CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » Infrastructure

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

(340 posts)

No tags yet.


  1. chdot
    Admin

    "Jessops is dead"

    Is would be 'convenient' to think this was just because Shandwick Place was shut because of the tram!

    Clearly things are changing in many ways.

    Some big companies have had their heads in the sand. Morrisons is only just getting around to on-line shopping/home deliveries.

    If shops are anything to go by people only want coffee and mobile 'phones!

    "Passing motor trade" tends to pass (except when it stops on yellow lines to buy a paper!)

    'Passing trade'/footfall is more about 'attracting' people who are walking by because they are going to other shops.

    If shops close (because of out of town or the Internet or just because they don't sell things or provide services people want) there are fewer reasons to be potential passing trade.

    Edinburgh is generally doing better than many traditional 'town centres'.

    More affluent, more tourists, good bus services, more willingness to walk(?) - certainly more people cycling (and not enough bike parking).

    CEC hopes the tram will help - but is hedging its bets by keeping car parking on George Street.

    To some extent it's about 'the market' - which isn't as "efficient" as some people think.

    Shop rents don't seem go down to reflect the lack of apparent demand in some places.

    This is partly because the value is on a balance sheet somewhere (perhaps a pension fund) and it's hard to admit it's worth less.

    Maybe it will all come right in the end (or is a house of cards).

    Budget Day.

    Posted 11 years ago #
  2. crowriver
    Member

    "Passing motor trade" tends to pass (except when it stops on yellow lines to buy a paper cigarettes and chocolate!)

    FTFY. Hardly anyone buys papers any more (except for the roll-your-own-ciggies type).

    Posted 11 years ago #
  3. I still buy a Sunday paper! (though even there, the shop is about half a mile walk from the house, and there are a couple of people living around us I've seen driving there and back on a Sunday (time taken to park and turn round actually meaning I do the walk in virtually the same time)).

    Something nice about a Sunday morning over the paper with an unhealthy breakfast and tea after getting up early for a wee wildlife wander round the park.

    Posted 11 years ago #
  4. neddie
    Member

    If shops are anything to go by people only want coffee and mobile 'phones!

    Clothing and shoe shops will continue to have a bright future on the high st/town centres as well, because no one wants to order a pair of jeans online and find they don't fit.

    Posted 11 years ago #
  5. fimm
    Member

    Well I did eventually blog about this. It has come out a bit more ranty than I planned... I'm still finding my voice (and the time!)

    Posted 11 years ago #
  6. Pretty fair summation.

    I would say on this, "Others felt that to complain about this would suggest that cyclists are never satisfied. Perhaps we’d end up with no cycling provision at all?" that there's an inference that the reason the 'others' were saying not to complain was that that would directly lead to no cycling provision; the point was rather that only complaining about the lack of provision on Princes Street might lead to conclusions that the George Street lane wasn't wanted - however it seems most (all?) who have complained about Princes Street have also praised the George Street provision (seems to be the case in your own personal response).

    What I think summed up my fractured thoughts on this thread is this: "On the other hand, you might argue that we should be pleased to get good provision on George Street, and that, if it is good enough, everyone will cycle that way anyway and no one will mind not being able to use Princes Street."

    Posted 11 years ago #
  7. SRD
    Moderator

    Oh great. lesley Hinds now defending this on principle that "George Street Is the designated national cycle route"

    Lesley Hinds ‏@LAHinds 3h
    @jacqui_durie George Street Is the designated national cycle route. Cyclists will be able to use Princes Street on south side

    Posted 11 years ago #
  8. gembo
    Member

    I understand the zero tolerance position of spokes. Cycling should be possible on any road except motorway. I am not against this position. But I do not fancy riding east along princes st. Maybe west will be ok as has no junctions except the mound? I already use George st to cycle east as it is less hassle( if on north side of princes st, if on south side I use cowgate). George st is very close to princes st, you can still cycle on the iconic main st of the capital heading west. As fimm wisbo says in blog, will depend on how good the cycle lane will be on George st.

