City Bypass - Sheriffhall Roundabout.

The Scottish Office has just published "A720 Edinburgh City Bypass - Taking the Initiative", describing plans to reduce accidents on the bypass through a "route action plan". The main danger point we had highlighted to them for cyclists was crossing the bypass at Sheriffhall roundabout. This is now recognised as a problem in their report. The Scottish Office is now proposing to introduce traffic signals at the roundabout - they say this will make the roundabout much safer for cyclists. We feel that this is not enough. Either there should be a segregated crossing (bridge), or at least separate cycle-light phasings (which could be triggered by a detection loop or push-button). If you cross this roundabout by bike, NOW is the time to write. Write to your MP, and ask them to raise the matter with the Scottish Office Transport Minister. It is important to write SOON. If you don't know the name of your MP, phone the Citizen's Advice Bureau (Dalkeith 0131-663-3688; Edinburgh 0131-557-1500). Some local MPs are - Midlothian, Eric Clarke; Edinburgh South, Nigel Griffiths; Edinburgh Pentlands, Lynda Clarke. (If you don't know your constituency, the CAB can look that up for you). The address for MPs is House of Commons, London SW1A 0AA or the CAB can give you a local address. Please send us a copy of your letter and any useful replies. You can get a copy of the above Scottish Office paper by phoning 0131-244-0469, BUT PLEASE WRITE SOON - it is not necessary to get the paper before writing.
On the question of the dangers of cycling along the bypass, another study is currently underway "the Bypass Operational Study", which apparantly may result in a recommendation about providing an alternative route for cyclists.

Go back to top of page

Greenways.

We have not had much feedback from members on the new Greenways on the A8 and Leith Walk. It is important to get feedback to us and the council, as there are likely to be 3 more Greenways introduced in 1998 or 1999, and any feedback can be included in their design. Send your comments to Rod Greenall, City Development Department, Edinburgh Council, 1 Cockburn Street, with a copy to SPOKES.

The council said the Greenways would be designed cycle-friendly, as follows;-

1. Where the road is wide enough, the Greenway will be wider, allowing buses/bikes to pass each other within the Greenway.
2. Where the road is too narrow for Greenway, a cycle lane will be built if possible.
3. Advance stop lines at suitable junctions.

Go back to top of page

Government Transport Policy Consultation.

As you may have read in the press, the new government has set up a major transport review at both UK and Scottish level. In Scotland this also includes a 12-month halt in preparations in all major new trunk road proposals, whilst there is a review of their necessity and priorities (there are 2 exceptions for roads ready to go ahead). Plans for a second Forth Road bridge and the so-called 'Barnton Bypass' by the previous government have been totally scrapped, so will not even be in the review.

The transport review is likely to set the pattern of transport policies for the next 5 years, so is absolutely crucial. The government says that "stark and difficult choices" will have to be made.

SO IT IS ABSOLUTELY VITAL FOR PEOPLE LIKE YOU TO TAKE PART IN THIS CONSULTATION!!!

You can get a free copy of the consultation paper (called "Developing an Integrated Transport Policy") by phoning 0171-271-5631, or by viewing it online at http://www.detr.gov.uk/itd/consult/index.htm

Comments must be in by 14 November - but please try and do it sooner - then you can copy it to SPOKES and we can incorporate some of your points into the SPOKES submission also. The paper lists 27 specific questions (in section 34), and would like your comments on any of these questions, as well as your general views on transport policy and on "a more balanced use of all transport modes and how this might be achieved". However it is not necessary to send in a long reply. A couple of paragraphs saying you don't have time for a detailed response but these are your main concerns would be great!

We haven't yet started on a detailed SPOKES response, but here are a few thoughts. First, the consultation paper does have a lot of good stuff and ideas in it, but several flaws.

• THE BIG WEAKNESS OF THE PAPER, from our point of view, is that it fails to see a really major role for cycling - or walking. Whilst it does say that "safer walking and cycling... is central to achieving a more sustainable transport system", there is no further discussion, although there are long sections on rail, bus, trunk roads, and even aviation and shipping! There is no recognition that cycling can achieve a major role, especially in cities, as has happened in many European towns/cities through deliberate government or council policy. For example doubling in bike use to around 16% in Basel, Hanover and Graz; increases from 29% to 43 % in Munster , 40% to 43% in Delft, and over 50% of all journeys by bike in several Dutch cities such as Groningen (57%!) and Apeldoorn. Nationally, under 2% of trips are by bike in Britain, compared to 18% Denmark, 12% Finland (target 25% by 2000), 11% Germany, etc. The consultation paper has no conception of the possibilities, which would be highly significant if we could, through deliberate policy, aim for comparable figures.
• Secondly, there is too much use of the words like 'mobility' and 'choice', which suggest hopping into a car whenever you want to and driving off to whereever you want. Instead of 'mobility' they should be talking of access to facilities and opportunities; and instead if 'choice', there should be disincentives to unnecessary car use and incentives to walk/cycle/bus/rail.
• Third (para. 26) it is not clear if the roads review may just end up with a trunk road programme of similar scope and expense, but merely with the roads to be built in a different order - presumably in a supposedly more environmentally-based order! What is needed is an assessment of the need for each scheme; and if there is a transport/access problem in any 'corridor' then there should be a full comparison of how it can be solved by all means of transport as well as by new decisions on location of facilities etc. - not just automatically deciding on a new trunk road.

1. Aims - no mention of the role of transport in affecting public health - the positive effects of walking/cycling, and negative effects of sedentary lifestyles and fumes. These effects are probably more significant for the NHS than are accidents, even though traditional road safety is covered by the paper.

3,5 If motorists paid the full costs - including health, environmental, etc. - then more funds could be available.

9 (and several other questions) - why are cycling/walking not given as realistic alternatives?

14 High petrol taxes would reflect environmental costs, and government publicity could link them. Taxes on companies which provide large-scale parking (based on number of spaces) would discourage car commuting, out of town superstores, etc., and would make companies try and persuade their employees and customers not to use cars when possible.

21 Money raised in rural areas from higher petrol tax could be returned via lower rural business rates and improved rural transport. Lower petrol tax would only encourage yet further moves to total car-dependency.

24 Walking/cycling are available to almost all able-bodied people, regardless of income.

Top of page	Safe Routes to School	Newsletters	Campaigns	Membership

Links	Questions	Contents	Diary	SPOKES Home Page