HelmetcamMom rides to the rescue

I've blogged about our school run several times, and in particular about my frustration with people who insist on dropping their kids off right at the front gate of the school (because then they have to drive down a cul-de-sac and reverse in ways that endanger pedestrians and cyclists,  The crazy thing, is they don't save any time.  It just gets their kids a few inches closer to the school gate.  Although everyone else pales before the memory of the large van which after dropping its precious cargo tried to reverse back over the pedestrian crossing that others people's precious cargo was using. 

But today, I was HelmetcamMom, and I took pictures.  Of  the 4x4 above that was too big to turn, and the driver below who thought reversing onto a pavement that was full of kids and buggies was a good idea (i've cropped the pictures to hide the kids, but it was thronged, or would have been if they'd not all been standing still waiting for him to complete his manoeuvre.

And, low and behold, not only did it get a few retweets (thanks!), but also a blog-post, and some nibbles of interest from the print media.The lesson is clear a picture really is worth a 1000 blogposts.

We have a large customer car park....

This text is on the website of Edinburgh's Commonwealth Pool.  No mention of bike parking (which is okay but not great, being to the front of the building, and with CCTV coverage, supposedly, but lacking any shelter). There's also no mention of bike routes in their 'how to find us' blurb, despite their positioning at a key point near some of Edinburgh's best off-road paths.

What baffled me tonight was not the absence of  bikes -- there were lots -- but the complete shambles of the car park.  There were cars parked on the 'keep clear' hatched areas (not shown) and cars parked - no driver, no passengers - on the 'drop-off zone' -- that's the two cars to the right of the image below, which are as close as you can get to the front door.

And there were cars parked down the middle of the car park in an ersatz double line. The picture below shows it when I arrived, when it wasn't too bad.  About 10 minutes later the double line was longer and a car trying to navigate around it was unable to turn without a sort of quasi-three-point manoeuvre (I was at the point getting onto my bike on the tarmac, and I suspect she blamed me for her bad turn, rather than the cars obstructing the middle of the car park).

I didn't go round to the the 'large car park at the rear'.  I have no idea if it was also full. I suppose it could have been closed or full today.  But it seems more likely that  people just couldn't be bothered, so they blocked up the side car park, which is nearest the main entrance, and supposedly reserved for 'disabled, parent and child parking'.

On the one hand, we could say 'why blame people' -- Edinburgh Leisure is clearly happy to encourage their customers to drive.  Although they could rethink the signage, and policing a little?  The laissez-faire attitude I witnessed seems likely to lead to tears.  On the other hand, don't you have to wonder about people driving to the gym/pool/exercise class, who can't bear to walk from the 'large car park at the rear' all the way around to the front?  Yes, it is half-term. Quite a lot of folk there probably were collecting children (as I was), but again, what message are they sending to their kids?  That spots reserved for parents wrestling babies, prams etc, or those with mobility issues, are fair game so that you can save 30 seconds to get inside to the soft-play?

Dummy signals

Home Street runs from Tollcross to the King's Theatre junction.  It ought to be a bustling shopping street with an independent cinema, lots of housing, schools, and good public transport connections, but its width and role funnelling  traffic on Lothian Rd, means that it is rarely a pleasant place to walk.  The pavements are narrow - a fraction of the road width - and there is only one crossing point between Tollcross and the King's Theatre.

The problem is, that one crossing is a 'dummy' - better known as a 'placebo' - it's a pelican crossing in appearance, so you (may) get the mental boost of 'pushing a button' (or at least your three year old does), but that button does nothing.  The green man only appears when the pedestrian walk lights at the nearby Kings Junction are also green.  It doesn't matter how many people need to cross, or how long they've been waiting, the crossing is linked to the junction.  So, if you've been at Biketrax on Lochrin Place, just off the west side of Home street, and feel minded to visit the ever-friendly Provenance wines on the east side of the street, you might as well walk up to the intersection and cross there. The last time I tried to cross at the pelican crossing, there was a lorry parked on it, and I couldn't see the lights anyway.

