@Focus
Your turn(?)
"
North Team (@north_team)
27/05/2013 15:09
@CyclingEdin best person to contact re cycle road markings here is c.smith@edinburgh.gov.uk ^E
"
CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » Infrastructure
Inverleith Park
(60 posts)-
Posted 11 years ago #
-
The other possible use of parking there is by coaches and teams of young footballers visiting the SFA Football Academy (East Region) based at Broughton High.
On the other hand, if these end-on bays are long term (ie. all day for 3 quid) then it's probably commuters working nearby in Comely Bank, Ferry Road, Western General, Stockbridge, etc. Cheap parking followed by a pleasant stroll to work...
If the city were serious about improving the cycling route from Inverleith Park westward they would either:
- make the pavement shared use (TRO required, possible objections)
- change the parking to side-on and paint a cycle lane between the cars and the pavement, there's plenty of space (consultation, TRO (?), possible objections, loss of (some) parking revenue).
- or, heavens to Betsy, just remove parking from one side of the street and put a nice wide cycle lane along it... (consultation, TRO (?), possible objections, loss of (more) parking revenue).Posted 11 years ago # -
If this is the quality of the family network connections 'it's a quiet street' then there's no point at all to any of it ....
Posted 11 years ago # -
"
Cycling Edinburgh (@CyclingEdin)
27/05/2013 15:21
@LAHinds Why does @Edinburgh_CC allow all day parking for less than price of @on_lothianbuses DAYticket?citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.…
"
"
Edinburgh Council (@Edinburgh_CC)
27/05/2013 16:16
@CyclingEdin, I have passed this on to our Parking team. Thanks"
Must be someone new in charge of the Twitter stream!
Posted 11 years ago # -
Aren't they meant to be "sharrows"? I think that's the right word?
Posted 11 years ago # -
aren't sharrows something bad in the last harry potter book?
Posted 11 years ago # -
They're American I think, and the idea is that they get put in the carriageway to indicate a bike route/remind motorists that there might be other things on the road than cars/tick some boxes.
CBA to google, sorry.
Posted 11 years ago # -
yes. you're right. have seen refs to them in the US sites. i was being a bit silly. but also baffled to see this new signage/usage when we are constantly being told that they can't do things 'differently' in other places.
Posted 11 years ago # -
Apologies, should have noticed the silliness :-)
Can I excuse myself on the basis of my brain still being addled from some silliness of my own (see Audax & Sportives thread)?Posted 11 years ago # -
Posted 11 years ago #
-
Funnily enough, I drove along Carrington Road on Saturday and remarked to my other half on how pointless and daft the on-road markings were. They do absolutely nothing (I'm sure it would be argued they alert drivers to the possible presence of cyclists, but to be honest, as has been pointed out above, I'd have thought a cyclist in front of someone would alert them to the presence of cyclists).
It also appears that heading towards the park you're expected to hang a lfet onto the pavement, then use the new pedestrian refuge to cross to the park. Is it not far simpler (and safer, given it brings you onto the path at a blind bit of the pavement, and into conflict with pedestrians crossing) to simply cross to the park gates from the road bit of the junction???
Posted 11 years ago # -
Is it not far simpler (and safer, given it brings you onto the path at a blind bit of the pavement, and into conflict with pedestrians crossing) to simply cross to the park gates from the road bit of the junction???
Ah, but that would leave the slow, indecisive cyclist sitting in the junction in front of the nimble, alert car driver, thereby impeding traffic flow. Much better to get the pesky cyclist out of the way and allow them to be indecisive (and safe) on the pavement instead. <ROAD DESIGNER LOGIC
Posted 11 years ago # -
"
Lesley Hinds (@LAHinds)
28/05/2013 22:41
@CyclingEdin okay. I will check this out and get back in touch with you"
(Parking charges on Carrington Road)
Posted 11 years ago # -
I asked: Is this [sharrows pic above] really part of the 'family network' near inverleith park?
From council cycling officer: That is the plan but will be installing signage before promoting the route.
I presume that your photo is taken during a weekend as parking demand on Carrington Road is very high on weekdays due to the adjacent Police Scotland office. We did consider removing some parking by converting the end-on parking to parallel parking but this still did not provide enough space for cycle lanes in both directions. We could consider implementing a cycle lane in one direction if there is sufficient support as to achieve this would still require a significant loss of parking which could be met with a lot of resistance.
The other alternative would be to widen the footway and convert it to shared use. This would also require the same amount of parking removal but would be substantially more expensive to implement. We would also need to work out how this would be connected to the on-road section of route along Craigleith Hill Avenue.
Posted 11 years ago # -
Can't say I'm impressed by that.
