CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » Infrastructure

The Sustrans proposals for Picardy Place/Leith Street

(868 posts)
  • Started 7 years ago by crowriver
  • Latest reply from crowriver

  1. crowriver
    Member

    It may be worth mentioning that, if objections to a RSO are not withdrawn, I believe the Council is not permitted to consider these objections and is required to pass them to the Scottish Ministers. The Ministers can uphold the objections and request the abandonment of the Order, or they can confirm the Order in full or with amendments.

    Council officers may try to promise modifications or revisions in order to persuade objectors to withdraw, but objectors are under no obligation to do so.

    Correct me if I'm wrong on this.

    Posted 7 years ago #
  2. jonty
    Member

    I agree shared use is a terrible idea there but I still don't see how it's a net loss of pedestrian space. It's a bit pedantic but I don't want to see people objections lose weight by leading with a trivially provable falsehood.

    Posted 7 years ago #
  3. crowriver
    Member

    Without checking the exact total square meterage it's difficult to say if, overall there is a net loss of footway.

    However there is a very clear loss at the junction with Greenside Row. It could not be clearer. Even if, overall, the scheme delivers more or even "the same" area of footway as before (counting the central reservation as "footway").

    There is also the loss of amenity argument regarding shared use paths in busy central urban areas.

    Whether certain sections of the southern end of Leith Street represent a gain or loss of footway is arguable. One might say any gains are so small as to be insufficient to justify the ostensible reasons for the RSO, i.e. "Parts of Leith Street are to be altered to improve the footways for pedestrians and include cycle tracks."

    Posted 7 years ago #
  4. jonty
    Member

    Looks like there are some pretty sizeable gains on the side opposite John Lewis, which is good as it's always been the most congested. Not only are both the cycle track and extra pavement taken from the carriageway, but moving the bus stops out will make the existing footway space much better. There's also some reorganisation on the other side to increase space.

    I don't think the central reservation being defined as "footway" is some sort of conspiracy to throw off the totals and just means "a kerbed area in which motor vehicles are forbidden."

    Shared use on the corner of Greenside Row is stupid and basically unnecessary. I will be objecting to it too. If that goes (I suspect it would never be built that way anyway) it's hard to say it's not an improvement for pedestrians, especially if Calton Road gets signalised as promised.

    Posted 7 years ago #
  5. crowriver
    Member

    "if Calton Road gets signalised as promised."

    Where does it say that? I've seen no promises in this regard.

    Posted 7 years ago #
  6. chdot
    Admin

  7. PS
    Member

    My reading of the central reservation was that it was being removed - converted from "footway" to "carriageway". If that's the case, then I'm all for it being classed as current footway if it means that its area is thrown into the total that is not to be lost in the area of future footways in the new design.

    Totally agree with crowriver about the turning radius of the Greenside junction.

    Posted 7 years ago #
  8. jonty
    Member

    Fountainbridge said Calton Road was going to be signalised once - despite having just disagreed with him on his assessment of the plans, I do tend to trust him on this stuff! Could have changed since though, he said it a while ago and I haven't seen it elsewhere. My understanding was that it was to be signalled as a crossroads with the car park access opposite. Don't know where that consultation that proposed making it one way permanently comes into it all.

    Posted 7 years ago #
  9. crowriver
    Member

    I don't see any traffic signals indicated on the plans. Doesn't mean it won't happen, but I'm going to assume it's not and put a suggestion in that it should be signalised with my valid objections.

    Can't do any harm.

    Posted 7 years ago #
  10. chdot
    Admin

    AN engineer who worked on tram projects up and down the country has said a “demanding” Edinburgh public helped make the Capital the most challenging environment he had known.

    ...

    “It’s a wonderful historic city and it wasn’t laid out with trams in mind. So putting a tram system through narrow streets in a very densely populated area will be challenging. It’s also a very historic city, with lots of wonderful buildings and heritage that we do not wish to disturb.

    “The people of Edinburgh, compared with a lot of other cities, are probably more demanding and overall perhaps more educated than elsewhere.

    http://www.edinburghnews.scotsman.com/news/transport/demanding-edinburgh-public-made-trams-a-bigger-challenge-1-4581360

    Posted 7 years ago #
  11. piosad
    Member

    Sigh, EEN at it again. Most of the copy is about organizational failure but the headline is 'Edinburgh not suitable for trams', despite, er, having had an extensive tram network in the not so recent past. (Not to mention those pesky Europeans managing to have modern tram systems in the medieval town centres in places like Freiburg, somehow, and Edinburgh's wide Georgian streets now being too narrow…)

    Posted 7 years ago #
  12. PS
    Member

    Not to mention those pesky Europeans managing to have modern tram systems in the medieval town centres in places like Freiburg, somehow, and Edinburgh's wide Georgian streets now being too narrow…

    Yes. Do the people who write this stuff never visit European cities? They should. Travel broadens the mind.



    Posted 7 years ago #
  13. crowriver
    Member

    “The people of Edinburgh, compared with a lot of other cities, are probably more demanding and overall perhaps more educated than elsewhere."

    A little learning is a dangerous thing.

    Posted 7 years ago #
  14. dougal
    Member

    Was it Princes Street or Shandwick Place or York Place that was the narrow street in question...? Oh it must be the Balgreen-Broomhouse section that is being alluded to.

    Posted 7 years ago #
  15. condor2378
    Member

    Those are pictures of trams in narrow streets. What we have is light rail trains which are considerably larger.

