CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » Infrastructure

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

(340 posts)

No tags yet.


1…678…12

  1. PS
    Member

    Was just thinking the same as WC, then saw WC had made it anyway. But to reiterate:

    I hope that the Council is getting a clear message that a segregated two-way cyclelane along George Street is widely seen as A GOOD THING. The is a key point here. Positive reinforcement of behaviour.

    Yes, it would be nice to have the same on Princes St, but we don't want any baby/bathwater disposal incidents. There is a risk that the focus shifts to complaints about Princes St and that quickly creates the impression that "cyclists don't like these plans" and we're back to square one.

    Criticism needs to be carefully framed so an already wounded Council isn't given enough of pelting to say we offered you this, but you didn't like it, and it's withdrawn. The risk of one of the most popular and visible media of debate (I'm looking at you, Twitter) is that there is barely room for nuance and, even if there is nuance in the first tweet, it can quickly become "@CECCouncillors I want cyclelanes on Princes Street. I don't like your plans".

    So, by all means say it would be even better to have a two-way segregated lane on Princes St, and that it would not take up too much space located between the tramlines and the pavement cafes (and, hey, no one's going to want to sit sipping their latte with a multi-ton tram rumbling by just inches away, so there's space right there), and it wouldn't cost much to do, but let's make sure that at the same time it's clear to them that we think that the suggestions for George St are a real step forward.

    Posted 11 years ago #

  2. Dave
    Member

    I guess the reason I don't see why this is controversial is because I find it hard to believe that asking for improvements on Princes St will lead to a downgrading of George St, especially at the pre-consultation stage.

    In my opinion it's short sighted to deny tourists, families, and the set of normal cyclists who aren't willing to tangle with buses, taxis and tramlines (i.e. 99.9% of the population) the opportunity to ride along Princes St, to the railway station and Princes St Gardens, and I'd say that even if George St was going to be completely pedestrianised.

    That doesn't mean I'd be brokenhearted if the plans went ahead with nothing at all for cyclists on George Princes St (freudian slip!), but I don't agree that we should all agree to keep quiet from fear that if the council gets some constructive criticism on one street it might rip up all the improvements on another. That would be irrational of them regardless of the politics.

    There are enough people willing to say "oh, it's something, thank you" (we have them to thank for our success in matching the 8-year revolution of the Dutch over the last 30+ years) that I feel safe being a little more critical.

    Posted 11 years ago #

  3. Roibeard
    Member

    @All - thanks folks, this thread has been brilliant reading.

    I confess I didn't contact my councillors earlier this week - I didn't know what to say for the best.

    Now I don't think I'm much further forward, but much better informed!

    Morningsider et al have more political nounce than I have, although I share the dissatisfaction with incremental improvements with Dave, chdot, SRD, et al.

    I don't think I can effectively articulate this to the council in writing. Time to get off my tail and go back to schlepping round the councillor surgeries I think!

    Robert

    Posted 11 years ago #

  4. Wilmington's Cow
    Member

    "... but I don't agree that we should all agree to keep quiet from fear that if the council gets some constructive criticism on one street it might rip up all the improvements on another"

    How many times is this going to be misinterpreted?

    It all depends on how the criticism of Princes Street is framed, and if they also get support at the same time for George Street.

    Posted 11 years ago #

  5. Morningsider
    Member

    Perhaps I haven't been absolutely clear. I can sumnmarise my views as follows:

    1. I like the Council's plans.
    2. I would also like to see cycle provision on Princes Street.
    3. I appreciate how hard it will have been to get the cycling proposals in the current plans.
    4. I understand why people will call for cycle provision on Princes Street - I don't think this will result in the George Street proposals being deleted.
    5. I do not think lobbying for Princes Street provision is the best way to develop cycling in Eduinburgh, within the available budgets and political support for cycling, as good provision is being proposed on a paralell street.
    6. I think the best course of action is to support the current plans and assist in developing them further, e.g. linking the proposed route with Leith Walk, NEPN, canal etc.
    7. I think too much criticism will make future cycle developments more difficult to secure.
    8. Looking at the plan, you can still cycle to/from the Waverley from every possible direction.
    9. The QBC wasn't a failure of lobbying. The QBC is a result of intensive lobbying - the failure of lobbying would have been no cycle provision, not a super QBC.
    10. Dave - I don't think your views are controversial, no matter how many times you say it ;)
    11. Simply quoting "The Dutch" is pretty much guaranteed to put off politicians - and me, if I'm being honest.

    Posted 11 years ago #

  6. Instography
    Member

    I'd buy that.

    Posted 11 years ago #

  7. Dave
    Member

    It's true, "Love London, Go Dutch" has been a catastrophic failure for the London Cycle Campaign. Why, they've only managed to raise a billion pounds for segregated infrastructure.

