ATAP - Family network « CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum

CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » Infrastructure

ATAP - Family network

(48 posts)

Started 11 years ago by SRD
Latest reply from SRD

No tags yet.

12 Next »

SRD
Moderator

Following a <heated> discussion w/ various Pop people about the proposed Edinburgh 'family network', I asked Chris Brace, the cycling officer, about the chocie of name. He cam back with this, which I hope he won't mind me posting: "I must admit we did struggle a bit with the name for the 'Family Network' - it was really a working title which we planned to change but we haven't come up with a better alternative yet. We are still hoping to change it for the branding, etc so any suggestions that reflect its purpose would be welcome!"

The thing is, it is not a 'family network' in the way that Oxford has a family network, which is mainly back roads. If you look at the map on page 23, you will see that it is actually much more of a 'through' network, with a strong emphasis on making connections between off-road paths. The list of routes for early completion on p 22 contains many points from my own personal wish list.

Crowriver also posted a really useful list of good things they have proposed to do which are already behind schedule.

But, i thought maybe we should take up the challenge and come up with a good name for the network!

Posted 11 years ago #
Min
Member

What is the purpose of the network?

Posted 11 years ago #
SRD
Moderator

p21 "The network has the over-riding aim of maximising potential for easy enjoyable cycling that gets people to their desired destination. In order to achieve this aim it will need to cross the city centre east to west and north to south, allow trips to bypass the centre through the inner and middle suburbs. This is so people can cycle to the city centre and its many destinations, but also avoid it if they wish.

Some of the Family Network is already in place. Its core is the off-road routes in the city, mainly using disused railways, but there are important gaps. This plan proposes prioritised progress towards a comprehensive long-term network.

The routes proposed for early completion are shown in map 1 and 2, which highlights the necessary improved links. Holyrood Park Royal Botanical Garden Cramond Edinburgh Zoo City Centre Castle Meadows Blackford Braid Hill
In summary these:

- improve links from the existing off-road network to and through the city centre; from north, south and west;

- upgrade links to key recreational destinations like the Royal Botanic Garden, Edinburgh Zoo and Holyrood Park (the latter forming stage one of a Family Network route to the city centre from east Edinburgh);

- fill short but important gaps in the existing network, for example from the Union Canal to the north Edinburgh off-road path network and a link from the Innocent Railway path to the Meadows;

- create a new arm of the off-road network linking Leith to Portobello, subject to successful additional funding bids; and

- implement other elements of the network within the south central Edinburgh area. See ‘Cycle Friendly City’ section below."

Posted 11 years ago #
Wilmington's Cow
Member

Intriguing. Sorting out missing links is good - surely that means it'll be much more useful than just as a 'Family Network'? That name does, to my mind, hint at a sedate, out-at-the-weekend-with-the-kids kinda route. Chris's email puts a different spin on it and suggests the planned routes are actually being targetted in a slightly skewed manner.

Those who commute, use the routes that aren't currently linked etc. won't look at it because the name has the weekend pootle connotations; those families who try to use it will soon find it's not what the name promises.

I may have missed the point. Personally, though, I think all cycle routes should follow that PoP mantra of '8 to 80' rather than focussing on a specific group - just give us good facilities and everyone will use them...

(I've not seen the heated PoP debate, must check my PoP folder now! :P )

Posted 11 years ago #
chdot
Admin

"What is the purpose of the network?"

Good question! (Not in a cynical way.)

Think intention is create continuous routes that 'families' would be happy/confident using.

Don't know if 'the family' has been envisaged at all. Clearly not likely to include kids on stabilisers or older novices.

I think main points are addressing difficult junctions - e.g. Gifford Park to Rankeillor Street, on-road lanes, signs etc. Then some promotion.

Obviously 'done to a budget' and in the face of (fears of) scepticism from media, other bits of council etc.

I think PoP and new councillors should make this easier.

Don't expect it to be 'perfect' or close to 'best continental practice' but it's a move in the right direction.

