CityCyclingEdinburgh was launched on the 27th of October 2009 as "an experiment".
IT’S TRUE!
CCE is 14years 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.
Yes, thanks to chdot for inviting me and Klaxon. Good summary above.
What a spectacularly frustrating meeting. The stonewalling of the senior council officer to engage in the traffic reduction issue was frankly amazing. If I was an elected councillor I'd be furious with a response of that nature.
Basically, it's TFD to reduce traffic, because, reasons. Nevermind that it's their job to implement Council policy!!
This thread sums it up nicely:
https://twitter.com/urbaneprofessor/status/932658979175653384
“
And, for their part, drivers should recognise the world is changing and cycling is becoming a part of everyday life for many. And they should realise they will benefit from the resulting reduction in congestion, as people switch from car to bicycle, helping to speed up journeys for everyone around the city.
“
“
Brent Toderian (@BrentToderian)
15/11/2017, 18:25
There’s really no getting around it - many of the most important decisions cities must make to address their biggest challenges, WILL be initially politically controversial. That’s why brave leadership is a core necessity for better cities.
https://twitter.com/brenttoderian/status/930864400348491776
“
“
Chas Booth
@CllrChasBooth
Officer:"This design prioritises public transport."
Me: "Where are the bus lanes?"
Reply: "There are none."
#PicardyPlace
https://mobile.twitter.com/CllrChasBooth/status/932569129512505345?s=17
“
TRO and RSO published for Leith St today
You will need to re-object to the RSO if you wrote before
Bus lanes removed throughout
This isn’t just about maintaining the status quo, this is trying to undo 20 years of incremental improvement for public transport
Right, I'm on it. Will be re-objecting possibly with an enhanced missive covering bus lanes too as soon as I have time.
I note there's also an RSO proposing removing 15 metres of footway from Potterow to create a loading bay as "servicing business" is apparently "becoming difficult".
Some folk may want to object to that also? They should not be stealing pedestrian space for loading bays!
“I note there's also an RSO proposing removing 15 metres of footway from Potterow”
Hope plan includes better design of bike lane.
(Plenty of room for a segregated one of course...)
Objectors might mention the idea of restricting delivery times andusing small vehicles.
Eurgh.
That "buses need to turn" line is rubbish - buses can turn on a tiny roundabout like Seafield Street/Fleming Place. In these plans they'd have three reflex angles to negotiate, protruding into the adjacent 'lane' all the while.
Wait, servicing businesses on the south-east side of Lothian Street is becoming difficult? That's the Teviot dome and related businesses I presume? The ones that have a delivery bay with a lift in the garage under 7 Bristo Square? And taking away space that's about to be reclaimed by pedestrians once the building compound is gone. That's crazy.
Also Lothian Street doesn't need to be four lanes anyway.
Stuck my head into the meeting at the City Art Centre to see if there was any different info to yesterday
Same plans and same faces. That is to say, reasonably influential people.
The feeling I have taken from speaking to the civil servants and the consultants is that they all genuinely believe this is the best "balance" and that anything else will fail to achieve "balance". So, this is the line that is going to be passed up to the politicians, who can't be arguing policy back much.
Very pleasant chat with one of the active travel people who was unaware of the Leith St TRO withdrawing all bus lanes. It won't be accidental that this has been launched underneath the 'flaghship' Picardy Pl consultation.
https://mobile.twitter.com/StreetWurrier/status/933055950273040384
starting the campaign rename #PicardyPlace the Brexit Roundabout in memorial to an expensive mistake, that everyone knows is daft, but there is no institutional power to stop.
It seems the officers are not for turning*.
*Except by going all the way round a three-lane gyratory.
Lesley Hinds:
"Why are the Sustrans proposals not up for consultation? Told officers months ago this proposal unacceptable. An opportunity for the future to have an area with priority for public transport, walking and cycling! Let’s make sure the proposals to be agreed in January 2018 are ones we can be proud of. Reminds me of discussion re West/East link proposals. Be brave and make a difference for future generations!"
I've attended today's event at the City Art Centre, and do have to say it was indeed rather disappointing.
