CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » Infrastructure

Sheriffhall Roundabout consultation etc.

(212 posts)

No tags yet.


1…5678

  1. crowriver
    Member

    Just a reminder that the very same Scottish government that in 2017 committed £120 million for grade separating a junction on the bypass, also set "world leading" targets for emissions reductions in legislation passed in 2009, fully eight years beforehand.

    ---

    The Climate Change (Scotland) Act 2009 is an Act of the Scottish Parliament. The Act includes an emissions target, set for the year 2050, for a reduction of at least 80% from the baseline year, 1990. Annual targets for greenhouse gas emissions must also be set, after consultation the relevant advisory bodies.

    ---

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_Change_(Scotland)_Act_2009

    ---

    However, (unsurprisingly) Scotland has consistently failed to meet the targets set in the legislation.

    https://www.holyrood.com/news/view,scottish-government-misses-target-for-cutting-greenhouse-gas-emissions

    Posted 3 years ago #

  2. chdot
    Admin

    @ Yodhrin

    Great analysis (previous page) -

    “Instead they just hold their hands up and grimace, so they look ungreen to the greens, too green to the motorists, and cowardly & indecisive to everyone else.“

    I met Adam when he first became Transport Vice Chair. People who knew him were impressed that he was ‘bright’ ‘smart’ etc. It was clear he was aware of ‘issues’ and ‘challenges’ and he wasn’t about to ‘promise’ anything I might want to hear.

    I don’t think ‘transport’ was his primary interest. He did cycle, though (at the time) didn’t have a bike. He did join a group of CCEers on an ‘infrastructure ride’ from Cramond to Leith to look at problems and potential for improving the Promenade/Boardwalk. He seemed interested but I’m not aware of anything he did as a result of the trip.

    He took part in the famous Roseburn ride that was greeted by placard waving protesters!!

    But it’s not about him or any other particular politician. They are all stuck in a very broken system of party politics (internal and external), time served officials, the media (often hostile), vested commercial interests, oh and some thorns from ‘the all powerful cycling lobby’.

    The inertia for ‘more of the same’ is overwhelming.

    At this stage the only optimism is to imagine/hope that the strategy is ‘don’t frighten the voters before the election and then the public enquiry will rule that fixing the bypass is just an expensive fantasy and HIGHLY undesirable in the context of a climate emergency’.

    Depressing really.

    What used to motivate AM -

    https://www.edinburghnews.scotsman.com/news/politics/citys-youngest-ever-council-chief-landed-role-accident-647462

    Probably still does, just next to impossible from the inside!

    Posted 3 years ago #

  3. Morningsider
    Member

    @chdot - I wouldn't pin my hopes on any public inquiry. The final decision to proceed rests with Scottish Ministers - that would currently be Michael Matheson.

    Just consider the M74 extension. Its public inquiry report recommended that the scheme should not proceed on environmental and social grounds. Ministers decided it should go ahead anyway. Generous buckets of greenwash were also applied to that project, such as the removal of through traffic from local roads leading to more cycling and walking - later research found this to be nonsense.

    You can see a similar approach here - claims about cross boundary active travel and public transport (they don't say "buses" as they know very few drivers ever swap car for bus) to support a flipping great motorway junction. Plus vague noises about "the economy" and "journey times".

    The scheme has the support of the SNP, Labour, Lib Dems and Tories at national and local level. The Greens at Scottish Government level have already accepted it is happening and at local level can't stop it. This is going ahead.

    I really hope I am wrong.

    Posted 3 years ago #

  4. chdot
    Admin

    “I wouldn't pin my hopes on any public inquiry.“

    I entirely share your pessimism, however need a degree of optimism to enhance the possibilities (possibly).

    Local elections will be over, less paranoia about the (less important than they think) ‘motorist vote’.

    May be some more councillors with a different mindset.

    Might actually be a greater number of well argued objections.

    As per M74, good chance inquiry will be against the proposals and (presumably?) recommend other strategies for dealing with ‘traffic’.

    And then

    Maybe

    Perhaps

    SG will actually connect this to some of its other policies - and targets that it is currently failing to meet…

    Posted 3 years ago #

  5. Rob
    Member

    @Yohdrin my thoughts exactly, especially given this part of the statement:

    "The impact of that is people taking routes that bypass the bypass and using residential streets in the city centre as a quicker route than the bypass."

    They need to do it (circulation plan/bus gates/LTNs) quickly so the displaced traffic is pushed back to the bypass, rather than generating extra traffic.

    Posted 3 years ago #

  6. chdot
    Admin

    “

    #ScotPfG #ProgrammeForGovernment 21/22
    HERE-->https://gov.scot/programme-for-government/…

    Confirms @theSNP/@scottishgreens agreement min £320m (10% of transport budget) for cycling/walking/wheeling by end of Parliament

    but this year ??

    Reiterates 20% car km reduction by 2030

    but #A9/#A96 road building continues

    “

    https://twitter.com/spokeslothian/status/1435244302653919234

    SO

    “

    Reiterates 20% car km reduction by 2030

    “

    Can’t really justify anything that’s modelled to INCREASE car use.

