One of the leaders of the group has posted his list of demands to Lesley Macinnes. One of them is “stop building houses”. There’s the issue right there. I wonder if he lives in the cul-de-sac built less than 15 years ago?
CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » Infrastructure
Scottish Govmt announces £10m for pop up cycle/walking lanes
(3661 posts)-
Posted 4 years ago #
-
I see Lesley Macinnes around and about as she lives up the hill a wee bit from us. Cow will not stop building houses. Always got a few bricks in her pannier and a pocket full of lime mortar. Bit by bit she sneaks faux half-timber executive homes into the most unlikely places: behind bus stops, just over that wall with the out-of-control hedge. It just goes on and on.
Posted 4 years ago # -
CEC declines new developments a fair amount of the time, builders just go to Scot Gov. I thought Corstorphine/East Craigs people had a better analysis of the situation?
Posted 4 years ago # -
“I thought Corstorphine/East Craigs people had a better analysis of the situation?”
Did you?...
Posted 4 years ago # -
Somebody asked, I responded. As the kids say, "thread". Don't pile in.
https://twitter.com/hank_chief/status/1300163816953704449?s=19
Posted 4 years ago # -
Brilliant comments @hankchief.
Also, particularly like the forked thread and labelling. Did you read Fighting Fantasy books as a kid? ;-)
Posted 4 years ago # -
Wouldn't blocking the left turn mean no entry into Craigs Road from Maybury? It'd stop the bus from getting in, just to allow cars to exit in one direction.
As far as I can work out, that exit only really saves time for very local trips south/west and, as HankChief points out, you already have to make a detour on the return journey.
Posted 4 years ago # -
Sorry. Should have been clearer. Make it
a bus gate for entry only, letting cars exit but buses do both.For us at the West end of CR it is helpful (especially off peak) for getting to the bypass and all points west.
Coming home from Gogar you have the choice of doubling back on the Bughtlin roundabout or continuing on Glasgow Rd and cutting up back on yourselves.
It's less of a hardship to do the latter especially as you know need to navigate the new Maybury Rd pedestrian crossing twice.
Posted 4 years ago # -
Not directly related, but...
“
Coronavirus is shaking up global supply chains – and maritime industries will have to adapt quickly.
The ongoing pandemic has completely adjusted the fabric of global commerce across swathes of industries.
“
https://www.marinetraffic.com/blog/supply-chain-headaches-will-prompt-industry-wide-rethink
Posted 4 years ago # -
Now involving lawyers...
Posted 4 years ago # -
It's worth remembering that the design and road layout of East Craigs isn't some kind of accident. It is an exemplar of the design principles set out in the Buchanan Report (Traffic in Towns, Ministry of Transport, 1963). This created a roads hierarchy starting with "environmental areas", the culs de sac where people live and take precedence over traffic and then a series of increasingly large distributor roads - ending up with motorways.
The Buchanan Report suffered from being both too ambitious, huge urban redevelopment would be required to accommodate cars at the levels expected, and not ambitious enough - not spelling out the scale of demand management and public transport provision required in cities where major changes in the urban fabric were not going to be implemented. In true British fashion, its policies were implemented in a piecemeal manner, with many road and urban redevelopment schemes being underfunded and poorly designed - many were abandoned or stopped part way through their development as the implications of the policy (urban severance, pollution etc) became clear, e.g. the south and east sections of the Glasgow inner ring road.
We are now living with the legacy of a policy which aimed to facilitate mass car ownership and use where the majority of our urban infrastructure has not been designed with such a purpose in mind.
In one sense the anti-LTN groups are correct that East Craigs is a proto-LTN. However, Buchannan and the designers he inspired never anticipated a situation where congestion would be so bad on major roads that long-distance commuters would choose to rat-run along estate distributor roads. They also never anticipated very short trips being made by car, it was expected these would be made on foot - facilitated by handy pedestrian short cuts, footpaths and the provision of neighbourhood schools, shops and services.
