CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » Infrastructure

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

(3661 posts)

No tags yet.


1…798081…123

  1. chdot
    Admin

    “

    Four of the 10 UK trust responses expressed support for measures to boost walking and cycling for health, prevent road traffic injury and to protect the environment.

    Emergency measures to make active travel safer were implemented to avoid a rush to private cars as public transport capacity was reduced by coronavirus. However, some raised concerns the measures could lead to delays to emergency services.

    Duncan Dollimore, head of campaigns at Cycling UK, told the Guardian: “What those freedom ofinformation requests have revealed is that there is no evidence to support the argument that cycle lanes delay ambulances.

    “

    https://www.theguardian.com/society/2021/feb/13/covid-bike-and-walking-schemes-do-not-delay-ambulances-trusts-say

    Posted 3 years ago #

  2. chdot
    Admin

    “

    The speed curb on Lanark Road, part of the Spaces for People scheme to make it safer for people to walk and cycle, has been welcomed by residents.

    But they say switching off cameras which could enforce the new limit just doesn’t make any sense.

    Professor Derryck Reid, who lives on Lanark Road, said: "It's daft. It’s clear people respond to speed cameras on Lanark Road. They're often going at over 40mph until they get close to the camera and then they brake – we see them.

    “

    https://www.edinburghnews.scotsman.com/health/edinburgh-speed-camera-be-switched-just-new-lower-30mph-limit-introduced-3133732

    Posted 3 years ago #

  3. gembo
    Member

    Or leave the cameras on then put up 30 mph signs then get lots of complaints from people speeding who weren’t consulted

    Posted 3 years ago #

  4. Stickman
    Member

    Why is the council getting the blame for this when the article says the decision was made as part of the police Safety Camera Unit’s annual review?

    Posted 3 years ago #

  5. Frenchy
    Member

    @Stickman - Are you implying that some things aren't directly and wholly Lesley Macinnes's fault?

    Posted 3 years ago #

  6. ejstubbs
    Member

    We have been challenging the council on the safety aspects of the scheme on Lanark Road. The speed limit wasn't reduced until we asked for it to be reduced.

    AFAIR the speed limit reduction on Lanark Road was part of the changes planned before the whole Covid situation properly kicked off. <checks the chipwrapper web site> Yup, reported there in Feb 2020, somewhat before SfP got under way. So this looks to me like another example (see also the Comiston Road 30mph, and the Braidburn Terrace one-way) of changes already in plan that weren't actually an SfP responsibility per se.

    But hey, any excuse to have a moan will do for the rather gobby spokesman for the self-selected subset of local residents whose organisation includes the phrase "in motion" in its name but which actually appears to be lobbying primarily in favour of people being able to leave their cars cluttering up public thoroughfares while not actually moving at all.

    Posted 3 years ago #

  7. Frenchy
    Member

    The original plans, dated June 2020, and to which Spokes responded in October, certainly showed a reduction in speed limit from 40 to 30mph.

    Posted 3 years ago #

  8. ejstubbs
    Member

    Missing from the list in the article I linked above is Braid Hills Drive. At the time, that road was the subject of a separate review. Then there was this: Edinburgh City Council drops plans to close long stretch of country road under Spaces for People scheme* which led to this: Spaces for people - Braid Hills Road, Braid Hills Drive and Liberton Drive.

    I'm very happy about the 30mph limit (especially so if they extend the 20mph limit all the way to the end of Braid Hills Road i.e. to where the current 30mph limit ends).

    I'm not so happy having the bidirectional cycle lane on the westbound side of the road. I would have though it would make more sense to put it on the eastbound side, next to the footway. The westbound side is bordered by a verge which is generally overgrown and in places is steep and/or fenced, and allows no easy way to get away from the road without crossing over first. There are also two well-used laybys on that side of the road**. On the eastbound side, if you wanted to dismount for any reason you could just pull over alongside the footway and transform yourself in to a pedestrian in a safe place well away from motor traffic, and easy access to the laybys could be retained for drivists.

    * Gotta love the quote in there: "as far as I'm aware not that many pedestrians and cyclists use it". I can tell you why not many cyclists use it: because it's not particularly fun sharing a sketchily-maintained 40mph road with motor vehicles, especially those being driven by people who treat it as if it was still a 60mph limit.

    ** Contrary to what's shown in the Streetview from the westbound lane, access to the actual doggers' car park was barriered off some years ago. I don't know whether aficionados of the pastime still congregate in the adjacent layby.

    Posted 3 years ago #

  9. Frenchy
    Member

    @ejstubbs - It's possible that that "westbound" is a typo. Scott Arthur's blog says it'd be on the north side of the road (i.e., eastbound). I think the argument in favour of a bidirectional cycleway rather than unidirectional cycleways was about the camber of the road at certain points making it difficult - and from memory that's more likely to be an issue in the westbound lane.

    Posted 3 years ago #

  10. Frenchy
    Member

    I can tell you why not many cyclists use it: because it's not particularly fun sharing a sketchily-maintained 40mph road with motor vehicles,

    Indeed. Was notably incredibly busy in April, though.

