"We are keen to amend plans based on feedback to get the designs right for Leith Walk and get the decision right for the city. Conspiracy theories of a “done deal” or “final design” are untrue and frankly unhelpful as they deter people from submitting valid comments. "
CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » Infrastructure
Latest plans for Leith Walk - and how to deal with them
(255 posts)-
Posted 6 years ago #
-
That’s fine, but he should have refused to allow current plans to be consulted on, or at least have some ‘other possibilities’ sketched out to inform the process.
(I’m assuming various people on here are correct when they say the plans ignore several CEC polices, which Adam ought to be guided by - or perhaps obliged to implement.)
Presumably it’s not a conspiracy theory to say the route is fixed?
I wonder if the number of stops is fixed, if not the precise locations?
I think it would also be reasonable for him to say which bits he thinks are ‘wrong’ if the aim is “to get the designs right for Leith Walk”.
I assume some people are concerned with other sections too (there is another thread for the whole extension plan). I hope Adam/CEC is equally willing get these right...
Posted 6 years ago # -
Well, McVey and his party needs to come out and acknowledge the farrago that was Picardy Place, and explain why/how this process will turn out differently given the short timescales involved. Private reflection on his part on ways for his administration not to be bound by poor past long-term plans drawn up by past adminstrations, and a desire for his council not to be led by the nose by unelected officials to implement utterly suboptimal designs for convenience sake (of the officials!) would not go amiss either.
Posted 6 years ago # -
The City is not being consulted on design principals like ‘do you want pedestrian priority on Leith Walk’ and instead has been presented with an extremely developed single option (the one that is being used for the tender) and asked to give detailed feedback on that
A couple of months after the Picardy debacle he shouldn’t be surprised to receive such a frosty reaction
Posted 6 years ago # -
Posted 6 years ago #
-
I'm certainly not sure that our councillors understand the extent to which the creation of Picardy Unplace in the teeth of vehement and reasoned opposition has caused a loss of faith in them, their officers and processes.
Various people are now popping up here and there to say aspects of the design were never amenable to change but that was never stated in the consultation which makes it a bleak farce in retrospect.
There seems to be no downside for them in proposing half-baked and awful things, thus causing citizens to waste energy in opposing them to the extent of doing the analysis and design themselves.
I didn't comment on the plans for Constitution Street because they are so self-evidently fatal to cyclists that surely etc.
Posted 6 years ago # -
"to get the designs right for Leith Walk and get the decision right for the city."
Why does he think Edinburgh is any different to any other city? Edinburgh doesn't need a custom solution designed by laymen - it only needs to copy what is seen as best practice from civilised continental Europe.
Posted 6 years ago # -
I was very impressed that the south city way marketing put this diagram (15m wide total) front and centre, as if to say "This was the starting point for each area which we built upon if space permitted"
Posted 6 years ago # -
In case of doubt! -
Previously illustration is Glasgow.
Click cross-section for more of this -
“
Deliverables.
This project will deliver a core “City Way” to Glasgow city centre and links to the award winning South-West City Way connec ng Glasgow’s south side to the wider cycle network.
The requirement for development of the Victoria Road Corridor has been confirmed by the Proposed Cycle Network Prioritisation matrix developed by Sustrans staff seconded to Glasgow City Council.
“
Posted 6 years ago # -
My head spun there for a moment. South Edinburgh is the Land That Cycling Forgot.
Unless you count the QBIC as bike infrastructure of course.
Posted 6 years ago # -
“Unless you count the QBIC as bike infrastructure of course.“
I think you mean QBiC.
The small i stands for “improvement”.
For anyone new to Edinburgh the “Corridor” is from KB to Forrest Rd. A few bits are probably slightly better than before they spent quite a bit on
marketinginfrastructure.The segregated section on Buccleuch Street is a coincidental part of the Meadows-St. Leonards Route.
Apart from the whole ‘paint on roads’/‘can’t mess with parking too much’ (#ThisIsEdinburgh) reality, the biggest tragedy is the awful surface in various places.
