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.

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.

The objection to end all objections

After my rather derivative post yesterday, a friend, who is both local to the area and well-informed, contacted me, and offered to let me post his response here.  Enjoy!

I object to the proposed Craighouse Development (12/04007/FUL) on the following grounds:

1.  It is contrary to the spatial strategy set out in Strategic Development Plan for the regional core, which directs development towards the four Strategic Development Areas within Edinburgh.
2. It is contrary to Policy 1B of the Strategic Development Plan, as the new build proposals would have significant adverse impacts on several A listed buildings, due to their proposed location, height, massing and materials used.  These proposals would have an adverse impact on a highly visible setting, which can be seen from many parts of Edinburgh.
3.   It is contrary to Policy 1B of the Strategic Development Plan as the proposals do NOT have regard to the need to improve the quality of life in local communities by enhancing the natural and built environment.  The proposals will reduce available open space, negatively impact on a site of architectural and historic value and make the surrounding area less, rather than more, attractive.
4. It is contrary to policy 1B of the Strategic Development Plan as the proposed new build elements are not a high quality design and there is no indication that there will be use of sustainable building materials.
5.   It is contrary to Edinburgh City Local Plan policy Des 1 which states “Planning permission will not be granted for poor quality or inappropriate design or for proposals that would be damaging to the character or appearance of the area around it, particularly where this has a special importance.”  The new build proposals would be damaging to the character of the surrounding area, which is of special importance (given the presence of A listed buildings and conservation area status) due to their height, massing, location and proposed materials.
6. It is contrary to Edinburgh City Local Plan policy Des 10 which states that “Proposals for buildings which rise above the building height prevailing generally in the surrounding area will only be permitted where… there would be no adverse impact on important views of landmark buildings, the historic skyline, landscape features in the urban area or the landscape setting of the city, including the Firth of Forth.”  The proposed new build development would have an adverse impact on views to and from Craiglockhart Hill, as the elevated position means the buildings would be highly visible and exceed the height of all other nearby residential buildings.
7. It is contrary to Edinburgh City Local plan policy Env3 as the proposals are detrimental to the appearance and character of several listed buildings.
8. It is contrary to Edinburgh City Local Plan policy Env6, as the proposals will have a negative impact on the appearance and character of a conservation area.
9. It is contrary to Edinburgh City Local Plan policy Env 11, which states “Planning permission will not be granted for development which would damage or detract from the overall character and appearance of the Areas of Great Landscape Value shown on the Proposals Map, prominent ridges, or other important topographical or landscape features.”.  The proposed development clearly detracts from the character and appearance of an area of great landscape value.
10. It is contrary to Edinburgh City Local Plan Env12, as it has a negative impact on trees within a conservation area which the proposed re-planting proposals do not ameliorate, particularly in the short to medium term as mature trees are being replaced by far smaller plants.
11. It is contrary to Edinburgh City Local Plan policy Env15, as it will have a detrimental impact on the flora, fauna and landscape of a local nature reserve.
12. It is contrary to Edinburgh City Local Plan policy Env16, as the proposals may have a negative impact on nesting birds, badgers and bats.
13. It is contrary to Edinburgh City Local Plan policy Os 1, as the proposals involve the loss of open space with no significant benefits.

A key argument of the developer is that permission should be granted for the proposed development to secure the future of the listed buildings on the site, e.g. paragraph 4.36 of the developer’s planning statement indicates that “Six of the seven listed buildings on the application site are now on the Buildings at Risk Register and it is therefore essential that their future is safeguarded through the application proposals.”  This is a false argument. 

The buildings only entered the Buildings at Risk Register during June 2012, after the developer took ownership of the site.  It is the developer that has placed these buildings at risk.  It is also worth noting that the buildings are included in the register “due to ongoing vacancy and lack of identified new use”, rather than any fundamental risk to the deterioration of the fabric of the buildings.

While the long term future of the existing listed buildings is dependent on re-development, there is no reason why that future should be dependent on the current poorly thought out proposals.

