Several
 |
In Edinburgh, the tight left bend down the Mound, hard against a stone wall, has always been dangerous. As part of the new Mound cycle lanes an extra width of red surfacing is used to try and force motor traffic to keep well out. In general this feels very successful - but we still strongly advise cyclists not to use the bend at the same time as a bus, lorry or other long vehicle.
A very bad problem for cyclists is road narrowings, particularly central reservations, where some motorists sweep through regardless of adjacent cyclists. Official advice recommends either a wide gap, with space for bike and vehicle, or a gap too narrow for overtaking. The 'danger width', where vehicles are tempted to overtake dangerously is variously put at 3.1-3.9m [IHT 1996 Cycle Friendly Infrastructure, p7.6.4], or 3.0-4.5m [Sustrans 1997 NCN guidelines, p100], or 2.6m-3.85m [Edinburgh Council 1998 Cycle Friendly Design Guide, p4]. The minimum widths are recommended only for 30mph zones (20mph for 2.6m). For widths over 4.25-4.5m, cycle lanes are suggested.
Sadly some councils are still creating unsafe narrowings - often in the name of road safety! A proper cycle audit [article on p1] of all road proposals would prevent such disasters.
However, there are already hundreds of narrowings - can anything be done quickly and cheaply? Midlothian is experimenting with a dotted white-line 'cycle lane' through some narrowings. Motorists have to encroach onto this, hopefully making them more aware of cyclists.
In W. Lothian, proposed A803 cycle lanes, Linlithgow to Linlithgow Bridge, passed an unsafe 3.45m narrowing at Kwiksave. The solution adopted was to stop the cycle lanes, reduce the narrowing to around 3.15m(?), and make it appear even thinner by prominent white-lines. At speeds of 30mph this is not ideal, though much better than before. Cars generally let cyclists through first, but late braking is not uncommon. Our suggestion had been continuous cycle lanes, replacing the reservation by a Zebra.
Another innovation in the A803 lanes is use of coloured tarmac rather than spray-on red surfacing. Whilst spray-on lanes in Edinburgh seem pretty durable, the tarmac has an anticipated 20-year life, and also assimilates in the cost any necessary edge-of-road repairs. [The fact that traffic is now more central should minimise future deterioration].
Spokes has written to Edinburgh's transport convener David Begg about inadequate cycle staffing. The original Cycle Team of 3 full-time staff appointed by Lothian in 1987 has gradually been whittled down to just one. Our survey of councils [Spokes 67] showed that most bike-friendly councils had one cycle officer per £100K cycle budget - but Edinburgh is now down to just 0.4!
Of course much cycle design is now done by other staff, unlike1987, but specialist input is important, particularly in this relatively new area. Edinburgh's audit and design-guide initiatives [article on p1] are excellent, but may not be used to full effect without central backup/monitoring.
We also pointed out that the guide/audit have taken 3 years to produce, that not a single route leaflet has been issued by the new council, that there is concern if the council has staffing to comple local Sustrans Millennium routes by 2000, and that many of the policies/targets in 1995's Cycling in Lothian document are behind schedule.
Our proposal is 2 central staff, plus an existing person in each area team to be designated their cycle specialist. These staff would then form the council's Cycle Team.
This is an issue that must be addressed if Edinburgh's cycling policies are to be successful. If you think things are falling behind - e.g. in your area - ask your councillor to take this up with Cllr Begg.
Huge car-based planning applications continue to appear in W.Lothian. Whilst Spokes can have little impact on the overall principle, we make big efforts to get them more bike-friendly, and the council does at least push developers on this. The £60m Livingston Almondvale phase-3, for example, will now incorporate north-south and east-west cycleroutes, cycle lockers and Sheffield racks.
We have also objected to a Bathgate edge-of-town Tesco, which is paying for a nearby cycleroute but not linking to it! We want proper access, parking, and a green shopping plan. The plans are a great disappointment, given Tesco's much-vaunted Edinburgh Meadowplace Road project [Spokes 68], and shows companies will do the least they think the local council will let them off with!