Though whether 'family' is the right label is worth a discussion, here -

Posted 11 years ago #
SRD
Moderator

well spotted anth, the bit before what i posted says "We will develop a network, predominantly on quiet roads and off-street, aimed at feeling safe and secure for less confident cyclists including family groups and older unsupervised children. Routes on this network will aim for the same standard as the Sustrans National Cycle Network - that is, they should be suitable for use by an unaccompanied 12 year old. "

Which i think gives rather a different spin. My suspicion is that they 'sold' it to the politicos as 'a family-friendly vote winner' but that it is actually much more radical and much better!

I take my kids from union canal to Russel road so as to access NEPN - Botanics, Cramond, Craigies etc - and have never felt unsafe (return a different matter), but it is not exactly 'enjoyable'. If it was, we would have a LOT of people doing it. Ditto meadows to holyrood/innocent and canal to meadows. As we noted at the time, it was ridiculous that we needed a 'feeder ride' from HP to the Meadows, but lots of people would not do that with kids.

If this is done WELL it could seriously revolutionize cycling in Edinburgh.

Posted 11 years ago #
Min
Member

Hmm, yes the name "family network" definitely gives a mixed message. You can cycle off road so long as you putter along very slowly and don't get to where you are going within any sort of useful time limit. Cycling as useful transport means mixing with cars since going fast means you won't get hurt if you get run over.

What is wrong with just "cycle network"? Does what it says on the tin.

Posted 11 years ago #
Min
Member

Oh right, it is for puttering slowly. Forget what I just said then.

Posted 11 years ago #
Min
Member

Actually is it? I am confused now..

Posted 11 years ago #
crowriver
Member

Actually I think we do need a family network. If it happens to be used by less confident cyclists too, great.

We were on a family ride out to Musselburgh in yesterday's lovely sunshine (which weather looks set to repeat today), and the fact we could do much of the journey off-road was important because:

- My son was on a tagalong, he's pretty fearless but I still prefer not to put him in heavy traffic if I can avoid it.
- My daughter was in a child seat (see above).
- My partner is less confident than myself, and is intimidated by the bullying tactics of the vast majority of drivers* (Who isn't sometimes? We just develop tolerance through prolonged exposure).

We used the recently resurfaced/widened route from Easter Road area to Portobello, which is mostly good (apart from the bridge over the railway at Seafield). Then we were mainly on Sustrans NCN routes. Musselburgh is a bit hit and miss, some good stretches of path but often dumped into fast moving traffic, roundabouts, etc. unless we wanted a long winding detour. Quite a few unnecessary chicanes, etc. The usual story. That bridge over Brunstane station is a real challenge when pushing a bike with a sleeping toddler in the rear bike seat! Then the disused car park/glass smashing arena... Bingham to Arthur's Seat fine, Innocent path cleared and wide. Only fly in the ointment is the toucan crossings, which still act as chicanes, access too narrow. Then we hit Queen's Drive, a nice downhill for me and the boy, we are used to it and take a near primary position progressing at the same speed as the cars. My partner was intimidated by the heavy traffic continually overtaking too close and had a horrible time, especially at the roundabouts. If the paralel off-road path had been easier for her to access I am sure she would have preferred that.

So even on some of the routes that many cyclists currently prefer, there's a lot of scope for improvement. Safer routes through the city centre are really needed, for less confident cyclists and for those travelling with kids.

* - This may seem contentious but I am more and more convinced that it is a minority of drivers who show awareness of and consideration towards cyclists on the road (which is appreciated). The rest are either dangerously oblivious, or actively hostile: minorities each, but put together I fear they make a majority.

Posted 11 years ago #
Wilmington's Cow
Member

Absolutely. But why call it the 'family network'. Surely by joining things up it can also be used by less confident cyclists to commute to work - 'family network' doesn't really suggest through routes and ways to get point-to-point to go to work.

Now by joining things up it WILL do that, but for the new cyclist starting out cycling to work, doing a google for routes to work, seeing 'family routes' pop up, will they click on it, or will they think "well that's for family pootles at the weekend'?

