CityCyclingEdinburgh was launched on the 27th of October 2009 as "an experiment".
IT’S TRUE!
CCE is 16years 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.
"
June 3rd has been set as the final date for comments/objections on the plan to extend the 20mph zone in much of the ward.
Following consultation on the previous proposal, it was found there were calls for some of the streets within the area, initially left as 30mph, to have the speed limit reduced to 20mpph there as well.
"
http://cameronrose.blogspot.com/2011/05/20mph-pilot-to-be-amended-and-extended.html
I feel like I missed something huge here. I seem to remember looking at the 20mph zone maps and thinking 'meh, they're basically making all the wee roads 30mph but leaving the roads people actually have to cycle on to get places at 30mph.
Well, according to the TRO (http://www.edinburgh.gov.uk/downloads/file/4403/tro1117_draft_order), the 20mph limit will apply to Grange Rd and Marchmont Rd, as well as to Blackford Avenue - West Mains Rd - Esselmont which means you'll be able to ride from Cameron Toll to the Meadows, on the actual road which goes there, in a 20mph zone.
That they've also included the bad bit of Causewayside is almost beyond belief. Actually, I can't really believe that they will get away with doing this - it makes the whole quality cycle corridor idea nearly pointless.
What are you defining the 'bad bit of Causewayside' as in this case, and for which reasons?
I assume you mean the QBC would be pointless as most of the road would be Twentied by the TRO or that there'd be a load of parallel 20mph route options avoiding Mayfield/Causewayside? The QBC seemed to be more about road markings, signing and parking/stopping/loading regs.
Well, if you ride regularly on the proposed QBC (which we both do almost daily, since we live on it), it soon seems that there are only really a couple of bits that might be improved - one is the tight spot just north of the Meadows where the road markings are really awful (which would benefit immensely from 20mph but it's not within the 'zone'), the other is the bit from the BP garage up to say Sciennes House Place, where there's suddenly parking on both sides and quite high speeds after the lights heading north - not to mention terrible surfacing.
Painting a bit of white paint on the road is all very well, but it doesn't really improve the outcomes between bikes and cars and can make it much worse (for example, the tight spot just north of the Meadows where everyone is encouraged to ride southbound in the gutter by a cycle lane, out of sight and mind of the following motorists, then are suddenly projected into the centre of the road by the kerbstones). As it's a downhill, car speeds at 20mph are not going to be that much different from bikes (say, 5mph instead of 15mph, which is a big percentage drop).
Without demolishing Brazilian Sensation there are few options for that south-of-Gifford-Park bit, though being projected out into what is suddenly the middle of the lane (and to the right of the bus-stopping area) is probably better than an on-road cycle lane leading into the back of something which needs to be passed on the right, such as some bins or a stopped bus. The bit where the bike lane moves from the gutter to one lane in where it goes past the end of Buccleuch Terrace looks like it was designed more to aid cars leaving the cul-de-sac but also acts as another gentle helper for people who might otherwise not notice that sitting in the gutter all the way up to the junction sticks them in the left-turn lane. Likewise the projection going south past the end of Summerhall Square where the bike lane jumps out to go straight on over the end of West Preston St.
Given that a lot of the users might be students, who might not be experienced cycle users, who might lack busy-city-roadsense, adding a twenty limit to the uphill northbound section from W. Saville Terrace up to West Preston St. is far from unhelpful, but increasing the likelihood of there not being many parked cars and vans (which lack-of-busy-city-roadsense-people are likely to end up having to move out to pass as they're more likely to be riding in the gutter, especially uphill) is also likely to be quite handy at times.
The Council says "The changes are in response to significant numbers of requests for the extra measures."
Which is very good in lots of way - people care, bother to complain AND get listened to - and some of it is even acted on!
I'm not defending 'the council' - politicians or officials - but I have to (reluctantly!) admit that this is quite an achievement - when it happens...
Things like Buccleuch Street are permanently problematic - "Without demolishing Brazilian Sensation" etc. THAT attitude largely disappeared in the 70s when it was still common to think about knocking down whole areas and starting again - not least in the South Side.
(If you ever see this in a shop for a fiver or so, BUY IT!)
In addition 'we' - Edinburgh/UK/The World are still gripped by the car culture (See today's parking story! - "Parking fees slashed for all-day stays").
In Edinburgh there remains a bigger problem than the council in this sort of thing - the Police . They are responsible for enforcing the limits and if they are strongly against something it is less likely to happen.
This is probably why 'logical' things like Melville Drive aren't likely to be 20mph any time soon. The fact that it (effectively) goes through a public park is 'less important' than the reality that it doesn't have residential/retail frontages and also that it is used more by through traffic than some of the other roads that are due to become 20mph.
I think Melville Drive ought to be 20mph as a matter of politics/principle. The present situation is regarded as satisfactory for pedestrians because of all the "signalised crossings". For cyclists there have been gradual improvements - including the closure of Meadow Place - but it could be better...
20mph might help. It might encourage some 'in a hurry' drivers to avoid it, though the reality is that at most times of the day, the traffic volume must mean that the end to end average speed is well below 20mph.
More could be done.
WHY does there need to be two lanes westbound at this junction? If the (notional) centre line was moved south there would be room for a cycle lane into the ASL!! (AND a cycle lane going to Tollcross - all the way...)
Re. the quote below, note that the 20mph extensions are recommendations by officers, on the basis of the consultation. They are not final decisions. Spokes understands that objections are expected to this draft Order from various locals who wish to retain a 30 limit. A final decision will be taken by councillors at a committee meeting sometime after 3 June. Their decision will be influenced by comments received from the public, not just by the recommendations of the officials.