    Posted 3 years ago #

  11. I were right about that saddle
    Member

    Coming back home from the west of the city I went up Braid Road to see how the closed bit was. Braid Road has not been cleared or gritted. Passable on a mountain bike.

    Hermitage fine, but icy stretches treacherous.

    Gilmerton Road lanes unusable as they had not been cleared properly. Seems they've put the mini-tractors in the hands of some kind of performance art group.

    Posted 3 years ago #

  12. ejstubbs
    Member

    @Frenchy: Scott Arthur's blog says it'd be on the north side of the road (i.e., eastbound)

    Thanks, that's somewhat reassuring. I'm all for a bidirectional lane on that side. My arguments against putting a cycle lane on the south side would hold true even if it were a solely westbound lane. I shall await further news with partially baited breath.

    (The footway certainly gets more traffic from pedestrians 'in the know' when the path along the side of the golf course i.e. t'other side of the fence turns in to a clarty mire - which happens not infrequently. I suspect the same may be true of wised-up pedalists - like me ;) - opting for the carriageway in such conditions.)

    Posted 3 years ago #

  13. gembo
    Member

    Would have been mental on there today with the drivers still flooring it and the snow all around. Fortunately I took a right at gillespies and went through Colinton whic(was still rammed with motors like a normal working day but not as bad as the kingsknowe freeway.

    Posted 3 years ago #

  14. HankChief
    Member

    So there is a petition going round making various allegations against the SfP initiatives.

    There focus seems to be on not wanting any of the SfP projects to be made permanent without a formal TRO process.

    Anyone know what they are on about? I always thought any permanent scheme would need a TRO so I'm not sure what their beef is.

    Posted 3 years ago #

  15. gembo
    Member

    @ Hankchief is it the same one that says he scheme to make it safer for l
    People makes it dangerous for people (ie that there is a risk they won’t be able. To drive or park where. They like which is of course a danger) on change.org?

    Posted 3 years ago #

  16. HankChief
    Member

    Aye, thats the one.

    Lots of statements of 'facts' but only really demanding a TRO process before they are made permanent.

    Posted 3 years ago #

  17. gembo
    Member

    Our petition forced the council to do what it was. Going to do anyway?

    I am afraid some locals out this way have revealed themselves over that petition

    Posted 3 years ago #

  18. Frenchy
    Member

    @HankChief - That's certainly my understanding too.

    I see that the transport spokesperson for the Conservatives is promoting the petition. Anyone with more patience than me may wish to ask what their understanding of the process is.

    Posted 3 years ago #

  19. Stickman
    Member

    The council plan is that some of the schemes could be extended under ETRO, but yes, to become permanent they will need standard TROs (unless the government changes the rules).

    https://www.edinburghnews.scotsman.com/news/politics/council-consult-edinburgh-residents-making-spaces-people-permanent-3110006

    “In most cases retention would initially be for a limited period on an experimental basis aligned with the economic recovery, in order to monitor how the city’s transport network is used and to ensure that there is protection for active travel modes.

    “This is likely to mean the use of Experimental Traffic Regulations Order (ETRO) powers as opposed to continuation of using Temporary Traffic Regulation Order (TTRO) powers.

    “In parallel with the assessment of projects discussed above, it is proposed to carry out a consultation exercise to seek views on the retention or adaptation of appropriate measures.

    “Following the consultation and assessment, it is intended to bring an update on this to [the transport] committee in April 2021.”

    Posted 3 years ago #

  20. chdot
    Admin

    “
    Following the consultation and assessment, it is intended to bring an update on this to [the transport] committee in April 2021.

    “

    Sounds soon for the number/scope of consultations ‘expected’(?)

    Whatever CEC does, it won’t be enough for some people.

    Expect nofun & games...

    Posted 3 years ago #

  21. Stickman
    Member

    From the petition:

    By adding your name to this petition, you are NOT saying no to active travel.

    From the petition organiser:

    It’s all for the middle class, affluent, mainly white, cyclists.

    The 1% want nice quiet streets where they live, don’t care about pushing traffic into poorer main roads.

    The Sustrans generation.

    https://twitter.com/dhunter100/status/1360553448975040512?s=21

    At risk of breaching <rule 1> and <rule 2>.

    Posted 3 years ago #

  22. gembo
    Member

    @stickmn it is Trumpism coming local. I have been dealing with several mentalists on a Balerno help site one of whom appears to be suggesting firebombing. I did not respond to that, just asked the moderator to close that thread. The moderator is a lawyer so she may feel suggesting firebombing he says get propane and a zippo) not quite direct but mad enough.

    We did play Road Tax Bingo, and one of the less mental people apologized kind of when she said there had never been an accident on the Kingsknowe 40mph. I mentioned Andrew dying. She said one was too many.

    Some of these people are normal in real life and just mental on social platforms. Some are mad both ways.