Interestingly, the need to restrict car use was forseen when the report was published, with the Minister for Transport telling the House of Lords during a debate on the report in November 1963:
The idea is not to produce regimentation and restraint, but to learn how to live with the motor car, which so many people wish to be part of their lives. I should not be surprised if in years to come, some form of limitation may have to be considered, from the very difficulty of trying to get a quart into a pint pot...
We have been trying to squeeze that quart into a pint glass for many years now. The results are as anticipated. Incredibly, many people seem alarmed by a future where we don't treat our city like the floor of a pub toilet.
Posted 4 years ago # -
Quite a sock puppet, that @CraigMount4
Posted 4 years ago # -
Suspect you mean Sockpuppet.
(No I didn’t know that puppets made from socks were 2 words!)Posted 4 years ago # -
At one point Craig Mount almost alienates his own supporter.
Instructing advocates pricey
Posted 4 years ago # -
“Instructing advocates pricey“
Yeah, I wonder how many people who signed the petition will put their hands in their pockets...
Posted 4 years ago # -
One thing that I think is missing from the debate is the acceptance that "perfect is the enemy of done".
Yes CEC could do more consultating on the EC LTN but that is at the cost of future interventions. So whilst there is a general feeling that something must be done to improve air quality /climate crises etc. the call for more consultation would only come at a cost to other areas. E.g. [Insert your area of choice here]
Posted 4 years ago # -
See my earlier comment about consultation On The Skelf. Knowing they were going to upset 20 or so dog walkers they consulted for five years. Still there were complaints about lack of consultation.
Indeed the six portobello high school dog walkers took it to Scottish Govt.
You’re not going to like this so let’s cut out the consultation stage and go straight to legal niceties?
I sympathize with all people who are inconvenienced by measures to try to improve the environment. There is no way to offset this inconvenience. You can adjust like I said by getting up earlier and having a slower nicer life? Or yo7 can instruct advocates. Up to you.
Posted 4 years ago # -
Pretty bold assertion from that Craig Mount chap.
Section 14(1)(b) of The Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984
allows a local authority to use a TTRO to restrict or prohibit traffic where there is a danger to the public. The questions then are:1. Is there a danger to the public?
2. Does the TTRO reduce that danger?The Scottish Government has issued guidance on the use of Section 14 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 for temporary Covid-19 road changes. This made it clear that Covid-19 was a danger to the public and that reallocating road space to allow safe physical distancing was a legitimate way of reducing danger to pedestrians from traffic - protecting people who have to step off the footway to maintain 2m distancing, which the Government has instructed people to do.
There is always the chance the Council has got this one wrong, but it would be a tough argument that facilitating safe social distancing in a global pandemic was not a legitimate use of this power.
Posted 4 years ago # -
From what I've seen, his/their/the argument is that EC streets are quiet enough that social distancing wasn't an issue. I don't see how they'll be able to make that stick, given the council have traffic surveys to justify a permanent scheme.
Posted 4 years ago # -
“There is always the chance the Council has got this one wrong”
You mean EC generally or its interpretation of “guidance on the use of Section 14“?
“but it would be a tough argument that facilitating safe social distancing in a global pandemic was not a legitimate use of this power”
Part of their argument seems to be that there are not enough pedestrians to need social distancing measures.
But really it’s all (‘no consultation’, ‘abuse of power’, ‘undemocratic’, ‘unlawful’ etc etc) just a smokescreen to (attempt to) hide the fact it’s about ‘we don’t want change/inconvenience’.
It could be argued ‘they don’t deserve ‘better’ ‘ and that the time/effort/money would be better directed elsewhere.
Unfortunately CEC never seems to get its priorities/optimum opportunities sorted in any sort of rational fashion.
Not suggesting this isn’t (potentially) a good scheme, but really, proper protection on ALL radial main routes would be my ‘must get this done before it’s too late’ focus.
