CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » Infrastructure

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

(3659 posts)
  • Started 3 years ago by HankChief
  • Latest reply from ejstubbs

No tags yet.


  1. Morningsider
    Member

    @ARobComp - SfP funding is reallocated Spaces for Everyone funding, used for permanent infrastructure. The decision to reallocate the funds was taken by the Scottish Government for the purpose of creating temporary measures to aid social distancing. SfP funding was allocated through Sustrans Scotland. There was no match funding requirement. 100% of the funds for SfP facilities came from the Scottish Government, via Sustrans.

    The funding awarded included elements for maintenance and removal (around £0.5m in Edinburgh to reinstate the roads as they were!).

    The time limit is due to the Temporary TROs used to authorise the lanes, generally max lifespan of 18 months. Even that is dependent on continued need for social distancing, as covid related TTROs can only be authorised where the restrictions are needed because of "the likelihood of danger to the public".

    Posted 3 years ago #
  2. Dave
    Member

    Today was my first time doing the nursery run on the Lanark Rd cycle lane. Very nice at the top past the other nursery (we're half way down). It would be hair raising pulling away from the lights at Gillespie crossroads and around the parked cars with kids behind you and traffic picking up to 40mph+

    Now, you just bimble along on the inside of the parked cars, and the lane doesn't even disappear afterwards! Thumbs up.

    Going out of town it is pretty narrow outside Lanark Rd nursery. I'm nervous if they put bollards down that the bike trailer won't actually fit in the lane, but we'll see.

    Posted 3 years ago #
  3. ARobComp
    Member

    @morningsider Thanks for that - see I'm not quite right about a few points so that's helpful. Will revisit this and make sure I've been clear about things. Joining a SfP call tomorrow to listen in between council and angry residents of a closed sheet.

    @Dave - Anna will be doing the first run to the top nursery tomorrow so she's keen to see what it's like!

    Posted 3 years ago #
  4. fimm
    Member

    Had a look down on the lower Lanark Road lanes from the Water of Leith to canal bridge last night - they look pretty good but will be better once the wands have gone in.

    Posted 3 years ago #
  5. SRD
    Moderator

    has this survey link been posted up-thread? I may have missed it, but possibly worth reposting?

    https://consultationhub.edinburgh.gov.uk/bi/retainingspacesforpeopleconsultation/

    Retaining 'Spaces for People' measures – Let us know your views

    Posted 3 years ago #
  6. chdot
    Admin

    Been posted somewhere (probably on this thread).

    Worth bringing to people’s attention (again).

    Posted 3 years ago #
  7. ARobComp
    Member

    Attending a council/community council/councillor/public meeting re: a Spaces for people intervention. It's been an interesting view of what they can and can't do and the reasons why the instruments provided have led to some of the implementations.

    Councillors in attendance (con, con, lab) mix of helpful (Lab) and unhelpful (con) to the conversation generally trying to bait the people who work for spaces for people on the specific reasons, proportional response, why no consultation etc.

    Residents generally not actually upset at the intervention itself, but upset at the way in which its been implemented. Also confused about the impact it'll have for them.

    Council team incredibly accommodating about how things can be changed an made better.

    Community council member suggesting implementing a one way drop off and pick up system which will provide a one stop "drive through" solution for parents utilising this street to drop kids off at school. Not sure why the residents are not upset about this because I feel this would cause more blockages to their access than the road restrictions do...

    **edit** Interestingly residents have asked for a more time restricted scheme that creates space at school pick up and drop off as they feel this is the best of both worlds. Council very open to it and going to take action.

    Posted 3 years ago #
  8. gembo
    Member

    School drop off smack in the rush hour interesting that the Colintonmassive would be cool with that.

    Posted 3 years ago #
  9. ejstubbs
    Member

    @Frenchy re possible Braid Hills Drive bidirectional cycle lane: 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).

