CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » Infrastructure

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

(340 posts)

No tags yet.


  1. SRD
    Moderator

    reply from spokes here:

    "Spokes strongly welcomes the City of Edinburgh Council’s intention to go ahead with its ‘Vision’ to make the City Centre a more European-style people-friendly place – but we are shocked that cycling will not be allowed in Princes Street [other than westbound, mixing it with buses and taxis, suitable only for the most confident] and we urge councillors to amend this aspect of the proposals at their meeting on 4 June."

    http://www.spokes.org.uk/wordpress/2013/05/princes-street-visionary-shock/

    Posted 10 years ago #
  2. SRD
    Moderator

    ‏@SRDorman
    Surely it makes more sense to trial the west-east cycle route too? @AndrewDBurns @CllrJimOrr @davidfkeySNP
    @gavincorbett

    ‏@gavincorbett
    @SRDorman I agree. I think there is a decent prospect of cross-party consensus on allowing bikes both ways on Princes St at start of pilot

    okay people - write your councillors!

    Posted 10 years ago #
  3. chdot
    Admin

  4. chdot
    Admin

  5. chdot
    Admin

    Email to Spokes members -

    "

    Dear member

    We are very disappointed to find that the City Council intends to go ahead with its plans for Princes St and George St without amending the cycling aspects, despite the results of the public consultation.

    In Princes Street there will be vastly more space than now on the north (shops) side, with removal of all the bus shelters and of the existing roadway - but the pavement will be widened right out to the tramlines, with cycling completely banned. The south (Gardens) side will stay as it is, westbound only, suitable only for confident cyclists willing to mix it with buses and taxis next to the tramlines.

    In George Street there will be a roadway eastbound (most likely on the south side of George Street) open to all forms of traffic. The other side of George Street will be pedestrianised, with a 2-way cycleroute included. It is not explained how this will safely connect to the Bridges or to Lothian Road.

    Yet we understand that the public consultation revealed a desire to allow 2-way cycle use on the traffic-free north side of Princes Street, and for 'permeable' cycling in the city centre - i.e. being able easily to get to shops, Gardens and other local destinations by bike.

    It feels like the Council sees cycling solely as traffic needing an east-west commuter route. Instead we believe that cycling should be a means of getting around and getting to all sorts of places for everyone - from 8 to 80, confident, nervous or novice, as adults or a family with children. Even for commuting, a George Street route by itself will have many problems for people connecting to and from it - for example, anyone heading for, say, the Bridges.

    The Council plan is intended as a 12-month trial, implemented at low cost initially, then made permanent if successful. Yet as a trial, it should surely include a trial of allowing 2-way cycling on the north side of Princes Street.

    For more info, see the May 31 news item at spokes.org.uk, "Princes Street: Visionary Shock"...
    http://www.spokes.org.uk/wordpress/2013/05/princes-street-visionary-shock/
    and see our briefing document to councillors asking for the trial to be amended to include a Princes Street 2-way cycleroute.
    http://www.spokes.org.uk/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/1305-Proposal-to-TEC.pdf

    IF THIS CONCERNS YOU, PLEASE HELP ... HERE'S WHAT YOU CAN DO

    1. The plans are to be discussed and voted on at the Council Transport Committee which starts at 10am on Tuesday morning (June 4). If you agree with us, please contact your councillors immediately and ask for an amendment to the trial, to allow cycling (2-way) on the north side of Princes Street as part of the trial. Find your councillors at the Edinburgh Council website http://www.edinburgh.gov.uk/councillors or at http://www.writetothem.com.

    2. We intend to lobby councillors 9am-10am as they go to work at the Council buildings on Tuesday morning before the 10am Transport Committee. If you are free, please come along. Spokes members will be at the City Chambers Quad from 9am-10am. There will be a few spokes tabards to wear. Also feel free to bring any poster.

    If you come (and if you email) please try to engage with councillors in a positive way - we are pleased that the new council is at last trying to create a more European-style and people-friendly city centre, after years of procrastination, but they are making a very big mistake on cycling, and the proposals need to be amended. Many other arguments are in our above briefing document for councillors.

