CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » Infrastructure

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

(3661 posts)

No tags yet.


  1. Rob
    Member

    I used the Silverknowes SfP lane yesterday. It's fine.

    Making the little layby bit at the end of Silverknowes Road into effectively an extension of the cycle lane is great. It moves cyclists out of the main carriageway where the road narrows. You could do this previously, of course, but now it's much more obvious. Hopefully this bit will be made permanent.

    The bidirectional lane leading you to the quiet route section is fine. The quiet route section itself is fine, largely by virtue of those streets being too indirect and away from shops for them to attract any through traffic.

    Silverknowes Parkway to Silverknowes Road is a little confusing. The lane is bidirectional (though not really wide enough) to the zebra crossing, which I assume you're supposed to use to cross to the north side then transfer to the lanes down Silverknowes Road, but you're very much riding in pedestrian space here.

    Overall it's fine, though doesn't really add much other than better defining what was already there.

    Posted 3 years ago #
  2. Rob
    Member

    "As far as I can gather from his public statements that Holledge chap is in favour of cycling, just as long as it isn’t in the city centre."

    He doesn't want cycle lanes on Broughton Street as he wants it to be a destination, not a through route.

    I can't decide if he's car blind, well intentioned but unambitious (realistic?), or deluded about what type of through traffic has the biggest impact.

    Posted 3 years ago #
  3. acsimpson
    Member

    I rode round some of the S4P cycle lanes this afternoon. Where there are lane defenders they are mostly very pleasant to ride in. It really highlights how exposed you feel in a paint only lane. There was of course a selection of entitles motorists who felt that the cycle lanes were appropriate places to leave vehicles but other than Drumbrae North there wasn't many.
    Silverknowes was a particular highlight with a great mixture of different cyclists using the space at a variety of speeds.
    However almost all the lanes fail to protect you as you rejoin the traffic. This was most galling at Orchard Brae Roundabout where a driver cut across the end of the cycle lane while entering the roundabout.
    If you know the layouts and how they link into other sections they are probably better as you have less to think about, but I wouldn't feel happy taking my children on any lanes without first trying them out and working out if there were any parts which we may have to walk.
    I didn't think that the lane was too narrow coming downhill on Lanark Road but the surface left a lot to be desired. It felt more like a mountainbike track than a road. However that is nothing new and riding a surface like that in a protected space is much easier to deal with than in a live motor lane.

    Posted 3 years ago #
  4. Stickman
    Member

    @acsimpson - yes, I agree about the junctions. I went through Orchard Brae roundabout a couple of times today. The painted road markings were being ignored.

    Trying to be optimistic, if the council can show that the main sections of lanes aren’t causing any of the predicted problems then perhaps a good design for the junctions will be easier for people to accept as part of the permanent schemes.

    Posted 3 years ago #
  5. mkoerner
    Member

    @wingpig - agree with your Willowbrae Rd analysis. Sign telling motorist to not overtake cyclists at traffic islands gets largely ignored. Why do close passes at short non-defender section feel so much worse than they did when nothing was defendered? Or is this just me?

    New defendered lane on Minto Street covered in potholes, quite scary going downhill (fast) with no place to swerve to avoid potholes due to defenders. Mentioned to SfP. They said they're hoping CEC will improve road surface in cycle lane soon. I assume tarmac-in-a-bucket-and-shovel approach rather than proper repair. Sad. But probably still better than no defenders?

    Overall big fan of segregated cycle lanes - but still hoping for continuous routes (no unprotected pregnancy bellies at traffic island) and better (at least not quite as abysmal) road surface. But I guess we should feel really thankful for what we get?

    Posted 3 years ago #
  6. gembo
    Member

    The opposition is vicious, just hard to know how many of them there are and how many neutrals the6 will drag in. Certainly a referendum would be lost

    Big programme on low transport Neighbourhood and the wars therein.

