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.
“
The Cockburn Association said it supported the extension in principle but not the current plans. Their response to the consultation on the tram extension said: “What is presented to us is not a civic vision or a new, exciting expansion to our world-famous places. It is an engineering project that attempts to subjugate Leith Walk to meet engineering needs.”
“
The people in charge of the pop-up concrete outdoor skate/bike park round the back of Ocean Terminal have been advised it'll be destroyed shortly to make way for the trams.
"The people in charge of the pop-up concrete outdoor skate/bike park round the back of Ocean Terminal have been advised it'll be destroyed shortly to make way for the trams a new road connection for motor vehicles coming from Ocean Terminal to access Lindsay Road without having to go back up to the traffic lights or wait behind trams heading into town."
FTFY
@HankChief - thanks for mentioning the FOI request 18287 - that is GOLD!!!!
Your extract is typical (and almost the only!) mention of cycling. No wonder the presented designs are so appalling.
There is a huge amount of information in the documents that I won't wade through just now but will pass on to Spokes Planning Group and Living Streets (eg re the similar pedestrian prioritisation "mention" and crossing times.)
Also noting that they plan to change Princes St/City Centre signalling to give a Green Wave to trams and use this for the extension. (The present system seemingly uses "predictive" data for signal timings.)
The Design Statement itself is included in the zip file (18287 Documents) and quite short so worth a read - the initial TRO drawings are included, making it into a chunky file though.
Comments welcome - I think this will be worthy of further discussion with Councillors etc.
Does anyone know who requested the info?
Does anyone know who requested the info?
I couldn't possibly comment...
“
He said: “Coming back, I’ve noticed people are still commuting long distance due to the price of buying in Edinburgh. It reminds me of a similar position in the San Francisco Bay area. Locating housing is difficult and the price has sky-rocketed, meaning people cannot afford to live in the city centre.
“The issue on the west coast is worse, with people having to commute around two hours to get to work due to the soaring price of housing.
“One way of changing is to update the transportation system. I know the bus system in Edinburgh is excellent but I would be all for the tram network to go through the whole city. When you arrive into Edinburgh you maybe don’t want to go to the centre of city.
“
Coming back, I’ve noticed people are still commuting long distance due to the price of buying in Edinburgh.
Our housing bubble needs deflated for many, many reasons. It distorts everything from transport to pensions.
with people having to commute around two hours to get to work due to their desire to live in a larger* property than they actually need.
FTFY
*With driveway, double garages, spare bedroom(s) for guests, etc.
Automobiles wagging the dog...
“with people having to commute around two hours to get to work due to their desire to live in a larger* property than they actually need.”
We had a long thread on that a while ago.
Cars have a lot to do with it, but “personal choice” was/is obviously a factor - also ‘how rational is that choice’ plus the distorted economics of car ownership/use.
Long time change in expectations/aspirations.
Desire for ‘room and kitchen for a family’ long gone.
It’s complicated...
Hard to know how many things are the way they are because of any sort of ‘plan’ and how much plans have reacted to the way things are - ‘more people are living in Lothians & Fife so we had better make better roads so they can get to where the jobs have to be’. Etc.
Adam McVey tweets:
"Productive meeting of Tram oversight group. Very clear from officers & politicians that designs will change & be developed into options directly based on feedback from consultation. Thanks to everyone who raised issues!"
Greens threaten to pull support for Edinburgh trams extension.
Green councillors will no longer support proposals to extend Edinburgh’s tram system to Newhaven unless “significant improvements” are made for cyclists and pedestrians.
Good on 'em!
Yep. Someone needs to make a stand. Bravo Chas and colleagues.
The more I think about it, the more impressed I am with the Greens for taking a stand like this, considering how they've been the SNP in a green hat at Holyrood.
