"All very well 'over there' but it'll never catch on here..."
It's true.
Not enough politicians who understand it could/should be different and are willing to argue the case.
http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=8954#post-93418
CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » Infrastructure
Leith Walk - next stage (still ongoing and going on…)
(466 posts)-
Posted 11 years ago #
-
"
@citycyclists: From last night: My review of new cycle super highway planned straight through middle of Vauxhall gyratory http://t.co/WB8icHJc"
Posted 11 years ago # -
Emailed to POP Edinburgh people already, but would really welcome other peoples thoughts too...
Been really, really wrestling with exactly what to make of the current proposals after Monday's consultation, and what could/should be done better/differently, while trying to remain realistic.
I've tried to summarise what I've been thinking here below (it begins more in the form of observations/notes from discussions at the consultation, but ends with what I think we should maybe aiming for by way of alternative proposals too).
Here goes...
Only One Option Presented
CEC designers at the consultation admitted that they have only worked up options that would meet £5.5m price tag set at the outset by the council.
Ie they have not investigated the “full range of options” as per commitment contained in the report to the Finance and Resources Committee 31 July 2012
Quote:
The Director of Services for Communities to ensure that the design team assesses a full range of options to give increased priority for cyclists, including dedicated and mixed use lanes, to complement the proposals of the Active Travel Action Plan.Breakdown of Proposal Costs:
Overall Budget £5.5m
- Cost to renew asphalt £3.2m
Cost of other improvements (crossings/pavement/bins etc) £2.3m
Of which, cost to repave pavements at £1.5m
of which perhaps half is based more on aesthetics than need/safety apparently)Key Problems with the Current Proposals
No fully segregated bike paths the length of Leith Walk
CEC designers agreed that full segregation is technically possible over the whole length of the street (tricky around Pilrig church though) but just not possible for the £5.5m they have been allocated.
CEC’s initial costing for full segregation was (I think) £1.5m above the £5.5m current allocation. They acknowledged this figure was based on segregation being achieved by relatively expensive means i.e. different surface materials/levels/ and kerbs etc.
After these initial outline calculations, effectively no more work was done on looking at full segregation (including any cheaper approaches).
For a good look at how segregated paths can be fitted in along the whole length of the Leith Walk, and the (effect on parking, bus lanes etc, see the street cross-sections in this work done specifically on Leith Walk itself by Dutch consultant.
Ineffectual tinkering with the Picardy Place and London Rd Roundabouts
Most complaints have focussed, with good reason, on these sections of the proposals.
Current proposals include:
- Some segregated bike paths (a significant improvement),and
Some mid-road and mid-roundabout bike lanes (aka the blender), which are not much, if any, better than the current situationNo real re-evaluation seems to have been made of the basic geometry of the roundabouts to make traffic slower/safer, either through smaller corner radii, or reduced width of roadway/lanes.
The alternative, signalising the roundabouts, would apparently, cost £2.5m, has also been ruled out as too expensive
(Behind a lot of CECs thinking here, seems to be that any work done to these roundabouts is to a significant extent temporary, as it’ll all need to be totally redone if/when the tram lines are extended down Leith Walk (ie 7-10 years in the future)
Speed Restrictions
Currently it is proposed that LW will remain at 30mph
CEC designers agreed that a speed limit reduction to 20mph would benefit pedestrians/cyclists/liveability of the street significantly at (relatively) very low financial cost.
They noted that CEC has no real data on current traffic speeds on LW, ie impact on overall traffic flow of a speed reduction is not known.
The designer noted the 20mph trial currently underway in limited areas of South Edinburgh, and that feedback on that trial would certainly affect roll-out elsewhere, including possible LW.
Crossing/Junction Signals Generally
Designers noted that the pedestrian phase length at each junction is flexible within reason, and that this could be looked at as another relatively low-cost means of redressing the balance between people and cars.
They noted that CEC traffic engineers would, and do, respond to complaints re balance of timings in general throughout the city.
Other Relevant Info
The work is very likely to be staged ie the sections that are easier to do, involve less controversy, and less legal hassles (road orders etc) are likely to be done first ie constitution St to Bernard Terrace.