    Posted 3 years ago #
  7. wingpig
    Member

    "almost all the lanes fail to protect you as you rejoin the traffic"
    "close passes at short non-defender section"

    There are already SfP lanes where I've learnt to prepare to leave them well in advance of hazards/junctions and it annoys me that I have to think of using a segregated lane as hazardous, particularly compared to taking the lane uphill on the A1 Willowbrae Road during morning rush hour with heavy panniers and the privelege of having enough spare balance/breath to be frowning over my shoulder ready to gesture/yell at any drivers trying to demonstrate how they value me less than a plastic Keep Left sign or their car's paintwork. At least they work in terms of demonstrating "motorists didn't need all this space all the time" for making the lane permanent in the future.

    Posted 3 years ago #
  8. Dave
    Member

    Overheard at nursery drop off... "it's enough to make you walk" :-)

    Strangely at Lanark Rd nursery there are ALWAYS spaces. I've taken to filming every trip with our GoPro and it's just day after day with at least some empty parking.

    I'm pretty sure there are noticably more kids walking around the nursery at the top of Lanark Rd. That one does seem to be cramped for parking. It would be interesting to know what the modal change has been, in the "90% of car journeys are less than a mile" bracket.

    NHS Lothian might start saving money on parental heart disease, diabetes etc. sooner than later.

    People would definitely vote against. If I could have a referendum on paying no income tax I might go for that too.

    Posted 3 years ago #
  9. chdot
    Admin

    “If I could have a referendum on paying no income tax I might go for that too.“

    Quite

    (Some) politicians claim to be ‘doing what the people want’ - but it’s either a smoke screen or an excuse.

    Even doing what people say they want isn’t what should be the primary aim of politics.

    Posted 3 years ago #
  10. Stickman
    Member

    Cllr Maclellan’s EEN column picks up on SWEM’s allegations of shenanigans revealed by the FOI emails I mentioned above:

    https://www.edinburghnews.scotsman.com/news/opinion/columnists/edinburghs-spaces-for-people-programme-is-in-a-horrible-mess-but-council-remains-in-denial-john-mclellan-3169275

    From Freedom of Information requests by the South-West Edinburgh in Motion campaign, it appears the Spokes cycling pressure group was involved in initial planning, and it is also claimed that much of the controversial Lanark Road scheme was designed in a few days by Sustrans staff in London, ironic for an SNP-led administration.

    SWEM also believes Sustrans produced suggestions of its own without requests from the council and assisted by a council officer closely linked to the charity. If so, it was not just providing funds but designing and promoting the scheme without proper approval from elected members.

    It also appears that the clearance of disabled parking from Lanark Road to make room for a cycle-way was primarily to provide an alternative cycling route to the canal towpath because of the dangers cyclists were presenting to walkers. Again, it’s ironic that disruption of the road network for safety reasons is justified on the basis that some cyclists ignore the speed limit along the canal and can’t use a bell.

    Just a load of innuendo, irrelevant comments and misdirection.

    Posted 3 years ago #
  11. gembo
    Member

    SWEM spin is nutty. Any actual journalist would go to source docs not SWEM spin

    Posted 3 years ago #
  12. neddie
    Member

    Certainly a referendum would be lost

    Not so sure about that. Recent referendums in London came out at 47% in favour, 16% opposed. No reason to think it would be different here. The 10,000 signature "anti" petition up here, with black cabbies signing from London, is essentially meaningless.

    https://twitter.com/willnorman/status/1372225332502265857?s=20

    Big programme on low transport Neighbourhood and the wars therein.

    If you mean the BBC article - that was massively and disappointing biased.

    It’s not balanced reporting when it ignores the the majority of support (47% for v 16% against) and doesn’t challenge, when putting in a cul-de sac is compared to what’s happening in Syria and air strikes.

    Pretty shameful and shallow when a raft of data is readily available.

    See: https://twitter.com/Chris_Boardman/status/1372189268345520134?s=20

    Posted 3 years ago #
  13. gembo
    Member

    SWEM on here?

    Posted 3 years ago #
  14. Morningsider
    Member

    Tsk, tsk - cycle lanes designed in London! Whatever next, getting a Russian company to install computers, cameras and other technical equipment in the media briefing room in 10 Downing Street?

