So I am!
CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » Infrastructure
Consultation: Meadows to Castle Terrace
(86 posts)-
Posted 8 years ago #
-
Why put a 2 way on the wrong side?
Which is the correct side for a two-way, generally speaking?
Posted 8 years ago # -
Subjective
In my opinion it would be the side of the road on which there are the least side roads and which connects to onward paths with the least main road crossings.
Posted 8 years ago # -
Reminder, there's a consultation drop in about this route tonight from 5-8 at central library.
Posted 8 years ago # -
Hoping to get to this briefly.
Posted 8 years ago # -
After attending the consultation I followed the route home in the west. I hadn't thought of going down Lady Lawson Street and onto Castle Terrace with a filtered right turn onto Lothian Road and then through Rutland Street to join on to Shandwick Place. It's not a bad route home as it's downhill. The other way round it would be on the hilly side, though not too bad.
However as the logical way from George IV Bridge to the West End would be segregated cycle routes along Lauriston Place and Lothian Road which would be less steep it's exasperating that yet another Quiet Route which isn't going to "steal" car space is planned for.
Posted 8 years ago # -
Just been along to this. Felt like a case of the planners being much keener than colleagues in roads and (some) elected members. They were keen to get responses - preferably stating overall "yes please" before getting into the issues. The prioritising of traffic and parking was mentioned by several (cycling) members of the public!
Posted 8 years ago # -
I'd concur with unhurt's view. For example, if we want that crossing on Lothian Road to be single phase rather than staggered, people need to feedback that they'd prefer it this way. While of course supporting the proposals overall...
Posted 8 years ago # -
So that's the drop-in session attended and the online survey completed. Here's hoping it happens (and is improved from the current design).
Posted 8 years ago # -
I went along tonight and will try to be constructive about specifics in my consultation response, but i feel quite depressed about the proposal in general. I live in Wharton Square (big social housing block on Chalmers Street) and cycle to the Western General regularly. The stretch to Castle Terrace is probably the safest part of the journey - even when illegally going up Lady Lawson Street on the way home. It feels like this project has been chosen simply because it can be implemented without upsetting anyone, rather than because it is genuinely useful.
I also cycle with young kids so i suppose we would use the route for the farmer's market or the gardens, but beyond that, the route does nothing to open up the city to inexperienced cyclists.
In this part of the city, the need for a safe route from the meadows to the canal, and a solution to the problems at the bottom of Lothian Road seem far more pressing. To see a proposal like this instead simply adds to the impression that anything of mild inconvenience to motorists is off the agenda.
Posted 8 years ago # -
@ Shivas - I agree totally. It's not totally useless but again it pushes the cyclist round an awkward route as they haven't got the stomach to try for a route that would actually work because it would accept the motor vehicles.
Posted 8 years ago # -
Whilst being no apologist for Aecom's designs (the crossing of Grange Road being particularly egregious), I think there's a risk of being too harsh on this one.
The route is on the straight line from the Meadows at Chalmers Street to the junction of Castle Street, and was already the route my (less keen) wife had selected for cycling the children back from the Usher Hall (although via Lauriston Street/Gardens).
If approaching from anywhere east of the Pavilions in the Meadows, it is likely the most direct route, which then includes links to the Innocent, etc. As (ultimately) a route to the west end of Princes Street, it covers a reasonable sector to the SE.
Despite climbing the hill to the fire station, it may also be quicker in time. There are only two stops on the route, the junctions with Lauriston Place and West Port, with no other places to give way to motorised traffic. Going via Lothian Road will require at least three stops (Tollcross, East Fountainbridge and Bread Street), all of which are more major junctions, even assuming that there are no other signalised pedestrian crossings and the postulated cycle track has priority over all side streets.
Yet, Lothian Road is admittedly still the prize, and this current route is intended to join up with the plans (yet to be concluded) there.
However, absolutely, the two stage crossing of Lothian Road should become single stage if they're going to the expense of moving it at all!
And, yes, I did note that the consultation was designed to allay the fears of the motorist (parking retained, delays minimised) - yet without allying those fears, the route can descend into farce, sucking time, energy and effort away from making progress into responding to the post-fact reactions.
Robert
Posted 8 years ago # -
I went along last night and spent a long time chatting with the project manager from the council (Martyn Lings). This was the best run consultation that I've been to in a long time, Martyn wrote down everyone's suggestions very carefully and whenever he thought something was going to be difficult he explained why. It was nice when these things are a conversation and you can get a feel for which battles you stand a chance of winning and which you don't.
Shivas, I agree that part of the reason this project has been chosen because it can be implemented without causing too many headaches. I'm not sure that's a bad thing. The cycle team have a lot of battles that they are bogged down in at the moment, it seems sensible to try and do some useful but uncontroversial stuff at the same time.
