I've emailed all the Transport Committee individually. Tried to tailor each email to refer back to their party's manifesto commitments.
CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » Infrastructure
Roseburn to Leith consultation begins (and the debate continues!) CCWEL
(5559 posts)-
Posted 8 years ago #
-
Another report/blog - apologies if already posted
https://jamesrannochcc.wordpress.com/2016/08/04/ripwell-reports-roseburn-to-leith-walk-cycle-route/
Posted 8 years ago # -
Not sure that's a terribly helpful blog post, as it appears that the author did not in fact attend the meeting on 2nd August - it seems a little dishonest to report as if that was the case (up to the final paragraph). I accept that there is a literary conceit here, but don't think that sits well with the situation...
Posted 8 years ago # -
Been talking about this with my wife this evening. She's exactly the sort of person these plans are aimed at: wants to cycle but won't go on road. As always, she has made some very wise points.
While Option A is clearly the one we want, the negativity of "option b is rubbish, bin the whole thing" doesn't help.
Even if it does come out as B, the end result is there will still be a segregated path on West Coates and into town. It won't be perfect but it will give people options and we can still push for it to be improved.
There is a danger that the voices being heard here are the opponents and "us", the more experienced cyclists. The people that this will really benefit aren't being heard and will lose out if nothing gets built.
(I'm still pushing hard for A of course)
Posted 8 years ago # -
B they will just park on like QBC. QBC never enforced. Daily double yellow line and bike lane parkers, the same ones, every day right outside the chinese supermarket.
Things that make an actual difference will inconvenience a small number of people. In Edinburgh unlike London, small numbers of people are pandered to by timid politicians.
Option a all the way
Posted 8 years ago # -
Stickman. Option B would give me a route I would use to take my kids into town (something I don't currently do).
So yes some people in West Edinburgh would gain from it, but the problem is, that another poor scheme will delay (maybe indefinitely) any further improvements to the cycling network as it will be seen as not being successful.
There are some similarities with the tram. What we've got works for some people but there is going to be an awful battle to convince people to build more tram lines anytime soon.
Oh & rest assured the deputations will stress who the proposals will benefit...
Posted 8 years ago # -
@Stickman I too have struggled with this question, "Is B much worse than A?" And the answer I've come to is "Yes, it is hardly any improvement on what we have already."
As far as I can judge, Edinburgh has come to the end of its easy wins with cycling infrastructure, and it still has no network to speak of to get to the majority of the city. It has some good routes especially in the north but it's a long way short of a network and always dumps you onto a busy road. This is the first time that it is actually being proposed that some road space is reallocated to cycling. I make no apology that the aim is to cut down on the number of motor vehicle journeys; that is Council (Labour and SNP) policy so it shouldn't be controversial. B will only reinforce the idea that the car is king. It will do nothing to reduce the number of vehicles spewing their way along the A8 with all the disbenefits that brings. It will also allow vehicles to continue parking illegally on Roseburn Terrace. It will tell people on cycles that they are not wanted but they should stay out of sight and mind.
B will not encourage many more cyclists at all because of its indirectness and the problem of negotiating the Roseburn / Russell Road area. West Coates is nothing; it's easy to do, and it's quite safe as it is (apart from the appalling surface). But B will lead nowhere. What do you do after that? Option A is the only way this city can say that it genuinely supports moving people out of cars to more active and sustainable transport. And it is the only option that will increase the number of cycle journeys, but we need more after that.
Posted 8 years ago # -
Great spot by Spokes that the 2012 Libdem CEC manifesto called for a 'model cycle friendly city'
Posted 8 years ago # -
@HankChief I quoted that in my email to Robert Aldridge - still no reply though...
Posted 8 years ago # -
And the Tories have a similar pledge
'More cycling... in particular improved cross city routes'
Posted 8 years ago # -
@Stickman
I was inclined to agree with you on the "better than nothing" principle. However stopping at Roseburn Street/Russell Road is where I get off anyway (at Tesco's normally). So mebbe I'll go with ih. Option B is another fudge.
Your twitter feed on the SNP being ready to make huge upheavals to businesses via independence while being unwilling to put out a few shops when it comes to the crunch is amusing.
It does remind me of a controversial interviewer who said of his bosses, the New Zealand equivalent of the BBC, that they were far more afraid of Mother of Three writing to the papers than the Prime Minister. A few indignant little guys can make them look very bad.
Posted 8 years ago # -
West Coates is nothing; it's easy to do, and it's quite safe as it is (apart from the appalling surface
Don't want this to become a fight between people who are on the same side, but think about someone who doesn't want to cycle with traffic. When the bus lanes are in operation then it's just buses, taxis and motorbikes to deal with. Outside of those times it's all vehicles with the added bonus of dealing with parked cars. That isn't going to feel quite safe to most people.
