The good, the bad, and the ugly of Edinburgh's dual network

A big chunk of Edinburgh's Active Travel Action Plan covers the creation of a 'family network'  now renamed 'quiet routes':

The map is here thanks to Chris Hill for the direct link.

There's been a lot of criticism of this approach, which is predicated on the assumption that fast, aggressive cyclists will stay on the roads and less confident cyclists will take 'quiet ways'.  This is of course a false assumption - 'confident' cyclists are just at much as risk from a bus that fails to indicate before changing lanes,  a driver who overtakes too closely, or a left hook SMIDSY.  Good infrastructure will be used by all, as we're seeing in London.

But I've defended Edinburgh's dual network approach because it was based around linking up our existing, yet fragmented off-road network - mostly based on old railway paths, parks, and the canal. While it would have been nice to start off by redesigning the big arterial roads that feed commuters into the city, the pragmatist in me valued the decision to prioritize linking up the existing well-used off road segments.

The first major bit of this work has been the Meadows-Innocent path - which is roundabout, indirect, and somewhat too narrow, especially if you ride a tandem.  But my kids love using it, and if I tell them we're going that way, I get a big cheer.   So last week, when cycling the two miles to the Commie Pool with both kids several times, it made sense to go that way.  The first quarter of the journey is pretty nerve-wracking, but once we get to the meadows we're on segregated paths and very quiet back streets (the sort we almost never meet a car on).   Except that the pool is a few hundred metres past the entrance to the railway path.  And that means that we need to make a right hand turn uphill across 4 lanes of fast-moving traffic - to get to one of the city's biggest sports venues.  It's also right next to the main halls of residence for the University of Edinburgh.  Getting back is just as bad.  Traffic flows steadily out of Holyrood Park, and turning across it at rush hour is fraught with stress.  There is a two stage pelican crossing, but it is almost exactly in between our exit and entrance from this short stretch of road - marked by the two red x's on the picture to the right.

Of course, we could get off and walk, although manoeuvring kids and bikes along pavements and through a narrow central island with railings and pedestrians is not one of my favourite things to do.  But it's frustrating to get so close and then encounter the deeply unpleasant, car dominated void that is Holyrood Park Rd.

Maybe the network will be extended.  But to my mind, this example shows up the very real limitations of the 'fill in the gaps' method of cycle planning.  Once the Canal-to-Meadows section is built, we'll have a protected route pretty much from our front door to 200 metres from the pool, but the last few yards will continue to be unpleasant and dangerous.   I've blogged before about how 'car-friendly' the pool is, but this really rubs it in.

The crazy thing is, despite the new infra being roundabout, narrow and indirect, it is a huge improvement on the route we used to use daily taking a toddler to nursery in a bike-seat.    But it makes the continued gaps all the more obvious.

Living car-free in Scotland?

We've lived in the UK for over 20 years, and in Scotland for 12, without needing a car.  It helps that Oxford and Edinburgh have both proved cycle and walking friendly, and both have excellent bus systems too.  Even since we've had kids, we've not regretted not having a car in the city.  Just this summer, with an 8yo and a 4yo we managed expeditions by train and bike to Tantallon and Dirleton Castles, and their associated beaches.  It's great for the kids to have the experience of getting places under their own steam, and really seeing the countryside.  Plus it tires them out, so they sleep soundly at night :)

But half-term poses new challenges.  It's not that we can't cycle 40km easily in a day as a family, with the 8yo on her own bike, and the 4yo on the tandem.  And we're pretty adept at carrying supplies in panniers.  But a lot of places that we'd like to go require a train trip first -- like the off-road route from Glasgow to Loch Lomond.  The problem is that Scotrail only lets you book 2 bikes per train. And it won't take tandems at all (even 'compact' ones like ours).   So, while an ideal scenario would be to borrow a second tandem, load them up and take the train to Pitlochry, or up the West Highland way, we can't do that.  Even if we just took one tandem, we'd still have 3 bikes, which is also not allowed.  And as Alison Johnstone wrote earlier, just getting 2 bikes on some trains can be a challenge.

Supposedly, guards can use their discretion and let extra bikes on, but when travelling with kids, that's really not an option - you need to know that you'll all be able to get on trains, and arrive at a decent hour, not gamble on a friendly guard.   A few years ago, we got stuck on the platform at Longniddry with a toddler at dusk because the guard wouldn't let us on an otherwise empty train, because 2 bikes had boarded at an earlier station.  It didn't matter that the train was full of empty carriages, this particular woman was determined to show us that we didn't count and physically prevented us from boarding.  We had to wait another hour, as it got dark and cold. It spoiled a lovely day out watching the geese at Aberlady bay.   So, no, I won't be trusting to the good will of the guards when venturing further afield.

What's frustrating about this is that Abellio, the new franchise holder promotes itself as 'cycle friendly' and the Scottish government wants to promote 'cycle tourism'.  But I guess that's just for young fit couples, and single adventurous cyclists.  Not for families that would rather do without the hassles of car ownership.