    I also feel objecting ( especially if the cycle lane in George st is any good) is not hugely positive. However, maybe keeps the pressure up on council to get decent Lane on George st? Tricky one.

    Posted 11 years ago #
  9. SRD
    Moderator

    Like Dave, I just don't see why this is so controversial. Nor why people think a oneway cycle route makes any sense whatsoever.

    Posted 11 years ago #
  10. Who is suggesting a one-way cycle route? Thought it was two-way segregated on George Street?

    Posted 11 years ago #
  11. chdot
    Admin

    "Who is suggesting a one-way cycle route?"

    Um, CEC.

    Er, Princes Street.

    Posted 11 years ago #
  12. "Cyclists will be able to use Princes Street on south side" is very different from "We'll have a one-way cycle lane" - that's basically "we're closing Princes Street to traffic one-way but bikes will still be able to use it one way (as with all other traffic) and there's a two-way segregated lane on George Street"...

    Seriously, that tweet isn't suggesting there's just a one-way cycle route....

    Posted 11 years ago #
  13. Morningsider
    Member

    To me, the issue here isn't really about cycle provision on George Street or Princes Street - I support the George Street plans and would also like to see good provision on Princes Street. The issue, to me, is how cyclists have reacted.

    It is fairly likely that the plans for a segregated cycle lane on George Street were developed in the face of some pretty stiff opposition from some Councillors and officials. Cycling is politically unpopular, regardless of what we would like to think.

    The plans will have been pushed through by a fairly dedicated bunch of cycle supporters, not all of whom will be cyclists. It is fairly likely that the proposal will already be pretty close to the best that will be secured, regardless of further lobbying.

    Now imagine you are one of those cycle supporters. Yes, it is good to hear support and constructive criticism. However, very few normal peiople ever contact a politician. If they receive more than a few emails/letters on an issue then they will assume it is matter of general concern. It is human nature to ignore the positive and focus on the negative and many politicians will see this as cyclists criticising the proposals - this has already happened in the Leith Walk scheme where cyclist criticism has resulted in the downhill lanes being removed, did anyone really ask for this? This must be pretty depressing for cycle supporters - now imagine how the objectors feel, entirely vindicated as "even cyclists oppose the scheme".

    Now, I am certain the scheme will go ahead - hopefully even including provision on Princes Street (although I doubt it). My concern is what happens next. Our supporters are likely to be a bit more reluctnt to push cycle improvements and those who dislike cycling that bit more bold in opposing any proposals. We have to learn to play the long game - developments will be incremental and may not always be what we think is best. That's how politics works. It took Holland and Denmark 30 years to reach where they are today and it is likely to take that long here.

    Posted 11 years ago #
  14. fimm
    Member

    Yes, morningsider, but being grateful for what we get got us things like the "Quality" Bike Corridor...

    Posted 11 years ago #
  15. But fimm, as mentioned above, the QBC was 'the QBC or nothing' - whereas here if we don't get the Princes Street provision we do get a two-way segregated lane on George Street.

    To my mind the comparison with the process for the QBC is a bit apples and pears.

    EDIT - FWIW I complained (officially) before and after QBC implementation as it was obvious it was a fudge and we weren't getting anything else. As I say, in this instance not complaining doesn't mean we get no provision - it means we get no provision on Princes Street, but a potentially world class provision 60 yards away.

    Posted 11 years ago #
  16. PS
    Member

    Slightly OT, but what's the story with the LW downhill lane being removed? Have I missed some announcement? I thought the plans were being taken away to see if something better could be done with Sustrans' support.

    And was the LW downhill lane the segregated lane that snuck up the side of the parked cars between Picardy Place and Elm Row?

    Posted 11 years ago #
  17. I've not seen the wohle story, but from what I've heard it seems a little petulant? Appears the complaints about the suggested lane not being very good have been taken as 'cyclists don't want the downhill lane'. I think.

    EDIT: Petulant by the Council!

    Posted 11 years ago #
  18. chdot
    Admin

    I recognise some of what Morningsider says.

    Though how and why politicians make decisions is always something of a mystery/guessing game.