    Whatever the ideal campaigning approach is, I'm sure it's not one that anybody has hit on yet. However, the trend seems to be more complaining than hitherto, and more favourable outcomes as a result. Would this not be a fair summary?

    Posted 11 years ago #

  8. fimm
    Member

    @morningsider, that is a helpful summary, thank you.

    Posted 11 years ago #

  9. chdot
    Admin

    "How many times is this going to be misinterpreted?"

    Pass

    "It all depends on how the criticism of Princes Street is framed, and if they also get support at the same time for George Street."

    This is where I have a problem.

    Being perverse I don't actually care about George Street.

    Of course that is totally available for misinterpretation!

    Yes perfect, iconic, World Class, cycle provision on GSt. (please).

    But this is Edinburgh. I'm not being unduly cynical or critical of those who will design or implement it. To do it properly costs MONEY.

    This is why QBC isn't as good as it should be. It was assumed that some of the basics would be done by other parts of the Council - from other budgets...

    CEC didn't exactly do a great job of resurfacing George Street about a year ago. At least segregated bits would be free from buses etc. (though they only go the other way under new plan).

    Will the bike lanes be free of Spiegeltents in August??

    I don't care enough about Princes Street to protest much. My point remains that CEC shouldn't even be considering not allowing/facilitating cycling on the shop side.

    The 'next big thing' is Walk Leith.

    It's not even about segregated cycle lanes - it's about turning a very wide street - where a lot of people live - away from being a giant ratrun.

    'Not enough money, so we'll have to ask Sustrans' - and they are only doing that because of the strength of objections to previous plans.

    It's all about priorities. Mine wouldn't be for something that people can say ooh that's good on a street where the shops seem to be doing OK and lots of tourists visit and can go home and say 'Edinburgh has wonderful cycling facilities'.

    But then I'm just a perverse cynic who doesn't know how politics works and is reluctant to praise shiny crumbs.

    Posted 11 years ago #

  10. Morningsider
    Member

    Dave - I'm sure the London Cycle Campaign's "Love London, Go Dutch" campaign was a well argued one, backed up by some heavyweight research. I also think there is lots we can learn from how things have been done in Holland and elsewhere. However - I don't think the London Cycle Campaign is claiming sole responsibility for the recent investment announcement.

    In addition, there is no similar Dutch focussed campaign in Scotland (lots of good ones, obviously - just not Dutch focussed). There is a difference between a well resourced campaign and people (including myself on occasion) lamenting why we can't be more like somewhere else - generally somewhere with a political, financial and topographical situation very unlike ours.

    I hope no-one thinks I am criticising them personally. These are simply my views - I am as likely to be wrong as anyone else. I agree with Roibeard that this has been one of the best threads on the forum in ages.

    It would be great if a few people who never comment chipped in on this one - come on, let us old lags know what you think.

    EDIT - meant to say. In my opinion, the gold standard of campaigns is that waged by anti-smoking groups. In the space of around 30 years they have managed to turn something that over 50% of the population were literally addicted to into a minority activity that is almost considered socially unacceptable. They are still going - next up display bans and plain packaging. Amazing.

    Posted 11 years ago #

  11. Wilmington's Cow
    Member

    "But this is Edinburgh. I'm not being unduly cynical or critical of those who will design or implement it. To do it properly costs MONEY."

    It's definitely a worry, and I'm perhaps edging too far the other way in optimism. I'm hoping, though, that this consultation will pay attention. Which is perhaps naive given the QBC outcome, and what looks like happening on LW... In the nicest possible way, I hope you're proved wrong... (and I'm sure you have a similar hope!).

    My position on what I'd like to see remains the same - pedestrianise George Street. Simple as. But I know that's just not going to happen.

    Posted 11 years ago #

  12. chdot
    Admin

    "
    In the nicest possible way, I hope you're proved wrong... (and I'm sure you have a similar hope!).

    "

    Totally!!

    Posted 11 years ago #

  13. PS
    Member

    In respect of "The 'next big thing' is Walk Leith", these two paras in the The Leith Programme: Consultation and Design document give me some hope:

    2.29 To achieve a strategic longer term vision, the entire route to the city centre and Princes Street needs to be considered and commitment made to continue to improve this corridor. Future investment will be required to address the connection to the city centre including key sections at Picardy Place, Leith Street and the link to Calton Road. This work should dovetail with the improvements to the tram route through St Andrew Square and York Place and Princes Street/George Street.

    2.32 It is intended that the addition of a segregated cycleway into the city centre would be provided in such a way to accommodate a potential future tram line.

    They both suggest someone at the Council is thinking about a segregated cycleway in from Leith Walk to the city centre. Is it too optimistic to think that the reference to the future tramline indicates that they may just be considering something similar to the design of Picardy Place/London Road (cyclelane on teh north side of LW by-passing the roundabouts) that Dave and I have posited on CCE?