Well, we've given in.  There is now a British license-holder in our family, and we'll be joining the car club as soon as we can.  But if the franchise terms for other lines and orders for new trains could contemplate some flexible seating into which bikes could go, or having multiple cars with bike carriage, then there would be so many more options for families like ours.

for more info:  http://www.spokes.org.uk/2015/07/new-glasgow-edinburgh-trains/

Off-balance

I ended in a bit of a twitter-slanging-match this morning.  With Stella Creasy of all people.  I've rather admired her style and approach to politics - she seemed to really want to bring an energetic, campaigning politics back into the Labour Party.  But I was disappointed by this tweet, which excerpted parts of a newsletter from her, which seemed very negative - portraying the Walthamstow 'miniholland' project as being about cyclists versus 'everyone else'.

GazLemon Disappointed by @stellacreasy’s latest newsletter which echoes #miniholland concerns of a noisy pro-car minority http://t.co/WMiPfijqWM 22/09/2015 08:32

In our subsequent exchange, she kept emphasising how she was trying to 'balance' the competing needs.*  Which reminded me of how affirmative action campaigns for women are too often critiqued for not being 'balanced', and how often 'balance' is promoted by the status quo as a reason for keeping the status quo, as in this fun tweet that came in about the same time: 

accidentobizaro "We have got to be very careful not to do things at a speed which will make male candidates feel that the cards are stacked against them." 22/09/2015 09:16   [which links to this article. ]

Stella Creasy said that my comparison was 'silly'.  But is it?  surely our current infrastructure is built with cars and drivers as their primary concern?  

So here's my top examples of our transport infrastructure privileging cars, rather than active travel:

• Tarmac is continuous across junctions, but pavements stop

• Driveways and entrances to car parks always have dropped kerbs, but not pedestrian crossings

• 'Green wave' traffic lights that turn green for cars, but give cyclists red after red

• Wide corner radiuses that make it easy for cars to turn, but widen the crossings making it difficult for pedestrians to cross

• Push buttons on toucans - do you ever see drivers having to get out and push a button? 

• Dummy 'push buttons' on pelican crossings that are actually controlled automatically from junctions

• Half of most roadways taken up with parked cars 

• Road signs and parking meters on pavements, not on roadways, even though they deal with car regulations 

It's time to redress the balance - which is why we should all get behind the mini-holland schemes, and similar schemes elsewhere in the country. If criticism is needed, let's make it constrictive criticism, and not hide behind excuses of 'balance'. 

*  To be clear - she didn't use the word 'balance' - that is my reading of her various tweets and newsletter.  But she did say my comparison was "silly". 

Act now to save our bus (and bike) lanes

The hottest issue to hit Edinburgh cycle campaigning is...bus lanes.  Yup.  Bus lanes.  Not removing obstacle on paths, designing better infrastructure or even tram tracks.  Nope. The thing that has got even the mild-mannered folks at Spokes up in arms this week is the council's proposal to reduce the time that bus lanes are restricted to buses (and bikes, obviously).  A detailed objection from Spokes, Living Streets and Greener Leith is here. 

Now, there are people out there who secretly believe that Spokes writes the council's agenda.  In the deeper realms of the internet I'm sure there are people who believe that Dave du Feu has a stash of 'indiscreet' pictures of Lesley Hinds that he threatens to release...the reality is that Spokes goes out of its way to be constructive and to temper the criticism with a healthy dose of flattery. But this time, they're angry.

It's taken me a while to get my head around this one.  I think bus lanes are great, but they are bus infrastructure, so surely the people who ought to be seeing red are public transport campaigners?  I'm all for encouraging public transport. The worst cities I've lived in - with the most congested  and dangerous roads - have been those where only 'the poor' use public transport.  One of the things that makes Edinburgh liveable is its excellent public transport network.  

But I've struggled to understand why cycle campaigners are so worked up about it.  As far as I can see bus lanes are too often used as an excuse for not building proper cycle infrastructure.  First we're told that the need for bus lanes means there 'isn't room' for cycle lanes, and then we're told that bus lanes give us protected space.  This was explicit when it came to the north end of Leith Walk, where the council refused to build protected cycle lanes inside the parked cars, but told us we didn't need them anyway, because we had a bus lane.  Now they're proposing to reduce the time that those lanes are active, and allow all vehicles to use them during the day.

Which made me think a bit. I think bus lanes are crap because all the ones I regularly use are already part-time. Because they're not on my commute, I never see buses in them.  Take George IV Bridge - when did you last see a bus in the bus lane?  If you're like me, you'll have seen buses cruising down the central lanes, and dipping in and out of the bus lanes.  That's because the 'bus lane' is full of taxis and white vans loading, unloading, painting, decorating and god knows what else.  So, the off-peak bus lanes are useless - unless you're a 9-5 commuter.  And what the council wants to do is make all our bus lanes equally useless.

If you don't want that to happen  let them know. The consultation ends on Wednesday the 18th.  Otherwise all of our bus lanes will become de facto loading zones.  

I still don't think bus lanes come anywhere close to being good cycle infra. The closest I have come to being smushed on the roads of Edinburgh was by a bus in a bus lane on the Dalkeith Rd.  A bus had pulled in to the stop by the Commie Pool, I carried on straight.  Driver saw there were no passengers and pulled back into 'his' lane without looking in his mirror (I wasn't in a blind spot, I could see where he was looking, and it was at the kerb).  Proper infrastructure would have a cycle lane behind the bus stop.

