CityCyclingEdinburgh was launched on the 27th of October 2009 as "an experiment".
IT’S TRUE!
CCE is 15years old!
Well done to ALL posters
It soon became useful and entertaining. There are regular posters, people who add useful info occasionally and plenty more who drop by to watch. That's fine. If you want to add news/comments it's easy to register and become a member.
RULES No personal insults. No swearing.
Mentioned elsewhere, but now needs own thread
“
Edinwebcast Circulation Plan
Summing up..
@CllrScottArthur supports @CllrCMiller on importance of #TransportHierarchy but that it is guideline not 100% rigid
@CllrScottArthur agrees Green amendt and part of Tory amendt
Cttee then approves amended report without need to vote
“
https://mobile.twitter.com/spokeslothian/status/1577989463820898304?
TEC material published, including draft circulation plan stuff: https://democracy.edinburgh.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=136&MId=6429
Still reading through it, but it looks exactly as unambitious as I feared. Coherent network for cycling...subject to resident parking, business loading, general traffic flow, and bus priority(which they specifically call out as meaning if space constricts, hang the hierarchy the segregation will vanish and you can share the bus lane & like it).
This is really just an amalgam of the Active Travel Action Plan (first published 2010), the Edinburgh Street Design Guidance (first published 2015) and the Public Life Street Assessments (first published 2017), plus a bit of bus and tram thrown in for good measure.
Why keep doing this? Restating policy again and again, but never actually delivering on it.
Road Safety Plan
How does this relate to circulation one??
“
There are well over 100 projects listed in the 2022-24 delivery plan.
“
https://mobile.twitter.com/cllrscottarthur/status/1599030400713572352
“
Three points on this:
1. @sjenkinson76 asked for it to be added to the CP at TEC.
2. It will be in the Public Transport Action Plan (Jan 2023).
3. @djohnsonmsp hopes to run a workshop early next year on the #EdSouthSub.
“
https://twitter.com/cllrscottarthur/status/1606392879533826048?
“
It’s becoming increasingly clear to me that the Circulation Plan is needed to both help protect key routes in the city, and also define which transport modes should be prioritised on these routes. The Leith Walk and Picardy Place designs show why this approach is so important. The last Council administration tried to please everyone by endlessly compromising, and ended up making nobody happy. Pedestrians, disabled people, cyclists, car owners, public transport providers and businesses have all raised concerns with me.
“
“
The circulation plan is about the systematic reallocation of road space to sustainable transport modes. I'm also keen, however, to use it to:
1. look at how goods and services move around the city.
2. Plan for / encourage 30% traffic reduction city-wide.
“
https://twitter.com/cllrscottarthur/status/1606566030838464513/
Agenda Item 7.1
P117
“
Circulation Plan – delivering the City Mobility Plan
2. Executive summary
2.1 This report provides a brief update on progress on the Circulation Plan and associated Streetspace Allocation Framework and sets out some themes for opportunities and challenges in the city as:
2.1.1 Taking City Centre Transformation further in terms of pedestrian priority and by reducing or removing intrusive through traffic to create a people-friendly city centre;
2.1.2 Developing high quality multimodal public transport and active travel corridors; and
2.1.3 Further work to deliver liveable neighbourhoods.
2.2 The report also seeks approval of the proposed consultation and engagement
strategy (Appendix 2) for coordinated consultation and engagement on the Circulation Plan and associated Action Plans: Active Travel, Public Transport and Parking (which are presented today for consideration) and Road Safety and Air Quality (which were approved by Committee on 8 December 2022).
“
Jesus have a read of Appendix 3 on the circulation plan doc, presumably written by the prof at UCL who'll be providing the "consulting support" mentioned earlier in the document. Chuck out the hierarchy(won't somebody think of the poor HGVs? and apparently America is the model to follow instead), Kerbs Are For Cars mentality, still blethering on about "behaviour change" marketing schemes, ebike insurance and banning quadwheel cargos - this reads like cover for Arthur's transformation into that Vincent Stops bloke.
A previous plan that CCE seems to have missed -
Open Space strategy
https://www.edinburgh.gov.uk/park-management-rules/open-space-strategy/1
Wonder how that one is going?
