'We' do: Living Streets, formerly the Pedestrians Association. Offices on Rose Street...
My mistake. I've even heard of them though didn't realise from their "new" name that was their job.
CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » Infrastructure
TRAFFIC is to be banned from the north side of Princes Street
(340 posts)-
Posted 12 years ago #
-
I'm not going to bother arguing over whether we should maintain cycle access on Princes St as I think views are firmly entrenched, however:
it is
important to remember that access rights must be exercised responsibly - my gut feeling is this means cyclists should consider cycling on the carriageway (i.e. road) if that is possible, even if the road has been designated as a core path. I'm not aware of any case law on this issue, so it would be a matter of judgement for individual cyclist as to what to do. However, where a Council has provided an alternative cycle facility, and the pavements are generally very busy then it is at least possible that cycling on the pavement would not be considered "responsible".IANAL, but I don't think the existence of a completely different route could be used to argue that using Princes St (or in the general case, any LRA-enabled route) was no longer taking responsible access.
Think about the precedent. It would mean that landowners who didn't want people taking access through their estate could point to the existence of a nearby public road (or even just other paths on the estate) to close down access altogether. Thin end of the wedge!
On Princes St as everywhere the plain old law could still be used in circumstances where the conduct of riders was illegally bad.
I think the Council's only realistic option would be to remove the core path designation, if they decide (having previously decided to protect unpowered access through legislation) that said access is now undesirable?
Posted 12 years ago # -
Dave, as you say, you're not a lawyer... ;)
A landowner pointing to another public road, yep, could do. Of course if that alternative public road was a 60mph road, with a lot of traffic, numerous lorries, and was 5miles longer, then clearly it's not a good alternative. If it's a tiny quiet country road that's a couple of miles shorter, then it is.
In the same way, George Street is 100 yards away, segregated facilities in both directions and (hopefully) well connected at either end, ergo a reasonable alternative.
Also, the situation with Princes Street would mean that, other than for the core path designation riding on the pavement would be illegal, and it's not certain, not laid out anywhere in detail, whether the core path designation does actually allow someone to ride on the pavement. In the case of the landowner they have to comply with the land access laws, which are a different beast to core path designation (heavier weight of law + more explicit in allowing people access to travel, responsibly, through their land).
It's not the thin end of any wedge, it's a completely different wedge.
Posted 12 years ago # -
Steveo The council would probably see better improvements in cycle use by boosting the uptake in public transport than any of their current strategies (QBC...)
Sorry to go back a page, this conversation is moving way faster than me!
How do you see this working?
From my own POV, I would much rather share the roads with Lothian Bus drivers than with private car drivers but then I already cycle and know what it is like. I am not sure that Joe and Joeina McBlogs would want to be dodging even more double deckers.
Posted 12 years ago # -
How do you see this working?
More people on buses = less private cars (in theory). So if all the people are concentrated on buses and on defined routes its much easier to avoid them if you need to. All roads would be quieter but non-bus roads would be more pleasant.
Bus routes are avoidable for the weary for the rest of us we know LB are broadly safer than your average driver. There wouldn't even need to be more buses most of the time.
Plus I'm sure it's an easier conversion from bus passenger to cyclist. Once people are used to being out side even for short periods a 10 minute ride in the rain isn't so daunting. Also having spent a few years on the bus people would be tripping over themselves to ride to work... :D
Posted 12 years ago # -
I'm a bit confused by the people not-wanting a bike lane down Princes street. It seems a no-brainer: It wouldn't cost anything extra, there's loads of space and it's a key route.
"I'm still not sure why cyclists need to be treated better than bus passengers?..."
I regularly get the bus and cycle, and sometimes drive in Edinburgh. I find when I'm on the bus, I don't mind if it has to do a slight detour (and I don't know if George Street even *is* a detour, as I might be going that way anyway). Bus passengers get to go down the WAR too! On my bike and on foot I *do* mind having to mix with fast large motor vehicles (and most of my friends refuse to cycle because they think it's too dangerous), and I do mind having to do some crazy detour just so motor vehicles can have priority. The most important point is: The space required for a two-way bike lane is less than the width of a one way road for buses/cars (and is far smaller than the space for pedestrians!). So it's not being treated 'better' but it's just that cycles don't need as much space as a massive bus!
