CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » Infrastructure

M2GS - Meadows to George Street

(179 posts)

123…6

  1. dessert rat
    Member

    I took a few hours off and attended this. With my positive/non-cynical head on, the summary is..

    • Audience of 25-30, all but the two taxi reps in favour of less cars / more pedestrianization.
    • Not a lot of practicality on show.
    • Preaching to the converted.
    • A surprising amount of “ah but Edinburgh is different [to all those other European cities you keep mentioning] so we can't be like that. Too hill / wet / windy / not enough space etc…”

    I understand why they have to hold these consultations, but I would imagine there are a few more dissenting (and influential) voices than those present, it would have been useful to hear those opinions. Or even see those points of view displayed along with the vast numbers of positive public comments on the posters. Those could have been CtrlX CtrlV’d from the recent George St consultation at the City Art Centre on Market St in the driving snow a few months back. Given they know what people are going to say, and always do say about less cars / more trees / more traffic free spaces it seems not an overly efficient use of resources.

    Pre-construction work scheduled for mid-2022. 4 years away. FOUR! That tells you the priority this is being given. 100 large planters, a few CCE volunteers and a transit van and we could have it done in a weekend, or less.

    Due to the timescale, there weren't even any artist impressions to swoon over or any real substance. I fail to see other than box-ticking, any substantive outcome from this event.

    Posted 5 years ago #

  2. chdot
    Admin

    Ta.

    #ThisIsEdinburgh

    Posted 5 years ago #

  3. dessert rat
    Member

    interesting to see the Showcase/Sustrans site currently has this as completion Autumn 2021, whereas the AECOM presentation yesterday showed pre-construction only starting mid 2022.

    Can't both be right

    Posted 5 years ago #

  4. neddie
    Member

    Here's the current timeline:

    - early 2019 - Design optioneering & consultation
    - mid 2019 - Technical feasibility
    - end 2019 - Preliminary design
    - mid 2020 - Detailed design & statutory processes
    - mid 2021 - Tender/preparation for construction
    - mid 2022 - Construction

    So mibbee noo hud yer breith...

    Posted 5 years ago #

  5. chdot
    Admin

    “Tender/preparation for construction”

    For a whole YEAR???!!!

    Fairly easy route, mostly wide and not much parking to remove.

    Pathetic really.

    If this was New York (other cities too) it would have been in use for a while already.

    Clear need for some serious investigation about where the ‘bottlenecks’ are -

    Lack of staff? General inertia/incompetence? Overcomplex legal/consultation processes?

    Posted 5 years ago #

  6. neddie
    Member

    Can they not just put down some concrete "terrorist blocks" to segregate a bike lane either side in the meantime?

    Posted 5 years ago #

  7. mgj
    Member

    Where about Neddie? They already have done that on the way up the Mound, in the cycle lane but I suspect that isnt what you mean.

    Posted 5 years ago #

  8. neddie
    Member

    The concrete blocks just need to go to the right of the dashed white line that demarcates the red painted-on cycle lane

    Posted 5 years ago #

  9. jonty
    Member

    From the city centre transformation report:

    • Closure of Bank Street, between Market Street and High Street, to general traffic (excludes service buses, licenced Edinburgh black cab taxis, residents of the streets concerned and limited loading and servicing);
    • Pedestrianisation of Forrest Road, with vehicle access limited to residents of the streets concerned, loading and servicing;
    • Teviot Place and Bristo Place will be changed to two-way traffic; and
    • Pedestrian priority on Candlemaker Row, with number 2 bus service retained, as
    well as access for residents of the street and limited loading and servicing.

    According to SSC Edinburgh on Twitter consultation starts 27 May.

    Posted 4 years ago #

  10. Frenchy
    Member

    Consultation launched: https://meadowstogeorgestreet.info

    3m bi-directional segregated cycleway along the whole route. Cycling by Design says such a cycleway "typically operates satisfactorily" for flows of up to 300 cycles per hour. Spokes counts already get (peak) flows of over 300 cycles per hour on Forrest Road. Not immediately obvious that there's any additional space to be had though.

    Bank St doesn't look to be closed, but is going to be one-way-at-a-time.

    Posted 4 years ago #

  11. jonty
    Member

    I missed it for ages, but as well as clicking the view arrows you can click the stars for birds-eye view plans. Not sure what the problem with PDFs was - not necessarily the most usable but better than low-res images with blurry text.

    Looks positive but could be better. A big concern for me is how loading will work on Forrest Road - I can imagine lorries making cyclists scatter and rat-running taxis if it's not managed properly.

    Another thought: do I want to be sharing a 3m cycleway with folk tearing down the Mound? How wide is the MMW cycleway at its steepest?

