CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » Infrastructure

The Sustrans proposals for Picardy Place/Leith Street

(868 posts)
  • Started 7 years ago by crowriver
  • Latest reply from crowriver

1…111213…29

  1. Klaxon
    Member

    And exactly there is the biggest political problem any attempt at traffic reduction through Picardy Place/Leith Street will face.

    Waze is driving through traffic to local roads today, whether we like it or not, and the implications of smart routing are huge

    This Washington Post article is just one of many similar stories - search Waze effect

    The age of side streets open to through traffic needs to end right now as for the time being these apps are enabling possibly another 10 years of traffic growth into the city

    Posted 7 years ago #

  2. Stickman
    Member

    Spokes Hath Spoken.

    Posted 7 years ago #

  3. crowriver
    Member

    I think you meant The All-Powerful Spokes.

    The solidarity with Living Streets and Sustrans pleases me greatly.

    Posted 7 years ago #

  4. chdot
    Admin

    “The solidarity with Living Streets and Sustrans pleases me greatly”

    Yes, not the first time - they don’t always manage to agree, but this is too important to quibble about small details!

    Posted 7 years ago #

  5. chdot
    Admin

    Spokes -

    “

    In summary, decisions about the long-term future of Leith Street and of the CL+ route should form an integral part of the Transformation decision-making process, and in the interim Leith Street should remain closed to motor traffic other than buses. Measures to prevent any New Town rat- running (such as one or two road closures) should be adopted in parallel if necessary.

    “

    Quite so.

    Posted 7 years ago #

  6. chdot
    Admin

    SO

    We, us, usual suspects, plus many others object.

    I think it’s more than that, this is so inept and undesirable on many levels that CEC needs to pull the plug - or at least pause.

    I think Cllr Macinnes will realise and do something...

    Posted 7 years ago #

  7. PS
    Member

    Went to the consultation at Broughton St Mary's. Echo everyone else's sentiments, TBH. The traffic modelling was their recurring fall back last night: "If we put the Y-junction design into the computer you get tailbacks all the way to Meadowbank".

    There did seem to be a willingness to revisit things (to a degree) and a request that we provide views on the long-term picture for Leith Street as part of our consultation responses, but it's all in a depressingly slow long-term planning window - "IF we get a mode change to active travel, there's a CHANCE that we could move to the Y." Timeframe? "Maybe 10 years, but it depends on the Council's consultation on that next year." I'll be dead before any of this happens...

    TBH, the CEC guys had skilfully managed my expectations by providing this sight on the way into the event:

    (Yes, that is indeed a City of Edinburgh Council car parked entirely on the pavement.)

    Posted 7 years ago #

  8. crowriver
    Member

    "I'll be dead before any of this happens..."

    Hoping not to tempt fate, but that's exactly what I said yesterday in my exasperation towards the end.

    "(Yes, that is indeed a City of Edinburgh Council car parked entirely on the pavement.)"

    Deffo post that to @leithsworstpark.

    Posted 7 years ago #

  9. Morningsider
    Member

    I didn't make it to any of the events, mainly due to the effects of the lurgy. I am highly suspicious of a video of traffic modelling. Did anyone shed any light on what this video actually showed? Was there any detail on total additional delay minutes for the y-junction, average extra delay per driver, assumed growth in travel, modal split and so on. Was there a before and after video - after all, today's layout is likely to show hefty tailbacks at peak periods.

    I think we need more information on the assumptions behind the model and its actual outputs, not just "a video".

    Posted 7 years ago #

  10. crowriver
    Member

    @Morningsider, nope none of that. Total eye candy.

    I hope to uncover some of the modelling assumptions behind the gyratory through my FOI request, which is delayed but may hear tomorrow...

    Posted 7 years ago #

  11. Klaxon
    Member

    There were two videos, one of the gyratory spun as an 'acceptable level of queues' and one of the t-junction which was presented as an end of days traffic apocalypse.

    The only explanation of the underlying inputs were "same traffic as today, but with the addition of trams"

    I don't think there was even a time of day shown for each model

    Posted 7 years ago #

  12. Snowy
    Member

    @PS That's a classic.

    @Morningsider Absolutely - a model is only as good as the collective understanding of the people who contribute to the algorithm. (And traffic is a somewhat complex system, and highly susceptible to the law of unintended consequences...)

    Posted 7 years ago #

  13. unhurt
    Member

    end of days traffic apocalypse

    The Day After Tomorrow: An Unacceptable Level of Queues

    Posted 7 years ago #

  14. Frenchy
    Member

    The Day After Tomorrow: An Unacceptable Level of Queues

    New approach when politicians talk about "improving traffic flow to relieve congestion"?

    "I thought Brits liked queuing".

    Posted 7 years ago #

  15. neddie
    Member

    The thing I remember most about the consultation at Broughton St Mary’s was stepping out of the church and taking a breath of the foul fumes outside - that kind of cold engine catalytic converter smell.

    Posted 7 years ago #

  16. chdot
    Admin

    https://twitter.com/lmacinnessnp/status/933766914085711873

    Posted 7 years ago #

  17. chdot
    Admin

    Nice venue though -

    Good use of space.

    Posted 7 years ago #

  18. HankChief
    Member

    When they did the traffic Models for Roseburn I seem to recall that they weren't able to include the impact of people changing modes of transport.

    I.e the same number of cars regardless of how the road was laid out.

    Posted 7 years ago #

  19. Klaxon
    Member

    Thus leading to the inevitable conclusion that the only layout that "passes" modelling is the one that allows for the most cars.

    Posted 7 years ago #

  20. Stickman
    Member

    @HankChief: yes, and the report explicitly highlighted that as a weakness saying that the results were likely to be a worst-case.

