The Spokes Spring public meeting on March 23 is your opportunity to hear about and give input to Edinburgh’s Cycle Action Plan…
http://www.spokes.org.uk/wordpress/2010/02/public-meeting-city-council-action-plan
CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » Events, rides etc.
Spokes Public Meeting: City Council Action Plan
(39 posts)-
Posted 14 years ago #
-
Excuse my ignorance of the Johnston Terrace area, but can anyone tell me what the cycle-parking provision is like up near the meeting venue?
Posted 14 years ago # -
- and a good pub close by (with food).
Posted 14 years ago # -
PS, try this link for street view - blue door.
Posted 14 years ago # -
Thanks all. I guess they're be a lot of bikes attached to railings that evening...
Posted 14 years ago # -
"Thanks all. I guess they're be a lot of bikes attached to railings that evening..."
Probably, but there'll be enough space.
The first Spokes meeting had a couple of (fairly young) guys who were CTC members who'd come by bus.
Times change.
Posted 14 years ago # -
chdot: "MASSES of railings." does this constitute council provided cycle parking??
Posted 14 years ago # -
"MASSES of railings." does this constitute council provided cycle parking??"
Not as such.
Certainly would have been provided by Edinburgh Corporation not CEC.
Posted 14 years ago # -
Just to be sure, it is this blue door?
Posted 14 years ago # -
Was anything achieved?
Not being critical here, just interest to know what peoples perceptions of the meeting were.
Posted 14 years ago # -
Depends on what you think the purpose of the meeting was. I thought it was interesting. Helpful to see/hear the council position. He seemed to take most (but not all) questions quite seriously.
I was pleased by his indication that he thought coloured surfaces should be being replaced. Doesn't mean they will be, but it gives us something to aim for.
Not sure it showed much 'big vision' but maybe small incremental changes are actually more practicable.
Posted 14 years ago # -
SRD, sorry I didn't see you there. Did you ask any of the questions?
I thought that the huge turnout was a good sign in itself, and that maybe Gordon Mackenzie would've taken note even of that. I'd agree though about the low key grand plan - but this Action Plan is the first real step towards it. What seemed most apparent to me is how little money is actually available (or being made available) for cycle projects, and how incredibly expensive some of the infrastructure works are.
My main hope going into the meeting was that CEC runs with its existing cycle infrastructure and puts its money into maintaining it and promoting it better, and works on extending it later on. GM did allude to that sort of plan.
Posted 14 years ago # -
Posted 14 years ago #
-
Me? Short woman with North American accent? Figured you'd all figure that one out :) I asked about the parking bays on top of cycle paths, and pushed him on the coloured surfacing.
Posted 14 years ago # -
Speaking of which, we had a newsletter round from our local councillor proudly advising (amongst other things) that a cycle 'corridor' is to go up between the uni campuses at Kings Buildings and Potterrow.
However almost the very first line was "on street parking will be maintained", and as the only difficulty getting between those sites is caused by on-street parking, I was at a loss to understand what they're proposing to do (apart from presumably paint some extra white lines on really wide bits of road that are fine already).
(Actually that's not quite true, there is a nasty pinch point at the junction with Gifford Park, but even I can't think of a good way to fix that!)
Posted 14 years ago # -
Presumably it means painting some cycle lanes directly in the door zone.
Posted 14 years ago # -
"Presumably it means painting some cycle lanes directly in the door zone."
In the meeting he specifically mentioned this corridor in this connection and implied that there would just be same-old same-old with parking bays on top.
He also claimed they're not 'always parked up' but I challenge anyone to get a picture of the cycle-lane on the north side of Strathrearn, nr Marchmont Rd w/out cars in it. Sadly, if this didn't happen, the intersection would be much less congested at rush hour too, so drivers would win as much as cyclists (they would just turn it into a left-turn lane).
I agree that cycle-lanes in the door-zone is not optimal, but they would at least be visible to drivers, and not send message to drivers that they take priority.
