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.
"
Providing essential infrastructure for the St James Quarter and neighbouring areas is crucial to the successful delivery of the proposed development.
"
Really?
Says who?
Evidence?
"
The proposals will make the area a much more attractive space in which to spend time, improving the links between the two communities.
"
Written by someone who has never been there and/or has a very strange idea of what an "attractive space in which to spend time" might look like/be.
"Providing essential infrastructure for the St James Quarter and neighbouring areas is crucial to the successful delivery of the proposed development tram extension."
FTFY.
I'm a supporter of the trams. CEC saw an opportunity to kill two birds with one stone: get the St James redevelopment built, and "tram proof" Picardy Place. Hence they used the design from the tram team, because "here's one we made earlier", not because it's a "good" design or it fits in with any CEC transport policies approved since 2009...
This transportation hub thing: I assume it's supposed to be a convenient transfer point between tram and bus. Let's just assume for a moment that the gyratory is built, that means that bus stops will have to be on the outside of the gyratory (because bus doors only open on one side) so passengers transferring between transport modes will HAVE to cross the busy road irrespective of where they get off. It isn't particularly easy to transfer, and the gyratory certainly should not be promoted as a necessary condition for the transport hub.
In a Y formation (with no road in front of the cathedral) I would argue that connectivity between bus and tram is slightly enhanced.
@ih, agreed, I made almost exactly the same point at the consultation event and will do again in my written submission.
You could have a proper interchange with buses routed along Picardy Place parallel to the tramline.
"
After securing planning permission from City of Edinburgh Council in late 2016 to demolish the St James Centre (pictured left ), TH Real Estate is investing £850m into the area which, when complete, will quickly become a world-class destination, boasting a luxury five-star hotel, 150 exclusive apartments, 30 restaurants, 850,000 sq of first-class retail space and a deluxe multi-screen cinema.
"
And that all depends on traffic flowing nicely round a roundabout?
"CEC saw an opportunity to kill two birds with one stone: get the St James redevelopment built, and "tram proof" Picardy Place. Hence they used the design from the tram team, because "here's one we made earlier", not because it's a "good" design or it fits in with any CEC transport policies approved since 2009..."
Quite likely true.
So the major obstacle remains the constraints of the Parliamentary process for the tram.
Maybe some MSPs need to deal with this.
From chdot's link to Scottish Futures Trust annual report, Chairman's introductory statement:
Our £850m Growth Accelerator initiative in Edinburgh is estimated to support 3,000 long-term jobs.
I wish there was more rigour to these job claims, which I always feel is a clinching argument; who wants to oppose jobs?
But I don't believe that a city's retail, restaurant, cinema, and hotel economy is totally elastic. It cannot just keep increasing without limit. Jobs created in one area, will have an impact on jobs elsewhere. I don't know what that impact will be, but the analysis of job gain should be more than stating baldly that there will be 3,000 more full-time jobs.
the area which, when complete, will quickly become a world-class destination, boasting a luxury five-star hotel, 150 exclusive apartments, 30 restaurants, 850,000 sq of first-class retail space and a deluxe multi-screen cinema
You'd think it would be cheaper and easier to build all that at Straiton or Penicuick. Or Brechin. It would still be world-class, aye?
Or is there some reason for building it in the centre of a UNESCO World Heritage city?
Anyway, I for one have always enjoyed seeing apartments whose exclusivity excludes me. Nice warm feeling.
“
Our £850m Growth Accelerator initiative in Edinburgh is estimated to support 3,000 long-term jobs.
I wish there was more rigour to these job claims, which I always feel is a clinching argument; who wants to oppose jobs?
“
Indeed.
Any supermarket, retail park, office development etc, always talks about jobs as though they were ‘new’, never considering closed ‘local’ shops or ‘High Street’ ones.
Also, once it could have been assumed that “jobs” were full time...
“You'd think it would be cheaper and easier to build all that at Straiton or Penicuick. Or Brechin. It would still be world-class, aye?”
Would be good for local economy/jobs for Straiton or Penicuik to have a five star hotel.
I was at Fife Central Retail Park this week.
“
Fife Central Retail Park was developed in 1997 and acquired by Hammerson in 2005. Following completion of an 11,000 sq m extension in 2009, the park now comprises 19 retail and three restaurant units.
The scheme is anchored by B&Q, with other tenants including Argos, Next, Sainsbury’s, Toys ‘R’ Us, Boots and a 4,700 sq m Next Lifestyle store.
“
And Fife Council wonders why Kirkcaldy High Street is dying in spite of LOTS of money being spent on improving the Streets cape.
Perhaps Kirkcaldy should get the 5* hotel as part of its attempt to cash in on the Adam Smith legacy.
In fact I could ague that SG and SFT shouldn’t be spending money in Edinburgh!
“I for one have always enjoyed seeing apartments whose exclusivity excludes me”
Do you mean visiting the show flats?
(Or do you have to show your bank balance first?)
The Council has considerable leeway over where the tram line goes through the Picardy Place junction. The Edinburgh Tram (Line One) Act 2006 identifies this section of the line as "Work No.1", described as:
"Work No. 1—A road tramway 981 metres in length (double line) commencing to the east of the junction of Queen Street, North St. Andrew Street, Dublin Street and York Place extending via York Place and Picardy Place to a point on Leith Walk at the junction with McDonald Road and Brunswick Road."
The Parliamentary Plans (not available online) show the route of the tram line for Work No. 1- which is that shown on all the other plans. However, Section 2 of the Tram Act allows the council to build the tram line within specified "limits of deviation", again shown on the Parliamentary Plans. The limits of deviation for this section include the full width of the roadway of York Place, Picardy Place and Leith Walk - including the area of the proposed gyratory. In effect, the tram line can be moved anywhere across this junction.
