CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » Infrastructure

Leith Walk: revised plans

(333 posts)

No tags yet.


1…567…12

  1. PS
    Member

    I put in my tuppence worth, but left with the feeling that that's the best the road designers can achieve with their guidelines and preconceptions. It's not very good, is it?

    We hear a lot about traffic congestion in Edinburgh, but chdot's photos above back up something I've noted over getting for a couple of decades of observation: central Edinburgh has a traffic flow problem for approximately 30 minutes twice a day. The rest of the time it's relatively quiet, but sterile because of the preponderance of space given over to traffic. Why the hell are the council focusing on less than 5% of the working day when it comes to the design of the city centre? Not good enough.

    Posted 10 years ago #

  2. crowriver
    Member

    I heard the designers mention a few times the need to "balance the interests of different users", and ultimately, whether we like it or not, this is the problem.

    Councillors and officials will be getting their ears bent by traders, motorists, taxi trade, bus users, and pedestrians too. Cyclists are just one group of users.

    So we end up with a compromise that tries to please everyone a wee bit. Not great, but this is just a reflection of the political culture in this city at this time, I'm afraid.

    Posted 10 years ago #

  3. kaputnik
    Moderator

    He also pointed out that it took decades for NL and Denmark to get their infrastructure.

    Aye, so why bother starting - in the council's opinion.

    I've a number of arguments I'll have to set to paper this weekend. Think I'll do a written letter mailshot. Get my embosser out and everything, make it all official.

    40% of Edinburgh households have no access to car. Current plans fail them entirely.

    Bus lanes are entirely unsatisfactory as bicycle lanes, especially uphill.

    Bicycle lanes sandwiched between moving traffic and car parking are an accident waiting to happen.

    Staggered pedestrian crossings in the name of "traffic flow" must be avoided at all costs.

    Trying to increase traffic flow to reduce pollution is just nuts. How about trying to reduce motor vehicle numbers entirely by designing Leith Walk as a "living street" and not simply a rush-hour through-route for single occupant cars.

    Ther is ample and almost endless evidence that paint, chips and such like are not respected in Edinburgh by motorists. Building more of the same is just an expensive way to say "at least we're doing something, now shut up and get back in the door zone"

    Posted 10 years ago #

  4. chdot
    Admin

    "left with the feeling that that's the best the road designers can achieve with their guidelines and preconceptions"

    I still can't work out where the 'resistance' is to better/different.

    A LOT has changed in the past year -

    "
    (@RadioForthNews)

    31/07/2012 12:05

    Councillors have approved plans for £5.5m of upgradeis to Leith Walk. 18 months of roadworks start in September.

    "

    http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=7945

    There is undoubtedly an element of 'this is how it's done in UK/Scotland/Edinburgh'. There's also an element of 'this is how it has to be done in UK/Scotland/Edinburgh', because of legislation.

    There are various places where 'bicycles only' traffic lights would be useful, but they don't seem to be legal - if they are, they are not being planned for LW (except as bike/ped crossings).

    A lot of the 'it needs to be better' campaigning has come from individuals (quite a few on here) and organisations (eg Spokes) with an interest in 'cycling'. Even Greener Leith, which has general local and environmental interests, has made a lot of noise about the various proposals for cycle infrastructure.

    This is not really surprising as anyone who cycles in Edinburgh knows that things could/should be better. Most people who cycle would genuinely like to see more people cycling, not least because there is plenty of evidence that 'more people cycling makes cycling safer'.

    Also there aren't really any organisations (or it seems individuals) effectively campaigning for better provision for pedestrians or bus users.

    Lesley Hinds is trying to get things improved for all these -

    "
    Lesley Hinds (@LAHinds)
    23/07/2013 21:33
    @david_mccraw still working in the designs at the foot of the walk. Yes we need to challenge and make priority for pedestrians

    "
    "
    Lesley Hinds (@LAHinds)
    23/07/2013 22:11
    @magnatom we intend to lead the way. Any comments you have please e -mail lesley.hinds@edinburgh.gov.uk

    "
    "
    Lesley Hinds (@LAHinds)
    22/07/2013 20:20
    @kim_harding agree and cycling, pedestrians and bus users need to be given a higher priority than in the past. Agree?

    "

    - and a lot more in the last few days.

    The plans seen today are "Draft", unfinished and (admitted by officials) inaccurate in places.

