits of active travel and the scheme in general. Would be really useful to have a few statistics to bat away some of the fallacies.
I also spoke to a lady who was off to a business owners meeting. I explained all the well known stuff about increased trade with better cycling and walking provision and she asked me to come along and speak!! Alas, I had bikes to fix! She sort of knew the issues, but didn't really have the stats and facts to hand. One of the council chaps said that he'd send her some links.
There's definitely an appetite for 'improvement', I'd say. We just need to convince the sceptics that these, with real, worthwhile cycling provision, are ones they should support.
As Andrew Gilligan said: "Any worthwhile cycling scheme will have opposition."
"He was absolutely convinced that no van driver would park round the corner, walk round and spend more time in his & other shops. "
Alas he is probably spot on about that. Same on Easter Road. Vans just park on the pavement as there are no bays outside Greggs, etc.
I agree with @harts that it could have done with more on why we need a quality cycling route - the stats/graphics from carsick would do.
The logic for me is that we have to tackle the obesity / pollution / congestion issues we face in this city.
We simply cannot continue the rate of transport growth without viable alternatives to single occupancy vehicles.
Active Travel is one of those alternatives but to make progress it needs to be compelling - i.e. what would it take to get you to cycle for transport once by bike (ref. Start on Friday).
A safe direct, pleasant route you say... (same as everyone else - ref centreparcs where everyone cycles)
Right then how do we connect one from Roseburn Park to Haymarket/George St.
The biggest problem is getting from the South of the A8 to the North. There are 3 option, Roseburn Gardens, Roseburn Street & Haymarket's Yard.
Roseburn Gardens
+ve wide road, closest to Park, stops it being a rat run, bring cyclists in heart of Roseburn
-ve takes away loading bays on Roseburn Terrace (you might think this is a positive)
Roseburn St
+ve avoid impacting Roseburn Terrace
-ve very narrow gap between Tesco & Roseburn pub, meaning cyclists couldn't go simultaneously with other vehicles so an extra phase in traffic lights meaning slower for everyone
One solution here would be to block Russell road at say Railway bridge to reduce the traffic going through the gap so traffic + cycles could go at once.
Haymarket's Yard.
+ve can leave main road untouched
-ve hilly, convoluted, narrow and dangerous tram tracks. I have had it suggested that a tunnel could be put through the zigzag embankment ( not sure how appealing that would be) and one if the pavements in Haymarket's Yard turned shared use.
The West pavement would stop you having to cross the tram tracks but that isn't very wide and is the busiest with peds. The East Pavement is quieter but you have to cross the tracks to get to it and then again at the top of the hill, getting either of them at a correct 90degree angle will be impossible so doesn't work either.
But to me the fundamental problem with Haymarket Yards is that it is not as compelling to get someone to make their first trip as seeing a lovely safe direct route out of their car/ bus window.
(I could be wrong here but I heard that the Channel tunnel rail link was built next to the motorway in France so that you could see just how fast it was compared to your measely 130kph)
This does then lead me back to the first option being the one that works best and will help Edinburgh make the step change we want to see.
As said above, I do fear we lose people if we jump straight to the 'it must be Roseburn Gardens' argument without walking then through why it is important to have a compelling safe direct route in the first place.
Remember they aren't building this for us - we already cycle - they are building it so that it attracts others to start cycling and the community benefits from reduced pollution /obesity/congestion as a result.
Hankchief - exactly.
Segregated infrastructure needs to be on main arterial roads because it's direct and PEOPLE CAN SEE IT!!
Many of us who already cycle don't know where half the convoluted bikes routes go, never mind folk who don't cycle yet.
On the "benefits for non-cyclists" would a film similar to the Pedestrian on Princes Street one be helpful? Could show the difficulty in getting across the junction and the long walk just to get from Tesco to the cafe for example. The new pedestrian crossing across the junction will solve this.
