Personally, at this point, I would be inclined to suggest something that's better than Option A ... After all, if everything's open to discussion, why not go for the moon on a stick?
CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » Infrastructure
T&E committee on Roseburn
(342 posts)-
Posted 8 years ago #
-
Sally. I'm very much inclined to agree, but somehow I feel that the starting point will be route A, from which it will be expected that there will be further significant compromises.
Posted 8 years ago # -
I'm more dissapointed at the apparent spinelessness of our politicians than the actual decision.
If it was forced, we would probably have lost.
I am confident that Option A (or as Sally rightly says - BETTER) can and will be won. My reading between the lines was that many on the committee wanted to vote for A, but were too scared to. They have conveniently put this off now for a new council to deal with.
The anti lobby's arguments were mostly ludicrous = but they were louder and more aggresive. Sadly, this works in local government.
Its also dissapointing to see the local SNP politicians start behaving like their Holyrood counterparts and be scared of anything more than a toe-dip.
Posted 8 years ago # -
Critical mass, 8am every Friday, Roseburn Tce, anyone?
Posted 8 years ago # -
If anyone can face it their is an MCC meeting tonight at the upper hall in Murrayfield church tonight.
Posted 8 years ago # -
"I would be inclined to suggest something that's better than Option A"
Easier said than done!
The first thing for CEC to do is work out what the 'real' problems are.
Clearly (it seems) there is a problem with the split between parking and loading bays.
(Ignoring any question of illegal use.)
Today claims included one that local elderly/disabled have to drive to the shops. Can/should there be disabled spaces? Do any shops do local deliveries?
Does Tesco have to do deliveries by artic? (This is not just a Roseburn/Tesco issue.)
One trader claimed that when people get parking tickets, they don't come back. Might be true - but is that about people stopping at times they are not allowed to (and therefore holding up the traffic)?
Do m/any shops have 50% of their trade by car - and is that 50% of people through the door or 50% by value of sales?
If there are to be significant concessions to traders, I think they have to prove their case better.
Various people (councillors and traders) said today that it's hard to make a living from running a small shop - which is undoubtedly true. One person said his business went done by 25% when the Greenways were introduced and further loss of income might cause him to close.
In the big scheme of things, is that possibility a good enough reason for a whole consultation process to be sidelined?!
Posted 8 years ago # -
"If anyone can face it their is an MCC meeting tonight at the upper hall in Murrayfield church tonight."
Might be good if it could be someone who hasn't been before!
Posted 8 years ago # -
Don't forget that in the early consultation process there was an option C. At least I guess it was called C. It had one way cycle tracks along either side of West Coates. Any mention of Shandwick Place was also lost early on so perhaps those are things we should be looking to have returned to the table when the stakeholder group begins.
Should we be trying to make sure that all stakeholders have a place at the table rather than all being under one heading. Spokes, Pop, Roseburn Campaign, Local Residents, etc.
Posted 8 years ago # -
I've said for a few years it would be great if more people supported Critical Mass in Edinburgh. This would be a good reason to start doing so. Roseburn Terrace, every month!
Re sallyhinch's point. Yes, we might as well use the opportunity to point out the shortcoming's in Option A. Why not? We could do so with out fundamentally changing the space sharing arrangement through Roseburn.
Posted 8 years ago # -
Tesco and Scotmid aside, how often does a small trader on Roseburn take or despatch deliveries that require the use of a loading bay? Can such deliveries be done after 6.30pm? If they are relatively small items, can they not be carried to the proposed (option A) loading bays? I think the retailers should be asked to detail (I mean detail) what their deliveries comprise.
Posted 8 years ago # -
As a business owner, there is no such thing as a delivery that *requires* a loading bay. I've had Raleigh lorries park 100s of yds away. I simply lock the door and go and help them. Palletisers, trolleys, all mean it's easy to get deliveries of very bulky items when parked far away.
Lazy delivery drivers are the problem, and it's not the business owner's issue if they can't get parked nearby. As long as I'm open, the courier has an obligation to deliver the package to my shop, regardless of how far away they need to park the vehicle.
Posted 8 years ago # -
I expect that all the deliveries are done by themselves or very occasionally a customer who is picking something up. So for their own deliveries it's just a question of organising your time. For the occasional customer I can't think of anything those people sell that couldn't be carried or trollied to a nearby bay.
Posted 8 years ago # -
edd1e_h: Tues to Thurs seem generally busier on the roads at rush hour. I'd propose a Weds for maximum impact.
Probably a lot of folk working from home on Mondays and Fridays.
Would caveat that it's been a few years since I commuted via RT so initial statement could well now be invalid.
Posted 8 years ago # -
"
Rangifer Revolution (@RangiRevo)
30/08/2016, 4:29 pm
This seems a good summary of today's Roseburn amendment http://dilbert.com/strip/1994-05-23"
Posted 8 years ago # -
"Today claims included one that local elderly/disabled have to drive to the shops."