The developer has also argued that the new build elements of the proposals are required as “enabling development”.  Enabling Development is not defined in Scottish planning policy, however the English Heritage policy is generally used in Scotland – which is:

“Enabling development that would secure the future of a significant place, but contravene other planning policy objectives, should be unacceptable unless:

a it will not materially harm the heritage values of the place or its setting

b it avoids detrimental fragmentation of management of the place

c it will secure the long-term future of the place and, where applicable, its continued use for a sympathetic purpose

d it is necessary to resolve problems arising from the inherent needs of the place, rather than the circumstances of the present owner, or the purchase price paid

e sufficient subsidy is not available from any other source

f it is demonstrated that the amount of enabling development is the minimum necessary to secure the future of the place, and that its form minimises harm to other public interests

g the public benefit of securing the future of the significant place through such enabling development decisively outweighs the disbenefits of breaching other public policies.”

The new build elements of the proposed development are contrary to this policy on several counts:

1. The new build proposals will harm the heritage value of the site.
2. The new build proposals exist to increase the profitability of the site for the current owner rather than benefit a site of significant architectural, heritage and landscape value
3.   The new build proposals are not the minimum level of new development necessary to secure the future of the site.

Developer’s Planning Statement

The developer’s Planning Statement sets out to prove that the proposed development is in accord with the development plan and, where this is not the case, there are material considerations which outweigh the policies and proposals in the development plan. 

Hopefully, the detailed objections above are enough to refute the claims made by the developers that the proposed development complies with the development plan.  The following section questions the heroic assumptions made by the developers with regards material considerations.

Paragraph 25 of the Scottish Planning Policy states that “material considerations should be related to the use and development of land”.  Clearly, the Scottish Government’s 2012-13 Programme for Government and Historic Scotland’s Corporate Plan do not meet this criteria and these document should be disregarded as material considerations.

The policies and proposals set out in the Strategic Development Plan and Edinburgh City Local Plan are already in accordance with the requirements of the National Planning Framework for Scotland 2, the Scottish Planning Policy and the Scottish Historic Environment Policy.  The national policies highlighted by the developers have been effectively incorporated into the development plan policies I have highlighted above and there is nothing new in the points raised under these headings that aren’t already covered in the development plan policies.

The English Heritage policy on enabling development is discussed above, it is clear that the new build elements of the proposals do not meet the definition of enabling development.

The Craiglockhart Hills Conservation Area Character Statement could not be clearer about the importance of the Craighouse site, stating:

“Views to the Hills from Arthur’s Seat, Calton Hill, Blackford Hill and Edinburgh Castle are also spectacular, in particular to Easter Craiglockhart Hill on which high quality Victorian buildings are set against a predominantly wooded hill, the woodlands emphasising the visual prominence of the site over the local surrounding area.”

It is clear that the new build development proposals would have a significant detrimental impact on these spectacular views.  The Character Appraisal goes on to stay the following about the Craighouse site:

“The buildings form a homogeneous group round the old mansion, as they are closely related in design, layout and materials. This character has remained largely unchanged since the late 19th century. The conversion of the site by Napier University has maintained the essential historic and architectural character, and conserved and enhanced the surrounding landscape.”

Again, the new build proposals could only have a negative impact on the architectural character of this unique site.

The proposals do not meet the definition of enabling development or enhance the character of the conservation area and cannot be seen to meet the policies set out in PAN71 and PAN65 as claimed by the developer.

In summary:

I object to the proposed Craighouse development for the following reasons:

1.  It is contrary to Strategic Development Plan Policies.
2.    It is contrary to Edinburgh City Local Plan Policies
3. There are no material considerations which indicate that the development should be approved contrary to the numerous development plan policies which require its refusal                                                      

Protecting Craighouse

Haven't done much blogging recently, but thought it might be worth posting up my letter of objection to the Craighouse developments -- the deadline to complain is tomorrow 16 January!  I was a bit pressed for time, so my letter below is based on a sample letter that the Friends of Craighouse propose on their website, but with some additions of my own.  I did write my first objection myself, but now can't find that text.  sigh. 

I'd encourage everyone concerned about the site - or the principles involved involved.  You can do this either by leaving a comment on the planning portal, or email emma.wilson@edinburgh.gov.uk . 

**********************************************************************

As a local resident and a Merchiston Community Councillor, I am writing to object in the strongest terms to the proposed new build development at Craighouse campus. 

