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.
“
A “LANDMARK” public space with the potential to house a pavillion complete with cafe, trees and public seating would be built in the centre of Picardy Place should revised designs get the thumbs up.
Council chiefs have issued redrawn plans for the busy junction after receiving more than 1000 responses following a call for feedback on their previous proposals.
“
I can see 'potential to house a pavillion' becoming a cult phrase. It is quite beautiful.
I abjure Satan and all his angels, and all his works unless of course they have the potential to house a pavillion in which case, well, you know...'
I've tried hard to keep up with this GAM stuff, but failed. I understood that in the tri-partite agreement neither the SG, nor the developers have said that GAM mandates a gyratory. So why does CEC continue to assert that it does?
So why does CEC continue to assert that it does?
They don't. Not anywhere in their document is there any justification for the gyratory beyond;
'In developing the detailed design Council Officers and the Developer have sought to balance the principle twin priorities of providing appropriate public space and keeping the junction moving.'
ih - yes, none of this seems to make sense. I suppose the parties to the agreement can really say what they want - as the actual agreement is not in the public domain. Which is where I hope a concerned Councillor (who presumably can see the agreement) might step in.
IWRATS - hopefully, one day, the Calder Road roundabouts will fulfil their potential and have a little pavilion of their own too.
“So why does CEC continue to assert that it does?”
Good question.
I think the apparent answer is that CEC knows it doesn’t have to be a roundabout, but a major redesign process would mean a delay and (so far unclear) penalties.
Is it that the financial "penalty" would happen if the project were delayed, and changing the design from a gyratory would delay the project.
There's a bit in the document about them looking at a Y-junction in 2014 but it needed more roadspace for lesser traffic flux capacity so NOPE.
From the Spokes report;
'Council argues that for reasons of traffic flow, and the GAM agreement with the government and developers, this is currently the only realistic option.'
Where do they argue that?
The report prepared for Council has:
2.7 From 1 May 2014 until 10 March 2016 there have been five reports to Council which have inter alia:
2.7.1 provided updates on progress on the Development;
2.7.2 agreed to enter into the GAM with the Developer and the Scottish Government. The GAM facilitates the design and implementation of improving the public realm at Picardy Place, future proofing to allow the extension of Edinburgh Tram Line 1A and constructing a multi modal public transport interchange; and
2.7.3 provided detail of GAM works to be included in the agreement. Appendix 2 indicates the form/design of junction to be included in the draft GAM (March
2016) and indicates that the GAM works would deliver a three street gyratory arrangement.
It looks like sleight of hand though, to say "it's in the agreement."
From Spokes tweet: "barring an earthquake, the gyratory will be approved on Jan 25. Therefore vital ALSO to press for realistically achievable further significant +ve changes."
I am really quite annoyed. And tired of accepting the wee crumbs of slightly-less-awful-than-it-could-have-been urban design.
As per my grumpy slack post last night:
Is everyone busy next Thursday lunchtime? I have this image of a lot of people on bike and on foot proceeding widdershins around the roundabout... Possibly singing "if I could turn back time (I wouldn't choose the late 1970s traffic planning era)".
barring an earthquake, the gyratory will be approved on Jan 25
Yes, this is why I don't engage with Spokes. Fairly or unfairly I see them as house trained.
If an earthquake is required to stop this thing then we need an earthquake. I'm no geologist but I don't believe that a statutory consultee has ever caused such a tectonic event. As I hope @gembo's colleague's crate says; 'inutile de mettre des paillettes sur une crotte'.
Time to incite a major geological event then. What's the most useful local faultline / plate boundary?
What's the most useful local faultline / plate boundary?
The big one running through the middle of the country. We label this a Nationalist Gyratory and suggest they are Tartan Stalinists.
Yesssss. But if we wanted to go a less divisive of a coalition of antigyrators route?
Still like anticlockwise antigyratory idea but time is short. Outside City Chambers? Temporary gyratory of seated humans demonstrating pointlessness of island public space? Make everyone going in and out negotiate a series of "pedestrian crossings" that turn a quick stroll into a slow, frustrating exercise in waiting?
If I were to try and insert a crowbar into the political consensus in favour of the gyratory it would go something like this (In addition to any demo).
Labour: Go straight to the top - copying in councillors etc. Bombard Richard Leonard and Jeremey Corbyn with communications about how the Edinburgh party is committed to despoling the city in favour of TH Real Estate, which is a subsidiary of Nuveen - which manages $900bn in assets.
SNP: Lobby national and local politicians, highlighting the opaque nature of the Growth Accelerator Model and how it seems to favour big business, reminds you of PFI and seems exactly the sort of thing the Tories would do - which is a shame, as that makes you question what an independent Scotland would look like.