I'm hoping we can start campaigning for that soon.  As soon as I find out where DdF's stashed *those* pictures....

Can do better?

So, according to a media report on a report prepared for TFL, there are 11 conditions that are needed for 'world class' cycling cities.  So, I thought I'd rate Edinburgh. I've written these fairly quickly - more for debate than trying to be definitive:

1. There is strong, clear political and technical  pro-cycling leadership which is supported through all parts of the lead organisation.  7/10  There is some political and technical leadership, but it's not yet fully mainstreamed. 

2. Cycling is considered an entirely legitimate, desirable, everyday, ‘grown up’ mode of transport, worthy of investment, even if current cycling levels are comparatively low.  8/10 The Council's decision to commit 5% of its transport budget to cycling and to increase that by 1% each year, is laudable, and very much signals that cycling is 'legitimate'.  It helps that when I approach my elected reps, they take me seriously, since all three of them (Labour, SNP and Greens) cycle daily as well. 

3. Increasing cycle mode share is part of an integrated approach to decreasing car mode share. There is no intended overall abstraction from walking and public transport; and improving cycle safety and convenience is not intended to diminish pedestrian safety and convenience. 6/10 The Local Transport Strategy and Active Travel Action plan are steps in the right direction, but there's a long way to go. 

4. Loss of traffic capacity or parking to create better cycling facilities, while often a considerable challenge, is not a veto on such action.  4/10  There are very few examples of Edinburgh being willing to remove or limit parking - Leith walk comes to mind.  In some cases, parking is 'traded-off' or moved, on others it has been reinstated. 

5. There is dedicated, fit-for-purpose space for cycling, generally free of intrusion by heavy and fast motor vehicle traffic. In cities where the aim is to grow cycling rapidly, simple, cheap and effective means of securing this space have been used as first steps, with more permanent solutions following in due course.  5/10 It feels like we're on the cusp on this one, with a three short areas of segregation in planning/implementation stages, and the George Street 'experiment'.  But these are just baby-steps.

6. There is clarity about the overall cycling network (including planned future development), with connectedness, continuity, directness and legibility all being key attributes.  8/10 yes, this, I think is well in hand, but the current plans do not have capacity for growth beyond 10% modal share. Some routes are already crowded. 

7. There is no differential cycle route branding, simply three principal types of cycle facility that make up well-planned and designed cycle networks. The current 'family network' approach fails pretty spectacularly here, but I've graded these three separate aspects individually:

a. Paths/tracks/lanes on busier streets which provide a degree of separation from motor vehicles that is appropriate to motor traffic flows/speeds and the demand for cycling.  1/10  Nope. Not yet, but presently...

b. Quiet streets/’bicycle streets’ with 30kph/20mph or lower speed limits and often restrictions on motor vehicle access, particularly for through movements. 5/10 the recent decision to make 80% of Edinburgh's streets 20mph goes some way to achieving this. We also have some examples of permeable infrastructure, but not near enough. 

c. Cycleways/‘greenways’ away from the main highway (e.g. bicycle-only streets, paths in parks and along old railway lines and canals), but still well connected to the rest of the network at frequent intervals.  10/10  I'm being absurdly generous here - there are a number of improvements that could still be made - but this is surely one of Edinburgh's great successes, and the council's commitment to gritting much of it in winter makes it really functional.

8. There is clear, widely-accepted and routinely-used guidance on the design of cycling infrastructure.   6/10 there's guidance, but too often its been ignored or poorly followed, and council has to revisit and replace. 

9. The frequency of occasions when cyclists need to give way or stop is minimised. This means that people cycling are able to make steady progress at a comfortable speed.  6/10 Can we all say chicanes? 

10. At least subjectively, where the cycle mode share is greater, the driving culture (and indeed city culture generally) is more respectful of the needs of cyclists. Local traffic laws often play a part in this.  6/10 This remains to be seen, but the move to 20mph may contribute to a better environment. 

11. Making better provision for cycling, even in the most well-cycled cities, is an ongoing challenge; with growth in cycling, and of city populations as a whole, requiring clear forward planning.  7/10 Edinburgh's pretty good at the planning, but not so hot on the 'doing'.  And I'm pretty convinced that their current planning is only good for a modal share of 7-9%. It's not even remotely prepared for 15 or 20% modal shares. 

I make that out to be a mean and a mode of 6.  Translates as 'could do better' in my marking scheme. 

Research-informed policymaking? Not in Newfoundland

Bear's cove, Harbour Grace

See anything wrong with this picture?  Nope. Me neither.  My kids had a wonderful summer in Harbour Grace playing on their bikes just like we did when we were kids.  We'd packed helmets for them, but somehow never put them on.  And as the days went on, it seemed less and less of an issue  -- these are quiet roads, and the kids were safe and under supervision.

However these days are about to be a thing of the past, as the Newfoundland government is proposing helmet laws.  Now, I'm not opposed to helmets - I wear one fairly regularly and I used to be pretty evangelical about them.  But then I looked at the research and realised that helmets do little or nothing to protect cyclists from harm.  Which is why I think helmet-wearing ought to be a choice, not under compulsion (and that there are much better ways of making cycling safer).

