CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » Infrastructure

Scottish Govmt announces £10m for pop up cycle/walking lanes

(3659 posts)
  • Started 4 years ago by HankChief
  • Latest reply from ejstubbs

No tags yet.


1…121122

  1. Frenchy
    Member

    What else did they expect to happen?

    The original reasoning given was a concern that cyclists on the steep section of Drum Brae would be injured if they collide with a bollard after swerving to avoid someone reversing out of a driveway. Whilst that doesn't sound fun, the idea that swerving into the general traffic lane (in the absence of bollards) would be safer is one I don't understand.

    As far as I can tell, people driving in them (illegally) was also the desired outcome. Following the decision to remove the defenders, Lothian Buses said "we want to drive in that mandatory cycle lane, please hurry up and remove the lane defenders", and the council said "OK, ASAP".

    Posted 1 year ago #

  2. Murun Buchstansangur
    Member

    Hearing a Tesla has demolished some of the segregation on Slateford Rd - has anyone observed?

    Posted 11 months ago #

  3. Murun Buchstansangur
    Member

    Some of the segregation on Fountainbridge has been removed and dumped at the side of the road outside the Printmakers (I'll need to get a photo). Strongly suspecting wildcat action by the construction oaves next door - anyone know anything to the contrary?

    Posted 10 months ago #

  4. CycleAlex
    Member

    There were/are utility works there connecting up the new developments that had closed off one lane. Hopefully they’re just waiting to be reinstalled.

    Posted 10 months ago #

  5. chdot
    Admin

    Braid Road (again)

    “

    The decision was taken by the last administration due to the impact on public transport. The impact it has had is on the agenda for the August Transport Committee.
    “

    https://twitter.com/cllrscottarthur/status/1688078353331290112

    Posted 8 months ago #

  6. Morningsider
    Member

    Of course, "the impact" of reallocating carriageway space to pedestrians and cyclists is almost always going to be longer journey times for other road users. It isn't some side effect, it is the desired effect. Make travelling by car less attractive and people might choose to walk or cycle instead.

    If there is an unacceptable impact on bus travel, then work out a solution that also prioritises buses or reduces car use - more bus lanes, priority at traffic lights, park and ride sites, congestion charging, workplace parking levy and so on.

    Also, "the impact" can include fairly intangible results such as happier children, peace and quiet, easier access to nature, almost impossible to measure and put a monetary value on - but very valuable none the less.

    Most of our current transport problems are a result of the idea that "the impact" of any intervention is measured by its success in reducing journey times (and hence costs) for car drivers.

    Posted 8 months ago #

  7. Dave
    Member

    The whole situation around Braid Rd is so short sighted. As midlothian continues to allocate space for tens of thousands of new houses the impact of congestion on Comiston bus routes will get worse and worse, regardless of how much Cllr Arthur et al try to use Braid Rd as a relief valve at the expense of active/local journeys. So in the end, there will be no quiet route / LTN and there will still be deeply unattractive bus services.

    The council should have gone deeper and further, restricting right turns off Comiston for example to send citybound traffic over to the A701

    Posted 8 months ago #

  8. neddie
    Member

    The only way to solve congestion on overloaded main roads is via pay-per-use road user charging

    Posted 8 months ago #

  9. Arellcat
    Moderator

    Also, "the impact" can include fairly intangible results such as happier children, peace and quiet, easier access to nature, almost impossible to measure and put a monetary value on - but very valuable none the less.

    Most of our current transport problems are a result of the idea that "the impact" of any intervention is measured by its success in reducing journey times (and hence costs) for car drivers.

    We managed this for a scant few months when the pandemic was in full flow, simply by not allowing people to travel unless they really, really had to. When the reason was for exercise in the fresh air, we let people travel a bit, and whaddaya know, people went mad for bikes.

    The A702/A703 at Hillend is more or less back to its peak time morning congestion. Midlothian is rapidly preparing to push hundreds more cars onto the A703 and A701 as it tries valiantly to fill every remaining field with houses. The section at Millerhill/Shawfair is allowing the greenbelt to leak, because Edinburgh has a hole within the bypass and Midlothian has its finger in it.

