CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » Infrastructure

Meadows 'upgrade'

(107 posts)
  • Started 4 years ago by ruggtomcat
  • Latest reply from Baldcyclist

No tags yet.


  1. ruggtomcat
    Member

    Has anything been said about how they have managed to ruin the new meadows resurfacing?

    I was on it a few weeks ago checking out the beautiful smooth surface and was thinking to myself 'you know this is almost too good, they may have a problem with speeding.'

    Well they fixed that didn't they. I wont be using it at all if I can help it. I once experienced a 'tram-track' off on the old meadows path when trying to cross the brick line at too much of an oblique angle, lost the front and clunked a lamppost. That was lower than the official 'facilities' placed at regular intervals. Its gonna be a nightmare in the fall.

    Honestly, who thinks these things up? have they ever ridden a bike? Yes you should change the surface to slow people down (you can tell how populated a streatch of track is in the netherlands by how bumpy the paving is) but make it uncomfortable, not dangerous!

    Posted 4 years ago #
  2. ruggtomcat
    Member

    And you know what the galling bit is, that beautiful swishing, civilized cyclepath I sampled is gone forever, even if we get the parallel paving ripped up there will never be a lovely continuous stretch of asphalt, but seals and bumps, seals and bumps, it will look like the old one in no time atall :(

    Posted 4 years ago #
  3. SRD
    Moderator

    I *think* the tactile paving is intended to help visually impaired people know which side is pedestrian and which side is cycle, rather than to slow us down. But agree, how it has been done is not good at all.

    Posted 4 years ago #
  4. chdot
    Admin

    Strangely various people have mentioned 'in person' but not on here!

    Posted 4 years ago #
  5. custard
    Member

    Are these the same as the Broohouse path

    Posted 4 years ago #
  6. allebong
    Member

    Can someone provide a description - or preferably a photo - of what's been done? I never used that path much mostly due to the horrible old surface but like the OP I found the new one exceedingly lovely when I tried it. Guess that was too good for us.

    Posted 4 years ago #
  7. kaputnik
    Moderator

    I noticed this the other day.

    What they have done is (again - see also Broomhouse Path) used the wrong type of tactile paving at the junction bits. They have used the flags intended for partial sighted / blind pedestrians on the cycling side by turning them around.

    This is the incorrect use of these flags - there is a special type, with wider, flatter ridges with a wider spacing and a flat profile rather than rounded. These are designed for bike tyres and do not cause the tram track incidents.

    At best - careless. At worse - negligence.

    Time for some emails to be sent pointing this out to relevant persons.

    Posted 4 years ago #
  8. Calum
    Member

    I'm a little bit doubtful sbout the point of tactile paving in this scenario. I know the idea is to help blind people, but it's my understanding that pedestrians are entitled to use the full width of a segregated shared use path but cyclists are only entitled to use the section allocated to cycles. Cyclists should be making sure that they don't crash into pedestrians.

    Posted 4 years ago #
  9. kaputnik
    Moderator

    The point of the pedestrian-side tactiles is to warn the blind of an obstruction or hazard, e.g. steps, a crossing path etc.

    The cycle-side ones are designed to let them know that they are walking on the cycling side, without posing a hazard to bike wheels. This is sensible as I assume they would be more happy walking where a bike isn't liable to pass them closely (even if they are entitled to be there).

    According to the documentation I read through, this arrangement is meant to be used when the path has a raised central delineation - as in the Broomhouse Path - so they've got that bit wrong too.

    So in an effort to comply with the guidelines they're actually probably just causing more of a hazard!

    If I remember from the consultation, the council were quite insistent about there being these tactile flags. And Friends of the Measows too?

    Posted 4 years ago #
  10. SRD
    Moderator

    I'll get some pictures tomorrow am, and send them to an 'expert' who has agreed to take a look.

    Posted 4 years ago #
  11. SRD
    Moderator

    Posted 4 years ago #
  12. chdot
    Admin

    Lovely.

    Did they do the drop kerb get done onto Melville Drive?

    Posted 4 years ago #
  13. kaputnik
    Moderator

    and send them to an 'expert'

    Tulyar?

    Posted 4 years ago #
  14. SRD
    Moderator

    nope. someone who works in field of accessibility for visually impaired pedestrians.

    Posted 4 years ago #
  15. nedd1e_h
    Member

    Don't you get it?

    They put this stuff in so they can use up the cycling budget. Much easier to put this kind of stuff in than tackle building any of the 'difficult' bits of cycling infrastructure. E.g. Gilmore Place (as part of Canal to Meadows link).

    Then they can say, well look how expensive it is just to resurface 1 mile of existing path. How could we possibly do more with the budget we have? (Great excuse to do nothing)

    Posted 4 years ago #
  16. SRD
    Moderator

    I presume this is the guidance that kaputnik refers to. https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/3622/tactile-pavement.pdf

    Posted 4 years ago #
  17. Baldcyclist
    Member

    p54 of above linked document. Appears the rumble strips are installed correctly.

    EDIT* Although I'm not sure if the central strip is there.

    Posted 4 years ago #
  18. SRD
    Moderator

    central strip not there

    also profile of 'our' rumbles is rounded. pic shows flat top?

