CityCyclingEdinburgh was launched on the 27th of October 2009 as "an experiment".
IT’S TRUE!
CCE is 14years old!
Well done to ALL posters
It soon became useful and entertaining. There are regular posters, people who add useful info occasionally and plenty more who drop by to watch. That's fine. If you want to add news/comments it's easy to register and become a member.
RULES No personal insults. No swearing.
First Minster says "For the sake, not just of our environment, but of our health, we will also take further steps to support walking and cycling - active travel - by doubling the amount spent on it within Transport Scotland’s budget from £40m to £80m a year."
Devil in the detail and all that - but this would seem to be a "good thing".
Forgive my cynicism but does that mean there will now be two rather than one Community Links+ 'winners' every year?
It has to A Good Thing on the face of it. Delivery will be the key. Let's hope it's more than just slapping some paint on roads and designating footpaths as shared use, useful though these are much of the time.
Active travel might begin by delivering integrated ridacard & car club membership in Edinburgh 2 audiences with mutual gains - add in bike hire and you're getting there
I think this is a real watershed moment.
The FM has clearly linked the extra spending to health.
The extra £40m has the opportunity for much more infra whether it is delivered through CL or CL+ or some other method.
Not only do we have a good few years of an SNP government who will invest at this level but it will be hard for the next government to slash it once benefits start coming through.
Bravo I say...
More chicanes?
The FM has clearly linked the extra spending to health.
We need to get it linked in her mind to the health of children, the thing that really animated her in the speech.
There's to be an 'Active Nation' commissioner too https://twitter.com/ObarChrombaidh/status/905064166968446976
I find it very easy to be cynical about a lot of things.
I won't be here, this is clearly an excellent move.
this is clearly an excellent move.
How do you know? Has the government said what it's going to spend the money on?
To put this in perspective, the government is going to spend 96.5% of its money on transport that pollutes.
This is what they are. And it's what they've been for the last 10 years.
More details here (page 56) http://www.gov.scot/Resource/0052/00524214.pdf
Main points are:
- the £80m is to go on investment supporting active travel
- a commissioner to ensure the delivery of world-class infrastructure
- more promotion of electric bikes
- projects to help older people use the walking and cycling network
- a long distance route 'equivalent to' the north Coast 500
- connecting the A9 cycle paths with the NCN
Hopefully the emphasis on older people will mean more accessible routes and not chicanes!
- the £80m is to go on investment supporting active travel
- a commissioner to ensure the delivery of world-class infrastructure
- more promotion of electric bikes
- projects to help older people use the walking and cycling network
- a long distance route 'equivalent to' the north Coast 500
- connecting the A9 cycle paths with the NCN
So, basically, nothing.
Listen, if the goal is to encourage people (especially children) to cycle then we know what has to happen: you have to make cycling in cities safe.
That's it.
And that means segregated cycle lanes.
Electric bikes aren't going to solve it. 35 miles of cycle track in the countryside isn't going to do it.
They're spending money on everything except the thing that would have the highest impact.
And don't believe for one moment that that's accidental. Segregated cycle lanes take away from cars and cars is 96.5% of what the Scottish Goverment/SNP cares about.
To be fair, that is how I interpreted 'world class cycling infrastructure' But it's certainly an area where we'll have to hold them to account.
To be fair, that is how I interpreted 'world class cycling infrastructure'
Take it from someone in marketing, when you're going to do something significant, you give details/specifics.
When you want to trick people into thinking you're going to do something, you use phrases like "world class cycling infrastructure."
So that phrase should be a reason to abandon optimism.
And remember that the cars in this future are the silent electric ones, all the better for killing cyclists with.
So, basically, nothing.
I don't think that's fair, though there are fair criticisms to be made. Where for instance is this 'cycle network' that older people are to be helped to use?
What this does is open up a range of possibilities. Instead of sniping as I just did we need to engage and help them see that £40,000,000 spent in our towns has far more effect than if spent on the Appin loop.
Which isn't to say that rural areas shouldn't be invested in - they should. This is just a start.
I don't think that's fair
OK, how about, "Nothing that'll make a difference"?
There are many intelligent people on this forum. If I asked you all to come up with a plan to spend £80m to get Scots cycling, none of you would have come up with the nonsense the Scottish government is suggesting.
Instead of sniping as I just did we need to engage and help them see that £40,000,000 spent in our towns has far more effect than if spent on the Appin loop.
They already know. They're not morons. What's obvious to everyone is also obvious to them.
@gibbo
I'm curious as to why you think they are proposing to knowingly squander £80,000,000.