I'd like to campaign for this pelican to be made more responsive - a little bit up the road on Bruntsfield place, there's an excellent toucan crossing that changes expeditiously in the morning and evening rush hours, with a steady flow of people back and forth. But I've been told that whenever the local community council has queried it, they've been told it is 'impossible'. I recently asked if the lights on the adjoining intersection could be fractionally adjusted to enable cyclists to clear the right hand turn, and was again told 'impossible'.

Why?  The great god 'traffic flow' must be appeased.  Pedestrians - no matter how many, how important to the local economy - all must be sacrificed to the gods of traffic, and their acolytes the traffic engineers.

The Council recently passed a motion that included this goal " to assess the need for further support for walking as a travel mode such that it is encouraged and supported in the way that cycling is."  

One step forward would be to shorten the wait time and increase the crossing time at all such intersections.  Another would be to replace crossings like this one with zebra-crossings, as is proposed for much of Leith Walk, and to similarly bring in a 20 mph zone.  

But none of that is going to happen unless we organise and get together and convince our politicians that there are votes in it (not to mention a healthier population and stronger local economy).  So, I'm off to Living Streets tomorrow night, to pitch in and do my part.  Are you  coming too?

What makes a liveable city liveable? (with added meditations on planning and community councils)

Tomorrow, the Licensing Committee of the Council will decide whether or not to issue a license for 'On the roll' - as can be seen here it is a German hotdog stand.  They have this stand often on George Square, and I think also sometimes on North Bridge, but they have applied for a license also on Colinton Road, in South Edinburgh, outside Napier University (I'll try to add some pictures later).

This issue came to my first meeting of the Merchiston Community Council, and to my surprise the only comment was negative, as some residents had communicated to the Chair that they were opposed.  Unfortunately, we weren't told why they were opposed, so I can't speak to that.

I then spoke in support.  The stand above sits near my office.  It is quiet and inoffensive. I have never seen litter arising from it, nor any noise.  It creates jobs, and provides a service.

In the immediate vicinity of Colinton Road, there is a Tesco and a Costa coffee.  If I were a student at Napier, I'd be delighted to have somewhere to buy lunch that wasn't a faceless chain, but rather a small, friendly local business.

But presumably the residents of the area are concerned that it will affect their property values or their quality of life.  Which raises an interesting question - what is it that brings quality of life in a city?  I would suggest that street food was a quality of a good city, not a detriment.  It's certainly been one of the hot food trends (npi) in recent years. It's also not as if that area was entirely residential, with a joiners, a chiropracter, and various other shops along the top of the road.

But more than that, Colinton Road on which they propose to have this stand, is at present a very unpleasant canyon that vehicles bomb recklessly through.  I travel through here regularly - often twice a day - on foot or by bike,  and the overwhelming feeling while on foot is of vulnerability as I have stone walls on one side and vehicles barging through on the other.  It is a hostile bit of space that functions more as a 'road' than a 'street' - with all the connotations of throughput and traffic-management that that conveys.

My worry is that Community Councils and local residents get little say over what shops open in the commercially zoned areas, and especially not when local shops are bought out by big chains -- the Costa coffee used to be a bathroom and plumbing sales room. The recent Caltongate saga is on another scale, but also relevant. So it becomes very tempting to use the system to refuse those applications that are reachable, to exercise the few muscles left to us.  But in this case, I'm not convinced we would be improving the liveability of our city, and we would certainly be harming a small business, whose viablity we ought to  support.


EDIT:  I've now learned that the Community Council is no longer objecting.  The original application did not mention opening hours.  A limited range of hours has now been agreed, and the MCC is not going to further challenge this application. I gather there is still opposition from residents though.

It's not dead yet....

Today's soundtrack has been 'we shall overcome' and many other great protest ballads that I, and many others, learned from Pete Seeger. These were the soundtrack of my childhood - the songs we sang on car trips and in the canoe. To this day my mother can't serve a plate full of yellow and green vegetables without risking a chorus of 'green and yaller, greeeen and yaller, mother be quick, I'm going to be sick....  

