I plan to take along a pile of post-it notes and correct their spin. I presume somebody will be along with the german gyratory stickers at some point.
Official docs should be here "by the end of the week at the latest"
CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » Infrastructure
The Sustrans proposals for Picardy Place/Leith Street
(868 posts)-
Posted 7 years ago #
-
"I presume somebody will be along with the german gyratory stickers at some point."
That's a good idea...
Posted 7 years ago # -
LivingStreets are running a petition against the gyratory. You can sign it here:
https://e-activist.com/ea-action/action?ea.client.id=1719&ea.campaign.id=82115&ea.url.id=1145260
From: https://twitter.com/LivingStreetsEd/status/931519789754912768
It seems to send an automated email out to councillors as well
Posted 7 years ago # -
You can also vote in Cllr Arthur's Twitter poll
"I've had almost 20 emails about the Picardy Place proposals today alone.
All are against a "gyratory" layout, are you?"
Posted 7 years ago # -
I received back what looks like an automated email from Cllr Gavin Barrie:
Dear nedd1e,
Thanks for contacting me regarding this matter.
You must be aware that this is a complicated junction and any solution must be evidence based to ensure it works for everyone who uses it.
Can you supply any data or evidence to show that your favoured option will work for all who have to traverse it?
Regards,
Gavin Barrie,SNP Councillor for Inverleith Ward, Edinburgh.
Convenor of the Housing and Economy Committee
So what evidence could I supply? Ideas please...
Posted 7 years ago # -
Ask him for his evidence that the council's will work for all?
It always a compromise, it's a political decision who has to compromise the most.
Posted 7 years ago # -
“
You must be aware that this is a complicated junction and any solution must be evidence based to ensure it works for everyone who uses it.
“
Right!
So it’s all ok then -
There can be NO evidence “to ensure it works for everyone who uses it“ so better close it to all then...
Posted 7 years ago # -
Posted 7 years ago #
-
From link -
"
The development of the St James Quarter provides the city with an opportunity to make a significant improvement to Picardy Place, returning the area to its historic layout, while developing public assets and improving pedestrian, cyclist and public transport access.
"
"returning the area to its historic layout" - what an absurd, pointless and unworkable priority.
Might work if the plan is to restrict traffic to whatever level it was that last used that layout!!!
Posted 7 years ago # -
Frighteningly extensive use of 'shared space' to squeeze in bikes at every junction.
"Get off the pavement"
https://consultationhub.edinburgh.gov.uk/sfc/picardy-place/user_uploads/picardy_enterprise.pdf
Posted 7 years ago # -
Trying my best to analyse this constructively, rather than just immediately dismiss it wholesale.
I can't figure out how you're expected to cycle between York Place and Leith Walk, if you don't want to be on the road. Am I missing something?
One of the objections to Sustrans' non-gyratory is that buses couldn't easily turn round at Picardy Place. Do any services currently do this? Is there a reason they couldn't do so at the London Road roundabout instead?
Posted 7 years ago # -
Thank you for your email. I have noted your concerns and will certainly keep them in mind when discussing Picardy Place.Can I urge you to take part in the consultation that begins next week. Here is a link: https://consultationhub.edinburgh.gov.uk/
Best wishes
Karen
Councillor Karen Doran
Vice Convener, Transport and Environment CommitteePosted 7 years ago # -
Cycle past the front of the church, over a 2 stage, staggered, penned, pedestrian crossing and down past the omni.
For a better laugh try to work out how you cross from the Playhouse to Gayfield Sq
Posted 7 years ago # -
My summary of the changes since last time is a a widening of the pavement outside the cathedral which reduces the space available for the island.
Not sure there is that much space left on the island to make it worth tackling the multiple crossings to get there.
Posted 7 years ago # -
I do like the suggestion of bus double back though, really think there should be more buses turn before they hit Princes St.
The blurb says there are options to reduce lanes in the future as more people switch transport methods. I'd argue that the best way to do that is to make the changes now. I'd like to see the plans for what a future version would look like too.
Posted 7 years ago # -
Posted 7 years ago #
-
“
“The desire for more public space, in particular, has come across loud and clear and the latest designs clearly reflect this.”
She encouraged anyone with an interest to attend the public engagement events.
“Comments and ideas gathered will help us to create a final design that best meets the needs of all, benefiting pedestrians and cyclists while enabling the smooth flow of public transport to and from the city.
“We have demonstrated through this process a willingness to listen and to take new ideas on board where possible and we will do so again.”
George Lowder, chief executive of Transport for Edinburgh, welcomed the revised scheme: He said: “Picardy Place is a crucial city-centre hub for public transport with tens of thousands of people travelling through the junction by bus each and every day.
“The challenge for us is to find the best balance between all forms of public transport, active travel and other vehicles. We believe these latest proposals would go a long way to delivering this.”
“
SO -
They are still stuck with ‘traffic flow’ and ‘balance’, but seem to be emphasising public transport.
From ‘our’ point of view (and that’s not just the ‘all powerful cycle lobby’) they need to actively discourage/reduce the amount of traffic. CLEARLY this is possible - as NOW with closure of Leith Street!
Easy enough to reopen for just bikes and buses.
Is the superduper new St. James really only going to work if it can be fed with cars?
Even if that were true, is that any sort of justification for priority over the interests of Edinburgh people generally?