Essentially, I've received a reiteration of already mentioned points (with maybe a few interesting - but still disappointing - bits in between):
-) The gyratory was necessary because otherwise the area would become gridlocked, as the current demand for traffic is too high for a T-crossing.
-) In 5 years, if the need for traffic had changed, the crossing could be turned into a T-shaped crossing (does this go along suggestions like "if the advisory cycle lanes on Leith Walk don't work, we can change them into mandatory ones in a few years time?").
-) The gyratory was important to keep buses moving/turning. In future, buses could stop at Picardy Place and passengers continue on the tram (in theory, I think it would be marvellous if redundant parts of buslines would be removed, however, as long as Lothian Buses doesn't allow you to change a bus/tram during a single trip (as it can be done in most other countries), you'd then need to buy a day ticket for most of your journeys).
-) The Scottish Parliament (!) would possibly withdraw money from the GAM if a different plan (like the Sustrans' one) would be built. However, the representative I spoke to admitted, that they hadn't been asked yet.
-) What could be considered would be a bidirectional cycle lane along the northern side of the "island", connecting the cycle lane from York street to Leith Walk (and yes, with 2 traffic crossings in between, making this a probably lengthy journey).
-) The many road crossings affecting the bidirectional cycle lane would not concern me, anyway, as I seemed to be a confident cyclist and probably would cycle along the street, not along the cycle lane (!!).
Sad.
Also asked an officer if they thought the design is more pleasant for pedestrians than the current roundabout.
"No..."
In 5 years, if the need for traffic had changed, the crossing could be turned into a T-shaped crossing
What I learned from the V&C event; the Golden Turd Hotel is paying for this work on the basis that it is not revisited for ten years. They don't care what is done, they do care that it stays in place for a decade. Their aim is not to have roadworks on their doorstep until the hotel is paid off.
In 5 years, if the need for traffic had changed...
Except that the "need for traffic" will always increase until one starts building infrastructure to discourage it.
Sustrans statement:
https://www.sustrans.org.uk/news/update-picardy-place-our-position
I didn't have time to ask at the event yesterday why the Y-junction design they were showing wasn't the one from the Sustrans plans. I did hear it being described as "developed in conjunction with Sustrans".
Did anyone ask why they weren't using the actual Sustrans design?
Went to the third 'information event' on the bus in my civvies. Didn't realise it didn't start until 15h00 so had to head back. Cue much Muttley-style muttering from me.
Took the bus to avoid being labelled as a bicyclist. I always forget just how slow, grim and expensive public transport can be.
I shall study the stuff on-line and send a stern letter to Councilor MacInnes.
Letter from Leith Central Community Council:
"CITY of Edinburgh Council have released a doozy of a plan to redesign Picardy Place – the junction between Leith Street, York Place, Broughton place and Leith Walk.
The proposals have jumped right out of the late 1950s. For a start they are set to replace the existing roundabout with a huge island. This will get rid of the trees and flowerbeds outside the Cathedral and the Eduardo Paolozzi sculptures (the latter are thankfully now being moved to the close by and well maintained Hillside Crescent Gardens on London Road), but also reduce the physical walking space in an area that’s always bursting with shoppers, commuters and others.
Even worse is that the increase of overall traffic lanes, which will likely have a real detrimental impact to four main (limited capacity) roads that regularly suffer tailbacks and gridlocks. CEC administration’s own transport strategy plans for a reduction in cars, but I honestly cannot see how, if they plan to widen the pipes and turn our town centre into East Kilbride, with motorways being the new high street.
I don’t believe it can resolve the problem of drivers and bus passengers waiting up to 10 minutes to get through York Place and it takes away space from all other road and pavement users.
The final insult was when CEC confirmed that they had not yet decided on a place to move the Sherlock Holmes statue to, and that it would sit in storage until a plan is in place. The same thing was said about the London Road clock literally over a decade ago, and no one has seen it since. It’s ridiculous such a landmark was again not considered.
Thankfully, CEC do seem to be taking the many pieces of feedback seriously, with small tweaks to the plan, such as not decreasing the pavement as much, but there’s still a lot to be rectified.