The huge Project Alba computer chip production/ research complex (perhaps 12,000 jobs eventually) will provide extensive bike routes and parking and may be the first non-city development where a council has demanded a Green Commuter Plan. Although there will be massive car-parking, employers must at least set targets for journeys by car, bike, etc; to be monitored by the council. The developers also wish strongly for a rail halt [W.Lothian Courier 9.4.98], but oddly the Council doesn't mention this.
Whilst unhappy about the principle and funding-method of Midlothian's A701 proposal [article below], we are pleased that, if built, it will incorporate (in cooperation with Edinburgh Council) a complete cycleroute between Kings Buildings and Bush Estate. Spokes is being consulted on the details.
The Scottish Office wants to ban cyclists from the A720 City Bypass, now a trunk road. Spokes is not objecting as long as a safe and signposted alternative is provided. We are on a working party discussing the details.
Completion of Princes St/Meadows/Kings Buildings is in Edinburgh's 98/99 cycle budget. Other budgets benefiting cyclists include: Greenways A70/A71, A90 cycle lane, CERT path Roseburn-Gyle-Airport, Canal and Water of Leith millennium projects.
In W Lothian, we hope for work on the A89 route [Spokes 67 & Factsheet 31], in cooperation with Edinburgh Council.
Despite national and local policies on traffic reduction and sustainable development, councils across Scotland are seeking massive road construction - a programme that could total over a billion pounds! Often it is the same story - just one more scheme, to 'complete the network', or solve severe congestion. Yet as each road is built and traffic increases yet further, so congestion builds up elsewhere, and a further scheme becomes 'essential'.
The government in Scotland, despite huge pressure, seems to be keeping its manifesto promise of a strategic review of the trunk road programme, using criteria of accessibility, safety, economy and environment, and in relation to overall transport policy - also considering the rationale for road building. It will also "fully consider alternatives to new roads" [Scottish Office letter 19.9.97].
Straight after the election, the proposed second Forth road bridge and Barnton Bypass were cancelled. All other trunk road proposals were put in the review, apart from 2 already in the pipeline, though M8 and Kincardine Bridge decisions were to be 'fast track' within the review. A year later, the review continues, awaiting the Transport White Paper. As a result, trunk road construction is down from £98m [97/98] to £58m [98/99], with £22m of this transferred to repairs/maintenance [LTT 23.4.98].
As a Lothian group, we had been especially concerned over the M8, which the Conservatives wanted widened to 6 lanes throughout. Tendering for the Ballieston-Shotts 'missing' section was already underway - at 6 lanes plus 4 more on parallel side roads! However, the Review criteria should scale this down greatly [Cockburn Newsletter, spring 98], and a 6-lane M8 is almost certainly dead.
Sadly, many councils take a different line - pressing for trunk road funding, or looking elsewhere for money.
Councils seeking major new roads include Midlothian (A68 second Dalkeith bypass and A701), East Lothian (A1 dualling - although safety measures have reduced the accident rate to half that of other trunk roads [LTT28.8.97]), Glasgow (M74, £170m even for a slimmed-down project), Fife (Rosyth & Kincardine bypasses), N.Lanarkshire (6-lane M80, £150m, though arguments over route), N&S Ayrshire (M77 extension & bypasses at Ardrossan, Saltcoats, Girvan, Maybole), East Renfrewshire (M77-A726 Glasgow Southern Orbital link), Aberdeen (distributor road), and so on.
It is true that many such councils are also planning more for bike, bus, and rail (Fife and Midlothian are examples). However, few of the roads have been assessed within integrated transport/planning/corridor studies. This point has been made forcibly to councils by Transform Scotland, FOE (Scotland), etc - but to no avail.
Instead, council brains have been ticking over to find new road-funding sources, with at least 3 bright ideas in prospect. New or higher charges on motorists (road/bridge tolls, parking/congestion taxes) with some money going to sustainable transport, but still huge sums to road construction [Scotsman 9.4.98]. Others expect the Scottish Parliament to fund a new phase of road-building [article below], or to recognise their 'special case' [Herald 23.4.98].
