CityCyclingEdinburgh was launched on the 27th of October 2009 as "an experiment".
IT’S TRUE!
CCE is 15years old!
Well done to ALL posters
It soon became useful and entertaining. There are regular posters, people who add useful info occasionally and plenty more who drop by to watch. That's fine. If you want to add news/comments it's easy to register and become a member.
RULES No personal insults. No swearing.
On the Leith Walk proposal, Transport Scotland is currently in discussion with City of Edinburgh Council on both the evolving design and funding for this project.
Sounds quite hopeful, if a bit vague, though there may be reasons for that (note the 'evolving design' mention).
Yeah... one can only hope that they are looking at some cheaper options around delivering a higher quality of design.
I think once they realise that segregation can be achieved without expensive bricks and mortar it might encourage them to consider transforming existing painted provision eg QBC.
Ever the optimist!
says that while the design of the Pilrig Street to Picardy Place section is "evolving", the design of the Foot of the Walk to Pilrig Street is basically nearly done.
It's good that things could still change, but IMO the bit that's being finalised is the worst bit.
I hope to go to the consultation on tuesday. It would be interesting to see how much of the alternative design has been picked up. Although it looks like the latest design completely ignores it.
Latest take on latest plans. Appalling at Elm Row.
http://greenerleith.org.uk/blog/council-must-alter-dangerous-leith-walk-design-to-save-lives-3046
From above -
"
Therefore, if you can go to the drop-in public consultation meeting on Tuesday 23 July at the Nelson Hall in the McDonald Road Library, from 2-8pm, and you are concerned about cycle safety on Elm Row, please raise this important issue with the council officials that are there.
Try to be as specific as possible. For example, if you want to see Elm Row made safer by extending the two-way lane to Pilrig Street, tell officials that explicitly.
If you cannot go to the meeting, but you share our concerns over cycle safety please send your local councillors an email explaining your concerns, as they will be responsible for signing off the final design in the coming weeks.
"
@greenerleith: well said.
Edinburgh Council: the enemy of pedestrians and cyclists.
TODAY
"
Therefore, if you can go to the drop-in public consultation meeting on Tuesday 23 July at the Nelson Hall in the McDonald Road Library, from 2-8pm, and you are concerned about cycle safety on Elm Row, please raise this important issue with the council officials that are there.
"
Interesting 'conversation' with Leslie Hinds -
"
Lesley Hinds (@LAHinds) tweeted at 9:17pm - 22 Jul 13:
@SRDorman that is exactly what we are doing
"
https://mobile.twitter.com/LAHinds/status/359406912376274944
(Scroll up for all tweets.)
Have to admit that the council have just about out-consulted me on this one.
Is there any merit in putting pressure on from the other end, i.e. asking Sustrans not to fund the scheme if provisions remain inadequate?
"Is there any merit in putting pressure on from the other end, i.e. asking Sustrans not to fund the scheme if provisions remain inadequate?"
Might be an interesting tactic!
From what I saw of the 'conversation' last night Lesley Hinds seemed to get it into her head that if you wanted better cycling provision on Leith Walk then you must hate pedestrians and bus users and that cycle provision can only be provided at the expense of those two other users of the route. Missing the point so spectacularly as to wonder if there really is anything we can say that will be listened to logically.
Hopefully people won't be put off going today by the new airborne sea delivery system currently being tested outside. Just in case my feedback gets lost again I'll try and remember to take a photo of it before handing it in this time.
@WC
That seems to be a reasonable analysis.
Part of the problem is that many of the people who want 'something different' are seen as 'cyclists' (and probably ride bikes) and are consulted as 'cyclists' and viewed as a different 'tribe'.
This is just a product of of 'societal box placing'.
'We've consulted the cyclists and they want...' Which might be fine if there was a homogenous group/view of people who happen to ride bikes AND they had much insight into how to get 'non-cyclists' cycling.
Though of course that is only one issue.
There is also better treatment for the majority (pedestrians), better shops/shopping, improvements to public transport etc.
The problem is Leslie Hinds (and her officials) largely start from the point of view where reducing parking is 'too difficult' and challenging the idea that 'traffic flow has to be facilitated' is almost a non-starter.
