CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » Infrastructure

The Sustrans proposals for Picardy Place/Leith Street

(868 posts)
  • Started 6 years ago by crowriver
  • Latest reply from crowriver

  1. Arellcat
    Moderator

    The complete inadequance of opportunities for public scrutiny.

    Unfortunately all that comes to mind is the disastrous A40 Westway in London, Twyford Down protests, and David Croker helping to disrupt public enquiries.


    "
    LONDON MOTORWAY BOX

    HC Deb 20 March 1973 vol 853 cc323-82

    Mr. Jay Road policy has suffered increasingly in recent years from two fallacies inherited from the past. First, it has been tacitly assumed that the building of major new roads takes traffic off existing roads without increasing the total. It is now widely realised that the building of new roads increases the traffic, leads more people to buy and use cars, thereby damaging public transport, and leads to even more car traffic in the next phase…

    …Though conditions vary from one city to another as we all know, there have been far too many cases recently, from Portsmouth to Gateshead and from Cardiff to Edinburgh, where attempts have been made by the road interests to force unwanted and extravagant inner motorways, by the lavish offer of a 75 per cent, grant of public money, on cities in defiance of the wishes of the population.
    "

    The rest of that discussion is good reading.

    "
    …there is a suppressed demand for private car use. The increased building of roads will release this suppressed demand.
    "

    Posted 6 years ago #
  2. chdot
    Admin

    This is really disappointing from Spokes -

    Whilst Spokes is against the whole gyratory concept, the Council argues that for reasons of traffic flow, and the GAM agreement with the government and developers, this is currently the only realistic option.

    http://www.spokes.org.uk/2018/01/picardy-final-proposals

    The two layouts shown in that link show that things we were told couldn't change in fact can. I see no justification for a gyratory remaining.

    https://twitter.com/alexbottrill/status/955439243224141824

    From experience, attempts to contribute positively can be misconstrued as tacit support...

    https://mobile.twitter.com/Alexbottrill/status/955449166259539971

    Posted 6 years ago #
  3. i
    Member

    I can say fairly confidently that the latest designs have bike path widths of 2.5m and 2m on Leith St.

    Food for thought: Gyratories are not necessarily a bad idea. I don't think its used well in this context.

    Posted 6 years ago #
  4. chdot
    Admin

  5. chdot
    Admin

  6. chdot
    Admin

  7. Fountainbridge
    Member

    Greens response to latest plans

    ##############################

    On #PicardyPlace, Greens welcome the improvements in the current proposals compared to previous plans, in particular on the increase in segregated space for cyclists and the reduction in shared space.

    We also welcome the increase in public space in the revised #PicardyPlace proposals, and the proposal that there should be no development in the central island site, which could allow a future junction redesign to a more people-friendly layout.

    However, having discussed with colleagues and some key stakeholders, Greens will be seeking to overturn the proposal for a gyratory junction layout and to replace it instead with a more people-friendly junction design.

    Greens will urge an urgent meeting between Scottish Government, St James developer & council to renegotiate the GAM to allow revising the #PicardyPlace junction layout to a design consistent w council policies.

    We also believe that whatever happens at #PicardyPlace, there is a strong argument to retain the general traffic ban, but allow public transport & emergency vehicles, on Leith St until the City Centre Transformation Project reports.

    We are also seeking local mitigation measures to reduce the impact of traffic on local streets, for example a weight restriction on Broughton Street Lane. #PicardyPlace

    Finally, we believe the process by which the #PicardyPlace proposals emerged was flawed, and will call for the process to be referred to the council's Governance, Risk & Best Value committee for review.

    Posted 6 years ago #
  8. chdot
    Admin

    "

    Greens will urge an urgent meeting between Scottish Government, St James developer & council to renegotiate the GAM to allow revising the #PicardyPlace junction layout to a design consistent w council policies.

    "

    Good, but disappointing that such a meeting hasn't already happened!!!

    Posted 6 years ago #
  9. crowriver
    Member

    I'm very pleased to see this statement from the Green group of councillors. Reminds me why I joined the party...

    I just hope other councillors are listening. However I fear that Tory councillors will not oppose the plans and they'll be voted through on Thursday.

    We shall see what transpires...

    Posted 6 years ago #
  10. I were right about that saddle
    Member

    I fear that Tory councillors will not oppose the plans

    I wrote to Ms Davidson and demanded that she instruct her people to halt this Nationalist/Socialist wrecking ball.

