CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » Infrastructure

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

(340 posts)

No tags yet.


1…456…12

  1. chdot
    Admin

    "when there is nothing, nothing, provided for cyclists at present"

    Clearly that's not true.

    Even if you are just talking about G+P Sts.

    There are signs for Sustrans routes and a bit of bike parking and a lot of tarmac.

    I'm happy that some people on here have enough faith in 'the council' to deliver something really good (for cycling) on George Street.

    If its whinging to say 'yeah but there are hardly removing any car parking' then fine I'm whinging.

    So I have to decide whether I'm wrong or misguided or at least out of touch with the 'praise a lot kick a little' (Edinburgh) way of working which gave us the QBC.

    if Mr. Gehl, who knows a bit about these things, was saying 'look removing bikes from bits of Princes Street is a small sacrifice for the greater good' I'd be saying 'yeah that makes sense I'll go along with that, I'm not really someone who thinks cyclists are the only people who matter'.

    But I don't think he's saying that.

    I've also been in a small room where he told 20 or so people about his 40th (I think) wedding anniversary where he and his wife cycled from their Copenhagen home to a city centre restaurant on infrastructure that made it possible - and made them feel it was possible.

    I feel there are not enough people in Edinburgh wishing/hoping/wanting/expecting that to happen here.

    So I get impatient, and a bit sad when people on here seem to be saying 'something is better than nothing' or 'don't complain too much or you won't get anything'.

    So I suppose it comes down to wondering if I am just really a 'cyclist' who just wants better stuff for me - and those wise enough to have seen the 'cyclist light'.

    But really I'll just remain part of an irrelevant, minority and just shut up and give up.

    Perhaps it's too soon to do anything major about George Street - a bit too much 'eggs in one basket'.

    Today's news on Leith Walk shows that a bit of robust campaigning works - even if it relies on SG giving Sustrans some money.

    What is needed now is some detail of how the new improved Leith Walk will connect with the new improved City Centre.

    That's not whinging, that's rational and constructive.

    Posted 12 years ago #

  2. Wilmington's Cow
    Member

    "So I get impatient, and a bit sad when people on here seem to be saying 'something is better than nothing' or 'don't complain too much or you won't get anything'."

    That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that the suggested plans for George Street are excellent, not perfect, but excellent, and as such not being able to cycle (one way) down Princes Street isn't really a loss at all because the George Street provision would be so good.

    By all means query the continuing car parking on George Street, and query how it links up at either end (you mention Leith Walk, which has the same query, 'but how does it link with Queen Street, St Andrew Square, Leith Street'). What I find odd is complaining that we can't use a parallel route a mere 50-60 yards away (when actually, we can, but yeah, only one way, but not because bikes have specifically and solely been banned).

    I've ridden in Copenhagen, and like Mr Gehl, with my wife, that was only possible due to the infrastructure that was put in place. Consequently I would LOVE to have that infrastructure in place in Edinburgh - I'm not sure how saying the George Street provision is great actually equates to 'let's stop there'. I'm all for Leith Walk getting segregated provision; for there being links between these wonderful bits of infrastructure; for infrastructure to be put in place along the Western Approach; for Holyrood Park to be closed to motorised through-traffic; for the city to be criss-crossed by effective and abided-by lanes.

    I just find it odd that a consultation which has as a suggestion the first truly two-way segregated route right through the heart of the city centre can be criticised because it doesn't have specific provision on a street running parallel, a small distance away, that everyone already complains about being too busy and so they avoid it and use George Street already...

    Posted 12 years ago #

  3. fimm
    Member

    I wouldn't say people are whinging. I would say that they are expressing concern. I'm not sure that is the same thing.

    Posted 12 years ago #

  4. Wilmington's Cow
    Member

    No you're right, they're very different things.

    Posted 12 years ago #

  5. Dave
    Member

    Anth, you wrote previously about the danger that highlighting the desirability of Princes St would result in nothing at all on either street.

    Aren't you afraid that if, after implementation, the Council was asked about bike provision on Princes St it might say "oh yes, that could have been easily accommodated before we spent £Xm on the works, but nobody asked for it. In fact they were Full of Praise for our proposals as implemented"?

