In response -
CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » Debate!
“COUNCIL TRANSPORT DELIVERY ‘SERIOUSLY IMBALANCED’ AGAINST PEDESTRIANS”
(22 posts)-
Posted 6 years ago #
-
Ignoring LSE's slant on the prioritization for a moment. It does link to an insightful page showing all the active travel projects CEC have on the radar
How many years do we think it will take to get through this list, which we all will celebrate, before we get protected routes down main roads.
Posted 6 years ago # -
out of 44 Active Travel projects being developed by the Council in 2017-18, only seven are for walking, compared to 37 for cycling
Seems to me like a fair reflection of the relative states of the walking and cycling networks. There are obviously many, many places where improvements are needed for pedestrians, but I don't know if these are generally best fixed using "projects".
As the Spokes response points out, many of the "cycling projects" are really "shared use projects" - NEPN improvements, Innocent tunnel lighting, various path widening projects...
Posted 6 years ago # -
Posted 6 years ago #
-
'Rejuvenating Roseburn' is all about making the area better for people & very little about cycling.
Disappointed they don't mention this.
Posted 6 years ago # -
most shared use projects do not benefit pedestrians. they already have a footway to themselves
Posted 6 years ago # -
If I was mad for motor traffic and feared a citizens' revolt against this I would adopt the tactic of setting bicyclists and pedestrians at each other's throats.
Posted 6 years ago # -
So, counter tactics required...
Posted 6 years ago # -
Posted 6 years ago #
-
They seem to be highlighting 2 things:
#1: Lack of pavement gritting.
#2: Pavement clutter. (Including bike racks.)Both entirely valid complaints. (Bike racks should be on the road, just as car parking is on the road.)
And, as a pedestrian and cyclist, I think they should have also mentioned:
#3: Pavement parking.
As for the 7 v 37 stat, I could easily come up with 37 projects to improve cycling. I'd struggle to come up with a dozen for walking.
So surely the onus is on them to list projects for pedestrians?
Posted 6 years ago # -
“So surely the onus is on them to list projects for pedestrians?”
It’s clear from the list that CEC doesn’t have much idea.
What is VERY disappointing is that none of the projects has been given “resources”!
CEC should start with looking at timings for all pedestrian crossings, then significantly increase budget for new crossings.
More importantly it should stop designing bad shared use schemes AND reallocate more road space for walking and cycling.
Posted 6 years ago # -
@unhurt Counter-tactics like private cars versus commercial/goods vehicles. Let the haulage industry fight the car industry for the single lane left after the remainder space is re-pedestrianised and cycle-laned.
@gibbo Bike racks should be on widened bits in the pavement, not consume normal pavement. If you put them on the road the drivers just reverse into them. (Actually if you see Leith Walk, that seems to happen if you put them on the pavement...)
Which brings me to the real 'pedestrian' issue: all the pavements are full of cars, all the pedestrianised areas (eg Rose Street) are full of lorries, all the no-parking areas are full of parked cars... I could go on.
There is a substantial difference between "on paper" pedestrian infrastructure and usable infrastructure. Especially if you are not firm of body and fleet of foot: giant kerbs, crossings with green phases that encourage a jog to get across in time, etc.
Posted 6 years ago # -
There is a substantial difference between "on paper" pedestrian infrastructure and usable infrastructure.
Much like Edinburgh's miles of on road cycle paths.
Posted 6 years ago # -
@ dougal, steveo, unhurt
In short, much of CEC’s ‘ActiveTravel’ infrastructure is inadequate and compromised by decisions based on ‘you can’t remove roadspace/parking’.
This attitude needs to be overturned.
LSE complaining that ‘cycling’ gets a disproportionate amount is not true (compared with the longstanding providing for motors) and certainly not helpful.
This is exactly the time for a united front.
When Lesley Hinds first became Transport Chair she thought that pedestrians got a bad deal (true) and that cyclists were favoured (less true).
By the end of her reign she was enthusiastic about more cycle infrastructure and had bought a bike.
No one has to cycle, but (especially in Edinburgh) more people are doing so and even more would like to be able to.
This needs more/better infrastructure. This needs to advantage pedestrians too - and certainly not disadvantage them.
This means less space for motor traffic.
LSE needs to understand and support this.
‘Pedestrians and cyclists demand more space’.
Posted 6 years ago # -
As gibbo says, Living Streets Edinburgh's 'action areas' from their website are unambitious to say the least - bus stop siting and A-boards and er, that's it. Nowt to say on the wider Living Streets campaign's aims such as air pollution which is a huge local issue.
With this latest diatribe against infrastructure for cyclists, and with Roseburn fresh in mind, they are in danger of looking like a ginger group for drivists?
If they are in need of ideas for peds to prevent jealousy of other more effective campaigners, how about ensuring there are actually pedestrian lights on all roads at busy junctions? Gardner's Crescent, Henderson Terrace and Kirk Brae for 3 examples straight off the top of my head. They can have that one for free!
Posted 6 years ago # -
This is good -
https://twitter.com/livingstreetsed/status/966075695700021250
Maybe LSE just needs ‘advice on presentation’!
Posted 6 years ago # -
I'm on foot more often than I'm on my bike and by far my biggest bugbear is pavement parking (with the ensuing cracked surfaces which then become hazards). With my bike helmet on, if there is less pavement parking there should also be fewer dodgy pavement cyclists as the carriageway is clear. Bonus feature of cyclists not having to apparently 'weave all over the road' and bug the drivists to get past said parked vehicles.
Rather than this divide and conquer finger-pointing stuff, can we not all start really kicking off about the knackered pavements and prevention of such? We can nit-pick and do the them and us thing later when the big stuff is out of the way.
Posted 6 years ago # -
I'm sure someone on here went to LSE's inaugural meeting and detected Facebook-local-resident-group levels of cyclist-bashing, followed-up by the anti-floating-bus-stop intervention in the Roseburn plans. I thus have no plans to join them, but I still suggest improvements for pedestrians and cyclists at consultations without getting all only-one-or-the-other.
Posted 6 years ago # -
I attended an open LSE meeting a few years ago and was quite disappointed to hear the volume of anti-cycling comments - despite that, I offered help, but wasn't emailed back (although that may be more down to my poor handwriting than their organisation).
Posted 6 years ago # -
The LS article is a load of nonsense.
Pedestrians already have a network - every road has a pavement on both sides with very few exceptions. Yes, it can be too narrow, cluttered and have slow crossing times, but it most definitely is a network.
In contrast, the cycle “network” (if you can even call it that) is fragmented, indirect & completely non-existent in some parts.
If cyclists had the same standard of network as walkers currently have, we would have an NEPN standard of cycle routes next to *every* road.
Until then, proportionally more money needs to be spent on cycling to catch up. LS can stop the moaning.
Posted 6 years ago # -
Posted 6 years ago #
-
Consultation: Advertising boards and other temporary on-street advertising structures
https://consultationhub.edinburgh.gov.uk/sfc/aboards/
Closes 7 Mar 2018"We are considering a city-wide ban on all temporary on-street advertising structures."
Posted 6 years ago #
Reply
You must log in to post.
posts
