http://www.spokes.org.uk/2018/04/tramline-extension-consultation/
CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » Infrastructure
Edinburgh Tram Extension to Newhaven
(319 posts)-
Posted 6 years ago #
-
"Thursday 12 April: Leith Community Education Centre, 3pm - 9pm"
Today!
I hope to be along.
Posted 6 years ago # -
It's a pretty small room, and was very busy.
Council person at the door said they'd had lots of comments from cyclists about the bottom of Leith Walk, so might be good for anyone else going to focus on other problems.
Posted 6 years ago # -
Suggestions for comments not related to North Leith Walk:
Significantly poorer link over Lindsay Rd to NEPN, including yet another new road junction.
Lack of cycle path along Ocean Drive
Poor quality cycle interchange across the Montgomery St junction that includes a lot of 'shared space' mingling of pedestrians and cyclistsPosted 6 years ago # -
It is however my opinion that they can't be told too many times that the Balfour St to FotW section is a disgrace not just to cyclists but to the tens of thousands of local residents who mostly move around by foot.
Seg cycle lanes and crossings at existing frequency are a must.
Posted 6 years ago # -
Posted 6 years ago #
-
Wow. That's quite a radical set of proposals. May nick some of it for my own response.
Posted 6 years ago # -
That's a good report; however, I have an issue with the bi-directional option they suggest for Pilrig St > North. We already have uni-directional, almost best practice (should be grade separated) segregated cycle way prior to Pilig St. There is no reason that if there is space for bi-directional, there's not space for 2x uni-directional lanes and this should be what we campaign for.
Posted 6 years ago # -
“There is no reason that if there is space for bi-directional, there's not space for 2x uni-directional lanes and this should be what we campaign for.”
Agree.
His proposal seems to be so that four lanes of traffic can be maintained - which is odd as he is favour of restricting cars and parking.
Posted 6 years ago # -
There is no reason that if there is space for bi-directional, there's not space for 2x uni-directional lanes and this should be what we campaign for.
It think that's predicated on their suggestion that all the non-dead end side roads on the east are closed as they suggest. Doing that would arguably make a northbound cycleway on the east side safer, since there would only be a few very quiet side streets to cross.
Posted 6 years ago # -
London's bi-directional 'CSH' lanes such as Victoria Embankment seem to be as best-practice as they get. They have separate signal phases, are 4m wide, and mostly well designed junction interfaces.
Negatives notwithstanding as London really seems to have overcome them, the biggest pro of bi-directional facilities is that at the 4m width mark they can naturally 'flex' to peak demands, overtaking and side by side leisure cycling as they are no less than 3 comfortable bike widths across.
I'd like to see Leith Walk all-one or all-other, I'd not be upset if the 'phase 4' lanes were redone to get rid of all the wiggles and tactile pavestones.
Switching sides is not that a deal if done properly and infrequently, rather than the proposed toucan midden at the end of Montgomery St
Posted 6 years ago # -
Yeah it was the proposed stopping up of side streets on the eastern side of Leith Walk that struck me as radical. Worth arguing for, it would transform the northern part of Leith Walk.
Posted 6 years ago # -
“
As you will know, Spokes is extremely concerned over the plans as they affect the northern/lower section of Leith Walk, which we consider to be not just inconvenient and unpleasant for cycling, but positively dangerous – they have certainly not learned the lessons of the first tramline.
“
http://www.spokes.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/1804-20-action-update.pdf
Posted 6 years ago # -
Story from trams representatives at Ocean Terminal consultation re north Leith Walk was "oh but it's difficult".
As was noted at the time, "that's not our problem to solve".
Posted 6 years ago # -
“
You will no doubt have heard of plans to extend the success of Edinburgh Trams through the most densely populated area of the city, Leith and on to Newhaven, potentially opening up further developments in the north of the city. We’re currently consulting on the specifics of plans and have enjoyed a great response so far, with more than 2,000 people having their say. The consultation runs until the weekend (29 April) and I would encourage you to play your part in this, if you haven’t already.
“
Posted 6 years ago # -
Edinburgh Trams to Newhaven Public Consultation
https://consultationhub.edinburgh.gov.uk/sfc/tramstonewhaven/
Closes in 5 days! (29 Apr 2018)
Posted 6 years ago # -
Posted 6 years ago #
-
“
Cycling UK Scotland supports the responses submitted by Spokes, the Lothian Cycle Campaign, Permanent Rail Engineering and Sustrans. Although all these responses differ in detail their aims are broadly the same; to support the implementation of world class cycling infrastructure alongside delivery of an excellent tram network.
“
https://www.facebook.com/CyclingUKScotland/posts/1601580579959708:0
Posted 6 years ago # -
Can anyone confirm that some of the plans are missing from the consultation pages?
I can only see the following sheets (listed in order they appear):
14 (Picardy Place)
13,12,11,10 (McDonald Road and Balfour Street)
7,8 (Foot of the Walk and The Shore)
6,3 (Port of Leith and Ocean Terminal)
1 (Newhaven)So 2,4,5 and 9 are missing.
Posted 6 years ago # -
Posted 6 years ago #
-
I'm more concerned if they're missing from the consultation page, as people might not think to look for them elsewhere whilst filling it out.
Posted 6 years ago # -
Spokes initial draft of detail points. Still needs somecwirks and intro and areawide points adding. Please don’t publish.
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1IMz3rrmVIZox2okywgrAa2mQfROnSyS9dwXWTGweFbAPosted 6 years ago # -
“Please don’t publish.”
THIS WEB SITE IS PUBLIC
Posted 6 years ago # -
Took a look at sheet 2, Newhaven to Ocean Terminal, and saw the annotation, "Tram/Cycle interface road markings shown indicatively, and shall be further developed during the design phase..." The two tram crossings shown on this sheet were both at about 20°. It looks like all the detail after the tram itself is being outsourced to interested parties.
Posted 6 years ago # -
Spokes initial draft of detail points. Still needs somecwirks and intro and areawide points adding. Please don’t publish.
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1IMz3rrmVIZox2okywgrAa2mQfROnSyS9dwXWTGweFbAPosted 6 years ago # -
Checked width between tracks at Haymarket - central OHL pylon with track either side but no central island = 2.05m between outer face of rails
What width is proposed for island between tracks on Leith Walk?
Checked limits of concrete top slab, which effectively aligns with edge of tram on street = 0.45m
Width to edge of area that trams require kept clear on street (line of yellow dots unless defined by a kerb or road lane-line) c.1.0m (0.9m kerb-rail at Haymarket 'cycle lane')
Might try for ballasted track & Princes Street dimensions today
Posted 6 years ago # -
Argh. Have yet to respond to consultation, brain melted. Assuming an all-caps JUST STOP AND THINK ABOUT WHAT YOU WILL HAVE WROUGHT won't carry much weight?
Posted 6 years ago # -
It's better than nothing, anyway.
Posted 6 years ago # -
Grr. Trying now, but frankly it's a right baffling thing to work through - all the pages are "what do you think of this one tram stop" (look at this unhelpful pdf plan).
...I have a LOT of issues with how consultations like this are carried out.
ETA: an email of iratitude sent to the consultation address.
Posted 6 years ago # -
@unhurt. You may take points from my letter here, as you like, to save effort
http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=18506&page=3#post-278695
Posted 6 years ago #
Reply »
You must log in to post.
posts