These good memories of someone who refused to give up ought to be steeling me for a good fight.  But instead I am disheartened.  From the sublime to the ridiculous - the nice way code refuses to die (this has also been running through my head today)

You will remember that this absurd pr campaign generated a number of complaints to the Advertising Standards Association.   I was aware of complaints that worried that the campaign itself endangered cyclists. I personally objected to the offensive imagery in one advert in my Sunday paper. But my complaint, along with many others was not upheld. Here is part of their ruling "While Council acknowledged that some readers may have found the middle finger gesture offensive, they considered that the ad was intended to be a light-hearted and humorous approach towards an important public health message."

I was disappointed, but perhaps not surprised.  I presume that they err on the side of free speech and light tough regulation. 

Imagine my surprise then, when I discovered that a complaint had been upheld. Apparently this ad - the one with the horse, which although foolish had the positive merit of advising drivers to not pass cyclists too closely - "breached BCAP Code rules 1.2 (Social responsibility), 4.1 and 4.4 (Harm and offence)."  and "must not be broadcast again in its current form.".  

A success you might think?  Well no.  The ASA, in their wisdom, thought that the ad was irresponsible because the cyclist wasn't in the gutter, and wasn't wearing a helmet.  In future, Cycling Scotland has been told "ads featuring cyclists should be shown wearing helmets and placed in the most suitable cycling position."  Regardless of the fact that Cycling Scotland - who train the trainers -  might be considered to know something about road positioning, and passing distances.  

The implications for future campaigns are hard to assess. At the very least the ASA has shown themselves to be equally ignorant* as many of the drivers I encounter on the streets.  At worst, their attempt to 'apply' the Highway Code shows the limitations of that document. 

But there's a lot of us out there upset about this and we'll not be beaten, we'll stick together, we shall overcome. 

*Yes, that's harsh. but even my 7 y.o. knows better!

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.

Crossing not in use?!

This pedestrian crossing, near where I stay, has been coned off, with signs up saying 'crossing not in use'.  Of course, it is still in use, because people still need to cross the road. It's on a school route, beside well-used bus stops, next to a popular corner shop, and adjacent to sheltered accommodation.

But it's been 'closed' because of roadworks on the other side of the roundabout.

So, for the 2-3 weeks that this crossing is 'not in use' what exactly are people supposed to do?

As you might expect, confusion reigns.  The first night I came through the roadworks on my bike, I don't think the cones were in place.  As I came towards the crossing, I could see a bike in front of me stopping for a pedestrian, but the car beside him cruised on through.  I stopped too, but the car beside me kept going.  And then, another bike behind me stopped too. We all looked at each other in bafflement as a third car went through.  Then finally the pedestrians were able to cross.  Maybe the drivers saw some signs that none of the pedestrians or cyclists noticed, but I don't think so.

The only other time that I regularly see such complete ignorance of the crossing is when it has snowed or is raining hard enough to obscure the zebra. Of course, the belisha beacons are still going, but somehow drivers get this idea that they can ignore stuff if the conditions are bad enough - and I think they've made a similar calculation now too -- if they've had to wait for the light to change, then they're somehow entitled to blast through the crossing.

So, obviously, on some level the traffic engineers are trying to accommodate such attitudes.  The signs are only visible to pedestrians, and the beacons are still light (in contravention of official guidance on how to close a crossing).

But that's all right, because if someone does get hit, they can say 'but they shouldn't have tried to cross'.

It's this sort of decision-making that makes me want to do more about pedestrians and walking in Edinburgh.  So, on  11 February, I'll be going along to Living Streets to discuss their Future Priorities and AGm for Edinburgh,. 1730-1930, Thorn House, 5 Rose Street .  Follow the link for more info and to let them know you'll be coming too.

Hope to see some of you there.

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.

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. 

Unexpected (gender) minefields at Christmas

I popped into Waterstones today to pick up a last minute gift for my wee boy - a pirate stickerbook  that he'd asked Santa for.  As is often the case, I was tempted by the bogohalf-price offer and picked up another book as well.  I'd first looked at the 'explorers and warriors' book this summer, thinking it would suit my daughter - now 7.  So, on impulse today, I picked it up, thinking it would be fun and slightly educational. It's halfway between old-style paperdolls and stickers, with the idea being that you dress the figures in sticker outfits.

