CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » Infrastructure

Active Travel Investment Programme - Realistic?

(55 posts)

No tags yet.


12

  1. gembo
    Member

    @yodhrin, i left Glasgow in 1992. I say Glasgow, actually The West End which was leafy. Previously on the Maryhill Road, the main drag for the Orange Walks and the Poolbeg drums.
    I also lived for a time at the weekends in 1992 Southside which was less arty, but quite nice, bit more lawlessness nearby. Lot of move,ent out to the suburbs for affluent Glaswegians. Suburbs are often in other local authorities. East Renfrewshire/East Dunbartonshire. The more affluent areas may have cycle path objectors. The6 love motors in Glasgow nearly as much as they do in Edinburgh.

    Certainly in 1992 the council just did things and no one objected. Or if you objected you were seen as a singular individual.

    At this time Spokes were forging ahead in Edinburgh,

    Edinburgh has a reactionary Conservative party that 20 per cent of the voters are voting for? Glasgow Tories remain small.

    Bit more cheerfulness in the face of adversity in Glasgow, but more moaning and objecting in Edinburgh, is the stereotype.

    Leith I think is a sort of microcosm of Glasgow?.?

    Posted 3 years ago #

  2. Dave
    Member

    Even though I basically applaud the council for wanting to go in the right direction, there's no getting around the incredibly appalling way they've (failed to) execute and failed to challenge the NIMBYs.

    Look at all the general survey, voting trends etc. that show huge support for action on the climate, public health, you've got Glasgow planning hundreds of miles of segregated lanes on top of their SfP stuff, while we're still consulting local residents on whether to break our cycle lanes up for private parking!

    In the meantime Birmingham is putting 1.2m people into a gigantic LTN. I wish B'ham was in Scotland, as I don't want to move south of the border... Glasgow maybe (but the rain!)

    Posted 3 years ago #

  3. crowriver
    Member

    @Yodhrin, I think it was me posting on here that was the source of your anecdote about Glasgow just getting on with stuff.

    There's obviously a down side to that way of doing politics - urban motorways like the M8 for example. Edinburgh avoided a similar catastrophe because a lot of establishment types kicked up a big fuss back in the day.

    As gembo suggests, the leafier bits of Glasgow are not actually in Glasgow council area, whereas Edinburgh council area was expanded in the early 1990s to include more leafy bits. Leafy suburban bits tend to vote Tory and Lib Dem, and tend to have more objectors to cycle lanes or curbs on motoring "freedom". Not so much rugger club as golf club round those parts, I should think.

    Looking to next year's elections, one way to counter the Traffic Flow Taliban is to elect as many Green councillors as possible. I may no longer be a member of that party but as a pedestrian, cyclist and public transport user I know which councillors have got my interests at heart. At local level they are by far the best choice.

    Posted 3 years ago #

  4. Yodhrin
    Member

    Oh I already sent a rather strongly worded email to Adam McVey informing him I'll be voting Green at the next election over the admin's spinelessness surrounding SFP, but sadly living in Inverleith I doubt that vote will have any real impact - I think one of the main issues with Edinburgh is a fair proportion of the Leafy Bits have *always* been inside the house as it were - you'll find as much demand for "motoring freedom" around here, in the New Town, along Ravelston way etc as you do out in the burbs. There's the fallout from having so many "lovely" private schools as well, which tend to attract and create people with certain attitudes.

    Not that I indulge in stereotyping or anything... :D

    I think Birmingham is showing the way in more than just their plans - the way to "just get on with it" without leading to horrors like the M8 is to simply be bold enough to put your overall scheme to the voters(though given the attitudes of the time about the motorcar being the future...). That's the difference between Edinburgh & Glasgow's councils these days as I see it; as CycleAlex says, here we'll get "tactical delays" followed by timid plans and more endless consultation, whereas in Glasgow they've put forward their whole planned network with a timescale for completion and said "if you don't like it vote for someone else then".

    Posted 3 years ago #

  5. crowriver
    Member

    @Yodhrin, Inverleith used to have a Green councillor (Nigel Bagshaw), but he was ousted on the 8th round of transfers amidst a Tory and Lib Dem surge in 2017 (plus the collapse of the Labour vote after Lesley Hinds retired). So there's still a decent chance of electing a Green in that ward next year.

    Posted 3 years ago #

  6. Arellcat
    Moderator

    Edinburgh avoided a similar catastrophe because a lot of establishment types kicked up a big fuss back in the day.

    I have long wondered if Edinburgh's fortune in not having the M8 cut through Fountainbridge, Tollcross, the Meadows and Newington has meant that collectively the population doesn't have any hard resentment towards Big Road, in the way that our counterparts in Glasgow might.