    The CEC Transport and Environment Committee SfP update dated 28th January clearly states "westbound" for the bidirectional cycle lane option. The Liberton Association's survey about the proposed changes for Braid Hills Drive* states: "Dr. Arthur states that the two-way cycle lane is to be sited on the North side of Braid Hills Drive, but the most recent proposal states that it will be on the South side of the road." And this CEC SfP page also states that the cycle lane would be on the westbound side of the road. All of which suggests to me that it was Dr Arthur who erred, and the current proposal is indeed that the cycle lane should go on the significantly worse side of the road :(

    * I found the Liberton Association's survey link quite by chance on the "I had a lovely ride today, thankyou" thread. I think it's worth reposting it here since it's somewhat off-topic there and people who are actually interested in responding might not otherwise see it.

    Posted 3 years ago #
  10. chdot
    Admin

    Why would CEC want this on the wrong side of the hill?

    If it’s ‘easier/cheaper’, not good enough.

    If it’s ‘to give walkers the best view without being bothered by cyclists’ then that’s a false benefit as they would be better off if cars were two bike lanes away!

    Posted 3 years ago #
  11. chdot
    Admin

    HOWEVER

    Re what I have just written above, this is SfP so literally “temporary”.

    But as there are obviously hopes that some/all other measures will become permanent is this something to welcome as ‘space reallocation’, but with strong views that the permanent version must be on the other side?

    Posted 3 years ago #
  12. gembo
    Member

    I filled the Liberton Association form in was balanced as is the Keep the safety one.

    Who in their right minds would vote to remove safety. Oh yes drivers and people who want to park outside their houses and tories.

    Once they come for the safety they will come for the 20mph.

    People need to complete these surveys and complete them positively

    Posted 3 years ago #
  13. chdot
    Admin

    Neat little survey.

    Ticked the yeses and added comments then a final one -

    Summary

    Good and necessary to reduce speed and road space

    Permanent cycle paths need to be on the north side, partly for the view but also to add space between pedestrians and motor vehicles.

    Posted 3 years ago #
  14. ejstubbs
    Member

    @chdot: is this something to welcome as ‘space reallocation’, but with strong views that the permanent version must be on the other side?

    Up to a point, perhaps. But I still struggle to understand why even the temporary version would be implemented in such an obviously rubbish way.

    I can imagine two possibilities:
    1) To avoid cries of anguish at the thought of pedestrians being 'put at risk' by having a cycle lane adjacent to the footway. Unlikely I think*, because (a) pretty much every other cycle lane ever put in place by CEC is next to the footway and AFAIK no-one has ever died while pedestrianising as a result, and (b) anyone who thinks, or claims, that bicycles are a greater risk to pedestrians than motor vehicles is clearly either an idiot or a dissembling bigot;
    2) It's a cunning plan to make the cycle lane so uninviting that its resulting low usage can be cited as a reason not to make it permanent.

    * Although Hanlon's Razor would suggest that 1) is more likely than 2).

    Posted 3 years ago #
  15. I were right about that saddle
    Member

    The footway and cycleway quite obviously need to go on the north side of Braid Hills Road. That view is world class.

    Posted 3 years ago #
  16. chdot
    Admin

    To be charitable...

    Haven’t been along for a while, but is not the case that the camber/edge/surface is atrocious in places so couldn’t just be bollarded off to make a ‘nice’ cyclepath?

    Posted 3 years ago #
  17. gembo
    Member

    The camber is so steep would require landfill.

    Is the camber so steep to allow run off? The road has fewer potholes than any other in edinburgh. Made up fact out of the Gembotron device.

    Posted 3 years ago #
  18. chdot
    Admin

    “Made up fact out of the Gembotron device.“

    Is that the new version of “alternative facts”?

    Posted 3 years ago #
  19. I were right about that saddle
    Member

    The surface is not good on either side. I was nervous riding @gembo's winter road bike there.

    Posted 3 years ago #
  20. Frenchy
    Member

    The road has fewer potholes than any other in edinburgh. Made up fact out of the Gembotron device.

    Try cycling west on it. You'll find them soon enough.

    Posted 3 years ago #
  21. gembo
    Member

    @prof French, I did not say no potholes, just fewer, I cycled west on it the other day, not rush hour, fairly strong primary then down Comiston then green bank and through Firrhill to Colinton after the mad Colinton U bend the potholes really kick off

    Posted 3 years ago #
  22. twinspark
    Member

    Until a few years ago, used to be my basic daily commute by bike.... unless I decided to cycle up to the Fairmilhead junction for the extra milage :-)

    Going Eastbound, there is indeed a horrible camber which requires adopting a strong road position.