For one thing, cycle helmets are not designed or tested for protection at speeds over 12mph.  They are not like motorbike helmets, or ski helmets.  They are not tested for impacts with cars or trucks, but on kerbs.

The stats on helmet use and injuries are very complex (see this BMJ editorial which specifically discusses the Canadian data), but one thing is clear, there are far fewer cyclist injuries in countries where few if any cyclists wear helmets like Denmark and the Netherlands.  As you can see in the graph below - fatalities are almost inversely related to rates of cycling.  This is because Denmark and the Netherlands have invested in making roads safer, not in requiring helmets.

source: http://cyclinginfo.co.uk/blog/734/cycling/cycling-rates-by-country/

All helmet compulsion does is lower rates of cycling, which increases long-term health problems like obesity and diabetes.  As the Danes say, you're safer on a bike than on a sofa.

I'll try to blog more another day about some of the other ridiculous aspects of this, but for the moment, please write to your MHAs and ask them to look at the evidence before taking this retrograde step.

A solution to cycle path maintenance

photo by Chris Hill

If you ask for a list of the top 10 things Edinburgh has done for cyclists recently, you will almost certainly hear someone mention 'widening North Meadow Walk'.   You can see the improvement in this Spokes report here.  Not only was it an excellent use of unexpected government money, but it responded to the network being 'over-capacity' by widening the path.  And as I reported in an earlier blogpost the design was adapted to accommodate the responses received in the consultation.  So, all good.  

Except, that with most of the work done in the summer of 2013, and finished in autumn 2013, it is already showing signs of poor design and maintenance issues.   The design problems showed up within weeks -- while the pedestrian (north) side of the path remains dry in the rain, the south side - for cyclists - is prone to puddles.  On the north side, the path sits slightly higher than the surrounding turf, but on the south side it is roughly level, with no drainage channels. 

In the autumn, this is compounded by dropping leaves, which also favour the south side of the path, because of the age of the trees, and the prevailing wind (see here for an expert explanation).  The combination of leaf 'jam' and mud makes for a worryingly slippery ride. 

And finally, the path is growing narrower as the mud and leaf mulch combine with the grass growing out over the stone border and onto the tarmac.  If you look at the pedestrian side you can clearly see the coping stones along the side, but on the cycle side, they are covered in turf - about 4 inches has grown over in some places. 

This is compounded by vehicles going along here and mashing the side of the path, as you can see in this picture.  

This isn't an issue that can be dealt with by sending a street sweeping machine along, or  even leaf blowers.  So, rather reluctantly, I canvassed for opinion on CityCyclingEdinburgh and a small group of us tackled the worst section of the path.  

This isn't a solution though, especially when the main problem is the actual design of the path.  The council doesn't expect drivers to sweep the roads, or fix potholes.  But it seems to be pretty standard to expect community groups to maintain cycle paths.  I think it's because cycle paths are still thought of as parks, and leisure spaces, not commuting routes, which obviously needs to change. 

Edinburgh's excellent about gritting paths in winter and not bad at sending out street sweepers,  but their budget's pretty stretched at the moment. So, here's my solution - all those drivers stopped for being on their mobiles, or eating their cereal, or even worse cases of careless and dangerous driving who get community service, should be given bikes with trailers, shovels, and rakes, and sent out to keep the mud and grass from our cycle paths.  

(so seriously, how do we get the council to deal with this?)

A rather boring, slightly ranty, post

I've been pretty sceptical about the George Street cycle lanes since they were first proposed. But I thought I should at least try them out rather than just critiquing from afar. Last Saturday seemed like a good opportunity.  We again had to go to Jack Browns, so the stoker and I saddled up and made sure we had the helmet camera ready and loaded.

It's perhaps telling that cycle streets definitely doesn't recommend the route that I used (my route is shown ikn red below), even though it has the most/best cycle specific infrastructure on it, as well as the most direct route. It's a mile and a quarter through a vibrant shopping area with high pedestrian footfall, a bus station, a train station and a tram route, surrounded by parks and historic sights.   You'd think we want to make this a pleasant journey?  Even encourage people into the city centre?

As you can see I went for the most direct route, which is also along the best cycle infrastructure - in theory. What I did was to head from Lothian Road onto the new George Street cycle lane -- requiring crossing tram tracks at speed and then changing lanes.  This would be okay if it was clear what to do, but I was frantically trying to figure it out.  The cars and buses were surprisingly patient - probably because of my stoker - or because they didn't know where to go either. I've speeded this video up a bit too much at 16x, but that means its only 15 seconds long.

Once on the George Street lanes, it was fairly smooth sailing - once the furniture was moved.  the first couple of crossings are fine, then there's the slightly odd roundabout thing where we switch from one side of the road to the other - basically okay if the traffic's light, but I was at least expecting that.  can't imagine cycling that blind.  And finally, the cycle-specific lights.  Fine as far as they go, but quite a long wait?

Finally however, we get to what I consider the coup-de-grace -- we are directed onto the pavement (I think) then around the north side of St Andrew's square (I think), then onto some more pavement, then across the tram tracks (oddly there is a bike light suggesting the crossing is a toucan, but with railings on the island, I'd recommend walking), then down Queen street, which is 4 lanes + trams, I think, then across the tram tracks again...