    Posted 8 months ago #

  10. chdot
    Admin

    “because Edinburgh has a hole within the bypass and Midlothian has its finger in it.“

    Whoever devised/agreed the Ed/MidL border has a lot to answer for.

    Posted 8 months ago #

  11. acsimpson
    Member

    @neddie, It's far from obvious why those who can pay more should be allowed priority access to our roads. Although I do like the idea of charging the same per passenger for a car as for a bus, so if you want to take 4 seats into town then it will cost you 4 bus fares, etc.

    I would personally prefer a rationing system whereby you are allowed a certain number of trips per day/week/month and once you've used them all us then you have no choice but to take the bus. I suppose this would eventually boil down to some sort of penalty payment for those who are really desperate to keep choking the city though.

    Posted 8 months ago #

  12. neddie
    Member

    @acsimpson

    We don’t use rationing for any other limited resource. We don’t ration bread, or helicopters - only the rich get access to helicopters and more affluent people can buy the best bread & cakes in the land, while potentially leaving nothing, or pricing out the poor.

    Like it or not, money is what we use to decide who really needs a limited resource. And generally it works well* Why on Earth do we allow road usage to be free at the point of use, thereby rendering it a useless slow moving crawl, where people only get out of their cars when it becomes too slow**? Money decides who really needs something - sorry, that’s just the way it is, I don’t make the rules.

    *At least it would if there wasn’t such huge wealth disparity between rich & poor
    **Average speed of traffic in London (& any other city) has remained at 7.8mph for the last century! - this is the equilibrium between “too slow, use another mode, another time, or don’t travel” and “too fast, drive more as it’s more convenient”

    Posted 8 months ago #

  13. acsimpson
    Member

    You could similarly say that our roads have always been free at point of use so why would that change. But I think we agree that something needs to change.

    We have used rationing in the past when a resource is severely limited and there simply isn't enough of it for everyone to have their fill. Food may be expensive at times but before the Torys broke the system our country at least ensured that people had the bare minimum required for survival. I would suggest that being able to travel for work at least is a basic requirement (more so for those on lower incomes). Which is why I would introduce a rationed limit on the most restricted roads. This could of course be fitted into our capitalist ways with increasing costs for subsequent uses.

    Posted 8 months ago #

  14. ejstubbs
    Member

    @acsimpson: You could similarly say that our roads have always been free at point of use so why would that change.

    Well, up to a point - and generally true within a parish. But until the Local Government Act 1888 made the maintenance of major roads the responsibility of the newly-created county councils, the majority of travel between centres of habitation on made roads was via tolled thoroughfares. In the earlier part of the 19th century the turnpike trusts (which were set up by individual acts of parliament, somewhat akin to the way railways were later authorised) administered around 30,000 miles of turnpike road in England and Wales*, taking tolls at almost 8,000 toll-gates and side-bars.

    * I'm not sure what the situation was in Scotland, because the WIki article I pulled the above detail from has a gaping hole under that subject heading! However, slide 12 of this Powerpoint presentation apparently originating from the RSGS would seem to indicate that the situation north of the border was fairly similar/

    Posted 8 months ago #

  15. acsimpson
    Member

    Thanks for the clarification. I guess it just goes to show that whatever we consider normal and "the way things are done" is probably only a short term setup which has been changed often in the past.

    I'm aware of at least a couple of toll houses in Scotland (eg Cramond Brig) so I'm not surprised that it was similar here.

    Someone recently alluded to the French being far better at accepting that change it likely/possible than us.

    Posted 8 months ago #

  16. gembo
    Member

    The Lang Whang history is all toll houses and inns.

    Posted 8 months ago #

  17. Murun Buchstansangur
    Member

    https://www.edinburghnews.scotsman.com/news/transport/edinburgh-spaces-for-people-residents-will-be-asked-to-rank-three-options-for-future-of-braid-road-scheme-4259407

    Posted 8 months ago #

  18. Yodhrin
    Member

    Cowards. They know damn well what the result will be and just want cover to dump the whole thing.