Posted 14 years ago # -
"In the meeting he specifically mentioned this corridor in this connection and implied that there would just be same-old same-old with parking bays on top."
It was also stated that there was an intention to increase times when parking was not allowed. As presumably parking is already banned at 'rush' hour this won't make much difference - unless they plan to ban parking every hour or so when the there is a student 'shift change' and people travel between these two parts of the Uni...
There was also quite a lot of discussion about secure cycle parking. This is the council that has a fairly sacrosanct view about cars and hasn't managed to organise even a 'pilot' on-street bike storage scheme.
Posted 14 years ago # -
"...a nasty pinch point at the junction with Gifford Park, but even I can't think of a good way to fix that..."
Given that the pavements and buildings can't reasonably be modified, and short of making cars narrower, the best solution would be to enforce a 20mph limit between the Melville Drive/Hope Park Crescent junction and the Chapel St/Crichton St junction.
SRD, seems I'd guessed right after all. :-) I was sitting just in front of you and spent a lot of time scribbling.
Posted 14 years ago # -
The thing I was struck by was just how little power Gordon Mackenzie (and the Transport Committee) has to change the things would really make a difference. At first I thought it was lack of will, but by the end of the meeting I realised that the Transport Committee has little or no influence on the Planning Committee. Therefore is unable to restrict the large parking developments which bring large flows of traffic into the city. Also the Transport Committee is unable to change the speed limits across the city, which go along way to making people feel safer in the city. Even if the 30 mph speed limit was replaced with a 20 mph limit, he couldn't get the police to enforce it anyway.
In my manifesto suggestions for active travel I have a section showing how speed limits effect road safety. Part of the problem of people not feeling safe on the roads stems from police failure to enforce the existing 30 mph speed limit. Maybe David Strang should be invited to one of these meetings to explain why this is so, he is after all a public servant and should be publicly accountable.
Posted 14 years ago # -
"The thing I was struck by was just how little power Gordon Mackenzie (and the Transport Committee) has to change the things"
There are two aspects to that -
1) the fact that planning process/committee has to go by various national guidelines and laws, so councillors can't always decide 'in the interests of the City' - even if/when they want to.
2) although councillors are elected by Edinburgh voters and are therefore 'in charge' it was very clear from last night that there are large degrees of inertia/actual resistance to implementing existing POLICIES - plus things like essential maintenance...
Posted 14 years ago # -
"the fact that planning process/committee has to go by various national guidelines and laws, so councillors can't always decide 'in the interests of the City' - even if/when they want to."
Hence the point about air pollution, the planners are supposed to take into account the impact of the development on the local environment. Motorised traffic accounts 70% on urban air pollution, and critical loads are being exceeded (is there anyone one from the Billett Section of CEH who would like to comment?). This is a traffic management as well as a planning issue.
Posted 14 years ago # -
On the subject of why things do and do not happen ... one important factor is pressure from constituents. What is sometimes hard to remember is that what makes sense or is a priority for us may seem very different to huge numbers of other people in the population - e.g. car parking. Councillors get pressures from all directions, and they want to make sure they are re-elected. Even if they understand the sense of something they are unlikely to push it hard if they think it's unpopular.
This is why it is really important for individuals to lobby councillors (and other politicians) - so they are continually reminded that cycling is an issue of concern to an important section of the aware general public. That helps to create a helpful general climate. It can feel pretty pointless to each individual, but it all adds up, and it creates the climate in which decisions are more likely to go our way.
Then when it comes to specifics it's also good to know when is a good time to lobby who about what - there's much more chance of getting something done if it's up for grabs at the moment. e.g. the first big Spokes campaign (to allow cyclists to use Middle Meadow Walk - yes, it used to be illegal!) took around 7 years as we had to raise the issue and get a big head of steam behind it; whereas if some big development is going to happen anyway it's often possible to get cycling stuff incorporated by emails and other lobbying to the right people at the right time in the process.
