This is very good. Finally a vision for our city. Please support it on social media.
CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » Cycling News
"We need Active Travel"- Adam McVey
(32 posts)-
Posted 5 years ago #
-
Yes, good old Young Adam. If I lived in his ward I would give him my vote despite not supporting the SNP.
If he pushed this sort of thing through, scrapped the balance pish and kept the fifers and west Lothain drivers in peripheral park and rides then Edinburgh could copenhaganise.
Posted 5 years ago # -
“This is very good.“
Well yes -
“
The big ideas being taken forward by this Administration will help that journey of growth remain a positive one.
“
Seems to be some disconnect from reality. “Big ideas” about Picardy Place and Leith Street would have been good.
“
With limited space, we need to utilise it as best we can. One of the best ways of doing it is to find alternative ways to travel, attracting more onto public transport, onto bikes and to walking. All three options help the environment but that’s not the only concern. The space we all share is limited and we simply can’t afford to buy into the lie that there’s space for us all to drive from home to work and back again. By using more road space for bikes, trams and pedestrians, we can use our space more effectively and maintain (or even improve) our fantastic quality of life even as our city grows.
“
I don’t want to sound unduly cynical, but he c/should have said/done more about Leith Street.
Even if the road/pavement/cycle ‘facility’ was unalterable ‘due to previously signed contractsk, there is NO EXCUSE for not having a bus lane now.
“Please support it on social media.”
I think “we”, and especially Spokes, have a good track record of supporting politicians when they do good stuff, but that article is full of things that ought to happen, but I’m still not convinced that CEC has the will/ability to deliver.
Finishing Meadows to Canal (for instance) is a bit basic, but seems ‘impossible’.
Posted 5 years ago # -
I think I am going to keep a short cut to this article. Explains the rationale for Active Travel very succinctly.
This is my favourite "The space we all share is limited and we simply can’t afford to buy into the lie that there’s space for us all to drive from home to work and back again."
Posted 5 years ago # -
My reading of that piece is about Adam McVey trying to scrap the balance position in favour of a pro-active travel agenda. Lacks detail and lacks a history but I feel hopeful such that I want to give him my backing yo encourage him further rather than carping.
Posted 5 years ago # -
“I want to give him my backing yo encourage him further rather than carping”
Sure, but vision isn’t enough, lots of day to day stuff needs attention - doing that properly would make much of Adam’s vision supportable (by more people than ‘Active Travel’ enthusiasts) and easier to actually deliver.
Big lessons from Amsterdam, Copenhagen etc. were that just doing things was a good plan - people usually asked for more.
Here (Edinburgh and UK) it seems that little can be done without a great deal of ‘process’ and endless consultations.
At least the big stuff seems to be getting sorted -
“
Cllr Adam McVey (@adamrmcvey)
17/07/2018, 07:46
@nee_massey @thistlejohn Plans are in transit! Tram to Leith (Newhaven last stop) being progressed & go ahead decided later this year.“
Posted 5 years ago # -
I’m still not convinced that CEC has the will/ability to deliver.
I get the cynicism but for once we have a politician who has set out (a not uncontroversial position) about what needs to change for our city's transport. I can think of many others who say "something must be done" but don't follow it up with "what".
He makes coherent links between space efficiency, pollution, health and AT, whilst not being afraid to say things drivers won't like.
Why do all that if you don't have ambition to make real changes.
Of course we will watch carefully what actually gets done, and with 4 years left in this administration (not withstanding any further resignations) I think we have reason to be optimistic.
My point in saying to support it was to send the message of "We agree with you, now get on and do it..." rather than nit picking over what has brought us to here and we don't want those opposed to command the dialogue about the future for our city.
Posted 5 years ago # -
The cynical view would be that with further SNP councillor defections, Adam and co need to sweet talk the Greens to prop up their administration. I'd hope the Greens seek irrevocable actions and not words.
Posted 5 years ago # -
Greens needed and indeed lib dems
Posted 5 years ago # -
Saw the twitter stuff, tried but cant bring myself to support there.
Words are cheap, action measurable.
Maybe I'm not aware, but repainting some ASZs, resurfacing NEPN and putting up signs about giving space feels like worrying about what font to use on the Brexit plan.
Posted 5 years ago # -
“I get the cynicism but for once we have a politician who has set out (a not uncontroversial position) about what needs to change for our city's transport.”
Agreed but I can’t even find a ref to article on his Twitter feed, or Cllr Macinnes’
More kite flying than strategy?
Such articles are usually used to explain/justify some new policy doc.
Posted 5 years ago # -
Yeah. I thought that it had just come out but it was actually published yesterday morning.
Surprised more wasn't/hasn't been made of it.
Posted 5 years ago # -
Agreed but I can’t even find a ref to article on his Twitter feed, or Cllr Macinnes’
They are supposed to be on holiday, to be fair.
Posted 5 years ago # -
One of many personal bugbears: things in quotation marks which are not quotes.
"the changes being progressed are just the big, bad council being hard on motorists and really there’s no need to invest in cycling, walking, trams or change our behaviours in any way"
Also, why not put that on the council website rather than the advert-infested Hootsman website?
Anyway, good luck to him. Proof of pudding in the eating, digestion of Picardy Place and Leith Street may require gizzard stones.