Work to the Picardy Place and London Rd roundabouts can’t begin work till October next year at earliest, as it has to wait for tram work on York Place to finish first (and relies on 9 month legal groundwork being done first).
Summary of Current Proposals
Overall the plans are
Rushed
- They’re driven largely by pressure to sort the road surface
Only a short-term solution. Plans to extend tram down Leith Walk will result in significant reworking of current proposals
Underfunded
- Not enough money to do a proper job
No attempt seems to be being made to remedy this by looking for extra money from other sources (sustrans??)and, as a result the proposals are:
Un-ambitious and ineffectual
- No fully segregated bike paths along length of Leith Walk
Speed and volume of traffic not reduced
Most parking retained
The worst sections, the roundabouts, not properly tackled at allA Suggested Way Forward:
Above all, I think the council needs to:
- Immediately stop work on the current proposals, and take a (big) step back from them, to allow less hasty, more considered solutions to be developed.
Urgently look for sources of extra funding, if that is what is needed to do a much better jobIn terms of making concrete suggestions as to what these alternative, more considered, proposals might be, does it perhaps, make sense to think of the proposals in two pieces?
- The top of Leith Walk (Picardy Place roundabout to London Road roundabout)
The rest of Leith Walk (London Rd roundabout to Gt Junction St)These two pieces need to be treated separately because the top section could well need comprehensively reworked in the medium term anyway, when extending the trams, (and if so doesn’t justify having money thrown at it now), while the rest of Leith Walk could, and should, definitely be done properly this time around.
The Top of Leith Walk (Picardy Place roundabout to London Road roundabout)
The current proposals for the top of the Leith walk are a not-even-close-to-acceptable, temporary bodge (although they provide a certain amount of extra protection for some cyclists).
The temporary bodge is makes sense, CEC’s argument goes, because spending large amounts of money now sorting it properly, only to have to undo it all again in a few years time when the tram is extended down Leith Walk, would be an unacceptable waste of money.
This begs the questions:
- How long we’ll have to put up with the initial temporary bodge.
Just what are the current timetables for extending the tram down Leith Walk?
How long would be too long to wait?
At what point should the Council just bite the bullet and get on with building the proper solution now.Clarity is needed from CEC on this asap.
If a two stage process is indeed justified, the two stages should perhaps be:
In the short term, the roundabout should probably be:
- Unsignalled (save money for later stage)
Have segregated bike paths around the outside for left turns as per current proposals, but with
Much tighter curvature on both the approaches and the roundabout itself to slow traffic right down
Narrower lanes also to slow traffic right downIn the medium term, when the trams are extended down Leith Walk, the roundabout (or any replacement junction) should at that time be:
- Properly signalled
Again with tight curvature/narrow lanes to reduce speeds
Fully segregated bike paths should be installed on all approaches, and for left and right turns.The Rest of Leith Walk (London Rd roundabout to Gt Junction St)
This other section, from London Rd roundabout down to Gt Junction St seems to me much simpler:
- The current plans are simply not ambitious enough
Space can be left in the central reservation for the later installation of the trams without re-doing everything later. This means a proper solution for the street can and should be built now, first time around.
There is space enough for full length segregated bike paths on both sides of the street
Parking/loading bays would need to be reduced to one side of the street only on the narrowest sections
Extra money should be sought for this right now rather than building another half-hearted effort.Immediate Priorities
Use consultation/communication with councillors to send a clear message that:
- The current proposals are unacceptable as they stand
An immediate halt needs to be called to any further (abortive) elaboration of the current proposals.
Clarity is needed immediately on the timing of any tram extension, so as to allow designers to make a rational decision about whether a two stage approach is required for the roundabouts at the top
Funding needs to be increased to the levels necessary to allow proper solutions to be considered (including alternative sources of funding if necessary)
An alternative design need to be developed ASAP that will include:
[list]Fully segregated bike paths along the whole length of Leith Walk
Credible designs for the worst sections, the roundabouts (including a rational two-stage approach, if necessary)
Much tighter curvature on all junctions and roundabouts, and narrower lanes to slow traffic right down
Making all of Leith Walk 20mphPriorities Going Forward
As before, going forward, I think we need to:
- Demonstrate very visible/noisy support for much better proposals on the ground
Contunue to apply political pressure judiciously to council members who are, or are likely to, block progress on this.