I live in Newington and use this route two or three times a month when we go to Filmhouse or even to some of the shops at the west end of Princes Street. It's not going to revolutionise my experience of cycling in the city, but it's another useful link.
Posted 8 years ago # -
"And, yes, I did note that the consultation was designed to allay the fears of the motorist (parking retained, delays minimised) - yet without allying those fears, the route can descend into farce, sucking time, energy and effort away from making progress into responding to the post-fact reactions."
Ah, the 'post-facts-pragmatism'!
(You are of course right.)
One day losing parking spaces will be a 'normal' rather than a 'problem'. I expect it's already Council-approved policy really...
Posted 8 years ago # -
Rumours are that a firm of lawyers on Castle Terrace are already planning to object due to the loss of two parking spaces across from their offices. Two. TWO. I mean, it's not as if there isn't a huge multi-storey car park 50 yards way.
That's what even a relatively uncontroversial scheme like this is up against.
When I asked where does it go after Lothian Road, the answer was that there are plans to link Lothian Road with Charlotte Square, however these will happen later as they are "more contentious".
Oh and let's not underestimate the battles the cycling team are having with the road design team over things like making the pedestrian crossing single phase instead of staggered.
If we want the city to be better for cycling and pedestrians we need to get behind schemes like this, with constructive criticism where required. They need supportive voices to help make the case.
Posted 8 years ago # -
"If we want the city to be better for cycling and pedestrians we need to get behind schemes like this, with constructive criticism where required. They need supportive voices to help make the case."
Yes.
But.
There really needs to be more visible support from politicians (sometimes it's called leadership) - especially important with the inevitable 'regime change' in May due to LH & AB leaving.
I'm sure some on here (and many others) will be going to -
Posted 8 years ago # -
My response is positive but as Shivas say this does not tackle any of the real issues of getting cyclists safely through major intersections.
It also introduces a hill onto a route that has a flatter alternative. To see how unattractive it is imagine if drivers had to drive this sort of route instead of doing a level, straight run along the main street.
The only real answer is to be bold and re-allocate road space. Spokes surveys show that despite the current abysmal cycling experience, Lothian Road has a high number of cyclists heading straight to where they want to go. If they built routes where demand was I reckon it would pay off (eg beside WAR). The CEC would simply say there is increased demand for cycling on this road and our policy is to re-enforce this trend. Instead we sometimes have schemes being mooted on routes where bikes are rarely seen.
(As noted elsewhere the canal link to Meadows is long overdue and always a bunch of cyclists at Gilmore Place trying to turn right in their allotted 30 seconds.)Posted 8 years ago # -
"eg beside WAR"
Would be better if WAR was bikes and buses only!
Posted 8 years ago # -
Of course it depends what questions are asked, and how, but things are changing -
"
Rod King MBE (@20splentyforus)
15/11/2016, 8:21 am
in British Social Attitudes Survey 73% say #20splenty for residential roads. Now that's what I call "will of the people"http://pic.twitter.com/PfkZSuX7oA
"
Posted 8 years ago # -
"There really needs to be more visible support from politicians (sometimes it's called leadership) - especially important with the inevitable 'regime change' in May due to LH & AB leaving."
Well sure, but how do we ensure that happens? As was mentioned at last night's consultation (not by me!), voting for Green councillors will help. Might send the message to other parties, especially the SNP, that motorists' interests are not the only ones to consider.
Posted 8 years ago # -
I've been thinking about this - agree with UtrechtCyclist above too, Martyn was clear that they're trying to get wins that prove principle and use those to make the case for more "controversial" changes. Possibly voting Green is part of the solution - or possibly asking other party councillors why you SHOULDN'T vote Green given that the other parties seem to be all talk and only a limited amount of trouser on active transport?
Posted 8 years ago # -
"Possibly voting Green is part of the solution - or possibly asking other party councillors why you SHOULDN'T vote Green"
But don't forget all wards have three or four councillors, so all parties will get some councillors.
It's likely that Greens will get 'extra' as there will be more wards with 4 seats.
Whichever party/ies people favour (or won't vote for under any circumstances) the individual candidates (and successful councillors) are more important than party label.
So worth engaging with the ones in your ward to find out whether they support 'active travel' generally and whether they will vote for specific projects, keeping the 10%, etc.
It's virtually certain that no party in Edinburgh will have an overall majority, so there will be a coalition - formal between two or more parties or perhaps on an issue by issue basis.
Posted 8 years ago # -
Spokes count comments.
- "Lothian Road saw the least change from last November, with a small rise in bike use and a small fall in cars – bikes comprising 19.8% of citybound vehicles. This level of cycling demand surely cries out for protected cycling provision on this relatively wide, but scary, city-centre road.
