CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » Infrastructure

TRAFFIC is to be banned from the north side of Princes Street

(340 posts)

No tags yet.


1…345…12

  1. Morningsider
    Member

    I suspect there will be some people at the Council who are coming to the conclusion that they just cannot ever please cyclists. Look at what cyclists have been saying:

    1. Princes Street is deadly to cycle along
    2. Can we have segregated infrastructure

    What has the Council proposed:

    1. "Remove" bikes from Princes Street
    2. Provide segregated infrastructure on parallel route

    What have cyclists done:

    1. Criticised removal of bikes from Princes Street
    2. Criticised provision of segregated infrastructure

    Honestly, people's patience isn't infinite and there are very many demands on public funds. How long do you carry on supporting cycling when all you ever get is a negative response. We have to remember that these proposals aren't just about cycling and that a route along George Street may better suit as many cyclists as one along Princes Street. Yes, the route may not be fully connected up - but if it proves to be a success then it could become the spine of a much larger segregated network.

    Posted 12 years ago #

  2. chdot
    Admin

    "At least it would if I was in charge"

    And at the Charlotte Square end?

    Posted 12 years ago #

  3. Wilmington's Cow
    Member

    What Morningsider said (much more eloquently than I'd been managing).

    Posted 12 years ago #

  4. chdot
    Admin

    "I suspect there will be some people at the Council who are coming to the conclusion that they just cannot ever please cyclists."

    That's bound to be true

    There are several issues here.

    Do all 'cyclists' agree?

    Clearly not, and can't be expected to.

    Does Spokes 'represent' all/some/most cyclists?

    Yes and no - there was some discussion about signing its Princes Street petition.

    Some of the deadliness of PSt was due to sharing it and finding (for instance) taxis not giving room to negotiate the more difficult bits. So if motors are banned it seems perverse to ban bikes too unless a true pedestrian paradise is created where bikes would be out of place. Though I assume in similar 'prestige shopping streets' elsewhere in Europe no-one would suggest they would be out of place(?)

    Posted 12 years ago #

  5. Arellcat
    Moderator


    It really fills me full of joy
    To be so qualified to annoy;
    To know that I have got the power
    To make a motorist’s eyeballs glower.

    To spin my way along the road
    To be abused by Mister Toad;
    To spot my friend and shout hello
    To swerve my wheels to and fro.

    To take short cuts, and permeate
    To be the one the papers hate;
    To help my council understand
    That safety is my first demand.

    To critique junction diagrams
    To risk my wheels with the trams;
    To fight for primary position
    And still be driven into submission.

    To do a hundred miles one day
    To ride to work with no delay;
    To visit, with convenient stops
    To spend my money in the shops.

    Our air; our roads; now bear the scars
    From people brushed aside for cars;
    There’s just one thing I must explain
    The city is a bike’s domain!

    I was originally going to post it on the 'Today's Rubbish Driving' thread, but think it might be better here.

    Posted 12 years ago #

  6. chdot
    Admin

    "Yes, the route may not be fully connected up - but if it proves to be a success then it could become the spine of a much larger segregated network."

    I would like to be able to agree with that as logical.

    Well the way you put it, it's completely logical.

    The problem is the ThisIsEdinburgh problem.

    Ban bikes on half of Princes Street and have half a cycle route on George Street.

    I would be happy with that 'in the short term' as part of a coherent plan for delivering any sort of network where vaguely competent cyclists can proceed without fear.

    The whole of Edinburgh has suffered massive disruption, and had promises about the benefits of the trams.

    Assuming it turns out well (and ignoring any 'value for money' questions) I would welcome a similar commitment/process for a cycle line (I mean network).

    But it's just bit too much 'more of the same' where people who drive into the centre of Edinburgh are more important than those who might cycle and a lot more important than those who actually do.

    It's NOT about Princes Street v George Street.

    That's divisive.

    And it's working.

    Posted 12 years ago #

  7. fimm
    Member

    @Arellcat, I like that a lot.

    Spokes is certainly encouraging people to welcome the plans when they contact thier councillors, and then add the critique of the Princes St ban.

    Maybe a good question to ask would be, if we were suddenly taken over by a bengin Dutch dictatorship, what would they do?

    (I do feel like I can't do anything right... )

    Posted 12 years ago #

  8. SRD
    Moderator

    "Maybe a good question to ask would be, if we were suddenly taken over by a benign Dutch dictatorship, what would they do?"

    Brilliant!!!!

    (there's a blog post for you!)

    Posted 12 years ago #

  9. neddie
    Member

    Nice poem Arellcat! Could I re-quote it on my cycling wiki page at work?

    Posted 12 years ago #

  10. PS
    Member

    "At least it would if I was in charge"

    And at the Charlotte Square end?

    Segregated cycle lane down S Charlotte St to Princes St to allow access to Lothian Road (gets messy there due to bus stops unfortunately, but plenty wide enoough for cycle provision in due course) and phase on the lights to allow crossing to segregated (kerbed) lane around south side of Charlotte Sq and Hope St to access Shandwick Pl (which I seem to remember is to be closed to "normal" traffic [or did the Council cave in on that one?], so loads of room for segregated lane to Haymarket).