    The laughable joke that is the Quality Bike Corridor is (perhaps) the product of failing to ask for something really good, because something that was a slight improvement was on the table.

    As I told the council, the proposal for the Giant Gyro is a gigantic leap for the stars, but that doesn't mean I feel unable to also point out where it is flawed.

    [Edited to add: surely Leith Walk is a recent demonstration of the success of this approach, too. The segregated lanes were certainly better than nothing, but not much better because only children and grannies who have the guts to stick Picardy Place and London Road roundabouts could use them. Was it irresponsible to jeopardise the improvement by asking for more?]

    Posted 12 years ago #

  6. Wilmington's Cow
    Member

    Dave, the Leith Walk segregated lanes were strange hybrids on the pavement, giving way at all junctions (of which there are more than on George Street) and amounted to onthing more than shared use paths of the worst sort and were roundly criticised.

    The George Street proposal has a properly segregated two-way cycle lane giving a good route right across the centre of the city.

    In short you're comparing apples and pears: Leith Walk, ridiculous provision suggested with no alternative route available for cyclists meaning the area is as, if not more, dangerous than it was before; Princes Street, no provision, but 50-60 yards away a world class two-way segregated cycle lane, meaning if nothing happens to Princes Street there will still be a safe two-way segregated cycle lane on George Street.

    "Aren't you afraid that if, after implementation, the Council was asked about bike provision on Princes St it might say "oh yes, that could have been easily accommodated before we spent £Xm on the works, but nobody asked for it. In fact they were Full of Praise for our proposals as implemented"?

    No, for a couple of reasons. 1. I think that with the excellent provision on George Street people will pretty much forget about wanting to ride on Princes Street because it's only 50-60 yards away and the efforts could be diverted to getting routes elsewhere in the city where there isn't already provision 50-60 yards away; 2. if they DO put Princes Street provision in aren't you worried they'll then say they don't have the money for George Street? (and if not, ebcause you can travel along Princes Street why is that any different than being able to travel along George Street); 3. Are you worried if they put infrastructure on Princes Street they'll then say they don't have money for Leith Walk?; 4. Are you worried if they put infrastructure on Princes Street they'll say they don't have the money for improving Lothian Road? (just trying to say the 'if you spend money here it wohn't be available there' argument can be taken to daft extremes); 5. QBC I did complain about because it was clearly ridiculous (and there wasn't a segregated two-way cycle lane 50-60 yards away); 6. QBC was, as far as I remember, a case in point of Spokes saying exactly that 'it's a good start' so I do wonder if the current stance is a reaction to that.

    Right, let's turn this question round. If the George Street proposals go ahead, and there's a two-way segregated lane there, with good links at either end to West Coates and Lothian Road and Waverley and the newly segregated lanes on Leith Walk... what is the specific need to be able to ride on Princes Street (apart from the nicer view)?

    Posted 12 years ago #

  7. steveo
    Member

    So I get impatient, and a bit sad when people on here seem to be saying 'something is better than nothing' or 'don't complain too much or you won't get anything'.

    As I said earlier, this is just my opinion, being treated as (a subset of) general traffic seems to be the main consternation and I don't think this is wrong also I just don't think Princes St is worth the fight, its a dead duck, focusing energies at a place which could be pleasant (George St) could be much more productive. I accept that, odds are, the council will make a mess of the segregated lane on George St but the odds off success are much better if they are actually supported by "us".

    Now if people want to lobby for an exemption for cyclists thats fine and totally up to them but a two lane segregated route will probably come at the expense of pedestrians not buses and taxis and I'd rather be able to walk along Princes St. when I do need something than cycle through it when I don't.

    Posted 12 years ago #

  8. Instography
    Member

    I confess that I haven't studied the details of the proposals because I don't cycle around Edinburgh much. Is the comparison to the QBC fair?

    Posted 12 years ago #

  9. Wilmington's Cow
    Member

    No. QBC was an onroad advisory lane, with additional parking along the route, and sections with no cycle lane at all, and no segregation.

    George Street proposal has two-way completely segregated lane. But clearly the inability to use Princes Street (one way) over-rides the benefit of this two-way segregated lane.