    This year (in Edinburgh) organised public campaigning (and deputations to Council meetings) have persuaded councillors at the last minute to (probably) re-open Leith Waterworld and (probably) keep Castlebrae open until (at least) 2020.

    I expect similar campaigning if the 'final' proposals for Leith Walk are inadequate.

    I don't expect any such 'last ditch attempt' for Princes Street.

    However the bigger point is that CEC shouldn't even be contemplating 'one way only cycling' on Princes Street.

    In the early days of tram planning the intention was no cycling in either direction.

    This was dropped after various complaints - and the realisation that L&BP wouldn't enforce it.

    I agree with Finn.

    Not shaking the boat too much gives us the QBC.

    Welcoming a bit of incremental improvement after 30 years of campaigning is disappointing.

    Posted 11 years ago #
  19. Instography
    Member

    "Welcoming a bit of incremental improvement after 30 years of campaigning is disappointing."

    What should you do with it? I thought the point about the QBC was that it wasn't any improvement.

    Posted 11 years ago #
  20. steveo
    Member

    Welcoming a bit of incremental improvement after 30 years of campaigning is disappointing.

    I think what I'm taking from this is that cyclists aren't being treated any worse than the rest of the people who use the city and I don't see how this is a bad thing.

    This isn't a personal attack on any one but why should we expect to be treated better than bus users?

    Posted 11 years ago #
  21. Dave
    Member

    That's how politics works. It took Holland and Denmark 30 years to reach where they are today and it is likely to take that long here.

    This statement is a bit of a truism - it's taken me 29 years to get to where I am today from when it all started (on my birthday, 29 years ago). And next year it will be 30. etc.

    Ten years ago cyclists were saying "it took the Dutch 20 years to get where they are today and it will take that long here"... when will this become openly daft? 50 years? 100 years?

    I refer you all to "What do we want? Gradual change. When do we want it? In due course!"

    Just because they started decades ago does not mean it took the Dutch decades to implement cycle infrastructure. It took just eight years from a standing start before New Scientist was covering the Dutch infrastructure revolution.

    Posted 11 years ago #
  22. "Not shaking the boat too much gives us the QBC."

    So in this instance do people think that 'not rocking the boat' means we won't get the two-way segregated lane on George Street either?

    And there's still the outstanding question that I'm not sure has been answered (apologies if it has an I've missed it), if the provision on George Street is put in very well (and given this is a consultation process there's opportunity to suggest links, and surfacing, and interaction with junctions and so on) will we be that bothered abotu not wanting to ride on Princes Street?

    I know it's been said that some (novices? those not yet up to regular cycling fitness?) will resent that extra 60 yards (uphill) but given to get to the city centre in virtually every direction there are much more substantial uphills, is that really going to be a complaint? (just opening that one out, it might be, I'm personally not convinced it would be a barrier).

    And I do think there's an aspect of "Well we can't please them, why should we bother in the future". I presume everyone who contacted councillors to complain about Princes Street also praised the George Street measures (I hope so anyway).

    I think that fights can be better chosen to be honest. As I've said, and I think this may be the last time, if we don't complain about this and instead act constructively ocver the George Street proposals then we come out of it with an excellent two-way segregated lane. Not complaining about the QBC or LW leaves us with nothing - that simply isn't the case with the George Street/Princes Street proposals. Doing nothing there means we don't get to use one street (in one direction) with a superb, flowing, safe route right through the centre of the city just 60 yards away.

    Dave and SRD have said they can't see why this topic is controversial. And I have to agree, even if I am on the other side of the fence on this one.

    Posted 11 years ago #
  23. p.s. and I do wish that we had councillors who had the courage of those in Copenhagen who just basically said, "Yes, we are anti-car. We want the city to be nicer".

    I'd like a green wave, and cycle lanes on every road and so on and so on. But, from that standing start Dave refers to, that looks like you're asking for the world. In 3 or 4 years time, with incremental changes coming in and linking up, it starts to look like 'sense'.

