CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » Infrastructure

Roseburn to Leith consultation begins (and the debate continues!) CCWEL

(5504 posts)

No tags yet.


  1. Frenchy
    Member

    it wasn't felt analogous to Roseburn as the demographic of pedestrians is different

    There are ~70 other toucan crossings in Edinburgh they can visit if they want. I'm sure we can find one which suits.

    Posted 5 years ago #
  2. chdot
    Admin

    “I'm sure we can find one which suits.”

    Or perhaps not...

    What don’t they like?

    Posted 5 years ago #
  3. fimm
    Member

    Cyclists.

    Posted 5 years ago #
  4. HankChief
    Member

    +1

    Posted 5 years ago #
  5. Rosie
    Member

    @Stickman I cross that toucan at the EICC 2-4 times a day and pedestrians and cyclists mingle pretty well, as they do along Exchange Crescent. It’s busy as well.

    I was at that meeting and should have pointed out that practising on the toucan in Roseburn will get them into training for the EICC one, which is used by all ages as it’s en route to plenty of places.

    Posted 5 years ago #
  6. LivM
    Member

    Murrayfield CC clearly think that they know best - Surely if Toucans weren't safe (or as safe as any piece of infrastructure can be) they wouldn't exist? If something is designed to appropriate safety guidelines what is their argument for sticking their heels in?

    Posted 5 years ago #
  7. Stickman
    Member

    As above: they don't like cyclists.

    Posted 5 years ago #
  8. Morningsider
    Member

    I use six toucan crossings, each way, on my daily commute. I've never seen a cyclist/pedestrian collision at one, or really any problems at all. Is Roseburn so different from other parts of Edinburgh that its residents can't cope? They don't seem to have any issues walking next to lanes of thundering motorised traffic.

    Posted 5 years ago #
  9. chdot
    Admin

    “Is Roseburn so different from other parts of Edinburgh that its residents can't cope?“

    Now there’s a question!

    Posted 5 years ago #
  10. piosad
    Member

    You have to admit that the NMW/Melville Drive toucan can be problematic (not to the point of pedestrians being knocked over I don’t think), what with the narrow conflict-generating path, unclear signage and blocked sightlines when coming from the west. Of course none of that applies to the planned Roseburn one as far as I can see, but I’m sure that won’t stop them.

    Posted 5 years ago #
  11. Arellcat
    Moderator

    +1

    Local pedestrians for local streets.

    Posted 5 years ago #
  12. Stickman
    Member

    It's possible that the objection is in good faith and that they want an alternative design more suitable for the area. However their past record of opposing every single aspect of this scheme suggests that it's just another tactic to get it stopped.

    Posted 5 years ago #
  13. Rosie
    Member

    @piosad
    Agree that the Meadows one is confusing and could do with a better design, especially as it’s busy.

    Morrison Crescent over the WAR is fine – it’s wide, and you can’t speed over it.

    Posted 5 years ago #
  14. Stickman
    Member

    "Is Roseburn so different from other parts of Edinburgh ..?"

    Good question. Do other parts of Edinburgh have a man going door to door telling scare stories about cycle lanes?

    Posted 5 years ago #
  15. LivM
    Member

    https://twitter.com/livia1521/status/1029967849685745664?s=19 06:20 with very few other parked vehicles nearby, but Menzies newspaper delivery van had to stop RIGHT outside the front door of Tesco Roseburn on double red / pedestrian crossing. A bread delivery chap was doing the decent thing and parking elsewhere and using trolley wheels for his crates.

    Posted 5 years ago #
  16. @LivD I encountered that this morning - he'd completely blocked the left-hand side of the road, and wasn't visible until I was already turning left into the corner. which required a very sudden change of direction and grab of the brakes as I couldn't see what (if anything) was oncoming in the other lane I was about to swerve into.

    Utterly mindless, stupid and downright dangerous parking.

    Posted 5 years ago #
  17. HankChief
    Member

    Sigh...

    "As you are aware, a Public Hearing is required for some of the objections to the TRO. The reporter has not yet been formally appointed for this. This is because we are waiting for Transport Scotland to confirm whether they intend to take the objections to the RSO to a Public Hearing as well. In which case the two will be rolled into one. Once we have more information from Transport Scotland regarding the RSO we will be able to formally appoint the reporter and begin the Public Hearing process.

    It is as yet unclear when the Hearing itself will take place, however it is unlikely that it will be this calendar year. I’m sorry that I can’t provide any further information at this time."

    Posted 5 years ago #
  18. Stickman
    Member

    I will always remember overhearing the ex-local councillor telling opponents to use the TRO process to stop the plan. And I will remember that whenever he or any members of his party talk about being supportive of cycling infrastructure.

    How did Glasgow get their scheme built so quickly?

    Posted 5 years ago #
  19. crowriver
    Member

    "How did Glasgow get their scheme built so quickly?"

    My guess is:

    - No public consultations
    - Bare minimum of public advertising for TRO/RSOs
    - As a result, no objections or objections not substantive

    Also, from what I've seen of what has been built so far:

    - No parking/loading spaces removed at all, just moved a bit further into the carriageway.

    Posted 5 years ago #
  20. crowriver
    Member

    A quick look at GCC web site confirms that Glasgow makes it much less easy to object to a Two than Edinburgh does.

    The South City Way designs are all here:

    https://www.glasgow.gov.uk/index.aspx?articleid=19365

    However in the TROs section, no designs are online, not even the orders are online. Instead it's the "Beware Of The Leopard" approach to display of the designs...

    https://www.glasgow.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=42530&p=0

    So, potentially interesting questions. Is Edinburgh (inadvertently or otherwise) making it too easy to object to TROs by being more transparent than the minimum legal requirement? Is the council using consultation excessively for various public realm and active travel projects?
    Or, conversely, is Glasgow paying lip service to democratic engagement and consultation while pushing ahead with projects in the teeth of opposition?