This area is an important component of the greenspace available to residents in the South Edinburgh area.  It also a highly protected site and development here is contrary to its designation as an Area of Great Landscape Value, Open Space in a Conservation Area, nationally protected setting of Category-A listed buildings, and as a Local Nature Conservation Site. The whole site is a candidate for Special Landscape Area (SLA) in the new Local Plan which is due to be adopted in a few years.  This site is not designated for development in the Edinburgh Local Plan and is indeed contrary to the Edinburgh and Lothians Structure Plan, the Edinburgh City Local Plan, National Planning Policies and local policy documents.  To encourage development here would make a farce of all these statutory and regulatory processes, as well as the city's commitment to sustainable development. 

The new build proposals are out of keeping with the conservation area character, and the adjacent residential areas.  They would also involve a substantial loss of protected woodland and Open Space and amenity. It spoils the setting of the Listed Buildings – which is protected by national policy and spoils views. The 6-7 storey apartment blocks will ruin the spectacular vistas and views in and out of the site,  for which the site is famous, and will also ruin the setting of Category-A listed Old Craig  which is protected by national policy.. The other development sites will ruin the setting of Category-A Listed Buildings, spoil views from Blackford hill and the north and spoil the natural feel through to the Right of Way on what is a loved nature site and protected green site.  My family and I visit this area often, as it is only a few minutes cycle from our front door, yet we can walk and enjoy the unparalleled views of Edinburgh, even when we must get home for lunch or putting a child down for a nap.  This helps keeps us active and healthy, and gives the children much-needed space to run around in. 

The extra cars, traffic and newbuild properties will destroy the natural feel of the site as well as putting an untenable strain on local roads and schools, which are already at capacity.   All new development is contrary to the protections on this site and 7 development areas on this protected site is clearly very excessive. There is no justification for destroying habitat and chopping down over 80 protected trees on a site that is supposed to be a Local Nature Conservation Site, Habitat of European and National Protected Species.  I also have particular concerns about the implications for run off and the paths that parallel Meadowspot. 

While I understand and accept that some development is likely on this site, it must be in keeping with the neighbourhood, the existing protections for the site, and the long term interests of the city as a whole. 

In a historic and widely respected city such as Edinburgh, it cannot be acceptable to overturn so many policies and protections simply because a developer seeks to bully their way through the planning system. This  would create a very unwelcome and worrying precedent for other protected and special sites in the city, and raise real questions about our commitment to ensuring that Edinburgh is developed in a sustainable way and that future generations will enjoy the same quality of life as we do now. 

When is cycle funding not cycle funding?

....when it goes to Cycling Scotland...

The Minister of Transport in Scotland has responded to a Parliamentary question and several Freedom of Information requests to the effect that the £424000 which funded the Niceway Code is not 'cycle funding'.  That's good, because that campaign was so 'balanced' and 'targeted' all road users equally, that it would clearly be unfair if it was 'cycling money' right?

Except that in July, the Minister also claimed that £58 million was being 'spent on cycling' in Scotland. We've already explored how that isn't quite what it seems.

But interestingly, that £58million did include a budget line for Cycling Scotland - £2.424 million in 13-14 - with £424 000 being just the amount that was budgeted for the #nicewaycode.  Interesting coincidence?  Nope.  That is indeed the allocation for the much-maligned 'mutual respect' campaign.

So, it is cycling money then, I guess?

Except the Minister says it isn't....

Except when he says that it is....

Why is there no 'autotrans'?

There's something I don't understand about transport funding in the UK.  Why is it that active travel funds  have to be 'bid for' from funds held elsewhere?  Why don't they just get budgeted for like other infrastructure?  I mean, we don't hear about plans to dual a motorway being contingent on the outcome of a bid to 'autotrans'?  or the improvement of local roads being cancelled because of an unsuccessful bids, do we?  (or have I missed the fine print?)

This has been puzzling me for a while, but became particularly pertinent today, with the very welcome news that the City of Edinburgh listened to our concerns about their previous proposals for Leith Walk, and have now put forward a revised set of proposals.  The new 'enhanced' designs respond to many concerns from local residents, workers and shoppers.  But they depend on a successful bid for national money, which we're now being asked to lobby the Scottish Government for.