    Posted 11 years ago #

  14. wingpig
    Member

    The difference between the plans for Leith Walk and Princes/George Streets is that Leith Walk was starting from the inadequate premise of "just put it back to how it was before the trambles minced the road and footway surfaces plus additional minor QBC-like flourishes and an actual pedestrian crossing across Baltic St" whereas Princes/George Streets' proposals at least had the Gehl report wafting somewhere vaguely near whoever wrote them. The Leith Walk proposals had that daft cyclist-blender lane-painting on the roundabout; the Princes Street/George Street thing includes a two-way cycleway at the very start (insofar as "the very start" is an applicable term given the duration of the whole affair).

    One thing which only rarely appears when people are talking about foreign-style segregated infrastructure is that what we really want is proper integrated infrastructure, to avoid things like the "LOOK, WE OFFERED YOU A MAGIC SEGREGATED UPHILL CYCLE LANE" on the Leith Walk plans which did indeed segregate cycles from motor traffic but only along the front of the Playhouse and suggested that cyclists might find it safe and enjoyable to re-enter traffic at exactly the point where we often find ourselves being ignored by people desperate to speed into Calton Road. I didn't write to anyone prior to last Tuesday's meeting but shall do so as soon as I can, being happy about the whole George Street Segregated Two-Way Lane thing but pleading that the entrance and exit points thereto/therefrom are safe and useful and mindful of the relative vulnerabilities of various classes of road user. That "dovetailing" with other facilities is also worth reminding them about (just in case entirely different sets of people are dealing with the Leith Walk thing and Princes/George Street things) and the fact that at the moment the only two ways out of the east end of George Street are onto Princes Street (past the giant hub-height pothole just round the corner past Monsoon) and onto Queen Street past the Gallery getting off and walking.

    Posted 11 years ago #

  15. chdot
    Admin

    "

    Edinburgh Council (@Edinburgh_CC)
    22/03/2013 16:23
    Blog: night-time road resurfacing works will start on George Street from 7pm on Mon 25 March

    http://bit.ly/13iFbEk

    "

    "
    This is not part of the proposed scheme for Princes Street and George Street which will shortly go out for consultation.

    "

    Posted 11 years ago #

  16. kaputnik
    Moderator

    Just spotted this from the "Edinburgh Tram Facts" website (for Facts, read "someone else's opinion").

    Make sure you take proper care at all times?.

    Anyway, it's some absolutely marvellous backwards logic that seems to go on the lines of if you improve cycling provision, you make air pollution worse by displacing (motor vehicle) traffic onto other roads, therefore the best way to improve air pollution in Edinburgh is to remove traffic restrictions and let the "traffic flow freely", wherever it pleases, thereby distributing all the pollution nicely around town where it will harm nobody.

    Posted 11 years ago #

  17. Dave
    Member

    I made it to the end of the linked article, but what's the point in a blog you can't comment on? Why pay attention to someone you can't challenge?

    Much to comment on, ICNBA.

    Posted 11 years ago #

  18. Wilmington's Cow
    Member

    What Dave said.

    It's interesting that he can call all sorts of opinions and stats 'lies' or claim that people writing articles about cycling in the EEN are 'thick' - then throws out stats (traffic down 5% in Edinburgh but pollution up 14%) without any links or sources.

    It's an odd mix, the article. Does seem like he understands the needs of cyclists, and that more cycling in the city would be a good thing. Then discards all of that for 'people must be able to drive everywhere, it makes the city nicer'.

    Posted 11 years ago #

  19. Instography
    Member

    It's tram FACTS! What's there to discuss?

    Posted 11 years ago #

  20. chdot
    Admin

    Only just read this (by Peter Hawkins of Spokes)

    "

    Traffic-free Princes Street offers bold step to future

    Ten years ago, the idea of a traffic-free Princes Street would have been inconceivable. Today many people, especially those who have travelled in Europe, are realising how very much better this iconic street could be if nearly all traffic was removed.

    "

    http://www.scotsman.com/edinburgh-evening-news/opinion/peter-hawkins-traffic-free-princes-street-offers-bold-step-to-future-1-2775580

    One of the commenters says -

    "
    The problem with Princes street is that while Spokes would have you imagine continental cycling with uprights ambling along at a polite walking pace through pedestrians, Edinburgh cyclists are going to take that long straight uninterrupted mile as a race track.

    "

    Which is perhaps where some of the 'argument' in this thread is being polarised.

    There is/may be a difference between access/shopping/seeing the sights and 'through transit'.

    Perhaps more importantly 'the general public' expects/experiences the latter mode/behaviour.

    As another commenter says -

    "

    A few clarifications for the people who have posted...