    „"The profile of the tactile surface comprises a series of raised, flat-topped bars, each 5mm (±0.5mm) high, 30mm wide, and spaced 70mm apart"

    I may need to do some more work with the ruler.

    Posted 4 years ago #
  19. Arellcat
    Moderator

    As BaldCyclist notes, the guidance document doesn't mention the cycle-specific paving, which was uncovered in our "Ice" thread:

    http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=9230&page=4#post-97048

    Fact sheet:
    http://www.tobermore.co.uk/(X(1)S(v2bodrudhnbfsj451owbjn45))/siteFiles/resources/tobermore%20tactile%20flags%20specification.pdf

    If CEC has deliberately used, for the cycle paths, the cycle paving slabs in some instances and hazard paving in others, and indeed the cycle paving rotated 90 degrees and used on the pedestrian side, we need to document those cases for inconsistency at best, and non-compliance at worst. The two types of slab are readily available to CEC as we've already seen.

    At the back of the guidance document, there is a contact at the DfT for "advice on the use of tactile surfaces".

    Also see the thread, Broomhouse Rumblestrips:

    http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=6240#post-85470

    Posted 4 years ago #
  20. kaputnik
    Moderator

    I noted today that on the Broomhouse Path, they have done the opposite, by using the cycle-specific paving turned through 90 degrees in lieu of the pedestrian-specific paving. I guess their reasoning is that if you do half wrong in one manner and half wrong in the other that it all cancels out.

    Posted 4 years ago #
  21. Arellcat
    Moderator

    According to Paving Expert, which is a really useful looking site:

    http://www.pavingexpert.com/tactile01.htm

    "Where a cycleway and a footpath are adjacent, [cycleway pavings] may also be used for the pedestrian section, with the bars running transversely, and a demarcation strip between the two."

    I don't have a copy of the relevant BS EN though.

    And according to Interpave's Accessible Paving factsheet:

    http://www.paving.org.uk/commercial/pdf/apave.pdf

    there are also Guidance Path flags with 5 rounded shortened rods, which are sort of halfway between the pedestrian 'corduroy hazard warning' (8 rounded full length rods) and 'cycle track and footway' flags (four flat full length rods).

    Posted 4 years ago #
  22. Arellcat
    Moderator

    Mea culpa. I misread Baldcyclist's post before. Page 54 of the DfT guidance does show the 4-rod cycle flags, and shows them used transversely on the pedestrian side as well, along with the central delineator strip, which should continue the length of the path (pp 55-56).

    Fig.30 on page 58 is useful, too, for the Broomhouse Path, and fig.32 on page 60 for the Cultins Road junction.

    I don't think I have the stamina to evaluate Edinburgh Park Station.

    Posted 4 years ago #
  23. chdot
    Admin

    Elsewhere -

    Posted 4 years ago #
  24. custard
    Member

    I've lost traction in the wet on those slabs on the Broomhouse path
    I dont particularly relish that pictured long section in the wet

    Posted 4 years ago #
  25. kaputnik
    Moderator

    When you really notice it is if you have to cross the slabs at a slight angle. You move smoothly across the "correct" ones, the "wrong" ones are anyone's guess what's going to happen. You can slipslide either way and it's an altogether unpleasant experience.

    Posted 4 years ago #
  26. SRD
    Moderator

    The broomhouse ones and the ones in chdot's picture look a heck of a lot better than the Meadows ones, which are
    exactly the width of my bike tyre. Haven't tried them yet with wider tyres. can't imagine it's going to be nice.

    Posted 4 years ago #
  27. LaidBack
    Member

    These are wrong. Pretty dangerous and not good for small front wheels. Should be easy enough to change over ;-)

    In effect the cycleway could be more dangerous than the road until they sort correctly. Surely meant to be rumble strips like a mini cattle grid?

    If you wouldn't lay a cattle grid or drain cover pattern this way why would you do such a thing on a cycleway?

    Posted 4 years ago #
  28. SRD
    Moderator

    @laidback, sadly, it appears that the direction 'tramtracks' is correct. but the ones in Meadows seem esp. bad because so narrow.

    Posted 4 years ago #
  29. LaidBack
    Member

    I've been slow catching up on this... now sent email to council to inform them that this 'right' is wrong. How can this be 'right'?
    I know... put up 'cyclists dismount' signs!

    Posted 4 years ago #
  30. Dave
    Member

    I rode the folding bike in to last week's PY and almost came off on the first set of tram tracks.

    I rode the rest of the way to MMW using the pedestrian side to get around them.

    I've never really understood why they didn't design tactile paving the other way around (i.e. perpendicular for bikes) because it really doesn't matter which way they are for pedestrians, but that would have reduced their impact on cyclists to something barely noticeable. A few milliseconds' vibration through the handlebars and you're done.

    Instead you have this constant risk of taking a tumble, and I for one am (for better or for worse) by no means above using the pedestrian side to avoid a fall...

    Yours etc,

    Confused in Currie

    Posted 4 years ago #

RSS feed for this topic

Reply »

You must log in to post.


Video embedded using Easy Video Embed plugin