It's a great idea. It's a needed idea. But it can benefit so many more than the name suggests. It's a minor tweak, but 'cycle network' really is, as Min says, much more descriptive and useful....

Posted 11 years ago #
cc
Member

Things labelled "Family" make me think of American televangelists, horrific anti-gay churches, etc. Maybe that's just me!

A good route is for everyone, however experienced they may be. If it feels safe and secure, more people will use it. If it's direct and quick, more people will use it. We shouldn't have to choose one or the other.

Posted 11 years ago #
crowriver
Member

It's difficult. One could call it a 'leisure' network but then that would exclude important utility cycling like going to school or shopping. 'Family' encompasses those activities and also hints that it may not be entirely suitable for high speed long distance cycle commuting. Obviously those without children may feel excluded but hey, some of you might choose to become parents one day... Even if that's not your life choice, you could take your parents for a cycle.

Posted 11 years ago #
lionfish
Member

Core Cycle Network? Central Cycle Network? Connected Bike Route? Edinburgh Cycle Connection? Segregated Cycle Scheme!...

Hmm, names are tricky...

Posted 11 years ago #
Wilmington's Cow
Member

"... and also hints that it may not be entirely suitable for high speed long distance cycle commuting"

It does, but then...

".. fill short but important gaps in the existing network, for example from the Union Canal to the north Edinburgh off-road path network and a link from the Innocent Railway path to the Meadows"

... is linking routes that are used (safely, certainly in th case of the NEPN or Innocent Railway) for high-speed distant cycle commuting. So it's all a little Jekyll and Hyde in nature. The gaps that have been identified to be filled are excellent, and I'm more than happy for them to be filled - I can guarantee they won't just be used by families.

"... but hey, some of you might choose to become parents one day"

Or we might not. But as mentioned upthread, the gripe isn't with feeling excluded, it's just odd nomenclature that for a certain band (for example newly-starting-out cycle commuters) who will benefit immensely from the linked up routes, but won't necessarily click through to view them and know about them if they see the name 'family'.

Seriously, I have no problem with people cycling as a family, and no problem with routes being identified as family friendly, it really really is just the name I find a bit odd for something that is beneficial to so many (and being beneficial to so many is one of the many many reasons I don't feel 'excluded' by this - the other being that I doubt on the routes there will be someone putting down a barrier to anyone who doesn't have a kid with them)..

Posted 11 years ago #
PS
Member

The Edinburgh Cycle Network would do it for me, because that's pretty much what it looks like. As soon as you attach a label to it (like "family") it un/subconciously excludes potential users...

Posted 11 years ago #
Min
Member

"A good route is for everyone, however experienced they may be. If it feels safe and secure, more people will use it. If it's direct and quick, more people will use it. We shouldn't have to choose one or the other."

Amen to that.

Posted 11 years ago #
Morningsider
Member

I suspect it's called a family network as it is something politicins feel comfortable signing up to. Politicians love their hard-working families far more than they love cyclists - even when they are one and the same. It's easier for officials to get approval for money for "road safety" when you can point at children rather than "lycra louts". Also, far harder for the EEN to criticise a scheme with such a name - everyone is a member of a family after all and no-one wants to see children being put at risk. Not things you could say about "High speed cycle commuter network" - even if that is what it is.

Posted 11 years ago #
SRD
Moderator

Yes to all that - I agree the name is crap - but honestly, families are more than just 2 parents and some little kids - this discussion is beginning to feel a bit like a 1950s time warp. We all have families/are families.

Posted 11 years ago #
Wilmington's Cow
Member

"... this discussion is beginning to feel a bit like a 1950s time warp."

?

But we're not advocating that the women stay behind to clean the dishes...

I think Morningsider has hit it - it's a sell-to-the-politicians/sell-to-the-public thing.

I'm not sure anyone has suggested that 'family' is only mum, dad and 2 kids. But I also think that defining family to include one lone person riding to work at 8am is perhaps stretching it?

