CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » Infrastructure

The Sustrans proposals for Picardy Place/Leith Street

(443 posts)
  • Started 2 months ago by crowriver
  • Latest reply from unhurt

  1. Murun Buchstansangur
    Member

    The hypocrisy is stunning

    Posted 1 week ago #
  2. Stickman
    Member

    "The hypocrisy is stunning"

    Yes, but ££££££££

    Posted 1 week ago #
  3. nedd1e_h
    Member

  4. I were right about that saddle
    Member

    IRATES spouts forth again;

    It's hard to imagine how you could come up with a worse proposal than this one. Perhaps if the dual-carriageway A1 were to be delivered to Picardy Place from Portobello on concrete stilts? But I don't want to give anyone any ideas.

    CEC's own business plan;

    http://www.edinburgh.gov.uk/downloads/file/9797/council_business_plan_2017-22

    sets out how Edinburgh will become all of the things that this plan isn't;

    Vibrant, full of Opportunity, Forward Looking, Resilient, Empowering.

    Vibrancy comes from having people and businesses. Cars kill both.
    Opportunity comes from having access. Cars prevent access.
    Forward Looking? We already decided that private cars are a legacy in city centres.
    Resilient. Resilience comes from independence and diversity. Walkers and cyclists are fit, strong and resilient.
    Empowering. Does anyone think a giant roundabout empowers anyone to do anything other than pollute, block and eventually flee our city?

    This is a plan to put the private motorist first and foremost. If you dispute that, look, measure even, which mode of transport has the greatest surface area and the unbroken network.

    Is it pedestrians? No. Is it public transport? No. Is it cyclists? No. Is it motorists? Yes, yes it is.

    Picardy Place, between a cinema complex, a cathedral and the gay quarter would, in any European city taking itself seriously, be largely pedestrianised. Motor traffic could be tolerated on the edges but would never be predominant.

    Motor traffic kills business and kills place. We have already decided to reduce motor traffic in Edinburgh. This design will increase it, pander to it, and oblige other parts of the city to follow suit.

    Building this design would be a grotesque, fundamental error for us all, motorists included. Look at other cities, currently ripping out their 1960s car-centred infrastructure and pedestrianising their city centres. You need to stop and rethink this completely. From the ground up. Put people first. That is your job.

    Posted 1 week ago #
  5. chdot
    Admin

    Posted by paddyirish on other thread.

    Quite an impressive article

    "too many motor vehicles and too few people in them."

    "the new cycling infrastructure moves an average of 46% of people along the route despite occupying only 30% of the equivalent road space. Just two weeks after opening, the east-west and north-south cycle superhighway roads were moving 5% more people per hour than they could without cycle lanes – and that number is increasing as more cyclists are attracted to the routes."

    Shame that the usual trolls are inhabiting the comments...

    Posted 1 week ago #
  6. I were right about that saddle
    Member

    Not sure if we established this already, but letter from the ScotGov confirms that Growth Accelerator money doesn't depend on there being a gyratory.

    It depends on there being economic growth from the shopping centre and surrounding area and training for those furthest from the jobs market.

    Posted 1 week ago #
  7. chdot
    Admin

    “Not sure if we established this already, but letter from the ScotGov confirms that Growth Accelerator money doesn't depend on there being a gyratory“

    Mentioned previously, but no-one posted the letter.

    Who was it sent to?

    Posted 1 week ago #
  8. I were right about that saddle
    Member

    @chdot

    I got my MSP, Daniel Johnson, to approach him. Reply came via him. I've asked for advice on how to approach his party's councillors.

    Posted 1 week ago #
  9. chdot
    Admin

    And he said councils had lost a lot of their expertise. “Over the last 20 years, if you look at a department such as City Development, they lost a lot of their capacity, their engineering capacity, their technical capacity, and that just didn’t exist for a project of the scale of the tram project.”

    https://www.edinburghnews.scotsman.com/news/transport/council-boss-accepts-tram-price-report-was-inaccurate-1-4626019

    (And that was then...)