Somehow, the Council happened to have exactly the right amount stashed away to improve Leith Walk, as long as it only involved existing tarmac and pavement configurations.  But add in 'bike lanes' and it's a whole new ball game and entirely impossible to do without 'securing outside funding'.

I do appreciate that the councils funds are limited, and I would very much like the Scottish government to fully back initiatives like this, because they will save them money many times over in health, environment and business income.

But, I still don't understand why projects like this are treated like they're optional extras, or somehow less important than 'normal' road building.  

Can anyone explain?

Is this the worst intersection in Edinburgh?

View Larger Map

I've blogged about this intersection before, but hearing today that it's not going to be resurfaced for at least another year has driven me to it again.

King's Junction courtesy of Andy Arthur

First off, I should note that it needs more than just a resurface.  It also needs a redesign.  But, the design would not be as bad if you could take a clear and confident line on it.  Unfortunately, as you can just see in streetview above the road to the left and ahead of that blue van resembles the lunar surface. I burst two tyres here in a month earlier this year. The picture on the right shows the surface as you carry on through the intersection.

It doesn't help that cars waiting in the turn lane opposite regularly gamble on slow starts and nip across, even though vehicles coming from Tarvit street onto Gilmore Place have priority.  But anyone who rides or drives it frequently knows that their light is short and that only the first 2 or 3 cars will make it across, so they feel pressured to bully their way through.  And, if you are lucky enough to approach the light while it is green and make it through, inevitably a pededstrian walks out in front of you.  One day I hit the jackpot and had pedestrians wander out on the west side of the intersection AND on the east side as I tried to navigate my way through.

But it's not just that direction that is dodgy.  Coming along Gilmore Place you know it's going to be a bad intersection because of the ferocity with which other drivers overtake you, just so that they can reach the red lights first.

You can't go straight-ahead, so the road divides into two lanes: a left turn lane that gets an advance green and a right turn lane that has to wait for oncoming traffic.  (Except that usually it doesn't.)  The left turn lane is also usually splayed out into the putative right turn lane because of badly parked cars and a bus stop, as you can see here.

View Larger Map
If you're in the right turn lane, as I usually am, you then have to decide whether you want to be in the ASZ or not (assuming there's not a car or a number 27 bus in it).  I usually do sit in it, unless there's a queue of cars. But a lot of experienced cyclists I know avoid it, because vehicles turning left from Home St tend to clip the ASZ.  Steel-capped boots recommended.

The intersection's not too bad if you approach from Leven Street or Home Street but fast and busy with too many lanes.  If you try to come down Home St and turn left onto Gilmore Place in the evening, the pedestrian gamble hits you again - they're usually trying to catch a bus.

On the other hand, if you are trying to come from Tollcross and turn onto Gilmore Place, you have to do one of those fun fast lane changes, usually surrounded by buses and taxis.  But let's face it, if you cycled through Tollcross to get there, you're probably tough enough to handle it.

Thing is -- this is one of the city's main commuter routes.  It's part of NCN75.   It ought to be a nice route to do some shopping in Realfoods, Provenance wines,  and Lupe Pintos, to name only my favourites.   But it's horrendous, and anyone in their right mind avoids it.

Plans are afoot to provide a safer, more family-friendly access from the Canal to the Meadows.  I'm hoping to get some insight into what that will look like soon.  But a good proportion of the city's cyclists will still be heading through here most days.  Surely we can come up with some way of improving it?

Credit where credit is due

NMW thanks to chdot on flickr

Amidst several frustrating days, it was a real pleasure to see how good the west end of North Meadow walk is looking.  Lovely wide, smooth tarmac, with better drainage. Can't wait to ride along it.

But the real reason I'm mentioning it, is that the western 'spur' that led to the toucan crossing of Melville Drive, was supposed to remain quite narrow and awkward.  But enough feedback was sent, and although we were first told that nothing could be done, then as work started, we were told that it would be widened.  The reason we raised this was because that spur had real potential to push cyclists and pedestrians into unnecessary conflict. And we didn't want that.

