Braid Road is still open today (Saturday).
I'm sure I saw an email address to send suggestions of places that could use attention somewhere to but I've been unable to find it - does anyone know, or should I just email Lesley Macinnes?
CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » Infrastructure
Scottish Govmt announces £10m for pop up cycle/walking lanes
(3661 posts)-
Posted 4 years ago #
-
@fimm, Lesley do be the person
Posted 4 years ago # -
Braid Rd not due to be closed till tomorrow
Posted 4 years ago # -
If anyone takes a photo of one of these repurposed streets could they send it spokes@spokes.org.uk to put up on Facebook?
Posted 4 years ago # -
UK Transport Secretary Grant Shapps doing the Sunday morning interviews on Sky and BBC said that we need more walking & cycling and that more will be said about this in the coming days.
Posted 4 years ago # -
Yes when London goes back to work they are seeking more cycling?? Hope that works
One of the Northern European countries also paying people 50euro to get bike serviced to maintain cycling when back at work
Posted 4 years ago # -
Is this the turning point? Years of fighting the good fight for cycling have left me more than a touch jaded. However, after streets being closed in a matter of days and further plans to be quickly rolled-out across the UK, will people really go back to accepting it takes years to approve a few hundred metres of cycle lane. Unusually, I am feeling a tiny spark of optimism about this.
Once politicians see it can be done and that the backlash isn't anything to be feared, then attitudes will hopefully change.
For me, the real issue now is process - all these temporary schemes have a maximum lifespan of 18 months. After that, they MUST revert to what was there before. To be made permanent the schemes must go through the full TRO/RSO process (this can happen while the temporary schemes are in place). The fact that the scheme has been there for 18 months makes no difference. This is what happened in George Street - which reverted to a car sewer several years ago.
Once the new facilities are in place we are going to have to fight for their retention. This can be done by one of two ways:
1. Councils promote TROs/RSOs for every change - time consuming, expensive and unlikely to happen (also subject to push back from the green ink brigade)
2. The Scottish Government amends the TRO system to allow these facilities to be made permanent easily and abolishes the RSO system, as it largely duplicates the TRO system and does not exist anywhere else in the UK.Thoughts?
Posted 4 years ago # -
@gembo, "...when London goes back to work they are seeking more cycling??"
Sure, but mostly as a substitute for the excellent public transport they have there. Folk are scared of catching the virus on the tube or bus.
Something similar will transpire in Scotland, but will be seen as mostly temporary until the emergency is over. Then most folk will drift back to public transport, with a few hardy types continuing to cycle or walk.
As Morningsider says, this can only change permanently if the streets and roads are changed permanently.
Carlton Reid updated his (rather long) article on the early 1970s bicycle boom in the US, which basically surmises that bicycles were a short-lived fad: primarily, but not entirely because the streets were not changed (as in the Netherlands at the same time).
Posted 4 years ago # -
“Thoughts?”
SG should just do all and everything necessary to make things simpler.
Make Sustrans a public utility so it can put cones where it likes and close whole roads for months without (apparently) much process or opportunities to object.
All the fuss Tory councillors are making about democracy and process (‘no one told me, and it’s my ward’) are comical.
They need to be asked directly about whether they back Shapps’ initiative and will demand SG does same (and more).
Polls say ‘most people‘ don’t want lockdown to end ‘too soon’. Presumably there is some feeling that business as before is perhaps not optimal.
I’m still waiting for Adam/CEC’s plans to shift cars/parking.
The reaction to that will be interesting/crucial.
The problem/opportunity now is that PT will be problematic. There’s bound to be more WFH, but strong demand for driving to work. Single occupancy will be the new thing (ok, not that new...)
So, how much actual demand for walking/cycling if conditions were ‘perfect’?
Clearly time for high quality leadership.
People (quite surprisingly really) accepted ‘close your business, stay at home etc.)
How about (for instance) no private car use between 8&10, 4&6 (at least in large parts of cities) - without good reason and issued permits?
The future is going to include a significant increase in unemployment, less money for a lot of people. Probably fewer cars - given up voluntarily or for finance reasons.
Not really the time to favour those able to take up a lot of space and return air quality to ‘normal’.
Expect a shortage of electric bikes to buy.
Posted 4 years ago # -
@chdot - that's an excellent idea re Sustrans, making it a public utility. Sustrans has plenty of ability but is hampered by lack of powers.
@Morningsider - re removing the TRO hoops - I would once have thought yes, but - they did save (some) communities from urban motorways back in the 80s. But maybe because of the way the zeitgeist is moving that would be okay. Once "fast vehicle transport" was the ideal, and anyone who opposed that was a crank or a miserable reactionary. Now the green ethos has made real inroads - even if that doesn't really demonstrate itself in votes.
Posted 4 years ago # -
Fair point about being instead of being on public transport
Needs to be Mornisider’s second point Scot Gov needs to scrap the RSO system
Posted 4 years ago # -
No need to scrap the TRO/RO system. Just amend so there are exemptions for cycleways, i.e. if building a cycleway, no TRO/RO required. Could also apply to widening footways and bus lanes too? Would effectively kill off opposition to removal of parking/loading bays.