Create a credible, costed alternative plans if we can
Get a motion before council requesting that the full range of options be considered
Build support with local businesses (can we for example agree to support their request for rates relief during the improvement works in return for clearer business support for bike paths?)Ummm, thats it!
Please let me know what you think. I would particularly be interested in comments re:
- The necessity of the two-stage solution for the roundabouts
The technical feasibility of the full length segregated cycle paths
Ways to get the business community to vocally support cycle paths
Alternative sources of funding
Whether its reasonable to suggest re-allocating some of the £1.5m earmarked for paving to creating cycle paths
How we can create noisy support for better proposalsPosted 11 years ago # -
Angus - comprehnsive! My take on this:
1. Funding will not be increased.
2. The project will not be delayed.
3. Future of the tram extension is unclear - no pont hassling officials about this as they don't know the answer and no current politician will make a definitive statment on this until it is clear whether the current line is a success or not.
4. Focus on quality of life aspects of cycle improvements. Politicians who hate cyclists (and they are legion) and local businesses may just be sold on the softer aspects of cycle infrastructure development.What I would ask for is:
1. Pavements are tarmaced rather than laid with slabs. Much cheaper and easier to do and funds saved diverted into other improvements.
2. Segregated cycle lanes the full length of Leith Walk. These don't have to be elaborate - personally, I think that a mandatory cycle lane would do - i.e. one indicated by an unbroken white line and backed up by heavy duty parking enforcement. These only cost the price of paint and costs associated with the Traffic Regulation Order - which will be required anyway for other changes. The additional costs would be minimal and easily covered by the costs saved by tarmacing the pavements.
3. Least worst improvements to the roundabouts. These are here to stay and any solution is likely to be a fudge - accept this and push for the best we can get.In my experience, many cycle campaigners let the pursuit of excellence get in the way of supporting some decent proposals (not that the current proposls are decent). In the process alienating politicians and officers that may have been sympathetic to them. A key aim should be to identfy who is working on this project and to constructively engage with them - acknowledging the constraints they have to work within and to help them deal with politicians to secure the best results.
I know I'm just a random, anonymous voice on the internet, but I hope you can trust that I do have some vague idea what I'm talking about.
Posted 11 years ago # -
Angus,
VERY comprehensive, good effort.
One of my main bugbear / observations of the proposed layout was that, almost without exception, parking/loading has been maintained on both sides of Leith Walk for almost the entire length of the street. Basically, the designers first priority seems to have been to maintain parking on both sides of the road. I estimated c. 65% of available kerbside length, the rest being bus stop / crossing buildouts.
As the Walk narrows towards the bottom, the bus lane heading uphill is lost while parking is maintained! A narrow door-zone red chippings lane is not a satisfactory solution. Parking should only be included in street layouts where there is sufficient road width for it and not at the expense of bus and cycle infrastructure. We are told that the Causewayside is "too narrow for cycling" - I am very much of the opinion that Leith Walk towards the bottom is therefore "too narrow for parking", certainly on both sides. I estimated that removing parking from one side here would allow bus lanes in both directions to the detriment of about 6 parking bays.
I made very full notes at the Consultation on the form, I will follow up with a more formal written response. It will suggest a very simple priority order for road users. Parking bays will be at the bottom of this priority list, to be included only where there is space for them.
I will also be observing again that the bus lane is not the most satisfactory solution for cyclists on Leith Walk, particularly uphill, as the Walk is so busy with buses, it creates a leapfrogging action of having to pass buses going uphill only for them to have to pass you, repeat ad nauseum. Having to pass a bus forces you into the general traffic lane. I observed that the bus stops have been built out from the pavement, I suggested that they should be built in the way, so that the bus lane is left clear of static buses. (There is room for this, you just don't create the buildout). A bus lane is also of no real use if it's only a part time lane and where double parking levels are as endemic as Leith.
Posted 11 years ago # -
Yep, Angus covers most things there!
