CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » Debate!
Princes St vs George St vs Queen St
(79 posts)-
Posted 11 years ago #
-
"Raged." "Savaged." "swathes". "disaster".
or
"whinged". "kicked". "screamed". "stomped".
The message from the businesses was that the council needs to accept that shoppers, customers and people want to travel by car. What seems to have been presented in the consultation is a series of short-term temporary measures
I'd wager that a majority of people arriving and leaving in the city centre take the bus, not the car.
Posted 11 years ago # -
kaputnik +1
... or walk.
Posted 11 years ago # -
i wish i hadn't looked at the comments.
people with too much money and time on their hands obviously
Posted 11 years ago # -
Frankly, when the capacity of one bus approximately equals the number of parking spaces being lost, it's hard to understand why traders would be so upset at the loss of a few parking spaces.
I suppose it's a class thing - the type of shops on George St don't cater to people who use public transport?
Posted 11 years ago # -
"I suppose it's a class thing - the type of shops on George St don't cater to people who use public transport?"
Well... I've bought from Jo Malone, Hamilton & Inches, White Stuff, Lakeland, Waterstones, Paperchase, Starbucks, Trotters Opticians... by bike...
Are you suggesting that people who use public transport are all poor Dave? Or can't appreciate luxury items? ;)
Posted 11 years ago # -
The lack of parking has really hit the traders in Buchanan St in Glasgow, hasn't it? *Rolls eyes*
And I seem to remember a somewhat massive and largely empty multi-storey car park at the St James Centre...
Posted 11 years ago # -
"I suppose it's a class thing - the type of shops on George St don't cater to people who use public transport
More a question of who the shops imagine their customers are (and how they got there).
I bet a lot of local (New Town) residents just walk!
Posted 11 years ago # -
@anth, I'm suggesting that the traders don't think so, otherwise they wouldn't be fussed about the loss of 1 bus-worth of parking spaces in exchange for changing the street from this:
Into this (also in Scotland, for those who don't recognise it):
* some artistic licence has been used in the production of this post!
Posted 11 years ago # -
They fear change.
And they also know that, by making a lot of fuss, they are more likely to gain concessions that suit them.
Posted 11 years ago # -
These "business groups" are so boring.
Posted 11 years ago # -
"
A traffic-free Princes Street is the top wish for Edinburgh City Centre, although failing that there is strong support for 1-way motor traffic in Princes Street and George Street, provided that 2-way cycle use is included in the traffic-free areas of both streets."
http://www.spokes.org.uk/wordpress/2013/04/the-good-the-bad-and-the-ugly
Posted 11 years ago # -
"
Cyclists' fears over redesign of West End"
http://www.standard.co.uk/news/transport/cyclists-fears-over-redesign-of-west-end-8587504.html
Posted 11 years ago # -
The Cockburn association's response is worth reading: http://www.cockburnassociation.org.uk/upload/File/Building%20a%20Vision%20for%20the%20City%20Centre.pdf
Posted 11 years ago # -
Hard not to agree with the Cockburn response. CEC ought to be more courageous* in shoehorning cars out of the city centre.
* The reader may wish to interpret this in the approved Yes Minister manner.
Posted 11 years ago # -
Free parking ‘not essential’ to attract visitors
Free parking after 5pm was a key feature of the Alive After Five campaign – but it may not be essential to bringing people into the city centre, an evaluation concluded.
A survey found many visitors did not know parking was free. And although 68 per cent of car-owners said free parking would make them visit more often, almost half of those who were not aware of the free parking said they would not have come by car in any case.
The two campaigns – at Christmas and last summer – cost the council £96,000 in lost parking revenue.
But Andy Neal said free parking sent a message of welcome and he hoped it would be part of the Open All Hours culture. He also hopes car parks can be included as well as on-street parking.
Or "it cost taxpayers nearly £100k, didn't really have much effect, but it's a good idea anyway". Fingers in ears lalalalalalalalala.
Posted 11 years ago # -
And this from the New Town and Broughton Community Council
http://www.broughtonspurtle.org.uk/news/strong-views-city-centre-vision
Posted 11 years ago # -
From above link -
"
Until far more people are wooed or coerced out of their vehicles – particularly private car users – there is little hope of meaningful improvement."
Posted 11 years ago # -
The NTBCC letter seems very conservative/anti-change and pro-car.
The problem is that the NTBCC still don't get it:
You can't just magically woo people out of their cars without reducing road space, even with the best public transport in the world.
You have to reduce road space for cars to get people out of their cars, and you have to start somewhere.
Yes, some traffic will be displaced to residential streets, but you have to continue and reduce the road space there too.
Posted 11 years ago # -
I don't see why cars would be displaced onto Abercrombie Place etc while Queen Street exists.
Of course, a few permeable road blockings in the New Town would quickly put pay to it being used as a rat run and promote active travel at the same time.
Posted 11 years ago # -
"
Strong support for a Princes Street cycle route"
http://www.spokes.org.uk/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/spwkr13.05.29.pdf
Posted 11 years ago # -
Wow. The council can't even spell "Princes" half the time without adding an extra "s" so I would love to see where the apostrophes' are going to s'tart appearing if this get's through!
Posted 11 years ago # -
Wait.
They want to call it Princes's Street? Or Princess' Street?
My own employer is officially registered on St. Andrew Square, but most people internally refer to it as St. Andrew's Square.
Posted 11 years ago # -
Not to mention Council signs for an "alternate" route. Surely there must be an alternative to that?
Posted 11 years ago # -
Princes St was marked as "South Street" in James Craig's plan. Then such variations as:
Prince's St. (Ainslie et al., 1780-1864)
Princes St. (Kincaid 1787, Lothian Map 1825, Ordnance Survey 1852)
It should in fact be be Princes' Street. According to the research of Charles Boog Watson, "…the intention was to call it St. Giles St. after the patron saint of the city, but when this was told to George III, his narrow stupidity hindered his imagining aught beyond a London slum, and he would have none of it. The name was therefore changed so as to refer to the Royal Princes, the Duke of Rothesay, afterwards George IV, and the Duke of York."
Posted 11 years ago # -
The original plans or at least good facsimiles are on display in the Museum of Edinburgh.
Posted 11 years ago #
Reply »
You must log in to post.
posts
