CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » Infrastructure

Edinburgh Tram Extension to Newhaven

(319 posts)

  1. crowriver
    Member

    "Have Leith Walk residents been physically notified by CEC? "

    I got a leaflet through the door over a week ago, so yes.

    “This is a fake consultation.“

    Depends what the purpose is. In "our" eyes, we might want a real chance to change the designs. In the Council's eyes, they may just see this as an opportunity to "improve" what they see as "optimal" (see Picardy Place).

    Have to say, it looks like the latter: much play will be made of how the Council have "listened", "taken on board feedback" etc, but any changes will likely be minimal. because that's what they want.....and ultimately they have the power to get what they want.

    Posted 6 years ago #
  2. chdot
    Admin

    “because that's what they want“

    Yes, but.

    The real problem is that there is a part of CEC that wants this - and seems to be ignoring many CEC policies.

    And somehow this takes precedent over other parts of the council without much (apparent) opposition from officials or much concern from most councillors.

    Posted 6 years ago #
  3. crowriver
    Member

    @chdot, I think that's to do with the tram process. The business case was presented and passed by full council, most of the scrutiny being on costs, mitigating risk, etc. for obvious reasons. Once passed, the approved timescale and delivery pipeline then allows officials to make all kinds of decisions under delegated powers.

    Certain councillors, communities and lobby groups might express concerns or opposition to some aspects of the detailed designs (which have been arrived at without direct scrutiny by councillors as far as I can tell). However officials can always say that with the tight timescale, tenders already in, etc. that major changes will lead to large cost overruns, thus threatening the viability of the tram extension overall. We saw similar tactics employed over the Picardy Place GAM contract.

    So despite claims by officials and some councillors that things are up for negotiation, I suspect that's only true if councillors are prepared to countenance cost increases, which will probably be voted down if push comes to shove. I hope I'm wrong, but this is looking more and more like Picardy Place Mk II. I'd even go as far as to say officials and project managers (and maybe even certain councillors) have been emboldened by Picardy Place to push harder for their vision, knowing that only tiny fiddling at the edges will be possible resulting from any "consultation" process.

    Posted 6 years ago #
  4. dougal
    Member

    Have Leith Walk residents been physically notified?

    See my tweet here:

    https://twitter.com/dougalstanton/status/977540862082273280

    There's next to no detail. It says there will be a second consultation in August 2018. Not sure what *that* consultation will be about. The colour of the paint used to delineate the parking spaces?

    Posted 6 years ago #
  5. Klaxon
    Member

    No such letter received here on a Leith Walk side street

    Posted 6 years ago #
  6. chdot
    Admin

    “No such letter received here on a Leith Walk side street”

    Patience, it’s worth the wait!

    Posted 6 years ago #
  7. chdot
    Admin

    “I hope I'm wrong, but this is looking more and more like Picardy Place Mk II.“

    Hard to believe...

    Posted 6 years ago #
  8. chdot
    Admin

    All parties (certainly SNP & Lab) were briefed on it before the consultation. I missed the briefing as I was at a UCU Demo. Concerns were raised in the Lab Grp about it.

    https://twitter.com/profscottthinks/status/977922372098502656

    Posted 6 years ago #
  9. gibbo
    Member

    @crowdriver

    I hope I'm wrong, but this is looking more and more like Picardy Place Mk II.

    Yup.

    Posted 6 years ago #
  10. McD
    Member

    Not been keeping up but having looked back at the last few days a couple of points.

    I was told at the dropin that they would go to tender with the consultation plans (dating from ... (Way back)) - the detail didn't needed to be sorted out until (or by the time) contracts were signed.

    And here's the thing, to paraphrase "the tender is all about ability to deliver the tram. The tramworks are by far the major part of the works and the streetscape is not that tricky". Maybe that is why they haven't included options at this stage.

    The key things for Leith Walk are the local business issues and the 4 lanes of traffic - I'm not clear how closely they are connected.

    Currently "local businessess'" need for parking for passing trade etc and deliveries are taking priority over space for active travel. The businesses also have concerns about loss of business during the works and the tram project are working with them on ways to mitigate this, including "redistribution" by cargo bikes and possibly cycle rickshaws etc.

    So, as with Roseburn, the businesses fears need to be reduce d and them persuaded that active travel is viable and beneficial and a compromise reached (with segregated cycleways).

    The "we need 4 lanes or there will be traffic chaos" is the other challenge.

    Both of these should be solved outside of the tram project and then they can just be given the brief to get on with it.

