But not as part of this. Rather as a long term plan. Which is good, but irrelevant to how is will work.
CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » Infrastructure
George Street Improvements
(1175 posts)-
Posted 9 years ago #
-
"Do you know I really despair at how negative some of the comments on here are. I cycle George St most days into work and I've lost count how many times I've been nearly taken out by delivery drivers in the morning and parking space hunters in the afternoon. The new infra is not perfect...but I'll take it for now!!!"
But this is the whole problem. It's not "for now". This is it. This is all we're going to get.
If they're going to all the trouble of planning, working up the design, committing to and spending the money, then the least we can expect is that they don't do it completely half-assed.
All they're going to do is widen the pavement and paint a line on it. Instead of dodging taxis, you're going to be dodging tourists and toddlers. The lane won't be used enough to make it clear that it's a no-pedestrian zone, and in any case we just don't have a culture of pedestrian-free bits of pavement.
The lane is too narrow at 3m, well below the minimum recommended by people worth listening too, so you're likely going to get stuck behind slower cyclists - when there are any.
Then you enter what will surely be a very busy roundabout at a bit that isn't a road, so drivers won't be expecting you, looking out for you or indicating for your benefit. Then you'll be leaving the roundabout at another bit that isn't a road, which the driver behind you won't expect. You'll also be exiting onto a bit of road that used to come the other way. Oh, and there's no segregated provision around the roundabout.
There's no plans as yet to improve the scary junctions either end of George Street, so it will not encourage anyone new to cycle.
If this were how it is now, that would be one thing. But for anyone to actually be proposing and building something so shoddy in 2014? Sorry, but that makes me despair that the people in charge of spending our money, for our benefit, have any idea what they're doing.
CEC should never be publishing any plans without having already agreed them with Spokes. That's a simple rule of stakeholder engagement for any public servant.
We will never, ever get a good enough standard of infrastructure to encourage mass cycling if we're prepared to accept whatever guff they come up with so long as it is better than what exists now.
Posted 9 years ago # -
Relevant documents including the Spokes response to the George St TRO public consultation are here.
Everyone had a chance to comment/object/ ask questions when the TRO was advertised. That is the ideal time to complain or make suggestions - more effective than now!! And the more who do it at that stage the more hope of improvements before anything is installed.
Spokes members were notified as we are always very keen for individuals to comment with their own views, regardless of any Spokes submission. I imagine it also appeared on the forum.
One point about the scheme is that the officials have emphasised very strongly that this is a one-year experiment and that if they get a lot of feedback/ suggestions about specific points once the scheme is installed they will consider making changes to the experiment. They assure us that this is NOT a finalised scheme and that this is one of the reasons why it is being done with cheap materials. If it is genuinely a trial/ experimental then that is to be welcomed as compared to installing a 'finalised' scheme immediately. We understood that once the results are complete they may even consider a wider scheme involving Princes St.
Also important to remember that the main driver of this scheme is not cycling, it is much wider than just one transport mode. This explains why some of the cycling decisions are compromises. The reason for the very unfortunate swapover, as we understand it, is primarily related to pedestrian activity. Generally speaking the north side is best for the sun, pavement cafes etc, but they swap to the south side in the Assembly Rooms area as they envisage a need for wide ped space there.
Posted 9 years ago # -
Entirely not in the spirit of what you've written, but just something about your phrasing made me laugh in memory of Mr Prosser vs. Arthur Dent: ...sign on the door saying "Beware of the Leopard"
(This quote page misses the final line... "ever thought of going into advertising?")Posted 9 years ago # -
The man at the women's cycle forum (yes, there were a few, and I think this particular man deserves some credit for coming along), who is the council cycling officer or something like that, said that there isn't a lot of money being spent on the current George Street scheme, which is why the roundabouts are unsatisfactory (my word, not his).
Posted 9 years ago # -
"
Spokes CycleCampaign (@SpokesLothian)
13/06/2014 16:36
#GeorgeStreet #segregated #cycleroute work starts Monday! http://www.edinburgh.gov.uk/news/article/1575/george_street_opened_up_for_pedestrians Our view http://www.spokes.org.uk/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/1404-Spokes-comments-George-St-TRO.pdf @CyclingEdin @POPScotland"
Posted 9 years ago # -
Sensible views from Spokes on the design of the changes - their idea about the junctions (straight across with lights then change sides) was my first thought too. Thanks (once again) to Dave and the Spokes team for keeping on top of things and advocating for us all!
Posted 9 years ago # -
I don't see any harm in the extra-wide pavement swapping sides on George St. I just don't think there is any need for the cycle lane to swap sides as well. The cycle lane could remain on one side along the full length of George Street without any effect on available carriageway or parking spaces. I don't see why it needs to be on the same side as the extra-wide pavement. Installing a two section crossing to get between sides is an ingenious solution to a problem that is entirely avoidable.
Posted 9 years ago # -
@Morningsider, but the central parking spaces would cause a problem. The council don't seem to want to move them therefore the cycle lane has to go with the extra wide pavement.
If the Fredrick St crossing was traffic light controlled (with a bike phase) then I don't think the lane swapping sides is that big an issue. I wouldn't really see any great advantage in going straight across /then/ swapping although perhaps you could do better light sequencing/phasing in that case.
Posted 9 years ago # -
cb - I'm assuming that the combined width of the pavement and cycle lane remains the same, the central parking spaces might have to move by a few feet - but that's really only a detail.