    Posted 12 years ago #

  10. chdot
    Admin

    "If the George Street proposals go ahead, and there's a two-way segregated lane there, with good links at either end to West Coates and Lothian Road and Waverley and the newly segregated lanes on Leith Walk... what is the specific need to be able to ride on Princes Street (apart from the nicer view)?"

    The key word of course is "if".

    Still not sure what the "fuss" fuss is about.

    Plan to sort George St. - Good.

    Plan to take more traffic off Princes Street. - Good.

    Timescale? Money in place?

    Presumably G. will be done first.

    Some day traffic will be re-routed.

    Unlikely that work will start on P. on same day (and be completely barriered off).

    So it will be a bit like the second go at the tram works. I imagine plenty of people will be cycling along it (as well as G.)

    If they don't, no problem. If they do, might be worth allowing for it.

    Posted 12 years ago #

  11. Wilmington's Cow
    Member

    Indeed, the key word is 'if' - I still, personally, think it's worth fighting for that 'if' to become a 'done' than asking for Princes Street provision as well as George Street.

    Again, I have to ask, 'if' (and yes, it's a big word) the infrastructure is put in place well on George Street, why do we need to have Princes Street as well? (beyond it demonstrating we take cycling seriously - I'd suggest a two-way segregated lane right through the centre of town actually does that pretty well anyway).

    Posted 12 years ago #

  12. SRD
    Moderator

    @insto if you mean dave's comparison,. where he said "Aren't you afraid that if, after implementation, the Council was asked about bike provision on Princes St it might say "oh yes, that could have been easily accommodated before we spent £Xm on the works, but nobody asked for it. In fact they were Full of Praise for our proposals as implemented"?"

    Then, yes. It is totally fair.

    Posted 12 years ago #

  13. Wilmington's Cow
    Member

    But as mentioned above, the consequences of that on the QBC is a bike lane that's no different from any other. The consequences of accepting the proposals here is that we're left with... a two-way segregated lane right the way through the middle of the city.

    Why is the focus here on Princes Street? Why doesn't anyone seem happy with what is suggested on George Street?

    Actually, another question. If the proposals were switched (one way George Street with no cycling provision, two-way segregated lane on Princes Street) would anyone be expressing any concerns? (please answer truthfully).

    Posted 12 years ago #

  14. steveo
    Member

    If the proposals were switched

    Well no, that would give a direct route with no need to divert which is one of the biggest complaints also cyclists would be exempted from general traffic. You'd still have the trams to worry about unless the whole street was redesigned so the cycle was was up against the fence for the gardens.

    Posted 12 years ago #

  15. Wilmington's Cow
    Member

    So (getting to the bottom of this) is it the 50-60 yard diversion at either end (for people simply transiting through or specifically visiting a shop on Princes Street) that is the issue with the proposals?

    Posted 12 years ago #

  16. PS
    Member

    what is the specific need to be able to ride on Princes Street?

    I think it was this subject that flushed me out of the woodwork on CCE for the first time after a Spokes meeting where there seemed to be a lot of people expressing the view that Princes St had to be pedestrianised (with associated cycling-provision) rather than considering any other alernatives. I couldn't see the reason for the argument beyond "it's got a good view of the Castle". I just wanted a good E-W route, and I happen to think that a pedestrianised George Street would be a much better urban space than a pedestrianised Princes Street.

    Posted 12 years ago #

  17. Roibeard
    Member

    I've little useful to add, other than carry on folks!

    The thesis/antithesis debate should provide a better synthesis at the end - and I don't think it's just an online butting of heads as I, for one, thought I had a position on this, but am becoming less convinced as the debate progresses!

    There may be broad agreement on welcoming the George Street proposals, it seems to be whether we ask for a bit more, and how strongly to phrase the request...

    Robert

    Posted 12 years ago #

  18. PS
    Member

    So (getting to the bottom of this) is it the 50-60 yard diversion at either end (for people simply transiting through or specifically visiting a shop on Princes Street) that is the issue with the proposals?