But wrapping them up today (early!), I leafed through and was taken aback to find no women in it.  Apparently exploring and defending your country is a purely male activity.  On closer scrutiny, I did find some women  sitting around a campfire with cooking pots in the background behind the 'Sioux warriors'.  But that is it in a book that promises "Young readers can kit out famous explorers and fierce warriors in this fantastic sticker book full of authentic detail.".  350 stickers and 50 pages - history across centuries, but virtually no women. So, not that authentic then. 

Did their 'researchers' think that girls don't get into explorers and warriors? or that boys wouldn't want to dress up female characters? Or -- most worrying given Usborne's saturation of the kiddie market -- are they simply unaware of the female explorers and warriors? 

What about Yaa Asantewaa who led to Gold Coast into rebellion against the British colonisers?  Or Freydis and the other Viking women who sailed to North America and settled in Vinland centuries before Columbus?   Or, closer to home Boudicca?   Not only is there a wikipedia list of female warriors, and a much longer list of women warriors in folklore, but also this rather fine 'top 10 Badass women'.  

I'm pleased that Usborne knows better than to label this the 'boys sticker book of explorers and warriors', but in reality that's what it is.  Now that many retailers are moving away from gendered toys thanks to pressure from Pinkstinks and others, it looks to me like we need to move beyond worrying about the labels, colours, and departments to the content - and see if we can bring that into the 21st century too. I'll start by returning the sticker book. 

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? 

Better together Part 2

With thanks to Chris Hill for the image from an old
Pedestrians' Association publication.

It's not often that I get to call on my professional skills in cycle blogging, but what strikes me in thinking about the differences of pedestrian v. cycling campaigning is that the differences in tone and style don't just reflect their historical positions or cultures, but also correlate to their institutional positions and material ties. 

That is, cycling organizations include those like Sustrans and Cycling Scotland, who entirely or mainly rely on funding from Transport Scotland for their salaries and projects. But other organizations -- like Spokes and Go-Bike historically and now Pedal on Parliament -- exist without these financial ties because they are volunteer run. Down south, the London Cycling Campaign is a good example of a 'professional' organization that still avoids government funding (to the best of my knowledge).  Is it a coincidence that these groups push a little harder and speak somewhat more critically?  To a large extent groups like Sustrans and Cycling Scotland are basically just sub-contractors for government projects, although they also provide expertise, administer groups like the Cross-Party group on cycling, and are often cited in support of government policy (confusingly, some of the volunteer groups also sit on their boards).

However, pedestrians have a rather different structure as far as I can tell, with Living Streets - the successor to the Pedestrians' Association - combining both roles.  So Living Streets has in recent years received funding from the state, while also running local groups and forums.  Doubtless this has raised their profile, and injected new energy into their operations. The recent '3 seconds' campaign was very impressive in terms of generating public support and media presence.

These different structures suggest to me that #militantpedestrians are going to find it difficult to mount a more radical, critical movement from within LS - that's not a criticism of anyone within the organisation, or of their aims, but a simple organizational analysis drawing on Robert Michel's classic 'iron law of oligarchy' first developed in his 1911 study of the German SPD, and my own research on NGOs in Zimbabwe (I'll resist throwing in any Gramsci or Gaventa).

It's not impossible of course, but my analysis suggests that this organizational imbalance will further impede efforts to build alliances between pedestrians and cyclists. Regrettable, because those ties are needed, but not easily resolved. 

Better together? Part 1

Cyclists and pedestrians have much in common, but have been pushed apart - quite literally.  It will take a major shift in how they both campaign for them to be able to make common cause.