    And just because it's bugging me, I don't think misinterpretation (deliberate or otherwise - re Lesley Jinds' tweet) or misnomering (calling the turning of Princes Street into a one-way road a 'bike ban') helps (put another way, if the EEN commenters were to say that cars were being banned we would, quite rightly, say 'erm, no, it's a ban for everyone).

    Posted 11 years ago #
  24. chdot
    Admin

    "And was the LW downhill lane the segregated lane that snuck up the side of the parked cars between Picardy Place and Elm Row?"

    Yes.

    As I said, up-thread somewhere, I have no idea how many other people said it wasn't a good idea.

    It was proposed with good intentions - 'we can't have cycle lanes all down LW, but we'll see where we can fit them in'.

    It was pointed out by various people (including me) that it was unlikely to be used by most people on bicycles,, wouldn't encourage any new' people, and would be a waste of money and send out dubious messages.

    I/WE COULD BE WRONG.

    It seems that the argument has been accepted by CEC.

    Certainly not the case that 'some cyclists don't like it, so none are going to get it, NaNaNa...'

    Getting more people cycling is not easy or simple or 'obvious' - 'if only the Council would do it the way 'we' (unspecified people/groups) say'

    Or take hints from Amsterdam, Copenhagen, London, New York etc.

    As I also said earlier (petulantly no doubt) perhaps time to accept that I am in a minority (not meaning on CCE) and accept the ever rolling tarmac and car use and give up.

    Posted 11 years ago #
  25. Should just add, I hope that no-one sees any of this as 'personal'. This is an interesting debate. I happen to think that some people are wrong, and some people are right. If we all thought the same the world would be a terribly boring place - I don't automatically think that people I think are wrong are bad people.

    Unless they're Illinois Nazis.

    Posted 11 years ago #
  26. "As I also said earlier (petulantly no doubt)..."

    I quite quickly edited that entry to make it clear I thought the council was acting petulantly, not people commenting on the lane. Evidently not quickly enough!

    Posted 11 years ago #
  27. "... and accept the ever rolling tarmac and car use and give up"

    I don't think that's what anyone at all who thinks that in this case we should be happy with the George Street proposal is saying or thinking.

    Like I say, some fights are worthwhile, others I (personally) think are unnecessary or counter-productive.

    Leith Walk is a good fight, and the downhill lane was rightly criticised. Princes Street I just think of as a bad fight, for the oft-stated reason of there being excellent provision planned very very close by.

    Posted 11 years ago #
  28. Instography
    Member

    When people say, "I can't see why this is controversial" what they mean is "I think my position is so obviously correct that any other view is a mystery to me and this is how I plan to not try to understand it".

    What you need is a blend of Morningsider's analysis of the politics, the appreciation of the proposal and the argument that for very little more, they could do much better.

    Posted 11 years ago #
  29. steveo
    Member

    ... and accept the ever rolling tarmac and car use and give up"

    As WC say's I don't think you or any one should give up, I just don't think this particular fight is worth while. Princes St is, to use a EECWism, an accident waiting to happen and we have already got agreement for (potentially) good facilities 50 metres away.

    Posted 11 years ago #
  30. chdot
    Admin

    "I thought the point about the QBC was that it wasn't any improvement."

    Don't know if anyone stated that as an absolute.

    The Council (well some people) have admitted that punting the Q bit (well in advance not just for a photo-op) was a mistake.

    The QBC is a great idea. BCs and Family Networks are too. Helps if there is a well worked out 'philosophy'.

    KB to George Square great. KB to Princes Street (is/was the plan) messy.

    BUT it all comes down to detail.

    The bike lanes were never going to be 'wide enough', no chance of any segregation, parking a bit of a compromise, no chance of restricting through traffic (there's a parallel route you know), red dot surfacing too much of a compromise.

    I was at least expecting the potholes and 'moon crater' surfacing to be sorting.

    Welcome it? Nah just excuses/encourages shoddy.

    Posted 11 years ago #

RSS feed for this topic

Reply »

You must log in to post.


Video embedded using Easy Video Embed plugin