Not impressed by what has been put on the ground.
If they haven't worked out how it all fits together, what's the point?
Timid.
Posted 11 years ago # -
At the Broughton High School section of Carrington Road there is a big grassy section which could be utilised for a segregated cycle path, or widening of the footpath to make it shared use (although the trees might get in the way there. The problem is the Police Scotland section. I hate cycling along there with the kids. The end on parking makes the road very narrow, and having to be alert for cars pulling out of parking (especially at the end of the school day) makes it feel very tricky. I usually make the kids cycle on the pavement but that in itself is quite narrow and there are usually pedestrians to be aware of.
Craigleith Hill Ave itself is rarely a problem as its a much quieter road, although I would like to see the parking removed up to the junction of C H Gardens. Cars don't flow very freely through there as if there are cars waiting at the lights and parked cars there's not enough room for another car to pass. So I don't think a cycle path is necessary there. Better provision is required at the other end of CH Ave, so there is a safe link to the cycle path network.
I wonder exactly who does use that parking along Carrington Road. I had heard it was needed for Police and Hospital staff working shifts starting/ending in the early hours when public transport is not really an option, however it's pretty much empty by 6 pm apart from people using Broughton sports facilities etc. I'm sure the council could work out whether it is required for early starts/late finishes by when parking is purchased and for how long. I think the majority is 9-5'ers.
I'd also like to see a segregated path on Fettes Avenue. It's wide enough and the Broughyon pupil bike sheds are at the entrance on that side. It's another road I hate as a pedestrian and a cyclist because of Waitrose car park/loading bay. The Waitrose car park is particularly difficult for pedestrians. If you're heading south you need to cross halfway into the exit ramp to see if anything's coming. So why not walk on the other side of the street? Because then you have to cross at the junction in order to get to the crossing outside Waitrose to cross Comely Bank Road. I would like the crossing outside Waitrose taken away and lights put at the junction. A nice bit of cycle lane up to Floras would be great too. It might even feel safe to cycle to school.
Posted 11 years ago # -
"
Cycling Edinburgh (@CyclingEdin)
30/05/2013 00:36
@LAHinds More info on Carrington Road and good suggestions for improvements for #pedestrians + #cyclistshttp://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=10075&page=2#post-112286
#SR2schools
"
"
Lesley Hinds (@LAHinds)
30/05/2013 08:39
@CyclingEdin thanks. Interesting comments on cycling changes. This proposal went out for consultation before the final plans were agreed"
Posted 11 years ago # -
"
Sara Dorman (@SRDorman)
30/05/2013 08:41
@LAHinds @CyclingEdin consultation? We need to consult on entire 'family network' not fragmentary bits and bobs."
New thread on 'FN'?
Posted 11 years ago # -
This proposal went out for consultation before the final plans were agreed
I wonder who exactly was consulted? Very few residents around there, presumably L&B Police (as was) were consulted, Fettes, Waitrose, Western General, Broughton High parents? Were Spokes or the Cycling Forum consulted?
Posted 11 years ago # -
Hi,
I work at the Western General (but part of the University). In our Institute, we have a (free) car park of about 15 parking spaces for 200-300 staff! We have no access to the NHS staff car parks, so, the only easy option for us is Carrington Road. I cycle 90-95% of the times, but there's still occasion where a car is needed and that's our option. And several of my colleagues have no public transport option either.
About Craigleith Hill Avenue, I agree with WickyWocky that it's fine as it is, except at the end of the it, where we have to cross the pavement to Groathill Avenue. I admit that I cycle this little bit of pavement, but I have on one occasion been shouted at by an angry pedestrian (although I was nowhere near him, or putting him in any kind of danger)
Posted 11 years ago # -
A quick search revealed this document from 2011:
Just 4 months beforehand, here is the report that led to £3 per day parking on Carrington Road/Fettes Ave, which was completely free of charge up to 2011.
It would appear there is a lack of 'joined up thinking' at Council about situations like this. The parking folk are thinking only how best to 'manage demand' from motorists and increase amenity/flexibility of parking for motorists. They are not considering other road users or pedestrians whatsoever, or so it would seem if this report is anything to go by.
Likewise the cycling folk are not considering the removal/rearrangement of parking spaces (someone else's turf, presumably?) in order to benefit cyclists. Nor do they seek to install crossings or redesign junctions significanly. No, let's just plonk cyclists on the pavement for a short while, and then plonk them into the middle of the road which is excessively narrowed by end-on parking.
That's how we end up with a dog's breakfast of a 'family network' like this!