    Posted 3 years ago #

  7. Murun Buchstansangur
    Member

    Not sure if the Glasgow chat is related to this:

    https://www.glasgow.gov.uk/index.aspx?articleid=27605

    "Plans to build a city-wide network of active travel infrastructure for all parts of Glasgow have been unveiled.

    Released as part of a new strategy to promote active travel in Glasgow, the plans will add 270km of high quality cycleways and improved footways along main roads in Glasgow.

    Intended to support a crucial shift to walking, wheeling and cycling as part of the wider effort to reduce the city's carbon footprint and improve air quality, the new network will be designed to ensure easy access to safe, segregated routes from homes, schools, key amenities and cultural destinations throughout the city.

    Based upon a vision that active travel becomes the first choice for everyday journeys, the network is to be created with the aim that schools are within 400m of the main active travel routes while no home is more than 800m from segregated cycling infrastructure. With key routes such as the South City Way in development and Garscube Road already in place in the city, and plans to develop further Avenues throughout the city centre in line with the successful completion of the Sauchiehall Avenue, it is anticipated that the new active travel network will allow anyone who cycles to reach most of the city within 30 minutes and almost all of the city within an hour."

    Really does appear that Glasgow is forging ahead while Edinburgh is running the red pen through the one thing they (helped by many on here) stood up to the NIMBYs on (CCWEL).

    Posted 3 years ago #

  8. crowriver
    Member

    @Murun Buchstansang, is there any timescale on the Glesca plans though?

    Just wondering, elections coming up, etc.

    Posted 3 years ago #

  9. Murun Buchstansangur
    Member

    "The City Network will be consulted on, designed, and implemented in order to achieve a functional coherent citywide network by 2030." Believe it if you will. CEC have been fannying around on CCWEL alone for at least that long?

    Posted 3 years ago #

  10. CycleAlex
    Member

    That seems pretty optimistic for 270km worth of infrastructure given there's no deigns or money yet (perhaps there's a chunk of 'quiet street', no actual change in there?). CCWEL is about ~2km and will take 18 months to build.

    Posted 3 years ago #

  11. LaidBack
    Member

    "As gembo suggests, the leafier bits of Glasgow are not actually in Glasgow council area, whereas Edinburgh council area was expanded in the early 1990s to include more leafy bits. "

    Has the Bears Way settled down as a route into Glasgow? Was huge opposition to that but not heard much recently.
    Bearsden is a bit like a Balerno situation but the regressive Glaswegians electrified their railways back in 1960s whilst forward thinking Edinburgh removed them to provide cycle paths ;-)

    Posted 3 years ago #

  12. Murun Buchstansangur
    Member

    "Edinburgh council area was expanded in the early 1990s to include more leafy bits"

    T'internet says this happened in 1975, though it may have been less obvious under Lothian Regional Council.

    'The City of Edinburgh became a single-tier council area in 1996, under the Local Government etc. (Scotland) Act 1994, with the boundaries of the City of Edinburgh district of the Lothian region. The district had been created in 1975, under the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973, to include the former county of city of Edinburgh; the former burgh of Queensferry, the district of Kirkliston and part of Winchburgh formerly within the county of West Lothian; and the district of Currie and the parish of Cramond formerly within the county of Midlothian.'

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/City_of_Edinburgh_Council

    Posted 3 years ago #

  13. gembo
    Member

    Not sure which bit of
    Wynchburgh was in Edinburgh District Council? Certainly the other bit was linlithgowshire and thenWest Lothian; district. Now all especially Lothian council and twice size it was, see also east Calder.

    But do think 1975 was when Balerno came in from Midlothian. Also when the city bus no longer ended at Juni Green. Prior to that the balernoites had to change to a green country bus near His Mattnesses’ shoppe. The wooden Edinburgh Festival City is still at Juni green, whereas the sheet metal sign is just east of the Kirknewton turn. Says Inspiring Capital or other nonsense.

    Posted 3 years ago #

  14. crowriver
    Member

    "T'internet says this happened in 1975, though it may have been less obvious under Lothian Regional Council."

    Ah yes, my mistake. The old Edinburgh District had fewer responsibilities than the unitary authority that followed, so maybe that boundary change had less effect on things like transport, which was the responsibility of the Lothian Region.

    Posted 3 years ago #

  15. ejstubbs
    Member

    Meanwhile, in Germany: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/oct/06/berlins-car-ban-campaign-its-about-how-we-want-to-live-breathe-and-play

    A citizens’ initiative calling for a ban on private car use in central Berlin would create the largest car-free urban area in the world.

    The campaign group Berlin Autofrei has taken the first step in a process known as the people’s referendum, submitting a petition with more than 50,000 signatures calling for a ban covering the 88 sq km (34 sq mile) area circled by the “S-Bahn ring” trainline – an area roughly equal in size to all the boroughs in London’s zones 1 and 2.