The Cycle Team couldn’t get Local/Roads to do some much needed resurfacing at the same time. Years later some of the worst sections are untouched.
Of course Spokes welcomed the QBC in line with its ‘the Council needs to be praised for doing cycling stuff, because lots of people think it shouldn’t’ philosophy.
Fortunately Spokes can also be very critical of some CEC proposals. Spokes certainly can’t be blamed for things like part-time bus lanes or Picardy Place.
Some sections of CEC just don’t listen, and, too often, councillors seem to just go along with inadequate proposals.
Posted 6 years ago # -
Of course Spokes welcomed the QBC
I think you mean QBiC.
I often have the choice between that, Minto Street or a tootle through the Grange. Minto Street most times for me, otherwise the Grange.
Minto Street has more space, better surface and gradients, less aggression, better sight lines. Grange is slower, obviously, but so much nicer.
Posted 6 years ago # -
Well, McVey and his party needs to come out and acknowledge the farrago that was Picardy Place
Not just this, but why, after the uproar over Picardy Place, the council produced plans for Leith Walk that show the exact same disregard for active travel.
The council can claim it's listening, but it's actions suggest otherwise.
And any "listening to the people" will, at most, give us a say in which pro-private car design the council implements.
Posted 6 years ago # -
“I think you mean QBiC.”
Actually no!
“
Ian Maxwell from Spokes said: "Spokes welcomes this latest bit of progress towards achieving the aim of makng Edinburgh a truly cycle friendly city. This is already a busy route for cyclists, and we hope that now it is a Quality Bike Corridor the Council will work out ways to ensure that the cycle lanes are kept free of parked cars and the surface remains of a high quality."
Previously -
http://www.spokes.org.uk/2010/12/quality-bike-corridor-spokes-comment/
(I’d forgotten that QBC was meant to go to The Mound!)
Posted 6 years ago # -
@gibbo, CEC may well "listen", but they hear only what they choose to hear.
See Picardy Place for the most recent instance of this approach.
Posted 6 years ago # -
If it makes anyone feel any better, the ESJ developers recently said that they had signed a contract to build Picardy Place for a sum of money and that was always what they were going to do. Councillors did not understand that it was already signed and sealed and they were just going to deliver it.
Fortunately, Taking the Trams to Newhaven hasn't got that far yet.Posted 6 years ago # -
“Councillors did not understand that it was already signed and sealed and they were just going to deliver it.”
Does that mean -
‘Councillors didn’t understand what they had been told’?
‘Officials didn’t understand and told councillors the wrong thing’?
‘Officials didn’t know or say anything’?
‘Officials did know but didn’t tell’?
None of the above?
Posted 6 years ago # -
@Chdot
I am now officially confused.
Posted 6 years ago # -
If it makes anyone feel any better, the ESJ developers recently said that they had signed a contract to build Picardy Place for a sum of money and that was always what they were going to do.
That just makes me feel slight nausea.
Posted 6 years ago # -
"... the ESJ developers recently said that they had signed a contract to build Picardy Place for a sum of money and that was always what they were going to do."
Presumably, this is the secret GAM agreement which many here criticised for a) being secret, and b) agreed without any consultation whatsoever.
I suspect key councillors knew what was happening, but they tried to spin it as a consultation. Absolute disingenuous garbage!
Posted 6 years ago # -
Did ESJ developers not say at one stage in the process they were open to changes being made to the Picardy plans? ¡Mentirosos!
Posted 6 years ago # -
I’ve decided that my questions (above) are irrelevant.
Key councillors did understand that not much could be changed at Picardy Place, which is why they were saying things about people ‘going to be disappointed’.
I naively took this to mean that they were being timid in the face of conflicting pressures, but that if there was enough noise/strong arguments (which certainly happened) they would be bolder.
Won’t get fooled again.
So, for me, the question now is ‘when will councillors realise/admit that not much can/will be changed in the plans now being consulted on’?