Not my idea of fun.   On that ride, and the return leg a couple of hours later, I saw precisely 2 cyclists.  Unlike others, I had no issues with cars driving or parked on the lane.  and the pedestrians were pretty polite too - if a bit baffled by it all.

So, should I be being more positive about it?  Grateful that the council is thinking out of the box? Happy that they're taking segregation seriously?  Today's local paper quoted me as saying ""'It’s an attempt 2 balance so many different interests, but it’s not suited any of them' .  You can read the rest of the story here.  It also sparked a polite debate on our cycle forum.

I really wish I could be more positive and see it as a 'start', but I can't.  The George St lanes serve no purpose at all in making the city centre more cyclable.  Those who are more optimistic may hope that this first step convinces the local businesses that they can still function - thrive even - on a pedestrianised road, or next to cycle lanes.  If that is the outcome then it will be positive. But I don't think we should pretend that what has been created is some sort of cycle infrastructure, because it clearly isn't.

The trouble with chicanes

A few years ago - maybe even just months ago - I didn't even know what a chicane was.   I've paid so little attention to them, that I don't even have a picture to show.  But suddenly, they're springing up everywhere like the new must have fashion accessory for bike paths.  

Like most cyclists, I've certainly cursed a chicane or two.  There's nothing worse than a bike gate that you can't get a bike through when its got a sleeping baby on the back. Not only is it bloody heavy to lift or slant, but it's likely to wake the baby up.  And it means you can't easily ride alone - you need someone to help you get the bike through.  All this even worse with a tandem - and ours is only a few inches longer than a 'normal' bike. Most times, the odd chicane on a rural route is survivable, if demoralising to a short middle-aged woman, but in recent months commuter routes all across Edinburgh seem to be festooned with them, and the more I learn, the less I like.

Scottish Transport's own guidance states explicitly "Access controls on cycle routes should be avoided wherever possible, and only used where there is a proven requirement."  and "Measures to slow cyclists down can include rumble surfaces, SLOW markings or staggered barriers. If staggered (chicane) barriers are used, the arrangement should be designed to slow cyclists rather than force them to dismount."

It also gives clear criteria for 'desirable' and 'absolute minimum' distances between the gates.  None of the chicanes put up recently conform to these criteria - although that seems to be a problem of implementation, rather than policy. 

But my real objection is that chicanes are so not the right tool for the purpose.  They don't minimize conflict - they create it.  They take a wide path, and narrow it down so that people are funnelled down the narrowest section.  

Pedestrians are being made into mobile traffic calming in much the same way that cyclists are used at pinch points and road build-outs.  

This is surely not actually what the pedestrians want? 

Guilty?

I may have let the cat out of the bag in a recent post.  I said 'Edinburgh's a pretty decent place to cycle'.  And I actually do believe that. But you probably wouldn't know it from my usual moaning.  

It could easily be so much better. and that would be better for the city too.  

Equally important, we are really lucky to have elected politicians and council officials who care deeply about making the city accessible. 

We have a council leader who cycles, and gives priority to environmental and justice issues . We have a transport convenor with real commitment to public transport, and desire to take pedestrian issues seriously. We have had a series of young, dynamic and energetic deputy convenors/cycling supremos who have thrown themselves into their jobs . We even have talented and committed council officials, who - amazingly - now have the budget to make some big changes. 

So, when I moan, it's because there is so much potential. and it hurts to see it wasted.. 

I'll plead 'not guilty' to the charge of pessimism, and 'guilty' to the charge of being overly optimistic. 

Re-uniting Edinburgh with its coastline

Edinburgh's a strange city in many ways. It's a city with a port, not a port city.  This is in part a function of history - Leith  only became part of Edinburgh in 1920.  But even despite the massive growth in the city, this distinction remains visible not just in planning and transport networks (in fact Leith is well integrated), but in people's behaviour.

I grew up in a port city, my mum grew up in a port city, my parents currently live in a port town.  And, I always thought that if you live in a port, one of the things you do is drive (or walk or cycle) along the waterfront and check out what is going on  -- not just the arrivals and departures of ships, but also the weather, the tideline, the changing skyline.  But in Edinburgh, this is not an easy or natural thing to do.

Some parts of it - notably Cramond and Portobello - have fabulous infrastructure. But in between, despite fascinating nooks and crannies, it can be difficult to find your way, and certainly not suitable for unconfident cyclists, or even pleasant for walkers.   Even the John Muir way which is being celebrated and opened today  goes inland through the meadows - a lovely walk, but an odd inland route for a coastal city.

But there's a lot of potential, as we discovered when we were invited to join this 'study tour' of the waterfront (yes, that's us, definitely NOT going 27 mph).

It would be easy for the council to join up the bits and pieces and make a marketable 'round Edinburgh' path, mostly off-road, with spectacular views, industrial archaeology, cafes, pubs, playparks -- something for everyone.

The work currently being undertaken to link up Edinburgh's NEPN with the canal, the city centre and the south/east paths network is going to transform the city, but our next target must definitely be to build in the coastal network, enabling proper 'round the city' rides for everyone.

Keep an eye on http://edprom.wordpress.com/ for progress - and add your ideas too.

Policy, not implementation

Edinburgh's a pretty decent place to cycle.  We like to say that they have all the right policies, but fall down on implementation.  But sometimes policy fails too.

