Date: 8 December 2010 11:25
Subject: Spokes response to 20mph zone consultation
To: 20zones@edinburgh.gov.uk

This is the response to the consultation by CEC on the South Edinburgh 20mph zone consultation from SPOKES, the Lothian Cycle Campaign.

We approve in general of this proposal. Such zones have been shown to reduce traffic speeds, if not to 20mph in every case.  This reduces the difference in speeds between motor traffic and cyclists and thus makes cyclists safer and feel less threatened.

As this area has the largest cycle usage in Edinburgh it seems logical to have this as the first 20mph area.  Another reason for this area is the density of housing.  Portsmouth was chosen in England as a 20mph zone because it has the highest housing density outside Inner London.  The Grange area has approx the same population density as Portsmouth; the other areas are much higher.

20mph zones also encourage walking; there are a lot of people in these areas walking locally.

20mph zones work most effectively where there are as few exceptions as possible. Motorists are most likely to stick at 20mph if they have a long period at that speed; if they have a time at 30 it is more difficult to reduce again to 20. There should therefore be as few exceptions as possible.  This also reduces costs through there being less signage, road markings etc. We accept that certain radial routes and major bus routes should be excepted, but we believe 3 routes should have a 20 rather than 30 limit...

1) The quality bus corridor- Buccleuch St/Causewayside/MayfieldRoad. This is proposed to be the major cycle route; it has few buses (3 per hour south of Hope Park) and there are two major parallel radial routes nearby (Minto St and Dalkeith Rd) which are to have 30 limits. The attractiveness of the QBC for new cyclists would be much reduced by a 30 limit. We have made similar comments in the QBC consultation.

2) Marchmont Rd/Kilgraston Rd/Blackford Av. This is a major route for cyclists. Kilgraston Rd is quite steep and narrow and has no facility for cyclists. There is at present speed conflict between cyclists and motorists which would be much reduced with a 20 limit. The top end of Marchmont Road is a major local shopping centre with many pedestrians crossing the road. Its attractiveness and vitality would be reinforced by a 20 limit. The route has only 4 buses per hour and other parts of the 41 bus route such as Marchmont Crescent do have a 20limit. Finally the route cuts the journeys to James Gillspies Primary and Secondary Schools and a 30 limit discourages travel by foot and cycle. This route is not a radial route for traffic coming from outside the city; it is a route used largely by local traffic and so should have a local speed limit.

3) Grange/Beaufort/Stratearn Rds/Strathearn Place. Traffic speeds have increased on the eastern part of this route since parked cars were removed by the CPZ extension and the route now forms a considerable barrier to local pedestrian and cycle traffic in particular to and from Sciennes Primary and James Gillespies Primary and Secondary Schools.  There are only 4 buses per hour and the route is not a radial route but is largely used by local traffic.

One last point; a major reason for these proposals is road casualty reduction, contributing to Edinburgh's target. A mapping of road casualties in this area shows that the greatest clusters occur on these very roads which it is proposed to exempt from the 20 limit. This thus reduces the effectiveness of the scheme greatly. Our proposals would restore much of this effect and would reinforce the general feeling for local traffic in this area that "20 is the right speed" thus providing self-enforcement.

Finally, we reiterate our general support for the proposals

Sandy Scotland, Co-ordinator, Spokes Planning Group