https://drscottarthur.scot/2018/03/16/spokes-meeting-cycling-and-the-tram-extension/
CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » General Edinburgh
“Cycling and the Tram Extension – A Report on a Spokes Meeting”
(26 posts)-
Posted 6 years ago #
-
Did anyone else find it oddly disconcerting how the programme director referred to "tram" rather than "trams" or "the tram"?
As in, "that's one of the benefits of tram" and "one of the things we want for tram is...".
Posted 6 years ago # -
It didn't go unnoticed, "Tram" being shorthand for "one route towards the delivery of non-bus mass transit infrastructure" and "Trams" being shorthand for "the specific type of mass transit vehicle that will form a core part of our project to bring Tram to Edinburgh."
Project manager hyperbole, if you ask me.
Posted 6 years ago # -
"Very little opposition to the proposal to extend the tram". Well, only one person spoke against it which does not mean that others present did not agree.
The response made it clear that the decision has been made, consultation notwithstanding, with the Transport Convener saying she "Did not understand the question".
The decision is claimed to be evidence led but I doubt whether or not Edinburgh can actually afford to fund the long term cost will be considered. Council tax and bus fares up again?
Posted 6 years ago # -
The existing parking on leith walk is quite good but as the road is very wide there is often double and sometimes nearly triple parking out into the thoroughfare. Trams should have cow catchers on the front for scooping up la favorita cinquecentos?
The excellent cycling routes at the north end of leith walk stop abruptly around the boundary and the roseburn to leith walk route will end in trambles? It is like some kind of anti-master plan?
Posted 6 years ago # -
“some kind of anti-master plan?”
Not at all, from blog (my bold) -
“
his view was that there would be insufficient road width in many places to retain the existing cycle safety measures without losing parking/loading space, and the Council was proposing prioritising the latter.
“
Posted 6 years ago # -
I meant a proper master plan would see cycling infrastructure going in and then tram without ripping out the infra
But is your point
This could still be the case if people were forced to park round the corner?
If people were forced to park round the corner the cycling infra would need to have maybe a three foot wall on either side to stop people parking on it?
Posted 6 years ago # -
“I meant a proper master plan would see cycling infrastructure going in and then tram without ripping out the infra”
Ah yes, a plan, consulted on, receives positive feedback, then abandoned. So very CEC -
http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=17500#post-277525
It’s quite simple, CEC only wants more of the same - cars as usual, parking as usual, no enforcement as usual, no learning from other cities that have moved on in the last 40 years.
Bizarre mindset that thinks ‘just add tram’ and Edinburgh becomes like other European cities.
Better walk/cycle facilities are necessary. If it’s not possible to fit parking and tram too, then one will have to go/not happen. Too simple for CEC.
Posted 6 years ago # -
Some good guys and gals within CEC too
Posted 6 years ago # -
“Some good guys and gals within CEC too”
As I have always said.
Somehow they never get close to the key decision influencing jobs, or go ‘yes, well, but, you’ve got to understand - it’s about balance’.*
And/or they believe they are delivering what they think councillors (think) they want.
Of course it’s a lot like Governments, Councils imagine they have a lot of control over the way the world works.
It’s just a shame that are not a bit better at the things they can control.
*a long departed Depute Director of Planning told me it was hard to say no to Scottish and Newcastle as they were big employers in the city.
Posted 6 years ago # -
IF tram replaces bus on Leith Walk, and only stops approximately every 3 bus stops, walking infrastructure is even more important.
Posted 6 years ago # -
The Transport Convenor started her talk by stating that she hopes that Edinburgh will become an exemplar city in Northern Europe for sustainable transport by some future date (2032 to tie in with the diesel car ban maybe?) but then argued increasingly strongly as the evening went on as to why this goal will essentially be impossible to achieve due to their desire to pander to 'general traffic', i.e single occupancy private cars and delivery vehicles. Hmm...
Posted 6 years ago # -
There are dark mutterings within the Transport Convenor's local party that her actions are diverging rather too much from her words and from party principles.
If I'm hearing that as an outsider I think it must be quite serious.