"Pedestrians are not road traffic under any reasonable definition and frankly get a raw enough deal in the UK. "We" as we're all pedestrians at some point, don't even have a Spokes equivalent."
Since when did pedestrians have to go one-way down any street or road? They get segregated space besides all Edinburgh's roads (two-way as well!). In seriousness: I think traffic speeds are too high, there's too many railings and often we're made to walk 100s of feet to cross 20 feet of road - so I agree that things are rubbish for pedestrians too, but to suggest that bikes have it better than pedestrians I think is pushing it a bit (most people feel safe to walk around Edinburgh, most say they don't feel safe enough to cycle). How many yards of segregated bike lane is there in Edinburgh?
"bus passengers [will] just have to walk back up the hill to get their bus."
Why is Princes street more useful than George Street? (when it was GS last time I didn't find I had to walk any further on average - it depended on what I was doing in town).
"Seriously folks substitute very few phrases and we'd be criticising drivers for not wanting to walk the length of their noses, wanting a parking space right out side their house and demanding the right to go from a-b in the most direct fashion. If this was about closing the park the conversation would be very similar..."
I think it's more about asking for a very small proportion of road space to make it convenient and quick to cycle around town - that's not unreasonable. Parking a bike for instance near a shop takes up a *tiny* amount of space compared to parking a car!
I guess a 2-way cycle lane would take up about 10% the width of Princes Street, with 50% for pedestrians and 25% for buses+taxis, 15% for trams. Isn't that a fair share?
"I'm sure it's an easier conversion from bus passenger to cyclist."
Again, people need to feel it's safe and convenient to cycle: With a no-cycling route in the middle of town, that's not going to happen!
Posted 12 years ago # -
I'm a bit confused by the people not-wanting a bike lane down Princes street. It seems a no-brainer: It wouldn't cost anything extra, there's loads of space and it's a key route.
There is going to be a cycle path its just a few meters off set. Why is this such a hardship, on a bike it'll take a few moments. If the council plan is pulled off, big if i know, then there won't be as much room as there will be seats and tables and stuff. Also Princes St, used to any way, gets really busy more space is good, that half lane would take hundreds of pedestrians.
So it's not being treated 'better' but it's just that cycles don't need as much space as a massive bus!
It is though, people get off the bus a few minutes walk from where they want to be. The contention here is that cyclists have a right to be out side the shop they want to stop at.
Why is Princes street more useful than George Street?
Its where people evidently want to be.
and I do mind having to do some crazy detour just so motor vehicles can have priority.
and I do mind having to do some crazy detour just so some cyclists can have priority.
I think it's more about asking for a very small proportion of road space to make it convenient and quick to cycle around town
I think it's more about asking for a very small proportion of road space to make it convenient and quick to drive around town
Like I said change only a few words and this could be an EEN comments thread.
Posted 12 years ago # -
"I'm a bit confused by the people not-wanting a bike lane down Princes street. It seems a no-brainer: It wouldn't cost anything extra, there's loads of space and it's a key route."
Never said that I didn't want it, but rather that I don't see the problem in not having it. Okay, it's a subtle difference - in reality if there weren't the George Street plans then I'd be up in arms too, but with the George Street plans is it that big a miss? The contention for having it seems to be: we can't ride to directly outside the shop we want to visit; it symbolically says you can't cycle to Waverley station; we don't want the hardship of having to cycle all the way up to George Street.
I just think there are fights worth fighting, and others perhaps less so. Leith Walk is still a fight; George IV Bridge could be a fight; the QBC is hideously in need of improvement. Princes Street? There's a two way segregated lane right across the centre of town 100 yards away.
"Again, people need to feel it's safe and convenient to cycle: With a no-cycling route in the middle of town, that's not going to happen!"