Cllr Mackenzie made similar points last night - as do sympathetic politicians quite often. Basically, he was appealing for people who want a better deal for cycling to lobby councillors to keep up funding in times of cuts; and on the specific of the future of Princes Street he was urging everyone to lobby councillors and participate in the consultation when it happens this summer. He is obviously supportive, but without clear and significant support from the public to all councillors, his job is much more difficult.
This is also relevant to Kim's point about the Planning Committee - these committees are all made up of councillors, and more they know there is a concerned public on some issue, the more supportive they are likely to be. Ditto with the officials who prepare the briefings and reports for the councillors. e.g. even on the St James centre proposal, with its ridiculous number of car spaces [which would have taken a huge amount of pressure to cut] Spokes did manage to get a clause included in the planning permission that there must be access for cyclists 'to and through' the development - and this was based not just on a submission by spokes, but by a number of individuals.
Posted 14 years ago # -
"so they are continually reminded that cycling is an issue of concern to an important section of the aware general public"
I don't disagree.
But I think 'we' as 'cyclists' sometimes assume that enough pressure will make 'them' 'get it'.
For 'them' to 'rely' on individuals and hard working groups of volunteers (particularly Spokes) to overcome commercial interests and social inertia which 'assume' that creating better conditions for the car-using 'masses' is 'essential' is a bit much.
Politicians have mostly lost the ability/will to show sufficient vision/leadership (unless they know that focus groups will support them). They will talk about health, safer streets, less obesity, etc. etc. but completely fail to recognise that cycling genuinely has a lot to offer in the way of 'solutions'.
'We' have to 'prove' that it's worth spending a bit of money on 'cycling'. 'They' just assume that money spent on new bridges, motorways and other large transport schemes are vital for 'the economy', without which there is no future.
People who happen to ride bicycles because they have realised it is, convenient, cheap, fun, healthy (and all the other reasons) should perhaps spend less time pressing for their 'special interest' to be looked after more and more time thinking about ways to lobby on wider fronts with people who want things including less noise and air pollution, better places to play, cleaner parks and streets etc. etc.
Spokes has always been in favour of better facilities for pedestrians and public transport users (not least because they are not motorists), but being allowed to cycle through the 'new St. James Centre' is perhaps not an adequate trade-off for a massive car park.
MORNING UPDATE
Last sentence might imply that Spokes was involved in a trade-off. Not intended or true. The point is that 'the planners' allowed the developers to have a big carpark, improvements to cycling facilities were due to pressure which shouldn't have been necessary.
It is still assumed that big commercial/retail developments are a good thing - and that people with the most money to spend 'must' arrive by car.
The other reality of 'out of town' developments was also mentioned at the meeting. It's not simple - but it's not just about 'cycling'.
Posted 14 years ago # -
I guess it's also important to recognise what is/has been achieved in relatively short timescales. I first started cycling in Edinburgh not that long ago (2001 I think) and the number of people on bikes seems to me to be vastly greater now.
There are some genuinely good facilities (the junction at the Dick Vet going south, for example) and, while it's frustrating to have stupid things too, we can sometimes forget that the very idea of cycling being recognized as it is, represents a huge leap.
To me there are only really a couple of key issues in the city at the moment, one is the lack of maintainance of existing facilities (white lines AND red filling), and the other is the loss of the Roseburn path to the trams.
I couldn't make the meeting unfortunately, we have a regular class on Tuesday nights.
Posted 14 years ago # -
"genuinely good facilities...the junction at the Dick Vet going south, for example"
On the survey thing we handed in at the meeting, I asked if that design could be replicated on Dalkeith Road going south past East Preston Street/Scottish Widows/ Commonwealth Pool.
DdF: do you think there's any chance?
Posted 14 years ago # -
That junction
Before, after and partially restored.
Just look at the way that car has stopped where it should!!
Posted 14 years ago # -
"I couldn't make the meeting unfortunately, we have a regular class on Tuesday nights."
Is your class at Gillespies and do you go by tandem?
Posted 14 years ago # -
Nope, sorry... was I close to being identified!
It's at Liberton High though...
Posted 14 years ago #
Reply »
You must log in to post.
posts