    I'm surprised they need one-way working on that bit of Bank Street given that it's currently 3 lanes for most of the length. A bus swept path/proximity to junction thing? Might it mean long waits for pedestrians?

    Posted 4 years ago #

  12. Morningsider
    Member

    I can't access the consultation website - anyone else having problems? Most frustrating. I'm struggling to see why there would be bi-directional cycle lanes anywhere on this route, the roads are all wide enough for lanes either side.

    Posted 4 years ago #

  13. Murun Buchstansangur
    Member

    Website is a triumph of superficial design over functionality.

    Grossly underwhelmed by the whole thing. Seen the angle the ‘path’ crosses the tram lines at outside the RSA? FFS. Just spend the budget on parking attendants to keep Forrest Rd and the Greenways clear :(

    Posted 4 years ago #

  14. Rosie
    Member

    @Morningsider - me too.

    Posted 4 years ago #

  15. jonty
    Member

    They are well concealed but here are the PDFs:

    https://meadowstogeorgestreet.info/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/Meadows-to-George-Street-Concept-Designs-Hanover-St-1-of-4.pdf
    https://meadowstogeorgestreet.info/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/Meadows-to-George-Street-Concept-Designs-The-Mound-2-of-4.pdf
    https://meadowstogeorgestreet.info/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/Meadows-to-George-Street-Concept-Designs-George-IV-Bridge-3-of-4.pdf
    https://meadowstogeorgestreet.info/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/Meadows-to-George-Street-Concept-Designs-Teviot-Triangle-4-of-4.pdf

    Posted 4 years ago #

  16. Frenchy
    Member

    @jonty - After clicking the star, scroll down and there's a link to higher resolution pdfs. Example: https://meadowstogeorgestreet.info/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/Meadows-to-George-Street-Concept-Designs-The-Mound-2-of-4.pdf

    @Morningsider - Playing Devils's advocate - current use is highly tidal, which bidirectional lanes do help with. They certainly shouldn't be catering solely to existing users, though.

    @Murun - Perhaps I'm too easily pleased or my expectations were too low, but I thought this looked good at first glance. I'm pleasantly shocked that they're considering narrowing Bank St to one motor vehicle lane, for example. What would you do at the RSA instead?

    Posted 4 years ago #

  17. Murun Buchstansangur
    Member

    @Frenchy

    Firstly, if bidirectional cycleway has to be the choice on the Mound (and on space grounds I grudgingly agree), I would argue it should be on the other side of the road as a) the footway on that side is much less used (therefore less chance of errant peds on the cycleway), and b) much less traffic into/out of Mound Place rather than Market St (I still can't work out how the Market St junction on the plans is supposed to work from a cycling point of view without an even longer signal wait than present), and c) uphill gradient is slightly less on outside of the bend (gradient and corner radius also preferable for descenders.

    If cycleway was on the other side, much easier to cross the tram lines at close to right angles into new seg infra where Ernest Jones is now.

    General point regarding George IV Bridge - currently possessing of 4 traffic lanes and a motor vehicle-width median strip - 3m bi-directional (and possibly narrower at the floating bus stops and ped Xings judging by the drawings) is the best that can be done? Give me a break. And I have no idea how hook risk is managed at the Chambers St junction...

    Posted 4 years ago #

  18. jonty
    Member

    Looks like Chambers Street will become light controlled.

    Posted 4 years ago #

  19. Murun Buchstansangur
    Member

    Thanks @Jonty, hadn't noticed that. That will be another lengthy wait I would imagine (2-way G IV vehicle phase, Chambers St vehicle phase, all-ped phase, cycleway phase). Possibly requiring 5 phases unless vehicles are banned from during right into Chambers St. And only c.50 metres on from a light controlled exit for cyclists from Forrest Rd.

    Given Candlemaker Row is to be restricted to buses and cycles, and Victoria St is to be restricted to 'service vehicles' (let's see how that's enforced), would it not more sense for the George IV cycleway to be on the west side? At least gives a chance of an uninterrupted run from start of Forrest Rd to the High St.

    Posted 4 years ago #

  20. jonty
    Member

    If they did something clever with lanes and mini-zebra crossings the pedestrian and cycle lights could be combined. Or they could do a mini cycle stop line before the Chambers Street pedestrian crossing, similar things have been popping up elsewhere in the UK. I agree that the lights could be slow though. What if right turns for motor traffic were totally banned out of Chambers Street?

    My first impression was also that the cycleway should be on the western side. Only downside I can see is that it makes turning right into Chambers Street a bit fiddlier, but we need to be figuring out how to do these things well in Edinburgh so it shouldn't matter. Perhaps something to do with turn radii on Bank St..? Concerns about interactions with buses coming in/out of Candlemaker Row?

