@rosie, that is a great tweet
CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » Infrastructure
T&E committee on Roseburn
(342 posts)-
Posted 7 years ago #
-
Is this interpretation of the motion on point?
The project is authorised but temporary QUANGO is to be established for a couple of months to develop the design further. This group has the final sign off when it comes to the design and it is not necessary for the project to come back to committee.
Posted 7 years ago # -
@algo: cheers, I spurned Twitter for years but I've really got into it over the last few months. 140 characters suits my thought process as I tend to waffle otherwise. A spot on MCC awaits me.
Like some other above, I think the route should be built up to Roseburn and let it stop there for the time being. Meanwhile, I hope the Roseburn/Dalry/Canal route is built at the same time. I think Dalry is the real area where we will see the benefit of cycle lanes to business. The demographics and types of units seem ideal.
Let Dalry flourish and the Roseburnites will be begging for the route to be extended.
Posted 7 years ago # -
@Rosie
Oh sure, politics in this country is littered with examples.
I even understand the "local strength of feeling" angle with regard to councillor's decisions (or non-decisions).
What I don't understand is how politics can give in to flagrant falsehoods. Unless of course elected representatives, deep down, choose to identify with "people like us" (i.e.. similar to themselves) over "people like them" (i.e.. in this case cyclists) when put under pressure. In which case it doesn't really matter what the tribe says, the politicians bow to their opinions...
(That logic can also be applied to politicians who agree with the "out group" tribe).
Posted 7 years ago # -
@Klaxon I got the impression that the quango (stakeholder group) is advisory and that the decision will be made by another group, but not the Committee. I need to listen to what Lesley Hinds said again.
Posted 7 years ago # -
Correct me if I am wrong, but is the route as a whole not now hostage to the decision-making timescale of the Stakeholder Group? Or is it just the Roseburn section which has to wait?
I have this feeling it is the former rather than the latter.....hence my comments about worst outcome above.
Posted 7 years ago # -
@crowriver - Yeah I'd scrap the Roseburn section for another day if they built the rest.
@Stickman - the Dalry route will make the number of cyclists especially visible. & Dalry/Fountainbridge are a more obvious demographic for cycling, as you say. Fountainbridge is still a post industrial hole, but the potential for a really lively inner city area is palpable. Now if we could only get that simple crossing to Drysdale Road.
Posted 7 years ago # -
@crowriver - I've been hampered by thinking that any sane person would see how bogus and embarrassing the main organiser of the antis is. However I see that about other people prominent in public life who others probably vote for....
Posted 7 years ago # -
"if we could only get that simple crossing to Drysdale Road"
From where?
Posted 7 years ago # -
Western Approach Road
Path through Dalry Park takes you almost to road level then you drop down to go through the subway.
If you continued to the bus stop on the Western Approach you can see a desire line by the side of the road to Morrison Crescent.
There are lights to allow drivers to go from Drysdale Road onto the WAR. If they made it a toucan crossing at that point that would take you onto Fountainbridge instead of using the zig-zag at Morrison Crescent.
Posted 7 years ago # -
Ah yes.
I've 'expected' a path on the verge from Dalry Park to Morrison Cres for so long I'd stopped thinking about it.
SO much easier to do than OptionA.
In fact I think the new campaigning slogan about anything should be "easier than OptionA".
Posted 7 years ago # -
I believe we should do Option A, and the other things, not because it is easy, but because it is hard. (With apologies...)
Posted 7 years ago # -
"
Adam McVey (@adamrmcvey)
30/08/2016, 14:17
@CllrChasBooth @RangiRevo the scheme not on hold. @LAHinds & I checked timeline with officers & "construction" won't be delayed."
"
Lesley Hinds (@LAHinds)
30/08/2016, 17:05
@RangiRevo @adamrmcvey @CllrChasBooth final design decisions by the end of year. TRO in April. As previous timetable"
Posted 7 years ago # -
PG seems to think that the motion today has killed the whole scheme.
Posted 7 years ago # -
PG seems to think that the motion today has killed the whole scheme.
He's been consistently spouting mendacious bollocks, why should that change now?