LW is a clear example of where the city should be taking a lead and not merely trying to 'balance' conflicting interests.
Of course it helps if people were less 'boxed' as peds, PT users, cyclers and motorists etc
Most people are several of those. People who see LW as a through route to somewhere else (at whatever speed/transport mode) shouldn't be getting priority.
It would be interesting to see the assumptions plugged into their traffic models.
In London TfL artificially down-weight cyclists and I presume the same is done here.
It always strikes me as ironic that key staff of our £££ financial services outfit are seen as somehow less important than any no-hoper who can scrape together £200 to keep a banger on the road until its next MOT.
Similarly, it's really odd from a "stand back and think about it" perspective that a handful of people who want to park their vehicles in the public realm get priority over the thousands of others who live, work and play in the area. I mean, there are enough passengers on just one double-decker to fill most of the parking spaces on Leith Walk.
I can't make the meeting as I have other commitments tonight but I shall prepare a written response to send to my councillors and those on transport committee.
Just.
Not.
Good.
Enough.
Ah, our old friend "balance" - i.e. give the entire cake to car drivers, then play pedestrians, cyclists, and bus passengers against each other until they fight over who gets the crumbs.
The reality is that there is plenty of space for wide pavements, cycle tracks, and bus lanes. There should also be single-stage ped crossings and ped/cycle priority at side roads. Not rocket science - it's a question of priorities.
"The reality is that there is plenty of space for wide pavements, cycle tracks, and bus lanes. There should also be single-stage ped crossings and ped/cycle priority at side roads. Not rocket science - it's a question of priorities."
This.
If this was a business, you'd not last long talking to your stakeholders with such a defeatist, "it can't be done" attitude. What a backward, ignorant way to think about an initiative.
Our political system is so flawed that geniune accoutability has been long lost and the old addage of 'everyone assumed somebody else would do it' is now so intrinsically ingrained that it would be considered brave to just have a bash at implementing a progressive, sustainable transport solution.
We're not asking for gold-plated, suspended-in-the-air cycle networks; just something safe and fit for purpose and a shift in the current selfish car-centric attitude of our society that would benefit all.
"and a shift in the current selfish car-centric attitude of our society that would benefit all"
Quite!
Especially the last four words.
That sort of 'vision' is exactly what politicians ought to be for.
I may have a bias about my alternative design but it seems the only design that everyone on this forum supports. Perhaps its helpful if many people print it out for the consultation and repeatedly show them what giving pedestrians and bike priority really means.
Here's my latest version with minor tweaks.
I've printed it off, i. Thanks! It's exactly what I was hoping the coonsil would produce...
More plans - big changes in last three months.
Zebra crossings on bottom half of LW.
Top half still too much of a 'transport corridor'.
London Road roundabout seems to have gone.
20mph still only 'talked' about. 'Slower buses = more air pollution' seems to be Lothian Buses objection.
Future of Picardy Place, former St. Andrew House etc. still unknown.
The idea that 'we can't do anything that would have to be undone if the tram comes, seems to have been abandoned!
Much progress, a lot will be down to 'detail' - which probably should be 'trialled' with planters and temporary barriers etc.
.
Better access to the southernmost end of the two-way bit of the segregated lane - perhaps allowing going all the way round the Picardy Place roundabout to Leith St then turning left/downhill onto the lane would make it more useful.
Pilrig St needs a Bruntsfield Place or Lindsay Road-style onto-the-pavement-then-across-the-road bit to get onto the segregated path at the north end.
The northbound section across from London Road still looks massively uninviting to new/inexperienced/cautious cyclists, so catering for them heading downhill on the east side of the pavement is important. On the current drawings the cycle and two traffic lanes drift to the left which won't be nice for anyone not taking primary.
Though cited as still-not-ironed-out-the-details the bit where the segregated path wibbles across the end of Albert could use a give way line for traffic emerging from Albert St so that peds/cyclists don't have to try and cross through cars waiting to exit the street.
