1.11.10

CEC QUALITY BIKE CORRIDOR CONSULTATION

Preliminary thoughts on the consultation documents by Richard Grant  who will be coordinating the official Spokes response

Please send him your views.   Email  richard[AT]blether.org.uk.

But it is really important that you also make your own personal submission to the consultation, as on the council consultation web page...
http://www.edinburgh.gov.uk/info/674/consultations/1179/quality_bike_corridor

The Quality Bike Corridor (QBC) consists, for the most part, of continuous cycle lanes from Princes Street to King's Buildings. Some of these are already in existence, some are new. There are some gaps notably travelling south between West Preston St and West Mayfield on the east side of the road (discussed in next para) and travelling north from Potterrow to Teviot triangle (see next page).
In general, SPOKES supports the idea of on road cycle lanes but they need to be clearly marked and not obstructed by parked cars to be of value. The QBC is attempting to establish the cycle lanes without reducing the overall amount of parking spaces (although very significant changes are proposed to the hours in which parking and loading are permitted).  Retention of the parking spaces may cause problems and seems to be the reason why the Council thinks that there is no space for cycle lanes on both side of the stretch between West Preston St and West Mayfield, and why it is proposing that some new stretches of cycle lane will be on the outside of the existing parking spaces.
In addition to the cycle lanes, the QBC also envisages 2 new right-turn bike lanes, into Kings Buildings and the cycle path on North Meadow Walk. Depending on the precise design these should be helpful. 

The official consultation leaflet sets out the proposals fairly clearly and includes details of the exhibitions at Newington Library and the drop-in session with officials at St Catherine's Argyle Church Hall (details in the consultation leaflet).

Everyone likely to use the QBC should look at the proposals and consider:

•	Whether existing cycle lanes in the QBC need improvements (including to the surfaces); 
•	Whether the proposed parking spaces will cause problems for cyclists using the lanes; 
•	Whether we should lobby for continuous cycle lanes through the whole of the QBC without exceptions; 
•	Whether the cycle lanes on the outside of parking spaces will work in practice (there is an existing example in Marchmont Road, but the coloured surface has been allowed to deteriorate very badly); 
•	Whether we should be asking for more protected right turns (if so, where); 
•	Whether there is a need for more advanced stop areas at traffic lights along the route (if so, where); 
•	Whether we should be lobbying for protected cycle crossings across the corridor (if so, where);
•	Should any of the cycle lanes continue right through junctions;
•	What width should the cycle lanes be – in general, and as a minimum where space is tight;
•	What else is needed to make the QBC of maximum value for cyclists.

POTTERROW TO TEVIOT TRIANGLE

In response to an enquiry, we have also received the following supplementary information from the council, explaining why the plans do not currently show anything northbound for cyclists between Potterrow and Teviot triangle...

"Regarding northbound facilities on Potterow we are still looking at this section. Originally it had been envisaged that this would be a bus lane but we have been advised that reducing it to one general traffic lane would have a significantly detrimental effect on northbound traffic queues from the Marshall Street junction (which would now be in one lane causing more delay to buses south of Crichton Street). We have therefore decided to investigate a cycle lane solution instead but the feasibility of this will depend on 'swept path analysis' which is currently being undertaken. Hopefully this will allow the facility to be incorporated but we didn't want to show something that we can't be 100% certain about.

Between Potterow and Greyfriars Bobby there is already extensive cycle lane provision and we have therefore proposed no changes other than harmonisation of the parking restrictions. The project has concentrated on creating provision where there currently is none although we are also
trying to improve existing facilities where we think these could work better (see the extension of the cycle lead-in lane on Bristo Place). We therefore welcome suggested improvements from cyclists who use these facilities - these will be considered in the design process and where practicable will be included in the revised design.

Regarding the extra parking restrictions on Potterow these will remove the need for cyclists to pass outside parked vehicles in the off-peak periods."