    3. If you can come on Tuesday, please email your councillors to say you will be there and would like to speak to them as they arrive. If you hope to come, let us know if possible, but it's fine to come anyway.

    4. If you wish to attend the Transport Committee it begins at 10am and is open to the public. However, there is a long agenda, and this item looks like about 1/3 of the way through.

    "

    Posted 10 years ago #
  6. DdF
    Member

    Non Spokes members very welcome too of course!! It may be difficult to get many people as it's in work and school hours, but would probably be more effective if not too few.

    Posted 10 years ago #
  7. Calum
    Member

    The council ignored the results of the Leith Walk consultation so I don't see why they would change their minds about Princes Street. Maybe when the cycling modal share drops off a cliff following the Princes Street bike ban they will realise the scale of their folly, but I doubt it.

    Posted 10 years ago #
  8. "Maybe when the cycling modal share drops off a cliff following the Princes Street bike ban they will realise the scale of their folly."

    Everyone in Edinburgh, no matter whether their route goes anywhere near Princes Street or not, is going to stop cycling because it's not possible to ride eastwards on Princes Street?

    Posted 10 years ago #
  9. steveo
    Member

    I'm still not sure why cyclists need to be treated better than bus passengers?...

    Posted 10 years ago #
  10. SRD
    Moderator

    Because we're not buses?

    Because not all cyclists zip through the centre. Some of us want to be able to cycle leisurely and permeably and shop.

    because if you were coming from Lothian road to Waverly to catch a train, would you really want to cycle up and around george street?

    Because it sends a stupid message to have 'no cycling' right outside waverley?

    Posted 10 years ago #
  11. BenN
    Member

    Am I not right in thinking that Princes Street is defined as a Core Path under Land Reform 2003, hence if the on-road option is removed, the footway becomes the defacto right of access?

    (Not that I am advocating pavement cycling, but the council may have backed themselves into a legal corner on this one?)

    Core Path Map

    Posted 10 years ago #
  12. We've gone over this time and time again, probably not worth it here. But...

    "because if you were coming from Lothian road to Waverly to catch a train, would you really want to cycle up and around george street?"

    If (and yes it's a big if) the connections at either end are good, and that the provision on George Street is well thought out, then yes.

    "Some of us want to be able to cycle leisurely and permeably and shop"

    You can still do that from George Street, and down any of the likes of Frederick Street or Hanover Street. We deride motorists for being lazy and wanting to park directly outside every store, yet it would appear we're scared of walking (maximum) 75 metres to a shop on Princes Street.

    "Because it sends a stupid message to have 'no cycling' right outside waverley?"

    Indeed it would, if there were big 'no cycling' signs directly outside Waverley. What sort of message would it send if there were big 'cyclists this way' signs that lead people in an informed manner to a segregated and pleasant route that allowed them to permeably shop or whizz through, whatever took their fancy?

    Oh, and, erm, from Waverley you can cycle on Princes Street because from Waverley if you wanted to cycle on Princes Street you'd be heading west so there wouldn't be 'no cycling' signs...

    Posted 10 years ago #
  13. chdot
    Admin

    "Am I not right in thinking that Princes Street is defined as a Core Path"

    Well spotted!!

    Posted 10 years ago #
  14. "(Not that I am advocating pavement cycling, but the council may have backed themselves into a legal corner on this one?)"

    Interesting notion, we need Morningsider for this one I think! Would make for an intriguing submission to the Council (don't know what power they have to change the Core Paths?)

    Posted 10 years ago #
  15. steveo
    Member

    Because we're not buses?

    No we're not, "we" are an individual a bus has up to ninety people on-board. If we're going down the every individual for them selves then the chipwrapper muppets run the council planning office. "We" as cyclists all have a degree of mobility* this can't be assumed of bus passengers.

    I'm generally of the "lock your bike and walk" school but I know others might prefer to shift their bike around and this would cause some obstruction but then the same is enforced on drivers when ever parking restrictions are placed.

    Not getting to go the direct route is the same argument that the chipwrapper muppets use when they're getting fined for going down bus only routes. Is that the line you want to use, because drivers might want George Street back.