    ...

    A 2014 report commissioned by Berlin’s regional parliament found that 58% of traffic space was devoted to cars, even though only a third of journeys on Berlin streets (and only 17% within the S-Bahn ring) were made by car. Only 3% was set aside for bicycles, which accounted for 15% of journeys (18% within the ring).

    Parked cars took up 17 sq km. In total, almost 20 times more space was dedicated to cars than to bicycles in one of Europe’s most renowned cycle-friendly cities. Three-quarters of road deaths are pedestrians or cyclists.

    ...

    “The federal environmental ministry did a study recently and 91% of people said they would be happier without a car. Moreover, only a third of individual Berliners actually have a car,” said Kaestner.

    Posted 3 years ago #

  16. chdot
    Admin

    From link

    “

    People who depend on their cars for their trade or because they have impaired mobility would be exempt, as would emergency services. Everyone else would each be permitted up to 12 rented car journeys a year – in case they need to move house, for example.

    “

    Posted 3 years ago #

  17. Stickman
    Member

    Update going to TEC next week:

    - £118m investment up to 2025/26
    - Most of the funding coming from Sustrans/Scottish Govt
    - Lots of previously approved projects now planned to start construction in 2022/23

    Let’s hope we start seeing some results!

    https://democracy.edinburgh.gov.uk/documents/s39331/7.3%20-%20Active%20Travel%20Investment%20Programme%20Update.pdf

    Posted 3 years ago #

  18. CycleAlex
    Member

    Some things I noticed:
    Most projects have been delayed by at least a year.

    Fairly large delays for Meadows to George Streets, Morrison Street and Old Dalkeith Road. 2023/24, 2025/26 and 2023/24 respectively.

    Some massive cost jumps (Grange Road Crossings have gone from £232,378 to £747,709).

    Big increase in the minor improvements and dropped kerbs programme.

    Portobello to Musselburgh Segregation in 2022/2023 - not sure I had heard of this being in the works, outside of SfP?

    Big cut in budget for Fountainbridge/Dundee Street, the Powderhall Railway, St Leonards – Canongate / Holyrood Drive, the A8 and QuietRoute 5 – Holyrood Park.

    QuietRoute 6 – Meadows to Bread Street scrapped/on hold long term. Despite this, p16 says £80k was spent on new concept designs for it...

    Somewhat encouragingly however, the one-way exemptions project, the reduced A8 scheme, QR61, the tram-cycle safety work and CCWEL should all start in 2021/22.

    Posted 3 years ago #

  19. toomanybikes
    Member

    Yeah.. Not sure what to think.

    Spades in ground seems the only guarantee of things getting built given how much Ccwel managed to be delayed so pretty apprehensive.

    But I guess we should be expecting this level of budget given scotgov ramping up to 320 million per year. Should mean expectation should be about £40mil a year spent in Edinburgh all in.

    Surely eventually things have to get built.

    Posted 3 years ago #

  20. jonty
    Member

    CEC have had a longstanding problem with converting money into action - perhaps due to staff shortages? Lots of money spent (presumably less efficiently) on consultants.

    Of course there is then the problem, not necessarily their fault, that the rest of the money gets funnelled into lawyers to defend schemes at inquiry.

    Bottom line is that central government needs to break the habit of a lifetime and provide more than just cash.

    Posted 3 years ago #

  21. CycleAlex
    Member

    As well as more than money, they fundamentally need to come up with more money too. “ However, the scheme was identified as not affordable” is mentioned 17 times in the report. I wonder how many sections of the A9 dialling will be identified as not affordable? The lack of money then delays things further since CEC need to decide what to cut…

    Staffing is definitely an issue too. It’s really frustrating as CEC lose AT staff who move to AECOM/Jacobs since they pay better, only for them to work on the same CEC schemes as consultants!

    Posted 3 years ago #

  22. Yodhrin
    Member

    I mean, to be fair, most of the "not affordables" were from 2019 and are now marked as either going ahead, or having money spent to develop plans ready for the next funding cycle.

    Posted 3 years ago #

  23. CycleAlex
    Member

    Indeed, but I believe nearly all of the non-affordable projects were meant to have either been started by now, or already complete. Presumably that didn't happen because of funding. That in turn means we're not seeing new projects being developed.

    Posted 3 years ago #

  24. jonty
    Member

    And it's particularly frustrating to see all the heavily consulted and inquired upon design work for the Roseburn path - which presumably tied up staff for some time and certainly wasn't cost-free - being thrown out on construction cost grounds too!

    Posted 3 years ago #

  25. chdot
    Admin

    Maybe surcharge the disingenuous, vexatious ‘objectors’…

    Posted 3 years ago #

RSS feed for this topic

12

Reply

You must log in to post.


Video embedded using Easy Video Embed plugin