I came home via the foot of the Walk, which was a huge expanse of empty tarmac. Whatever data they're using for modelling the traffic which determines that they NEED two southbound straight-ahead lanes across the end of London Road and and NEED two northbound lanes at the Great Unction St junction is evidently placing far to much importance on the half-hour twice a day when traffic bungs itself to a standstill, when more creative or tidal signalling could cope with the brief peak in volume without the need to screw pedestrians with multi-part crossings for every hour of the day.
Must say I found that quite frustrating. The southern section is still to be developed while the north end is more complete. While many people were understandably focused on the south/London Rd area, my main question is what happens if they simply look to implement the north plans as they exist and then simply seek to 'blend' future developments into them?
The north section seems to be essentially an up-scaled version of the QBC, with the apparently 'mandatory' cycle lanes still requiring motorists to cross them to access parking and what is, in essence, a shared bicycle/bus area. While some felt that cyclists would be able to navigate this, there was for me just too much risk of uncertainty about how there is communication from various users - i.e. without any area delineated for cyclists/buses then at the point at which their paths cross, how do they agree who goes?
I understand the need for compromise and to consider the needs of the range of road users and pedestrians, but I just don't understand how it is possible to have a solution in European nations that can't be applied here. Would be pleased if others could reassure me that I'm worrying excessively but there's just no real attempt to again remove 'opportunities' for clashes at difficult moments.
The main issue for me was the revising of the two-way segregated lane at Elm Row into a one-way lane, all for the sake of adding an extra, third filter lane of motor traffic for those turning into London Road. Apparently this was to alleviate congestion/keep pollution lower. I pointed out that restricting traffic flow does not necessarily increase congestion...
Another issue was pedestrian crossings on London Road junction neing staggered instead of straight across: again to improve traffic flow.
Finally there's the whole section north of Pilrig Street, which is certainly better than the current layout but only incremental. Not the step change 'we' might have hoped for. The reason given (apart from cost) was to avoid 'sterilising' pedestrian space with a segregated lane. Valid, but I pointed out that if the design does not cater for less confident cyclists. especially uphill (which the north end doesn't) then folk afraid of traffic are going to cycle illegally on the pavement, as they do now! Hence 'sterilising'/invading pedestrian space anyway...
Well, I left in frustration. One of the council officers said that there's no point putting in decent infrastructure on one small section (i.e. Leith Walk) if you don't do the rest of the city. You need to start with a bigger project. He also pointed out that it took decades for NL and Denmark to get their infrastructure.
So, Princes Street and Leith Walk aren't big enough to get safe cycling.
I despair, I really do.
"Would be pleased if others could reassure me that I'm worrying excessively but there's just no real attempt to again remove 'opportunities' for clashes at difficult moments."
There is a lot to be improved on - not least the detail...
There are two main problems - still too much emphasis on 'traffic flow' and no certainty about money.
"Apparently this was to alleviate congestion/keep pollution lower. I pointed out that restricting traffic flow does not necessarily increase congestion..."
Quite.
This was today about 6 (after 'rush' hour). Officials are concerned that if traffic is restricted too much, it will go to less suitable side streets - or perhaps there might be some modal shift that council policies wish for???
Of course one of the things that most people want(?) is being delayed - the actual resurfacing.
"Stakeholders" have (apparently) agreed that a better scheme is worth waiting a bit longer for.
The legal, Traffic Order, process is expected to take 3 months, ('if there are no objections' - mmm), so work on the bottom half isn't expected until March.
The plans (due on council web site tomorrow) look good - LOTS of solid red - BUT -
Unless "red chips" becomes red surfacing it'll be QBC all over again.
@crowriver: What on earth does 'sterilising' mean?
That whole "it took decades in NL and DK" thing is a load of nonsense as well. Mikael from Copenhagenize reckons it could be done in 5 years with the necessary political will. The reason for this is that we don't need to actually invent or experiment with anything, like they did - just copy.
Anyone want to place bets on what Edinburgh's cycling modal share will be in 2020? 3%? I think that's quite a likely figure, because most people simply will not cycle in these conditions - and nobody will be punished for this failure because by the time 2020 comes around those responsible will have vanished from the transport scene.
You must log in to post.
Cycling in Edinburgh Flickr group
Video embedded using Easy Video Embed plugin
posts