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/

Why most families won't cycle in Edinburgh

(inspired by a comment on my last post....)

Earlier in the week, it being the Easter Holidays, a plan was concocted that required getting the kids to Waverley, with bikes.  It's not that far from us. Haymarket is closer so we often choose to start journeys there, but we were meeting people, and riding to Waverley didn't seem like a problem.  The first third is on a 30 mph rd, but one that we ride everyday to school.  So, not a big obstacle.  The middle section is off-road segregated lanes.  Very nice.  It's the final bit -- part of the city's Quality Bike Corridor (official map here) -- that turned out to be a  nerve-wracking 5 minutes, despite there hardly being any traffic at all.

I'm not sharing this video as an example of 'great family cycling'  -- I've got others that show how we do it much better -- but I think we did okay. There's only one place - where the big lorry overtakes us down the Mound - where I think I should have been closer to her.  There are other places, where she's trying too hard to keep up with her Dad - who is too far ahead, and coping with me shouting stuff at both him and her.  But this was probably the hardest bit of family cycling we've done over the past 3 years.

What makes me angry though, is that this is touted as 'quality'. It is a route than many families wanting to visit the National Museum, events at Princes Street Gardens, the Museum of Art etc would all want to do. And it shows perfectly why most sane people would choose not to cycle in Edinburgh with kids, despite the excellent nearby off-road paths.

Just to point out the highlights: as you can see, the access from Middle Meadow Walk (c 60s) is inadequate, as it requires cyclists to merge into traffic coming from a totally different direction, with no indication to them that cyclists are allowed to do this.  The van 'loading' in the bike lane outside Greggs (c1.10) doesn't help.  Neither does the taxi parked further on.  You can really see here how dangerous door zones and leap-frogging are for kids.   At c2.22 you can also see why bus lanes don't count as cycle infrastructure.

Then, there is the comedy bike lane beside the Missoni  (c.2.40-3.15), just before the intersection with the High Street. For once, the bike lane itself was un-blocked. But because the turning Lorry is in the ASL, we end up out in front of it - and blocking the fire engine's access.  But I was worried the second lorry -- the arctic with crane -- was also turning, so didn't want to risk sitting in the bike lane.

And finally, we get that  downhill, with vehicles overtaking at speed - where we are had to change lanes and turn right as well.  Madness.  The entrance to Waverley itself, doesn't help -- it is entirely unclear that the first entrance is not for cyclists (there's a teeny weeny sign), and the at the second entrance, again, it's unclear that cyclists ARE in fact allowed to carry on down the ramp.  Inside the station, it's very well-signposted, but obviously if your journey originates at Waverley, you're not going to have arrived by bike.

I'm sure some folk will think we're mad to let a 7 year old cycle this.  But she wanted to, and she had a great day out. On the way back, with a lot more traffic on the roads, we rode some of the same intersections in a much tighter convoy configuration with more cyclists around us, and it was great.  But at 9 in the morning, with hardly any personal vehicles out, the roads felt ridiculously dangerous.  It also shows how dominated our roads are by lorries, vans, and taxis during the day - and how much difference a reduction in them would make for cyclists. But my main reflection is that if there was proper infrastructure on this route then little mistakes - either by a 7 year old or by a professional lorry driver - wouldn't matter. And I can't see many other families following us down this path.

It's five minutes riding - about half a mile - that could easily be fixed, but without those changes, it's not going to be a part of the 'family network' that sees many families.

Why 'being nice' won't solve that outgroup thing

This morning, I was trying to explain to my six year old why I had put lights on her bike, even though it was fully light, if a bit murky.  We had an interesting discussion and checked out how many cars had lights on, and if they were easier to see than those without (interesting fact: in Canada all cars have riding lights that are on whenever the engines on, handy for spotting a car that might start pulling out).

'quiet route'

But, the real reason was of course that I wanted to send a signal to drivers that while I might be foolhardy enough to let my 6 year old cycle to school, I was otherwise being as careful as I could.  Which is a completely ridiculous thought pattern.  Why should I care what they think of us?

The night before, we'd cycled home from school by the 'quiet route' - at my daughter's request.  She's right,
it is a lovely calming ride.  But the one weakness - and why I tend not to take that route more often - is a slightly dodgy intersection at the end of our road.  The roads are slightly askew, the sightlines often blocked by parked cars, and in one direction cars are coming off a humped bridge, which makes their velocity difficult to determine.

dodgy intersection

We cross this all the time on foot. It is equally awkward, but drivers are usually very understanding, and  stop and wave us across.  Last night, we tried to get across without inconveniencing the cross-traffic, but in the end cars had to stop in both directions before we could get across.  One of them then followed us down the road and parked near us. I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure there was a fair amount of resentment directed at us.

Which made me think - we can do everything 'right' - lights, helmets, bells and whistles - but if the drivers are annoyed at our presence on the road 'holding them up', they're not going to think 'well, at least they were in hiviz'.   It doesn't bloody well make any difference. As a pedestrian crossing that road, I'm treated with respect. As a cyclist, I'm seen as an inconvenience (at best), and my behaviour's not going to change that.