Posted 4 years ago # -
@Rosie - the Road Orders used for major road building and the TRO/RSO systems are different. You can amend one system without changing the other.
@crowriver - a nice idea. I would say, as long as the proposals were set out in a plan that had already been the subject of consultation, say the Active Travel Action Plan, then there should be no need for further consultation.
Posted 4 years ago # -
I think the key issue is the requirement for a public hearing with certain objections. Scrapping the requirement for a TRO/RSO would likely be controversial, even if that controversy is artificially created (ATTACK ON DEMOCRACY etc etc). There are also times when, even with the best cities in the world, some pretty meh schemes can be proposed.
Instead, as already happens for certain parts of TROs, any objections should be referred to an appropriate council committee. They would then consider the objections and have the option to either make, amend or withdraw the order as well as refer it to Scottish Ministers for a public hearing
Posted 4 years ago # -
Refer you to earlier point that we have created an unnecessarily complex system that does not operate elsewhere and is not used for the purpose it was intended for. Consultations and objections are not meant to be happening with this frequency.
Posted 4 years ago # -
I like the idea (which I am inventing/distorting) of folding Sustrans into Transport Scotland which provides 96% of its funds.
The provision of transport infrastructure should not involve any charities, not the PDSA, not Oxfam and not Sustrans.
There clearly needs to be a mechanism for consultation but it should be at the city plan level. The city could consult on the plan and the design guidebook and then impose the works necessary to deliver the first under the second.
Posted 4 years ago # -
This utopian idealism is all very well. However back in the Land Of The Virus, carmageddon has already arrived.
Would you just look at these "essential" journeys by "key workers"!
---
Costa Coffee reopening at Braehead sees traffic queued back to main road
https://www.glasgowlive.co.uk/news/glasgow-news/costa-coffee-reopening-braehead-sees-18191068
Posted 4 years ago # -
@Morningsider, okay, thanks.
Posted 4 years ago # -
@crowriver - The one at Cameron Toll reopened yesterday as well, with apparently similar results.
Posted 4 years ago # -
Costa Coffee reopening at Braehead sees traffic queued back
interesting, isn't it
the dominant paradigm now looking decidedly uncool
Posted 4 years ago # -
I like the idea (which I am inventing/distorting) of folding Sustrans into Transport Scotland which provides 96% of its funds.
The provision of transport infrastructure should not involve any charities, not the PDSA, not Oxfam and not Sustrans.
@IWRATS - that does make sense in theory. In practice isn't Sustrans's "NGO" status part of its strength? i.e. it can operate independently without parroting Government policy, which can change under different administrations and different Cabinet Secretaries and also, I think, can attract a more creative, higher calibre personnel - at least that's my impression.
Posted 4 years ago # -
Frank Ross has been assimilated:
The Council must use all the powers at its disposal including TTRO’s to ensure these do not rise again putting citizens health at risk.
https://twitter.com/frankross06/status/1257219593195728896?s=21
Posted 4 years ago # -
In practice isn't Sustrans's "NGO" status part of its strength?
I believe that Sustrans has been used by Scot Gov to prevent active travel becoming widespread. Sustrans;
1) Attracts energetic people interested in active travel and
2) Makes them powerless through charity status and
3) Diverts them into commissioning sculptures, organising competitions and delivering mitigation programmes for the hellscape delivered by Transport Scotland and LAs.The prime example is Picardy Place where even they couldn't stomach the greenwashing of an urban motorway. If NDPB, NGO or charity status was an advantage then car infrastructure would be delivered that way too.
Posted 4 years ago # -
“In practice isn't Sustrans's "NGO" status part of its strength?“
I think this is very much an open question.
Clearly the arrangement suits (and presumably benefits) both Sustrans Scotland and SG.
Whether the relationship is best for ‘active travel’ is probably unknowable.
I’m sure ‘most people’ don’t realise the extent to which SS is funded by the SG.
I assume Sustrans in the (rest of the) UK still has much more non-Gov funding.
In the past the Sustrans powerbase was clearly in Bristol and branch office Scotland didn’t always benefit. I assume that has changed.
A different question is ‘what’s the point of Cycling Scotland’.
Posted 4 years ago # -
I have to keep looking up Cycling Scotland to see what they do.
Posted 4 years ago # -
I don’t bother.
What do they do?
Posted 4 years ago # -
Don't they...wait, no - thought I had it there. Tip of my tongue.
Posted 4 years ago # -
@chdot
They maintain a website.
Posted 4 years ago # -
Cycling Scotland hold conferences. They do get good speakers, but yes, you do wonder what the point of them is.
Posted 4 years ago # -
@Rosie - Spokes get good speakers too, also stream meetings.
Posted 4 years ago #
Reply »
You must log in to post.
posts