Leith links have a much-used cycle path running through them that lots of commuters use.  As part of a broader strategy, the path is being 'improved'.  Since it also runs past a primary school, that improvement includes replacing chicanes.   Now there may be places where chicanes are necessary, but as a tandem and trailer user, I think these are infrequent. Luckily, 'Cycling by Design' the national guidance, agrees with me, and says:  " If staggered (chicane) barriers are used, the arrangement should be designed to slow cyclists rather than force them to dismount ".  

Cycling by design also gives clear specs on how chicanes should be installed - so as to allow tandems etc to negotiate them. So, I was dismayed to see that the Leith Links chicanes fail on all accounts.  So, the gap between chicanes and the wall should be 2m (preferred) and 1.5m (absolute minimum).  But on Leith Links, it is 1.2m.  And the gap between chicanes should be at least 3m, while on Leith Links it is 1.9m.*

I've fondly assumed that this is just another implementation issue that could be caught by 'snagging'.  But no,  I was told today that they are designed to make cyclists dismount or send them out onto the grass.

So, designed to do exactly the thing that national guidelines say they are not designed to do.

If the city wants to encourage cycling - which it claims to do - then when volumes of cycle traffic increase, they need to consider what infrastructure is suitable.

Clearly a busy shared space path is not appropriate right outside a school - even after 'widening'.  What is needed is a well designed segregated track.   This isn't intended to excuse speeding or inconsiderate cyclists. It is simply about building the infrastructure that we need, and getting both policy and implementation right, so that pedestrians and cyclists aren't pushed into conflict.

For more on this see: http://greenerleith.org.uk/blog/q-big-budget-cycling-bad-thing-3913  and http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=12173

* I'm indebted to wingpig for the measurements.

Cycling and the Gender Dilemma

First bike.

I'm the worst possible person to speak about 'getting people cycling' and especially 'getting women cycling'. It's just always been something I've done, and I didn't ever question that until I moved to Edinburgh.  I learned to ride a proper bike a bit later than my friends -- I had a big old trike and was small, so it fit me for a long time. Wish I had a picture of the trike - I loved it, even though my friends teased me about still riding a trike when they were on bikes, and I couldn't keep up with them.  Then my parents gave me a second-hand bike - blue with white tires, that I loved (even though my friends still teased me because it was one a big girl up the street had grown out of...aren't kids great).   I have two abiding memories of that bike - my big brother taking me to the petrol station to put air in the tyres, and the tyre exploding as we rode off.  And riding with my Dad to a nearby park and falling in the big mud puddle under the swing, so that I had to ride home soaking wet and dripping.

My $99 Canadian Tire Special. Still going strong.

I must have ridden other bikes in between, but the next bike I remember was a 10 speed from Canadian Tire for $99.  It was the cheapest bike they sold - I remember poring over the newspaper advert insert. But it was my OWN, NEW bike. Bought with my own money, that I had earned. And - 30 years later - it's still running fine, with all the original components.

I don't recall ever cycling to school.  We lived up hill from my primary school and downhill from my junior and senior highs.  But when I started kayaking seriously and had to get to the other end of town every morning at 6 and every night at 6, it was clear I'd have to get there on my own.  So I cycled.  And then I would sometimes ride to Uni too, even though it was walking distance. I don't recall ever receiving any training in riding on the road. Or anyone worrying about it being dangerous.

 And when I moved to Oxford, pretty much the first thing my new friend and I did was go out and buy bikes - matching white ones with flowers and baskets.  And with a great group of friends we explored all sorts of places around Oxfordshire on our bikes. And I cycled in Harare - the wide roads were lovely.  Until we got to Edinburgh, cycling had just seemed the obvious solution -- it wasn't a 'thing' for me, I didn't race. I didn't know how to do any maintenance.  I wasn't 'into' bikes. I just found them convenient.

Edinburgh changed that. Living just off Leith Walk kept me off my bike for 5 years.  No way I was cycling up and across the bridges to get to work ever day. And I didn't know about any of the off-road paths that would have allowed us to get out to East Lothian or to Cramond.   All those years we took the bus, or walked.   But then we had a baby and just didn't have the time to get her to nursery and get to work, so we moved house and bought bikes.  It was an entirely pragmatic response, and I didn't regret doing it, but when I saw http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/  mentioned in the Evening News, I checked it out, and found a wealth of people and information that helped me cope with the hostile roads that was encountering on a daily basis.  Even though I considered myself an experienced cyclist, I found I needed their camaraderie and advice to cope.  They also opened my eyes to issues like road design and the finer details of the Highway Code (especially as it pertains to pedestrians).  So, when POP came along, it made sense to join in, and try to help improve conditions for others.

So, unlike others, who have rather wonderfully described POP as an epiphany my attitude to bikes has always been rather hum-drum - it gets me where I need to go and under my own steam. That's why I particularly love the first 5 points on the Guardian bike blog.  But it also makes me feel rather useless when asked about 'getting people [ie women] cycling'. Yes, having had all those blue bikes, and equally boring blue raincoats, I love the fact that you can get girly accessories - baskets, pink gloves, flowery helmets. But ultimately, it's about freedom, and efficiency, and health (mental and physical). And those shouldn't be gendered.

