CityCyclingEdinburgh was launched on the 27th of October 2009 as "an experiment".
IT’S TRUE!
CCE is 15years 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.
@IWRATS, see if you can get Julian Richer involved. He is considerably poorer now having given his company away to his staff. Also time on his hands
I bought all hi fi equipment from Richer Sounds but was in the other day looking for a tape deck coz tapes are hip but they don't sell them no more
I have a full denon separates system that I could offer for sale that includes a tape deck and a minidisc player, if you’re so inclined
It’s gorgeous but I don’t use any component of it any more but for the amp which could easily be replaced. I’d love if it went to a home that it would respect it’s early 00s vintage and keep the team together
Denon quality
just need tap deck tho
oh yeah and need to buy a number of Walkmen so folk can listen to the mixtapes I am going to make, like it's 1999
I might have a Sansui tape deck in the loft.
Also my lovely Tannoy 607 speakers, which I'm not allowed to have in the Living room any more, sob.
Actually the tape deck is a Sherwood double tape deck, it's a Sansui tuner.
One part of the design that concerns me is this idea that a 6cm-high bump somehow constitutes segregation.
Firstly I don't think it will stop the nutjob parking where they just abandon vehicles on cycle lanes. There are potholes deeper than that every 50 yards and no-one cares about 6cm.
Secondly, it clearly doesn't afford any protection whatsoever if a vehicle swerves towards cyclists, and would do nothing to deflect wheels if a vehicle cuts a corner across a cycle lane.
To achieve these results it would probably need to be about 20cm high, or a series of posts.
A 6cm ridge is just thick paint.
Double tApe deck good.
6 cm is nothing 57OKES was parked up on much higher at meadows this morn
More bidirectional nonsense.
This bidirectional route now crosses over the through-route for motors twice, once at Teviot Pl. and again at Bristo Pl. (three times if you count crossing back again at George St when heading north).
That means waiting at 8 signalised crossings. The fact that there are any signalised crossings at all tells you that the whole thing is (still) designed around motor traffic, instead of pedestrians, cycles and a handful of buses.
Unidirectional, segregated, 2metre-wide, cycleway on each side - what is so hard to understand about that? Much easier to access and exit. Priority across side roads. Minimal signals. Plenty of zebras to slow traffic speeds and avoid pedestrians having to wait.
And the less than 45 degrees crossing of the tram tracks, slamming you into the pedestrian guard rail is just shocking.
60 degrees minimum. 60. Six-zero. Sixty.
If they are unwilling to offer more Bank Street width, I'd rather they used all the width for a proper-sized uphill lane. Then a cyclist going up could safely overtake another one going up more slower, which is something that should be possible.
a 6cm-high bump ... clearly doesn't afford any protection whatsoever if a vehicle swerves towards cyclists, and would do nothing to deflect wheels if a vehicle cuts a corner across a cycle lane
Sadly, even pedestrian guardrail does not prevent the vehicles of careless drivers from encroaching into the pavement. The thing that does afford protection from motor vehicles is *no motor vehicles at all*
Come on! We can do better than this. The whole thing should be pedestrians, cycles and buses only. Deliveries by electrically-assisted hand-cart or similar.
The Grassmarket is a common destination when heading from the south. What's a cyclist supposed to do when they get to Candlemaker Row and want to go down it? Scoot across the pavement? Take the general traffic carriageway for all of 20 metres?
Going in the opposite direction, from say Chambers St, is even worse - no way to access Candlemaker Row at all, without going on the carriageway and making a right turn in front of angry horn-blaring drivers.
It just shows you they haven't thought about all the different combos of the way the route could be used. Or accessed, or exited! Just thinking like drivers, only going from one end to the other... but that's not how people who ride bikes work....!
And no doubt Spokes will approve it as fabulous and say, "oh well, it's better than it was..."
And can I just say:?
"Rrrrrraaaaaaaaaaagghhh!"
MEADOWS TO GEORGE STREET IMPROVEMENTS
A series of outdoor public events will let people meet the project team and find out more about proposals and will take place –
Thursday, 30 May, 8am-6pm at Middle Meadow Walk
Sunday, 9 June, 10am-4pm at Candlemaker Row
Saturday, 22 June, 10am-4pm at the Mound
Consultation materials will also be on display and available for comment at the Central Library on 4, 5, 6, 25, 26 and 27 June and at the National Museum of Scotland between Friday 7 and Friday 14 June.
Views are being sought on proposals to transform walking, cycling and public spaces along some of Edinburgh’s busiest streets.
The Meadows to George Street project aims to significantly enhance the experience of those travelling on foot or by bike on streets connecting the two destinations, improving public realm and increasing accessibility.
A consultation on concept designs is now underway, with feedback received to be considered as designs are developed.
http://www.midlothianview.com/news/meadows-to-george-street-improvements/
My full response to the other points question is below. I found the survey slightly odd in that the questions where they asked for the most details were the least controversial sections. As soon as the lane became unidirectional you were left having to put everything in the general comments.
My main point is that narrow bi-directional lanes exclude families because of the limited ability to ride alongside an inexperienced slower child.
Reading the plans the kerb height on the vehicle side appears to be 10cm on the mound. Far from enough to protect cyclists on the inside of the bend especially if they are coming towards a large vehicle. They need to put airport specification anti vehicle bollards here.
Here is my response to the last quesiton. Sorry for the rather necessary repition, I felt it was required.