Posted 6 years ago # -
“
Drop-in consultation today Tue 3rd McDonald Rd library 10am-4pm HERE-->
Our view in newsletter HERE-->
#TramsToNewhaven
http://pic.twitter.com/lk0s4Q3GzT
“
Posted 6 years ago # -
For the last few years, Adam McVey has ridden with the Leith Feeder Ride to PoP. Not that I'm plugging our ride and trying to boost numbers *cough-cough*, but if you wanted to ask him a few questions whilst he's a captive audience.....
(Of course, this may be the year that he's now too high-profile to risk riding with us!)
We also regularly have Chas Booth (Greens), who's more than willing to chat cycling & the council.
Posted 6 years ago # -
“Of course, this may be the year that he's now too high-profile to risk riding with us!”
I’m sure you’d protect him from angry motorists (if there are enough of you...)
Posted 6 years ago # -
The Spurtle's First thoughts on tram plans.
Posted 6 years ago # -
Very good piece!
Don’t think this detail has been mentioned here before -
“
Unfortunately, the plans on show do not start well as the section covering Picardy Place has been superseded by the gyratory. The tram stop will be delivered separately in 2019/2020 by the developer behind the Edinburgh St James shopping mall.
So inaccurate details on show today can be ignored, as (we hope) can the absence of a pedestrian crossing close to the Playhouse.
“
Posted 6 years ago # -
Re developer, I meant to say that the contract was to build the gyratory and there hadn't been any prospect as far as they were concerned of anything different without a new contract. The contract being within the GAM then not much was gong to change. Meetings between the Picardy project and stakeholder groups are due soon - Spokes has put n a lot of suggested "tweaks".
The Tram plans are I am pretty sure all (based on) old ones - hence Picardy is not as proposed.
All the Tram folk are saying they are open to change everything except the route (tram corridor) and will be seeking guidance from the Council over conflicting issues, the biggest seeming to be 4 lanes with general traffic or 2 lanes (as now) with restricted general traffic (and "the death of all the local businesses" as the opposition say).
As said elsewhere, building the tramline is their biggest challenge rather than traffic management and public realm issues where the politicians will need to decide. They do not want to spend time working up alternative options, but say they have time to make significant changes.Posted 6 years ago # -
“They do not want to spend time working up alternative options”
Well they wouldn’t, but why didn’t they do better in the first place??
“but say they have time to make significant changes”
I wonder how they define “significant”!
“building the tramline is their biggest challenge rather than traffic management and public realm issue”
Yes, but to what extent can they go ‘can’t have that, it would interfere with tram’ - eg central reservations and pedestrian crossings?
Posted 6 years ago # -
I went down to the McDonald Road Library this afternoon. Very busy session, could barely see the plans for all the folk crowded around. Anyway I've seen them online so no problem. Went hunting for post-its to note down my "difficult questions" and stuck them to the plans - mostly for the northern part of Leith Walk. Saw one post-it complaining that there was "too much pandering to cyclists" and criticising the banned turns from various streets including Montgomery.
Eventually had a chat with one of the design team, who I overheard talking to others about "balance" and admitting he was primarily a highways engineer. Tackled him with my "difficult questions" in a friendly manner, while stressing that I support the tram in principle. Emphasised that Leith Walk, especially north of Pilrig, is a busy shopping street, and current designs just turn it into a dual carriageway, splitting Leith in half. Was quite surprised to hear him suggesting reconfiguring the route to remove central reservation north of Pilrig, and possibility of a bus gate for that part of LW, Shandwick Place style according to him suggested by Spokes and Sustrans). I commented that if they did that, it would resolve many of the issues with the current plans. I also questioned the lack of pedestrian crossings on this part of LW, and why the need for parking and loading bays on that part of Leith Walk, side streets are an option, huge car park by Tesco, etc.
I got the impression the previous consultation session may have flagged numerous issues around northern LW / Constitution Street and they are looking for solutions. Certainly seemed more open to discussion than the folk who were at the Picardy Place session, less defensive.
Will also respond online. No harm.
Will be interesting to see if they genuinely listen or if business case issues predicate against meaningful changes.
Posted 6 years ago #
Reply »
You must log in to post.
posts
