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.
Don't if we've seen the designs for Leith Street before or not.
Here a diagram ofthe redeterminarion orders. Looks like the cycle track only goes as far as Calton Road
http://www.edinburgh.gov.uk/downloads/file/9920/rso1713_leith_street_calton_road_greenside_row_waterloo_place_plans_labled
Is it me or have they determined that the cobbled bit with a fence in the middle of the traffic lanes was a footway (now carriageway)?
Hopefully not to be included in any "cyclists take space from pedestrians" figures...
Yeah I couldn't figure that one!
Was too busy marvelling at the 60s style hatchings.
Then I got to thinking about who was leading this and how CEC seemed to be 'involved' - no signature next to "Director of Place" though.
Then I started thinking about other things...
Well, it is an improvement on what's there currently. It could be so much better though. I prefer Sustrans' proposals for Leith Street, with bus gate, segregated cycleway all the way to Waterloo Place, but retaining access to the car parking.
That junction with Greenside Row is very poor: the corner radii are even more generous to motorists than at present. That will create dangers for pedestrians and cyclists crossing, as drivers will tend to "drive to the conditions" and sweep round at speed rather than slowing down. Recipe for collisions.
I hope they're planning a signalised junction with Calton Road/Calton Hill, otherwise that cycleway exit will be a death trap.
As pointed out on twitter last night, the Greenside Row crossing is going to be a toucan guddle of bikes and pedestrians.
Not fit for purpose.
Imagine throwing even 3 waiting bikes in here and expecting everyone to cross together
Good report on today's TEC discussion. In summary, money talks and we're getting a gyratory.
http://www.broughtonspurtle.org.uk/news/no-major-rethink-picardy-place
@Stickman
Not good, but not over yet. We got the power.
"But he defended the gyratory plan, saying it was the ‘optimal’ compromise between the competing and sometimes contradictory requirements of pedestrians, cyclists, public transport providers and private motorists."
How does that statement square with the transport hierarchy? Grar. (Using it to make those compromises by deprioritising cars is clearly crazy talk, however.)
I have thought in the past Paul 'gets it' about liveable cities. Now not so sure.
Disappointed.
As I feared, the council officers are claiming "our hands are tied". What's worse is Scottish government/SFT playing the "not a penny more" card (see trams). Finally the developer is making threatening noises about cost overruns.
Basically it's a fait accompli. Only arrived at by largely ignoring the previous consultation. Now part of a binding contractual agreement.
So despite Cllr Macinnes' claims, further consultation will indeed be "a sop".
From the article:
"councillors will receive additional briefings on the design and public feedback later this month, with members of the public receiving the same a week later. Public engagement will follow on proposals for the central island in November. All dates to be confirmed."
No mention of consultation on the alleged "‘optimal’ compromise between the competing and sometimes contradictory requirements of pedestrians, cyclists, public transport providers and private motorists."
Edinburgh council is full of pro-car extremists. *All* pro-active travel policy is a "sop".
I have never felt so despondent and betrayed than by this decision making process. For the last 10 years, there has been no, no, serious consideration of anything that would make Picardy Place anything better than the car dominated, human desert that it is today. For Paul Lawrence to call this "optimal" is an absolute lie; for the Council to accept this analysis is an abdication of their responsibility and an utter denial of the existing policies which claim (falsely) to place any importance on human spaces and active travel.
“
When officials and councillors began considering Picardy Place four years ago, for example, deliberately restricting private road use here had not been discussed as it is now.
“
I suppose that’s true, four years is a long time in the life of PoP.
So (as mentioned above, and in previous weeks) a deal done (which need not be a done deal) a stitch-up between CEC, developers and a development arm of SG without ANY proper consultation/scrutiny.
The SG’s ‘not a penny more card’ is (charitably) unhelpful.
Today’s CEC meeting showed that this is not split along party lines and there is general dissatisfaction with the process and current proposals.