"The Council should take every advantage of its success to speed up its plans to boost cycling (as well as walking and public transport). The continuing decline in car numbers makes it much easier than 10 years ago to re-allocate roadspace. The planned East-West segregated route should be progressed robustly; and there is an ever stronger case for protected cycle facilities on Lothian Road and from the Meadows to Princes Street."
http://www.spokes.org.uk/2016/11/traffic-count-highest-ever-november-bike
Posted 8 years ago # -
@UtrechtCyclist "The cycle team have a lot of battles that they are bogged down in at the moment, it seems sensible to try and do some useful but uncontroversial stuff at the same time".
@crowriver"If we want the city to be better for cycling and pedestrians we need to get behind schemes like this, with constructive criticism where required. They need supportive voices to help make the case".
I hear you, and i'll certainly approach the consultation in that spirit - i'm also hoping to arrange a response from the Wharton Square Resident's Group with a specific request for provision on the stretch between NMW and the Eye Pavillion.
Posted 8 years ago # -
"a specific request for provision on the stretch between NMW and the Eye Pavillion."
I've also asked if this section could be improved: there's a high school on that street too, so potentially some of the 750+ pupils studying there could benefit...
Posted 8 years ago # -
Not to mention many adults and children doing music and craft classes via the Council's adult and community learning programmes.
Posted 8 years ago # -
Just completed this, the consultation closes today. Would be great to get lots of responses in.
It says the consultation should only take ten minutes but then gives you a box asking for your thoughts on cycling and walking in Edinburgh without a limit on how much you can write...
Posted 7 years ago # -
Spokes's comments:-
1. We would like to see the small section of cycle lane on Chalmers Street segregated by a kerb. Chalmers Street is quite busy at rush hour with cars turning both left and right at the top, and we want to avoid the cycle lane becoming blocked if these cars form two separate queues (This happens a lot at Hope Park Terrace heading towards the meadows).
2. The entrance to the top of Lady Lawson Street is currently very flared. For the benefit of pedestrians crossing and eastbound cyclists on Lauriston Place it would be better if the corner radius is as narrow as possible. We appreciate that this is a bus route, but would like to see a swept path analysis done in order to find the tightest possible corner that continues to allow access to buses. At the turn into Lady Lawson Street from Lauriston Place the cycle lane is extremely narrow, this will be a real pinch point on the route and we would like to see it widened. We hope that markings on the cycle path make clear that cyclists heading westbound on the segregated cycle lane on Lauriston Place cannot continue straight on across Lady Lawson Street when the segregated cycle lane ends.
3. The top section of the Lady Lawson Street cycle lane is narrower than the recommended 3m for a bi-directional cycle lane. We appreciate that compromises have had to be made here, but would like to stress that if the cycle lane were narrowed any further in subsequent redesigns arising from this consultation this would significantly compromise the usability of the whole route. Width of cycle lanes is particularly important on hilly sections such as this. We are particularly concerned about the narrowness of the cycle lane at the bend in the top half of Lady Lawson Street.
4. Currently the plans do not allow northbound cyclists on Lady Lawson Street to turn right into Grassmarket, We believe this is in error (since southbound cyclists are allowed to make the turn) and would like to see an 'except cyclists' appended to the no right turn sign.
5. The bottom half of Lady Lawson Street is much wider than the top and very wide for a one way street. We would like to see the cycle lanes widened to the recommended 3m here. We think the decision to make this stretch of Lady Lawson Street one-way is very sensible and are very pleased that the council are proposing this.
6. We're unsure of the reasons for changing the priorities at the junction between Grindlay Street and Spittal Street. This is an unusual layout at a T-junction which we think introduces extra confusion, and unless the designers have a compelling reason for the redesign we think it should remain as it is presently. If it is intended to make it easier for cyclists to turn in to Grindlay Street a wide island in the middle of Spittal Street might better achieve this, and would be of benefit to pedestrians too. We would also like to see a protective island for cyclists turning right from Castle Terrace into Lady Lawson Street.
7. The cycle lane is narrow with a number of tight turns near the Castle Terrace roundabout. It should be widened with the turns softened if possible. We would like the crossing for pedestrians and cyclists to have clear visual priority and to be on a serious raised table, of the sort found Waverley Bridge, rather than the gentle and somewhat ineffective raised tables found elsewhere in the city.
8. We would like to see a very clear prohibition of parking on and loading from the cycle lane during the farmers' market. Of course it will be necessary for stallholders to carry goods across the cycle lane from vehicles, we don't see this as a problem for cyclists or stallholders. We don't believe that any of the stalls at the farmers' market currently draw power by running cables from their vehicles, but it might be worth notifying the organisers of the market that this will not be allowed in the future. We would like to see some more cycle parking at this location if possible.