Posted 5 years ago # -
“Surprised more wasn't/hasn't been made of it.”
What’s the “it”??
Posted 5 years ago # -
What’s the “it”??
That the Council leader has written a column that is very clear about why the Transport priorities need to change and that includes some statements that will grate those wedded to their cars.
I know we need to see the details and concrete actions consistent with this but I, for one, am energised by his statement. Ask yourself, would you rather he hadn't said it?
If in 6 months we haven't seen any tangible actions then fair enough to reference this article...
Posted 5 years ago # -
This is welcome, but it's not new - it's just repeating what he said at the Spokes anniversary gathering at the City Chambers. I was very pleased to hear it, but then CEC went and came up with Picardy Place and the terrible lower Leith Walk plans. Maybe he means it but he can't carry enough councillors with him?
Posted 5 years ago # -
“That the Council leader has written a column that is very clear about why the Transport priorities need to change and that includes some statements that will grate those wedded to their cars.”
Ah, I really thought you meant there was a policy doc/personal manifesto that ‘they” weren’t shouting about enough.
“This is welcome, but it's not new - it's just repeating what he said at the Spokes anniversary gathering at the City Chambers.”
So it IS good that he repeats it for a wider/less supportive audience, but somehow it has to feed through to policy/action.
“Maybe he means it but he can't carry enough councillors with him?”
Quite possibly, this always used to be the claim of Andrew Burns about some of his Labour Party colleagues. Didn’t stop Lesley Hinds getting good things through - though sadly she was also in favour of unifying (reducing) buslane times.
There is a real danger in asking/hoping ‘cyclists’ will do the campaigning for you.
In practice this has often worked out well with Spokes constantly pushing for ‘more’ - which has led to some people claiming that ‘CEC is in the pocket of Spokes’!
Sadly when Spokes (and others) call for ‘difficult things’ - like PP & LSt. - politicians make excuses.
So, back Adam on this, but make it very clear that ‘better’ and ‘faster’ are expected in future.
Posted 5 years ago # -
Posted 5 years ago #
-
Interesting follow up letter from Cycle Law Scotland.
"I welcome and echo Adam McVey’s comments that walking and cycling must become integral to how we live our lives in our ever expanding city (‘Edinburgh’s getting bigger, let’s make it better too’, News, July 16).
But, it is indicative of just how far the car culture has become embedded in our society that even the leader of Edinburgh City Council has to defend himself against the ‘easy lie’ that the local authority is acting against the motorist by encouraging active travel.
My fear is that only once all motorists accept that they should share the road space and take some responsibility for the more vulnerable road users in law, will it become safer and normalised for people to walk and cycle around Edinburgh."
(That's the full quote so no need to link through)
Posted 5 years ago # -
“Interesting follow up letter from Cycle Law Scotland.”
When they first appeared there was some cynicism about them just ‘self-promoting for commercial reasons’.
For some reason I was more willing to accept they were ‘genuine’.
I still think that - and there have been some good reports on here about them supporting/representing people.
Posted 5 years ago # -
“
My fear is that only once all motorists accept that they should share the road space and take some responsibility for the more vulnerable road users in law, will it become safer and normalised for people to walk and cycle around Edinburgh.
“
Probably true.
Likely to take a while...
Posted 5 years ago # -
Let's stir things up a it...
https://twitter.com/hank_chief/status/1019862844945428480?s=19
"Hi @CllrNickCook
@kevin_lang &
@ProfScottThinksInterested in getting your thoughts on @adamrmcvey 's article...
Anything you disagree with?
Posted 5 years ago # -
Nice.
This is a valuable response -
“
Yes. I don't support tram extension and I'm not aware of any councillors who believe there is 'no need to invest in cycling.'
“
https://mobile.twitter.com/CllrNickCook/status/1019863992007831552
I’m sure he is being truthful, doesn’t mean there aren’t any - though he clearly doesn’t think there are any in his own party which is useful to know.
Posted 5 years ago # -
That is a politician's response. What Young Adam is arguing is that investing in cycling will inevitably inconvenience the motorist and that politicians need to accept this. NOt argue for a balanced approach whereby investment in cycling is either paint on roads or small sections of separate path away from where one might drive or particualrly park.
THis is what our Roseburn friends did not like.
Posted 5 years ago # -
My tweet has stimulated a debate, which is good. More voices welcome.
It has also reminded us of this useful tool of travel habits, some of which won't be a surprise. E.g. South Gyle having a huge number of locals driving to it every day...
Posted 5 years ago # -
Just a quick reminder of the Edinburgh Tories 2017 manifesto. Four of their 10 listed priorities were transport related:
Scrap tram extension.
Scrap plans for Sunday parking charges.
Stop roll-out of 20mph zones.
Reduce congestion by improving road works co-ordination, prioritising traffic flow and improving traffic light responsiveness.For those with a robust constitution: https://www.edinburghconservatives.org.uk/sites/www.edinburghconservatives.org.uk/files/2017-04/Manifesto2017.pdf
Posted 5 years ago # -
Morningsider you seem to be suggesting Tory Manifesto is for Petrol Heads?
Posted 5 years ago # -
Well, some sort of head...
Posted 5 years ago # -
@Morningsider. I see what you did there - all without breaching rule 2.
Posted 5 years ago #
Reply »
You must log in to post.
posts