Posted 6 years ago # -
Shame, she is sane whereas many others seem to have less of a grip on real data?
Posted 6 years ago # -
I refer you to my previous answer.
People at CEC manage to morph from people with ideas for improving things to yecannaenodaethat.
It takes some years, others just months.
Posted 6 years ago # -
Not the people I am thinking about, they continue to fight the good fight however, despite your generalisation I accept they are fighting the fight with their colleagues and of course with the Elected members who IWRATS sources suggest appear to be reeling in the transport convener as she was doing too good a job?
Posted 6 years ago # -
All I really know about the convener is the Gyratory Incident. If that decision was data-driven they were data of which I was and am unaware.
The word on the streets is that the convener has drunk the tram kool-aid when the party line is tram skepticism. We all know that the party line is also bike skepticism but she is orthodox in that regard.
Posted 6 years ago # -
“they continue to fight the good fight“
No doubt, but somehow such people are prevented from getting to places where they can win/make significant change to (generations of) Corporate Edinburgh councils’ Culture.
OR they rise and get assimilated (I’m sure many other councils/orgs are worse, but that’s not the point) - perhaps more often leave or give up and do the basic job and stay employed.
It’s not just ‘transport’.
Posted 6 years ago # -
If I'm hearing that as an outsider I think it must be quite serious.
This might generally be true, but let's not underestimate your particular ability to charm information out of people.
Posted 6 years ago # -
“The word on the streets is that the convener has drunk the tram kool-aid when the party line is tram skepticism”
I’m sure the party line might change if it made sense to.
There are bound to be some who are against Edinburgh having more tram because they were against it in the past.
I presume there are those who take an ‘if the evidence changes I can change too’ position.
Much more worrying is this from link at top of thread -
“
Rob Leech responded saying that would possibly mean making a variation to the contract – a potentially costly business.
“
Which contract? Presume this refers to the Parliamentary Process for the tram which was (allegedly) a reason why Picardy Place couldn’t be done differently.
If SG still wants to stand by “not a penny more” it’s hard to see the Newhaven extension getting funded. Is Cllr Macinnes getting any messages??
IF the go-ahead is possible surely there must be ways of (legally) improving the delivery of a project AND learning from the obvious mistakes of what exists???
Posted 6 years ago # -
Presume this refers to the Parliamentary Process for the tram which was (allegedly) a reason why Picardy Place couldn’t be done differently.
I don't think so. It was in answer to a suggestion that if, after Leith Walk being down to one lane for 18 months, it was decided that it should not be reopened.Rob Leech's reply was (if I understood/remember correctly) that he'd love to say that could be looked at, but in reality, the final layout would need to be specified in the contract to carry out the work.
Posted 6 years ago # -
"Council tax and bus fares up again?"
In fairness council tax rose for the first time in a decade last year, due the SNP government at Holyrood lifting their council tax freeze policy. I suspect very little of last year's and this year's rises have to do with the tram debt payments. Check out the relevant council budget documents and meetings for further evidence.
As for bus fares, these have gone up yes, but are still much cheaper than bus fares just about anywhere else in the UK. I recall kaputnik did some analysis on Twitter comparing LB fare rises to various input price rises, eg. fuel costs. I don't have the link to hand but IIRC there was a fair correlation between diesel prices and LB bus fares until recently.
Posted 6 years ago # -
“I don't think so. It was in answer to a suggestion that if, after Leith Walk being down to one lane for 18 months, it was decided that it should not be reopened.”
Ah, OK.
Sounds like a perfect opportunity for planters and other temporary stuff.
“the final layout would need to be specified in the contract to carry out the work”
Well yes and no.
Clearly there would need to be a contract for doing whatever, but it could still allow for temporary stuff which, if it was to be made permanent, would require a bit of ‘extra’ - but not a complete redo.
Posted 6 years ago # -
@frenchy is correct. I have voice recordings that will be online once processed. (ie file size reduced)
Posted 6 years ago # -
Audio files from the meeting.
Dave duFeu - Introduction (10mins)
Posted 6 years ago # -
Posted 6 years ago #
Reply
You must log in to post.
posts
