CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » Debate!

Roseburn: Option A1, or?

(27 posts)

No tags yet.


  1. chdot
    Admin

    This post may change in response to comments in other posts.

    Not abandoning the longrunning thread, but after T&E and before the SG, thought it might be worth putting together the things that *most* people might agree on.

    Segregated cyclelane on West Coates (preferably on each side of the road, but...)

    Continuation along the first part of Roseburn Terrace as far as Roseburn Street.

    Redesign of RT, RSt and Russell Road junctions to include proper pedestrian crossing provision (especially across RT from the Roseburn Bar towards Vigo).

    Ideally there should be no right turn (eastbound into RSt/RRd) but this seems unlikely.

    I think more work by CEC is required here. First a proper traffic survey to find why vehicles are turning right. Followed by modelling to see the effect of removing the right hand filter (at least at 'rush' hour - when the bus lanes are operating.) This would mean that there would be a proper bus only lane going towards Haymarket. This would disadvantage westbound traffic, but modelling might show little affect on volumes or journey times (though in any case part of the point of all this is to discourage general traffic by advantaging other modes - particularly buses).

    Stopping the Roseburn Place/Gardens rat run.

    Finishing the shared use path all the way along Russell Road to RSt (and integration with pedestrian crossing provision).

    Better pedestrian 'experience' on Roseburn Terrace.

    More, prosperous, shops.

    Council Tax reductions for RT premises while any road/pavement/traffic lights works go on (if significant).

    Some genuine parking on RT not just "loading" which is easy to abuse and difficult to enforce.

    'Outlining' marks on the road where the cycle lanes and buildouts etc. might go (prefaced by notifications that this was going to happen).

    Possibly followed by experimental kerbs and planters to assess issues of pavement/road/lane width, turning circles at junctions etc.

    And?

    Posted 8 years ago #

  2. ih
    Member

    I noticed that the route along Roseburn Terrace shop area isn't mentioned. Is there a reason? Too contentious to discuss at this point?

    I would include the segregated track along the RT as an essential, primarily because it provides connections easily to the left and right at the end of the Terrace, as well as giving future options onto Corstorphine Rd. I believe all reasonable requests by the shop keeper lobby can be accommodated with the track.

    In that context some 'real' short stop parking spaces, as opposed to loading, are worth thinking about, but Greenway rules during rush periods needs to be respected.

    The redesign of RSt / RR with RR having priority as far as the junction was quite good on the CEC plan. As was the crossing planned from the Bar to Vigo.

    To get good connectivity and permiability with all the roads on that junction the newly allowed zebra and parallel cycle crossings could be considered on Russell Road and Roseburn St roughly where the current plans have them to integrate with the shared route along Russell Road.

    A link from the north side of the track opposite Tesco going up the existing track to the mega displays, to connect to NEPN (the link is almost complete now, just needs a good surface)

    My unscientific observations indicate that most of the evening West to east traffic turns right and most of that turns into Russell Road, so presumably the morning traffic reverses that route. Possibly lengthen the green light on that right filter and that lane could accommodate right turn and straight on, thus freeing the left lane for buses during the rush. Modelling all options desirable. However, it shouldn't be shied away from that one objective is actually to encourage reduction in car volumes so designing something that easily copes with current volumes rather defeats that objective.

    Posted 8 years ago #

  3. chdot
    Admin

    "I noticed that the route along Roseburn Terrace shop area isn't mentioned. Is there a reason? Too contentious to discuss at this point?"

    The idea is try to work out the 'basics' where there is broad agreement by (extreme polarisation for the purpose of this thread) 'cyclists' and 'locals'.

    Clearly most people on here wanted Option A. Whether 'locals' (traders and residents) actually prefer Option B is still an open question. However even if that is true, there is no reason why CEC should be persuaded by this particular interest.

    It's important to remember that 'we'/the 'cycle lobby' didn't create the idea of an E-W route (with or without a section being on RT). CEC drew up the plans aware of a significant increase in the number of people cycling in Edinburgh (and an evidenced belief that many more people want to cycle) AND worldwide trends - and evidence - that more cycling is good for general public health and local economies.

    Not just about cycling. Such schemes improve the infrastructure for pedestrians too, and can reduce traffic volume and speeds, which can lead to many benefits -

    "

    Dr Denis Henshaw, Professor of Human Radiation Effects at Bristol University, the scientific adviser for Children with Cancer UK, said air pollution was by far the biggest culprit, accounting for around 40 per cent of the rise, but other elements of modern lifestyles are also to blame.