Renamed to "Our Future Streets", docs for next committee are up:
Pt1 - https://democracy.edinburgh.gov.uk/documents/s66421/Item%207.2%20Our%20Future%20Streets%20-%20a%20circulation%20plan%20for%20Edinburgh_Part1.pdf
Pt2 - https://democracy.edinburgh.gov.uk/documents/s66422/Item%207.2%20Our%20Future%20Streets%20-%20a%20circulation%20plan%20for%20Edinburgh_Part2.pdf
About halfway through part one so far and already it's looking dire; large parts of the proposed cycling network have been downgraded to "secondary" status in their framework because providing segregated infrastructure would be incompatible with "place" apparently.
EDIT: Oh joy, second little nugget of fun - the council's plans now include them basically advocating to keep Holyrood Park open to traffic and even expanding access to include goods vehicles. Apparently that and a potentially significant downgrade of provision on Lothian Road are the price that has to be paid for removing through traffic from the Bridges and Cowgate. The traffic must flow.
EDIT2: And there goes the commitment to upgrade AT provision as part of routine carriageway renewals. Along with, functionally, the transport hierarchy since bus priority is pretty obviously being placed above cycling provision.
Okay so if I'm reading this right, essentially what the plan amounts to in practice is the cementing of an "inner ring road" going York Place > Queen Street > Charlotte Square > Lothian Road > Melville Drive > Dalkeith Road > Holyrood Park Road > Queen's Drive > Meadowbank > London Road > Picardy. And in exchange, we get two disconnected streets in the city centre core given over to peds/PT. I really hope the appendices prove me wrong.
Here's the headlines for cycle de-provision:
With all the above in mind, the SAF makes a number of adjustments to the initial desired cycle network. The
revised cycle network map is set out in Appendix A and includes the following proposed relocations and
deletions of the primary cycle network:
-A90 Queensferry Road route – Blackhall westwards - relocated to NCN1, using off road paths and quiet
streets to the north
-Inverleith Row route relocated to the Canonmills to Trinity off-road path
-Deletions from Bonnington Road and Easter Road
-Deletion from Lasswade Road
-Deletion from Craigmillar Park and the Bridges, with alternative parallel routes
-A70 Lanark Road / Slateford Road – relocation of parallel streets connecting to Gorgie Road
-A702 - Primary cycle route relocated to local streets between the Meadows and Greenbank
-Deletion from Gilmour Place, parallel by Dundee Street
-Deletion from Drum Brae
-Deletion of a number of shorter lengths of street where precedence has been given to bus priority or
where width precludes an effective safe solution, including Crewe Road North, Newhaven Road, Pilrig
Street, Captains Road, Greenbank Road, Gillespie Road
In practice, many of these are decisions to preserve parking and/or general traffic plus bus priority at the expense of roadspace reallocation to cycling. Inverleith Row for example is at least 9m and as much as 11m wide *not including pavements* along its entire length and so could easily accommodate a 3-3.5m bidirectional cycle lane plus two way general traffic lanes of 3m each, meeting the definition of full provision according to their own guidelines, but that would mean forcing the poor SUV owners to park on side streets. Or you could put in some bus gates, reducing traffic volumes to levels acceptable for cycling, but that would mean the poor SUV owners couldn't plow down the street at 30+ as they often do presently. So cyclists get shunted back on to the Goldenacre path.
It'd be funny if it wasn't so bloody depressing.
SOME of the mentions of traffic reductions
My bold
“
For the purposes of this assessment, the city centre has been defined as the current Low Emissions Zone (LEZ) boundary. The development of options within this boundary has examined ways in which the city centre’s streets can be transformed to meet the policy objectives and benefits described above, and to understand the operational issues of doing so.
The overall aim is to enhance the place value of the city centre and strengthen the size, quality and ease-of- understanding of the Pedestrian Priority Zone (PPZ) that was defined by ECCT, while supporting a reduction in private vehicle trips across the city centre. In doing so, the options examine existing and planned street improvement projects, but identify ways in which these projects can be cast within holistic and intuitive plans for all users of the city centre’s streets, rather than at a project-specific level.
…
Development of the business case for future tram is currently in progress. However, work undertaken to date indicates a preference for a route to the south via the Bridges corridor. Construction of tram would be a major step change in public transport provision and would provide a fast and efficient alternative to the car. Tram operation would require a significant reduction in traffic volumes on the Bridges corridor. At this stage, a bus gate/junction layout changes would need to be considered for North Bridge that would restrict through Our Future Streets (Circulation Plan) – Technical Summary Report
traffic. Local access would be maintained throughout the day with a connection maintained at Chambers Street.
