ih, the irony of that exact moment wasn't lost on me either
CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » Infrastructure
T&E committee on Roseburn
(342 posts)-
Posted 7 years ago #
-
Oh by the way, for those considering nominating themselves for local CCs, the forms and further info are available from the link posted earlier. Here it is again, just in case:
http://www.edinburgh.gov.uk/info/20004/council_and_democracy/1493/community_council_elections
Interesting to note that the Returning Officers in each election are often local councillors. In the case of Murrayfield CC, it's Frank Ross...
Posted 7 years ago # -
Bolstered by the council's failure to deliver on Option A I wonder how many more detours can be put into the whole route?
Wanted: quiet streets to host unwanted bike lanes.The Roseburn Terrace antis are really campaigning to keep four lanes of polluting traffic. (ie two lanes of moving traffic and another two for random parking in bus lanes)
I detect triumphant notes of 'we're taking our street back'. Common sense road users only please, splutter splutter!
Posted 7 years ago # -
I detect triumphant notes of 'we're taking our street back'.
Cllr Balfour said something along the lines of "I've watched the traffic here for 30 years and it's always very busy", yet he hasn't made any attempt to do anything about it other than oppose the cycle lane.
Posted 7 years ago # -
"At one time during the Committee meeting yesterday, the Convenor ticked off a Green committee member for proposing Option A "without having listened to all the evidence." And yet at that time Labour and SNP had already hatched a scheme to kick the can down the road, (we know that from Adam McVey's previous sphinx-like comments the day before) "without listening to the evidence"."
Well yes.
The document that was made public after the deputations was sent to Capital Coalition councillors the day before.
(And presumably written in some form before Adam McVey cycled to Roseburn.)
I just hope someone who likes sending FoI requests asks CEC 'at what stage did officers start working on Option B, and who told them to do it - and why?'
Posted 7 years ago # -
Regarding 'critical mass':
Maybe what 'we' should do is repeat Monday's exercise, but with us all driving instead.
Imagine 200 odd cars on a go-slow through Roseburn.
Posted 7 years ago # -
Was it Gavin Barrie who accused the Greens of not caring about the disabled? And also making some rambling point about the history of Cooenhagen/Amsterdam in 1996 when he was 9?
Posted 7 years ago # -
"
Edinburgh’s cultural scene is being held back by “nimbys” and people “frightened about tomorrow” who are trying to block moves to relax a controversial curb on live music events, according to a former Lord Provost.
"
Oops wrong thread.
Or maybe not...
Posted 7 years ago # -
SPOKES' take:
http://www.spokes.org.uk/2016/08/east-west-central-edinburgh-cycle-route-yes-and-maybe/
Posted 7 years ago # -
We seem to have quite a mix of opinions here.
My first reaction was that the whole thing was simply kicked down the road. The council didn't have the stones (or the lady stones) to put a segregated bike lane on a busy road.
And that's consistent with history. Segregated cycle lanes take away space from cars and - aside from 210m on less busy roads/pavements - the council has never been willing to do that.
Am I being too pessimistic to assume that the past is the best predictor of the future?
When/if this stateholder committee finish all their meetings what do you guys think their decision will look like?
Posted 7 years ago # -
It will be interesting to see how the completion of the first section of serious segregated bike lane on Leith Walk (construction due to start next week) affects things.
Posted 7 years ago # -
@Stickman Cllr Balfour isn't the only one. See the shopkeepers talking about how their businesses are on the verge of failing without one positive idea to help the area.
Posted 7 years ago # -
Erob: to be fair, the art guy said that some flowers or hanging baskets would help. Not sure how that deals with parking which seem to be the root of his grievance.
Posted 7 years ago # -
Imagine 200 odd cars on a go-slow through Roseburn.
Isn't that called Tuesday morning.
Posted 7 years ago # -
@Stickman Was that the comment about everything being horse and cart when he was a lad? Unbelievable absurdity.
Posted 7 years ago # -
I was at a MCC meeting a year ago when they had a long and impassioned and slightly hostile discussion on whether to replace three tatty bollards on Colt Bridge with some smart planters donated by the transport chap when George St no longer needed them. And the local florist with the ***best name ever!!!*** had offered to maintain them. If they could violently disagree on the subject of a few free planters, hanging baskets or the like would take an uprising never before seen to get the green light.
Posted 7 years ago # -
I've stared at the amendment clauses for too long already, but still can't work out how it will work, and it is definitely inconsistent with the reassurances from Councillors that it will not affect the timetable.
Prėcis unless in quotes.
1.1.3 says both options require further work.
1.1.4 says that "..the eventual statutory processes will provide a final opportunity for further public engagement and potential design adjustment."
1.1.6 establishes the Stakeholder Group comprising Councillors (TEC Convenor, Vice-convenor, transport reps from other parties, local Councillors) and local relevant groups [who chooses them?] and council officers, which will act as a "sounding board" throughout the design and statutory process.
1.1.7 says the Stakeholder Group "will engage with all key stakeholders."