Again, George Street, 100 yards away, two-way, segregated. That's not 'no-cycling', it is in the middle of town, it could, in theory, be safe and convenient (and if anyone wants to pick up on the 'in theory', well any lane on Princes Street would be 'in theory' too...)
Posted 12 years ago # -
"most people feel safe to walk around Edinburgh, most say they don't feel safe enough to cycle"
That's a perception thing surely? More pedestrians are killed by cars every year than cyclists, lots more.
Posted 12 years ago # -
Again, George Street, 100 yards away, two-way, segregated. That's not 'no-cycling', it is in the middle of town, it could, in theory, be safe and convenient (and if anyone wants to pick up on the 'in theory', well any lane on Princes Street would be 'in theory' too...)
I think that's certainly a large part of it. Say you want to get your young kids from Princes St Gardens to Waverley. You'd need to ride west amongst the buses and taxis with them (99% of parents are out at this point), up through Charlotte Sq (two manic right turns from the get-go: I don't think you can even make a legal right turn from Princes St to Charlotte Sq at present?) then assuming the George St cycle lane is OK, ride along it to the end before repeating the process at the other end with St Andrews Sq and Waverley Bridge.
I don't think I'd bother.
I appreciate I'm cherry picking here, although the ideal of having people (the type of people who are currently put off by riding in traffic, what's more) travel into town using a combination of bikes and public transport means it's not far-fetched.
For me the point is that accommodating cyclists in the new scheme would be effortless. Instead we are going to *extra* effort to remove cycle provision.
I have to admit, I think provision on George St will be so poor that we'll all soon forget about the fact that Princes St was lost - it'll be naff like the QBC, but in a different way.
Posted 12 years ago # -
For me the point is that accommodating cyclists in the new scheme would be effortless.
Well except for the pinch points where the trams cross the current traffic lane... This worries me I'd hate to think how some one escorting a few kids would feel.
Posted 12 years ago # -
"You'd need to ride west amongst the buses and taxis with them"
So you can't cross to Castle Street or Hanover Street or Frederick Street and ride up from there? You have to go to Charlotte Square?
"For me the point is that accommodating cyclists in the new scheme would be effortless. Instead we are going to *extra* effort to remove cycle provision."
We're removing a road for everyone, not just the cycle provision, and the cycle provision is the cycle lane as it is, and well that's hardly used by anyone anyway because there are bus stops all along it. The few times I cycle east on Princes Street I'm over to the right as it is. So they're not specifically targetting cyclists, and removing something that isn't used...
"I appreciate I'm cherry picking here"
Yes.
Posted 12 years ago # -
If you want to get to the Waverley from Lothian Road then I would suggest going via the Grassmarket, Cowgate, St Mary's St and on to the Market Street entrance or round to the ramps. Far quieter, almost no buses, no tramlines and fewer traffic lights.
If you are actually in Princes Street Gardens with a bike, and with kids, then jump on the bike(s) and cycle east - it's allowed.
I'm not arguing against a Princes Street cycle lane (it's a good idea) - but banning east bound cycling on the central section of Princes Street doesn't mean you can't cycle to the Waverley (which is getting a shiny new "accessible" entrance on Calton Road and bike hub).
Posted 12 years ago # -
Morningsider - I do use either the route you suggest, or go down the Mound from george IV, or up Johnstone Terrace. But I used to go Lothian Rd to Princes Street and far preferred it -- flatter and shorter.
Posted 12 years ago # -
"If you are actually in Princes Street Gardens with a bike, and with kids, then jump on the bike(s) and cycle east - it's allowed."
Learn something new every day! I always thoguht cycling was specifically banned in the parks - is this the same as the Meadows 'ban'?
Posted 12 years ago # -
Well Princes Street Gardens is a 'grey area' - ie CEC thinks it's likely to be legal under access legislation but doesn't want to advertise the fact.
Or something...