Third, and especially worrying, is 'shadow tolling' as for Midlothian's A701, where private companies build the road, and the council pays them a 'toll' for each vehicle using it. Such 'hire-purchase' roads can cost council taxpayers up to 3 times the conventional construction cost [Transport Retort 3/97], and bring an incentive to increase traffic - e.g. through road-based shopping developments. Midlothian's idea of a higher shadow toll for buses does not reduce this incentive! Maybe if such schemes are permitted, then, given the Traffic Reduction Act, councils should only pay shadow tolls up to current traffic levels, reducing year by year in line with the Act, and developers pay, to a public transport fund, for traffic above that level! Under present rules, unlike England, the Scottish Office has little control over how councils spend capital funds. We have asked the Minister to ensure that transport funding, from whatever source, is somehow earmarked for sustainable transport. He replies that the Transport White Paper will set out "an overall framework for sustainable transport, and the role of local authorities within this" - perhaps an encouraging hint! [Scottish Office letter 27.5.98].
There are also strong rumours of Treasury concern that unallocated council funding might be poured into endless road schemes, probably 'justified' in a very narrow way. Such fears seem wise - a recent survey [LTT 7.5.98] shows economic-development officers in Scotland more in favour of road-building/widening than their counterparts in any part of England!
SPOKES is a founder member of this new Scottish campaign for sustainable transport [0131.467.7714]. So far 36 bodies - transport operators, councils such as Edinburgh and West Lothian, and environmental groups - are linking up to demand saner transport policies. Website at www.transformscotland.org.uk. A ½-time worker, Colin Howden, former FoE Manchester coordinator, is now in post. Initial focuses will be...
When you read this, the designers of the new Parliament building should be known. The exhibition of 5 options for this quite small site included 2 which closed off Holyrood Road, making the Parliament seem much more open and accessible from this aspect than the 3 others.
The White Paper on the Parliament [24.7.97] says the building must "promote good environmental practice" and "signal Scotland's future aspirations". However, the planning application [Edin.Council ref C36/98] specifies one parking space per MSP, plus more for staff! Clearly the Traffic Reduction Act, sustainable development, etc., are not aspirations for Scotland! And if this is good environmental practice, should we knock down half the city so every remaining worker has a dedicated parking space?
Even more important are party policies, and how transport/planning is handled by the new Parliament. Spokes has often found Scotland behind England - e.g. the slowdown in trunk road building came much later; and the Scottish Office is now 4 years behind in issuing the equivalent of England's PPG13 planning/transport guidance [Spokes 52,63]. Some rural lobbyists look to the Parliament for petrol discounts, dispersing rural life yet more, rather than seeking support for local services. FOE (Scotland) fears dilution of environmental policy [Herald 2.2.98]. Other examples appear in this leaflet - e.g. Cycling & Health, Council Road Building, etc.
Little is known of SNP transport policy - we normally get no reply when requesting statements [e.g. Spokes 65]. Letters to the press from the SNP tend to be gung-ho about most infrastructure proposals, whether road or rail. However, with a large block of SNP MSPs in prospect we are pleased the party is developing a transport policy - and has consulted Spokes. We hope a genuinely sustainable policy will appear - and will be enforced on local SNP representatives, whatever they said in the past!
Both Transform Scotland [above] and Scottish Wildlife/ Countryside Link [PO Box 64, Perth, representing many environmental organisations] are lobbying the parties, and a SWCL 'manifesto' was issued in April. FOE (Scotland) is calling for a powerful Scottish Parliament Committee on sustainable development [What on Earth, Spring 98].
It is vital to realise that most future environmental, transport and cycling policy in Scotland will be decided by these developments, not by UK policy. We urge members to write about cycling & transport to Scottish party leaders [still at House of Commons, London SW1A 0AA!] and the press. If you belong to a political party [or join one nearest your views] you can also influence choice of candidates, and development of party policy.