What he says, and what he thinks/knows/believes are not always consistent.
Posted 7 years ago # -
"a conclusion which the majority are happy with so that the final route design can be agreed"
I'm sure I'm not alone in wondering why the majority of a stakeholder group representing 10 or minoriy interest groups should get higher weighting than the majority response to a city wide consultation.
Posted 7 years ago # -
"I'm sure I'm not alone in wondering why ... "
Well at least one of the councillors used the word "localism".
I looked forward to all the people who live on rat runs demanding that something should be done.
- and local council candidates rushing around getting side streets shut (with full walk/cycle permeability).
Posted 7 years ago # -
"Being told to 'b*gger off' must be some type of good faith I wasn't previously aware of."
Do these people yell the same at the alleged 600 motor vehicles per day that travel through Roseburn? Or is their "good faith" and "localism" solely reserved for cyclists?
Posted 7 years ago # -
So what stage is the Dalry path currently at? The timeline suggests construction should begin this year - didn't realise it was so far along.
Posted 7 years ago # -
If it's "all bets are off" on the Roseburn section, then surely it's "all bets are off" on the remainder of the route too.
By that I mean we could push for further improvements elsewhere on the route.
Let's take a step back here and look at option A - it isn't that perfect in some parts:
- it is indirect and convoluted between Haymarket and the west-end and avoids the shopping/employment areas on W. Maitland St and the West end of Princes St. The route should really be through Haymarket and along Shandwick Pl.
- there is an over reliance on 2-way bike lanes on one side of the road which makes access/exit difficult as well as increasing the danger at junctions. All experience from around the world suggests that 2-way bike lanes (that follow roads) are not as good as 1-way on each side, except in very limited circumstances.
- no adequate connection to Lothian Rd (which is a major route for bikes and also needs improvement).
- parts of it are too narrow and far below the minimum standard.
I think we should push for at least:
- 1-way segregated on each side on W. Coates (min. 2m width on each side).
- Route through Shandwick Pl with future-proof connection to Lothian Rd.
- Adequate width, at least meeting the minimum standards.Posted 7 years ago # -
So, having reflected on yesterday.
Option A is too radical for the level of evidence that it will tempt non-cyclists to cycle. That evidence needs to be real. We need actual non-cyclists to back whatever is proposed.
The group that will be absent from the working party, but whose interests will nonetheless be paramount in all considerations is private motorists. We should try to force them to participate and make their argument for the huge amounts of A8 tarmac all of them use.
We should maybe argue for a hierarchy of mode importance like; pedestrians>buses>cyclists> local deliveries>commercial vehicles>private motorists, remembering that separation can be in time as well as in space.
If the decision is indeed that the private motor car is the preferred mode of transport along the urban A8 then that road should be elevated on stilts like the M8 and provided with suitable on- and off-ramps and multi-storey car parks at the West End.
Posted 7 years ago # -
"MCC does appear to be a group of well established 'I think'ers who have been unquestioned in quite some time"
Didn't someone mention that Community Council elections were coming up soon? That is one way to change things: stand for your CC. You do have to be very dedicated, and interested in local issues.
I'm recalling the situation in Portobello, where a similar group of NIMBYs occupied the CC, and objected to the new High School being built on parkland. They were subsequently ousted in the CC elections by pro High School candidates who challenged them and won the vote.
It should be noted that members are "elected" uncontested unless there are more candidates than vacancies to fill. Thus, no elections are held for the majority of CCs, which are literally "self appointed".
Posted 7 years ago # -
Candidate forms available from 5th September.
http://www.edinburgh.gov.uk/info/20133/community_planning/1493/community_council_elections
|If there are more candidates than places on the community council, an election will be held in that area on Thursday 27 October 2016."
Now I'd say that the timing of these elections presents a good opportunity to influence the outcome of the Stakeholder Group process...
(I don't live in Roseburn or Murrayfield but if I did I'd be seriously considering standing).
Posted 7 years ago # -
Oh if you have a look on the map, the CCs covering the area of the East-West route proposals are:
Murrayfield
West End
New Town/BroughtonIf you live in any of these areas, it may be worth considering standing for your CC.