    Posted 5 years ago #
  21. Klaxon
    Member

    Certainly the TRO/RSO system seems set up for a different age where objections would really only come from statutory bodies, and the whole rigmarole of referring unwithdrawn objections to a reporter makes a lot more sense in that context

    It seems nonsensical that after an extremely long and thorough design and engagement process, ultimately resulting in a crossparty vote at committee, that a handful of people can roadblock it by at least 6 months just by saying 'changing the loading arrangement is detrimental'.

    At the same time, the process seems to be an entirely ineffective backstop against a determined council. Just look at the Leith St / Picardy debacle.

    Posted 5 years ago #
  22. chdot
    Admin

    “So, potentially interesting questions. Is Edinburgh (inadvertently or otherwise) making it too easy to object to TROs by being more transparent than the minimum legal requirement? Is the council using consultation excessively for various public realm and active travel projects?
    Or, conversely, is Glasgow paying lip service to democratic engagement and consultation while pushing ahead with projects in the teeth of opposition?”

    I hope someone will be asking councillors to ask relevant questions..

    Posted 5 years ago #
  23. gembo
    Member

    My opinion is that Edinburgh is correct and does things by the letter of the law and also risk averse.

    So you end up with modestly good infra. I think you will find compared to rest of Uk. Given amount of whinging that goes on here. Laughable even in Glasgow currently being held up as some paragon.

    However, please do not get me wrong, what I would love would be barnstorming politicians not afraid of losing their seats smashing through proper change,

    You know I loved and voted for Prof David Begg's congestion charge. But the error was to allow a referendum, see Brexit too. In London they just pushed it through.

    Posted 5 years ago #
  24. chdot
    Admin

    “But the error was to allow a referendum”

    Yep.

    SG (Lab at the time) feared the wrath of MotorVoters.

    Posted 5 years ago #
  25. Morningsider
    Member

    I'm fairly sure that when the TRO system was designed, the statutory consultation process was assumed to be all the consultation that would ever be carried out on a roads scheme.

    I think the problem is that growing parts of the public sector have succumbed to a kind of consultation mania. It is literally seen as an end in itself. I would guess it comes from the vogue for faux engagement via social media, TV talent shows, PR and media management company pressure and the dread fear amongst politicians that they are no longer seen as relevant or representative.

    It is also a useful tool for officials to hide behind when budgets, or departmental will, means that nothing can or will really be done. Better to roll out a consultation when a politician demands action, rather than saying "No, Minister".

    Posted 5 years ago #
  26. piosad
    Member

    The whole ‘consult like mad to maximize consensus’ m.o. is meant to be a bit of a post-devolution specialty, I think, certainly as far as the story the public sector in Scotland likes to tell itself is concerned. Not clear that it actually makes a lot of *practical* difference, as Picardy Place/Leith Street clearly showed…

    Posted 5 years ago #
  27. crowriver
    Member

    Aye, but look at the difference.

    In Glesca they say "plans are on display in council office 9-5. If you want to object you can apply to the Court Of Session".

    In Embra they say "plans can be downloaded here, if you want to object e-mail us and we'll send it to Scottish ministers to decide if there are a lot".

    Chalk and cheese. Is this some SPT hangover in Glasgow where they just disregard procedures? Are Edinburgh bending over backwards to delay stuff through Scottish government hearings? Or is it all just differences in local government "culture"? Like the tenement stair factoring and maintenance discrepancies?

    Genuinely puzzled here.

    EDIT: Okay having tracked down Dundee City Council's impressively minimalist Traffic Orders page, I am now convinced this is mainly about local authority "culture". Although plans are online, the order descriptions are not. Dundee don't even mention you can object, let alone how to do it. Presumably when they advertise the orders (in the Evening Tele?) the objection process is outlined and an address maybe given. There's even a wee 'progress' spreadsheet printout showing the workflow from an officer's perspective and literally ticking off the orders as contracts are handed out for completion.

    So now I know one of the reasons why Glasgow and Dundee have great big high speed roads through the city centres, and Edinburgh doesn't...

    Posted 5 years ago #
  28. gembo
    Member

    Nice theme developing here around cultures in cities. Perhaps Edinburgh has more objectors than othe places requiring an objection culture, rather than the other way round? We are somewhat hoisted by our own petard on this one as @crowriver points out

    Posted 5 years ago #
  29. Arellcat
    Moderator

    You know I loved and voted for Prof David Begg's congestion charge. But the error was to allow a referendum

    I voted for congestion charging too.

    I remember a meeting (maybe FoES) when Andrew Burns spoke about trams and congestion charging. He made the point that they fully expected enough objections to congestion charging that they would end up being required to hold a referendum, so they held it in earnest.

    Posted 5 years ago #
  30. I were right about that saddle
    Member

    However, please do not get me wrong, what I would love would be barnstorming politicians not afraid of losing their seats smashing through proper change,

    As far as I can make out with my jaundiced and feeble antennae what's happening is that politicians at all levels in Edinburgh (MPs, MSPs and councillors) are functioning as facilitators and fixers, not leaders.

    My MP offers to help me engage with the council about parking. My MSP acts as a broker between developers and active travelers. My councilors want to train me to engage with their officers through consultations.

    Nobody is setting out a clear view of what they would like Edinburgh to be in twenty years and a pragmatic means of getting there. If I was a politician would I do the same and hope to get through to retirement? I hope not.

    Posted 5 years ago #

RSS feed for this topic

Reply »

You must log in to post.


Video embedded using Easy Video Embed plugin