.,.
All options have been tested using the council’s Strategic and Microsimulation models to understand wider and local impacts. Analysis has considered both current traffic levels and a 30% reduction in demand, reflecting Edinburgh’s car kilometre reduction targets. Additional sensitivity testing has been undertaken to assess the implications of potential Holyrood Park restrictions.
…
Traffic evaporation is potentially in the order of 10% of existing trips (see inset below). Therefore, other policy interventions would be required to deliver a 30% reduction as per the car kilometre target set by the Council, potentially including further parking restrictions, a workplace parking levy and/or road user charging. Given this, careful consideration should be given to the implementation of the preferred option to minimise the impact on public transport. Early messaging and guidance to drivers and other users can help offset the immediate impact of major network changes. Frequently, it is the first weeks of a scheme that have the greatest negative impact on congestion - and there is the potential for the transport model to significantly underestimate this. In the medium term, impacts settle to an as modelled condition (or better) as traffic evaporation and behaviour change takes place.
…
Based on 2016 observed data and subsequent 2019 validation, which helped develop Edinburgh’s suite of traffic models, there are approximately 17,000 vehicle trips (car, LGV and HGV) per hour in the city centre during the peaks, with approximately 30% of these trips not having an origin or destination within the city centre study area. Although this figure aligns with Edinburgh’s traffic reduction target, discouraging these trips from the city centre is anticipated to increase kilometres travelled as vehicles navigate around the city centre. A citywide 30% reduction in general traffic would remove approximately 13% of strategic trips from Edinburgh City Centre. At a high-level and including a margin of error and optimism bias, this suggests a maximum figure possible in the city centre for ‘traffic evaporation’ of around 10%. The remaining traffic reduction required to meet Edinburgh’s 30% target for the city centre will have to be delivered through mode shift to public transport and walking, wheeling and cycling. Assuming a typical car occupancy rate of 1.3 people per vehicle, 20% of 17,000 trips would equate to around 1,800 people per hour. To put this volume of people into context, this would fill 23 double decker buses per hour. This highlights that future options for Edinburgh’s city centre must discourage unnecessary trips but also provide sufficient high quality public transport and walking, wheeling and cycling provision if the 30% vehicle kilometre target is to be met.
…
For the city to achieve these targets as a whole, the city centre will play a significant part in managing citywide demand. For the city to achieve these targets in just six years’ time, the city centre will require a significant reduction in general traffic in the short term. Therefore, there is a strong case to go further than the current ECCT proposals to expedite the changes needed to the city centre transport network and meet the Council’s policy objectives.
“
Just read the latest incarnation of the circulation plan.
Wow, it seems the road planners* are really still wedded to disproven 1980s traffic models - the old “predict and provide”, and “traffic displacement”, instead of just building the city you want. You can imagine the media and the antis now taking all the worst-case traffic displacement figures out of context, as headlines. FFS, way to lose the support of the people!
*in the loosest possible sense
@neddie yeah was thinking this earlier.
"" Lothian Road and Holyrood park must take up slack from bridges"", seems to be their mantra. Murky private discussions with Historic Scotland don't inspire confidence we'll get a 24/7 park any time soon.
Surely double red line bus lanes the length of Lothian Road and onwards would be a good thing anyway.
Lots to consider -
Twitter thread by Angus Calder (Architect / Urbanist / Active Travel / Senior Mobility Planner @SustransScot / Co-founder @SKELFBikePark / All views my own)
“
#Edinwebcast
#MobilityPlan+#FutureStreets
Speaker #PeterVansevenant from #Ghent about their #CirculationPlan
-->
Bikes now ~30% of all trips
Fewer cars =>safer for bikes & pedestrians
Use #ANPR to enforce; not allowed by @scotgov
“
https://x.com/spokeslothian/status/1753032416871018724?
(With screenshots)
ANPR is allowed by Scot Gov to enforce bus-gates (see Manse Rd)
ANPR is allowed by Scot Gov to enforce bus-gates (see Manse Rd)
If I followed the discussion right, Ghent uses ANPR to allow exempt cars through as well. Presumably the Belgian equivalent of blue badges, but I don't think the speaker specified today.
“
What are Edinburgh's bold new plans for congestion?