(I'm in Leith Central CC area, which I actually think does a pretty decent job. If that changes, I'll just start turning up to meetings to let them know my views).
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".
Posted 7 years ago # -
Victory!
Good news. All our work has paid off! The Council today passed the motion below.
In a mammoth 4.5 hr session, the Edinburgh Council Transport Committee bowed to pressure from 6,000 residents who told them that the plan to run a protected cycle track from Roseburn to Haymarket would be a disaster.In a nutshell, the whole matter has been continued- neither Option A or Option B are being progressed.
Instead the Council agreed to establish a member/officer “Stakeholder Group”, comprised of the Convener, Vice Convener, the Transport Representatives of other Political Groups, and local Ward members, and relevant local groups, along with Officers as agreed by the Director of Place, all to act as a “sounding board throughout the detailed design and eventual statutory processes.
This group will include ourselves, residents associations, etc:
-to note that issues raised so far, to be addressed, are: Taxi position of Haymarket Station area; Safety issues relating to the two-wat cycle lane, Traffic control at Russell Road- Riseburn Terrace junction; West bound bus lane and width of pavement at Roseburn Terrace/ Roseburn Street.-All outstanding design issues raised through the “Stakeholders Group” will then be brought to the “Future Transport Working Group” for final decision.
My understanding is that the agreed decision making body would not favour route A.
The Committee were convinced by deputations from the Murrayfield Community Council (Robert Smart), Central Taxis (Tony Kenmuir), Art et Facts (-on behalf of traders - George Rendall), and us – the Roseburn Vision Group - (Barbara Knowles and I). STV filmed our protest at the Chambers. And I delivered the petition signatures to Cllr Hinds. The battle is over, the signs can come down. Now the talking starts.
So there will be improvements to cycling eventually between Roseburn and Haymarket- and, I think, maybe all the way to Leith, but in essence the conversation on that is only really now beginning in earnest. There will no longer be Council officers in shadowy rooms dreaming up cycle track schemes and trying to sneak them past us and the elected members. That’s a huge victory for common sense.
There was a lot of coverage on the evening News: You can read it here
http://www.edinburghnews.scotsman.com/our-region/edinburgh/d-day-for-cycleway-in-edinburgh-amidst-anger-and-division-1-4216167
and here
http://www.edinburghnews.scotsman.com/news/transport/cycleway-delay-sparks-claims-of-political-fudge-1-4217049What an experience it’s been for all of us!
You’ll be hearing a lot less from me in future. I’ll get in touch from time to time if there is useful news.
Posted 7 years ago # -
I was going to say the same as crowriver... The position of various Community Councils has been raised a number of times on this thread, I've not be keeping up enough to know the position of each, or how they are representing the community views.
However their role is to ascertain the views of their community and to represent that. It's *not* to represent the views of the community councillors themselves.
There's often systemic bias in the make up of community councils, that's not on purpose but reflects those with spare time taking up the positions. And also the perception it's hard to find out the views of the community. It's not. Best fix for that is a more diverse membership of community councils. So put yourself forward folks, it doesn't actually take up too much time. And you don't need to own a green pen. http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=16774
The Porty situation not quite as simple as the High School angle, but that was definitely a catalyst. Portobello had been told what it's views were for years, without the community council bothering to ask.
L/
(vice-chair Porty CC)Posted 7 years ago # -
I think this link applies again: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_to_moderation
"Additionally, the middle ground fallacy can create the rather illogical situation that the middle ground reached in the previous compromise now becomes the new extreme in the continuum of opinions"
Don't let PG etc present Option A as the new extreme.
Posted 7 years ago # -
"There will no longer be Council officers in shadowy rooms dreaming up cycle track schemes and trying to sneak them past us and the elected members. That’s a huge victory for common sense."
THERE WAS A FULL AND OPEN AND PUBLICISED CONSULTATION!
It's like people who complain that brightly coloured and warning-signed speed cameras are a 'stealth' tax.
Common sense my foot.
Posted 7 years ago #
Reply »
You must log in to post.
posts