    Posted 12 years ago #

  11. PS
    Member

    I take Morningsider's point on this, but this all just illustrates that "cyclists" are no more a homogenous group than "drivers", "cabbies", "men", "women"...

    You can't please all the people all of the time.

    Posted 12 years ago #

  12. Dave
    Member

    There are good points being made on both sides above. For me the bottom line is that Princes St is very easily wide enough to be a pedestrian paradise that also accommodates cycling. So is George St.

    To me there are significant advantages to maintaining a direct route along Princes St; so obvious that I don't think there's any point enumerating them. But let's be honest - planners can't work these things out for themselves (the evidence to the contrary is everywhere) so they need our help.

    The outcome of the consultation might still be to remove cyclists from Princes St, but whereas that is certain if nobody suggests otherwise, it's only a possibility if enough people object.

    I'm not sure I would willingly divert onto George St (although it's hard to say as I only ever visit Princes St recreationally, which means almost never). It's just so indirect, not only in the sense that you have to ride two streets to the side at either end, but also the number and volume of cross-traffic to be accommodated (pedestrian and motorised).

    Posted 12 years ago #

  13. Arellcat
    Moderator

    Eddie, yes of course, as long as you acknowledge me. :-) A tip of the hat, of course, to Spike Milligan.

    I would be perfectly in favour of a proper route on George Street, as long as it was connected at each end in a way that worked. As soon as you create a segregated route—a segregated primary route, no less—you have to design in all the ways of getting to it or from it, so that you don't hugely disadvantage the people you want to be using it in the first place. And those access routes have to be equally safe to use, not obstacle courses strewn with bollards and right-angled turns. I would, however, be very disappointed if cycling was banned outright on Princes St eastbound, if the alternative wasn't useable. My velomobile might have the turning circle of an oil tanker, but it's still pedal powered and still legally a bicycle.

    It's like the eastern end of the Broomhouse path: it's there for the taking, but there's no convenient way to access it! It would be like building a motorway but not upgrading any of the feeder roads, and just for giggles, putting some big gates at either end, just in case a bicyclist tried to use it.

    Posted 12 years ago #

  14. Wilmington's Cow
    Member

    Can we stop saying it's a 'cycling ban' on Princes Street? It's a 'traffic ban in one direction'.

    Cycling has not beezn singled out, and in the provision of a segregated two-way cycle specific lane on George Street, cycling has been much MUCH more catered for than it was previously!

    Absolutely true that we can't please all of the people all of the time, but calling it a specific 'cycling ban' is simply wrong.

    Posted 12 years ago #

  15. PS
    Member

    The devil will be in the detail.

    For instance, who will have priority at the junctions on George St? I could see the cyclelane getting it at Castle and Fred if CEC are doing this properly(although road design to convince drivers that they are not on a normal road environment will be required); but what about Hanover St?

    Posted 12 years ago #

  16. Dave
    Member

    Can we stop saying it's a 'cycling ban' on Princes Street? It's a 'traffic ban in one direction'.

    This is true, but neither is it helpful to lump cyclists in with "traffic" IMO. If you were to boil down continental success in cycling provision it would be this: cyclists are not "traffic".

    This is probably ultra-pertinent. From here I can't reference any of the pics directly, alas:

    http://aseasyasridingabike.wordpress.com/2013/03/14/in-praise-of-gyratories-why-more-of-them-could-be-the-answer/

    I suppose another way of phrasing the argument is this: nary a Dutch traffic planner would contemplate failing to provide for cyclists on Princes St.

    What does it tell us that we're proposing to spend a lot of money on a redesign which countries successful at cycling provision would never countenance?

    Posted 12 years ago #

  17. SRD
    Moderator

    "Cycling has not beezn singled out, and in the provision of a segregated two-way cycle specific lane on George Street, cycling has been much MUCH more catered for than it was previously!"

    I refer you to the fimm test (above).

    Cyclists are being treated like cars, when we should be using policy to encourage more cycling.

    Posted 12 years ago #

  18. Wilmington's Cow
    Member

    Sigh. Fine, call it a cycling ban.

    Posted 12 years ago #

  19. Wilmington's Cow
    Member

    "I suppose another way of phrasing the argument is this: nary a Dutch traffic planner would contemplate failing to provide for cyclists on Princes St."

    Yes, because every single road in the Netherlands has a cyclepath. Every single one.

    Posted 12 years ago #

  20. Dave
    Member

    Building just one cycle path is also an obvious failure of redundancy.

    I can only imagine the squeals the first time a festival event, Christmas event or similar closes off the new George St facility in its entirety and people have no choice but to use the gyro-road. On the other hand, it wouldn't matter quite as much to put out signage saying "George St track closed this month, divert to Princes St".

    Posted 12 years ago #

  21. chdot
    Admin

    It's not like there isn't any money anymore -

    http://www.scotsman.com/edinburgh-evening-news/latest-news/1m-to-lure-shoppers-to-tramworks-hit-edinburgh-1-2842830

    Posted 12 years ago #

  22. Dave
    Member

    Yes, because every single road in the Netherlands has a cyclepath. Every single one.