But the reason I'm mentioning this now (when I should be washing dishes), is that in this case, the consultation actually listened to users, and accommodated them.  I'm pretty sure the end result will be a great improvement for the many commuters, joggers, dog-walkers etc, and for Meadows as well - surely one of Edinburgh's greatest resources.

Well done CEC and everyone who contributed to the decision. Let's have more of this - all over the city.

A letter to my councillors part 2

More on Princes Street (part 1 here: http://www.deceasedcanine.blogspot.co.uk/2013/03/a-letter-to-my-councillors.html)

I'm less and less sure that there's really any point to this.  Even if they do change the proposal tomorrow, it should never have gotten to this point.  All that will result is that the council will be pilloried for caving in to the 'cycle lobby'. When really they should have got it right at the proposal stage, consulted properly, and then brought an idea  that all users could enthusiastically back to the full council vote. Transport committee (apologies for original incorrect point here - I need more sleep)

Anyway, here's the letter for what it's worth:

It is very disappointing to note that Transport Committee is proposing to  go ahead with its original proposal, albeit for a 12 month trial.  Surely, if this is really a 'trial' it would make sense to also trial a west-east cycle route?  Then, if it proves unworkable or unsafe, this will be clear in planning for the permanent changes?

There are three other points that I hope you will consider:

1. The consultation survey was flawed. In particular it asked if people approved of a 'one-way system for buses and taxis'  but did not mention that cycles would also be included within it. It is therefore difficult to understand how the transport committee reached its decision - it does not appear to be on the basis of 'evidence'.

2. Princes St is designated as a 'core path' which permits access for cycles and pedestrians. It surely goes against the intent of the core path network to make this one-way only (it might indeed be illegal).

3. This further highlights the point I have made to you previously, that it is council policy to provide a cycle-contra-flow lane on one-way streets.

The proposed plans thus seem to fly in the face of both Core Path legislation and the council's own ATAP. Surely in the light of all this, it makes more sense to have a bi-directional cycle path along princes street? Or a cycle-path along the north side to allow easy access to shops?

As a member of the Transport Forum and the Cycle Forum, I have hoped that the council really does take its commitment to Active Travel seriously - I hope that my faith in you on this point is upheld by your decision tomorrow.

Why I can't see past the obstacles to being strategic

A local politician keeps telling me to 'think strategic' and 'not bother him (and others) with the little stuff'.  He means well, but day after day I see little stuff that drives me crazy.   

I can't help but think that if we didn't have to spend so much time on the little stuff, maybe we could actually find time to think strategically? But that means getting stuff right the first time, and joining up the various policies. 

A few weeks ago, the administrator of CCE and I had a meeting with a council official about some inadequate bike infrastructure near my kids school (more about that later).  He also pointed out that the sightlines on one of the crossings in front of the school are obstructed by recycling bins - as you can see in the picture.  

We were assured it would be looked at and dealt with. But a few weeks later, it looked like this:

And then like this:

And then today like this: 

Each time I've noticed this and taken pictures, I've tweeted the relevant authorities and been assured it is being dealt with.  

Reporting faults by twitter is pretty easy, and not that time-consuming.  But as long as very simple policies like 'not obstructing pedestrians sightlines' at crossings can't be managed, how exactly are we supposed to think strategically and focus on the big picture? 

I'm not posting this to beat up on the folks who have been responding to my tweets, but to make the point that the best policies -- whether tenement recycling schemes or safer travel for schoolkids -- are only as good as their implementation and maintenance.   

Not much has changed...everything has changed.

Two and a half years ago, Edinburgh launched its Active Travel Action Plan.  In many ways, it's not a bad plan.  But it hasn't aged well, and the current review process is showing this up all too clearly.

First,  nothing much has changed. Of the things that I really wanted to see implemented via ATAP, very few have even begun.  Some of these are really small interventions like public bike counters (or just publishing the data that exists!), removing 'guard' railings, cycle contraflows on one-way streets, and tackling footway parking.  Others where we have seen incremental change include a piloted 20 mph zones (which leaves out all the big roads) and  better cycle parking (but not in the city centre!).