There are also (begrudgingly) a few potential positives. CEC currently have a survey online (https://consultationhub.edinburgh.gov.uk/sfc/picardy-place/) until December 15. Please, take a look at the plans and let them know your thoughts before this city commits to another unpopular ‘renovation’.
Jack Caldwell, Leith Central Community Council, Pilrig Street, Edinburgh"
Very good from Jack
Having cycled through Airdrie and Coatbridge for the first time ever on a PoP Glasgow feeder riding, I can only concur.
Those two cities presented a far more frightening proposition for cycling than I've ever encountered in Edinburgh.
"
In 5 years, if the need for traffic had changed...
Except that the "need for traffic" will always increase until one starts building infrastructure to discourage it."
"
Indeed.
Went along this afternoon.
Nice venue.
Think I got nodding agreement from an official that the chance of CEC 'redesigning' the roundabout in 5 years time was nil.
Whatever CEC's intentions might be, 5 years is too short for them to plan/implement anything...
Can anyone explain how the Growth Accelerator Model ties Edinburgh to building the gyratory? It looks as if it's something that's been spread to other cities, like Dundee, so potentially it could be a huge and ongoing problem
“Can anyone explain how the Growth Accelerator Model ties Edinburgh to building the gyratory?”
I don’t know, can they?
I’m sure there will be people on here who have quite a good idea.
I was under the impression that ‘sources’ at SG had indicated that the roundabout thing wasn’t a MUST HAVE.
I assume the story is being put about by CEC to save it from the bother of rethinking all this, and, perhaps, shift responsibility.
It seems likely that the deal (can we see it please?) was an agreement on plans as seen at the time, but unlikely to be also ‘and you can’t change any details’.
HOWEVER there is the complication of what is slightly more set in place by the Parliamentary process regarding the tram.
I was told yesterday the tram project's limits of deviation under the act are, broadly speaking, building edge to building edge.
Disgruntled IWRATS (IRATES?) spills words into the CyberVoid;
Comments and suggestions:
I've thought long and hard about the proposed design and the only thing I can think of to make it worse would be the removal of the scant cycling provision. It is quite literally one of the worst conceivable designs for this space.
To see why it so bad consider the hierarchy of space allocation in a transect across the gyratory;
1) Private motorists; 3 lanes of at least 3m width, minimum 9m
2) Pedestrians; 1 lane of 3m
3) Cyclists; 1 lane of 2m
4) Buses; 0 lanes - 0m
The correct hierarchy for a well-functioning city is;
1) Pedestrians
2) Public transport
3) Cyclists
4) Motorists
The plan creates an island cut off from the city by circling motor vehicles. A thoughtful design would create a public space.
If motor vehicles are given priority then motor vehicle use will be induced. The council's own plans mandate a reduction in motor traffic.
Motor traffic kills business. The council's own plans mandate a business-friendly city.
Motor traffic kills place. The council is committed to place-making.
Leith Street is currently closed to private motor traffic. Edinburgh has not collapsed. We do not need to dedicate our city centre to those wishing to pass through it in private motor cars. We've got a bypass on the outskirts for that. The east end could become a great place to live if we grasp the thistle and start handing space over to citizens rather than motor cars.
You should scrap this proposal totally and devise a new design. It should prioritise people and place and only include motor cars as grudgingly tolerated guests.
Google Streetview is doubtless available to you in the Council. Look at the centres of European cities - you'll find that they are driving out cars, even the cities like
Paris that previously built urban expressways. Edinburgh should have the ambition to be a modern European city, not a 1960s British one.
This plan is retrograde, shameful, wasteful and harmful. Do not implement it at all.
Island site
Comments and suggestions:
Do not create an island site at all. It is a very, very bad idea.
Also the council doesn't own all the land. Some of it is held in the common good fund, which does not belong to the council in the conventional sense. Traffic islands are very much not in the common good of Edinburgh's citizens.
“Also the council doesn't own all the land.”
I was told today that it did, however this may be the weasel in the room -
“Some of it is held in the common good fund, which does not belong to the council in the conventional sense.”
Yes, but who else controls its use in practice?
You must log in to post.
Cycling in Edinburgh Flickr group
Video embedded using Easy Video Embed plugin
posts