Been doing some more digging in that FOI Request (18287)
"
Level of Priority
Pedestrian – footways maintained throughout with continuous footways at junctions where appropriate;
Public transport – tram and bus modes;
Cyclists;
General Vehicles
Loading and waste collection;
Parking and other traffic.
Design Parameters
The following parameters were used to develop the design. Reference Appendix A where desirable parameters were not achieved.
Tram lane width is governed by the tram alignment and tram dynamic kinematic envelope(DKE). The width of tram lane varies from 2.95m (straight track) to 4.0m (max radius) excluding the buffer required from carriageway (0.2m) and kerbed central reserve (0.3m) as prescribed in ORR Rail Safety Publication Guidance: Guidance on Tramways.
General traffic lane minimum width of 3.25m has been provided, although an absolute minimum width of 3.0m has been specified where deemed appropriate considering is environment and technical confirmation by Auto Track swept path analysis. Leith Walk Programme Phase 4 & 5, the kerb lines have been maintained as previously designed.
Priority has been provided to pedestrian movement by maintaining a desirable minimum footway width of 2.5m including safe/controlled crossing points and continuous footways over junctions where appropriate. At certain instances, the width has been reduced locally due to physical constraints of existing infrastructure. All instances of reduced footpath width are stated in Appendix B.
Segregated raised cycle path has been provided where a minimum width of 2.0m can be maintained throughout. Locations where this width impacts the minimum footpath width, cyclist provision has been provided on the carriageway via 1.5m wide cycle lanes (Leith Walk - Pilrig Street to Foot of the Walk ) or shared running (Constitution St to Lindsay Road).
The absolute minimum width of the central reserve is 1.2m (raised kerb which includes 0.3m buffer on both sides), 0.6m (no raised kerbs) and 0.1m (no OLE poles in between). The available width of central reserve is dictated by the proposed tram alignment.
Floating bus stops provided where space is available. The minimum width to accommodate floating bus stops is 2.5m as per Sustrans guidelines."
[My bold] - so cycles take priority over general traffic but only when the footpath width allows it...
I attemptes to compile a suitable tweet
Hankchief - thanks for all the digging. How anyone can claim a scheme that involves "pedestrian deterrent paving" and removes several pedestrian crossings prioritises the needs of people on foot is beyond me.
The central reserve could easily be removed and cables attached to adjacent buildings (see Shandwick Place). Fairly easily done using the powers in Section 16 of the Edinburgh Tram (Line One) Act 2006. Might be a bit of extra work for the Council, but the end result would be extra road space for pedestrians and cyclists, no need to ban traffic crossing Leith Walk and the removal of unsightly tram poles.
Chance of it happening - very close to zero, I would imagine.
Tram lane width is governed by the tram alignment and tram dynamic kinematic envelope(DKE)
Doesn't fill me with confidence when Atkins should know that it's Developed Kinematic Envelope.
Also doesn't help when the document archive file insists on downloading as proxy.php, when it's clearly a zip file.
“The central reserve could easily be removed and cables attached to adjacent buildings (see Shandwick Place)”
SP much narrower.
I spotted poles on pavements (next to buildings) in Prague.
"How anyone can claim a scheme that involves "pedestrian deterrent paving" and removes several pedestrian crossings prioritises the needs of people on foot is beyond me."
Indeed. Probably they think that "footway minimum width 2.5m" and continuing across side streets equates to "pedestrian priority". Clearly never asked themselves "what if folk want to cross Leith Walk?"
Consultees at the events soon put that question to them, at least.
I think this is all in keeping with the Spokes response. Spokes are liaising with Living Streets Edinburgh (LSE) re need for high quality active travel facilities, reduction of general traffic/traffic lanes and improved Place. (By the way, LSE would probably classify Leith Walk as "busy" and needing minimum 4m!)
Both invited to stakeholder workshops 14th and 27th June re Pilrig to Foot of the Walk (FotW). Separate workshop re Elm Row - don't know who'll be at that yet! These 2 having received the most comments from the consultation.