    Posted 3 years ago #

  23. I were right about that saddle
    Member

    @Stickman

    Galling, but clever. Rarely hear a working class accent at Pedal on Parliament. If infra is just for Blair and Tabatha on their Isla Bikes then the well-remunerated Heriot-Watt professor will get his guest parking spot back.

    Posted 3 years ago #

  24. chdot
    Admin

    “Some of these people are normal in real life“

    Is it a real names only forum, or do people just make themselves ‘obvious’ by what they say?

    Posted 3 years ago #

  25. gembo
    Member

    Real names

    Some of the ranting is normal, eg which ahole scratched my car in scotmid car park

    Some of it is taking the Mickey

    And some of it is special. The moderator then shuts that chat and asks people to be kind

    Posted 3 years ago #

  26. Morningsider
    Member

    @IWRATS - easy to turn that one around. Utility cycling is (in the UK) dominated by the middle classes as they have homes with space to store bikes, trips that can reasonably be made (at least in part) by bike, the social standing not to worry about using an "odd" kind of transport and the confidence to claim their space on the road, as they are used to dominating the public realm.

    Building bike storage, providing safe routes (particularly between peripheral estates and where people work) and then properly encouraging people to cycle (actually talking to community groups, cycle training, buddy schemes, bike loans etc) helps everyone.

    Anti-cycle lane and LTN campaigners actually hate the working class. They want to deny them the things that would finally give them a choice as to whether to cycle or not.

    PoP, along with most campaign groups, is dominated by by the middles classes as they are more likely to have the time and energy to take part. Again, they are also more used to their voices being heard by those in positions of power.

    Posted 3 years ago #

  27. chdot
    Admin

    “Rarely hear a working class accent at Pedal on Parliament.“

    And many other campaigns, demos and gatherings.

    Bicycle use has many histories.

    In the early days was definitely the plaything of the rich.

    Periods of transport for the masses and ‘club runs’ where (according to some tellings) ‘dustmen rode happily alongside bank managers.

    Then came mass motoring and cycling had a ‘cloth cap image’ - ie bikes were for people too poor to buy a car. Buses (to some degree) were for people too poor to buy a bike - or perhaps for the wives and children of car owners?

    Not in Edinburgh of course. Bus use is more ‘classless’ than many places in the UK.

    This made one argument for the tram that it was ‘the only way to get people out of their cars’ seem odd.

    Are most bike riders in Edinburgh ‘middle class’? Quite possibly, it’s more MC than many cities.

    Are people who oppose LTNs ‘working class’? Most unlikely.

    So this is just more othering to distract from shameful and shameless rearguard action to retain privilege.

    The idea that such people ‘care about working (class) people disadvantaged by Sustrans’ is fundamentally weird and desperate!

    Posted 3 years ago #

  28. chdot
    Admin

    Wot M said.

    Esp “and the confidence to claim their space on the road, as they are used to dominating the public realm“

    Hadn’t analysed that aspect so closely, but good argument!

    Posted 3 years ago #

  29. algo
    Member

    @Morningsider - excellent as always.

    Speaking as a privileged white male living in a middle class area, I have to take notice of the class criticism. I fundamentally believe that reducing traffic volume and giving people safer options to travel sustainably benefits everyone and that restoring 15 minute neighbourhoods should happen everywhere, but it's a fair criticism of my own efforts locally.

    Some random ill thought-out points about this particular anti LTN angle.

    -- it's been borrowed heavily from London where such claims are possibly more pertinent. Still, I think you can argue against them, but the claim is that main roads in London where *initially* traffic will displace (particularly in Hackney) are less affluent housing areas than in the quieter residential roads. This argument is not to be ignored. For the Greenbank to Meadows case it's utter nonsense (I live on one of the main roads) - and the main complainants live in Greenhill.

    -- When I helped out with the bike bus at Wester Hailes for the Canal View Primary School, it's clear the infrastructure there through the estate is actually excellent - only a tiny proportion right at the end on roads. The reason so many folk drive is that their jobs are further away - often needing to go on the bypass for example, and for many I think driving to work is the only reasonable option (I may be wrong).

    -- I am also remarkably privileged at the moment in that I *can* work from home. In general in my job I can be relatively flexible and so pickups of the kids etc are possible and I can work around this (to some extent). I'm not sure and I stand to be corrected, but I'd say that such work flexibility, which allows me time to pick up on foot or by bike, is less common in less well paid jobs. I think a lot of folk see the difficulty of logistics in their life as insurmountable by bike, and folk like me posting pics of picking up kids/carrying shopping etc... as self-righteous and entitled when it's my privilege and job that have enabled it.

    Posted 3 years ago #

  30. Stickman
    Member

    His rather bizarre focus on Sustrans and his belief that they run the council transport policy is starting to become a PGTips style obsession. He’s obviously never actually seen the Quality schemes and projects that Sustrans have delivered in the past.

    Posted 3 years ago #

RSS feed for this topic

1…798081…123

Reply »

You must log in to post.


Video embedded using Easy Video Embed plugin