It is often thought that cycling to work is an urban phenomenon, and rural cycling only for recreation. In fact, the only Scottish councils with over 2% cycling to work in the 1991 census were Moray 5.9%, Angus 3.5%, Orkney 2.5% and Dumfries & Galloway 2.4%!
Average Scottish work cycling rates were 1.4%; and lowest were central-belt and island councils, with 0.4% in S.Lanark, E.Renfrew, E.Dunbarton, and Western Isles; 0.3% N.Lanark, E.Ayrshire; 0.2% Shetland; and 0.1% Inverclyde. Locally Edinburgh achieved 1.8%, E.Lothian 1.5%, Midlothian 0.7% and W.Lothian 0.6%.
A recent Transport Research Lab report Preliminary Review of Rural Cycling [1998] confirms the importance of rural utility cycling - a small survey outside Keswick, a Lake District tourist honeypot, found 80% of cyclists to be locals, and 56% of trips to be work or shopping. The report criticises the government's National Cycle Strategy for treating rural cycling as entirely for leisure.
It points out that increasing car use is the main problem for rural cyclists. Visiting leisure cyclists may still have a choice of some quiet lanes, such as Sustrans routes, but locals find the road to shops, work or school increasingly dangerous and frightening. Whilst non-built-up roads account for only 9% of cyclist casualties, these include 45% of all cyclist deaths! According to the report, "The prospect is that more and more areas of countryside will become off-limits to future generations of cyclists".
As for leisure, people arriving by car "risk destruction of the very thing for which they are looking" [Countryside Commission]. Even isolated rural cycleroutes are a 2-edged sword - consultants Allott & Lomax warn there is no evidence they lead to fewer car trips and, indeed "there is a serious danger that people make extra car trips, with bicycles on the roof".
TRL suggests 'rural road hierarchies', networks of traffic-reduced/slowed roads, keeping more traffic on main roads, though such plans can be very controversial. Aberdeenshire Council is experimenting with this, and W.Lothian's 20mph ideas [article below] are also relevant.
In line with government commitments that the environment is the concern of every department, Environment Minister Michael Meacher has said that by March 1999 every department must have a Green Transport Plan - with reformed travel rules and mileage rates, to shift travel from car to cycling, walking and public transport. He has issued model policy statements, targets, etc, for departments to work from.
This is a tremendous initiative, giving a lead to private companies, councils, etc, who may also find the model statements useful. Let us ensure the Scottish Parliament makes an equal effort [see article this page] - the MSP car-parking saga is not a propitious sign!
So far, 20mph zones have concentrated on residential areas, where they have been exceptionally successful in casualty-reduction [Spokes 67]. Now West Lothian council is pushing the Scottish 20mph agenda with both town-centre and rural proposals.
Planning and transport director David Jarman hopes that "in
20 years' time the idea of vehicles travelling inches apart at closing
speeds of 120mph plus, and mixing with pedestrians and cyclists at potentially
lethal speeds, will seem as archaic as open sewers down the middle of streets
do now" [W.Lothian Courier 21.5.98]. Country roads
over the Bathgate Hills, now accident-prone commuter rat-runs, would be
maximum 30mph - and just 20mph on lanes, with priority for walkers, cyclists
and horses.
|
|
Committee chair Cllr Kinder
 |
The council has also signed up to the Slower Speeds Initiative [PO Box 746, Norwich NR2 3LJ], founded by Sustrans, the Road Danger Reduction Forum [Spokes 63], Environmental Transport Association, CTC and others. SSI calls for 20mph on most urban roads and country lanes, 40mph on single-carriageway A-roads, and powers to create 10mph areas such as residential 'Home Zones'. Spokes has also joined [see survey question, p1].
SPOKES LEAFLET INFORMATION
Editor: Dave du Feu Printer: Barr Printers Print run: 10,500
Copyright details: SPOKES may be quoted freely, if
the source is acknowledged and our address given.
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|