Let me explain - it's not just that cyclists and pedestrians have been pushed apart physically, although that's part of it.  Pedestrians have gone from being the norm and having the run of the roads, to segregated onto pavements, forced to cross only when the green man deigns to stop traffic for them.  Railings prevent them crossing where they might want to (desire lines), and force them to conform so that they don't obstruct the all powerful 'traffic flow'.  Perversely, cyclists have been pushed in the opposite direction - made to play in traffic.  

So not only do cyclists and pedestrians have profoundly different experiences of using our public roads.

Pedestrians are expected to push buttons and wait patiently for cars to stop for them.  At zebra crossings they wave and nod to 'thank' cars for stopping for them.  They campaign for zebra crossings to be removed. They hesitantly look around at street corners before gingerly venturing out across the road, ignorant of rule 170.  They wait patiently at red men, even when the road is clear.   They're taught 'road safety' at age 3, and never progress beyond behaviour suitable for infants.  And, unsurprisingly, their campaigns reflect this -- 'please sir, may we have some more' pretty much sums up the recent - highly successful - 3 second campaign.  This is no militant demand for rights, but a polite request for people to be nicer to the elderly, infirm and infants. 

Cyclists on the other hand, were pushed more and more into 'training' on how to use the road, with the implication that it is something that needs to be 'learned' and may only be for 'experts' (witness the 'solution' to Edinburgh's tram tracks -- instructions on how to 'use' the intersections).  

But, cyclists have gotten sick of 'vehicular cycling' and being treated like 'moving speed bumps' to slow down the traffic (rather than expecting speed limits to be enforced), and are getting angry.  You hear a lot about the 'cyclists lobby', but never the pedestrian's lobby.   People don't identify themselves as pedestrians.   

But, a lot of cycle lobbyists are convinced that we need to stop people thinking 'cyclists' and move towards thinking about 'people on bikes'.  Their thinking is that only by moving from being an 'out-group' will cycling be treated as mainstream and fully integrated into transport funding and planning.  There's a definite logic about that, but the pedestrian experience suggests that it is this identification that has been so successful at mobilizing campaigns. 

Not sure what the answer is.  At a local level, I'm hoping to build some bridges between cyclists and pedestrians, but there are a lot of challenges -- not just that we have some differing interests (both perceived and real), but also very different cultures and campaigning styles. 

(Part 2/2 will look at the different organisational structures representing pedestrians and cyclists, which reveal a further challenge). 

Subjective safety matters for everyone

There are lots of jokes about the tensions, splits and divides in bike groups, but one of the joys of being involved with Pedal on Parliament has been our refusal to recognize those divides.  'We are everyone' we have said - cyclists and non-cyclists.  And our protests have been evidence of this - with all kinds of  people on bikes, and people on foot taking part.

But I'm becoming increasingly aware of a divide that threatens our insouciant claims to climb above these divisions.  I've put off blogging about this because I know it will open up tensions with people whose energy, commitment and sheer brilliance I admire tremendously.

Increasingly, I'm hearing the argument - in forums, blogs, on twitter, and in meetings -  that cyclists who find the roads  too dangerous should ride on the pavement.  This comes in different settings,  and is often presented as a reasonable alternative to the dangerous 'vehicular' cycling that has held sway until recently.  At times it is talked about as if it were a form of civil disobedience, a public rejection of the dire provision made for cyclists.

But an angry tone of justification is also heard, suggesting that cyclists have a right to that space. This is bolstered by the claim that when fixed penalty notices were introduced for pavement cycling, only 'irresponsible' cycling was intended to be penalised.  And finally, the piece-de-resistance, that cyclists are only responsible for a tiny fraction of pedestrian deaths and serious injuries.

This is where the argument starts to go down hill.  Pedestrians understand that cyclists feel unsafe on the roads.  They understand the difference between reckless cycling and careful, cautious cycling.   But, they still find that space invasion threatening. Cyclists talk a lot about  subjective safety these days, but what about pedestrians?

And the most vulnerable among them - the elderly, the mobility impaired, and the young - are those who find it most terrifying to have a cyclist overtaking them.  That cyclist may be considerate and taking care, but just like those people who say 'he's harmless' while their dog barks at you, it's all subjective....  If you're in your 80s and get a broken hip as a result of a fall, it can be fatal.  So, we're not just talking about the effect of people feeling less mobile, getting out less, but about serious health consequences.