Posted 11 years ago # -
From the minutes of the meeting Transport, Infrastructure and Environment Committee, 27 September 2011 :
Decision
1) To instruct the Director of City Development to initiate and make the necessary Redetermination Orders for the A199 Seafield Road and the north section of Seafield Place between its junction with Seafield Road and the north east corner of Leith Links under the relevant sections of the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984.
2) To instruct the Director of City Development to initiate and make the necessary Redetermination Orders for the junction of Carrington Road/East Fettes Avenue under the relevant sections of the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984.
3) To instruct the Director of City Development to initiate and make the necessary Redetermination Orders for Arboretum Place at the entrance to the Royal Botanic Garden under the relevant sections of the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984.
So, how did the design end up the way it is now if the decision was to proceed with the plans as outlined in the document previously linked to? How exactly did cyclists end up being shoved out into the road like that? The devil in the detail, as ever. On paper, all seems very reasonable. Only when you see the interaction with parking spaces does it look incredibly daft...
Oh, and according to the 'Pedestrian Crossing Priority List' the Fettes Ave./Inverleith Park junction has been listed for a possible pedestrian crossing, it's just in the queue behind 'higher priority' crossings to get funded and built.
Posted 11 years ago # -
"I wonder who exactly was consulted? Very few residents around there, presumably L&B Police (as was) were consulted, Fettes, Waitrose, Western General, Broughton High parents? Were Spokes or the Cycling Forum consulted?"
Spokes tends to be consulted, but they tend to email their local members, not people who might pass through (since they can't really know who those were). So, for example, I only found out about NMW changes at last minute. Glad I did though because my main push was about the width of the 'leg' at west end, which was finally changed. No guarantee it was my input, but presume it didn;t hurt.
Seems to me that problem with 'consulting' local people is that they are presented with proposal, not question of 'what would you like to see' or 'what would facilitate you to use this more as cyclists or pedestrians.
Posted 11 years ago # -
What SRD said.
In fact, the council website is very poorly laid out with respect to finding 'consultation' information. A lot of the links just lead you in circles.
You'd think that starting on the 'consultations' page would help. But transport isn't even mentioned there.
However, here's an interesting document.
"
Cycling Improvements
2.16Council has a commitment to allocate a percentage of the Transport revenue
and capital budgets to improve cycling facilities throughout Edinburgh. 5% was
allocated in 2012/13 and this will increase to 6% in 2013/14.
2.17The 6% budget commitment will enable the Council to deliver new cycling
infrastructure to support increases in cycling. This will help the Council to
achieve the targets set out in the Active Travel Action Plan and will include the
creation of links between existing off-road routes and upgrading the facilities that
are available on-road. Appendix F shows how this 6% budget will be allocated.
These schemes have been selected in after consultation with cycling forums.
"Posted 11 years ago # -
In fact, the council website is very poorly laid out with respect to finding 'consultation' information. A lot of the links just lead you in circles.
Probably the online equivalent of being in a disused lavatory with a sign on it saying "Beware of the leopard".
Posted 11 years ago # -
In Appendix F are the off-road cycleways which will be worked on in 2013-14:
A90
Bringing forward the completion of the A90 cycle route improvements from 2015 to 2014. This will improve the overall route from Haymarket to the Forth Bridge for pedestrians and cyclists with new signs and access improvements and the widening of narrow and poorly surfaced sections of this National Cycle Network route which are frequently overgrown by vegetation.Leith-Portobello
With equal matched funding applied for from Sustrans - further improvements to the Leith - Portobello route (widening and resurfacing of footways and paths in Leith Links). This will improve the quality of path surfaces for pedestrians and cyclists and provide more width for them to pass each other more comfortably.Carrick Knowe
With equal matched funding applied for from Sustrans - surfacing/lighting of the Carrick Knowe rail path to the new Balgreen tram stop - . This will upgrade this path from an unlit dirt track to a tarmac surfaced and lit path that will bring it up to a suitable standard for its new role as a pedestrian and cycle route from Corstorphine to the new tram stop at Balgreen. Cycling AllocationEr.....that's it. The capital budget allocation for cycling is £720,000.
Of course, resurfacing NMW has been added to this list due to a last minute funding opportunity (2012/13 money?). Also see previous posts on other priorities, which apparently include the route from the Meadows to the Innocent railway path...
Posted 11 years ago # -
More Carrington Road area photos -
Posted 11 years ago # -
So £720k is 6% of the additional £12m capital they are spending on roads.
Does that mean this £720k is in addition to the 6% of the 'ordinary' transport budget capital (which in my reckoning would be £1.2m) ?
Posted 11 years ago # -
Inverleith / Craigleith route
A rather long post, and some of it repeats what’s been said already, but I hope it might be helpful to gather together all comments into a sort of running commentary on this route. I’ve been using this a lot recently, so here’s a detailed critique of it (starting at my home in the Colonies).