Is this one of those claims coming from non-elderly/disabled people to help strengthen their case (like "disabled people can't cycle!") or is it a genuine issue?
Would improvements to the pedestrian environment and addition of cycle lanes which mobility scooters can access change this?
Posted 8 years ago # -
Won't make it to the meeting tonight but best of luck. A pity these Neanderthals, we want to reach for the stars and they drag us down to earth so they can hit people with a rock.
Posted 8 years ago # -
If they're driving to Roseburn, I am stumped to know what they Have to get there, and what they could get elsewhere if they couldn't park right in front of the shop. Can't be Tesco, there are plenty of other supermarkets with disabled bays right outside. Are they all desperate to pop into the dog shop for doggy treats? In which case, how do they walk their dog if they can't walk 100 yards to the shop? Are they desperate for bacon rolls? Doesn't seem worth scuppering the whole thing over a bacon sandwich. So, really, it's the shopkeepers who are worried about losing their elderly/disabled customers more than they actually care about the people themselves.
Posted 8 years ago # -
Also, if a Cykelslangen is the way to go. Be sure it blocks them so they can choke on their own fumes.
Posted 8 years ago # -
Thinking about the meeting, the anti's used the following as reasons why the scheme should not go ahead:
Police
Fire service
Ambulance
Lothian Buses
ScotRail
HMFC
Disabled people
Elderly peopleAs far as I am aware, none of these organisations or groups representing these interests actually objected to the proposals.
They also gave the example of two shops that had closed down "due to the proposals", but then said they had been re-let.
Then a rogue fringe comedy act appeared in the place of Murrayfield Community Council.
Posted 8 years ago # -
MCC does appear to be a group of well established 'I think'ers who have been unquestioned in quite some time
Posted 8 years ago # -
The Capital Coalition caved into a small group of people who dissembled and put the fear of god into locals. I blame Ross, Balfour and Eadie for stoking this fear. They probably thought they could make political capital out of it, and locally that might be true, but in terms of serving the city, they have set back improvements years. They should have gone to MCC and the Murrayfield community at large, and engaged with locals and explained the benefits. The problem is that those who are making a fuss genuinely come from a time when the car was not only all important and modern, but it was something you aspired to. There is still something of that attitude about but the times are changing. 2/3 of respondents supported the route, and that will increase as folk realise the havoc that has been unleashed by excessive car use. With multi-member wards it is perhaps better to vote for a candidate's policies rather than party, and like @sallyhinch said up thread, we should ask for and demand better than we've been offered so far.
Posted 8 years ago # -
Haven't had a chance to read the whole thread but have to say HankChief was a total star & Richard good and to the point.
I couldn't understand Adam McVey either. And he looks about 12!
L'esprit d l'escalier is with me. Adam M made points about conflicting interests etc, I now have a speech about representative democracy (From Edmund Burke) that we elect our members to make hard decisions on the best information available. You can't govern by permanent referendum. (Of course he's SNP).
Posted 8 years ago # -
"With multi-member wards it is perhaps better to vote for a candidate's policies rather than party"
Yes, but also important to get 'best' promises into party manifestos.
I'm sure Spokes will lead on this - with 10% of the transport budget for 'cycling' as the top priority.
Of course how much of that is spent on 'high quality infrastructure' or 'promotion' or things that should come out of other roads or pedestrian (etc.) budgets is a whole other matter...
Posted 8 years ago # -
"
Charlie Wood (@urchaidh)
30/08/2016, 15:26
@adamrmcvey pathetic absence of leadership no matter how you spin it, all options already over examined, so choose!! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Design_by_committee"
Posted 8 years ago # -
"I blame Ross, Balfour and Eadie for stoking this fear. They probably thought they could make political capital out of it, and locally that might be true, but in terms of serving the city, they have set back improvements years. "
"we elect our members to make hard decisions on the best information available. You can't govern by permanent referendum. "
All a bit too reminiscent of Brexit.
"Post fact" politics indeed. Expertise, evidence, reasoned arguments, all thrown out of the window to pander to irrational fears and anxieties, and blind prejudice.
Better get used to it: it's the future of politics apparently.
Posted 8 years ago # -
"it's the future of politics apparently"
Only if people let it happen.
Posted 8 years ago # -
"Pidgin Post"'s twitter feed is amusing on this.
The SNP - ready to tear a nation state apart & in that process have businesses relocate to London.
However will not upset a few shopkeepers for 365 feet of road.
Posted 8 years ago # -
Stickman should be commended for all his communications throughout...
Posted 8 years ago # -
@crowriver
I don't think there was ever a golden age when politics was settled by reason and information.
There have been plenty of hysterical miscalculations in British and other politics long before Brexit.
Posted 8 years ago #
Reply »
You must log in to post.
posts