The real irony is that many of the same activists reject shared space. How we can say we don't want shared space, then claim pavements as a refuge, even temporarily, or as a political statement?

By invading pedestrians space, we are showing our disdain for them.  A cyclist-friendly pedestrian recently told me about waiting at a bust stop.  Just as the bus pulled up, a family cycled by on the pavement - between him and the open bus door - politely saying 'excuse me' as they went. On the one hand, it sounds like they were being considerate.  But on the other, why did they barge through? The signal being sent here - even with polite excuse me's -- is 'we're bigger, and faster: let us through'; we don't accept that from cars, why do we think its okay on bikes?

We are lucky enough to know two couples - friends and neighbours - who are die-hard, lifelong cyclists. Now in their 70s-90s, they cycled when it was trendy and when it was deeply unfashionable, and have gone places and done things on bikes that I can only dream of - racing, touring, youth hostelling, commuting - with much of their social lives revolving around bikes too. But they are horrified by the antics of cyclists now - rushing through parks, on the canalpath, across pedestrian crossings.  They understand that most cyclists don't behave that way, and that we shouldn't all  be tarred with the same brush, but they do not see cyclists as respecting them and their needs when they're not on their bikes.  When people like that fear going out on foot because of cyclists, we're doing something wrong.

If we want to support active travel, if we want pedestrians as allies, we need to take their needs and concerns more seriously.  And that's not going to be accomplished by advocating pavement cycling, or quoting statistics about how few people we kill as some perverse justification for holding their infrastructure hostage until we get some of our own.

I'm sorry if this sounds preachy.  We all need to make our own personal decisions about how we cycle and where. Like most of us, I've ridden on pavements here and there - where I didn't feel safe, where the infra didn't join up, where my bike rack is at the other end of a cobbled street,  but I'll be pushing my bike when I'm on the pavement from now on,  in the interests of solidarity and subjective safety for pedestrians of all varieties.

Shared use: ad-hoc and short-sighted

http://www.flickr.com/photos/blackpuddinonnabike/10991019106/

In the past few days, more shared use signs have appeared around the city. Two of these cases are at St Andrew's Square, and on Princes St at the Mound (right).

These are busy streets and the implementation of tram tracks has made them unsafe for cyclists. So cyclists have been put onto the pavement, which seems guaranteed to make pedestrians unsafe instead.

This is not how transport systems should be designed. Nor some of the most iconic streets in a city that lays claim to being a tourist destination and aims to attract international business.

These little bits of non-joined up segments all have different signs, and most users don't recognize or understand them (as I've written about before, and as the recent newspaper stories make even clearer).   These cost-cutting mechanisms simply put cyclists and pedestrians into conflict, and will inevitably generate more anti-cyclist venom (and sell more papers for the local press).  None of them are intuitive or easy to follow.

Declaring spaces to be 'shared' does not make them into 'infrastructure'.  It just makes our streets more fragmented, incoherent and confusing, when we ought to be making them more inviting and pleasant.

These segments are the most egregious because they are on busy pavements that are really not suitable for cycling, but there's more planned elsewhere in the city as well, as I flagged in previous posts.

If I was more cynical, I'd think that the people who run the buses and trams didn't want us on the roads. There's a real irony that at present we have a Transport Leader who claims to want to support pedestrians, but our policies don't reflect that.  To be fair, that's in part because some of this infrastructure was designed three years ago, and a lot has changed since then.  But its also a case of officials wanting to have their cake and eat it too - the political costs of alienating pedestrians are clearly not up on their agenda, while cyclists are tossed a few crumbs to keep them happy.

ASLs: red herrings?

I wrote this yesterday for the Scotsman, to accompany this article.  Not sure if it's gone in or not.  It's a slightly more critical take than the last time I blogged about ASLs  but not contradictory.