    Hope this helps.

    Posted 6 years ago #
  11. Klaxon
    Member

    It is my understanding that a stand alone pedestrian crossing costs £100k-£200k

    While altering kerb lines in or out might not impact the project cost particularly, adding £0.5-1m of traffic signals is not a minor change

    I suppose it is possible that the tender goes out saying ‘these plans are indicative, but also budget for xyz extra works as an option’

    Posted 6 years ago #
  12. chdot
    Admin

    “The "we need 4 lanes or there will be traffic chaos" is the other challenge.”

    YES, BUT -

    WHO is saying that and on what ‘evidence’/CEC stipulated requirement - and how does it overrule other CEC policies (like traffic reduction)?

    It’s all kind words and smoke and mirrors.

    Meanwhile ‘the public is supposed to do the revision work with some disingenuous promises about ‘listening’ (officials) and ‘engage constructively and it will be fine’ (some councillors).

    Posted 6 years ago #
  13. gembo
    Member

    Again, if the trams are suppose to be busy they must take people out of their cars? Thus four Lanes for cars is defeating the purpose of the extension?

    Posted 6 years ago #
  14. chdot
    Admin

    “four Lanes for cars is defeating the purpose of the extension?”

    No, no you don’t understand - this about BALANCE.

    Some people will always want to drive their own cars. Why should they be disadvantaged?

    Posted 6 years ago #
  15. gembo
    Member

    yes but logically there should be fewer of them so they only need one lane?

    Posted 6 years ago #
  16. chdot
    Admin

  17. chdot
    Admin

    “yes but logically there should be fewer of them so they only need one lane?”

    (Some sections of) CEC doesn’t thrive on logic.

    Would need restrictions on private vehicles (at least at ‘rush’ hour) AND less parking!

    Posted 6 years ago #
  18. Juanito
    Member

    I'm actually completely at a loss on how best to respond to this consultation. I'm not going to be able to make any of the sessions (well I could take a day off and attend the McDonald Rd one I guess...) so will have to put my comments online.

    But the form (if you can call it that) seems needlessly long and complicated and is designed in a way which you could just review the comments and boil it down to - negative +1. There is nothing accessible or quantifiable about it at all.

    I suppose that's the point...

    Posted 6 years ago #
  19. Klaxon
    Member

    Replied to the consultation

    I like that it is broken into chunks for specific feedback.

    Big red flags at Newhaven, the existing link into the NEPN is closed down and replaced by a hellish weave over toucan crossings and "shared use" pavement

    All so a new road junction can be provided out of Melrose Drive onto Lindsay Road, which has been a cul-de-sac for a very very long time.

    Posted 6 years ago #
  20. chdot
    Admin

    “I'm actually completely at a loss on how best to respond to this consultation.”

    As I’ve previously said, I won’t be going to any public events, can’t guarantee to be civil!

    Best option perhaps to email to address on consultation with copies to councillors of your choice.

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

    I've done the consultation. A truly bleak experience. Loved the broken links to the plans you're meant to be commenting on and the very careful steering to keep you away from the idea that this whole thing might not be a good idea.

    Posted 6 years ago #
  22. Arellcat
    Moderator

    The businesses also have concerns about loss of business during the works and the tram project are working with them on ways to mitigate this

    During the time Leith Walk was dug up before, how many businesses actually ceased trading because of the drop in patronage, and how many businesses continued trading but only just?

    Posted 6 years ago #
  23. gembo
    Member

    Harburn Hobbies abides but lot of churn in many of the premises? regardless of reason?

    Posted 6 years ago #
  24. neddie
    Member

    The fact that civil engineers are designing something known to be lethal, such as parked-in cycle lanes that force cyclists on the tracks at shallow angles, should be taken up with the Institute of Civil Engineers (ICE).

    Such a design is in clear breach of their Code of Conduct, rule 3:

    3. All members shall have full regard for the public interest, particularly in relation to matters of health and safety, and in relation to the well-being of future generations.

    https://www.ice.org.uk/about-ice/who-runs-ice/how-we-work/conduct-policy

    See also:
    https://twitter.com/edd1e_h/status/978235852794064902

    If you think that an ICE member may have acted outside of our Code of Professional Conduct, please let us know. You can download the guidelines for making a complaint about the conduct of an ICE member:

    https://www.ice.org.uk/ICEDevelopmentWebPortal/media/Documents/About%20Us/guide-to-making-complaint-against-member-of-ice-2016.pdf

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

    IWRATH has spake.