Posted 11 years ago #
SRD
Moderator

"I think Morningsider has hit it - it's a sell-to-the-politicians/sell-to-the-public thing."

yes. I said that above.

Still, there is a difference between (a) it's misnamed because technically-speaking a family network, as seen elsewhere, is about quiet neighbourhood roads etc, and (b) it's mis-named because it implies that only families with small wobbly children will cycle on it, and us (s)he-men commuters don't want to pootle with them (ick!).

Posted 11 years ago #
Wilmington's Cow
Member

But I haven't said it's mis-named for either of those reasons, I've said it's mis-named because people who could use it might think it's not for them because it will not be a point-to-point route. I've never said at any point that people won't want to share the route with families.

Posted 11 years ago #
SRD
Moderator

ah well, then, let';s propose the name I suggested to sally in an email: the 'whizz through Edinburgh safely' network

Posted 11 years ago #
Wilmington's Cow
Member

*sigh* I can see how this became a heated debate.

Innocent Path. Good for quick commuting; good for family rides.
NEPN. Good for quick commuting; good for family rides.

They're not mutually exclusive, and just because you don't think 'family' is a good name because it doesn't represent all who may benefit doesn't mean you think it should exclude families and only be used by fast experienced commuters. That's never been said, merely incorrectly inferred.

Posted 11 years ago #
wingpig
Member

The wee schematic in the PDF just before the map corroborates the "family = leisurepootle" flavour by listing the Zoo, Cramond, the Botanics, two hilly parks and the Meadows and link-up-able entities. It reminds me of the Innertube and its "lines". The more complicated diagram further along showing major workplaces shows the danger of attempting to get all schematic about something as detailed and accidental as the layout of a city, again like the Innertube and the non-usefulness of the way it geographically misrepresented the path network.

The "Edinburgh Everyone Cycle Mesh" would avoid using 'family', reflect that it would not be a true network, mention that it was in Edinburgh, avoid using "people's" in case it puts off right-wingers, would not discriminate against people with a number of wheels other than two and is still pronouncable as an acronym.

Posted 11 years ago #
PS
Member

How's about the Edinburgh Cyclesafe Network? Infers it's safe for kiddies without using the F-word (because if we're all part of families then the word's redundant anyway :p ), whilst containing good vibes for the politicos.

Although Cyclesafe is probably trademarked by The Times or something....

Posted 11 years ago #
SRD
Moderator

@anth my last post was 'agreeing' with you.

Posted 11 years ago #
Wilmington's Cow
Member

But I'd never advocate the name "Whizz through Edinburgh safely" because 'whizz' then suggests it as a route for the complete opposite spectrum of cyclists...

Posted 11 years ago #
crowriver
Member

I think, in a typically cyclist way, we are splitting hairs here. It reminds me of the segregation vs. vehicular cycling debate.

Personally I don't have a problem with the 'family' designation nor the prioritisation of leisure/pootley routes. Twenty years ago when I was young, free, single and childless I probably would have thought very differently.

As long as we get a reasonable linked up network that encourages more people to cycle, surely that's the main thing. I shall be putting my energies into pestering officials and councillors to get the priority works implemented, rather than worrying about the semantics of the marketing term needed to get 'buy in'.

Posted 11 years ago #
wingpig
Member

At least (in this case) considering/arguing about the name is sticking to the topic invoked by the first post.

"Family" could be interpreted a whole bunch of stuff including potentially putting off returning-to-or-taking-up-cycling codgers who might think they'd be getting buzzed and cut up by invincible swervey youngsters on a Family network.

The North Edinburgh Path Network is nicely unflavoured. It says where and what it is without creating an impression of restriction of the intended users. The (not-legally-enforcible-whatever) "NO CYCLING" signs on the Meadows affected how people perceived the paths; a label like "Family" could easily be interpreted as exclusive as well as/instead of descriptive.

Posted 11 years ago #

RSS feed for this topic

12 Next »

Reply »

You must log in to post.

// CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum

About This Forum

CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » Infrastructure

ATAP - Family network

Reply »

RSS Feeds

Links