    Of course (at present ) CEC doesn't have the money to do most of the work proposed!

    There are clearly discussions going on involving Sustrans and the SG. It would be nice to think that the Government is saying 'we'll give you the money when the plans are better' - but I suspect not.

    One problem is the overall feeling that 'the main thing' is that LW is a "transport corridor" rather than a place where people live, work, shop and have to cross a wide, busy, road to get to bus stops, schools etc.

    Even some of the people primarily interested in making LW more 'cycle friendly' are largely concerned with getting from one end to the other without potholes (quite reasonable!) with as much segregation as possible.

    As a result there is an element of 'balancing' the interests of cyclists, pedestrians and bus users and questions about whether motor traffic - or indeed the local bus company - are being 'disadvantaged enough'.

    Certainly, whatever happens, there are likely to be fewer parking spaces, though it seems that at present some of them are used more by traders than their shoppers...

    So - work in progress (a year ago it was, more or less you'll have had your Leith Walk 'finalised') and moving in the 'right' direction.

    But even on here there will be no complete consensus on what should be done. A lot of detail to sort - particularly various junctions and red surfacing - not just chips.

    So - keep thinking, looking at the plans, commenting on here, writing to politicians (local MP Mark Lazarowicz was there when I was and he seemed keen on extending the proposed two way cycle lane), engage with Lesley Hinds (and others) on Twitter, etc.

    What happens on LW will set the tone for the rest of Edinburgh - especially if it works.

    Posted 10 years ago #

  5. chdot
    Admin

    I talked about the Pilrig Street junction. The proposals are far from satisfactory for cyclists continuing north on LW.

    I suggested closing it (didn't expect this idea to be taken entirely seriously!)

    It was pointed out that it was a bus route, so we had a conversation about bus/bike only - happens elsewhere in Edinburgh.

    I was a bit surprised that it only has one route - most buses keep going to the Foot.

    Posted 10 years ago #

  6. Dave
    Member

    Are the latest drafts available online anywhere then? Otherwise it makes it rather difficult to comment. I had a moan based on the Greener Leith 'leak' screenshot but wasn't sure if it was completely valid

    Posted 10 years ago #

  7. Uberuce
    Member

    Coming up tonight, so the antipodean council woman told me.

    Posted 10 years ago #

  8. Roibeard
    Member

    I may be in the minority, but am "content" to concede the downhill on road sections - I did argue for segregation uphill the whole way, and extending the two way section to Annadale Street. Here the Leith bound section can be directed diagonally across to the ahead ASL (like the KB junction), rather than requiring a 90 degree left, 90 degree right further north.

    The traffic engineer (probably not his title?) confessed that a segregated uphill route is possible the whole way (like the Albert Place bit) - I suspect that this doesn't apply to the Pilrig Street junction (as it's the narrowest point on the whole road), but rejoining the bus lane at that point, before being segregated again after the junction doesn't see inconceivable. It would be more expensive, but we're already beyond what the council can afford themselves.

    Overall much better than previous attempts, although most junctions are still TBC. Still a big way to go...

    Since he confessed that he didn't cycle onroad for safety reasons, I asked the engineer if this design would make him happy to cycle Leith Walk. His first thought was (as above) that it didn't matter, as he wouldn't cycle to Leith Walk, that is, an entire network is needed - of course they have to start somewhere! As I kept asking "if not Leith Walk, then where; if not now, then when?"

    When pressed on just Leith Walk as currently designed, he still couldn't say that he'd cycle it, so I encouraged him to design such that he'd be comfortable with the route...

    Robert

    Posted 10 years ago #

  9. Wilmington's Cow
    Member

    "When pressed on just Leith Walk as currently designed, he still couldn't say that he'd cycle it, so I encouraged him to design such that he'd be comfortable with the route..."

    That's a perfect starting point.

    Posted 10 years ago #

  10. gdm
    Member

    @Roibeard - I think that's key, what would they personally cycle on?

    I found it ridiculous that neither of the officials I spoke to were cyclists and so were trying to persuade us, who well know and understand the practical experience of cycling on roads where there currently isn't segregation, that what they were proposing represented some sort of improvement on safety.

    The designs could (just COULD!) be deemed safe if we knew that we could rely on motorists to not cut across our paths and seek to race ahead of us to reach junctions and, erm... sit at red lights. However, we know from all our experiences that the 'respect' agenda is failing, so putting our faith in it for LW seems insensible at best.

