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.
I feel for the cycle team, all their great efforts put in to make Edinburgh cycle friendly brought down by some weak local politicos, a crazy guy and some shopkeepers who wanted to continue parking illegally outside their shops.
I feel for hankchief and all his hard work and evidence based approach brought down by the truth bending of a crazy agit prop whistleblower.
Very disappointing not to get A today, but the decision reached is much better than a straight A v B vote, which looks like B would have won...
For A - Lab + Green (7 votes)
For B - SNP + Con + Lib Dem (8 votes)
It is also very positive to get all parties supporting the entire route, which would certainly not have been the case a year or so ago.
Getting that commitment is really important. Even if A had won today, a new council next May could easily have scrapped the whole thing, as work cannot begin by then, given the legal requirements and detailed design. So at least now we have more hope and more pressure points for manifestos and future decisions even if the council composition changes.
It also increases our chances of getting parties to agree to maintain the 10% cycle budget in the coming election manifestos, which will be really vital.
Pleased to hear LH thank Phil Noble - especially for attending *that* meeting - while (as she said) she was having her 60th birthday in Italy.
A calm voice of reason and optimism, as always, DdF.
Greens only ones showing resolve. Very disappointed in Capital Coalition, both sides of it. It was a desperate attempt to see who the buck can be passed to. What's going to happen when that poor so and so has to make a decision?
As with the congestion charge referendum when it comes to actual decisions that would impact on car users and help the environment Edinburgh's politicians go for fudge.
Good that the whole route is supported but clearly if it goes anywhere that might inconvenience anyone then it won't happen?
"Good that the whole route is supported but clearly if it goes anywhere that might inconvenience anyone then it won't happen"
The very definition of NIMBYism in action
Did anyone else think that the closing remarks by Cllr Gavin Barrie (SNP) and to a slightly lesser extent by Convenor Lesley Hinds were unnecessarily personal and nasty towards Greens? I'm not a Green voter btw, but I might consider it from now.
I'm confused. My reading of the coalition motion is that it is basically the same level of commitment or 'go-ahead' to the route as would have been given if common sense had prevailed and they'd just gone with option A, or indeed if they'd gone with option B. The detailed design and statutory shenanigans will start and proceed at same (sadly relaxed) pace as they would have for either option.
The downside, and it is a big one, is the needless working group, but this should be around details rather than the overall route, and option A is still be on the table, albeit on life support.
If the timescales on the working group can be kept under control (OK, big if) will it really cause that much, if any extra delay?
Am I being stupid or just optimistic?
An agreement to have more meetings is not ideal, since we already had those along with a consultation and traffic modelling but
1) The new agreement item 1.1.10 states that design work can proceed. So hopefully this means that the 90% of the route that is not controversial can make some progress.
2) All parties seem to support some form of an E-W route.
So we need to keep pushing for the best possible option and not get deflated by this incomplete outcome.
There seemed to be consensus that the non-Roseburn part of the scheme is "non-controversial" - does that mean it's going to quietly go ahead while they thrash out the details in Roseburn?
@jonty - Depends on how many cans of worms the working group manage to open. There's certainly a danger that a PG's antics inspire a few green inkers in other areas to get involved.
Hasn't Pete already started stirring up other community councils in other areas along the proposed route? Sure I read that he'd been attending other CC meetings to help them object.
Disappointing - but we live to fight another day. I wish it were different, but a working group should be able to pick apart spurious arguments at a pace and level of detail not possible in a committee meeting.
We should be able to re-use most of the material that hankchief and others have produced to support those on the working group.
What is crystal clear now is we are dealing with a "post truth" opponent. I have a few suggestions as to how to deal with this - but I'm not going to post them here. Perhaps one for the birthday drinks.
Remember PG is against the whole concept of the route on the basis that he considers it a waste on money. The Roseburn locals/traders were just a conveniently susceptible mob he could whip up, with his constant stream of FUD, in order to try and derail the project.
This is frustrating after all the hoopla and hard work that everyone involved have done.
Dave's right, though: it's very useful that we have a vote that commits to the route, albeit not through Roseburn. I'm quite positive that closer scrutiny will be helpful to our arguments and will reveal the absurdity of Gregson's.