If you talk to drivers about ASZs, you get a lot of funny answers. Many seem honestly unaware that they have just crossed a stop line. One taxi driver told me that after 7.30pm they didn’t apply. Another driver – hearing my foreign accent - told me to learn the rules of the road (it’s rule 178 of the Highway Code if you want to check it out, and I’ve cycled here for nearly 20 years).

Stopping at a stopline is about the most basic skill driver needs, but it seems to bring out the worst in people. Drivers hate cyclists ‘getting a head start’ while cyclists will desperately try to get to the front of a queue of traffic to get into the perceived haven of the ASZ.

But ASZs aren’t about cyclists getting ‘ahead’. They’re about protecting cyclists from being ‘left-hooked’ by drivers turning while cyclists are going straight.

Every cyclist has had a driver tell them to get ‘out of the road’. But the gutter on the left is the most dangerous place for a cyclist, especially at junctions.

So, yes, it would be good if drivers stayed out of ASZs, and police enforced them.

But ASZs are also a red herring. They’re not big enough to protect cyclists from HGV’s blind spots and they can be dangerous to get to. Painting ASZs on roads is essentially a ‘tick-box’. It means the council can say ‘look we’ve taken cyclists into account’.

But if there’s not road space for cyclists to get there, or if there are parking bays on top of the cycle lanes, then the ASZ is basically useless.

If our junctions were properly designed for the safety of all users – pedestrians, cyclists, and motorised vehicles – we wouldn’t need ASZs at all.

I think I've become a #militantpedestrian...

I suppose it was inevitable, that in a week when Scotland's dire record of pedestrian safety was splashed across the media, when I can't ride a bike, and am (briefly) in solo parentis, that I too would turn into a #militantpedestrian.

There's a certain irony in that I am unable to cycle because of a broken finger caused by sudden braking to avoid an #obliviouspedestrian.  But I'm trying hard not to let that prejudice me against all pedestrians....

To be fair, being a pedestrian in Edinburgh comes with  some benefits.  It has been pure joy to walk the kids home from nursery along quiet leafy streets and watch them run and chase each other giggling hysterically  through great heaps of leaves.

And I now know that all the other parents from school hang out in the windows of coffee shops in most improbable combinations....

But I've also had too many cars fail to indicate as they turn off onto quiet side-streets, perform unpredictable u-turns at the entrance to dead-end streets despite a toddler on a balancebike tootling across, and simply steam along narrow dragstrips bordered by stone walls which funnel the noise and smells like canyons.

Cyclists may be hated, but I've never felt so insignificant and irrelevant as when I've been walking along our streets.

It's reassuring - and a small positive step - to have heard today that when pelican crossings are turned off by roadworks lasting longer than a week temporary crossings will be provided, But how do we make our streets more pleasant -- not to mention safer - every day?

6 y.o. on a bike V. angry mum

I've written before about the last 10 yards of the school run being the part that puts me (and others) off letting my kids cycle to school.  Today it was just the last yard.

We were nice and early, so it should have been quiet. Then, right in front of the school gate, as my 6 y.o. was about to turn in, a mum pulls up, on the wrong side of the road, so that she can drop her darling straight in front of the gate.  Car coming behind her stops, thinking we'll want to go around her, but of course we don't.  Nice of him though.  It did mean that for a few minutes traffic was at a total standstill in all directions.

I give her the 'universal shrug of bafflement' at which point I can see her shouting at me from inside the car. Then she gets out and shouts at me a bit more. Apparently, 'the road is for everyone'. And *I* wasn't sharing.

Considering that she was on the wrong side of the road, I find that hard to comprehend.  But at the same time, I can see why she felt she could do this -- there are no road markings at all suggesting that this might be an inappropriate thing to do. The gates in the picture above were open, so the 'no parking' signs were not obvious (and anyway, she wasn't parking, she was 'dropping').

Last year, after I complained, the school put some colourful banners encouraging parents to 'park somewhere else' but they're further along the railings. We really need to rethink our road markings and the messages we send parents.

But at the same time, how did we end up in a society where a parent thinks that it is appropriate to put her car, engine running straight in the path of a six y.o. on a bike about to pull into her school gate?