    The questions that aren't being asked by officials is simply about how are these things done elsewhere? To listen to the officials, you would think that our circumstances in the UK are unique in terms of needing, for example, to provide standing space for passengers waiting to board a bus or access to bus stops and buses themselves for people using wheelchairs. When I mentioned about a preference for the bus lane to go behind the cycle lane to at the very least minimise the crossing of paths between cyclists and buses, each of those issues above were raised as reasons around why such an approach wasn't feasible.

    However, do people with wheelchairs not exist in Denmark? Or do they not use buses? And do people simply materialise onto a bus when they want to catch it? So how is it done in these other countries? Let's learn from their best practice and experience. As others have said, we don't have to do the trial and error experimentation of the past 40 years which other nations did. We simply need to look for what works best from international models and apply it here.

    The issue of having no other network to link in to is an absolute subterfuge as, again, as others have said, we have to start somewhere. However, we need that starting point to be effective and functional otherwise people will simply not use it or, as is the case with the QBC, they will use it and appreciate there is no demonstrable difference either to their safety or the perception of safety.

    Posted 10 years ago #

  11. kaputnik
    Moderator

    The issue of having no other network to link in to

    which is cobblers of course - it intersects the apparent infrastructure on MacDonald Road, which links it to the St. Marks Path, onto the NEPN. At the foot of the walk it is very close to the WoL path and the Links (and onwards to Portobello) and the east Leith paths are as close as Easter Road.

    Leith Walk would tie all these routes nicely together, fill a blank in the map and be a perfect starting point for some proper routes between Easter Road and Leith Walk.

    Not to mention the aspiration for that cool bridge on the old Caledonian Railway viaduct crossing the road.

    Posted 10 years ago #

  12. Kim
    Member

    "There is no overall plan to have a joined up network" or so I was told by one of the council officials yesterday. The approach is completely piecemeal and is taking us no where. Part of the problem is a lack of leadership and part of the problem is apathy among council officials. The good people that are there have been ground down by this and accept incremental change which gives us the 2nd rate "solutions" like QBiC.

    We need a more revolutionary approach, it can be done, there are cities around the world where it has been done. We have to keep letting those with the power to change things that we want Edinburgh to be a World Class City fit for the 21st century!

    Posted 10 years ago #

  13. gdm
    Member

    "Part of the problem is a lack of leadership and part of the problem is apathy among council officials."

    Certainly, I got plenty sense of the latter speaking to the officials yesterday.

    One thing I found so telling was that there was no sense of excitement amongst officials about the proposals - no sense that this was something which was (or, at the very least which they believed was) new and innovative, exciting and radical. Quite clearly, that's because it isn't, however, you can't be expected to sell a product if you yourself can't look at it and say that it would inspire you to change your behaviours - in this case, get on your bicycle and brave Leith Walk.

    The approach which has been adopted is principally around dampening down innovation and actively seeking out problems where there are interactions between differing groups of road and pavement users. Councillors need to be enthused about their capacity to deliver a quality, behaviour-changing, infrastructure before we can expect those working for them to share such a vision.

    The problem is that this all follows the visit from our own Jim Orr to the kind of place where these obstacles have been overcome and yet the vision presented yesterday still doesn't reflect that - it simply speaks of a failure to see barriers as things which can be overcome if only we had the will to do so. How then, if they have been to those far-off lands and yet still returned home without a renewed sense of inspiration for what can be done when the will is present, do we expect there to be a more positive approach which leads to the outcomes which we seek?

    Posted 10 years ago #

  14. crowriver
    Member

    I tackled the designer on the pedestrian crossing at London Road and he was trying to convince me that staggered crossings are actually quicker to get across, though apparently pedestrians "instinctively prefer" to go straight across in one movement. The latter are of course more pleasant to use, less intimidating, and safer. It would appear though that traffic flow modelling systems used by the designers are 'winning the argument' due to the spurious correlation of pollution with slower moving vehicles.

    Posted 10 years ago #

  15. kaputnik
    Moderator

    It's a model. It's not reality. Perhaps they can't see past that? They should build human nature into their models, not just cars-per-hour throughput.

    Posted 10 years ago #

  16. neddie
    Member

    I would urge everyone to email SPOKES, as well as your councillors, because I fear that SPOKES will accept the plans as is.