On the loading front: if shop owners won't cross the road to load their shop, why should a potential customer cross the road to visit your shop? What does that say about your business?
Some cyclists ride on pavements. True. But some shops fiddle their VAT, sell alcohol to underagers, short-change customers. Should that stop us doing anything to help other shops?
I think the most important thing here is to get as many people as possible to complete the online consultation answering "strongly support" to every question. No need for free text answers, just tick the boxes.
Why? Politicians will be presented with a summary report on the consultation responses. The first, possibly only, thing they will consider is whether more people support than oppose the scheme.
Detailed free text answers are great for the officers working on the scheme (well, apart from the one that has to read them all). However, we need the weight of numbers on our side here to convince the politicians. If everyone could get another three or four people to respond positively (family, friends, colleagues) then that would be great. If you are a member of a workplace Bicycle User Group then get the word out.
Do it today - it might just save the scheme.
"Do it today - it might just save the scheme."
Can't argue with that!
"
And don't forget to fill on the formal consultation by 1st Feb. The online form does take a bit if wading through so don't leave it too late. The alternative is to email CyclingProjects.Consultation@edinburgh.gov.uk
"
http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=15760&page=8#post-208812
I agree. We can wax lyrical about how "wrong" the opponents to this scheme may be in our eyes. Alas that's not going to convince anyone in a position to make a decision.
If you want this cycle route to go ahead, responding to the official consultation is the best way to show support. An e-mail to your local councillor won't hurt either.
The Roseburn Cafe guy also reckoned that 70% of his trade came by car/van.
I'd be interested to know the actual figures though.
(As 'we' know, shopkeepers typically overestimate how many arrive by car)
I've made an announcement with a link to the consultation on the Lloyds Bank/Scottish Widows BUG notice board.
Also currently drafting an email to my councillors, part of which points out their own parties commitments to active travel/pollution reduction and asking if they oppose their party policy.
I'm really worried this isn't going to go ahead.
http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/petition-against-the-west-coates-cycle-track
"About 140 attended the Council drop-in. About 8 were in favour of the track, about 8 undecided and the rest against. BBC news had it online: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-edinburgh-east-fife-35344055"
How accurate would you say that is?
Not accurate at all, even just counting the people from here that attended.
"The Roseburn Cafe guy also reckoned that 70% of his trade came by car/van."
Might be true.
Could be true at certain times - van people going to work or on breaks/lunch. But it's possible that such 'bursts' skew the perception.
But is such trade responsible for the biggest turnover/profit?
Clearly it's a leap of faith to imagine/believe that loss of all/some 'passing trade' can be replaced. But there IS evidence from elsewhere.
It would be naive to believe that van/car trade would be wholly replaced by people using bicycles, but a nicer street should encourage more pedestrian 'footfall'. There are some good reviews on Tripadvisor so perhaps some customers in cars will (already do?) park around the corner - and walk past all the other shops too.
Perhaps the cafe (and other shops) can alter their 'offer' to attract more/different people.
Perhaps some shops could offer 'spend £5 and get a voucher for a free tea' (sit-in only).
As has been pointed out above, this scheme is not primarily for people who already cycle. Nor should it be portrayed as 'just a cycle scheme'.
Stuff happens, things change. If this scheme is 'the final straw' for any of the shops they are already having problems.
There have been several schemes in Edinburgh for improving shopfronts. Could Roseburn be next?
Just banged the consulation back on my facebook page, with a gentle steer in the 'strongly agree' direction!
"The first, possibly only, thing they will consider is whether more people support than oppose the scheme."
Surely the validity of objections has to be a factor? I would've thought 1000 people with the same invalid objection would still count for nothing.
The BBC article appears to just be the opinions and misunderstandings of the KidsnotSuits guy presented as facts.
Well done to all the folk who went along last night.
My BUG administrator is based in Bristol and made the importation addition to my announcement that you don't need to be in Edinburgh to respond....