“
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-edinburgh-east-fife-68170323
Just catching up on all this as, like most people, I don't really have the time to read hundreds of pages of Council documents. Anyway, I'll start with a parochial gripe. The plan states:
A702 - Primary cycle route relocated to local streets between the Meadows and GreenbankThe Council just consulted on removing most of the limited protection for cyclists on those streets!
As far as I can tell, the only on-street action planned for 2024 (11 months remaining) is "an experimental closure of the Cowgate to some or all through traffic in 2024". Is this right?
These are just two minor issues - I really can't face ploughing through the whole thing. I'm sure there are many other examples that could be picked up.
Then there are the macro issues, such as there being no budget allocated for delivery. However, I think the big one is political will. Edinburgh politicians are happy to sign off on the big plans, declare 'emergencies' and listen politely to European colleagues who have actually done things. Experience tells me that this enthusiasm tends to evaporate as soon as plans threaten to turn into action. I expect to see the phrase "I support active travel, but..." to feature in quite a lot of future political leaflets and chipwrapper articles.
I know it seems churlish to moan when so many people have worked hard to produce these plans. However, it isn't our job to cheerlead yet another policy document. We have been here many times over the last couple of decades. What would it say about us if we simply roll over in the face of claims that amount to "Honestly, this time I really mean it!"
I'll happily thank everyone once I see a city centre that has been transformed.
“Experience tells me that this enthusiasm tends to evaporate as soon as plans threaten to turn into action. I expect to see the phrase "I support active travel, but..." “
Oh so cynical
BUT…
“and listen politely to European colleagues who have actually done things”
- listen with awe and ‘yes but’
As Paul Lawrence said later
‘If only we had the power to do that’
“I know it seems churlish to moan”
Not at all
“when so many people have worked hard to produce these plans. However, it isn't our job to cheerlead yet another policy document”
EXACTLY!
The analogy I was giving somebody the other day (re: Roseburn in particular) is it's like having someone take away your kitchen for car parking. But don't worry, they promise that your house will soon have twenty bedrooms and five kitchens and anyway your existing kitchen was a bit dark and uncomfortable.
But there's zero funding for this enormous house expansion. There's no legally binding commitment being made by anybody.
They are going to take away your current kitchen though.
Councillors on TEC vote against their already-established policies on a regular basis. As Morningsider points out, they aren't suspending their consultation on ripping out the remaining protection for cyclists on routes that are supposedly going to be defined as key cycle routes with extensive protection... far as I'm concerned it's not worth the paper it's written on.
“
A highlight of the Transport and Environment Committee yesterday was hearing from Peter Vansevenant from Ghent about their Circulation Plan.
It's a reminder that Edinburgh has some catching up to do - after years of talk, now it is time to act.
Full video -
“
“Just catching up on all this as, like most people, I don't really have the time to read hundreds of pages of Council documents.“
A partisan précis, MUCH quicker than reading actual document!
“
What are @Edinburgh_CC plans for city centre traffic? What will they mean for everyday walking and wheeling? Join us online at 12.00 on 1 March to hear a short presentation from Daisy Narayanan and join the Q&A!
“
https://x.com/LivingStreetsEd/status/1759178689265180893
Register you place here: https://us02web.zoom.us/meeting/register/tZAsc-ugrjwpEtRfWiZMru0iH5nbbZlNLzXF#/registration
“
The brakes are likely to be applied – albeit gently – to council plans to discourage motorists from driving into or through the city centre. The move will have many under-pressure shops and hospitality businesses breathing a sigh of relief, while those concerned with the amount of traffic, and greenhouse gas emissions, on our roads are likely to be disappointed at the delay, writes Sarah McArthur.
“
https://www.edinburghinquirer.co.uk/p/capital-set-to-apply-brakes-to-its?
Meanwhile, Paris just got on and did it. I wonder if it's all down to CEC not having enough money, and a case of decision paralysis.
This article about Paris is pretty good. Not all rose tinted spectacles according to car park operators and fancy goods shops.
https://slate.com/business/2023/03/paris-car-ban-bikes-cycling-history-france.html
(also a textbook example of a s**t sandwich)
On the other thread, we see Scott Arthur deeply regretting that he's been promoted while little has actually been delivered on his watch, and now... even the vapourware is being rolled back
You must log in to post.
Cycling in Edinburgh Flickr group
Video embedded using Easy Video Embed plugin
posts