Posted 8 years ago # -
West Coates is scary and I was nearly taken out by someone doing a fast turn in front of me. On the side roads, cars noses peeking out. General speed. It's nasty on a Saturday when the lads in their fast cars get out.
Posted 8 years ago # -
PG's issuing a call for people to turn up on Tuesday. He's wanting to get a deputation to address the committee.
Posted 8 years ago # -
When I emailed my local councillor to support the plans last night, the SNP line appears to be that Option A is dependent on matched funding from SESTRAN, which has already fallen through - so Option A is financially not an option any longer.
I don't see anything about this in the Spokes site or on these forums - is this something anyone here is aware of?
Posted 8 years ago # -
@resurf That's a new excuse from the SNP, and (I think) it's b*****ks. Just another way for the SNP to say, "Well, you know we support active travel, but sorry, not this one."
Posted 8 years ago # -
Thanks @resurf. That's one interpretation of it...
We didn't win the Sustrans Community Links Plus (whole scheme) funding, but we are still eligible for the (standard) Community Links funding for year by year expenditure. So perfectly possible that we can still get the matched funding but will have to fill out lots of paperwork rather than knowing we had a big cheque.
There is also the possibility that another CL+ or equivalent is run next year. The noise I'm hearing is that the number and quality of finalists was a surprise.
As @Ddf will tell you, it is a bit of a mute point as the CL+ funding came out of the CL pot...
One of the criteria of CL+ was to find an 'exemplar' project so the standard had to be high. Maybe the SNP angle is that given they didn't win CL+ they don't need to be as bold.
Option B clearly wouldn't have won CL+ (this year or in the future), but the crunch will be if Sustrans would still fund Option B under the standard CL programme.
I would hope that they see it for what it is...
Chdot tweet hits the nail on the head.
@FrankRoss06 "Create an enabling environment for active travel that limits the speed and volume of motorised vehicles" so OptB won't fit CL+Posted 8 years ago # -
Well...
I'd like to see precise text of that.
Is that saying 'as CEC is paying for all of it, SNP Group wants B?
I assume the cost difference is insignificant.
There is next year's round of CL+ funding.
I am VERY confident SG/Sustrans won't fund Opt B.
SNP Group might try to with that bit taken out from a new bid, but I doubt if that would work!
I also think it's very unlikely that the current proposal - WITH Opt A - would pass the test for all the criteria.
Posted 8 years ago # -
I can't see 'B' being cheaper given the amount of extra work that will be be required at the junction. FAR more complex crossing phases. For a virtually unusable route.
Posted 8 years ago # -
One point missed throughout is that one day option A can extend to the Zoo. Option B means that opportunity is probably lost for a generation.
Posted 8 years ago # -
Shush - you'll scare the
horsesmotorists ;-)Posted 8 years ago # -
"One point missed throughout ... "
Too true!
Posted 8 years ago # -
@klaxon That issue of extendability is mentioned explicitly in the committee papers as an advantage of A over B, and it is at the heart of my comments above.
Posted 8 years ago # -
It is included as the 4th point on para 3.20 detailing the min advantages of Option A over Option B.
it would be much more straightforward to extend westwards at a future date
Posted 8 years ago # -
Thanks all, useful background. I said "SESTRAN" because that's exactly what was on the email I received, but did wonder at the time whether they meant Sustrans.
Posted 8 years ago # -
I did wonder if that was your error or their's. It's more baffling that it was their's...
I'd be interested to know if any other SNP Cllr have quoted something similar? It could be a non-TEC Cllr getting confused over the details rather than the SNP group's position, but it does seem odd that they have picked it up from somewhere.
Posted 8 years ago # -
"When I emailed my local councillor to support the plans last night, the SNP line appears to be that Option A is dependent on matched funding from SESTRAN, which has already fallen through - so Option A is financially not an option any longer."
Sustrans/SESTRAN easy mistake.
BUT
The idea that A is no longer affordable but B is, at best, a very dangerous/misinformed thing to pass on to a member of the public.
AND suggests that serious misinformation is being spread within the SNP group.
I think that whichever councillor it is should be asked for clarification.
Posted 8 years ago # -
@chdot on it.
Posted 8 years ago # -
Great!
Posted 8 years ago # -
Simply refer the Councillors to Appendix 8 (Project Cost Estimate) of their Committee paper. It indicates that both options cost exactly the same.
I would take an educated guess that Option B is more expensive, as signallised crossings cost in the region of £200k each.
The fact that the project did not win Community Links Plus funding is neither here nor there. It is very likely that Sustrans will provide funding through its regular Community Links programme. All this is set out in the Committee paper - which the Councillors have either failed to read, or chosen to misinterpret.
Posted 8 years ago #
Reply »
You must log in to post.
posts