Posted 9 years ago # -
I would have thought that the parking space location is pretty much set due to all the pesky statues. So the cycle lane has to be on the opposite side of the road to the traffic lane otherwise cars would have to cross the cycle lane to access the parking spaces.
Posted 9 years ago # -
"I would have thought that the parking space location is pretty much set"
Only if the plan is to keep all the parking...!
"due to all the pesky statues"
There have been various 'plans' to move them over the years - probably something to do with traffic flow.
Posted 9 years ago # -
cb - you are right, the parking spaces are defined in a Traffic Regulation Order (TRO). Thing is, the creation of the new cycle lane and wide pavement and one-way system is being done through a new TRO - it would have taken no effort to move these parking bays a few feet as part of the new TRO, allowing the cycle lane to remain on one side. It wouldn't really cost anything extra to implement either, possibly a bit of extra paint and a few more rubber kerbs.
Posted 9 years ago # -
The central parking reservation is currently cobbled so moving it even by a few feet would require digging up the road which would presumably come with a substantial price increase. It would also stop this being a temporary measure.
Assuming there is a consultation period towards the end of the trial it may be a good suggestion to make though.
Posted 9 years ago # -
I'm not trying to be flippant, but cars can drive on the cobbles. Any problems with bus stops could be sorted by bus stop bypasses. This could all be done with paint, rubber kerbs and planters - as already proposed.
Proper road surfacing and better looking solutions can be found after the experimental phase.
Posted 9 years ago # -
You don't want the cycle lane to swap sides, but you think that can be achieved by moving the central parking "a few feet".
Either the cycle lane swaps to the other side of the parking or the parking access would be across the cycle lane (a disaster) or I am missing something?
Posted 9 years ago # -
cb - the segregated cycle lane would abut the pavement all the way along George Street. The parking would be in the middle of George Street (effectvely the same as now - possibly re-aligned to allow for pavement widening). Traffic along George Street is one way and never has to cross the cycle lane.
Posted 9 years ago # -
Ok, that makes sense. Although the cycle lane would still have a wiggle in it where it crosses Fredrick Street.
To the west it would be in the middle of the road, just north of the parking strip. To the east it would be to the north of the road (along the south edge of the current pavement).
So, as you alluded to, you would need bus stop bypasses on the eastern bit.
In my mind I'm not sure if that's better than the current proposal (assuming some kind of light controlled crossing of Fredrick).
Posted 9 years ago # -
@ calmac
""The cycle lane will be separated from the pedestrian areas by a painted line, with cycle logos painted onto the road at 20m intervals."
Painted line on a very busy pavement."
Why is it that infrastructure planners only seem to(sometimes) think we need physically separated from motor vehicles and not pedestrians (as well as vice versa)? Kerb and planters on one side, a dab of paint on the other.Posted 9 years ago # -
Not about G St., but the words of CEC -
"
The largest single source of comments was about the sharing of space between pedestrians and cyclists. This was reflected in the most popular suggestion, which was that the cycle facilities should be segregated.
"
http://www.edinburgh.gov.uk/info/20135/cycling_projects/503/meadows_-_innocent_path_ncn1/3
Posted 9 years ago # -
'We' seem to have got from a "3m wide"* cycle path to "only a few feet"
*Should actually be 4m == 13ft to be up to Dutch standards for a bidirectional path
Posted 9 years ago # -
I cycled along the Roseburn path with panyaqua and along to Melville st this morning. I cut through the church heading for Charlottoe Sq/George St. Geroge St is closed at the Charlotte Sq end east bound. Funnily no diversions... Ended up cycling along Princes Street, which is much less stop start than George St.
Looks like its started.
Posted 9 years ago # -
To cycling@edinburgh.gov.uk
From….Hello,
I see George St is closed at the Charlotte Sq end for works? I normally cycle this way to work. Could you please indicate with suitable signage what the diversion is please?
Kind regards,
Dave C
Posted 9 years ago # -
Edinburgh begins converting busy dining&prev traffic street into 2-way cycling+non-motorised space
(click for photo, can't embed from the tweet)
Posted 9 years ago # -
Went that way this evening. Oh it is awful. DaveC just walk past the barrier to see the awfulness of it, especially the bit that goes over the cobbles to end at a plant pot... well I assume they are going to move the plant pot...
Posted 9 years ago # -
Let's wait and see. I may mosey on over there tomorrow to see how they are getting on.
Posted 9 years ago # -
Is that photo seriously showing how wide the cycle lanes are going to be? Single-file each way?
Posted 9 years ago # -
Tell me that's photoshop...!!!
Posted 9 years ago # -
Why on earth does the lane not right up to the cobbled parking bay? A yard of wasted space?
Posted 9 years ago # -
Nope, that's it. One of the two car lanes becomes two-way for cycle traffic.
Someone up-thread said that they would only use the lanes to go the way cars are not allowed to go. I think that is what most cyclists will do. Bear in mind, the cyclists who are likely to use the lanes are people who are cycling now, i.e. your stereotypical fast, fit, confident cyclists - because they are the only kind of cyclist who can tolerate the conditions on the roads that you need to use to get to George Street. So they will just do what is most convenient for them - after all, they are used to mixing it with traffic.Having said all that, let's wait and see what it looks like when it is all done, bearing in mind what the man at the women's cycling forum said about it being done on the cheap...
Posted 9 years ago #
Reply »
You must log in to post.
posts