1. Arboretum Ave was damaged by all the heavy machinery for the flood defences, now largely complete. A couple of weeks ago the road was ‘fixed’, not by the partial resurfacing it desperately needs, but by the time-honoured method of putting patches on the patches. Some stretches of the northbound side of the road are almost unusable for bikes - you have to use the other side of the road or get bounced to pieces
2. The new desire line path in Inverleith Park is working well. In fact it’s so popular with pedestrians that it’s usually better for cyclists to use the old (but now resurfaced) path.
3. Exiting the park on to E Fettes Ave, the new link path is good (but could do with the bushes cutting back a bit to improve the sightlines), and could do with a bike sign painted on the path to warn dogwalkers to expect bikes.
4. After that it gets dodgier. There is a sharp dip into the gutter on E Fettes, then on the W side of the junction, the pavement is shared use for about 10 yards. This is a surprise to pedestrians, who have nothing to warn them there will be bikes legitimately on the pavement. (By comparison, a similar layout at Barnton Ave/ Cramond Rd S uses coloured pavement to good effect.)
5. Riders are then guided back onto Carrington Rd about 10 yards in from the E Fettes junction. This probably looked good on paper, but in fact it’s right at the end of a line of parked cars during the day, forcing the rider to move at a right angle into traffic that’s already beginning to accelerate away from the junction. I feel much safer rejoining the road earlier, at the dropped kerb at the corner.
6. The combination of the end-on parking on Carrington Rd with the onroad bike signs makes for a very confusing environment. When cars are parked there, bikes have to be in the main part of the road, so the bike signs are irrelevant. And when there are no cars parked there, the signs seem to be telling bikes that they should cycle in the middle of the road rather than to the left in the parking zone.
7. The onroad bike markings on Craigleith Hill Ave are bizarre. The first one is immediately at the back of a line of parked cars. The next one is in a gap in the line of parked cars, in front of someone’s driveway. The rest are in the middle of the road, for no apparent reason.
8. At the top, at Groathill Rd, there’s nothing to tell cyclists how to get to the NEN.Now, coming back down the same route.
1. At the newish ped crossing from the NEN on Groathill Rd at Craigleith, a route sign pointing cyclists to the Craigleith Hill route would be helpful. (And, while we’re in the neighbourhood, why are bikes going to Craigleith shopping centre routed across that crossing, around the play park, and then presented with a high kerb onto the access road to Craigleith, forcing a dismount or sharing the narrow pavement round to the crossing to the left of the mini-roundabout?) And there’s nothing to warn pedestrians on Groathill Rd that cyclists will be crossing the pavement to get onto Craigleith Hill Rd.2. Craigleith Hill Rd is in poor condition in places, demanding close attention if you’re coming downhill at speed.
3. At the Carrington Rd / E Fettes junction, a cyclist unfamiliar with the junction would probably just go straight across. If you do notice the left turn arrow on Carrington Rd, you then get to a new central refuge, then across to the pavement next to the park (good use of signage here to warn of shared use), and then an arrow on the pavement routes you into the park through the gates. This is bizarre. These gates are almost always just slightly open (wide enough for a bike if you’re careful), but also have a swinging half-gate, usually closed, that forces you to dismount, open it and walk through anyway. And as the rightmost gate is the one that opens (into the park), you have to make a sharp awkward turn to get through. Plus these gates have recently acquired a little official notice saying that they should be kept locked for security reasons. Perhaps the arrow on the pavement is meant to direct riders to the new little access path just past the gates, but no-one unfamiliar with the junction would know it’s there - there’s no sign, and the entrance is hidden by bushes.
4. At the exit from the park by the bowling club, a right arrow points cyclists onto the pavement and then across Arboretum Ave via the new refuge, This is good, massively better than the old ‘two-right turns around the central divider’ option, except that there needs to be something on the pavement to warn pedestrians (especially those coming up Arboretum Ave) that it’s shared use. Coloured pavement would be very helpful for that.Some of these points are fairly minor, but others make me tear my hair out in frustration that these routes seem to be designed by people who never even thought about getting on a bike to check it out first (or afterwards).
Posted 11 years ago # -
Latest news on this route: the right turn sign on the exit road by the bowling club has been carefully erased (why?), but the (not very visible) shared use warning sign on the pavement is still there, so it's not clear what cyclists should do. A shame as it's a much safer way to make a right turn than a double right around the central divider on that bend.
And the arrow on the pavement on E Fettes pointing into the park through the usually half-open gates has been partially concealed by some new tarmac. Anyone know whether this was intentional?.Posted 11 years ago #
Reply
You must log in to post.
posts