He's also facing all the same issues in Bristol, even down to a muck-raking Johnston Press local rag. This was his reply to me:
"I was considering writing to the Bristol paper recycling generator (aka the Evening Post) pointing out that at some point they are going to have to change their perspective and support sustainable transport, rather than pandering to the masses in their cars.
Not hopeful, but you never know. The mayor is a big supporter of cycling and comes in for a huge amount of flak as a result, again you see the same old ‘RLJ, pavement cycling etc” trotted out. Surely if motorists hate cyclists so much they’d be pleased to see them off roads and on segregated routes? Or is it just that they hate having longer journey times despite investing a considerable proportion of their income in their car?"
Oh if you are thinking of contacting your councillor, it's well worth while. However if you happen to live in the ward for a member of the Transport & Environment Committee it is even more worth while contacting your councillor. Here's a list of the members:
(17 members – 6 Labour, 5 SNP, 3 Conservative, 2 Green, 1 SLD)
Councillor Lesley Hinds (Convener)
Councillor Adam McVey (Vice-Convener)
Councillor Robert Aldridge
Councillor Nigel Bagshaw
Councillor Chas Booth
Councillor Gavin Barrie
Councillor Steve Cardownie
Councillor Nick Cook
Councillor Marion Donaldson
Councillor Karen Doran
Councillor Nick Gardner
Councillor Bill Henderson
Councillor Allan Jackson
Councillor Karen Keil
Councillor Mark McInnes
Councillor Burns (ex officio)
Councillor Sandy Howat (ex officio)
http://www.edinburgh.gov.uk/directory_record/626767/transport_and_environment_committee
"
"About 140 attended the Council drop-in. About 8 were in favour of the track, about 8 undecided and the rest against. BBC news had it online:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-edinburgh-east-fife-35344055"
"
That's either the wrong link or that's been removed.
Well, Mr. Gregson is clearly on a mission here. Don't forget he has a lot of experience in kicking up a stink via media outlets when he's not happy about something.
So that's bad news for the 'pro' camp: there is vocal, committed and organised opposition which appears to be gathering momentum even if orchestrated largely by one individual.
In response, people in favour of the proposals really need to get organised.
- Respond to the official consultation if you have not already.
- Contact your local councillor(s), especially if he/she happens to be a member of the Transport & Environment Committee.
"That's either the wrong link or that's been removed."
That was an update on the petition against the scheme (the BBC link is part of the quote).
Interesting comment from the support petition too:
"As a business owner, I'm keen to see a protected cycle route here because evidence shows it will increase business. "
Clearly the businesses in the area aren't as unified as the anti campaign would like us to believe.
We need to set up our own website/WordPress with the rationale for why this is a good scheme.
Something an 'non-cyclist' could understand.
Any volunteers?
I also shared this internally at work with cycling colleagues (infact was pleasantly surprised to see other emails circulating where people had heard of the consultation and taken it upon themselves to prod people to respond).
Scratching my own head about what can be done to help promote the "pro" cause, I thought about youtube helmetcam videos, photo diagrams etc. explaining current problems and why the proposals are a good thing. My worry was it might all fall on deaf ears as it may only be consumed by people who already support the scheme; it needs to get to the people who are either unsure, don't generally respond to consultations, or actually are dead against it.
I thought about a leaflet that could be sent to each of the councilors on the transportation committee setting out all the current issues, how the new route addresses these and also the benefits to the communities involved?
Particularly it needs to rubbish the current Haymarket Yards / Bailbirnie / Roseburn Place alternative route as suitable, Mr Suits Not Kids I saw tweeting yesterday that Roseburn Place was car free! There's a real danger that he will be telling local people who have no idea what the current route is like that there's "already a traffic free route" and people will be happy to take his word for it.
You must log in to post.
Cycling in Edinburgh Flickr group
Video embedded using Easy Video Embed plugin
posts