Also, Spokes having a site visit on Tuesday with project team and looking for a "political" meeting.
The non-tram-specific works need to be included in the project - and it's budget - as there aren't the resources to progress them as business as usual works. The Council (Paul Lawrence) has said that we should not be having "silo" projects - and that's how Central Edinburgh Transformation (CET) was set up, but doesn't extend to Leith!
I'm worried that the dearth of facilities beyond FotW is not getting any publicity. Alternatives to Constitution St all seem pretty dire and along the Oceans there isn't much space.
Hopefully some good news soon and some greatly improved proposals fro active travel.
Would anyone be interested in a meetup later in the week?
"...beyond FotW is not getting any publicity. Alternatives to Constitution St all seem pretty dire and along the Oceans there isn't much space."
I went all the way along in my consultation response, particularly with regard to school routes crossing Constitution Street, the current absence big a definite link between the path which gives up at Wellington Place and the WoL, through Links Lane or wherever. Can't remember what I said about the northernmost bits but it was probably about the compatibility of the tram with the rat-run aspect, car storage near the bridge, potential future developments on the brown fields and the current rubbish bike lane.
“Doesn't fill me with confidence when Atkins should know that it's Developed Kinematic Envelope.”
Though obviously that’s minor compared with the rest!
No doubt Atkins will just say that they followed the brief from CEC.
Of course this is far from the first time that CEC (and/or its various consultants) have done things that are far from good, and not in line with various Policies.
Perhaps as well as responding to all the consultations people should complain too -
“
Our aim is to help bodies ‘get it right first time’ with a focus on resolving complaints at the frontline wherever possible. There is also an emphasis on valuing complaints – recording all complaints, reporting key information and using the lessons learned to improve service delivery.
“
http://www.valuingcomplaints.org.uk/handling-complaints/complaints-procedures
Spokes had a fruitful meeting with the tram team today re Pilrig to Foot of the Walk (and on a bit). They don't want information to be publicised until the workshops the first of which is on 14th June. Spokes is one of 40 invitees.
Several options will be presented tackling the main issues that came up in the consultation.
Some of the options sound very promising.
“Some of the options sound very promising”
Would have saved a lot of grief if they had suggested them in the first place.
Or were they just following the CEC brief??
During "a series of special workshops with key representatives of the local community and relevant organisations", it seems that there was almost universal agreement to drop the "4 traffic lane" option and go to 2 traffic lanes, plus uni-directional segregated cycleways on each side.
Good news. Let's hope "they" take heed
“
Once detailed designs have been finalised, further consultation will be held towards the end of the summer. The final business case will then be presented to the council in November, with the council expected to determine final approval in December.
Work on the project, which is estimated to cost £165.2m, could get underway by the end of Spring next year.
Hannah Ross, the council’s senior officer responsible for the tram project, said: “We got a lot of responses, particularly from the active travel community who had concerns particularly about what they felt was a compromised cycle path.
“We are suggesting that we introduce three new signalised crossings and additional uncontrolled crossings depending on what we get to in the final layout.”
“
Back in the day I might have wondered what the council were up to, but now I have to conclude that they just don't have any competent staff and are winging it.
If you put a tram down a busy street you're bound to reduce capacity for some other modes. They seem to think you can just add the tram in.
“just don't have any competent staff and are winging it“
Presumably there’s only one Hannah Ross(?)
“
Hannah Ross, the council’s senior officer responsible for the tram project
“
“
Hannah Ross
Principal Solicitor at The City of Edinburgh Council
“
https://www.linkedin.com/in/hannah-ross-28215417/
Perhaps it’s better that there is a solicitor in charge rather than a traffic engineer(?)
This is certainly progress from the original designs. You have to wonder why they didn't have these options to consult on in the first place.
Anyone found a link to drawings or design documents?
You must log in to post.
Cycling in Edinburgh Flickr group
Video embedded using Easy Video Embed plugin
posts