    Off all the stupid messages in the Edinburgh, this is the straw? I questioned this one before and I still don't know who the message is aimed at? UK visitors probably almost certainly won't be utility cyclists foreign visitors will just shrug and walk on.

    Sorry SRD, a lot of this reads like an EEN commentator talking of segregated cycle lanes or parking restrictions.

    *exceptions of course apply

    Posted 10 years ago #
  16. SRD
    Moderator

    @wilmington's cow yes,. I debated responding, but since you started it...(and yes, I do understand that someone exiting waverly would be able to cycle east or west, my point is about the symbolism of the whole thing.)

    Here's my final two points

    1. the council's approach to this was flawed. they thought 'traffic' and included cycles in that, while pedestrians are not. I don't think that is coherent or desirable.

    2. their consultation was flawed. they asked about a 'one-way system for buses and cars' and did not ask about 'one-way system for cycles'

    Posted 10 years ago #
  17. steveo
    Member

    (Not that I am advocating pavement cycling, but the council may have backed themselves into a legal corner on this one?)

    Of course CEC will just put up illegal no cycling signs those in the know can safely ignore them but what message will that be sending...

    Posted 10 years ago #
  18. "my point is about the symbolism of the whole thing"

    Difficult to have a discussion about that though - especially when the symbolism of 'no cycling outside waverley' isn't backed up by there actually being no cycling outside Waverley. It's a bit like saying offering someone an apple is symbolically banning oranges (and now I'm seeing 'No Oranges' signs springing up around the city - bit like the 'No Durian' ones in Singapore).

    I agree that the approach was flawed, but for different reasons (they should have consulted better on just how to organise the cycle lanes on George Street for example - and should have asked people if they wanted NO traffic on it).

    I guess there are fundamentally different standpoints. I do see bikes as 'traffic'.

    Posted 10 years ago #
  19. Min
    Member

    I'm still not sure why cyclists need to be treated better than bus passengers?...

    Because the council are (supposedly) trying to increase cycling by 300% by 2020 and not bus use?

    Posted 10 years ago #
  20. steveo
    Member

    1. the council's approach to this was flawed. they thought 'traffic' and included cycles in that, while pedestrians are not. I don't think that is coherent or desirable.

    If "we"'re not traffic what are we? That is a can of worms I'd not like opened frankly, the state of things at the moment cycles could become segways...

    Pedestrians are not road traffic under any reasonable definition and frankly get a raw enough deal in the UK. "We" as we're all pedestrians at some point, don't even have a Spokes equivalent.

    Posted 10 years ago #
  21. Morningsider
    Member

    You rang!

    Generally, anyone cycling on a footway or footpath in Scotland is committing an offence under the provisions of Section 129(5) of the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984. It is not an offence to cycle across a footway or footpath to access a cycle track, driveway or other land where cycling is allowed.

    The issue is complicated by access rights granted to cyclists under Section 1 of the Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2003 (“the 2003 Act”). The 2003 Act allows cycling on most land unless access is controlled by or under another enactment. This means that land reform access rights do not normally apply to roads or footways as their use is restricted under various statutes. However, the 2003 Act does allow cycling on any path where access has not been restricted by a Traffic Regulation Order or through other legal means. In practice, this allows cyclists to use most paths in urban parks and rural areas.

    To further complicate matters, Section 7(1) of the 2003 Act states that the restriction on access rights described above does not apply where land has been designated as a “core path” under the provisions of the 2003 Act. This means that cyclists may be able to cycle on a footpath, or even a footway, designated as a core path without committing an offence. However, it is
    important to remember that access rights must be exercised responsibly - my gut feeling is this means cyclists should consider cycling on the carriageway (i.e. road) if that is possible, even if the road has been designated as a core path. I'm not aware of any case law on this issue, so it would be a matter of judgement for individual cyclist as to what to do. However, where a Council has provided an alternative cycle facility, and the pavements are generally very busy then it is at least possible that cycling on the pavement would not be considered "responsible".

    Posted 10 years ago #
  22. steveo
    Member

    Because the council are (supposedly) trying to increase cycling by 300% by 2020 and not bus use?

    The council would probably see better improvements in cycle use by boosting the uptake in public transport than any of their current strategies (QBC...)