A democratic minimum is to stop allowing ‘corporate’ CEC to hide behind ‘commercial confidentiality’ and publicly examine the deal - and question whether the decision of a previous administration has to be binding - or at least determine the actual penalty cost of altering it.
Public opinion might have changed - or it might not have previously had much of an opinion (partly because of the assumption that there would be a proper consultation), either way, things have changed and there is a much better understanding of the benefits of less traffic, better ‘place’ etc.
Here's the webcast of the discussion :
https://edinburgh.public-i.tv/core/portal/webcast_interactive/293982
Paul Lawrence was very adamant that the scheme wasn't being driven by traffic modelling.
Paul Lawrence, Director of Place Gyratory.
“Paul Lawrence was very adamant that the scheme wasn't being driven by traffic modelling.”
Dogma then?
It's a long watch and not particularly informative to be honest. Jo Mowat doesn't appear to believe in traffic evaporation.
Oh look what arrived in the post today.
I think those stickers are great. They may need another sticker explaining them to the unenlightened. Should hopefully spark conversations around the poles they are stuck too?
Keep an eye out at Picardy Place and Abbeyhill over the next few days...
Whilst Picardy Place and Abbey Hill are obviously the prime locations, would it be useful if things appeared elsewhere where politicians and officials (and the public at large) might notice them?
@ih, if you or a friend of yours want to print off some stickers, I'm sure kappers won't mind. My contacts in the sticker business will be stickering where they see fit, as and when is practical.
It is worth objecting to the RSO for Leith St, since RSOs carry some power. That is, if there are un-withdrawn objections there has to be a government inquiry.
It would be worth objecting about the net loss of pedestrian space and the lack of continuous segregated cycleway to the top of Leith St, if nothing else.
Objections have to be in by 31st October
Any person may, within 28 days from 3/10/17 object to the making of the Order by notice, in writing, or e-mail trafficorders@edinburgh.gov.uk quoting reference RSO/17/13 THE HEAD OF PLANNING AND TRANSPORT, PLACE, CITY CHAMBERS, HIGH ST, EDINBURGH, EH1 1YJ, Objections should state the name and address of the objector, the matters to which they relate and the grounds on which they are made.
Where is the net loss of pedestrian space happening? I don't think I would term the central reservation as "pedestrian space".
Just noticed the fact that the whole of the pavement towards the top is being turned into a "cycle track" - presumably shared use pavement? Weird. Is that what you're referring to?
Net loss of pedestrian space:
https://twitter.com/fountainbridge/status/915639408400982022
Just noticed the fact that the whole of the pavement towards the top is being turned into a "cycle track" - presumably shared use pavement? Weird.
Just imagine how well that's going to work during the festival or at kicking out time at the Playhouse... Those pavements are full to overflowing as they stand at the moment.
That tweet has the same plans with the same unexplained assertion. I agree they're not good but I don't see the net loss in pedestrian space. I do see a cycle track being built on old carriageway and bus stops being built beyond that - good. Do you think fountainbridge read them backwards (or is that what I'm doing?)
The junction with Greenside Row clearly shows a loss of footway to cycle track (presumably shared use). This makes that junction more hazardous for pedestrians and designs in conflict with cyclists. This approach is entirely inappropriate for an area with such high footfall. That's what I'm planning to put in my objection.
I may also make some constructive suggestions, i.e.. narrowing the corner radii on that same junction could mean that a fully segregated cycleway would have space for its own crossing point, without having to take footway space from pedestrians.
I will also suggest they continue the segregated cycleway up to Waterloo Place, and insist that the junction with Calton Road has traffic signals installed as it looks very unsafe and not a sufficient improvement on the current highly hazardous junction layout.
If you plan to object in a similar manner, please find your own form of words rather than copying and pasting the above. The Council don't like lots of "pro-forma" responses: these will not carry as much weight as individually written ones as they are effectively a for of petition or stock response.
You must log in to post.
Cycling in Edinburgh Flickr group
Video embedded using Easy Video Embed plugin
posts