    Will 20% reduction be *expected* to be uniformly spread across Scotland?

    Would it be theoretically easier to achieve in large urban areas?

    If there is to be a significant shift to ActiveTravel will need a lot of infrastructure plus restrictions on car use - so a much better/quicker/alternative TRO system.

    Significant shift to PT even more difficult after Covid, would also need effective restrictions on urban car use.

    SG prepared to organise any of this?

    How much is this now P. Harvie’s problem/responsibility/fault (if it doesn’t happen)??

    Posted 3 years ago #

  7. Morningsider
    Member

    Climate emergency, COP26, world leading targets...

    In 2019, Scotland was better connected with the rest of the world than ever before. We will work with Scotland’s airports to help restore lost connectivity, and grow international connectivity, while not returning to previous levels of emissions.

    Programme for Government, page 108.

    Posted 3 years ago #

  8. chdot
    Admin

    “while not returning to previous levels of emissions“

    Flying pigs then?

    Posted 3 years ago #

  9. chdot
    Admin

    “

    Concern was also expressed that bus operators would be expected to pay the lion’s share of the cost when they were struggling financially after losing huge numbers of passengers during the Covid pandemic.

    “

    https://www.scotsman.com/news/transport/ambitious-snp-greens-target-to-scrap-half-of-scotlands-diesel-buses-by-2023-met-with-industry-scepticism-3374621

    Might be more sensible to spend money on electric buses than replacing a roundabout and encouraging more car traffic…

    Posted 3 years ago #

  10. toomanybikes
    Member

    The placid acceptance of new diesel buses into Lothian's fleet has surprised me for years. The operators clearly need a kick up the backside on this front.

    Lovely reading the word 'enviro' on the back of a bus whilst sat behind on a bike choking on the fumes.

    Posted 3 years ago #

  11. chdot
    Admin

    https://transform.scot/?s=Sheriffhall

    Posted 3 years ago #

  12. chdot
    Admin

    “

    And despite a stated aim to reduce car use, and a planned increase in its modest spending on walking and cycling, the Scottish government continues to spend the vast bulk of its budget on roads; it seems determined, for example, to press ahead with its Sheriffhall roundabout flyover on Edinburgh’s southern bypass, a classic road-building effort which simply assumes that mass peak-hour car commuting around Edinburgh will continue and grow, rather than actually aiming to reduce it.

    “

    https://www.scotsman.com/news/opinion/columnists/climate-change-deniers-have-changed-tactics-deploying-warm-words-special-pleading-and-inaction-joyce-mcmillan-3377710

    Posted 3 years ago #

  13. gembo
    Member

    Flyover, why not a tunnel?

    Posted 3 years ago #

  14. chdot
    Admin

    Why not jetpacks?

    Posted 3 years ago #

  15. chdot
    Admin

    Why not electric jetpacks?

    Posted 3 years ago #

  16. toomanybikes
    Member

    anyone else get an email response for their objection today?

    They claim they don't expect it to induce any more driving, just pull cars off of other routes. So, it's an obstacle worth spending 120million on, but no one will choose to journey across it without the obstacle ?? How have they modelled that?

    They also list all the active travel spending in other places. You don't say 'our new coal powerplant is carbon neutral because we've also built a small wind farm.' So I don't know how they're kidding themselves..

    Posted 3 years ago #

  17. Frenchy
    Member

    I haven't had one yet, but a couple of people I know got one last week.

    Posted 3 years ago #

  18. neddie
    Member

    It's Transport Scotland double-think in all its glory.

    Both inducing traffic (for business / development / housing) and not inducing traffic, all at the same time.

    The mental gymnastics required to come up with that, tying themselves in knots trying to justify the unjustifiable.

    Posted 3 years ago #

  19. slowcoach
    Member

    I once fell out with a consultant who was meant to be advising a council on speed limits. He said there would be time savings from an increase in average speeds from a introducing a local speed limit on a road, and the same road would have accident savings from a reduction in average speeds. He couldn't see a problem with saying the average speed would be increasing and decreasing at the same time in the same place.

    Posted 3 years ago #

  20. Frenchy
    Member

    @slowcoach - My understanding is that what the consultant was saying would happen is roughly what has actually happened in Edinburgh following the rollout of 20mph speed limits.

    Drivers now spend more time moving, and less time stopped at traffic lights. But their average speed whilst moving has gone down. So journey times are reduced/roughly the same as they were previously, but accident rates are reduced because fewer people are travelling at 35+ mph.

    Did that make sense?

    Posted 3 years ago #

  21. gembo
    Member

    That is a hard sell to those who remain dissonant. I hesitate to say they are cognitive as facts are irrelevant.

    A driver does NOT count time spent waiting at traffic lights. A bit like putting off your strava at the coffee shop so you can sustain the belief your time on the road is a faster mph than it is in reality as you need to take a break.

    Anyway, lowering speed limit cannot speed up journey time it is just not possible to persuade drivers of this.