    Posted 7 years ago #

  21. Stickman
    Member

    David Key was asked how much it would cost to not build the gyratory:

    Upwards of £20m I believe; more change= more money. That's what I've been briefed.

    https://mobile.twitter.com/davidfkeysnp/status/933807132222275584

    Posted 7 years ago #

  22. Frenchy
    Member

    What the actual?

    Posted 7 years ago #

  23. Morningsider
    Member

    More change, more money - yes, but... Design fees for new roads will be in the region of 10% of the total cost. You could substantially redesign this scheme for a few percent of the total cost - the project contingency should be able to cope with this. It's hard to see how any new scheme would cost any more to build than that quoted for the current scheme, considering the raw materials and manpower required would be the same - effectively all you are doing is moving kerb lines around.

    Also - what Frenchy said (even more incredible, the £20m+ doesn't include the "public realm" element"). See:

    https://beta.gov.scot/publications/foi-17-02184/FOI-17-02184-Annex%20A.1%20and%20A.2%20Growth%20accelerator%20agreement%20&%20correspondence.pdf?inline=true

    EDIT - have I misunderstood this? The Council would have to pay a penalty of £20m if it changed its mind about the gyratory? So, one public authority borrows money from another public authority to amend the layout of roads that belong to it and then finds itself in hock to a private developer if it chooses not to do it to their liking. Yay for "innovative" financing methods!

    Posted 7 years ago #

  24. chdot
    Admin

    @ M

    MOST interesting, got a link for the rest of the document?

    Edited highlights -

    “

    Accessibility and permeability improvements around the St. James Centre;

    A multi-modal transport interchange at the junction of Leith Walk, Leith Street and York Place,

    described in and shown on the Draft Approved Drawings, as such assets are further defined during project design stages or amended in accordance with this Offer of Grant. The Executive Group (as further defined at Schedule 5) shall be consulted in relation to any proposed amendment to the CEC Growth Assets.

    “

    SO

    SG is (apparently) concerned about “permeability improvements” and “multi-modal transport interchange”

    IF it wants a roundabout it’s because that’s what’s in the “Draft Approved Drawings,”.

    BUT

    They can be modified by “The Executive Group”

    WHO THAT??

    Posted 7 years ago #

  25. crowriver
    Member

    ---
    “The Executive Group”

    WHO THAT??
    ---

    Folks, I know there's been a lot of info on the situation but we have discussed this before. Last month sometime. It's buried in the the other Picardy Place thread somewhere. IIRC Executive Group is the developers, CEC and Scottish government officials who oversee the GAM project. That's in public domain via Scottish government report I linked to some weeks ago, don't have details to hand right now.

    What is not public knowledge: any binding elements of the contract, any penalties specified and what would trigger these,

    Finally an extract from the document Morningsider linked to (my bold).

    ---

    Scope of Works
    Providing essential infrastructure for the St James Quarter and neighbouring areas is crucial to the successful delivery of the proposed development. Combined, the improvements will increase the prominence of the area, improve access and participation in the public areas, while easing traffic flow around this part of the city. The proposals include the promotion of green spaces and planted areas.

    The enabling assets also include new public realm at Picardy Place and the reconstruction of the existing gyratory at the junction of Leith Street, York Place and Leith Walk, together with the provision of a public transport interchange at Picardy Place. Including the new interchange now avoids the possibility of abortive works and significant disruption to a transformed St James Quarter, should the tramline be extended in future.

    A key feature of the public realm in Picardy Place will be the reduction of the carriageway space in favour of improved pavement, footway and cycle facilities. In addition, to complement the proposals being taken forward under the Council’s Leith Programme, separate off-road cycle facilities will be incorporated as part of the detailed design. These proposals will create a genuinely vibrant “hub” at the junction of Leith Walk and the city centre. The proposals will make the area a much more attractive space in which to spend time, improving the links between the two communities.

    ---

    Apart from the contradictory brief, the only issue is the Drawings appended to the contract.

    Presumably if CEC changes its mind unilaterally, a compensation clause kicks in for knock-on delays to the St James redevelopment?

    Perhaps though if the Executive Group agree changes, such penalties do not come into effect?

    As I keep saying, this whole burach was caused by certain councillors from the Economic Development Committee who pushed the GAM agreement through Council last year with no real scrutiny, and only two days' notice...

    Posted 7 years ago #

  26. Stickman
    Member

    £7m to date on the Tram inquiry. Any guesses how much the Picardy Place inquiry will cost?

    And once again, why aren't the Conservatives raising hell about the lack of transparency on these contracts?

    Posted 7 years ago #

  27. crowriver
    Member

    @Stickman, presumably their hands are all over the deal too via the Economic Development Committee?

    Also, the gyratory was designed as part of the tram project. It's part of the same mess.

    Posted 7 years ago #

  28. chdot
    Admin

    "IIRC Executive Group is the developers, CEC and Scottish government officials who oversee the GAM project"

    Yes, but WHO?

    THAT should be public.

    Posted 7 years ago #

  29. Stickman
    Member

    @crowriver: true. And no doubt at the moment they don't see it as a vote winner as it's only the All Powerful Bike Lobby who are shouting about this. Give it a few years and once the shambles plays out then they'll be the voice of financial responsibility.

    Posted 7 years ago #

  30. crowriver
    Member

    Maybe one of these people is involved?

    https://www.scottishfuturestrust.org.uk/page/our-people

    Posted 7 years ago #

RSS feed for this topic

1…111213…29

Reply »

You must log in to post.


Video embedded using Easy Video Embed plugin