Posted 12 years ago # -
and I do mind having to do some crazy detour just so motor vehicles can have priority.
and I do mind having to do some crazy detour just so some cyclists can have priority.Cars are much more space hungry and it's not unreasonable that they can't get to be within 100m of their destination. Anyway: we drove a van around town at the weekend and I was amazed at (even with the tram works) how accommodating the city was for motor traffic - we were even able to park right outside the ceilidh venue! I'm happy to detour some-what: I'm also still not confident/happy enough with heavy traffic to take the quickest routes into town etc: I'm already having to detour away from violent traffic every day, I don't really want yet more detours - and new cyclists are going to feel this even more. We're trying to get cycling numbers up - let's not make it harder to cycle!
A bikelane takes up tiny amounts of space and detouring on a bike is way more effort - people will very quickly not bother, especially slower/new cyclists.
I think it's more about asking for a very small proportion of road space to make it convenient and quick to cycle around town
I think it's more about asking for a very small proportion of road space to make it convenient and quick to drive around town
This is disingenuous. It isn't a 'small proportion' of road space that cars want/get. Bikes don't need anywhere near the same amount of space!
Like I said change only a few words and this could be an EEN comments thread
but in a vehicle the size of a car I'll be more restricted than on a bike, and a bike will be more restricted than a pedestrian.Wilmington's Cow '"most people feel safe to walk around Edinburgh, most say they don't feel safe enough to cycle" That's a perception thing surely? More pedestrians are killed by cars every year than cyclists, lots more.'
Does it matter if it's perception or reality? This is what almost every non-cyclist says when I ask why they don't cycle. Parents think I'm crazy to even suggest they let their children cycle to school. And although your stats might be right, people cycle further than they walk :) - you prob need to compare bus passengers to cyclists or something??
I'm still only 80% mind-made-up, but I've not really been convinced that leaving a bike lane in would be that terrible for pedestrians etc. The argument seems to be that bikes shouldn't get 'special treatment' over motor vehicles but I think they should!: makes people healthy, lower CO2, low emissions, reduce-obesity, less-noise-pollution, quicker, more-children-with-freedom, etc. :)
Posted 12 years ago # -
"The argument seems to be that bikes shouldn't get 'special treatment' over motor vehicles but I think they should!"
No, my argument is that there's going to be a two-way segregated lane 100 yards away and so I'm not sure there's much to be gained in lambasting the council for not putting something in place for Princes Street (given the re-design it's not a case of 'leaving something in', it would need to be created).
"Does it matter if it's perception or reality?"
In the specific case that was being discussed, I believe so, yes (which is why I asked), but we'd be bogging this discussion down in semantics that are waaaay off-topic.
Posted 12 years ago # -
A bikelane takes up tiny amounts of space and detouring on a bike is way more effort - people will very quickly not bother, especially slower/new cyclists.
Its even slower on foot, a slow cyclist is two or three times faster than a pedestrian. So again why does the bus user/pedestrian have to walk whilst the cyclist gets to stop at the door? The space is irrelevant, drivers already have the perception that non drivers have take over much of "their" city and pedestrians take up even less space than bikes.
This is disingenuous. It isn't a 'small proportion' of road space that cars want/get. Bikes don't need anywhere near the same amount of space!
A little yes, but its about perception. Car drivers don't think "their" infrastructure or vehicles takes up that much room.
The argument seems to be that bikes shouldn't get 'special treatment' over motor vehicles but I think they should!
Not motor vehicles, Bus passengers/pedestrians. There is a difference. Buses are arguably more efficient than cycles, how many bikes could comfortably travel in the foot print of a single bus? The "special treatment is to the detriment of people who want work and shop in princes street.
Posted 12 years ago # -
@WC: sorry I kinda feel my responses crossed wires, also now I look back at the thread I see what you mean, but I still feel that stopping cycling in one direction down PS is pretty lame.
@steveo: But no one's making people detour on foot? And I'm not sure it's more or less annoying to get off a bus on GS or PS? I regularly use shops near both roads.
