I've done this now. If anyone wants inspiration:
http://mccraw.co.uk/princes-st-to-be-rebuilt-without-cycle-provision/
CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » Infrastructure
TRAFFIC is to be banned from the north side of Princes Street
(340 posts)-
Posted 12 years ago #
-
From above link -
"
I note that at this stage the Committee is only being asked to agree “in principle” with the proposals and to agree a consultation plan. In my opinion the Committee should offer vital guidance at this early stage that it expects to see an option including two-way segregated cycling on Princes St put out for consultation."
Yep.
Posted 12 years ago # -
I think the trouble with this proposal is that cycles are being treated exactly like cars and cycles are not cars. If you are in a car, it makes no difference whether you drive along Princes Street or George Street. You are only driving past in order to get to the car park anyway. If you are on a bike then you are effectively a slightly faster pedestrian and it is pedestrians who buy stuff from shops or go into cafes. Krispy Krack Drive Throughs notwithstanding.
Posted 12 years ago # -
B. PRINCES STREET 1-WAY BIKE BAN : URGENT
The council has published radical outline proposals for the future of Princes Street and George Street, with one-way motor traffic in each, a traffic-free north side, and a segregated cycleroute in George Street.
We support the overall concept [though we'd slightly prefer a fully traffic-free Princes Street] and we applaud the council's intention not to let this drift any further, but are extremely unhappy at one aspect - what appears to be a ban on eastbound cycling in Princes Street.
Early results from our current survey of Spokes members prefer a traffic-free Princes Street, but the option of one-way motor traffic in both Princes St and George St is also strongly supported - assuming there is 2-way cycling in both.
There is an article in Spokesworker [above] and a longer discussion on our website
http://www.spokes.org.uk/wordpress/2013/03/princes-street-1-way-bike-ban/The proposals go to the Transport Committee this Tuesday 19 March and, if approved, there will then be a public consultation. However we very much hope the apparent eastbound bike ban will have an initial airing at this Committee. Ideally councillors would decide in principle that cycling provision will be made, with the details to be worked out later.
*** If this concerns you, please consider emailing your councillors this weekend if at all possible [assuming this reaches you in time!] Tell them your concerns and ask them to speak to any of their colleagues who are on the Transport Committee before Tuesday's meeting. Find your councillors at http://www.writetothem.com.
When writing, you might wish also to congratulate them on deciding to take action to improve Princes Street and George Street, which is long overdue! Whilst Spokes would prefer an entirely traffic-free Princes Street, the council's compromise looks like a worthwhile step forward [apart from the bike ban of course]. It could lead to greater things in future, in the same way that the council initially banned cars from Princes St in one direction, and when that worked well they then made a complete ban.
http://www.spokes.org.uk/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/1303-16-circular-to-all.txt
Posted 12 years ago # -
Councillors duly written to!
Posted 12 years ago # -
If there isn't two-way provision on Princes Street the Cooncil will find new cycle desire lines opening up on the pavements eastbound. Not necessarily for through traffic if the George Street segregated path is good quality and has priority across most junctions, but certainly for travel, say, from Waterstones to Castle St, as shoppers get back on their bikes and decide that travelling 100 yards on the pavement makes more sense than 400 yards on the cyclepath. Human nature will rule.
The only way to avoid this is two-way provision (plenty of room for it - how's about between tramlines and pavement?, and not expensive), which would also have the beneficial effect of showing folk that the council supports and encourages active travel.
Posted 12 years ago # -
Right. I've written too.
Posted 12 years ago # -
Me too. And Hubby.
Posted 12 years ago # -
Cyclists have highlighted to the Council how dangerous they think it is for cyclists to mix with trams/tram lines in Princes Street, particularly going East, at the point where the trams turn up to the square.
Should we then be surprised that the Council have used the first rule in the hierarchy of risk control and avoided the conflict?
We're always promoting cyclng on the basis of how handy a bike is and how it gets you places easily in town so would it really be so hard to have to cycle down one of the north/south streets to get to within a few paces of whichever Princes Street shop was being favoured with our custom? Many people would be doing so anyway due to their natural approach direction so it's not all journeys that would be affected.
Posted 12 years ago # -
I'm unsure about this. As noted above much has been said about how dangerous the tram lines are on Princes St and "we" are happy to have cars routed away, preferably far away, but get angry when "we" are asked to walk a few dozen metres. If the provision on George St is good quality and I'm talking about racks as much as kerb separated lanes, then I'm not so worried about it.
It might be a little inconvenient if you're only going to one shop for one thing but if you're going for a few things then the time walking back to the bike is probably inconsequential. Even going for one item, Princes St can still be accessed from side streets to save a few metres walk.