Tories: Local and national. Why are you letting Labour and the SNP get away with ruining the historic centre of Edinburgh, through some shady deal? This could end up costing the city a fortune and looks like a new tram fiasco. Are you in favour of this? Aren't you the party of fiscal responsibility?
Lib Dems: Local and national - How can you support something as opaque and anti-democratic as the Growth Accelerator Model?
Greens: Thanks Chas - keep up the good work.
Copied to all members of the Transport Committee.
Councilor MacInnes,
Thanks for providing this update. I have studied the report in as much detail as time allows but am keen to write to you now with immediate thoughts given the tight timescales involved.
Please accept my apologies if my comments appear brusque;
* The proposal is still a gyratory. This is a catastrophic error for the city.
* The proposal is now to create a dead space in Picardy Place. We lose both the space and the revenue from having a building on it.
* There is not a single traffic island in Edinburgh that is anything other than a dead zone. This is another dead zone in the making. There will, sadly, be no pavillion or any other human activity.
* There are no bus priority measures in a junction carrying 100,000 bus passengers every day. This is extraordinary and retrograde.
* The car network is three lanes deep and unbroken. This is a car-centric design which is in total contradiction to CEC's own business plan.
* The cycle lanes will not be well used. Cyclists confident enough to reach the gyratory downhill will just use the road. Cyclists not competent to reach the gyratory won't cycle at all. Uphill the lanes are on the pavement and will be full of pedestrians. There is already a cycle path on a traffic island in Edinburgh and it is never, ever used. The island is used for nothing at all despite being a green space. Why? Because of the traffic. It will be the same on Picardy Place.
* Who is it that actually wants a gyratory? Do you? Does anyone? We know that the Scottish government don't and the developer tells me they are agnostic as regards the design.
* You mention traffic modeling as if it had magical powers. Leith Street is currently completely closed and Edinburgh is working just fine. I build models for a living but far prefer empirical observation when this is possible. In any case, we are trying to reduce car traffic aren't we?
In summary, our shared ambition is for Edinburgh to be a modern European city. Even Paris is closing its urban motorways and handing the space over to people and business. This proposal, the minor improvements notwithstanding, is anti-people and anti-business.
The correct way to approach this is to set down what we want to achieve and work out what we need to do to achieve it. Your own stated objectives are to prioritise people and place and drive out motor traffic. This gyratory simply does not fit the criteria and should be rejected.
Yours aye,
RATS
Good letter. I did actually see a couple of tracks in the snow on the Lady Road roundabout path the other day. Took me completely by surprise, but I think they were from a pram rather than a bike.
Bravo.
Very good IWRATS. I’ll model my letter on something similar
Right, that's e-mails sent to Ms Sturgeon, Mr Leonard and Ms Davidson with the council party leaders and Transport Committee members copied in. And Mr Corbyn.
I adopted the persona of a party supporter each time and as a result I feel filthy like I've just unblocked Kinshasa's main sewer with my bare hands but even so I can't bring myself to address the LibDems.
Possible protest idea - all turn up in 60s/70s garb with signs saying 'the 1970s called; they want their road policies back'?
“There is already a cycle path on a traffic island in Edinburgh and it is never, ever used.”
That’s not true.
I’ve used it.
.
Once.
@chdot
Einmal ist keinmal. I reckon more folk have cycled the Black Cuillin than that path.
Anyway, it's far from the worst untruth I've typed today.
Of course that island is where there should be a railway station serving Cameron Toll and with shuttle buses to the hospital.
I’ve given up expecting the South Sub to reopen to passengers EVER.
ThisIsEdinburgh.
This seems smug (and pathetic) -
“
Cllr Scott Arthur (@ProfScottThinks)
20/01/2018, 15:56
We are apparently constrained by a deal with the SNP Gov and St James Developer.
“
https://twitter.com/profscottthinks/status/954744360700084224
(Sorry if anyone thinks that against “Rule 1”)
The council coalition's Programme for Government includes:
18. Improve Edinburgh’s air quality and reduce carbon emissions. Explore the implementation of low emission zones
19. Keep the city moving by reducing congestion, improving public transport to rural west Edinburgh and managing roadworks to avoid unnecessary disruption to the public
Just in case anyone wants to quote these to councillors.
Herr Doktor Professor Arthur is a member of the ruling group on the council.
He has no right - no right - to pretend otherwise no matter how distasteful he may find his situation.
You must log in to post.
Cycling in Edinburgh Flickr group
Video embedded using Easy Video Embed plugin
posts