It's an interesting point about buses - I think the 'travelling in the footprint' is a bit odd, buses can't travel without space infront/behind :) Does keeping a bike lane on PS hurt people on PS much? But I agree that buses and bikes probably need to be given almost equal weight (I'd come down on the side of bikes 'cause of the active-travel aspect :). I was responding to your search-replace EEN-style thing, which was looking at drivers vs cyclists. I still don't really see how keeping bike access is so terrible for PS though...
[edit]
@WC and steveo: Thanks for the interesting discussion - I've not tried having a contentious discussion online before (I can see why they go wrong!). I'm probably extra stressed at the moment with viva coming up, so was at risk of taking it out on unsuspecting CCE people :) [extra stress: had to pay a £10.80 library fine this morning - how annoying is that! makes note: must be more organised] See you about (maybe at the next PY?)Posted 12 years ago # -
It wasn't that long ago there were 3 lanes Westbound on PS
Posted 12 years ago # -
But no one's making people detour on foot?
My point is that all traffic is being diverted to allow more space on Princes Street to attempt to make it a nice place. If cycles are traffic why should we expect to be given priority over bus users and people using Princes st, If we're not then we've got bigger problems. Though I acknowledge that point may have been lost a few pages back :)
I was responding to your search-replace EEN-style thing, which was looking at drivers vs cyclists. I still don't really see how keeping bike access is so terrible for PS though...
The EEN thing was attempting to highlight the similarities between this situation and the drivel that gets produced in the comments, rational and thought out were not be expected.
Thanks for the interesting discussion - I've not tried having a contentious discussion online before (I can see why they go wrong!).
I think it helps to have met people, it stops conversations getting over heated. I know for example to ignore Dave.
Kidding dave.
Posted 12 years ago # -
WC - re cycling in Princes Street Gardens. Odd isn't it, I would never think of cycling there but I did check the rules before posting and it would seem that responsible cycling in the Gardens is allowed.
Posted 12 years ago # -
Can you post a link to the rules please incase we ever get challenged?
Taa.
Posted 12 years ago # -
Re: space/footprint required, I think it worth repeating this:
Recently re-shot in Canberra:
60 bicycles not much bigger than a bus, really. Not much bigger than 60 pedestrians either.
Posted 12 years ago # -
If cycles are traffic why should we expect to be given priority over bus users and people using Princes st, If we're not then we've got bigger problems.
Isn't almost the entire problem that we keep trying to pretend that cyclists are vehicles, like double decker buses and HGVs, when the Dutch (aka only demonstrably successful) approach is more like treating cyclists as "fast pedestrians"?
In fact of course they do neither, they treat bikes as bikes, not pedestrians but certainly not traffic either. But the point stands I think. Britain's dismal modal share is a giant monument to the failure of thinking that is lumping cyclists in with traffic.
IMO....
Posted 12 years ago # -
"I would never think of cycling there"
Me too really.
I think there is a theoretically useful route from King's Stables Road to The Mound, south of the railway (without running over the sunbathers).
Sometimes(?) shut due to rock falls
Posted 12 years ago # -
" But the point stands I think. Britain's dismal modal share is a giant monument to the failure of thinking that is lumping cyclists in with traffic."
EXACTLY my point. thank you dave
Posted 12 years ago # -
60 bicycles not much bigger than a bus, really. Not much bigger than 60 pedestrians either.
whilst stopped...
Posted 12 years ago # -
I'm shooting myself in the foot here, but this is why it's so rarely a good idea to listen to established cyclists about cycling, IMO.
I think about this a lot since I tried to get a colleague onto the almost ideal commute of canal -> NEPN and it didn't work out due to traffic on the connecting roads. I think some may recall that we discussed it on CCE at the time and the conclusion was he should go back to the car (as he would only otherwise do it by hopping onto the pavement at times).
Given that we'd like similar sorts of people to turn up at Waverley with bikes, I really think the junctions between Princes St and George St combined with the extra hassle of parking up and walking up and down to the shops makes it a nonstarter to remove cycle provision from Princes St (although what's being removed, admittedly, is pretty much as poor as it gets)
Posted 12 years ago #
Reply »
You must log in to post.
posts