To argue that people will just ride on the pavement is effectively the same argument that the EECW uses about bus lanes and bus portals.
Posted 12 years ago # -
Done.
Not the best argued email ever, but I hadn't much time and hopefully weight of numbers is more valuable than amazingly wonderfully expressed arguements...
One thing I didn't say was the "it is a bad idea because you'll get people cycling illegally anyway" arguement. I actually think it is a good point, but it also reads rather too closely to "20mph zones are a bad idea because no-one will do 20 in them anyway", and I didn't have time to work out how to phrase it.
Posted 12 years ago # -
steveo, it isn't just about going to the shops, but about transiting through the area. If I'm on Calton Hill and want to go to Haymarket, I'm being asked to go round 3 sides of a square. It is also about objecting to anything that makes cycling more difficult, when local and national governments are supposed to be promoting active travel.
Posted 12 years ago # -
"I'm being asked to go round 3 sides of a square. It is also about objecting to anything that makes cycling more difficult, when local and national governments are supposed to be promoting active travel."
More of a rectangle, with a veeeeery long side parallel to the route you'd take otherwise, and two very short sides to access that.
I think you can see which side of the fence I'm on. If it's a two-way, segregated, lane on George Street... I'm happy (and I take that route quite often in the mornings as my 'Regent Road' way to work). Yes, having segregated lanes everywhere would make cycling 'easier', but given our starting point I don't think a segregated route such as this would be 'making cycling more difficult'.
And of course, there's nothign stopping anyone still cycling one-way on Princes Street as well if they so wish (though I'll still probably stick with the nice segregated lane).
Posted 12 years ago # -
I'm being asked to go round 3 sides of a square.
But how much distance do these extra two sides add? No more than 500m i'd wager. The time involved would be negligible compared to the inevitable red wave on Princes St. Even when a 10k ride was a lot for me I'd not have thought twice about going 500m out of my way to access decent quality facilities and avoid Princes St with the mass of buses juggling for space, not all of them LB and not all of them paying sufficient attention and then there is the taxis...
This just has the feeling of the knee jerk reaction in the chipwrappper when any similar proposals are aimed at the OLAM.
Posted 12 years ago # -
I replied to this yesterday and then somehow my post got lost and I didn't have the energy to rewrite - here's a precis:
1. if we look at cities that have successfully promoted cycling they have contraflows and two-way cycleways, not 'no cycling' signs that treat cycles like cars.
2. the point about cycling is that cyclists stop off and visit markets, stalls, cafes etc, not just about through-routes
3. what sort of a message does it send to people arriving haymarket/waverly/in town from airport etc to be greeted with big 'no cycling' signs?
Anyway, here's my letter to councillors: http://deceasedcanine.blogspot.co.uk/2013/03/a-letter-to-my-councillors.html
Posted 12 years ago # -
"It is also about objecting to anything that makes cycling more difficult, when local and national governments are supposed to be promoting active travel."
This is a highly relevant point.
George Street is also higher up the hill and because of things like Multrees Walk there's not much chance of a convenient 'through route' avoiding the tram lines.
Though of course "avoiding the tram lines" isn't possible with any route that includes St. Andrew Square or York Place!
'We' of course expect better (with good reason) but have to be aware of the famous "balance" - beloved most politicians including Lesley Hinds.
Such 'balance' is of course between the minority 'us' and "the majority" 'motorists'.
Pedestrians remain sidelined...
A proper balance would remove parking from George Street (except perhaps for horses and carriages.
Since the demise of Gray's the 'I need my car to collect large items' argument has less strength.
Posted 12 years ago # -
SRD, I'll concede point 1 in so far as cities which are trying to promote cycling do these things. They also plan heavy road reconstruction so's not be to the detriment of cyclists or pedestrians, I think we can all agree CEC doesn't meet this criteria.
2. Cyclists don't, any more than drivers do. Pedestrians visit shops and markets etc how they came to be a pedestrian only matters in whether you need to install Sheffield stands or parking bays.
3. Probably none at all, most visitors from the UK probably don't give cycle facilities or lack of a second thought, Dutch visitors probably already have a notion in their head about how cycling is in the UK and won't be surprised by anything they see.
Posted 12 years ago # -
"More of a rectangle, with a veeeeery long side parallel to the route you'd take otherwise, and two very short sides to access that."
Yeah but.
Looking at the map -
http://www2.jpscotland.co.uk/en/trafficmap.pdf
I don't understand how the iconic George Street cycle superhighway connects with anything(?)