1.1.9 says issues raised by the Stakeholder Group "will be brought to the 'Future Transport Working Group' for final decision."To me, it seems that the constitution of the Stakeholder Group is designed to prevent progress towards a solution anywhere near what the officers have spent considerable skill and time doing already, and what is the 'Future Transport Working Group'?
Posted 7 years ago # -
@dougal: yes, when he was talking about being 9 in 1996. Must have been a tough paper round for him.
Posted 7 years ago # -
"he was talking about being 9 in 1996"
He's older than that.
Posted 7 years ago # -
Earlier someone wrote:
I couldn't understand Adam McVey either. And he looks about 12!
Not understanding someone is one thing, but what does his appearance or perceived age have to do with anything? This sort of comment is reminiscent of the public meeting where some members of the public were evaluating speakers based on where they live rather than what they actually said. Particularly as we move into the working group phase we need to be mindful to remain focused on the debate and the issues and not our preconceptions about other folk.
On that note, while I was initially disappointed with yesterday's decision I'm increasingly optimistic. It's great that there is cross party support for the route (we should not underestimate this point) and the officers have authorization to appoint contractors and make progress. We all know there are issues to be resolved and a smaller stakeholder group can hopefully dive deep into these in a more constructive way, and the reasoned, rationale arguments that we can put forward can be heard more clearly.
All to play for :-)
Posted 7 years ago # -
@ ih
Useful précis.
I think the simple answer is that no-one - inc whoever wrote those words - knows how this will 'work'.
Apart from the details - like who's allowed to be involved - the precedent this sets is alarming (not just for other 'controversial' cycle routes!)
Posted 7 years ago # -
it seems that the constitution of the Stakeholder Group is designed to prevent progress towards a solution
On purpose, perhaps? All of this option A, option B nonsense has just been an elegant delaying tactic because a minority of people decided the official consultation process was somehow too removed from people's lives and too secretive because they couldn't influence every stage of the process.
Designing by committee invariably results in delays. I once needed to get some signs created at work, and I thought it would be polite to allow various teams to
have their sayfeed into the process. A year later I still couldn't finalise the design because everyone wanted their own stamp on it and no-one was prepared to compromise. Eventually I gave the work to a design company with some specifics, and it was done within a month.Posted 7 years ago # -
I just hope someone who likes sending FoI requests asks CEC 'at what stage did officers start working on Option B, and who told them to do it - and why?'
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/information_on_option_b_at_roseb#outgoing-574753
Posted 7 years ago # -
Wrote to Adam McVey last night and got a short response:
I share your hope that all those engaged in the stakeholder group will work in good faith and will be evidence driven
Posted 7 years ago # -
I keep hearing that all the parties are in support of this route. And yet what I see is exactly the outcome I'd expect if they weren't in support of it.
What we've got is a group of people who are expected to commit to the ideals of safer cities, lower pollution, active travel and so on (because who could be against these things in public?) but don't want to do anything about it.
Posted 7 years ago # -
"while I was initially disappointed with yesterday's decision I'm increasingly optimistic. It's great that there is cross party support for the route (we should not underestimate this point)"
My bold.
Two early for me to get beyond 'not pessimistic'.
There is a looong way to go (even ignoring Roseburn).
Council officials will have a hard time containing the nonsense and getting close to any agreement on RT with the "SG".
This group can't be allowed to imagine that they have any sort of veto - though perhaps it would be easier to let them think they had...
I suspect the serious discussions will be between CEC and Sustrans about 'what would you be prepared to part-fund?'
Sustrans is in a strong position to say 'something better than the scheme (inc Option A) you showed us before'.
Is CEC committed to this project without extra funding? If so, it is likely to be done 'on the cheap' (or over more financial years).
If not, it will go along RT (with SG/Sustrans backing and funding) but only IF there is a scheme that 'local interests' don't object to too much.
Now is the time for individuals and groups to work on some really good suggestions - not in public.
I hope that there are already discussions in prospect (or even in progress!) may even involve some on here. I'm been optimistic rather than cryptic - I just hope some of the people with ideas and skills will be working together without necessarily telling 'us' until they have put together a plan.
Posted 7 years ago # -
This all seems to boil down to the 'who's road is it anyway?' argument.
The answer depends on:
- Who's asking
- Where you live
- Does PG stay there (!)Imagine if you were to wade in among drivers and told them they were causing traffic chaos. "No business being here etc..."
PG seems to be defending the status of the A8 road. He maybe looks at it as a force of nature that cannot be stopped and his little group has kept it flowing.Posted 7 years ago # -
"Too early for me to get beyond 'not pessimistic'."
I'm back and forth. It's brilliant that the route is going ahead, but I had really hoped the Roseburn/West Coates section would act as a proof of concept before rolling out similar designs across the city (e.g. London Road, Ferry Road).
I'm not convinced the rest of the route will allow that.
Posted 7 years ago # -
I hope CEC will put several cameras on RT to check on actual usage of existing loading/parking.
Posted 7 years ago # -
The Murrayfield Community Council Twitter account administrator has made a very interesting choice in their last four retweets. @MurrayfieldCC
I'd love to know who runs that account.
Posted 7 years ago #
Reply »
You must log in to post.
posts