Therefore if you would like these extensions to the 20mph zone it is worth sending in a short letter in support of the proposals (ideally also saying why you support them). This really matters! You might also wish to email your councillors asking them to support you [www.writetothem.com].
Unfortunately the Order doesn't give an email address for objections. Maybe someone can get it?
Otherwise, a postal address for objections (not later than 4 JUNE) is given in the download called 'Advert' for TRO/11/17 on this page
http://www.edinburgh.gov.uk/info/1523/transport_and_streets/431/traffic_orders/2
"June 3rd has been set as the final date for comments/objections on the plan to extend the 20mph zone in much of the ward. Following consultation on the previous proposal, it was found there were calls for some of the streets within the area, initially left as 30mph, to have the speed limit reduced to 20mpph there as well.
The additional streets affected are:
* Ratcliffe Terr/Causewayside from West Mayfield northwards to West preston Street
* Esslemont Road - West Mains Road - Blackford Avenue - sections of Oswald Road and Grange Loan linking to Kilgraston Road - Kilgraston Road - Marchmont Road
* Church Hill - south section of Greenhill Gardens 0 Strathearn Place - Strathearn Road -Beaufort Road - Grange Road"
Are either the westbound or eastbound approaches to that Melville Drive/Hope Park Terrace/Summerhall junction officially two-lane or just de-facto-two-lane-because-there's-almost-enough-space?
The eastbound approach is going to get a feeder-cycle-lane under the QBC plans, according to the drawing. The westbound stub looks like it's getting lengthened back to where the road starts to funnel out. Expect both will suffer from top-of-George-IV-Bridge constriction/indifference-syndrome.
"The eastbound approach is going to get a feeder-cycle-lane under the QBC plans, according to the drawing."
That's good.
Hadn't checked. Been suggesting it, on and off, for years. Used to be told 'there wasn't enough room'.
I've had an e-mail from Cllr. Rose whose blog started this thread -
"
Re DdF's comment, this is a TRO as opposed to the previous public consultation. Responses need to be written for that reason.
"
So get your pens out. (Other forms of ink and paper technology available)
Might have been mentioned before, but.....
I live smack in the middle of the area affected, and they have installed the sensors (the rubber strips across the road leading to a box) all over the place - including the 'larger' roads in the newer proposals.
I suspect that they want to head off any motorist objections by either (a) pointing out that some cars drive excessively fast, and/or (b) to demonstrate that at many times of the day, the traffic will never be much quicker than 20mph anyway.
As for the Melville drive debate - it will never happen, its always (as far as I can see) been the trade off for the rest of the area getting 20 mph. I am not saying its right, just being pragmatic.
p.s. Personally delighted with the new proposals affecting Strathearn/Grange/Beaufort roads.
This is the first thing I've seen from the council in as long as I can remember that speaks of substantial vision (and gasp, leadership) - unlike things like shutting Princes St *again* to fix tram lines that aren't even going to be connected to the tram route for years...
Definitely worth a letter of support IMO.
Yes, I am still rather astonished about it all.
However I was rather worried when I saw this headline:-
City lifts lid on plan to use bins in drive to fight speeding
But it is just a plan to put 20 stickers on wheelie bins, not to turn cyclists into speedbumps by placing bins in the road.
Dream big: Melville Drive should be for bicycles only!
@DdF Surely e-mails objections (or messages of support for the 20mph) can be sent to trafficorders@edinburgh.gov.uk can they not?
A response from CEC -
"I've checked this out for you. Although our understanding is that in strict legal terms speaking Councillor Rose is right, (re objections) we do accept e-mailed objections and the e-mail address you quoted is fine.
Certainly anyone is free to submit support for a scheme - and e-mail is fine for this."
SO
Send your emails of support to trafficorders@edinburgh.gov.uk - before June 3rd.
Adding full name and address would be sensible.
If you're on Twitter you might like to retweet -
Hmm, that address bounces for me (which is unfortunate as I'd just written quite a nice submission).
:(
I have had a reply from TrafficOrders@edinburgh.gov.uk and was given contact details if I wanted to follow it up. Have another try Dave.
Just a reminder that tomorrow is last day for supportive comments.
TrafficOrders@edinburgh.gov.uk
Might interest -
I did manage to send in my message of support in the end, and had it acknowledged.
Get on it everyone - the more support the better!
(Frankly, I'll believe it when I see it, this being Edinburgh and all...)
"Sorry, we were unable to deliver your message to the following address.
<trafficorders@edinburgh.gov.uk>:
Remote host said: 550 5.1.1 <trafficorders@edinburgh.gov.uk>: Recipient address rejected: User unknown [RCPT_TO]"
A cynic might think they didn't want emails!
Try sending it to the address given in Kim's post, Smudge. That's what worked for me (case sensitive?)
"case sensitive?"
That might be the issue. If not this -
a.young AT edinburgh.gov.uk
should work.
I am confident that e-mails sent over the weekend will still be accepted.
Maybe we should have a 19.5mph speed limit.
“We have a large site here and we could have put a 10mph speed limit on it and everybody drives past it and ignores it,” he said. “As is obvious from everyone’s interest, by making it nine-and-a-half miles an hour they pay more attention.”
http://www.thenorthernecho.co.uk/news/9153236.Try_sticking_to_this_speed_limit/
You must log in to post.
Cycling in Edinburgh Flickr group
Video embedded using Easy Video Embed plugin
posts