CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » Cycling News
"SNP’s cycling ‘vision’ is now impossible, say campaigners"
(25 posts)-
Posted 7 years ago #
-
Comment Bingo!
Posted 7 years ago # -
I most definitely avoided the comments on that one. Pro cycling and pointing out a flaw in what SNP Derek Mackay was about to say. Could only end one way.
Posted 7 years ago # -
Whether or not you are for/against the SNP/Gov, it's sad how much they don't care about this and/or are so deluded that you'd think they'd worry about their credibility in other policy areas...
I'm sure after Thursday there will be much lobbying of MSPs who have shown themselves to be 'ActiveTravel friendly' (and also councillors/candidates for next year).
Good thing Spokes hasn't got campaigning fatigue!
Posted 7 years ago # -
I'm surprised it's taken Spokes so long to conclude this.
This is just like any climate change-related goal: it's a "goal", but has absolutely no plan whatsoever.
Posted 7 years ago # -
"I'm surprised it's taken Spokes so long to conclude this."
Presumably the focus has been on "constructive engagement" up till now. Perhaps when you have a Transport Minister as brazen as Derek Mackay, the bare faced cheek of the SNP position becomes too much, even for polite campaigners like Spokes...
Posted 7 years ago # -
Toni Giugliano:
"@L_soigneur @hank_chief difference between lobbying & influencing. LDs will no influence on ministers, vocal backbenchers will."
So an SNP manifesto vision/target/goal/aspiration on increasing cycling will only be delivered by backbenchers and not the Transport Minister. Which demonstrates their commitment. Or Toni Giugliano's last push for votes.
Posted 7 years ago # -
Sadly Toni has missed the whole point of my blog
https://hankchiefblog.wordpress.com/2016/05/01/all-politics-is-local/
He can promise us all kinds of influence about future funding but if colleagues don't support Roseburn-Leith (& without hideous compromises) then local cycling will still be on the doldrums
Posted 7 years ago # -
"
LDs will no influence on ministers
"
Probably true
"
vocal backbenchers will
"
Evidence so far?
Things might be worse without Jim Eadie (and Spokes), but...
On the hope side -
Toni gets elected, he'll be "vocal" on ActiveTravel.
Will HC be providing the soundbites?
Posted 7 years ago # -
Yup active travel good until it results in a proposal that will influence the illegal parking of six shopkeepers and then the politicians reveal their spots.
Posted 7 years ago # -
I take a crumb of comfort that at least active travel is a thing, which it wouldn't have been 20 years ago.
Only a crumb though.
Posted 7 years ago # -
"I take a crumb of comfort that at least active travel is a thing"
Indeed - and now recognised as such by more politicians.
Still wish there was a better phrase/word!
Posted 7 years ago # -
Just another reminder that 'active travel' isn't just about transport policy (well it shouldn't be).
https://inews.co.uk/essentials/news/obesity-lack-exercise-fuelling-life-expectancy-gap
Posted 7 years ago # -
It's also about "planning" policy. The increase in traffic in Midlothian due to new housing is clear. Also a huge strain on other facilities. Any planning seems to be one dimensional
Posted 7 years ago # -
"The increase in traffic in Midlothian due to new housing is clear. Also a huge strain on other facilities. "
Yep. Other areas experiencing, or about to experience similar. Currently in my neck of the woods Abbeyhill, Lochend, Meadowbank, Leith Walk seeing a lot of residential development, and student accommodation. Mostly 'brownfield' so notionally A Good Thing. However Easter Road already gridlocked most of the day as is, London Road very busy too. Bus links are good, Waverley not far away, even some decent off road cycle paths nearby, but any increase in motor traffic will throttle the local roads during daylight hours.
Posted 7 years ago # -
Just a idea which I haven't really thought through all sides yet, but with the new developments in central brownfield areas as @crowriver has just mentioned, couldn't it be a condition that no car parking will be provided, and for residents of those developments no residents' parking permits will be issued. Supply good bike parking facilities on site instead. I'm sure the developers would create merry hell and some occupiers may be turned off, but who knows, it may help to put a brake on rampant house inflation. Obviously, you can't stop people buying cars, but if they can't park them in the vicinity.....
Posted 7 years ago # -
"Obviously, you can't stop people buying cars, but if they can't park them in the vicinity....."
They'll just park them on the street instead, causing obstructions at junctions, double parked, blocking entrances, parked on pavements, etc. For reference, see the recently built flats on Albion Road (many of which do have car parking, but clearly not 'enough'), or the flats by the canal at Fountainbridge.
Relatively few people actually own cars in traditional tenement areas in the city, but those that do leave them anywhere they can.
Posted 7 years ago # -
I think the council does issue "no-car" planning permission, particularly for student accommodation. To really work, and avoid the problems that crowriver mentioned, you'd have to have very tight parking restrictions outside - something like 7am-9pm and including at least one weekend day - to avoid folk just parking on yellow lines (or pavements, or outside other cars...) then driving to work when the restrictions come on.
Posted 7 years ago # -
Yes, you would need tight parking restrictions, but from what I see, all central (ish) areas are now fully parked up on the street already, so if the 'no car' residents do get one, they will find it impossible to park. And better enforcement of pavement and double parking would be necessary. To bring it back on thread, that's one thing the SNP has put in its manifesto isn't it?
Maybe the no car thing is a step too far at the moment.
Posted 7 years ago # -
It seems to be actually working the other way around to some degree.
Apparently the developers of the new flats in Balcarres St are trying to drop the agreed requirement for 12 off street spaces, presumably so they can squeeze in an extra flat or two?
(This was gleaned from a brief planning summary pinned to the notice board in Morningside Park).
Posted 7 years ago # -
I thought the development at Slateford Green (behind Aldi at Gorgie Road) was car-free?
Posted 7 years ago # -
Supposed to be, but getting parked on Moat Drive is now a total nightmare.
Posted 7 years ago # -
The car-free aspect of the Slateford Green development had obviously descended into a joke when I was regularly walking through it to get to my then partner's place. And that was close to ten years ago.
Posted 7 years ago # -
Would the Japanese system work here - requiring a registered off-road parking place before drivers can buy a car? People in 'car-free' developments wanting a car would then have to find and register somewhere off-road outside the zone. Too much bureaucracy maybe.
Posted 7 years ago # -
"Would the Japanese system work here".
Hmm. What do you think? :-)
Posted 7 years ago #
Reply
You must log in to post.
posts
