Hi All, The Council make their decision on Friday and if you want to stop this scheme, now is the time to act. We’d like you to write the transport spokesperson for the party you normally vote for indicating your frustration. And we’d like you to copy that email to me and the Evening News, and any other Councillors that represent you (put your address at the end). Contact details are at the end of this email. It will be very helpful if you can send councillors a link to this video of the traffic jam from Friday morning, where some roadworks at Roseburn created a tailback of 250 vehicles stretching from Western Corner to Donaldsons School. The video “A Mile of Cars” can be viewed at https://youtu.be/V5qeJ1O7yOA We at the Roseburn Vision think this accurately reflects what the daily impact of the track along Option A would be. Other news: we have the results from the WhyBike? Survey examining the likely uptake of the West-East Edinburgh Cycle Track. The survey was launched in October and publicised through the Evening News (article and letters page), the Murrayfield Grapevine (article), various Facebook groups (Corstorphine - a Friendly Village, etc), to Spokes, by email, through 2,000 flyers to homes and shops and 200 posters in shops and notice boards at Roseburn, Haymarket and other shops on the proposed West-East cycle track route. There were 1,001 responses (837 on-line using Survey Monkey, 164 by paper). The survey showed the £6.5M track would encourage 69 new people to cycle into town, this being the number who don’t at present, who ranked it top of 9 factors that would change their behaviour. After analysis of all the ratings for the factors, the top-ranked element to change behaviour was “Better access to off-road paths and fewer cycling black spots at crossings”. (This was Council policy until recently). The next ranked element was the protected track, followed by (pothole-free) cycle lanes, then fewer hills/better weather, then showers and lockers for changing at work, then fewer cars, then better bike parking facilities, then bike racks on buses, free to use. However a huge number, 441 of 641, or 69%, indicated that nothing would induce them to cycle. Those who do cycle into town at present were asked if they’d use the track - and of those, 70% said they would. But the intention of the track was always to bring new “less-confident” people into cycling, not to meet the needs of those who already do so. Respondents were also asked about congestion in the city centre- of the 549 who answered this section, 133 thought there was not a problem. But more (136), felt cheaper bus fares would encourage more people to leave the car at home. After analysis, this was the top-ranked element, followed by many who thought congestion charging would help. (On the basis that residents living within the zone would not pay the charge, nor would disabled drivers or electric cars, and those entering the charge zone would never be charged more than a day saver on the bus). The next most popular proposal was for more pedestrian “No-car” zones, one-way streets, traffic restrictions, protected cycle tracks, etc. This was followed by a workplace parking levy that employers would pay, then higher parking charges generally. Least popular were penalties for those driving without passengers – or number plate restrictions. The Future Transport Working Group, comprising the five spokespeople of each of the 5 political parties on the Council, will meet on Friday 16th December at 2pm to make their decision on the track and your party’s views will decide how they vote. A group of us will be gathering beforehand at the City Chambers at 1.15pm on Friday to protest- please join us. Details to follow. Our analysis of the Council’s computer study concluded that the modelling for option A failed to consider the impact on traffic speeds of reducing the number and width of lanes. It also failed to account for scenarios where there was more than one bus at the bus stop, or illegal stops and unplanned parking - and the congestion that would result from the 21,000 vehicles that use this stretch of the A8 daily. The officers refuse to do a real-life trial, even though the London Cycling Design Standards Guidance tell them how on page 95. Our letter to Cllr Hinds is at http://www.kidsnotsuits.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/Modelling-Feedback-10th-Dec-2016.pdf. It may also be helpful to note that the protected cycle track is only 1.55m wide; we understand that Spokes have also raised concerns about this. The Sustrans Handbook for Cycle-Friendly Design declares that a safe width for two cyclists passing is 2.5m, almost a metre wider. To conclude, our survey allows us to undertake a cost-benefit analysis on the likely use of the track. It suggests that spending £94,000 per new cyclist to get them onto two wheels, with the concomitant impact on congestion and trade affecting up to a hundred thousand people, this being the number who live, travel and trade around the route, might not be the best use of public resources. There are better ways to boost cycling. You might want to remind politicians that several Scottish councils recently overturned officers recommendations on cycle tracks, one even ripping out one they'd already built. We think the Council is embarking on a disaster that will throttle the city – and that few will ever use. Please help us stop it. There follows contact details and an email from mid-October to Councillors, with more information. Best wishes Pete Gregson (for the Roseburn Vision Group) These Councillors are the Transport Reps for each party and together form the “Future Transport Working Group”: Labour Lesley.Hinds@edinburgh.gov.uk SNP Adam.McVey@edinburgh.gov.uk Conservative Nick.Cook@edinburgh.gov.uk Lib Dem Robert.Aldridge@edinburgh.gov.uk Green Nigel.Bagshaw@edinburgh.gov.uk Your local Councillors can be found here: http://www.edinburgh.gov.uk/councillors/search The Evening News letters editor is at: letters_en@edinburghnews.com And please copy to me as well at: postmaster@roseburn32.plus.com