However, the star attraction of ATAP (or drawback for some), was the plan for a 'family network' (see map on page 23 of this pdf).  This approach comes in for a lot of criticism for directing cyclists along quiet roads, without doing anything much to improve the big roads that we all need to use to get to school, work and shopping.  I'm not convinced that this is an entirely fair criticism of Edinburgh's plan.  Our family network has the potential to be a lot more than that. Because we already have the extensive off-road network, the network was proposed to link up various bits of the city.  Right now, from where I live in south-west Edinburgh, near the canal, we can cycle to the beach at Cramond, or the Botanics, or Leith, or out to Musselburgh and go most of the way on lovely, well-maintained off-road paths.  But the remaining 10% of our journey is on scary, fast, poorly designed roads.

A few weeks ago, we had a lovely family cycle to Cramond. When we got there, we ran into a lot of people who live around us. They had all driven there so that their kids could cycle up and down the promenade.  Ironically, we'd probably gotten there faster - or certainly not much slower.  But they didn't feel that they could put their kids on the road even for that short section.

The Family Network is supposed to link all those bits up, so that you can go across town with your kids - faster than the buses - and not feel like a bad parent for risking their lives.  On page 22 of this pdf  you can read a list of the connecting bits that are prioritized for rapid completion. One of these has been done - an off-road connector between Leith and Portobello.  By all accounts it is a fantastic addition, and already encouraging new cyclists to start cycling regularly.

But none of the rest has been done.  And my concern is that plans for those mainly involve paint on roads, and that simply isn't going to get the South Edinburgh equivalent of the busy Mum who now cycles from Leith to work in Portobello on her bike, and certainly not if she has her kids in tow.

To look at just one example: the link from the Union Canal to the Russell Road access for the North Edinburgh Path Network. To anyone who knows this route, it is the most obvious, amazing access from South Edinburgh to the North (on the link above chose 'fastest route').  The Council's take on it is that there is an expensive off-road option that involves old railway infrastructure, OR a cheap on road access.  And, if you look carefully at the on-road access (very hard to see because the map is so tiny), it appears to take you on a twisty route through the car parks of various housing estates, Dundee Terrace, and then down the Telfer subway to the Dalry Road.  This is a massive diversion, and no real improvement if it just means paint on roads.  I dare you to find a parent who currently doesn't let their kids cycle on the road, who says this would make the slightest difference to them.

When I asked why not just make the direct route safer for cyclists, I was told 'we'd have to take road-space away from cars'.

There you have it folks.  Why Edinburgh's Family Network and Active Travel Action Plan - as presently being implemented - will never make more than incremental change to the number of cyclists on our streets.

We can have off-road cyclepaths -- where developments permit, or old infrastructure can be amended -- and on-road paint and signs, but we won't redesign roads so as to take roadspace away from cars.

This is where we come to what has changed since ATAP was launched.  Not in Edinburgh, but everywhere else.  In London, Chicago, New York, even Detroit, roadspace is being re-allocated away from cars to bikes, with spectacular results for local businesses and communities.  Edinburgh needs to realize that while their plans are still stuck in the past, the environment has moved on.

A letter to my councillors

My planned blog about cycle advocacy strategies has been hijacked by computer malfunction and the need to write to my councillors.  So I'm taking a leaf out of Dave McCraw's book, and posting my letter here (but do read Dave's too): 


I understand that the Council is taking several important decisions in the next few days and weeks that will very much affect transport and cycling in Edinburgh. As you know, I think the council's made some amazing strides forward in recent years and that we are moving in the right direction.  Indeed, I had a message on facebook only this morning from an old friend in Canada, who was absolutely flabbergasted when he heard that Edinburgh was committing 6% of its transport budget to cycling.  He's trying to convince his city to commit 1% and not getting
very far. So, I know you're doing something right!

Nonetheless, I do wish to emphasize how important it is that any  major shifts in Edinburgh get things right this time, and not require further tinkering and costly remedial adjustments.  In particular, this relates to both Princes Street and Leith walk.  We have a real opportunity here, and it matters that we get it right, if we are to enable cycling  in Edinburgh, with all the concomitant benefits - including for businesses.