Decent infrastructure and safer streets are needed so that women who want to cycle can feel just as independent, save just as much time and money, and be just as healthy as all the lyrca-louts and businessmen commuters.

So rather than 'encouraging women to cycle' my goal is to make cycling something that isn't gendered, and then we won't need to organise special events. It's not women we need to change, it's the environment.

Me and my girl on our tandem.

Making sense of cyclists 'shocking' behaviour

@EDIworstdrivers has been an excellent addition to Edinburgh's social media scene over the past year or so.  On twitter and facebook, the account attempts to keep tabs on dodgy drivers.  Much of the time it is just pictures of people who either don't know how to park, or can't be bothered parking correctly.

But every so often, they have a go at cyclists.  And while I am happy to see dangerous or illegal cyclists being brought to book, the account is often very revealing of how drivers just don't get cyclists. This came up in an earlier post about shared space. And lately they had a go at cyclists riding the wrong way down a one-way street.  The street in question is the east end of Fountainbridge - towards the bottom of the picture below - in yellow - the one way stretch is 200 feet long.

I am by no means condoning cyclists doing this. It's stupid and illegal.  But there is a logic to their madness.

First - the council has a policy of introducing contra-flows on one-way streets, but has not done so.

Second - it's not actually as dangerous as it looks.  Because of the wide pedestrian build-out, most of what they are riding up is the hatched area shown below.

And of course, that hatched zone also shows where a contraflow lane could go (or perhaps, where the parking could go if the contraflow was put in with a nice segregated lane against the pavement).


Third, and most importantly, not only is the alternative route massively inconvenient, it is also bloody scary. In fact, it's so bad that that cyclestreets tells people to get off and walk rather than go all the way around, .

To get around to Earl Grey Street legally (and without walking), you have to get into the middle of the ASZ or change lanes while riding up the middle of Semple Street, which has a terrible surface, and jostle with the buses to get into the right spot in the ASZ at the other end.  Then, you again have to jostle with vehicles on the four lanes of Morrison Street to get into one of the two right turn lanes - except that it is impossible to see the lane markings - and then get out onto Earl Grey street which is six lanes wide at this point.

So, all that for 200 feet (60 metres) against traffic?  Again, I'm not saying I'd ever do it, but I do understand why it makes sense to some.

What I don't understand is why it doesn't make sense to the Council to introduce contra-flows, as promised.

Getting to Jack Brown's

We have three regular events on Saturday mornings: the farmer's market, football practice, and a trip to the optometrist.  The first two happen every Saturday, without fail, but the third - visiting the optometrists, is sadly nearly as regular.

We go to Jack Brown's, which was the only optometrist in town that had frames to fit the then sixteen-month daughter when the Eye Pavilion sent us out with a prescription.  We now all go there; they're lovely people with an excellent service. Luckily, it's also very central, located at the east end of Edinburgh's main shopping area on Elder Street, just off York Place, where the new tram-line will terminate.

But - no surprises to regular readers - it's nerve-wracking to get to by bike.  The proposed new bi-directional bike lane on George Street, which is supposed to solve problems of cycling in the city centre will deposit us about 400 metres away, but those 400 metres are composed of either a series of  right turns across busy streets including tram tracks, and a section of 'shared use' pavement cycling on an already too narrow pavement, or a dismount and brisk walk through a pedestrianised shopping precinct with about 30 intimidating bollards on either end.  

James Craig Walk

Instead today, I decided to try going straight down Princes' Street, which involved leap-frogging buses up and down, while dodging tram tracks, before finally having to dismount and walk up the aptly named James Craig Walk. It's actually only posted as no cycling at the other end, but I was trying not to be intimidating.

So, two of the three possible routes involve either dismounting and walking, or using a pavement that really ought to be restricted to pedestrians.  The third option involves cycling down Queen Street, which despite being marked as a 'quiet route' by cycle streets, is a thoroughly unpleasant 6 lanes of traffic, with added tram tracks to turn across when it becomes York Place.

Depressingly, this is what cycling in our city centre has become - thoroughly unpleasant and often dangerous - and I see no evidence that a '£10 million cycle path'  will in fact provide a “ high quality, family-friendly east-west cycle route ... right through the city centre" nor will it  "make it as easy as possible to cycle in the heart of Edinburgh.”. If it does, I'll be the first to celebrate - along with my friends at Jack Browns, whose business would no doubt be just one of many that would benefit.

A step change?

We've been asking the Scottish government for 'a step change' in their policies for a while now. But I was taken by surprise today when a step change happened within Scotland's campaigning groups.   This was a very welcome submission from Sustrans about a series of cycle 'improvements' proposed for an area in the north of the city.  I'd looked quickly at these - I've only cycled there occasionally, and don't know the streets well.  So, I was leaving the detailed comments for others.  And Spokes had provided a reasonable critique with their usual sensible suggestions.  But the Sustrans contribution goes well beyond that - it calls for mandatory lanes with 'soft' segregation, for corners to be tightened up, for zebra crossings, and the removal of pedestrian railings.  All of these would go a long way to make the roads safer and far more friendly.