    Posted 10 years ago #

  17. i
    Member

    Where do I start ...

    I discussed with said traffic engineer about the reasons why they did not have a bike path behind the parked cars and bus lanes:
    - Concerned about bike path going behind bus stop which could conflict with pedestrians.
    - Concerned about the side streets, when cars turning off stop to give way to bikes leaving the back end of the car blocking the road and cause cars behind to collide with the turning car.

    How would you respond to those concerns? I wish I could point to real world busy floating bus stops and show how it works.

    Compare that to the mandatory cycle lane they propose which leads to problems:
    -double parking blocks lane
    -over flowing bus stops block lane
    -intimidating cars and buses next to bike users
    -0.5m dooring zone buffer on driver side.
    -cars wanting to enter and exit parking conflict with bikes
    -pedestrians have to worry about both bikes and cars at the same time.

    Posted 10 years ago #

  18. holisticglint
    Member

    "traffic flow modelling systems used by the designers are 'winning the argument' due to the spurious correlation of pollution with slower moving vehicles"

    Road transport is supposed to be largely de-carbonized within 37 years according to ScotGov so the argument is completely spurious.

    this is worth printing out and giving to planners who disagree.

    Posted 10 years ago #

  19. Roibeard
    Member

    @i - particularly odd when they appear to have overcome said issues on the Albert Place stretch, which seems to be the same width (with the noted exception of immediately north of Picardy Place Pilrig Street).

    It did seem to rock them a little when asked how they'd over[come] these issues further up the hill...

    Robert
    (who fluffed this post big time!)

    Posted 10 years ago #

  20. gdm
    Member

    While the proposals in this video for Manchester are not ideal, they show the option of having the cycle lane behind the bus stop.

    Manchester Oxford Rd proposals

    If you combine it with the sort of approach to junctions in the video below, then could that work?

    [+] Embed the video | Video DownloadGet the Flash Videos

    Dutch style junction

    I appreciate that there are several junctions along LW which aren't simply 4 joining roads at 90 degree angles, but surely it can't be beyond the wit of man to combine these design elements.

    Ok, ok... so clearly the existing designs show that it is beyond us right now, but what are the principle barriers which they could present against these?

    Parking/loading bays was a big point raised. Ok - so put the cycle lanes behind them with enough space so that people getting out of the cars on the pavement side don't get doored. If there are concerns about peds/wheelchair users having to cross the path of cyclists to get to these areas, well, we could install a zebra crossing for cyclists to stop at. There's an example in a video

    [+] Embed the video | Video DownloadGet the Flash Videos

    but the users aren't that great at abiding by the rules, although the design seems fairly foolproof, so maybe not for sharing with officials!

    Rubbish bins. The Manchester design shows there could be plenty of space for bins to be placed at points where there are bus stops. I don't think you're ever going to get agreement on the placement on bins - especially given I seem to recall they also mentioned installing even bigger bins than currently exist.

    It's not as it LW isn't wide enough to incorporate all these issues, so have they actually seen all the options as it doesn't look like they're really trying. They're putting a huge amount of time and effort into something when far simpler and more effective solutions are clearly available.

    Posted 10 years ago #

  21. PS
    Member

    One of the designers seemed to be saying that the reason for not putting the cyclelane behind the car parking was it suddenly became a lot more expensive to do that as you got into the realm of having to move electricity boxes, bus stops, phone boxes, signs etc etc. So, years of accretion of street clutter, the bane of Edinburgh pedestrians, now prevents our streets being made more liveable...

    Posted 10 years ago #

  22. crowriver
    Member

    He was tackled on these points by Roibeard and others (I overheard) and the designer said that moving bus stops, street furniture etc. adds to the cost. He then quickly stated (several times) that it was *not* about the money, but that this was a consideration.

    So, basically, we will get this half-hearted infrastructure because it's cheaper and quicker/less bother. Except for the expensive segregated bit, where they are hopeful of additional funding from SG, and which will be delivered later.

    Posted 10 years ago #

  23. crowriver
    Member

    I really began to get an impression listening to the designer that sometime in the past 6 weeks a directive/memo was issued to the street design team warning them about the dangers of congestion and that the city could be fined for breaches of poor air quality regulations.

    How else to explain the changes to the previous draft design which entail narrowing of what were two-way segregated cycle lanes in favour of left filter car lanes (no buses turn left from LW to London Road)? Or the appearance of staggered pedestrian crossings where previously they had been direct straight across?