    Posted 8 months ago #

  19. Dave
    Member

    Yep, the solution is so obvious as evidenced by hundreds of successful low traffic schemes across the country - but as the councillors aren't willing to do that, they've set it up to fail.

    Posted 8 months ago #

  20. neddie
    Member

    On the positive side, Cllr Arthur did mention that one of the options for the Braid estate would be a "full" LTN (whatever that means).

    On the minus side, what do the council hope to achieve by asking the residents? If they end up with an answer that goes against the council's own objectives, what are they going to do then? Ignore the residents? There is already controversy over the area selected to define who are "residents" and who aren't. Large parts of the catchments of the schools in the area aren't included, for example

    Posted 8 months ago #

  21. Dave
    Member

    Who really believes that respondents will ask for more restrictions at this stage? The ones who want the "unsightly" restrictions removed will be much, much more motivated to fill in yet another survey for starters. The council would have to invest significant effort (and expense) in marketing and leading a solution that looks like "we'll bring the outrage of the Corstorphine LTN to your door".

    This kind of thing needs political leadership, because while it seems to be a vote winner in hindsight it doesn't appear to be a vote winner ahead of implementation.

    Putting it on the ballot is actually a work of (evil) genius, because it means they can legitimately say that they offered a real LTN but residents turned it down.

    Posted 8 months ago #

  22. acsimpson
    Member

    It appears that the days where we elected leaders have gone and instead we get weasels who want to pretend consultations are referendums.

    I know it's not the same level of human suffering but apartheid would never have been abolished if it was put to a referendum.

    Posted 8 months ago #

  23. chdot
    Admin

    “

    Sheffield Council has now confirmed in a statement when the temporary measures that were not included in the final scheme will be removed.

    They said in a statement: "The ETOs (Experimental Traffic Orders) in Nether Edge, Crookes and Walkley expire on October 24.

    “

    https://www.thestar.co.uk/news/politics/sheffield-active-travel-zones-council-explains-ditched-planters-removed-archer-road-sackville-crookes-nether-edge-4357754

    Posted 6 months ago #

  24. chdot
    Admin

    “

    Anyone who still thinks #covid #PopUpBikeLanes were an @Edinburgh_CC eccentricity, check out this @NathalieOrtar/@PatrickRerat book!

    --> https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-3-031-45308-3

    Lessons include:

    Local politics matters

    Councils *can* act quickly

    Impacts vary by city

    Opposition is expected

    “

    https://twitter.com/spokeslothian/status/1731427879227953382

    Posted 4 months ago #

  25. Dave
    Member

    It's national book voucher week, and the question has come up about whether the bookshop on Morningside rd should be on the blacklist (opposed Spaces for People) or whether they are ok. I really wish there was a register of some kind so it was easy to look up.

    Posted 1 month ago #

  26. gembo
    Member

    Lovely shop for the middle class parent

    Been there a. While

    I vote blacklist

    Posted 1 month ago #

  27. ejstubbs
    Member

    Two lane defender bollards/posts have been demolished on Comiston Road, northbound side just before the Camus Avenue junction. Looked like accident damage rather than deliberate. Can some kind soul remind me of how to contact the council to get them replaced?

    (ISTR there is an account on the social media platform still widely referred to Twitter but my Sunday morning brain's data retrieval gnomes seem to still be in bed.)

    Posted 1 week ago #

  28. chdot
    Admin

    https://twitter.com/edinhelp

    Efficient at passing stuff on to appropriate section.

    Often results in action.

    Will chase up if no apparent change after a week or so.

    Posted 1 week ago #

  29. ejstubbs
    Member

    Ta, will give them a go.

    Posted 1 week ago #

RSS feed for this topic

1…121122

Reply

You must log in to post.


Video embedded using Easy Video Embed plugin