    "

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/2016/09/03/modern-life-is-killing-our-children-cancer-rate-in-young-people/

    Posted 8 years ago #

  4. chdot
    Admin

    "In that context some 'real' short stop parking spaces, as opposed to loading, are worth thinking about, but Greenway rules during rush periods needs to be respected."

    Not suggesting any relaxation that would allow any stopping during 'rush' hour.

    I only realised/remembered yesterday that blue badge holders can already park without time restrictions - so that removes some of the objections 'on behalf of disabled people'.

    Posted 8 years ago #

  5. neddie
    Member

    Stopping up the Russell Rd rat-run, particularly at the Murieston end (I'm sure the Murieston residents would agree with this).

    Let's see how many drivers still wish to turn right off Roseburn Tce once this is done.

    Posted 8 years ago #

  6. chdot
    Admin

    "Stopping up the Russell Rd rat-run, particularly at the Murieston end"

    That would be good.

    Happened for months on end during tram and railway bridge work.

    The world didn't come to an end.

    CEC really is reluctant to 'disadvantage' motorists.

    There's not even a need to have a binary open to all/none.

    Easy enough to have a barrier system for CEC vehicles going to the depot, coaches on match days or just 'shut at peak commuting hours'.

    Posted 8 years ago #

  7. Dave
    Member

    If Russell Rd was one way northbound, it would remove the right filter lane on the A8 but not prevent access for anyone (you might just have to spend a few minutes driving around the block to get to the industrial estate).

    Posted 8 years ago #

  8. crowriver
    Member

    • 59% of road transport emissions is from cars (12% from light vans, 28% from trucks and buses)

    • 88% of car CO2 emissions is commuting and other private mileage, rather than business.

    (So then 51% of road transport emissions are from commuting and other private mileage...)

    From:

    http://www.carbonindependent.org/sources_car.html

    Posted 8 years ago #

  9. neddie
    Member

    Sadly, it seems to be considered "normal" to commute 30 miles in each direction by car.

    It's for the economy, ya know...

    Posted 8 years ago #

  10. Harts Cyclery
    Member

    We do need to challenge the assumption that traffic must turn right at Roseburn. The Council are particularly bad at challenging the status quo in this way. There are lots of ways to get to Russell Road that are more appropriate than a right turn on a busy road that the Council have ear-marked for a strategic cycle lane.

    Posted 8 years ago #

  11. crowriver
    Member

    "Sadly, it seems to be considered "normal" to commute 30 miles in each direction by car."

    The usual justifications include:

    - Trains too expensive, overcrowded
    - Buses crap, overcrowded
    - Public transport doesn't stop nearby/outside my house
    - Public transport doesn't go where I need to
    - Public transport timetables not convenient
    - Too far to cycle

    The last one is fair enough, however car-owning folk don't usually entertain the idea of mixed mode commuting, eg. walk/cycle, train, walk/cycle. Also the criticisms of public transport are sometimes justified, but sometimes you get the feeling that folk just like their personal space, they don't want to sit next to strangers. Also, once a car is owned it's easier to justify marginal fuel costs as part of the overall cost of ownership, whereas trains seem "expensive" in comparison...

    (We've had many of these discussions before in other threads).

    Posted 8 years ago #

  12. neddie
    Member

    The usual justifications include

    - I like driving, so I chose to buy a house miles from anywhere and miles from any public transport
    - But I need to have 3 extra bedrooms (I've got friends who come to stay once a year, you know) and it's too expensive to get that in town

    Posted 8 years ago #

  13. I were right about that saddle
    Member

    I commuted 44 miles by automobile for a year and it made me feel awful, physically and emotionally.

    I don't think people realise the damage they're doing to themselves at all.

    One thing that we can't forget is that of course for some people the drive to work is the only time they get on their own with their music and no demands from co-workers or family. The illusion of control and freedom is strong as you wear a pair of grooves in the road from your door to your place of work.

    Posted 8 years ago #

  14. chdot
    Admin

    And the Roseburn shopkeepers are clearly part of/happy with all the above.

    The idea of relatively local people passing by on a means of transport which could be stopped/parked - legally - at any time of day is clearly beyond their understanding.