    Posted 6 years ago #
  11. chdot
    Admin

  12. neddie
    Member

    SPOKES' letter to TEC councillors ahead of the committee meeting on the 25th:

    http://www.spokes.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/180123-Spokes-letter-to-cllrs.pdf

    Posted 6 years ago #
  13. I were right about that saddle
    Member

    Regrettably, due to the GAM agreement, as described in the Committee papers, and potential major financial and contractual implications, it seems likely that the Committee will approve the gyratory

    What could possess anyone to write that? The aim is to make councillors feel excited about the possibilities and ashamed of the present plan as well as worried about losing votes if they go ahead with it.

    We know you have to punch us in the face but thanks for using a boxing glove and we'll get a taxi to A&E ourselves it's fine.

    Posted 6 years ago #
  14. Morningsider
    Member

    Hmmm - there is a process for varying the GAM agreement, which has already been used, as set out in the attached FoI document. The changes added £500k to the GAM budget. Given that the area will be completely dug up anyway, it is genuinely hard to understand how any changes to the proposed design would add many millions to the proposed budget.

    It would be nice if someone could explain how this all works.

    Details: https://beta.gov.scot/publications/foi-17-02184/FOI-17-02184-Annex%20C-Progress%20Report%20Details.pdf?inline=true

    Posted 6 years ago #
  15. crowriver
    Member

    @PicardyGroup
    Our Press Release: Local & National Groups Team Up in Call for Rethink on Latest Picardy Place Proposals. Lobbying the Transport and Environment Committee meeting tomorrow.

    https://docs.google.com/document/d/1amerU1URT9T08tlAJfGSgfHmpJP2lthVSZHrfQfYRXY/edit

    ---

    "..we request collectively that the Committee does not decide to proceed to a decision on the future of Picardy Place. Instead, we ask that the Council undertakes a formal and open review of alternative designs to the gyratory to bring the design within the Council’s own policy aspirations, and maximises the opportunity to improve the public realm and avoids a design excessively dominated by traffic considerations.

    ---

    Signed by just about anyone who's heading a campaign group in Edinburgh...

    Posted 6 years ago #
  16. ih
    Member

    There's no passion in that letter, and they've allowed a gigantic 'get out of jail' card:

    It is recognised that the Council is operating under a number of historical constraints that may restrict its present room for manoeuvre, although we are not aware of the exact conditions that pertain with this.
    If the Committee were to conclude that these constraints do not provide sufficient time just now to consider alternative designs, we request that the matter is not allowed to rest and early consideration is given to further enhancements of the Picardy Place design that reflects the Council’s work on the Central Edinburgh Transformation. This would require, amongst other things, that any works are future-proofed and have flexibility built in.

    The Council can agree to that but do nothing. Two factors, even I can think of, will preclude any change from a gyratory within decades. (1) The developers do not want any major works outside their shiny shopping mall, that will affect their profits. (2) The planned configuration of the tram track slews over to the island thus making convertion to 2-way traffic on Picardy Place very difficult. It would be much more possible if the track remained in the centre of the road, which would also have several other advantages.

    Posted 6 years ago #
  17. crowriver
    Member

    @LivingStreetsEd
    Our message to councillors on #PicardyPlace: Say “No” to the gyratory design! Postpone the decision, so that it can be taken in the context of the forthcoming city-wide traffic plan.

    Full letter here:

    https://twitter.com/LivingStreetsEd/status/956096569169858560

    Note the plea to raid the cycling budget to meet the shortfall - that is very unfortunate and signals the end of "common cause" when push comes to shove...

    Posted 6 years ago #
  18. chdot
    Admin

    “Note the plea to raid the cycling budget to meet the shortfall”

    That’s not really what it says, it initially complains about money coming from footways budget.

    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DUS8iwHX4AEe2ZE?format=jpg&name=900x900

    If this is about economic development and traffic flow it shouldn’t come out of either!

    Posted 6 years ago #
  19. chdot
    Admin

    “Signed by just about anyone who's heading a campaign group in Edinburgh...”

    Except Sustrans. Presumably they were asked(?)

    A number of local and national groups representing residents, pedestrians, cyclists, and heritage and civic space interests have agreed to work together to highlight the scale of opposition to any design based on a ‘gyratory’.

    That’s good that they have managed to cobble together a letter.

    Shame that some of signatories have been quite quiet in the last few months leaving Spokes to make most of the running and take most of the flack.

    So, along with Sustrans, the impression may have been that this is all a ‘cycle’ issue with all the usual suspects complaining - as they do.