If drivers are going to be anti-cyclist, then us trying to make nicey-nicey just isn't going to change anything.

What's the difference between London & Edinburgh?

Reading Boris' vision for cycling in London was a revelation.  Not because I believe it will all happen, or that funding's in place for it all, but because the tone was so different from what we have heard and seen elsewhere.  Edinburgh's put its money where its mouth is and committed 6% of the transport budget - capital and recurrent - to cycling.  And we've already seen the effect of this - particularly in the gritted cycle paths that made such a difference this year.

But Boris' vision simply felt different.  My husband described it as a 'wishlist' for cyclists. But it wasn't just that they bodged in all sorts of good stuff.  Rather, it felt joined-up as a policy.  Not just a tick-list but thinking about what was needed.  I have blogged before about the need to integrate cyclists into urban planning - this plan feels like it really does that, with a commitment to a properly funded junction review, redesign of town centres, and  revising design standards.  While the Scottish CAPS foregrounds 'training', the London vision sees it as merely an add-on to other important aspects of the scheme. We've asked for infrastructure to be joined up, but here not only is infrastructure joined up, but so is the policy.

Despite all that good stuff, the real difference in the London plan to Edinburgh's ATAP was one of tone, and that tone is at least in part a reflection of one important difference.  In London, it is accepted that the most efficient way to get somewhere is not necessarily a private motor vehicle.  And car-parking does not seem to be taken as the same sort of 'right' by residents - or at least that's how the local press portrays it.  I've seen so many more cyclists around - especially lots with child seats, that I think this is changing, but it's not reflected in our public discourse, or in our policy formulation.

London planners and politicians are starting from a different place, emotionally and strategically.  The census data in London showed very clearly that car ownership and use has fallen dramatically in recent years across all demographics and political orientations. Add to that, London's over-used and overcrowded public transport system - again used by every variety of commuter.  Boris' vision is compelling because he sells it as something that is good for everyone - this is a win-win policy.

A lot has been made of the role of cycle bloggers in pushing policy change.  But the other big difference between Edinburgh and London is that in London, the local media is on-board.  In Edinburgh, the politicians continue to run scared of the local media, which - with very few exceptions - is heavily pro-car and loves to bash the council.

I don't think these differences are unsurmountable, but the Council and its officials need to get their heads around the idea that Active Travel can be a 'vote-winner' (as I heard the Deputy Transport Convenor say recently), and, as residents, readers and consumers, we need to make sure that the incremental changes in how we travel are reflected in policy-making and public debates.

I can't win

Our first trip with the trailer. Picking strawberries to jam.

Most of the time, I'm fending off comments about how 'brave' I am to cycle with my kids.

To begin with, this meant taking my daughter to nursery in a bike seat. Then when she outgrew that, we got a tandem.  And, about that time, she started riding her own bike. Like most parents we assumed she would ride on the pavement (sidewalk to the North American readers).  But that made going places tricky and slow. Since most of our roads are lined with parked cars, this means that often we couldn't see her, and were riding too slow for the traffic flow.  Then, at age 4, she had a fall over the edge of a kerb and onto the road. And declared she wasn't going to ride on the pavement anymore.  We humoured her for a bit, thinking she'd probably go back to riding on the pavement. And gradually we developed the necessary skills to ride with her on the road.  She's never looked back. And at age 6, she's got a pretty good sense of how roads work, and how to cycle them.

But, the 'brave' comments keep coming.  Mostly it's code for 'crazy'.  Or 'bad parent'.  I'm sure the parents trying to drive their kids to school in 4x4s say even worse things.

The thing is, among cycle campaigners, I get flack from the other side. Snide comments about helmets and hiviz.  About how cycling ought to be for 'normal' people.  Not all of this is nasty.  Much of it is well-intentioned like the great people at Spokes, who want to see more pictures of cyclists in 'normal' clothes.

But they're still telling me that I'm doing it wrong.

I can't win.  So, you know what? I'm just gonna ride my bike!  (and keep on campaigning to get more people out there, and to make the roads safer for all of us)

Spot the bodge job

Spot the bodge job.  All four of 'em.  Are you wondering what on earth I'm on about? OR, what planet  childseat manufacturers are on when they doesn't design in bikelights or bike light fittings?

I just don't get it. Do they really think that we don't need lights on childseats? Or, more likely, that the only time we cycle with kids is on a Saturday afternoon ride to the park?

Here in Scotland, we need lights from October to April, just for 'normal' school/nursery/work runs.  Tonight, I've been  laid low with a virus, but the rest of the family is contemplating a dinner invite from dear friends (and a ogood cook).  But it's a dark and rainy night and the route entails cycling through some of the dodgier bits of road in Edinburgh (Holyrood Park and the Cowgate, plus the Pubic Triangle Lothian Road).  So, we are left with the following options:  £9 for bus tickets, £8x2 for taxis, or bodge extra lights on.  As you can see, we've opted for the latter.