    Unless of course there's a political instinct that 'congestion makes drivers angry/loses votes' and air quality is the fig leaf covering the ugly realpolitik calculations?

    Posted 10 years ago #

  24. gdm
    Member

    Well, they've just started churning up the junction of the QBC at Causewayside/Grange Rd presumably because they thought the surface needs to be made even more awful.

    So if we need to get something which is functional then we need to invest more than CEC is willing? This, again, sounds on the face of it like another QBC-type issue of trying to do everything with an impossibly small budget and so, in effect, achieving nothing of any worth.

    Incidentally, do we know what that would cost to adjust the street furniture (by which I assume drains and manhole access to power lines etc are the biggest concern)? And, given that much of this infrastructure was shifted to allow the tramworks down the middle of LW, perhaps that's where segregated lanes could go?

    I admit, that sounds far from ideal. But if they are going to constantly find excuses for not doing things then we need to keep coming back with solutions. I cannot accept that the cost of doing what they're talking about would be so high as to essentially scupper the entire project. And, as is happening right now with the QBC, do you honestly think that even if they shifted infrastructure to make space for cycle lanes that a few months down the line they wouldn't find some reason to have to dig up the whole thing to leave it pock-marked and a hazard to anyone who goes on it?

    The actual cost of decent infrastructure, properly designed and enforced needn't be so great. Is there a need then to encourage compromise on the appearance of segregated facilities on certain parts of LW as at the southern end in order that more can be spent on shifting street furniture etc so that a genuinely effective and functional cycling infrastructure can be implemented along the entire length?

    Posted 10 years ago #

  25. bdellar
    Member

    @Roibeard I'd like segregated downhill sections too. My wife, for example, will not ride down Leith Walk. She got nearly squished between two buses many years ago. She WOULD ride down a segregated path.

    And if that joined up to Leith Links, we'd be able to ride off-road from Porty pretty much to Princes Street, and back.

    Posted 10 years ago #

  26. i
    Member

    @bdellar, another point to support segregated paths on the other side is some people will prefer to salmon on the protected path rather than cross properly to the other side where there is no segregated path. Even with Roibeard's proposed diagonal crossing guiding the way.

    Posted 10 years ago #

  27. Roibeard
    Member

    <aol> Me to! </aol>

    In some ways it might be easier (due to fewer shops?) to have an off-road track downhill, although the speed differentials are higher uphill, so if we can't have both... I know it's a compromise or a concession, and possibly a concession too far.

    Not that my view has any special weight in the matter, and possibly should have less weight than others!

    Robert

    Posted 10 years ago #

  28. Roibeard
    Member

    @i - I do believe the diagonal transfer at Annandale Street from two way on the "south" side segregated path was proposed, drawn up, and presented to the engineer by another respondent at the event. I can't claim the idea as my own.

    Robert

    Posted 10 years ago #

  29. chdot
    Admin

    Is this being discussed anywhere else online?

    There are mentions on Twitter - mostly aimed at Leslie Hinds (who is generally responding).

    She has also responded here -

    http://greenerleith.org.uk/blog/council-must-alter-dangerous-leith-walk-design-to-save-lives-3046#comment-971500723

    As I mentioned previously there are hardly any pedestrian/PT advocates/campaigners.

    But is there any public comment/discussion elsewhere - community councils, school groups??

    There's

    http://leith.org.uk

    But -

    "
    Leith Business Association :: Representing and Informing Business Owners in Leith
    This site is now closed
    Written by Alan D Rudland
    "

    Posted 10 years ago #

  30. chdot
    Admin

    "

    Cycling Edinburgh (@CyclingEdin)
    24/07/2013 15:18
    @LAHinds @CllrJimOrr @AndrewDBurns

    Can you please make sure #Leith Walk has PROPER red surfacing NOT chips?

    http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=9687&page=5#post-119174

    "
    "
    Cllr. Andrew D Burns (@AndrewDBurns)
    24/07/2013 16:59
    @CyclingEdin @LAHinds @CllrJimOrr Point taken - can you make sure this is fed back formally through consultation process as well - thanks!

    "

    Posted 10 years ago #

RSS feed for this topic

1…567…12

Reply »

You must log in to post.


Video embedded using Easy Video Embed plugin