    Posted 7 years ago #
  16. Morningsider
    Member

    Odense and Strasbourg are light rail systems and manage to cram vehicles down much narrower streets than the Edinburgh Trams use.

    Still, the Transdev engineer was really blaming poor organisation and weak management for the subsequent problems, not the street layout.

    EDIT - no idea how to include photos.

    Posted 7 years ago #
  17. chdot
    Admin

    “EDIT - no idea how to include photos.”

    Have to link to image (see IMG above) or link to image with a link if it’s wider than 500 - unfortunately the ‘image resize’ widget doesn’t work anymore.

    Posted 7 years ago #
  18. urchaidh
    Member

    Images - if you create a free Imgur account and upload the photo's there, it provides you with list of links to the image, with optional different sizes, which you can copy and paste into your post.

    Posted 7 years ago #
  19. PS
    Member

    Strasbourg tram:

    Reasonable view of trams approaching a stop in one of the city centre streets on Google Maps here. Turn around and head towards the tram stop to see two together.

    Posted 7 years ago #
  20. urchaidh
    Member

    One thing in common with all these tram/light rail images... no cars.

    The problems in fitting in the trams in Edinburgh, the problem with almost all attempts to improve travel in Edinburgh, is the refusal to restrict private car use.

    Posted 7 years ago #
  21. PS
    Member

    One thing in common with all these tram/light rail images... no cars.

    The problems in fitting in the trams in Edinburgh, the problem with almost all attempts to improve travel in Edinburgh, is the refusal to restrict private car use.

    Yes, spot on. If you follow the Google Maps link above and keep heading straight ahead you'll see the traditional Edinburgh problem of tradesmen vans parked on the pavement, but that is significantly less of issue if peds are not forced into conflict with heavy traffic.

    Posted 7 years ago #
  22. crowriver
    Member

    "the problem with almost all attempts to improve travel in Edinburgh, is the refusal to restrict private car use."

    And yet, apparently:

    “The people of Edinburgh, compared with a lot of other cities, are probably more demanding and overall perhaps more educated than elsewhere."

    Hmmm.

    Posted 7 years ago #
  23. teddybears
    Member

    Just want to reiterate what crowriver said about objecting to RSO's.
    Council can't set these aside and ultimately could go to public enquiry to deal with those.

    Most folk don't realise this and only object to TRO's

    Posted 7 years ago #
  24. Stickman
    Member

  25. chdot
    Admin

    Last paragraph -

    Picardy Place had consistently been ‘disaggregated’ from the St James Quarter planning discussions, agreed Councillor Mowat, with officials refusing to discuss it in detail. There was a strong sense that Edinburgh was now being bounced into a decision at an undue pace and with insufficient information for reasons which are not as clear as they should be.

    Posted 7 years ago #
  26. Stickman
    Member

    http://www.theedinburghreporter.co.uk/2017/10/picardy-place-going-round-in-circles/

    Traffic would be regulated around the three sides by traffic signals, and the hope is that traffic would pass around Picardy Place almost without a stop.

    Posted 7 years ago #
  27. crowriver
    Member

    From the ER article (also name checked in the Spurtle):

    ---

    The Director of Place, Paul Lawrence, a council official, attended the meeting to try and explain the current position. He was accompanied by a member of the council’s Communications team and also Alasdair Sim of Sweco, an engineering, environment and design consultancy. Mr Sim is now a technical director, but he used to work on trams when employed at the council, so travel and traffic management is very much his area of expertise.

    ---

    From Mr. Sim's LinkedIn profile we can ascertain that he held a senior position in Edinburgh Trams from 2011 until a year ago. Among his many responsibilities were "heading up the transportation modelling work streams" and "land and property, third party legal agreements and since March 2013; leading the stakeholder engagement, communications and media team on the project."

    Before that, from 2006 to 2011, Mr Sim worked for TIE Ltd, where his role as Interface Director was wide ranging, included land purchases, TROs, planning and transport modelling.

    Previously at AECOM he had a hand in the tram, Dublin's Luas too. Also demand forecasting and traffic modelling for the Kincardine Bridge, M77 extension, and Monkstown Ring Road.

    Prior to that, he worked on traffic modelling and revenue forecasting for major toll road schemes in Johannesburg, South Africa; and worked for Fife Council as a traffic forecaster/planner.

    Basically he's a roads engineer and traffic modeller who segued into trams.

    Presumably he has also been responsible for the traffic modelling for Picardy Place/Leith Street redesign and its underlying assumptions.

    Basically, I think we can say with some confidence that the 2007 TIE design for Picardy Place is "his". He is the person (literally) driving the continuation of this design through the various stages up until now, and he is still involved as a consultant due to his role in planning the tram extension to Newhaven.

    Posted 7 years ago #
  28. chdot
    Admin

    “and the hope is that traffic would pass around Picardy Place almost without a stop”

    More traffic flow fantasy.

    Posted 7 years ago #
  29. chdot
    Admin

    “so travel and traffic management is very much his area of expertise”

    That’s fine, can CEC tell him to plan for ways of discouraging traffic??

    Posted 7 years ago #
  30. Klaxon
    Member

    Under what terms can you object to an RSO and they be considered meaningful by the ministers?

    Posted 7 years ago #

RSS feed for this topic

Reply »

You must log in to post.


Video embedded using Easy Video Embed plugin