    I was going to say that for George Street to be an effective E-W route the cycle route should have priority at most (if not all) junctions along George St, but thinking back to the last time I cycled along there, those blocks are long and the cross-streets (except Hanover) not heavily used, so I didn't feel like my journey was impeded at all by having to slow down for roundabouts. I'm not sure that's really an issue. Passage will certainly be improved by not having to worry about cars pulling out/into parking spaces.

    Second concern is that lack of east-bound route on Princes St will lead to pavement cycling, which will just serve to piss off your average punter and raise the profile of "inconsiderate cyclists" in the public consciousness.

    Steveo's spot-on, though, to say if you're going to Princes St you tend to park your bike and walk. So hopefully that wouldn't be too big an issue (or no worse than now).

    Posted 12 years ago #

  19. chdot
    Admin

    "Actually, another question. If the proposals were switched (one way George Street with no cycling provision, two-way segregated lane on Princes Street) would anyone be expressing any concerns? (please answer truthfully)."

    Er, yes. (Though less so probably)

    I made my representations when George Street was blocked by a wooden tent and lots of people drinking.

    Actually, another question -

    If people were banned from walking in one direction...

    'But that's silly'

    Sure but how silly?

    People with/on bicycles are closer to pedestrians than to cars.

    'Well you could push then'

    Yes some people will some won't

    'So you're doing this to pander to those who intend to break the law'

    NO I am (as always) trying to make use of bikes 'normal' and (more) convenient.

    You know, the sort of things a 'model cycling city' ought to do without people campaigning/whinging.

    Don't forget the proposals involve taking away something that is already there.


    Classic Edinburgh street closure

    Posted 12 years ago #

  20. fimm
    Member

    There may be broad agreement on welcoming the George Street proposals, it seems to be whether we ask for a bit more, and how strongly to phrase the request...

    I would agree with this.
    If you look at some of the recent London bike blogs, there's a lot of "in general the proposals are good, but..." in there, with criticism/discussion of specific details and areas.

    Criticism doesn't have to imply negative, of course.

    Posted 12 years ago #

  21. PS
    Member

    Actually, the main complaint I have with all of this is that the George Street environment really deteriorated all the buses were diverted along it when Princes St was closed.

    The Cooncil's plans to change Lothian Buses' routes so there are fewer going through the centre of town may reduce this issue (as will G St only being one way).

    I can see the changes to the bus routes being the big thing that EEN gets its teeth into if all this goes through. Imagine the opportunity for them to interview folk who have failed to understand why the number 26 no longer goes where it used to about how their lives are in pieces as a result...

    Posted 12 years ago #

  22. Dave
    Member

    "Actually, another question. If the proposals were switched (one way George Street with no cycling provision, two-way segregated lane on Princes Street) would anyone be expressing any concerns? (please answer truthfully)."

    Yes, I should have written the same letter saying how great it was that Princes St was going to get segregated cycling facilities, but why on earth were we spending a fortune to dig up George St and reinstate it without the same.

    Respectfully I don't think the comparison of money being spent here VS cycling elsewhere is sound, because the budget for these works is generally quite separate; the QBC came from the cycling budget but Leith Walk from the money borrowed for the trams; it's not clear how the Gyro will be funded (is it a transport scheme, or does it fall under the remit of some other section of the council if it's mainly about regenerating the city centre?) but it doesn't seem likely that any surplus or shortfall will impact cycling provision on other routes.

    I don't really think the cost should be a worry in this case - the street is clearly going to be re-laid and it's not obvious that demarcating a cycle track will cost anything significant (vs laying it all uniformly).

    One idea for instance would be to remove the north pavement from Princes St completely - level it from the eastbound tram line to the building frontage - and then just mark it no entry to motorised vehicles (plus bollards) at the western end.

    Think Rose St, only much wider.

    Posted 12 years ago #

  23. SRD
    Moderator

    From twitter (sorry min)

    ‏@CllrChasBooth

    Ill-considered Princes St cycle ban discussed at #edincouncil ctte. @LAHinds agreed it's merely proposal 4 consultation, can b reversed.

    Posted 12 years ago #

  24. fimm
    Member

    Oh, I got an email from Cathy Fullerton: (I can't think of a good reason why I shouldn't post it here?)