It is not that Sustrans is the first group to call for such details, but that they do so from a position of authority - and with scope to help finance them.  But I also found their approach refreshing. It wasn't tinkering at the margins, or minor suggestions, but instead a whole-scale 'this is what we could do'.  It struck me as particularly strategic that they cut through the on-going wrangle over red-colouring, and pointed out that armadillos might be cheaper than either paint or chips.

This intervention was particularly welcome because this week also brought a number of other tensions to the fore.  Following on from debates on this blog and elsewhere, Keith Irving threw down a gaunlet to the council over shared space.  A response from Cllr Jim Orr about how it works on the continent did little to assuage concerns.

But in a series of emails and tweets cycle campaigning group Spokes hit on the nub of the issue - what should we actually suggest?  In the particular issue of the left turn from the Mound to Princes' St, I've refused to lend my (puny) weight to a solution, as they all seem equally bad. This has been branded a cop out.   But I don't see my role as requiring me to propose alternatives.  Surely that's the council's job?   Spokes has gotten a long way by engaging with the Council to find least-worst options,  but does that mean that all campaigners need to do this?  and that if we don't we're somehow letting this side down?

The case of the Mound-Princes St junction is just one instance where there aren't many good options.  The Meadows-Innocent tunnel consultation is another one -- the current proposals are better than what is currently in place (where NCN 1 is directed through railings and rubbish bins), but it's not great. It's not terribly direct; it requires a number of sharp turns (tricky for kids, tandems, trailers), and it meanders between segregated on-road, shared space pavements, and on-road non-segregated sections. The real block to better provision is the lack of willingness to reducing parking spaces and/or car flow - council officials are constrained by the traffic engineers and political will.  Councillors don't dare to dream big either.  Cllr Orr knows it could be better, but tries to convince us that a compromise is better than nothing.

But Sustrans wading in where many fear to tread is immensely heartening.  They've chosen their case well, and if it goes through, along with Leith Walk, it could really signal a step change in how we think about cycle infrastructure. That's a lot of ifs, but still a heartening place to be at, at the end of a dispiriting few weeks of campaigning.

Why are developer-built links so dire?

South-West Edinburgh is bifurcated by the Western Approach Rd.  Created by the removal of a train line, and lacking any cycle infrastructure (bikes are banned from most of it), it blasts traffic into the city to Lothian Road.   Presumably because it was built on top of an old railway, there are very few ways across it.  I can understand why it presents a design challenge to urban planners. But the half-hearted and poorly designed attempts to deal with it can only be evidence that Edinburgh has no respect for its cyclists and little aspiration to be a liveable city.

There are three ways across (that I know of) but until yesterday I had only ever used one of them.   And that's because they are impossible to find and crap when you get there. 

Can't go under it: I use the Telfer subway quite a lot to get from Fountainbridge to the Dalry Road and Haymarket.  It's a nice off-road route to our closest Lidl and I've been this way a few times recently with my kids, stocking up on lebkuchen and stollen. It ought to be a good route to and from the Russel Road access to the North Edinburgh Path Network, but it isn't. 

If you're on foot you need to have good eyesight to watch out for dogdirt, and you know to watch out for the cyclists coming around downhills on blind corners -- three of them (if you include the path to Lidl). Oh, and the bollards on the Dalry end aren't wide enough for our trailer, and the crossing at the Fountainbridge is misaligned, and not a toucan.  And it's not at all well signposted from the Dalry side. So all in all, not a route that signals 'we've been thinking how we can make life easier for bike users".  

Can't go across it:  The Springside 'zig-zag' is the newest crossing point, and while I'd heard about it, and seen it from the bus,  I'd not appreciated its true horror. it was included on a 'quiet route' by cyclestreets, which makes sense - it's the sort of infrastructure that would be appreciated by those not wanting to venture onto the busy streets around there.  Once you find the Fountainbridge access point, the route takes you down a reasonably wide, well-signed shared use pavement between two new housing developments, to a downhill slope that takes you to a toucan crossing, and onto another shared use pavement.  So far, so good.  but, faced with a wide, gently sloping space and the need to get cyclists, buggies, and pedestrians up and down, they built what you see here - two sets of stairs, with a  windy cobbled ramp in the middle.  The incline on the ramps is nice and gentle, but it takes forever, and the corners are too tight to negotiate easily even on my 'nippy' folder.   Worst of all, it pushed each user into the footway repeatedly. 

Can't go over it: the final route, I have yet to find, despite cycling this area regularly. I am told that it crosses over the Western Approach and takes cyclists  to Festival Square (which may soon be renamed Mandela Square). If I find it, I'll let you know. 

All of these routes have one thing in common (other than that they've been poorly designed) they've all been built into developments.  It's pretty clear that they've been tacked on by developers, obliged to make their developments accessible to bus stops and  footpaths in order to secure planning permission, but with no real thought to its actual usability. 

What's frustrating is the potential that's been missed, and the resources that have gone into these underutilised feats of engineering.   Why are they so hard to find and use? Why are they not 'intuitive' ? Why don't they make people want to use them? 

Even more frustrating is that the most used one -- the Telfer subway -- is probably the worst designed - bringing cyclists and pedestrians into conflict needlessly day after day. 

Is there any way past this wasteful squandering of space and potential to make cities that are permeable and accessible and liveable? Where are the people with expertise in these areas? and how do we get their knowledge and ideas spread more widely?