    I haven't been to any of the consultation events since Roseburn launched but I do have quite a lot of questions about the detail of this one so will make an effort to attend one.

    Posted 4 years ago #

  21. wingpig
    Member

    A cycleway on the western side would be permanently blocked by people taking pictures of the dog statue?

    Bi-directional cycleway is governed by the same lights which control motor traffic at Hermit's Croft.

    Posted 4 years ago #

  22. I were right about that saddle
    Member

    Returning from three days on the trails on Sunday I used the segregated path on the Pleasance and actually burst out laughing here.

    Make-believe Toytown junk is a waste of everyone's time and I keep looking at this stuff and thinking 'You know what I think I'll just use the road.'

    Posted 4 years ago #

  23. I were right about that saddle
    Member

    The way to stay safe on the Mound downhill is to take the lane and go fast outside the parked vans and lorries. Don't think I've ever seen anyone on the downhill advisory lane and for good reason.

    This design has you flying down a 1.5m track with folk toiling uphill centimetres away on their right. Should get a few head-on smashes which will be novel.

    Posted 4 years ago #

  24. gkgk
    Member

    I agree with IWRATS about the horrible mini two-way roads. I hope they'll provide jousting sticks for the mound hill.

    Posted 4 years ago #

  25. gembo
    Member

    Meadows cycle lane WAS MENTAL TODAY. Sometimes we can be possibly overly vigilant? A council van will maybe need into the sports pavilion or somesuch (is there a sports pavilion? I made that up) but in fact zero tolerance is the only way and needs to be pursued with zeal or else the drivers just start taking the piss.

    So most of the stretch from the west end to MMW was occupied by articulated lorry and maybe grasss cutting stuff or other machinery this morning. Then there were two white vans from the compamy Serve Air? Or similar lioke they were in servicing Air BnB or fixing a plug or some such. Parked where they shouldn't. Then a the dustbin van was parked to the east end in the cycle lane.

    Once out of the meadows a white van reg something like

    57 OKES

    like the owner ws called Stokes?

    Had two wheels parked up on the lip of the segregated lane. Not actually blocking but still taking the pee pee

    Posted 4 years ago #

  26. PS
    Member

    That bi-directional lane looks woefully inadequate for Edinburgh's stated ambition. Do they give any justification for why two one-way lanes wouldn't work?

    Going up the Mound in a bi-directional lane would be somewhat scary with cyclists coming down the hill at speed less than a metre away. Hill climbers can weave going up and may well wobble into the path of descenders...

    I'd only descend the Mound in the main carriageway, but it's not entirely clear how I would access that from having been in the bi-directional lane on the east side of George IV Bridge.

    Posted 4 years ago #

  27. I were right about that saddle
    Member

    @PS Indeed. As depicted you'd have to use the road northbound.

    Posted 4 years ago #

  28. chrispaton
    Member

    Just a note that somewhat buried in the FAQ there is a specific discussion of why they are proposing a bi-directional cycleway on the east side. In particular:

    > An options appraisal was carried out on alternative cycleway layouts. This appraisal was informed by a number of criteria reflecting the project’s objectives, as well as cycling and walking design guidance.

    > The east side two-way cycle lane scored highest overall. It supports dedicated loading opportunities on the west side where the current loading demand is highest and a widening of footways and placemaking on the west where higher volumes of pedestrians have been observed. It also brings the cycleway away from the areas of crowding at Greyfriar’s Bobby and the Elephant House, where people would be very likely to stray into the cycleway causing safety issues.

    > Initial modelling has shown that journey times for cyclists are not significantly different when comparing an east side cycleway to a west side cycleway. With flow cycleways, on each side of the road, were considered, however there was insufficient space on the Bank Street corner to fit the cycleways without severely reducing the footway width beyond acceptable levels.

    On balance I think I'm inclined to agree with this reasoning, though there's no one right answer and I can see benefits of other options.

    Posted 4 years ago #

  29. I were right about that saddle
    Member

    George IV Bridge is 20m wide according to Google maps. If there isn't room to do it right there we might as well not bother because the game would be up.

    The landlords of the commercial properties there must be minting it. They can afford the hit to rentals from having deliveries restricted to electric train, cargo bike, hand cart or whatever it takes to do this properly. Private motor traffic just needs to go somewhere else.

    Posted 4 years ago #

  30. Morningsider
    Member

    While it might be tricky to fit with-flow segregated lanes on Bank Street, it isn't impossible. An uphill Mound cycle lane could be routed behind the High Court and onto the High Street. This should allow enough room for a downhill cycle lane along Bank Street and onto the Mound. With-flow lanes can easily fit along the rest of the route.

    Posted 4 years ago #

RSS feed for this topic

123…6

Reply »

You must log in to post.


Video embedded using Easy Video Embed plugin