Edinburgh residents group threatens council with legal action over new cycle lane

I had a look for SWEM and found only a private Facebook group with 363 members, so it's difficult to get an understanding of who they are and what they believe.

TLDR: mostly NIMBY but they have a point with one of the roads mentioned.

I went up Lanark Road today to see what the fuss was. The road itself is just as Condor Andy describes, 2 lanes each way but no central reservation. There's a bit of bus lane at the city end.

Starting from the city end (already in the burbs really) it is mostly lined with housing rather than shops and businesses, until you get to Juniper Green, which must be beyond the planned lane as the road goes down to 1 lane each way, and a fully wanded lane wouldn't really fit. Some of the houses are large and very nice looking Victorian piles, but I wouldn't want to live on it as it is part of a busy route between the city centre and outlying suburbs and villages.

I thought that with lockdown, today would see as many parked cars as ever, but frankly there were not all that many. Some of the housing has no off street parking but most of it does - I saw one house with 5 cars at the front and 2 in the road. Side roads are not all that frequent.

Frankly there is ample room for a proper cycle lane and many similar (such as the recently snowy A702) are already in place. There are pinch points, and there will need to be provision for disabled people to park, but nothing seems insurmountable.

Having ridden up Lanark Road (long hill with headwind but hey, in a good cause) I did a bit of a loop and went back down. The surface is terrible - even on 35mm tyres, 45 km/h felt sketchy, and that speed is easy to do simply freewheeling.

Inglis Green road is another matter - narrower and lots of street parking. The houses don't have driveways and it's a busy route - most of Edinburgh's larger roads are spokes out from the centre and this is more radial, also close to some industrial buildings and has a supermarket on it. A cycle lane here would be difficult. It's the kind of road you'd probably adjust your commute to avoid.

A grand example of Edinburgh NIMBYism.

Consultation, there’s a conundrum, who do you consult?

LTN changes largely benefit local residents to the detriment of vehicle through traffic – should the planners also consult with the rat-run drivers?  No solution is likely to be equally favourable to both parties.

Conversely, new cycle paths could indeed be to the detriment of some local residents but to the benefit of cycling through traffic – should the planners consult not just the local residents but potential cyclists who might use the route?  How do they do that?

How do you consult with those who might fail to get asthma or, indeed, acquire asthma as a result of the re-routing of motor vehicle traffic or favouring cycle traffic? 

Where I live the Council conducted a survey of residents about vehicle parking.  Unfortunately, local residents confuse a survey with a referendum and believe consultation equals negotiation.

I've cycled on Lanark Road a lot and the Longstone route was what I used to use when I was here for university 9 years ago. Lanark road is often two lanes each side with parked cars everywhere. The point about it being a 'busy and fast route out of the city' is interesting, as that's not what that road should be used for. A cycle lane would be brilliant for it.

Inglis Green and Longstone are both very busy at rush hour and again there are parked cars everywhere. They are both one lane roads too, so the only thing being affected are the parked cars, which simply removing anyway would make things a lot safer for cyclists.

"However, SWEM says that an independent survey of over 1,000 local residents and businesses found that 89 percent oppose or strongly oppose the plans."

I wonder what the questions asked?  For 89% to oppose, it was probably something like "Do you agree that all parking should be removed so that a few lycra louts can ride their toys in our road?"

An astonishing response for a fairly anodyne scheme, and instead of informing the public of the details of the scheme, and its benefits, they went straight into attack mode with an "independent" survey.  But hey, who cares about the safety of cyclists?  Parking is much more important than that.

I don't quite know what to make of the professor's statement “Before Covid I was an active traveller and used to complete an eight-mile round trip to work by cycling or running. I do realise how fortunate I am to do this and accept that others may have a need to use a car as a necessity. These proposals will have a serious negative impact on residents and business in the area."

I can only assume that, despite being a professor, he is utterly ignorant of the facts about local transport, health, economics and cycling.  Maybe he should stick to Photonics and Quantum Sciences.