    Equally Westbound there are some sections where the road surface had deteriorated and left an edge ready to catch your wheel (particulalrly bad in the dark). Again adopting a strong road position was the answer!

    Posted 3 years ago #
  23. ejstubbs
    Member

    I wonder whether the camber on the north side is due to that edge of the road slowly creeping downhill.

    (There was a road near where my family used to live in Derbyshire that ran along the side of steep hill. The downhill side used to break up and collapse down the hill on a regular basis; the council would just lay a wedge-shaped fill of tarmac along the edge to fix it. If you stood in the field below you could see a sort of tarmac swiss roll which reached about 30ft deep in places.)

    Posted 3 years ago #
  24. crowriver
    Member

    Had an "interesting" wee discussion with chap on the local residents' Fb page regarding SfP consultation.

    Someone had posted the link in case any local folk were interested, even though our area is basically completely untouched by any SfP provision whatsoever. An opinion was expressed that some of the recently completed cycle lanes further east on London Road at Jock's Lodge might be part of SfP (they're not, but understandable folk might think so).

    Anyway the owner of a local business (only recently set up shop, but owner apparently lives locally) started wading in, complaining about loss of ten "much needed parking spaces". The cycle lanes are exactly a mile distant from his premises, so his business not affected at all, but still he complains.

    I chipped in to ask if he was aware that households with access to a car are in a minority in the local area. He refused to believe this, as the streets are "jammed with cars everywhere" and sarcastically asked to be enlightened as to how it was possible for drivers to be in the minority given this apparently common sense observation.

    So, as you may imagine, I had the evidence to back up my claim, not only government statistics on our area but also a quick parked vehicle count from my window, versus an estimate of the number of dwellings (and therefore households) in the area, which is three times greater than the number of parked motors.

    He literally asked for it, and got more than bargained for perhaps. Even so, in the face of evidence, he continued to peddle clichéd soundbites about motorists "suffering" due to "council incompetence".

    This chap maybe not the sharpest tool in the box, but it just shows that regardless of evidence, folk go with what feels emotionally right to them, especially if they personally "suffer" some mild inconvenience such as not being able to park their van outside their shop...

    I'm going to stick to my guns though when local drivists pipe up with these tired, hackneyed claims. In my area at least (and I suspect much of Leith, Leith Walk too) motorists are a minority, even if they don't believe that they are. They have no right to demand more public space to store their private property, indeed they should get less - in proportion to their numbers. So they should get about 30-40% of street kerbside maximum, instead of the 80-90% they currently enjoy at the expense of the majority of residents.

    Posted 3 years ago #
  25. chdot
    Admin

    “So they should get about 30-40% of street kerbside maximum, instead of the 80-90% they currently enjoy at the expense of the majority of residents.“

    Seems fair.

    Posted 3 years ago #
  26. chdot
    Admin

  27. chdot
    Admin

    In 1971 80% of 7-8 year olds walked to school unsupervised. Today it is almost unthinkable that a seven year old would do so and indeed the number has dropped to 9%. Unsurprisingly 80% of the world’s adolescent population is insufficiently physically active, not just because of no longer walking to school, but because of insufficient opportunities and spaces for exercise.

    https://www.martin-stott.com/2018/07/child-in-the-city/

    Posted 3 years ago #
  28. gembo
    Member

    I was that soldier in 1971 age 5

    Posted 3 years ago #
  29. Stickman
    Member

    Another councillor expressing strong concerns over cyclist safety but not proposing any alternative.

    https://www.edinburghnews.scotsman.com/news/politics/council/councillor-voices-safety-fears-over-narrow-edinburgh-bridge-cycle-lanes-plan-3147352

    Posted 3 years ago #
  30. crowriver
    Member

    "Fountainbridge and Craiglockhart councillor....Conservatives"

    Knew he was a Tory as soon as I saw the photo.

    I'm not saying that Tories always spout a load of old cobblers, but they do have a solid track record of doing exactly that.

    Posted 3 years ago #

RSS feed for this topic

Reply »

You must log in to post.


Video embedded using Easy Video Embed plugin