    Firstly, the petition is not just about cyclists, it is advocating a better environment and access for everyone including the elderly and disabled. It proposes a city centre which is attractive to people, welcoming, and accessible.

    "

    Posted 11 years ago #

  21. chdot
    Admin

    "

    without the tireless efforts of Barbara McCann over the last decade, the entire Complete Streets movement is unlikely to have the success and widespread acceptance as it does today.

    "
    As seen via - http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=9770

    Posted 11 years ago #

  22. PS
    Member

    The race track analogy is an interesting one.

    I initially thought a Geo St cyclelane might suffer from the fact that there are junctions, so you wouldn't get a clear run along it. But then a few things occured to me:

    1) Sensible cyclelane priority (ie, Geo St cyclelane as principal route with priority over Fred St/Castle St traffic would sort that;

    2) It's the town centre so folk on bikes should be behaving as they'd expect others to, that is observant, considerate, looking out for more vulnerable users; this would be particularly important in a pedestrianised environment like the north side of Geo St and Princes St;

    3) Even in its heyday, Princes St was rarely a clear run as there are series of traffic lights that would hold you up for longer than roundabouts.

    Arguing against the "a Princes St cyclelane would become a racetrack" argument:

    a) Promotion of cycling facilities should encourage more Euro-style cyclists, so the number of racers as a percentage of the cycling population would fall;

    b) Experience suggests you race along roads because you are fighting for place in the traffic. Take the traffic away and you calm down and cruise.

    Posted 11 years ago #

  23. chdot
    Admin

    I think b) is/will be/should be true, though clearly it doesn't affect those thought to be going 'too fast' on canal, NEPN etc.

    Posted 11 years ago #

  24. PS
    Member

    @chdot True. I know I go a lot faster on roads than on segregated paths, but there are always those who go way too fast because they are essentially inconsiderate people. Probably exactly the same folk who will floor it in the car to get up to 30 (or above) as quickly as possible because it's their right to, no matter that it gives others a fright...

    Posted 11 years ago #

  25. cb
    Member

    "Only just read this (by Peter Hawkins of Spokes)"

    Not sure if you were aware - that was the piece being critiqued on the Tram Facts website linked to above.

    Posted 11 years ago #

  26. fiets
    Member

    The Princess St cycle/no cycle lane debate is an opportunity to shape public opinion positively for the future of city cycling. Or rather, NOT allow it to be nudged in a negative direction.
    If Edinburgh is to become a successful cycle city every small change to transport infrastructure needs to be used to ensure that cycling becomes a more convenient and faster way to get around. The removal of cycling infrastructure on any of our streets shouldn't be a consideration. It sends out the wrong message about the context of those changes being made...especially if it's on arguably the most iconic street in Scotland.

    Posted 11 years ago #

  27. chdot
    Admin

    Well if you've followed this thread, you'll know I agree with fiets (who sums it up rather well!)

    "The Princess St cycle/no cycle lane debate is an opportunity to shape public opinion positively for the future of city cycling."

    That's the tricky bit.

    Haven't quite persuaded everyone on here! A lot of effort (notably over many years by Spokes) goes into trying to persuade politicians who do 'listen to the noise' but are always conscious of the supposed 'silent majority' and/or ENews commenters.

    As I often say it's 'not just about cycling'.

    It's always been difficult for cycle campaigners to go much beyond 'more stuff for cycling' as there has ways been 'so much to do'. The 'more cycling is good for everyone' argument is hard to articulate and quite difficult to convince people with.

    Politicians are always talking about "balance" but can seldom see that the 'balance' has been skewed by many years of over-provision for car users and disadvantaging of public transport and (largely) ignoring cycling and (almost completely) walking.

    Posted 11 years ago #

  28. steveo
    Member

    As I often say it's 'not just about cycling'.

    The Princes St plan isn't about cycling at all. On Princes St. cyclists are to be treated exactly the same as people on buses on George St we'll have our own infrastructure. Why should we expect to be treated with more consideration than bus passengers?

    Posted 11 years ago #

  29. SRD
    Moderator

    "Why should we expect to be treated with more consideration than bus passengers?"

    because the Council wants to encourage cycling?

    Posted 11 years ago #

  30. Wilmington's Cow
    Member

    "The removal of cycling infrastructure on any of our streets shouldn't be a consideration"

    Sorry to be pedantic (again), but what cycling infrastructure is being removed from Princes Street by making it one-way? At present there are a few ASLs.

    "because the Council wants to encourage cycling?"

    Would a two-way segregated lane with good connections at either end right through the centre of the city do that?

    And should the council be trying to encourage bus use as well?

    Posted 11 years ago #

RSS feed for this topic

1…678…12

Reply »

You must log in to post.


Video embedded using Easy Video Embed plugin