Having had some small engagement with 'them' I reckon it's more likely that they just don't understand the concept of transport cycling.
"And remember that the cars in this future are the silent electric ones, all the better for killing cyclists with."
They'll be killing a lot of pedestrians too.
"If I asked you all to come up with a plan to spend £80m to get Scots cycling, none of you would have come up with the nonsense the Scottish government is suggesting."
How unfair. All the boomers will be out doing Perth-Inverness and back on their e-bikes.
No laughing at the back now
I'm curious as to why you think they are proposing to knowingly squander £80,000,000
One, or a combination, of two reasons:
#1: To be able to claim to support active travel.
#2: Because they know active travel has value, but they're the, "I'm all for cycling, but cyclists can't be clogging up traffic" brigade.
Having had some small engagement with 'them' I reckon it's more likely that they just don't understand the concept of transport cycling.
Most politicians are, IMO, utterly clueless. (Like the Labour MP who said that the recent cyclist conviction should lead to sterner enforcement of "helmet laws.")
But the ones at the top have advisors. They can pick up a phone, ask a question, and get an informed answer.
And, for a question as simple as this one, it's hard to believe that they'd come up with a bunch of cockamamie schemes... to the point of announcing them... without someone pointing out the obvious answer.
All the boomers will be out doing Perth-Inverness and back on their e-bikes.
To be honest, the 35 mile route sounds friggin' great. If I lived in the area, I'd be looking forward to riding it regularly.
However, I'm already a regular cyclist. And, oh, by the way, like most people in Scotland, I don't live anywhere near it.
But, for cyclo-tourists, it'll be wonderful.
"£80m is to go on investment supporting active travel"
I saw this as code for "We'll bung double the cash at Sustrans and Local Authorities, for them to deliver 'world class' active travel thingamabobs. We can then blame them if anything goes wrong."
Then later on:
"We'll also appoint an Active Travel Czar so we can avoid another Ayrshire style cycle lane omnishambles, oh and handily we can blame the poor sap when anything goes wrong".
Overall though, it has to be positive, even if AT is receiving a pittance compared to the A9, various bypasses, or the 50% reduction in cheap flight to the sun tax. I wonder who the new Active thingamabobs czar will be?
I think the way this is delivered will be crucial. If they give the money to councils hypothecated to spend on local need then there is a good chance of real improvements. If they just announce a bunch of schemes from central thunderdome then we can forget city infra. The SNP record on this doesn't give me much confidence but I do hope I'm wrong.
#1: To be able to claim to support active travel.
I can't see the point in that. We can be ignored quite safely for nothing.
#2: Because they know active travel has value, but they're the, "I'm all for cycling, but cyclists can't be clogging up traffic" brigade.
I can't know what's in their minds. We shall see I suppose. Double Sustrans would be grim right enough.
Agree that SNP record has been poor.
However it could be a younger generation like Yousaf & Adam McVey are seeing things differently. I'll assume they've been on city breaks to European capitals like Amsterdam and Ljubjana and Copenhagen so as to know that cars do not a good city centre make.
"However it could be a younger generation like Yousaf & Adam McVey are seeing things differently. "
I'd say that the announcement of an Active Thingamabobs Czar (ATC) post indicates:
- HM Scottish Government ministers and civil servants do not know much about Active Thingamoabobs, and know that they don't know.
- HMSG m & cs want an expert/fixer to take this pesky problem away from their in-trays, they'll just sign the cheques.
- HMSG m & cs will find it convenient to pass the buck to the ATC if/when Active Thingamoabobs related cock-ups/stooshies/burachs occur.
It's still positive, though.
Here's a thought? What if all the campaigning by PoP, Spokes and all the others is finally starting to pay off? The SG is proposing spending £16 per head, per year on cycling and walking. Local authority spending should increase that further - particularly in Edinburgh with its 10% budget commitment. This could bring Edinburgh roughly into line with spending in Amsterdam.
I think the best course of action is to engage with the SG, individual MSPs and councillors - point out what works, argue for investment in continuous, segregated cycle routes that are developed as part of a comprehensive network. Support the good and criticise the bad. Make it easy for those elected representatives who support cycling to argue our corner - lets give them the facts that they need, vocal support for positive developments and constructive criticism of less positive developments.
It's still positive, though
nonsense, its of no value whatsover
forget working with power via slow marginal gains that afford us nothing but absurd 'shared used' paths
all that remains is to mercilessly pour scorn on the laughing stock of their hollow bs
You must log in to post.
Cycling in Edinburgh Flickr group
Video embedded using Easy Video Embed plugin
posts