for a 'flyover'...for cars, of course:
http://www.forthone.com/news/local/sheriffhall-roundabout-could-get-a-flyover/
CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » Infrastructure
£200,000 to carry out a feasibility study
(24 posts)-
Posted 12 years ago #
-
At least there's a potential benefit to cycling in that the flyover should mean that the roundabout below becomes less busy. I'd still rather they bunged a couple of cycle/pedestrian bridges over it (or the entry/exits, how cool would that be, a circular bridge with ramps up and down to each road, I'll BET that would cost less than a flyover!).
"Transport Minister Keith Brown said: "Sheriffhall roundabout is the only junction on this key road that does not have a flyover junction""
He really does love his straight, direct, fast roads doesn't he? I wonder if this roundabout falls into the same 'ridiculous' category as not all of Scotlands cities being linked by motorways.
And honestly, just how much time does it lose? Yes, all the other entries have flyovers or slips, but has he tried going round the bypass in rush hour? Those sections are just as slow and clogged as Sheriffhall!
Posted 12 years ago # -
Plus. PLUS. It's costing twice as much for a feasibility study, before any work is actually carried out, as it cost to create the QBC.
AND, you would have thought someone might have thought about this when the Borders railway was being planned and maybe tried to roll them together.
Posted 12 years ago # -
WC...completely agree. I foresee an expensive guddle between this and the railway work.
Posted 12 years ago # -
Years of campaigning for a pedestrian / cyclist crossing (and even money being appropriated to fund it) have come to nothign.
A few swishes of Keith Brown's pen and we are probably signing ourselves up for another tens of millions of pounds of unneccessary roads works here.
Posted 12 years ago # -
wc- wasn't it £600k for the QBC?
Still a good point mind...
Posted 12 years ago # -
Ah you're right - I must have been thinking of the £250k that came directly from the government. Quick google restores balance.
Posted 12 years ago # -
Wasn't the majority of the QBC £600K for remodelling the KB junction?
Re. ped/cyclist bridges, whenever I go past the newbridge junction I'm always struck by how the ped bridge looks like a reasonably cheap and cheerful bit of infrastructure that we could do well to copy at other junctions*
Does anyone have any idea how much it cost to install?
Presumably it's possible to stick in a lightweight long-span bridge like that with very little disruption too.
*Caveat being I have only cycled over that bridge a handful of times and can't quite remember what the quality is like. I think it's ramped rather than stepped, or have I got that wrong?
Posted 12 years ago # -
I've just found a £200,000 saving...
...don't do a new feasibility study, but use the results of the one that was carried out in 2007:
http://www.scotsman.com/news/sheriffhall-at-bursting-point-1-1322496
Good to see that Neil Greig was still getting his tuppence in almost exactly six years ago.
2007 FS also mentioned in this Dec 2007 article.
Posted 12 years ago # -
The M9 flyoverbridge is narrow and has a couple of right-angles in it, but no steps, and with some minor adjustments and an extra couple of feet of width would be a good template I'm sure.
No idea what it cost, think it may have replaced an earlier stepped bridge and was added when they expanded the junction and added the underpass when the M8 extension into Hermiston Gait was built.
Posted 12 years ago # -
At least there's a potential benefit to cycling in that the flyover should mean that the roundabout below becomes less busy
New roads (and new flyovers, bypasses) generate new traffic. So the roundabout will remain just as busy as it was before.
Posted 12 years ago # -
Certainly aware that new roads do, but would rejigging this really produce more traffic? It's the same roundabout, the same road, etc. (I'm not well enough versed in traffic dynamics to be able to comment to be honest, apart from the well-documented theory that new roads = more cars - just don't see how that quite fits in with these plans).
Posted 12 years ago # -
@WC - I'm sure that removing a significant bottleneck will encourage more traffic to use the route.
To be slightly more accurate on what I said previously:
IMO, the traffic on the roundabout will decline immediately after the flyover opens, but will then gradually return to 'normal' over a couple of years or so.
The same thing happened on the A71 after the M8 extension opened, the underpass at Gogar r'bout, etc., there are many examples...
