By the way – they’re setts (regularised, squared off) not cobbles (irregular, round). I stand corrected.
A muddled end of year spend a few years back has caused much synthetic rage and minor headaches for local transport officers. There was little or no consultation on the removal of most of the informal crossings, but there was a highly selective focus by a minority on the fact that the sets were causing issues (drivers hate ’em, the trip hazard, legal niceties about whose fault it would be if you killed someone crossing the road). Of course there are issues, especially if you keep repeating anecdotes as if they are facts.
First up, ELC failed to install them correctly or, at least their contractor didn’t do the job properly. I am no expert, but it is obvious that earlier intervention and regular maintenance would have ensured holes were patched up and perhaps a slightly more comfortable experience was engineered for all.
The issue of maintenance, which probably wasn’t taken into account when selecting this as an option, seems to have been a stumbling block. Cobbles/setts are a universal roadstone material around the world, last time I checked, so it is really quite surprising that locally there seems to be inadequate expertise for their maintenance. Bizarrely just 25 miles down the road, there is World Heritage site, vast areas of which are almost entirely sets (the Edinburgh old and new towns), yet there is only one contractor able to do proper repairs.
Finally, whilst yet another pointless and scientifically dubious consultation takes place, no one has recently been thinking about the original purpose of the sets, which was to create a designed streetscape and one which was more pedestrian friendly. The sets added to the sense and variety of the street scene, were harmonious with the character of old Dunbar (sure enough there are still sets under the tarmac – intact!) and complemented the pavement setts. Alas the latter are also badly maintained and damaged by vehicles mounting the pavement, but I rarely hear vocal complaints about that. The new zebras certainly didn’t enhance the streetscene, and I have heard that some officials hate the highly reflective poles as much as I do. Repeated interventions by people who simply don’t understand or care about design have eroded the quality of the streetscene and, in the name of a half-baked newfound democratic dialogue, are undermining the professionalism of our council officers, who have a lot more expertise than we give them credit for.
Turning to the legal niceties, as far as I am concerned any driver who doesn’t stop when a pedestrian tries to cross a road, safely or not, isn’t just inconsiderate, but plain careless and stupid. A typical speed on the High Street in Dunbar should be no more than 10-15mph. What’s there to rush about? Anything more is driving without due care and attention – and you can witness a bit of this any hour or day of the week. But think about it. The likelihood of a pedestrian stepping out from between vehicles is pretty high, as is the likelihood of a parked vehicle pulling out suddenly – or perhaps a driver or passenger getting out of the car on the streetside. So any changes to the structure of the street, which make it easier for traffic to flow more smoothly, are actually bad idea. This seems to be one justification I have heard for not having any loading bays, which sounds dubious. Double parked vehicles slow traffic, sure, but the way that drivers actually react or respond is also important. Loading vehicles typically obstruct the pedestrian passing places (or are they now designated for unloading or viewing traffic as it whizzes by?). I am not sure how this is supposed to benefit pedestrians trying to cross, as frustrated drivers have a tendency to overtake parked vehicles pulling out a bit faster to get back into the left hand lane as quickly as possible. But frustrated drivers hate crossings, and other obstructions, wherever they are. I’m a driver so I know.
Removing the sets has objectively increased traffic speeds and made it more difficult to cross the road at other points too. I’ve watched many little old ladies, mothers with children, bewildered tourists, wait for several minutes before venturing out. No one has bothered to talk about this or to make a general pedestrian-centric argument, rather they have chosen to foment a synthetic time wasting campaign, which will only cost the tax payer dear.
The fact is, that people need to be able to cross the road safely pretty much anywhere, not just at allotted points. To do this we need a few less cars looking for parking (up to 50% of traffic can be accounted for this), measures to slow down traffic and many more people substituting short car journeys by foot, cycling or using the bus. I’d go even further, we need to have less cars parked on the street (which would improve sight-lines for pedestrians and vehicles), which might make it possible to accomodate attractive street furniture, nice specimen trees, and even some planters (as long as they are well-designed – none of this plastic or fibreglass shit).
The “I object to cobbles” argument on the grounds they are bumpy is just a bit daft and the conspiracy theory that there is a secret plot in John Muir House to pedestrianise the High Street, dafter still (I wish it were true). It is inconceivable that the High Street can be anything but a shared space. Trouble is cyclists avoid it and pedestrians stick to the pavements, so cars – drivers – have it their way. Yet most people who use cars also walk and walking is good.
Cobbles and setts, are beautiful. If you don’t like them, maybe move to a new town where everything is smooth. If you want your experience to be smooth and uninterrupted, shop in malls, while bathing in anodyne mood music and find a clone-town shopping experience. People who don’t like cobbled streets probably don’t like going abroad, hate steep medieval towns, steps, and traffic calming measures. Some want there to be a sharp delineation between pedestrian and driver domains, so they can stare into their mobile phones on the one hand or drive to their destination faster on the other (or get out of your town faster). If this is the experience that people really want, why is that drive-in convenience stores aren’t popping up all over? Well there is a simple reason. Cars are a pretty inefficient way of delivering such services, when you are short of space. Do we want more space for cars or more space for housing? I’ve got a funny feeling the latter is what the nation requires, with new measures to reduce the isolation of such communities and moderate car dependency.
In conclusion, I would argue that the local campaigns would be better directed towards making the High Street friendlier for pedestrian and cyclists and conversely, less friendly for motorists (and don’t get me wrong I like cars, and I want somewhere to park mine, so you cannot accuse me of being anti-car). Motorists will always complain that parking is hell, but this is arrant hyperbole. In a recent survey, easier parking was ranked the lowest of the characteristics that would attract customers to shop on our High Street, whereas quality of shops was highest ranked.
So I urge you to campaign AGAINST any increase in short term parking provision on street or measures that increases turnover, without other measures to reduce or manage demand (e.g. charging). Let’s campaign FOR appropriate long term parking for rail commuters, for residents and for local businesses. I see an emerging need for long term overflow parking to cope with seasonal peaks, if predictions that Dunbar’s tourism fortunes are about to turn are true. But right now, lets refocus on making our streets calmer and friendlier for pedestrians and cyclists, reinstate the old sets, and watch that tourist trickle develop into a torrent. If not lets all head over to Denmark, an altogether happier place, where half the population seem to get by fine on their bikes, despite an equally dismal climate.