    Posted 10 years ago #
  23. Muchos gracias Morningsider! Interesting old conundrum all round...

    Posted 10 years ago #
  24. crowriver
    Member

    "We" as we're all pedestrians at some point, don't even have a Spokes equivalent.

    'We' do: Living Streets, formerly the Pedestrians Association. Offices on Rose Street...

    Posted 10 years ago #
  25. chdot
    Admin

    As posted elsewhere in error!!

    "However, where a Council has provided an alternative cycle facility, and the pavements are generally very busy"

    As you also say "I'm not aware of any case law on this issue"

    In short it would have to go to law to see if George Street is a suitable "alternative cycle facility".

    In the meantime I think there are two issues -

    1) How much the 'extra pavement' is likely to be busy - especially without north side bus stops.

    2) If it's only a one year experiment, will anything be done to the (current) north side carriageway other than block the ends?

    It will be a bit like when the tram work was happening - open for emergency vehicles and pedestrians with 'no cycling' signs of questionable enforceability...

    Posted 10 years ago #
  26. DdF
    Member

    Here are the views of Living Streets on the city centre proposals...

    http://livingstreetsscotlandforum.org.uk/?p=255

    A sensible set of comments.

    They are concerned about banning eastbound cycling in Princes Street, as it is very likely to lead to pavement cycling. Incidentally, they call that 'illegal' but of course it may well not be illegal in Princes Street because of the core path issue!

    Posted 10 years ago #
  27. Kim
    Member

    This is where understanding Bicycle Culture by Design would really help.

    What sort of place do we want Princes Street to be? A bus station or a living street?

    There is going to be a massive great tram running up and down Princes Street, why do we need to have buses and taxis as well? If you look at paces which have successful tram systems and living city centres, they don't try and shove a load of buses down the same route.

    The fundamental problem with whole approach to transport in Edinburgh is that no one has stood back and asked what to make it work as an integrated way. Instead we have a botched piece meal approach, where different forms of transport are expected to compete, the result being that everyone loses...

    Posted 10 years ago #
  28. SRD
    Moderator

    At one of the council 'consultation' sessions, a chap from Sustrans proposed a different plan altogether - closer to what Kim suggests above, which would dramatically limit the number of buses on Princes Street, for exactly these reasons.

    The council officials seemed quite intrigued. But of course NONE of it (or anything else we discussed) has been reflected here.

    Posted 10 years ago #
  29. "If you look at paces which have successful tram systems and living city centres, they don't try and shove a load of buses down the same route"

    They do in Lyon... (it's also a fab place to walk around, has a bike hire scheme older than the Velib in Paris, and the buses, trams and underground all work on the same ticketing system).

    "Instead we have a botched piece meal approach, where different forms of transport are expected to compete"

    Except a segregated two-way cycle path is proposed for George Street.

    Don't get me wrong, I'd love to see a 'living street' Princes Street, but still think we're in danger of clouding the issue when we're being offered a potentially great piece of infrastructure on George Street (noting I'd still raterh that was entirely pedestrianised).

    Not every street in Copenhagen has a cycle lane on it (Sally Hinchcliffe wrote an excellent blog piece on cycling in Copenhagen and actually learning to avoid side streets because there was no provision for cyclists there, sticking instead to main road - a polar opposite to how we ride in this country); nor every street in Amsterdam; or Portland; or Bogota. I'm not sure why we're determined that every street in Edinburgh must.

    Posted 10 years ago #
  30. steveo
    Member

    There is going to be a massive great tram running up and down Princes Street, why do we need to have buses and taxis as well?

    All well and good if you've just come from the airport, Leith? Dalkeith? Joppa? Presontpans? Again "we" expect everything our way but bus passengers "they'll" just have to walk back up the hill to get their bus.

    Seriously folks substitute very few phrases and we'd be criticising drivers for not wanting to walk the length of their noses, wanting a parking space right out side their house and demanding the right to go from a-b in the most direct fashion. If this was about closing the park the conversation would be very similar...

    Posted 10 years ago #

RSS feed for this topic

Reply »

You must log in to post.


Video embedded using Easy Video Embed plugin