    Poor.

    Posted 6 years ago #
  20. crowriver
    Member

    "Shame that some of signatories have been quite quiet in the last few months leaving Spokes to make most of the running and take most of the flack."

    That may of course just be "our" impression as "we" are quite focused on the issue. Others, including councillors, may have different perceptions.

    That's not to say it might be politically expedient for the Council to paint it as "just" a cycling issue, as was largely done in 2009, for instance (as in "we added cycle lanes in after complaints from cyclists, jobs a good 'un, full steam ahead."). Legitimate concerns from Community Councils and residents' associations were simply met with the "prior approval" get out clause, much as they are being met with the "GAM contract" get out clause in 2018...

    My own instinct on this is that council officials (and possibly senior councillors/committee conveners) are quite prepared to tough it it out and push the gyratory through on the basis that Council agreed to it in 2016 (with almost zero scrutiny and two days' notice). Oh and any delays will cost the Council untold millions in penalty charges. Objectors have been thrown a few scraps of tinkering around the edges because (as I said last year) that is all they have consulted upon. Any challenges to the fundamental design concept are met with "GAM contract/Council approved in 2016". Move along now, there's a good objector, what more do you want, nothing to see here, be reasonable...

    Posted 6 years ago #
  21. chdot
    Admin

    “Oh and any delays will cost the Council untold millions in penalty charges.”

    I’m still not sure that there is any proof for this, beyond the fact that they keep saying so.

    See -

    http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=18183&page=21#post-273470

    Posted 6 years ago #
  22. crowriver
    Member

    @thecockburn
    No, @lmacinnessnp and @edinburghpaper you are incorrect. The proposed design for #PicardyPlace does not follow the historic street layout as shown here. That was based on buildings not on multiple lanes of traffic and polluted, unusable 'public space' http://bit.ly/2DzPNH3

    https://twitter.com/thecockburn/status/956167338205868032

    Posted 6 years ago #
  23. crowriver
    Member

    "I’m still not sure that there is any proof for this, beyond the fact that they keep saying so."

    Oh aye, it's probably just another "We can't be bothered changing anything except fiddling round the edges so we'll dig our heels in and use any excuse in the face of objections".

    Posted 6 years ago #
  24. crowriver
    Member

    ‘Pedestrian unfriendly’ Picardy Place junction plans criticised

    https://www.edinburghnews.scotsman.com/our-region/edinburgh/pedestrian-unfriendly-picardy-place-junction-plans-criticised-1-4670535

    Posted 6 years ago #
  25. I were right about that saddle
    Member

    Lesley Macinnes defended the plans. She said: “The proposed design reflects the historic street layout and provides the most effective solution for the needs of all road users, and in particular bus users, as well as allowing us flexibility to adapt to changing transport needs in future."

    Historical street layout? Historically 'Pickardy' was fields. Yesterday was historical and it was a roundabout.

    And there isn't a single bus priority measure. What is this municipal oddball on about?

    Posted 6 years ago #
  26. chdot
    Admin

    It is understood it could cost the council up to £20m if it abandoned the design.

    https://www.edinburghnews.scotsman.com/our-region/edinburgh/pedestrian-unfriendly-picardy-place-junction-plans-criticised-1-4670535

    Really?

    REALLY????

    “abandoned” is a bit disingenuous.

    Posted 6 years ago #
  27. Rosie
    Member

    Cockburn Association has tweeted a picture of what this used to look like.

    https://twitter.com/thecockburn

    Does anyone know why it had that triangle in the middle? It seems an odd way to build a lot of tenements.

    Posted 6 years ago #
  28. Morningsider
    Member

    crowriver - that Picardy Group letter is an object lesson in how not to lobby politicians. Vague, waffling, round-about language - it could have been written by a particularly obsequious Victorian servant "Sorry, m'lud, but could you possibly see your way to removing your boot from my throat, only it seems to be scuffing the lovely calves leather soles".

    Posted 6 years ago #
  29. Frenchy
    Member

    The council’s latest proposals will cost £1.5m to redesign, to be financed either from the council’s 20220/21 budget...

    And some say the council has no long-term planning.

    Posted 6 years ago #
  30. Morningsider
    Member

    IWRATS - someone should point out to Lesley MacInness that the St James development itself doesn't follow the historic street layout - which was inexplicably devoid of golden turd-shaped hotels.

    Posted 6 years ago #

RSS feed for this topic

Reply »

You must log in to post.


Video embedded using Easy Video Embed plugin