I understand that the current plan for the redesign of Princes St and George St basically treats cyclists like cars, but provides some extra segregation on George Street. While the segregated path is obviously beneficial, banning cycles from Princes Street eastwards is really retrograde.  This is not how Copenhagen or any other city has supported and encouraged cycling.  Instead, what we see is the widespread and extensive provision of cycling contraflows, of two way segregated paths, and/or cycling encouraged in pedestrianized areas.  Cyclists are not drivers - they are mobile shoppers who will stop at markets, browse stalls, and pop into cafes.  We want to encourage this, not erect 'no cycling' signs right outside Waverley as a greeting to arriving tourists!

It is thus vitally important that the 'steer' the Transport Cttee gives to the proposed plan is one which emphasizes the importance of making cyclists and pedestrians welcome in the city centre. I used to cycle
down to Princes street a lot for shopping and I look forward to being able to do so again.  But I am convinced that the future of the city centre depends on making this easy, safe, and fun to do, not by restricting access unnecessarily.

I understand that the Transport Cttee is also considering the proposals for Leith Walk.  I have contacted you on this before, and have made my input through the consultation process.  I would simply add at this point, that if we are really serious about making Edinburgh a cycling city, Leith Walk is an opportunity that we cannot afford to miss. It is one of the scariest roads in the city to cycle on, and not very pleasant to walk either (as I did for 5 years), but it has such potential, both in terms of its width and the wonderful shops and neighborhoods.  Again, let's remember all the research indicating how shops and restaurants elsewhere have benefitted financially once
segregated cycle paths were installed.  And remember also that as in London, a remarkably high proportion of residents in and around Leith Walk, are not car owners.  Whether they choose to walk, cycle or bus, these residents will benefit from cyclepaths beside the footpaths.

I'm sure you've  read the London vision for cycling - and compared it to ATAP.  Edinburgh gets mentioned rightly for its financial commitment to cycing, but let's make sure that we spend that money wisely on good quality infrastructure (which is not necessarily expensive infrastructure), rather than risk another farce like the QBC.  While retrofitting infrastructure can be expensive, the Leith Walk proposals are an amazing opportunity to move forward and integrate cycling into our travel plans, in a way that we have rarely been able to do.

Apologies for this long message.  Please don't feel you need to reply, but I do hope you will bear these points in mind when you and your respective parties make decisions, and especially in consultation with your colleagues who sit on the Transport Committee.

All best wishes,

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.

Save Pippy Park? We should have called it Save Paradise

.

With anti-road campaigns back on the media agenda this week, it seems a good time for this post....

When I was in my final years of secondary school and then uni, I got involved in an anti-road campaign in Canada. It was so long ago that there's not even anything on the web about it.*

The provincial government had reached a deal with the federal government to close down our railway and build roads instead.  So, they decided to build a partial by-pass of St.John's, that would cut through the middle of Canada's largest urban park, a semi-wilderness area that also included the city's water supply.  The new road not only allowed civil servants to get directly to the main government buildings (House of Assembly + government offices), but it also 'opened up' huge areas of land that were then developed for sprawling mega-shops and business parks, which meant that property developers and the construction industry were keen on it too.    

Well, despite a lot of campaigning and legal battles, we were massively outflanked and lost our case. The road was built, and while the park has basically survived being dissected and there have not yet been any water poisoning scandals, there are many deaths (including of cyclists) on the road.

As we predicted, traffic in town is even worse, and worst of all - 'commuter-belt' areas that mainly used to be fishing communities - are now swamped under unbelievable scales of subdivision building, because more and more people live outside town, given how 'easy' it is to get into town on the new ring road, and that real estate prices and taxes are lower and planning seems less stringent.  One of the most affected is called 'Paradise'.  Looking it up on wikipedia reveals that the population has grown by 41% in the 5 years to 2011 - the fastest growing municipality in Atlantic Canada.  

This experience was dispiriting enough that it took me nearly 20 years to get hooked into another campaign.  But increasingly I look back on it and think 'we were right all along', even if on some level we mis-directed. The real victim of the road was not my ski trails, or green space in the town, but the surrounding areas, crushed under urban sprawl, and the intensification of car-dependent households.



*Ironically, the only on-line reference I can find is to to someone else looking back at it, who now thinks the road is fabulous.