    Find me any one road of this width in the Netherlands with a commercial zoning, no private car use and no bike provision whatsoever, and I'll consider myself soundly beaten.

    Posted 12 years ago #

  23. steveo
    Member

    Cyclists are not being treated like cars, that is very EECW! Cyclists are being treated like people in taxis or buses. All traffic which is currently eligible to use Princes St is being redirected cyclist are not being singled out in that respect. They are being singled out in having some new infrastructure built for them, the quality of that is the biggest concern for me mainly because TIE

    As was pointed out in the Spokes thread some times you have to give a little or you come off sounding petulant...

    Posted 12 years ago #

  24. fimm
    Member

    @SRD I want to blog about the pleasures of cycling for 4 hours in the rain/sleet/snow first, but then I suspect that there's at least one post in this one (one on the specifics, and possibly a more general one about what I want from cycling infrastructure as well)

    Posted 12 years ago #

  25. Wilmington's Cow
    Member

    Jesus, this is getting ridiculous.

    Fine, whinge about a TWO-WAY SEGREGATED CYCLE WAY 50/60 yards from a parallell route filled with buses and trams. Seriously, whinge until your hearts are content. Complain bitterly that you're having to take an extra 30-45 seconds each way on your journey, when there is nothing, nothing, provided for cyclists at present. MoonOnnaStick, there you go, it's yours.

    I appear to have wandered into the depressive complaining circular-argumented self-interested world of the EEN comments by mistake.

    Posted 12 years ago #

  26. steveo
    Member

    Building just one cycle path is also an obvious failure of redundancy.

    Didn't we roundly critisie the exec for building redundancy for the Forth Third bridge? Would we be happy if a second set of tram lines were laid beside the first? The redundancy is that we can still use the road with the rest of the traffic. Or there is the oft vaunted ability to suddenly become a pedestrian...

    Posted 12 years ago #

  27. chdot
    Admin

    "some times you have to give a little or you come off sounding petulant..."

    I hear what you say (even if it wasn't about me).

    "Seriously, whinge until your hearts are content."

    I hear what you say (even if it wasn't about me).

    "Complain bitterly that you're having to take an extra 30-45 seconds each way on your journey"

    Well as mentioned on the 'ride like your gran' thread, not everyone can (or wants to) zip around at high speed not noticing the extra effort on (slight) hills.

    Posted 12 years ago #

  28. Morningsider
    Member

    My understanding of how the Dutch and Danes started to get their excellent cycle infrastructure was generally to build a high profile demonstrator project in a town/city, which went on to form the backbone of a more extensive system. So in this case I would argue that what the Dutch would do is actually what the Council are proposing.

    It's easy to say - the Dutch wouldn't do that. However, we aren't Dutch. While there is lots we can learn from them, our institutional, legislative and geographic setups are very different. We have to take account of best practice and adapt it to our needs.

    I think the key question is "what next" - how do we capitalise on these plans. I honestly think we should be focusing on that.

    Posted 12 years ago #

  29. Dave
    Member

    I have to admit I don't understand why this is so controversial.

    We're talking about connecting the railway station, major city centre park, major shopping destinations and (what should be) a key east-west through route by allocating ~3m of a ~30m wide street which is going to be dug up anyway to become a cycle track.

    It's nice that George st is also going to be dug up anyway and a cycle track may emerge there too. We're on our way to the European system where streets have provision for cycling along them.

    "you should gratefully accept not being able to visit this street on your bike, because a completely different street will be made nicer than it is now"

    Posted 12 years ago #

  30. Wilmington's Cow
    Member

    "We're on our way to the European system where streets have provision for cycling along them."

    To take your Dutch example, parallell streets such as these would not necessarily both have segregated lanes on them. F'rinstance, the hotel I stayed in in Amsterdam had a segregated, two-way, cycle lane running along a canal beside it. The street on the other side of the buiding block had nothing. The street on the opposite side of the canal (which, actually, was one-way, much as Princes Street will become) had nothing (and cyclists were 'banned' from going the opposite direction on it).

    "We're talking about connecting the railway station, major city centre park, major shopping destinations and (what should be) a key east-west through route by allocating ~3m of a ~30m wide street which is going to be dug up anyway to become a cycle track"

    You do realise that that exact definition also applies to George Street?

    "I have to admit I don't understand why this is so controversial"

    Because, when presented with a wonderful opportunity for a 'European style' piece of infrastructure the reaction of many is to say, 'yeah, but this street is still rubbish so you'd better do something about that'.

    Second thread of the day where I have to say, I'm giving up. Haterz gonna hate. Of course the danger is that the council receives a lot of responises that say, "you should develop Princes Street instead", and come to the conclusion that cyclists don't want a segregated path on George Street, but they'll press ahead with the one-way circular system, which still doesn't have space or consideration for cyclists on Princes Street and so we get.... Nothing. But hey, that's got to be better than a two-way segregated path on George Street, and the ability to ride one way down Princes Street doesn't it?

    Posted 12 years ago #

RSS feed for this topic

1…345…12

Reply »

You must log in to post.


Video embedded using Easy Video Embed plugin