But I still don't get what's going on in the manufacturer's heads.  It's not just childseats. It's also tag-alongs and trailers, which are near impossible to light up.   To their credit, Hamax made a light that went on the back of their seats, but when I tried to order one, I was told they'd been discontinued.  Too little demand?  I guess so.  The other day, I was amused to find myself ranting to the most experienced bike campaigner I know, who seemed thoroughly surprised to hear that this was an issue. I guess it really is a minority concern.

In praise of tandems...

Every busy mom needs a tandem. I'd say that it was the SUV of bikes but that wouldn't convey the freedom that a tandem gives. An SUV, or people carrier, as it is called in North America, implies that you spend all your time ferrying kids around.  But the tandem not only gets them used to contributing to that effort, but also encourages them to be more independent.

When we got our tandem, K. (now age 5) started off mostly wanting to ride with me on it.  And while I was thrilled that she wanted to, we were a little worried that she was 'deskilling' on her own bike. But, she has now started to want to ride her own bike more and more.  So, if we go off on a Sunday afternoon cycle, it can be a case of trying to convince her to ride the tandem with me!  And she chooses to ride to school on her own often as well.   I'm sure that it is her experience of being on the tandem that has given her the confidence to do this.

Our tandem  has the added benefit that both the adults in our family can ride it, despite a height differential of more than a foot between us, and we can take the baby along too.  And, as you can see in the header photo,  we sometimes add on a trailer - mainly for cargo, although in theory we could take kids in it. So, if I'm on my own I can take the kids with me on the Saturday morning  farmer's market   run (as we did last week before soccer/football) or do a 'big shop' by bike.

All of which means that I can do the school run in the morning, and still get to work at a decent hour.  And contribute to the weekend activities.  All without a car, or spending hours on a stuffy bus.  And get some exercise - which really helped me get back into shape after baby #2.  The only problem I've got now is that I invested in a nippy folder over the summer, so that I had an alternative bike for when K. wanted to ride her own bike, or when the rest of the family needed the tandem.  I love the feeling of freedom: a bike with no kids attached -- whee! And I love zooming up hills on it. But I'm definitely not burning as many calories....

My toddlebike!

Small Mr B acquired a toddlebike late this summer.  As you can see opposite, a toddlebike is a small plastic ride-on toy.  He is very fond of it and scoots around inside the flat with great enthusiasm.  I responded to an offer on twitter of a loan and/or reduced price toddlebike, if I agreed to tweet/blog about it.  I was kind of intrigued, and pleased to be able to report positively.

One nice thing about the toddlebike is that, while it is fine for playing indoors,  it can also be taken outside.  It is very nice and light, which makes it easy to strap on to a grownup bike or backpack when cycling to a playpark. It is also light enough for him to carry along by himself. And so far it has proven very durable.

If you read other reviews on-line you'll note that parents say that it speeds up their kids so that they can toddlebike rather than be pushed in a buggy.  This didn't really work for us. Small Mr B is already so fast on his feet that he found toddlebiking any distance a bit frustrating, because he can (and will) run along faster.  But in the flat and/or the playpark he has a ball.  As did the other kids at the park who all had a go - from age 12 months and up including big sister (nearly 6).

From a bike-riding perspective, the cool thing about it is that unlike other 'scoot' bikes/bugs that we have tried, he automatically alternated his legs while pushing, rather than pushing with both legs together.  No idea what it is about the design that encourages it, but interesting.

There is now a 'Scottish regional partner'  for anyone who wants to make contact.   I can definitely see these being popular in playgroups and nurseries, as well as at home.  I won't be sending it back - although having now seen a little girl just his age (23 months) performing amazing acts on a scooter, we're already scheming to get him on a balance bike...

At the risk of boring everyone to death...

I've got to write about the school run again. All easy-peasy today. Nice tandem run, not too late. Dropped girl off, toodled down to the end of the road, where there is a cycle exit, but a dead end for cars, only to encounter stupid posh car reversing at me again.  (I'm pretty sure this is the same guy who has twice reversed in the street before noticing us behind him on a bike).

I don't know who has priority in this instance. He is doing a U-turn, I am aiming for the red bit that gives me access to Viewforth. Maybe I should have stopped.  In the event, I did stop, but also went and asked the driver if he'd noticed me. He claimed he did.  I asked why he kept reversing if he'd seen me. Clearly we were not seeing eye to eye.

As I cycled off, muttering angrily to myself, I realised that what I really wanted to ask was why did he drive down there at all?  There is no need for him to make a U-turn there unless he is a resident or visiting someone there. Students should be being dropped back here somewhere, where there is a nice easy right turn out to the main road. The only reason he is driving down there at all is because he feels the need to drop his child exactly at the gate, so the primary aged child doesn't need to walk 10 extra steps.

How do I point this out?  Is there some way of engaging with this politely?  I've probably already blown my chances of this.  So, how do I raise this in a way that actually gets something done about it?