For Sheriffhall, they could create fly-overs and ramps in all directions (American style spagetti junction) and ban motors altogether from the r'bout, leaving it to cyclists - that'd work :)
Posted 12 years ago # -
Where do I sign! :D
Posted 12 years ago # -
Got a better idea - build a flyover to ensure cyclists can ride directly without delays and leave the cars going around the roundabout, as many will need to be joining or leaving the bypass at this point.
Posted 12 years ago # -
The Sheriffhall roundabout junction redevelopment project is moving to Stage 2.
http://www.transportscotland.gov.uk/project/a720-sheriffhall-roundabout
URS has selected for further work four out of eight proposed designs for the improvement of the junction:
Option 1: Dumbbell grade separation at Sheriffhall;
Option 2: All slips provided at Gilmerton, no connection at Sheriffhall;
Option 6: Grade Separated Roundabout at Sheriffhall; or
Option 8: Dumbbell Grade Separation West of Sheriffhall, Gilmerton Slips closed.URS' report provides layouts for each of the eight options, not just the selected four.
http://www.transportscotland.gov.uk/system/files/images/projects/A9332934.pdf
which includes the statement, "Grade separation will also facilitate integration of different modes of transport, including Non Motorised Users and buses, with removal of the current barrier presented by the A720. Therefore, NMUs will benefit from all junction options." Yes, sort of, but look how many of the options contain roundabouts of one size or another.
Transport Scotland notes:
"
The conclusion of Stage 2 work will help identify a preferred junction improvement from the four options above. This exercise is due to be completed in Summer 2015 and a public exhibition will be held locally at this time to present our preferred option and give people the opportunity to comment on our proposals.
"Posted 10 years ago # -
Well remembered (this thread).
Any specific mentions of cycling?
Posted 10 years ago # -
Only the references to Non-Motorised Users, I think.
I was of the understanding that referring to one group in terms of another was "…ism". Do we have a case of 'vehicleism' here?
Here we have eight different proposals, of which four are worthy of further development, and there's hardly any mention of the specific needs of pedestrians and cyclists, hardly any specific design elements to cater for the non-fast, non-accelerative, non-armoured, non-motorised. Does Transport Scotland still expect parents and children to navigate roundabouts?
Posted 10 years ago # -
I like the idea of stopping up the Gilmerton sliproads...
Does Transport Scotland still expect parents and children to navigate roundabouts?
I think the official line is - yes.
Posted 10 years ago # -
'vehicleism' - another interesting coinage.
Perhaps "motorism"?
Candidates for CCE glossary?
Posted 10 years ago # -
Internalcombustonist
Posted 10 years ago # -
None of the options look great for cyclists or pedestrians. I particularly don't like option 2. That's just going to drag more traffic through Gilmerton. It may be heresy for some, but the best solution might be to keep it as it is and add the pedestrian/cycle bridge that was originally promised.
The rest of the A720 is often extremely congested. I'd like some proof via modern traffic modelling that the A720 problems at Sheriffhall isn't just a symptom of a greater problem. The fear would be that far from easing congestion, grade separation would just be an expensive waste of money. Plus it may just encourage even more people settling outside Edinburgh to use their cars for the commute.
Posted 10 years ago # -
Good point Amir - where's the evidence to say that all this money remodeling the junction doesn't just mean people just hit the queues at the next junction quicker?! In which case the later queues are bigger and take longer to navigate, Sherriffhall having acted like a throttle in the past.
Posted 10 years ago # -
"""
To ask the Scottish Government, further to the answer to question S4W-28403 by Derek Mackay on 24 November ...Scottish Parliament - Written Answers
17/06/2016Answered on: Friday 17 June 2016
Scottish Government
Colin Beattie (Midlothian North and Musselburgh, Scottish National Party,): To ask the Scottish Government, further to the answer to question S4W-28403 by Derek Mackay on 24 November 2015, whether it will provide an update on what progress it is making on achieving grade separation for the Sheriffhall roundabout. [S5W-00568]Humza Yousaf:< >The Scottish Government remains committed to undertaking improvements at Sheriffhall roundabout. We continue to progress the option assessment process to identify a preferred option for the grade separation of Sheriffhall roundabout. The junction improvement options under consideration will be presented to the public for comment later in 2016 .
"""
(my bold)
Posted 9 years ago #
Reply
You must log in to post.
posts