    Many reasonable drivers do accept the lower speed means fewer accidents and are willing to comply.

    Another fact that is a Chiel that Winna ding is if you get out your scratcher ten minutes earlier. And get on the road on bike bus or car before the rush hour you will find your journey times will decrease. Maybe not by the full ten minutes of time in your scratcher but if it is all about journey time, why does no Fecker get up a wee bit earlier?

    Posted 3 years ago #

  22. crowriver
    Member

    “Anyway, lowering speed limit cannot speed up journey time it is just not possible to persuade drivers of this.”

    Hence the ever present phenomenon of the MGIF drivers roaring past too close or crossing into the opposite carriageway in the face of oncoming traffic, just to join a queue at a red light 50 yards ahead. The cyclist whistling a happy tune while filtering past to the front of said queue seconds later.

    “And get on the road on bike bus or car before the rush hour you will find your journey times will decrease. Maybe not by the full ten minutes of time in your scratcher but if it is all about journey time, why does no Fecker get up a wee bit earlier?”

    The bigger question is WHY DOES EVERYONE HAVE TO START WORK AT THE SAME TIME? Surely it’s not beyond the wit of employers to stagger employees’ start times? Then there would be no “rush hour”. Downside would be there’s be no quiet mid-morning roads either…

    Posted 3 years ago #

  23. slowcoach
    Member

    @Frenchy - I maybe didn’t make it clear enough. The consultant wasn’t saying anything as as complicated as lower running speeds reducing congestion or junction delays across a network (more haste less speed?). They were saying (but not realising or acknowledging) the average speed on a link would be both higher and lower on the same section of road at the same time. They were (mis) using the DfT Speed Limit Appraisal Tool. This says that if a new local limit is introduced to replace the national limit on a rural link, and the the new limit is still higher than the before average speed, then the after average speed can be higher than the before speed. The consultant said it would happen in this case. This would give time savings along the link - any extra delays at the ends or for traffic joining or leaving the link weren’t taken into account. The Appraisal Tool also says that accidents will reduce if actual average speeds are lower. The consultant said this would also happen here if the local limit was introduced. They couldn’t see that they were contradicting themselves, just as some people can’t see that making driving easier where demand has been suppressed will attract more driving.

    Posted 3 years ago #

  24. Frenchy
    Member

    Understood now, thanks!

    Posted 3 years ago #

  25. gembo
    Member

    @crowriver you do get more split shifts and flexible working since Covid. So I did have a typical day of up early, plough through the email clunge, morning meetings over teams or even the odd real,world meeting. Bit of a cycle over the lunch hour, then Everything kicking off again 4pm til told by Mrs Garto about 18.30: to stop work.

    A fair bit of traffic on the rush hour out my way is teachers driving to school and parents driving children to school. Real dip around 09.15am
    So, some fixed traffic jam rush hour is linked to schools all starting at the same time.

    I know the two cycling commuting teachers out this way and also the teacher who would get off the bus a mile and a half early and walk the last bit.

    @slowcoach @frenchy I sense a question coming up for More or Less on radio four. Such as Can reducing traffic speed limits actually also reduce journey times?

    Posted 3 years ago #

  26. crowriver
    Member

    @gembo, which is all a good thing.

    Many employers were resisting flexible working for years, now the default. Also "hybrid" working, mix of WFH/online and workplace/in-person. Surely better than dogmatically going in just because: presenteeism. OTOH meetings on Zoom/Teams can be interminable. OTOOTH if camera off and mic muted can wander about fixing a brew while somebody drones on about their latest project or somesuch...

    Posted 3 years ago #

  27. acsimpson
    Member

    @gembo, that sounds a bit like braes paradox. Although leads to decreased journey times by removing a road from the network.

    Posted 3 years ago #

  28. gembo
    Member

    @acsimpson

    If they haven’t covered this before I sense an item on this now Braess’s Paradox and the Nash equilibrium of the system being non-optimal., I shall take up my pen,

    Posted 3 years ago #

  29. Arellcat
    Moderator

    Braess' Paradox was explored and quite well explained in Tom Vanderbilt's book, Traffic. I'd give you the page reference but Tulyar is enjoying my copy too much to return it.

    Edit: Ah, I had a feeling it had come up here before.

    OTOH meetings on Zoom/Teams can be interminable.

    A couple of weeks ago I had a meeting on Teams. It was meant to be an hour, and lasted four. I was utterly worn out.

    Posted 3 years ago #

  30. chdot
    Admin

    “

    Women doctors are reportedly arriving up to five hours early to get a space and avoid walks off campus in the dark.

    Congested car parks at the Little France are causing delays of up to 45 minutes at busy times, with nose-to-tail traffic all the way from Sheriffhall roundabout to the campus.

    “

    https://www.edinburghnews.scotsman.com/health/mounting-frustrations-over-parking-at-edinburghs-royal-infirmary-as-cars-face-3-mile-tailbacks-3456697

    Posted 3 years ago #

RSS feed for this topic

1…5678

Reply »

You must log in to post.


Video embedded using Easy Video Embed plugin