In short - not enough money to do what would make a real difference.
The problems are political.
Had short conversations with several politicians after last night's Copenhagen meeting - contrasting opinions.
There is a widespread view that Lesley Hinds seen as a problem - she doesn't want to be seen as anti-car.
Of course 'we' know this is 'old thinking' and back to the 'drivers = voters' nonsense.
I think it would be really helpful if car owners here sent her an email and tell her why they cycle (especially to work, instead of driving) and how bad things are and why many more people would cycle if they felt 'safe'. It's not just about Leith Walk, but this is such a crucial OPPORTUNITY for CEC to show what it can do to improve things for cyclists and (more importantly) pedestrians.
LH is supposed to be interested in improving things for pedestrians - she's a bus user and too scared to cycle on Edinburgh roads (particularly scared by the idea of roundabouts).
Her deputy - Jim Orr - doesn't seem too keen on altering the present proposals and is more concerned with a) LW being a bus corridor and b) improving the 'city centre' - eg George IV Bridge, Mound etc.
The councillors covering Leith Walk have mostly been quiet on the proposals.
Most Edinburgh politicians, seem more concerned about the traders (who have legitimate concerns) and paranoid about suggesting significant reduction in parking.
Posted 11 years ago # -
@Angus, They noted that CEC traffic engineers would, and do, respond to complaints re balance of timings in general throughout the city.
In my experience, that response is likely to be "the crossing time is within the regulations"; "you can use another crossing further down the road if you want to cross in one movement"; oh yes and "the crossing time has been altered recently to improve flow for buses".
So, basically, "F*** off pedestrian, the needs of Lothian Buses and fare paying passengers take precedence over those of local residents."
Posted 11 years ago # -
"re balance of timings in general throughout the city"
Think crowriver's experience is more common.
I repeat what I said the other day - needs to be more thought about buses being things to move people not just 'transit objects'.
If the idea is to make journey times shorter have more X buses - eg X22 stopping only at every third stop.
Posted 11 years ago # -
@Angus:
Of which, cost to repave pavements at £1.5m
of which perhaps half is based more on aesthetics than need/safety apparently)CEC’s initial costing for full segregation was (I think) £1.5m above the £5.5m current allocation.
This appears to be the main point to bring to the attention of officials and councillors. It's a nonsense that segregated cycle lanes are "unaffordable", yet re-paving the pavements for the entire length of the street to tart it up a bit is seemingly not a problem.
It strikes me this is about being seen to "do something" for pedestrians, whilst not upsetting drivers and traders by removing parking/loading bays. So, a wee bit of meaningless tinkering, but basically nearly everything stays exactly as it was. Six million well spent there!
Posted 11 years ago # -
If the idea is to make journey times shorter have more X buses - eg X22 stopping only at every third stop.
Ah, but that would require money to be spent on buses, drivers' wages, etc. The Council might not get such a large dividended from LB then. Costs next to nothing to tweak the signal timings and make those pesky pedestrians wait a bit longer to cross the road.
Posted 11 years ago # -
"Ah, but that would require money to be spent on buses, drivers' wages, etc."
No it wouldn't - make 1/2 or 1/3 an "X" and they'd also be able to do the route more quickly/often = more capacity.
Some people might walk a bit further to/from an "X" stop.
Win all round...
Posted 11 years ago # -
One fairly simple - and cheap - way of getting segregated cycle lanes is to put them on the tarmac, but inside the car parking. Possibly reinforced with some plastic bollards or bolt-on curbing. This is what they've done in Chicago, at a cost of about $100k per mile. I really don't understand why this isn't done at all in the UK as it seems obvious to me that if a cycle lane has to be in proximity to a parked car, it shouldn't be in the driver's door zone, but the (much less frequently used) passenger's, and it definitely shouldn't be *under* the parked car...
Doesn't sort out the junctions, and it requires a bit of imagination and space (compared to an ordinary lane) but really, why don't they just do it? Or at least try it?
Posted 11 years ago # -
@sallyhinch, they are doing exactly this in Sofia, a city in one of the poorest states in the EU. It works.
Somehow though in a city in one of the richest EU states, segregated cycle lanes are "too expensive".
