"
The Spokes response [pdf 68k] to the consultation sees no realistic alternative to the proposed route, but considers that significant further steps must be taken to avoid pedestrian/cycle difficulties in order to make the project acceptable.
"
CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » Infrastructure
Meadows to Innocent cycle route
(72 posts)- Started 13 years ago by chdot
- Latest reply from chdot
- This topic is
closed
-
Posted 10 years ago #
-
This is absolutely spot-on.
Spokes' response leaves a lot to be desired. A few things that stick out:
SPOKES supports the principle of developing a family friendly cycling
network (FFN) and recognises the advantages of linking up existing off
road cycle paths as part of this network whilst at the same time
implementing significant on road improvements where feasible, as in
Leith Walk.
FFN is dual network. The Dutch have one network that's safe enough to be used by people of all ages and direct enough that commuters and 'confident cyclists' want to use it. Why aren't we copying that approach?
Where feasible is a massive cop-out.
We think that experienced, existing commuting cyclists are unlikely to use the route in its entirety.
So, it's not good enough. End of.We considered two possible alternatives, as follows...
a. An entirely segregated on road route from North Meadow Walk via
Hope Park Terr and Bernard Terr. Unfortunately such a route has many
practical problems at junctions, may be politically unacceptable due to
the number of car spaces displaced, and would be a lower priority for a
high level of expenditure than a similar north-south main-road route.
Instead of arguing in the strongest terms for the best option, they've given the council a reason not to do it. I really don't get it. :(
EDIT - apologies for the formatting of this post - the quote blocks don't appear to do anything....
Posted 10 years ago # -
Well there are two possible strategies when commenting on proposals for cycle infrastructure:
- Deride the proposal as unacceptable and demand Dutch (or Danish) standards.
- Try to to suggest improvements to the proposals as they stand.Given that, in the forseeable future, the Council do not have the budget allocated for Dutch (or Danish) standards of cycle infrastrucure, and given further that their policy (ATP) prioritises certain networks (eg. FFN) then I'd say the second strategy is more pragmatic.
I can't see how we'll get anything out of the Council by being relentlessly negative in criticisms and pitching for infrastructure which is clearly (from experience to this point) not politically acceptable. I mean, the Council could have made proposals for a segregated cycle lane the whole length of Leith Walk. The street is certainly wide enough. Why then didn't they do that?
Posted 10 years ago # -
Given that, in the forseeable future, the Council do not have the budget allocated for Dutch (or Danish) standards of cycle infrastrucure
So, time for the focus of campaigning to be about increased budget?
I mean, the Council could have made proposals for a segregated cycle lane the whole length of Leith Walk. The street is certainly wide enough. Why then didn't they do that?
#3.6m is being spent on that project, according to another thread. So, we assume money is not the reason. I'd argue that making substandard cycling infra be politically acceptable has contributed to them not doing as you suggested.
Of your two options, I much prefer the first. The second is failing to meaningfully improve things IMO.
Posted 10 years ago # -
Monday last day for comments.
CyclingProjects.Consultation@edinburgh.gov.uk
http://www.edinburgh.gov.uk/info/385/cycling_in_edinburgh/1931/cycle_projects/5
Posted 10 years ago # -
@russellelly, your position seems to assume that no-one has been making forceful arguments for segregated infrastructure. That's not the case. Leith Walk is a case in point, where the Council asked for more money to implement (some of) what had been demanded by numerous respondents to the consultation. And yet, 'we' still are dealing with compromised designs where space has been clawed back for motor traffic compared to earlier proposals, segregated cycling lanes reduced, and so on. There's been a debate on CCE about why this might be happening, but one reason is abundantly clear: however noisy 'cyclists' are as a lobby, the Council still seeks to cater for motorists first, despite all their policies and objectives stating the opposite. That must be a political judgement as well as just based on traffic modelling analysis.
Posted 10 years ago # -
Online survey duly filled out. Tiny comments box!
Overall seems a reasonably worthwile scheme, but some details need to be sorted, eg. crossing at Buccleuch Street, shared use at St Leonards Street. Otherwise should be a significant improvement on the current mess.
Posted 10 years ago # -
On the topic of campaign methods, take a look at the latest BicycleDutch blog post. I hadn't realised that those 1970s protests had turned so violent.
Posted 10 years ago # -
"Online survey duly filled out."
Missed that!
Link please.
Posted 10 years ago # -
@chdot, the very same link you provided! Just a surveymonkey thingy. Hardly any questions, one box in which to pour all your comments.
"We would be grateful if you could take the time to complete our short online questionnaire about the proposals." it says.
Posted 10 years ago # -
I wrote all my comments in a separate text editor, then cut & pasted the whole lot into the tiny (also expandable) comments box. Hopefully they won't get truncated.
Posted 10 years ago # -
Thread now at -
Posted 10 years ago #
Topic Closed
This topic has been closed to new replies.
posts