    As I've said before, if any of them go out of business, it's because they are not keeping up - with the competition, the Internet, changing habits, demographics etc. or welcoming plans that could reduce the amount of polluting traffic just passing by...

    Posted 8 years ago #

  15. Stickman
    Member

    @chdot: yes, and some people seem to confuse the council facilitating business with it needing to protect individual businesses

    Posted 8 years ago #

  16. Rob
    Member

    "Also, once a car is owned it's easier to justify marginal fuel costs as part of the overall cost of ownership"

    Roads/cars are like the cheap unlimited broadband deals of the 2000s. The whole system collapses when people start interpreting "unlimited" as "use it as much as you can".

    Perhaps we need "road tax" to come with a fair usage policy?

    Posted 8 years ago #

  17. Stickman
    Member

    ...good to see some Roseburn businesses are embracing different ways of working. A leaflet out through my door lists the local cafes who use the Deliveroo bike delivery service. Cafe Vigo (opposed to bike lane, no customers come by bike, can't do shopping by bike, apparently get deliveries by articulated lorry) is one of them.

    Posted 8 years ago #

  18. chdot
    Admin

    Thread drift (partly my fault).

    Can 'general' (rather than 'infrastructure details') comments just go on other thread.

    Posted 8 years ago #

  19. crowriver
    Member

    "Roads/cars are like the cheap unlimited broadband deals of the 2000s. The whole system collapses when people start interpreting "unlimited" as "use it as much as you can". "

    There's a well documented theory that describes this behaviour, much touted in early internet boom days:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons

    Posted 8 years ago #

  20. crowriver
    Member

    "A leaflet out through my door lists the local cafes who use the Deliveroo bike delivery service. "

    Maybe Vigo don't actually realise they get/send deliveries by bike, and assume it's a van/lorry? Or are they just distorting their reality to suit their deep seated beliefs?

    Posted 8 years ago #

  21. gembo
    Member

    Was it the case that where we ended up at Roseburn used to be a road? You used to be able to come up from coltbridge and veer left and that area was pedestrianised at some point, presumably to reduce lanes of traffic, congestion, chaos etc?

    Posted 8 years ago #

  22. chdot
    Admin

    Obviously it was the only road before the current main road bridge was built.

    It is likely that it remained open for the convenience of people living in Murrayfield Place and Coltbridge area. At some point it was stopped up when traffic got heavier - no idea when.

    Does anyone know people living on Coltbridge Avenue/Gardens? If they cycle, or would like to cycle, segregated cycle provision on Roseburn Terrace and onwards to Leith would be of great benefit.

    Posted 8 years ago #

  23. Stickman
    Member

    The council plan to close the Roseburn Place/Gardens needs to be done. It's anything but a quiet street. This morning there was a queue of about 5 cars waiting to turn into Roseburn Place coming from Russell Road. Cars turning into Roseburn Gardens usually cut the corner, which is risky for people coming down from Roseburn Terrace.

    Combine this with the plan to prioritise Rusell Road over Roseburn Street and the environment for residents would be hugely improved.

    Posted 8 years ago #

  24. I were right about that saddle
    Member

    @gembo

    Not quite clear but there seem to be two roads in 1904;

    http://maps.nls.uk/view/74488703

    and in 1857;

    http://maps.nls.uk/view/74488698

    Posted 8 years ago #

  25. Stickman
    Member

    @gembo

    Are you suggesting that road layouts change over time and that people adapt to those changes?

    Posted 8 years ago #

  26. Stickman
    Member

    The revised plans showed that the West Coates lane was narrowed to 2m in places. This was justified to allow retention of a bus stop and to enable more "loading".

    At the moment there is loading on both sides outside rush hour. The original plan had loading on the north side only outside of rush hour; the revised plan has "overnight loading" (whatever that might be) on the south side.

    Have the businesses explained whether the original plan would prevent loading for them completely or just that they would prefer not to cross the road when loading? If the implication is that all businesses must have loading on both side of the road then that's going to severely restrict future designs elsewhere in the city.

    Posted 8 years ago #

  27. neddie
    Member

    Put the loading in the middle lane of 3 - satisfy the shops on both sides - like a floating loading bay...

    20mph and a narrow moving traffic lane either side of the loading - what could go wrong?

    Posted 8 years ago #

RSS feed for this topic

Reply

You must log in to post.


Video embedded using Easy Video Embed plugin