Posted 11 years ago # -
I suggested this, and the guy who I was talking to -- who is resp for cycling but not the cycling officer - tried to convince me that it was worse and that somewhere he had been recently was taking all of those lanes out.
Posted 11 years ago # -
What did he says was wrong with them?
What did he suggest instead?
Posted 11 years ago # -
Nice to see the Council can still afford to send officials to places, presumably abroad, on fact finding trips. Seems odd they chose somewhere they were removing cycle infrastructure rather than putting it in though.
I'm intrigued how low-cost segregated cycle lanes could be worse than what we have. Still, I'm sure the guy knows what he's talking about. Hopefully he didn't fall on his elbow on an ungritted pavement on the way home...
Posted 11 years ago # -
really, why don't they just do it? Or at least try it?
Y'know, I think 'we' have all missed the point of the consultation exercise. It's clearly not an opportunity to try and influence the design, to suggest changes, to lobby for proper facilities for cyclists and pedestrians. No, it's actually an opportunity for consultees to vent frustration, and to then be variously ignored, patronised, told there isn't any money for this or that, etc.
In short, the message is that this is the plan, this is what is going to happen, and if you don't like it, tough. Oh and if the cyclists and Greens dare to complain too loudly, the few meagre concessions to cycling will be dropped. Okay?
Posted 11 years ago # -
@crowriver
I think that's overly cynical, but it's clearly true that they are not consulting on a range of options.
'We' have various ideas, some of them might work, some of them would benefit people other than "cyclists".
I believe that officials are genuinely willing to change some of the details but they are not willing/able to do any sort of rethink/pause.
That would take political direction - due to a political change of direction (which there is no sign of).
It's perhaps unfortunate that many of those who seem to have ideas about doing things 'differently' (based on knowing what is being done elsewhere in Europe and America) are "cyclists".
Either Leith Walk is irrelevant - as some politicians seem to think, or it's an important indicator of where the council wants to take the transport and general 'quality of life feel' of Edinburgh.
It does seem likely that Edinburgh will waste a major opportunity. It's about a lot more than segregated cycle lanes.
Posted 11 years ago # -
@chdot
Given that Cllr Hinds (I think) has already complained about the negative reactions of cyclists to the QBC, I would not be at all surprised if CEC 'took their ball away' if the reaction to, say, the Picardy Place/London Road segregated lanes is very critical. They can simply point to the criticisms as a rationale for not implementing those features, as to make them more ambitious would 'cost too much'.
It's hard not to be cynical when so little has changed from the current Leith Walk to the proposed 'new' Leith Walk. It's just a resurfacing job (road/pavement), plus a few token concessions to cyclists/pedestrians which will make very little difference to the safety or convenience of either.
I can't really see how suggesting tweaks to the details changes or improves the proposals. Move a parking bay here, omit a build-out there, green paint not red chippings; is that it? Effectively the Council have presented a fait accompli, with only tinkering at the edges permitted.
Why quibble about the material for the curtains when there's no roof on the house?
Posted 11 years ago # -
It's almost too easy to sink into cynicism, and to become, frankly, defeatist.
We need to be clear that improving our cities for cyclists and pedestrians is as much a political fight, as it is about the finer details of bike path layout/street cross sections/road markings etc.
We all need to rant sometimes, and share the frustration of living in an Edinburgh we know could be so much better than it is (god knows I do).
But, I think we also need to be really careful that ranting doesn't become all we do, and that in sharing our frustration, we don't damage the hope that, at the end of the day, underlies all efforts to improve our situation.
Please, lets stay positive, engaged and, above all, proactive.
Posted 11 years ago # -
SallyHinch and Crowriver have a good point. I watched the Nordic Horizons talk (see thread a day ago) and something that stood out was the daftness of having cycle lanes swerving out round parking bays (forcing cars to cross cycle lanes also). Right at the very foot of the walk (heading uphill, outside Central Bar if I recall my pub names correctly), I see a good example where the proposed lane runs around the parking bays but might better be painted up the inside, a straight line rather than a swerve into the road. Not a big change but the cheap, thin end of a good wedge that might eventually deliver this dream vision:
Posted 11 years ago # -
@gkgk Well that would work after Edinburgh motorists had got used to the idea - with the help of a lot of enforcement!