    Posted 3 years ago #
  15. Rob
    Member

    They'll be shocked to find out where the organisation which issues licences to drive on Scottish roads is based.

    Posted 3 years ago #
  16. Stickman
    Member

    “Close ties” is great. That could encompass anything from knows someone who works there to receives a stinking great wodge of cash from them each week.

    How would you describe someone who works for a company that stands to benefit if the council shifted some spending from cycling to EVs?

    Posted 3 years ago #
  17. chdot
    Admin

    SWEM also believes Sustrans produced suggestions of its own without requests from the council and assisted by a council officer closely linked to the charity. If so, it was not just providing funds but designing and promoting the scheme without proper approval from elected members.

    So, swem thinks everything that every council officer does should be closely supervised by councillors?

    Perhaps not, they just want “proper approval”.

    If they actually understood the legislation and processes, they might realise that actually happens.

    But no, prejudices...

    (AKA ‘facts don’t matter’)

    Posted 3 years ago #
  18. gembo
    Member

    Charlie Brooker should have a word with his sister in law

    Posted 3 years ago #
  19. chdot
    Admin

  20. Stickman
    Member

  21. Morningsider
    Member

    The Councillors Code of Conduct states:

    Public comment
    20. Councillors should not raise matters relating to the conduct or capability of employees in public. Employees must accord to councillors the respect and courtesy due to them in their various roles. There are provisions in the Code of Conduct for Employees about speaking in public and employees should observe them.

    Cllr Rust has launched a pretty outrageous attack on the competence and integrity of a Council official. I hope they are speaking with their union rep about how to deal with this.

    Posted 3 years ago #
  22. Frenchy
    Member

    In an alternative universe...

    "So you've been working on a project on Slateford Road?"
    "Yeah"
    "And...you just decided to stop when Slateford Road became Lanark Road?"
    "Yeah."
    "You didn't even consider carrying on a bit further?"
    "Nope."
    "Public sector inefficiency, honestly..."

    Posted 3 years ago #
  23. chdot
    Admin

    The ENews article doesn’t actually name any officials, have they been named elsewhere?

    Cllr Rust said: "Only four hours following this, the officer briefed Sustrans to design the scheme, giving them a deadline of a fortnight to work out miles of complex roads.

    So, CEC official being super efficient?

    Can’t be having that.

    Posted 3 years ago #
  24. Frenchy
    Member

    @chdot - yeah, the officers are named in the FoI response which @Stickman posted on the previous page of this thread.

    Posted 3 years ago #
  25. chdot
    Admin

    Are the removed disabled spaces directly related to houses with disabled people?

    Posted 3 years ago #
  26. chdot
    Admin

    @ Frenchy

    Thanks

    Difficult if such public information inhibits councillors from commenting.

    Posted 3 years ago #
  27. chdot
    Admin

    So, unilateral decision by one CEC official...

    I have liaised with colleagues from Signals regarding the junction on Inglis Green Road with Redhall Drive and the access to Sainsburys.

    Unfortunately they have highlighted that the westbound right turn lane is required and was added due to a high number of right turners causing queues which affected the bus routes.

    Do councillors have time for/want to be copied in to every email regarding EVERY design/policy discussion - or just those to do with ‘cycling’??

    Posted 3 years ago #
  28. Frenchy
    Member

    Are the removed disabled spaces directly related to houses with disabled people?

    The council's map of parking bays (which probably isn't up to date) doesn't show any disabled bays on Lanark Road (inside the bypass, anyway). There's one on Slateford Road, but that's not being removed.

    So not sure exactly where they're talking about with that one.

    Posted 3 years ago #
  29. chdot
    Admin

    “So not sure exactly where they're talking about with that one.“

    Never let facts get in the way of a good story??

    Posted 3 years ago #
  30. Frenchy
    Member

    Have just gone along Lanark Road on Streetview. I didn't spot any disabled parking bays.

    Posted 3 years ago #

RSS feed for this topic

Reply »

You must log in to post.


Video embedded using Easy Video Embed plugin