Posted 7 years ago # -
In the council's consultation, they provide information about the competing Sustrans design that "received some media attention" and then go on to list reasons why it won't work.
However, the "Sustrans design" that the council show appears to be an older, inferior Y shaped design.
It looks to me as though the council are deliberately trying to mislead people into thinking the Sustrans design wouldn't work.
Here's the "Sustrans design" as presented by the council:
Older, inferior "Sustrans design" as presented by CEC by Ed, on Flickr
Older, inferior "Sustrans design" as presented by CEC by Ed, on FlickrAnd here's the most recent and best Sustrans design as "we" know it:
Recent and best "Sustrans design" by Ed, on Flickr
Recent and best "Sustrans design" by Ed, on FlickrFrom: http://www.sustrans.org.uk/sites/default/files/images/files/Ideas%20for%20Picardy%20Place%20DL.pdf
Me thinks the whole thing is a stitch up
Posted 7 years ago # -
Extract from Adam McVey's speech posted in full on the Spokes at 40 thread. If the Council did what he's saying we wouldn't have this traffic-flow orthodoxy and the gyratory.
"And I think we have to be honest and have an honest conversation with the people of Edinburgh. It's a lie frankly, there's no other word to describe it, to tell people that they can have all the parking they want in the city centre, that they can have as many lanes of traffic and the congestion will somehow magically go away if only we build more motorways in certain key places or build that capacity it's a lie, and we should call it out as a lie when we’ve been told it. And people deserve to know what the situation is, what the fact is. And that fact is you have to take away parking sometimes, you have to take away road space sometimes, to make that kind of transformative infrastructure, but ultimately if you do it in the right way it's not just good for people who are already cycling, it's good for everyone, because more people will be cycling. It improves the pedestrian environment because you don’t have cars whizzing past you at 30 mph, you'll have cyclists if it's me panting along side you when I ride my bike. It's good for everyone. And it's good for the motorist as well and we should make that argument. We shouldn’t be afraid to make that relatively sophisticated seemingly conflicting argument that actually to take cars off, to create that modal shift is not only good for those engaging in that modal shift, it is good for literally every road user."
Posted 7 years ago # -
@neddie_h - I noticed that too, but (naively) assumed that the version presented in the consultation was an updated rather than outdated version.
Posted 7 years ago # -
There is also the Spurtle plan for Picardy place, which is an excellent draft of a proposal that would be infinitely better that the gyratory. Similar to the Sustrans latest plan. Between the two plans, there could be found a model that would be a forward looking vision of Edinburgh instead of setting it back 40 years.
http://www.broughtonspurtle.org.uk/news/picardy-place-counterproposal
Posted 7 years ago # -
The “Sustrans” plans that the council posted look nothing like anything Sustrans would produce - there are no bus lanes, no transport interchange, inadequate cycle lanes and multi-lane junctions. Definitely not the hallmark of Sustrans.
They look more like some kind of mock-up the council has produced.
Posted 7 years ago # -
@nedd1e_h Agree that there is very little relationship between the Y-junction drawing and the Sustrans plan - but, in the cause of accuracy, the Council is not saying it is a Sustrans plan! In fact they explicitly say it is an option developed by (and rejected by) the Council.
"The Council developed the y-shaped junction layout and explored this as an option in discussion with Sustrans."The title is also weirdly worded, "An alternative idea discussed by Sustrans".
I totally agree that the wording and presentation in this part of the consultation is confusing and (probably wrongly) implies this is the sort of solution that Sustrans might like.
I only say this as it is important to be accurate in consultation responses and not call this a Sustrans plan! Rather, it appears to be a Council-drawn option which they discussed with Sustrans.
Posted 7 years ago # -
At the previous consultation, a cycleroute through the main island was shown, which appeared to provide a fairly direct link between York Place and Leith Walk.
That cycleroute has disappeared in the new main plan, although it IS still shown in the plan of what is to happen with the 'island.' So is that cycleroute still intended or not?? If not, the connection between York Place & Leith Walk will be much less direct.
Posted 7 years ago # -
@DdF
Yes, you are correct.
The problem is that the consultation (deliberately?) misleads participants, councillors & citizens into believing that the Y design is the “Sustrans” one as mentioned in the media (both social & mainstream). From which point it’s easy to reject the “Sustrans” plans outright
My previous emails to councillors have mentioned the Sustrans plans as being superior many times. But now they will look at these Y plans and just dismiss anything Sustrans.
Posted 7 years ago # -
@nedd1e_h
Agreed!
Posted 7 years ago # -
@DdF - on the island cycleways, I think they're trying to avoid setting anything in stone for the island. So they're also consulting on whether there should be cycleways on the island.
Posted 7 years ago # -
@Frenchy
That's what I thought at first, but they have also on the main plan removed the crossing between the bottom of the island and the main Leith Walk cycleroute (just below Omni). So that adds to the likelihood that they no longer want the direct island cycleroute.
Posted 7 years ago # -
Posted 7 years ago # -
@frenchy - re my previous message - apologies, I misread the plan. That crossing just below omni does appear to be still on the plan, though it is not ideally located in relation to what might or might not be the cycleroute coming down beside the tram stop.
Posted 7 years ago #
Reply »
You must log in to post.
posts
