I suspect some of the higher numbers are due to larger houses/households in those postcodes. When I have a bit more time it might be worthwhile calculating cars per person over 16.
CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » Infrastructure
Leith Walk to Ocean Terminal Cycle Route
(48 posts)-
Posted 3 years ago #
-
This would be a great sixth year studies geography project. Advanced higher in new money.
Posted 3 years ago # -
Really interesting and definitely helps counter the whole “selfish Lycra-clad minority” rhetoric even if the maths is not quite as simple as I hoped!
Posted 3 years ago # -
Last day to respond to this (you can choose to respond to purely the cycle route and not the LTN section so it's pretty quick!): https://consultationhub.edinburgh.gov.uk/sfc/leith-connections/
It was getting some opposition but then a developer proposed a tall building and now the FB outage seems to have moved on to that...
Posted 3 years ago # -
Ah, the old "tall building" distraction technique. Classic!
Posted 3 years ago # -
@CycleAlex, thanks for the reminder. Consultation done.
Second week in a row I've overcome consultation fatigue to "do the right thing". Must be the spring air...
Posted 3 years ago # -
That was a slog, but its the most pertinent to me of any consultation yet encountered (particularly having been for a walk with children somewhere round Leith pretty much every day for the last year) so deserved the effort.
Posted 3 years ago # -
Consultation reports are up.
Cycle route: https://consultationhub.edinburgh.gov.uk/sfc/leith-connections/results/leithconnections_fotwtoot_finalreport_v.3.pdfStrong support for improving walking/cycling. Majority support for the segregated route, removing parking and for closing/filtering Yardheads/Parliament Street/Sandport Place Bridge/The Shore/Coburg Street.
Right then, now that we've consulted I'm sure all opposition Cllrs will immediately support the scheme. Right...?
Posted 2 years ago # -
“now that we've consulted I'm sure all opposition Cllrs will immediately support the scheme“
After they’ve said that the responders were self-selected/biased/unrepresentative??
Posted 2 years ago # -
First part of the TRO process for this project has started. Designs: https://www.edinburgh.gov.uk/downloads/file/30779/tro-21-22
Posted 2 years ago # -
Hmm. Doesn't give many specific numbers there, but based on a few of the "proposed X metre" features it seems like that bidirectional track narrows to less than 3m in some places. Also seems like they still have the 1960's school in charge of the designs, given the amount of "traffic calming" for bicycles.
I know we should just be grateful we're getting segregated routes, but they're eventually going to stop fannying about and just copy how things are done in the Netherlands right?
Posted 2 years ago # -
I don't really see the traffic calming for bikes you're referring to? Narrows at bus stops/junction but doesn't seem crazy.
Posted 2 years ago # -
Not crazy, just unnecessary IMO. Car-brained design assumes that people will speed if you don't design-in calming measures to stop them, and for motor vehicles that's true because you're encased in a sound-dampening two-tonne metal cocoon explicitly designed to cut off as much sensation of the outside world as possible and make you feel safe even at motorway speeds - people on bikes understand fine well that if they hit a pedestrian they're going to be as hurt as the ped if not more, and that understanding doesn't go away in the ~10m of a bus stop bypass. The people designing this stuff still have a mental image of "cycling" comprised of six dudes riding in a tight 2x3 pack in full lycra gear hunched over aero road bikes pelting along roads at 20mph+, and think if they don't fill urban cycle lanes with twists and turns and narrowings it's going to be carnage, grannies mowed down by the dozen, when the reality is most folk will be pootling along at 8-15mph and will slow right the hell down anywhere they see a potential ped conflict of their own accord, because they don't want to repaint the tarmac with their skin.
Also, recall that the designs for Leith Walk had nice smooth curves on them as well, and in practice what we got were hard angles that narrowed the usable track width even more than the plans dictated.
There's also the accessibility issue to consider - narrowing to less than 3m seems fine if your intention is to allow two slow-moving road bikes to pass each other, but throw in a dutch upright with wide handlebars, or a trike, or a handcycle, or a trailer with a kid in it and you have a situation where one direction of traffic is going to have to stop to let the other scoot past.
Again, these are a vast, vast improvement over the current situation, but they still don't feel like the plans of a city that is seriously trying to achieve a 20%+ modal share.
Posted 2 years ago # -
Doesn't look too bad. My main concern is over-engineering - which leads to additional costs. The 30cm-50cm "segregation" on the carriageway side is pointless. Simply dead space. They are too narrow to prevent dooring and do not seem to deter parking. They also require lots of extra materials and time to build. They aren't used in the Netherlands or Denmark - who know a thing or two about cycle lane design. Why not just have that as extra cycleway width? Would fix the issue @Yodhrin highlights regarding passing at narrow points.
Posted 2 years ago # -
“ The 30cm-50cm "segregation" on the carriageway side is pointless.”
They will however will allow bollards to be installed to deter pavement/cycle path parking, as I think we all know that will ultimately be necessary…
Posted 2 years ago # -
“will allow bollards to be installed“
Are they planned?
Posted 2 years ago # -
If by bollards you mean the kind of lane defenders that have been deployed for the SfP schemes then I don't reckon them to be particularly effective at deterring illegal/obstructive parking, at least going by what I've seen/encountered along Comiston Road and Lanark Road these past few weeks. The standard spacing seems to leave just sufficient room between two lane defenders for a determinedly obstructive car or van driver to neatly parallel park their vehicle against the kerb between them (and of course with no regard for the actual parking restrictions on the relevant stretch of road, as indicated by the DYLs).
Posted 2 years ago # -
I mean is anything ‘planned’?
Posted 2 years ago #
Reply
You must log in to post.
posts