9. We would like to see very clear 'visual priority' of the cycle lane over the entrance to the car park on Castle Terrace.
10. We suggest extending the bidirectional cycle lane on Lauriston Place, to run all the way from the top of Middle Meadow Walk at Forrest Road to Tollcross. This would be very useful already, and would provide additional value in the future when Forrest Road is redesigned and a cycleroute from there to Princes Street is constructed. Spokes has long campaigned for this and we understand it is on the Council's project list. At the least, however, the design of the current project should be 'future proofed' so that such an extension to the Lauriston Place cycle lane is not more expensive than it needs to be.
11. We would like to see Nightingale Way and Simpson Loan allow two way cycling, to provide better access to the Quarter mile development.
12. The intended final destinations of QR6 at its west end are not stated. Obviously they are multiple, but we can see two main strategic purposes. One would be to access the City Centre at the West End (and/or continuing to the north of the city). The other would be to access the Festival Square area, and the routes from there to the Canal (leading to south West Edinburgh) and also to the west of the city along the East-West route, accessing it via its proposed Rutland Square connection..We also note from the council's online atlas that QR5 joins QR6 at Castle Terrace and appears then to follow Cornwall Street and Grindlay Street to Festival Square. QR5 presumably has similar strategic purposes to the above (though with a greater emphasis on the canal/south-west direction). Given that these two routes are so intricately connected in this area, they should be considered together here.
For the City Centre/ West End destination we hope that eventually the end of the Castle Terrace route will continue as a segregated route northwards along Lothian Road (possibly on the west side) but we appreciate that is unlikely to happen in this phase of work. Finally, we note that under the current plan the cycleroute narrows to just 2m at its western end. This should be widened.
For the Canal/south-west and the Rutland Square/West Edinburgh destinations there are likely to be significant numbers of cyclists needing to cross Lothian Road to Festival Square. Furthermore, this should be one of the City's top public realm areas, linking the Usher Hall complex with Festival Square. As such the crossing must also cater for large numbers of pedestrians and must be visually attractive. The proposed 2-stage fenced-in crossing is wholly inappropriate, and a wide single-stage crossing is essential.
We note that such a crossing was envisaged by the City's former Design Champion, Sir Terry Farrell, some 10 years ago, and it is very disappointing to see the current plans downgrading it to a bog-standard 2-stage guardrail-enclosed crossing. [We cannot locate the original document, but it is discussed in this article - http://www.rudi.net/news/11204.
Finally, given the strategic importance of the crossing of Lothian Road, the connection from Lady Lawson Street to this crossing must be incorporated in this phase of the project. There are several alternative options which can be considered...
The outline consultation map shows this connection via Grindlay Street, but the connection is not shown in the detailed plans. This option would need a smooth paved strip replacing the cobbles in Grindlay Street and would need significant car-parking changes.
As mentioned above, the City Atlas shows the connection following Castle Terrace then Cornwall Street, thus entering Grindlay Street at a point where most of the cobbles and parking issues are avoided. However a means of crossing Castle Terrace would be needed.
A third alternative is to follow Castle Terrace and then Cambridge Street – again Castle Terrace would need to be crossed.Posted 7 years ago # -
Living Streets Edinburgh response
Posted 7 years ago # -
Good response from Living Streets.
Good to see things like "where extra space is required for new cycling infrastructure, it should be taken from vehicles, not from people on foot."
And "A recurring feature of cycling scheme proposals is the steady introduction of shared-use footways for cyclists and pedestrians. We are very concerned about these in themselves, since there will be inevitable conflicts, with the most vulnerable street user – the pedestrian – typically coming off worst. They also send out the wrong message to a wider audience – that cycling on footways is increasingly acceptable. It is not, as it encroaches on core pedestrian territory."
I had cause to walk along Chalmers St with kids the other day (pts 1 - 3 in LS submission) and it was not a pleasant experience - pavements far too narrow and broken, large kerbs, wide driveways to parking lots to traverse etc.
With regard to the proposed design, you can see that CEC are still compromising the cycle and foot ways in order to avoid even the slightest inconvenience to the motorist.
Examples of this are:
- the north side of Lauriston Place, west of Chalmers Street where the footway and cycleway are substandard widths and separations, all so that the bus stopping area can be shooffled over to allow cars to overtake. (pts 4 - 5 in LS submission)
- on Lady Lawson St the widths of the foot/cycle-way are again substandard to avoid removing parking at any cost. (pt 9 in LS submission)Posted 7 years ago #
Reply »
You must log in to post.
posts