Posted 4 years ago # -
@chdot - I think an argument could be constructed that the East Craigs LTN isn't really a response to the Covid-19 emergency, certainly not in the way that segregated cycleways and extended pavements in local high streets are. This would mean it did not meet the stated justification for the TTRO, removing danger to road users. This would mean the Council had made an error in law. I would hope that the Council would be able to rebut such an argument, but you can never be 100% certain.
On a more practical level, the Council decision could only be challenged through judicial review. The costs would be substantial (possibly tens of thousands of pounds) and if the anti-LTN group lost then they may also have to pay the Council's costs.
I absolutely agree about the Council's prioritisation of schemes - none of it makes any sense. Safe pedestrian and cycle routes mirroring key Lothian Bus corridors seems the most logical plan, with work starting in the city centre and working out towards the suburbs.
Posted 4 years ago # -
“I think an argument could be constructed that the East Craigs LTN isn't really a response to the Covid-19 emergency, certainly not in the way that segregated cycleways and extended pavements in local high streets are.”
Going by Twitter, that’s exactly what some people are arguing.
“I would hope that the Council would be able to rebut such an argument, but you can never be 100% certain.“
Yeah well...
I’ve suggested (on Twitter) that CEC is so cautious (legally) that it’s fine.
But maybe that was the past...
Posted 4 years ago # -
Another tack -
Posted 4 years ago # -
From the link:
"Concern trolling involves someone opposing an idea or viewpoint, yet acting like they're an advocate for the cause. A concern troll offers undermining criticisms under the guise of concern. Their goal is to sabotage the cause being discussed, and to inspire doubt among group members."
Oh, I seem to have pasted something else by mistake.
I would trust this person about as far as I could throw a baggy looking sheep who smells strangely of dog.
Posted 4 years ago # -
@Rob
You seem to have posted the clipboard from my brain. Dunno how that happened.
Posted 4 years ago # -
There is a person on the PoP facebook from Glasgow whose raision d’etre Is to critique PoP. Very tolerant of them not to delete him. Indeed they try to explain to him how big a see you next Tuesday he is and invite him to leave if he is so disgruntled but he declines to leave. No this is the page I love to hate. He whines.
Posted 4 years ago # -
@Gembo, Sally wasn't the only one losing patience with him.
Posted 4 years ago # -
@Arellcat, he has form and he has had his behaviour pointed out to him several times, it makes no odds. They should just cut him loose
Posted 4 years ago # -
Indeed, their choice of profile pic of Chelsea/Morningside tractor at a filling station with bike on top suggests their true mien towards cycling. They probably find it incomprehensible that some EC residents do/would like to cycle on a daily basis for a variety of purposes
Posted 4 years ago # -
I think @Morningsider has pretty much hit the nail on the head with the last couple of their posts.
Ultimately, I'm all for LTN. The most significant issue I have with the proposal is along the lines of what was described re: the Buchanan Report:
designers he inspired never anticipated a situation where congestion would be so bad on major roads that long-distance commuters would choose to rat-run along estate distributor roads
This is the challenge, the carnage that is anticipated at rush hour at the east end of Craigs Road is the concern. I am a very confident driver (and cyclist and motorcyclist) and I NEVER turn right, unless absolutely forced to, at that junction because it's a nightmare. It's going to become worse, because we're forcing all traffic through it while at the same time reducing the double lane to a single lane. Because of the already significant amount of traffic on that road (which, I can only guess will also get worse when they install cycle lanes on it, which surely is a good thing), and we then force all vehicles down there, it will be even more of a nightmare to get out that junction.
No vehicles who use Craigs Road as a rat run right now go to that end of Craigs Road. They all turn down Craigs Gardens or North Gyle Road. Therefore, blocking the turn into Craigs Road from Maybury Road won't make things better for the east end of Craigs Road.
Finally, does anyone else see the irony that, right now, there are diversion signs on Maybury Road telling people on said diversion to turn left up Craigs Road? I had to chuckle when I saw that yesterday.
Posted 4 years ago #
Reply »
You must log in to post.
posts