    Thank you for contacting me about the forthcoming report on "building a vision for the city centre" which we expect to be endorsed when theTransport and Environment Committee meets on Tuesday morning. Thispreliminary vision arose following extensive discussions between officers and all capital coalition councillors; led by those with responsibility for transport and environment, planning and economicdevelopment. If endorsed this report will set in train a consultation process to run for many months. The vision proposes dedicated cycling routes along both directions of amuch more people-friendly layout for George St (and this has been widelywelcomed) but many residents of Edinburgh have also written to us to point out that they would like to see additional cycling provision eastbound on Princes St too.

    It is worth emphasising that the vision in the report is a starting point for discussion. What will happen during the consultation is that cycling specific workshops will be organised such that groups like Spokes will have more than one opportunity to put the case for additional eastbound provision, and also comment on related matters suchas the need for better cycle parking facilities. The views you have expressed in your email will be taken into account too. Such an approach was taken last year with regard to the improvements to Leith Walk and this was found to be invaluable and resulted in many changes to the original designs. The outcomes will then be discussed andconsidered in the context of the needs of ALL users of the city centre(such as pedestrians, tourists and business people) and also, for example, the implications for cycle safety and otherwise of trams.Further more detailed proposals will then be brought forward.

    In the light of the above, our Transport and Environment Committee members are not presently of the view that the report needs to beamended with regard to Princes St. But ultimately your local councillors will decide whether and how cycling provision changes significantly from that proposed in Tuesday's report and we promise to listen to the cases presented to us very carefully.
    (emphasis mine)

    I also got a short "thank you for your email" on behalf of Donald Wilson

    Posted 12 years ago #

  25. stiltskin
    Member

    Oh well. I wouldn't want to go through town during the Festival anyway.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-edinburgh-east-fife-21843732

    Posted 12 years ago #

  26. chdot
    Admin

    "
    Part of Edinburgh's George Street will be closed again for the Festival Fringe this August despite concerns of some traders.

    "

    Of course this won't happen next year when the trams are running and there is a segregated cycle path on George Street...

    Posted 12 years ago #

  27. DaveC
    Member

    Think about this:

    Part of Edinburgh's George Street will be closed again for the Festival Fringe this August despite concerns of some traders.
    Traders reported takings down by as much as 50% last summer when the road was closed for the festival.

    Why would you base your business in the centre of the city if you relied heavily on passing motor trade? Surly people are realising that city centres should be given back to pedestrians for a much quieter and peacefull space? Perhaps we need a new Out Of Town Boutique with thousands of underground parking spaces???

    Posted 12 years ago #

  28. steveo
    Member

    Why would you base your business in the centre of the city if you relied heavily on passing motor trade?

    For the same reason HMV/Virgin are dead, Jessops is dead, Game is dying. Companies are slow to change, very large companies can't change. Up until 15 years ago people did drive into town that has been slowly changing but companies are even slower to realise this and most will be killed off before they can adapt to the new niche. Sometimes a new more nimble company will take their place and start the process over. Evolution on a corporate scale.

    Posted 12 years ago #

  29. Arellcat
    Moderator

    Companies are slow to change, very large companies can't change.

    Do you mean "companies whose stock comprises large numbers of small-sized and/or perishable and/or virtual items"? It seems that as long as something can be reasonably posted or small-couriered (or downloaded), people will buy online from a warehouse, instead of a shop. Maybe people just aren't that bothered about having a product in their hand straightaway if waiting a few days means they can save a bit of money.

    Posted 12 years ago #

  30. steveo
    Member

    Do you mean "companies whose stock comprises large numbers of small-sized and/or perishable and/or virtual items"?

    Yes, but, shops selling small volume of innumerable things of decent quality are also in that category (Greys) though John Lewis seem to be the exception. Some suppliers of perishables are actively moving into the city centres attracted to the passing foot trade but not stocking the bulky items that would need to be transported by something larger than a cargo bike.

    Posted 12 years ago #

RSS feed for this topic

1…456…12

Reply »

You must log in to post.


Video embedded using Easy Video Embed plugin