    Dear Councillor Macinnes,

    I've just filled in your consultation on the Newhaven tram project but it is so badly constructed that I feel the need to set out my thoughts in an e-mail.

    1) I have no idea whether or not running trams to Newhaven is a good idea or not but I guess we're beyond the point of no return on that one.
    2) Your plan is highly detrimental to Leith Walk as a place for human beings to go about their human business. The plans detail a strip of 'pedestrian detererent paving' down the middle of the community. Take a moment and just think about that, and how the deterence of pedestrians fits with your own policies on place-making and transport hierarchies.
    3) Your plan depends on lanes changing function at various times of day but you have proved utterly incapable of enforcing the simplest traffic regulations on Leith Walk for years. This aspect is simply bound to fail.
    4) Your plan will make it extremely dangerous to cycle on Leith Walk at all. The fatal accident enquiry into the death of Ms Zhi Min Soh has yet to report. What extraordinary arrogance on your part to drive ahead with potentially fatal plans before hearing its outcome.
    5) The Edinburgh Tram Enquiry is yet to report. What extraordinary arrogance on your part to drive ahead with tram extension of uncertain utility before hearing its report.
    6) Your plan makes it extremely hard to cross northern Leith Walk on any east-west axis by foot or on a bike. Why are you doing this?
    7) Your tram plan for Leith Walk appears to be based on the understanding that this street should principally be a conduit for traffic. I could not disagree more. Leith Walk should be a place where people mill about freely visiting shops, homes and businesses as they need to, not corraled and segregated from grinding automobiles. It's perfectly possible to have trams run through liveable streets - the Dutch have been doing this for years. No need to go there to see either - just use Google streetview.
    8) Your plans are allegedly based on 'balance', but they are no such thing. You have allowed far, far too much room for motoring and parking. Leith is the most densely populated place in Scotland and has one of the lowest rates of car ownership. You are turning what ought to be a haven of peace into a grim urban clearway worthy of nineteen sixties Glasgow.

    In short your plans are awful. Short-sighted and destructive. You should cease implementation of them immediately and rethink the proposal top to bottom in light of the two relevant enquiries and your own business development plan for the City of Edinburgh.

    Have some ambition. Look at what modern European cities are doing, cities with the courage to go beyond the craven approach of trying to please everyone and reconcile the irreconcilable.

    After your collective performance on Picardy Place I can't say I hold out much hope, but I'd very grateful if any of you could step outside the bubble of expediency and consider what Leith Walk could be if we just considered it as a place to live and not an obstacle to be crossed in someone's commute.

    Thanks in advance,

    IWRATS

    Posted 6 years ago #
  26. chdot
    Admin

    Unrelated, but interesting to see the scale of penalties when it’s agreed ‘things shouldn’t have happened’ -

    An NHS trust that admitted failing two patients who died in its care, one in a bath, has been fined £2m.

    ...

    Southern Health admitted to "systemic failures" and pleaded guilty in 2017 to breaching health and safety laws.

    ...

    In its submissions to the court, Southern Health acknowledged the deaths were "entirely preventable" and were "a matter of significant regret" it did not address its failures quicker.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-43542284

    Posted 6 years ago #
  27. chdot
    Admin

    My emphasis -

    Your tram plan for Leith Walk”

    Like.

    (And the rest of your email.)

    Posted 6 years ago #
  28. Morningsider
    Member

    People might be interested in what the Council's Street Design Guidance says that any redesign of a street like Leith Walk (categorised as a strategic Retail/High Street for most of its length) should include.

    In summary, effectively the opposite of what is planned.

    See page 30 of the attached: http://www.edinburgh.gov.uk/download/downloads/id/7165/edinburgh_street_design_guidance.pdf

    Posted 6 years ago #
  29. neddie
    Member

    Letter sent to Cllrs Cook, Ross, Watt, Main (Morningside ward) and constituency MSP Daniel Johnson:

    https://www.dropbox.com/s/klex16xv5q2pesx/tram%20extension.txt?dl=0

    Posted 6 years ago #
  30. chdot
    Admin

    From link -

    “I would like to use Leith Walk to cycle with my young family to visit my mother and brother and his family who live in the area and visit the shops and businesses en-route. The proposed design will not be safe enough to take my children on, so we will continue to drive our 13 year old diesel down Leith Walk to make this trip, contributing to congestion and pollution, which I would rather not do.”

    Good point(s) well put.

    Posted 6 years ago #

RSS feed for this topic

Reply »

You must log in to post.


Video embedded using Easy Video Embed plugin