George IV Bridge: The cycleway here is too narrow for 2 way use. Either it needs to be unidirectional lanes or the lane needs to be 4m wide 1.5m each way does not allow sufficient space for overtaking or riding 2 abreast. It therefore excludes families. The only place a slightly narrower 3m lane would be acceptable would be on the bus stop bypasses. The lane will need to have 24 hour enforcement and/or bollard protection as drivers in Edinburgh are not to be trusted to keep out of it.
Bank Street: The cycleway here is too narrow for 2 way use. Either it needs to be unidirectional lanes or the lane needs to be 4m wide 1.5m each way does not allow sufficient space for overtaking or riding 2 abreast. It therefore excludes families. This is especially important on the steep stretches as riders are likely to be travelling slower leading to very high speed differentials. With the current setup most confident northbound riders will ignore the lane and traffic should be advised to expect bikes on the road. It may be better to reroute the uphill lane via St Giles street to allow space for uni-directional lanes down the mound or even closing bank street and taking affected traffic round via St Giles street if space is greater.
The Mound: The public/loading space is a poor idea. This will be dominated by loading and as such the project should be honest and call it loading space. Once again the cycleway here is too narrow for 2 way use. Either it needs to be unidirectional lanes or the lane needs to be 4m wide 1.5m each way does not allow sufficient space for overtaking or riding 2 abreast. It therefore excludes families. This is especially important on the steep stretches as riders are likely to be travelling slower leading to very high speed differentials. The bends on The Mound/Bank Street need more than a low kerb to protect them, especially when it a lane is on the inside of a bend. Substantial bollards will be required here to ensure large vehicles are not negligently turned over the lane. Cycles coming down the hill will often be doing 20mph and so any risk of meeting a vehicle here needs to be designed out from the start.
Princes Street/Hanover Street: When designing the crossing safe cycle crossing angles of the tracks need to be taken into consideration, especially if limited lateral movement space is being provided. It may be best to only provide short general traffic phases so that cyclists have plenty of time to cross without the risk of being bullied by drivers.
As on the other sections families are being excluded because the cycleway here is too narrow for 2 way use. Either it needs to be unidirectional lanes or the lane needs to be 4m wide 1.5m each way does not allow sufficient space for overtaking or riding 2 abreast. The cycle lanes here will need bollard protection to ensure delivery drivers do not abandon their vehicles in the cycle lane.
I looked at this for the first time tonight: what on Earth are they thinking with that crossing of the tram lines?
I'm quite annoyed that somebody is hoovering our tax money to produce dross and CCE is doing the remedial work for free.
@IWRATS I do get the sense of the Council/Developers producing rough drafts probably @ £500 per day for the consultant, then the cycling bods graft at fixing them gratis. It was the case with the tram designs to Newhaven.
Good to see a member of CEC's Active Travel team handing out flyers on the design/consultation to passing cyclists at the top of MMW this morning
@Rosie, I'm somewhere in the middle. My concern with the current model isn't that the work from the experts is unpaid but that it is sought so late in the process. It either delays the project or is ignored because they don't have time to do anything else.
@Stickman, Unless I missed something they weren't thinking. The document I saw simply says it will be designed at a later date.
Unless I missed something they weren't thinking. The document I saw simply says it will be designed at a later date.
I was very confused by this until I realised there seem to be two different pdfs for Hanover St. @jonty linked to one set on the previous page, but there is also this ones, which is very slightly different:
Perhaps they updated it?
Interesting! I wonder if someone for the council saw that at a fairly late stage and said 'er, nope'.
The thing is, that junction is key to the placement of the lane. If it were on the other side, there's a lot more space for the track to go straight on from the Mound with a perfectly 90 degree crossing followed by a bend back towards Hanover Street, with good separation from motor traffic. You even might have space for an extra bit of central island to provide a bit more subjective safety.
If this had been properly considered earlier, would their 'scoring' system have come up with a different placement for the track?
"Crossing design to be developed further in next stage"
This just means that they committed to putting the cycleway on a particular side, got to this junction and thought, "ah, this looks a bit hard. We'll leave that 'till later..."
I cannot see how it can be solved without either:
- putting the bidirectional cycleway on the other side, or;
- having a cycles-only phase at the lights and the painted cross-junction section of the cycleway encroaching into the general traffic lane (i.e. separated by time rather than space).
Of course, unidirectional cycleways on both sides would be far better, but that still doesn't help with the southbound tramline crossing.
Southbound round the back of the RSA?
"Perhaps they updated it?"
Yes they did. Below is a link to the original version, which they're still hosting. I've taken a copy in case it 'disappears'. Pretty weaselly behaviour IMO.
I completely echo everything Neddie says above. If the start and end points remain the same on either side of Princes St, I can see little that can be done to 'design' a tramline-safe crossing, especially with 2-way bike traffic in an already too narrow corridor.
I wonder if (assuming it happens again) they'll refuse to shut George IV Bridge for Pedal on Parliament once this lane is built.
It would be easy to object to the closure on the grounds that cyclists have already got what they want.
Doubt it, otherwise they wouldn't close any street with a pavement for a demo.
The two bus stops at the foot of the Mound are directly opposite each other, and there doesn't look to be a lot of room for anything to overtake a stationary bus.
I wonder if (assuming it happens again) they'll refuse to shut George IV Bridge for Pedal on Parliament once this lane is built.
I'm happy to cycle in the road at 3 mph in that case...
I think the bus companies are preferring such stops
Also it prevents the bus getting sent to the back of the queue every time it stops.
You must log in to post.
Cycling in Edinburgh Flickr group
Video embedded using Easy Video Embed plugin
posts