Also, it's an opportunity to highlight the compromises that A already had and refine it further.
Whatever comes out of the new process, the future consultations are closed door, so it's important to keep our hand in from day one.
"it's very useful that we have a vote that commits to the route, albeit not through Roseburn"
Yep, we shouldn't forget that a route straight through the middle of the city is a huge win! It wasn't so long ago we were talking about whether it would happen at all.
Hopefully it will mean related interconnecting projects can begin planning too.
@Morningsider " a working group should be able to pick apart spurious arguments at a pace "
By working group do you mean the Stakeholder Group or another group that follows on to review the S.holder work and comes to a decision? If the latter, why shouldn't that come under the same pressure as what has just happened? Understand if you don't want to go into detail on public forum.
"
Cycling Edinburgh (@CyclingEdin)
30/08/2016, 3:06 pm
@adamrmcvey don't envy whoever is in charge of new @RoseburnCycle SG!
The future is #OptionA1
@SustransScot @SpokesLothian @thistlejohn
"
Just needs some people to propose/agitate for a continuation of route from the Roseburn bridge to and through Corstorphine.
ih - my mistake, I meant stakeholder group. I agree that the group will come under pressure. However, there are additional ways of approaching the opposition.
Is this not simply a politicians' answer, allowing them all to say:
"Vote for me - I support an E-W cycle route"
"Vote for me - I prevented the imposition of Option A"
"Vote for me - I kept the possibility of Option A open"
After all, it will be someone else's problem next year.
</cynicism>
Robert
Thanks @M But that stakeholder group looks very nebulous with an almost built in majority of NIMBYs (can't think of better word at the moment ).
ih - right. I hadn't seen the full list of participants. Local councillors, transport reps, officials and "relevant local groups" - I'm trying to stay positive, but I think you are right.
Press release from the Greens:
"""
PRESS RELEASE: Green councillors react to Edinburgh cycle route decision
For immediate release: Tuesday 30 August 2016
Green councillors in Edinburgh have lamented a decision to delay a landmark cycle route as both a transport failure and a political failure.
At today’s Transport and Environment Committee the council was due to give the go ahead to a new direct cycle route across the city centre which has been hailed as potentially transforming capital cycling.
However, despite Green councillors urging the committee to back so-called Option A – which provides the most direct route to the city centre through Roseburn - the committee as a whole opted to delay the decision.
Green Transport spokesperson Cllr Nigel Bagshaw said:
“Today was an opportunity for Edinburgh to up its game on active travel, to do what other European cities have been doing for decades and make bold choices which reduce pollution, reduce congestion and change the balance of our transport system.
“Local residents and traders have raised concerns about the impact of the route through Roseburn and, of course, those concerns must be listened to. Indeed, the adjusted design for the route has reflected some of the points made during consultation.
“But what did the council do? It marched (or perhaps pedalled) the city to the top of the hill and marched it down again, with a fudge to delay a final decision, no doubt until after the next council elections.
“So the decision to delay, dither or dilute is a failure of transport policy. But it is also a political failure of the Labour-SNP “Capital Coalition”. Of the 9 Coalition members at committee today, six say they support delivery of the option A direct route. Yet they have been dragged into this fudge by some members of the Coalition who want to stand in the way of a better transport future.
The city council’s Transport and Environment Committee today voted 13-2 to delay a decision on the new cycle route. The sole dissension came from the two Green councillors on the committee who backed going ahead with the option A direct route.
End
"""
built in majority of NIMBYs (can't think of better word at the moment )
I think at some point back I coined them as NIMFYs. The issue we have here is they want it in their back yards, not their front yards.
So who's going to be on the SG? Will they be keeping their friends or their enemies closer?
Very interested in how this Stakeholder Group might work. Now, from "our" point of view, what can we offer above the compromises that have already been made? Narrower track? Acceptance of "back" route? No track, just paint? No floating bus stop? Which bits could be sacrificed whilst it still could lay claims to being a usable and safe route?
From "their" point of view, what could be offered?
You must log in to post.
Cycling in Edinburgh Flickr group
Video embedded using Easy Video Embed plugin
posts