There's no absolute requirement for there to be a new stop on Picardy Place as part of the connection/permeability guff promised to the St James developers? I'd wondered if the desperation to stick a stop on the island was part of some murky requirement.
I half-overheard someone official-looking at the Valvona exhibition saying something about Queen Street only ever being temporary, but it seems to work fairly well at the moment and still currently allows two motoring channels in each direction for important motor vehicles as well as the right-turn-Broughton-Street lane at the west extremity.
If buses need somewhere to turn, can they do in the bus station? We've already seemingly lost Elder Street to a tiny two-stage fenced-in shared island crossing in the most recent version of the E-W route plans and the bus station will be the bus station for a while, so using it for bus-related stuff seems sensible.
@wingpig - Apparently the problem with the tram stop being on York Place is that it's currently only single track, and if the tram were extended it'd need to be double track, for which there is "no room [without removing a lane of traffic]".
I'm quite a fan of pulling the tram lines into one side of the road and having a stop outside Tesco or the Playhouse, but apparently private cellars under the road add significant liability
Not sure why a tram stop is a risk to cellars when the gyratory will be open to all classes and weights of vehicle with a much more dynamic loading.
Cat. Meet pigeons.
https://theferret.scot/st-james-quarter-edinburgh-regeneration/
Property developers have made repeated attempts to limit the amount they must spend on public space improvements around a controversial £850 million shopping redevelopment in the heart of Edinburgh, according to documents seen by The Ferret.
@Stickman, yes just seen this on Twitter. A certain FOI request is mentioned: this has now been patiallly successful and some traffic modelling data and assumptions from 2009 are now available.
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/information_about_the_process_of#incoming-1075090
Click for full.
crowriver - chapeau sir!
I particularly like the modelling results drawn in highlighter on a photocopied OS map - gives it that reassuring professional edge.
What also seems clear is that traffic-flow is king, maximising the size of the island development site was considered a priority and shaving space of pavements and removing cycle lanes was considered acceptable.
That Ferret piece is FANTASTIC (in a VERY good way).
“
Officials have laid on public consultation events, which critics say have left the latest design basically unchangedj. Some have alleged that officials have misrepresented the Sustrans counter proposal in a bid to discredit it, though this was denied by Edinburgh council.
“
Link to CCE Post.
This might interest some people -
@Morningsider, you're welcome.
I also note that they have apparently done absolutely ZERO modelling for:
- Public transport movements (other than as a component of general traffic)
- Pedestrian footfall
- Cycling traffic
This of course *may* have changed, but somehow I doubt it as they were still trotting out the lines about "unacceptable queuing" (for motor traffic) at this week's consultation event.
I really think the CEC design team are stuck in a conceptual rut somewhere in the early 1970s and when faced with criticism or challenging questions they just go for the broken record technique of repeating mantras about "huge tailbacks", "traffic flow", "managing demand", etc.
They basically haven't listened to what people are saying to them. That's ultimately because the entire design brief is wrong, it's all about trying to "balance" the tram with existing traffic levels, and the St James parking led demand. Oh and building a hotel on the "island". Nothing else really is factored in *at all*.
Claire Connachan said she asked about pedestrian & bike modelling at the drop in event and I think (if I recall correctly) was told that they only model for pedestrian traffic if there's a risk of crushing, as in stadiums, and 'even the Dutch don't do cycle modelling' as it's too difficult. Also that pedestrians and cyclists don't suffer from congestion the way motor traffic does so there's no point
Having had to walk from Haymarket to the Meadows yesterday evening just after 5, I can confirm that pedestrians do suffer from congestion. I ended up walking along the (criminally underused) roadway for half of it.
@sallyhinch
If you mean the pavement up from Haymarket alongMorrison Street it's a total disgrace. It spills over with pedestrians at commuting time. It's also a terrible introduction to Edinburgh for those heading to our showpiece Conference Centre. And no controlled crossing over Gardner's Crescent.
Ah well, as long as there's no "unacceptable queuing" for motorists then pedestrians can go hang, eh? Beep! Beep!
pedestrians and cyclists don't suffer from congestion the way motor traffic does so there's no point
That's just plainly false
Page 13 of TFL 'Pedestrian Comfort Guide'
I highly recommend skimming through the full guide as it seems to give useful guidance on
1) How to survey pedestrians properly both at junctions and on plain path
2) How to plan pedestrian crossings that are suitable for the user numbers you anticipate
3) How to plan space around obstructions like ATMs or tables
It doesn't however seem to give guidance on how to position crossings to respect desire lines
I popped into the City Arts Centre on Monday as by chance I was in town. And even more by chance I was wearing a suit. There were a number of obvious cyclists in the mix of visitors at the time but also a Gentleman running a cargo bike delivery business who regularly has bikes travelling up Leith Street. Needless to say they were unimpressed as were the rest of the visitors, especially with the planned "Shared spaces" where bikes and pedestrians have been designed to conflict with each other. Although I suspect with the number of ASLs on the gyration they realise what they have designed is so rubbish that a lot of cyclists will remain on the road.
In answer to a question asked much further up this thread along the lines of "Did anyone ask why the traffic modelling was based on a Y junction rather than Sustrans version which had a cross roads at the top of Broughton Street?"
The answer was rather dismissive - That's just the Y junction shifted a little bit along to the road. The officer answering questions then dropped out of the conversation, presumably in hunt of people asking easier questions.
He also seemed particularly unwilling to discuss anything about the modelling behind the video.
You must log in to post.
Cycling in Edinburgh Flickr group
Video embedded using Easy Video Embed plugin
posts