In the shorter term it would need some sort of barrier - but that would be fairly cheap - and exactly the sort of experiment that LW/Edinburgh needs.
This is what it looked like on Monday afternoon - LOTS of space and not much parking -
Leith Walk near Central StationOf course in the fairly recent past the street functioned when it was a lot narrower -
Further up - when the Google car passed - there was almost no parking. Maybe people were scared off by the tramworks -
Posted 11 years ago # -
New name -
"
Katja Leyendecker (@KatsDekker)
06/12/2012 07:52
@CyclingEdin @LAHinds it's so obvious that without cycle provision Leith Walk is Lethal Walk, and Cycle"
Posted 11 years ago # -
"
Niels Hoe (@nielshoe)
06/12/2012 09:02
RT “@cykeltrafikken: Flexparkering i København viser gode resultater og kan være en løsning mange steder. pic.twitter.com/3lHwnUdo”
"Google translates as -
"
@ Nielshoe: RT "@ bicycle traffic: Flex Parking in Copenhagen shows good results and can be a solution in many places. http://t.co/3lHwnUdo "
Posted 11 years ago # -
gkgk - thanks for the photo. That is exactly what I had in mind when I suggested a mandatory cycle lane. Surely that is affordable. Yes it would take serious enforcement at the start - but that would actually generate revenue and I'm sure drivers would soon get the message.
I agree we must stay positive, and I think suggesting cheap and easy ways to create decent cycle infrastructure is a good way to go. It might not be perfect - but the available budget should cover it and it would be a real improvement on what we have. It might even open a few eyes to what could be acheieved elsewhere and lead to even better infrastructure in future.
Posted 11 years ago # -
@Arellcat If Edinburgh—indeed, the UK—'went Dutch' with its cycle and pedestrian infrastructure, I don't think it would necessarily work as well, at least for a while.
<snip>
...anywhere cyclists necessarily interacted with motorists would be business as usual, with typical results like victim blaming, media rabidity, and sorry mate, I didn't bother to observe properly, and get the hell off the road while you're at it.
Whilst I agree that learning from the best designers wouldn't instantly make us an outpost of the Netherlands, it may not be quite as bleak as you suggest.
New York is hardly a benign culture (police that don't bother even investigating if there isn't a fatality, "shock-jocks", etc), yet their experience of segregated infrastructure shows marked improvements in KSI at the very least.
Whilst increasing safety alone doesn't make us a cycling city, it would do as a grand start!
Robert
Posted 11 years ago # -
Photo flipped to show driving/cycling on the left -
Photo seen at http://placeni.blogspot.co.uk/2012/02/connecting-places-mini-series-bicycling_28.html and http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/eurostyle-bike-lanes-plan-for-city/2006/09/02/1156817151269.html
"
MELBOURNE is to get its first taste of European-style bike lanes that separate cyclists and car traffic by putting a parking lane between them.The bike lanes, which will run along either side of Swanston Street from Melbourne University to RMIT, will cost more than $500,000.
If the trial is successful, VicRoads will consider rolling out more of the bike lanes across the city.
"
That would work most of the way up LW.
Bus stops would be instead of some parked cars - pedestrians should have pavement height 'tables' connected to covered bus boarders.
No need to move drains (expensive).
Posted 11 years ago # -
Meanwhile in Camden (proposal) -
Posted 11 years ago # -
Ah, but that's a wide street, that one in Camden. Leith Walk can barely accommodate six vehicle lanes and a central reservation. How could you possibly fit bike lanes in there?
Posted 11 years ago # -
It's almost too easy to sink into cynicism, and to become, frankly, defeatist.
When you have been in the trenches for a while, it is sometimes difficult to believe those who claim the war is nearly won. Over the top for one last push, is it?
We need to be clear that improving our cities for cyclists and pedestrians is as much a political fight
One that cyclists in particular are currently losing. Optimism is all very well, but it's not enough on its own to overturn odds which are staked against major change.
Posted 11 years ago #
Reply »
You must log in to post.
posts