Posted 12 years ago # -
"2. Cyclists don't, any more than drivers do."
Do you think? I'm pretty sure that cyclists are more prone to hopping off and checking something out. doesn't always require a full lock-up. although I wouldn't advise wheeling a bike through a crowded market, this can be done at quiet times, or if you're with someone else they can often hold it for you while you pick up a snack or whatever.
Posted 12 years ago # -
"3. Probably none at all, most visitors from the UK probably don't give cycle facilities or lack of a second thought, Dutch visitors probably already have a notion in their head about how cycling is in the UK and won't be surprised by anything they see."
That's just defeatist. anyone exiting waverley and seeing a good quality two-way cycle way, trams and a partially pedestrianised street will have a totally different impression of Edinburgh.
Posted 12 years ago # -
Do you think? I'm pretty sure that cyclists are more prone to hopping off and checking something out.
Maybe, but how often do you just hop off on or near Princes St? Virtually any time I'd want to use any facilities in town I'd want my bike as secure as possible and doing so usually means moving it is inconvenient so I end up using it like a car. Find a place to secure it and go and do what I need to do.
Personally I find the centre of town either a destination, in which case I lock up and walk, or an area to transit through in which case I'm more likely to be watching the roads and avoid the taxis and tram lines. I'd be more likely to spot something and hop off on George St.
That's just defeatist.
Pragmatic? I suspect the road works and broken down tram in the middle of junction means my mental picture of the future for Princes St. is a little different ;).Posted 12 years ago # -
"... anyone exiting waverley and seeing a good quality two-way cycle way, trams and a partially pedestrianised street will have a totally different impression of Edinburgh."
And does that two way cycle lane have to be along Princes Street? What if it's well signposted and conected to the two-way cycle lane on George Street? Why is that less impressive?
Also, going the 'one-way' down Princes Street there won't be 'no cycling' signs, and coming the other way there won't be 'no cycling' signs, but rather 'one way, no entry' signs for all traffic - that's not anti-cycling.
"I don't understand how the iconic George Street cycle superhighway connects with anything(?)"
And I tihnk we'd get further with asking for that to be connected, than demanding we're allowed to cycle in the opposite direction to the trams and buses on Princes Street.
Posted 12 years ago # -
"I don't understand how the iconic George Street cycle superhighway connects with anything(?)"
It will connect to the segregated two-way, prioritised cycleway which will by-pass the north side of the London Road and Picardy Place roundabouts past the Holiday Inn and Tesco Metro, and have a dedicated phase of the lights at the top of Broughton St to go onto the cycle path on York Place, which will then curve up the inside of the tramline on N St Andrew Sq, cross the tramline on the flat part of the square and flow round to George St.
At least it would if I was in charge. ;-) Maybe that's what the Sustrans cash will pay for?
Posted 12 years ago # -
"Maybe, but how often do you just hop off on or near Princes St?"
I used to do, a lot. We'd cycle to the farmer's market, then carry on down to Boots, M&S and our bank (on St Andrew's square), and then on to jack Brown's, Valvona & Crolla and john lewis. Often, we'd also stop at whatever market was on at castle street too.
Posted 12 years ago # -
"Also, going the 'one-way' down Princes Street there won't be 'no cycling' signs, and coming the other way there won't be 'no cycling' signs, but rather 'one way, no entry' signs for all traffic - that's not anti-cycling."
But it's not encouraging cycling either! And the whole point is to make cycling EASIER.
Posted 12 years ago # -
Yes, me too. I locked to the railings. I avoid Princes Street as much as possible now.
Posted 12 years ago # -
"But it's not encouraging cycling either! And the whole point is to make cycling EASIER."
But my contention is that a well-signposted joining route to a two-way segregated path along Gerge Street WOULD make cycling easier...
Posted 12 years ago # -
I used to do, a lot.
I find constantly locking up the bike a real pain so to do what you've described I'd have locked up near the farmers market and wandered round. Moved the bike down to Boots then depending on my final destination moved it again down to Lewis', but I wouldn't describe that as hopping off. Thats at least (for me) two separate "parking" events and not the whimsy implied with hopping.
To me hopping off is riding along seeing something interesting, securing bike to convenient structure (or not if safe) and investigating. Not something I've ever encountered in near 20 years of using Princes St.
Posted 12 years ago # -
Popping into shops from a car could get 'easier':
Posted 12 years ago # -
I'll take one decent piece of infrastructure anywhere in the centre of town that will allow people to see the potential. Don't care if it's Princes Street or George Street so long as the Council is saying, 'right what's next?' by the time they've finished.
Posted 12 years ago #
Reply »
You must log in to post.
posts