    Posted 1 week ago #
  10. HankChief
    Member

    https://drscottarthur.scot/2017/12/02/the-picardy-place-predicament-place-movement-or-both/

    "At best, the current Picardy Place proposals are unpopular. At worst, they are unsafe and will be a backward step for Edinburgh. With the city centre review underway, the decision is being made at the wrong time and may actually undermine the review.

    Cutting across this is the GAM agreement. It hangs over the decision like a dark cloud. My feeling is that we should do all we can to engage the GAM partners in a positive conversation about what’s possible. One that seeks to integrate Picardy Place and the St James Quarter into the wider discussion about ensuring Edinburgh remains one of Europe’s greatest capitals.

    The discussion needs to focus on more than the movement of cars and the width of footpaths. We need to think about place making, wellbeing and the economy. We need to think holistically about ensuring Edinburgh is a liveable city."

    Posted 1 week ago #
  11. gembo
    Member

    @hankchief, he is a prof now you know.

    Posted 1 week ago #
  12. I were right about that saddle
    Member

    Herr Professor Doktor Arthur is an outlier amongst his party's councillors in some ways I understand but still, this coming from a member of the ruling group is heartening.

    Posted 1 week ago #
  13. gembo
    Member

    Good blog but no congestion charge

    Posted 1 week ago #
  14. chdot
    Admin

    "

    EDINBURGH is divided on plans to extend the tram line to Leith, an exclusive Evening News survey suggests today.

    A total of 43.5 per cent were against the plan to take the current route between the airport and the city centre down Leith Walk to Newhaven, while 42.2 per cent backed the proposal.

    "

    https://www.edinburghnews.scotsman.com/news/transport/survey-finds-public-split-on-plan-for-leith-tram-extension-1-4630110

    Better have a referendum then...

    Posted 6 days ago #
  15. nedd1e_h
    Member

    The survey, answered by around 2,200 readers

    OK, whose survey it this?

    2200 angry motorist EEN readers?

    Or the council?

    Or an independent survey?

    Article is very vague on this matter. Quelle surprise...

    Posted 6 days ago #
  16. Stickman
    Member

  17. crowriver
    Member

    Someone should have proofread that manifesto before publication.

    Posted 4 days ago #
  18. chdot
    Admin

  19. Stickman
    Member

    Thoughtful article from Trevor Davies:

    http://www.broughtonspurtle.org.uk/news/long-view-picardy-place

    Posted 2 days ago #
  20. chdot
    Admin

    HE oversaw some of Edinburgh's biggest and most controversial developments during his four-year reign as the city's planning convener. And now former councillor Trevor Davies is to pass on his knowledge of urban design as an honorary professor at Glasgow University.

    ...

    Prof Davies will hold his new post, which does not carry a university salary, for the next five years.

    However, his appointment has raised a few eyebrows in Edinburgh from campaigners opposed to the controversial Caltongate development – at whom Professor Davies infamously delivered a one-finger salute in 2006.

    https://www.scotsman.com/news/maverick-former-planning-chief-lands-job-as-professor-1-1252189

    Posted 2 days ago #
  21. chdot
    Admin

    The Council is currently consulting on hugely unpopular proposals for a triangular gyratory system on Picardy Place (2) on the north-east edge of the UNESCO World Heritage site. Officials have recently claimed that one benefit of the scheme is that it would enable buses from the north side of Edinburgh to terminate there and turn around. Passengers for Princes Street and beyond would then be expected to change onto an expanded tram network, so removing hundreds of buses a day from Princes Street. This is not something that should be considered lightly.

    https://www.nfpplanning.com/blog/dont-mess-with-princes-street-buses-lightly

    Posted 2 days ago #
  22. unhurt
    Member

    Someone should have proofread that manifesto before publication

    Someone needs to offer pro bono design help too. This is not how to appeal to the unconvinced!

    Posted 2 days ago #
  23. unhurt
    Member


RSS feed for this topic

Reply

You must log in to post.


Video embedded using Easy Video Embed plugin