CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » Debate!

Shared Use - the debate (begins) continues

(234 posts)

No tags yet.


1234…8

  1. chdot
    Admin

    "Strangely none of the groups fighting against the proposals had pedestrian interests central to their concerns"

    Things can change.

    Cycle campaigning is on a bit of a high at present - at least in London, Bristol and Edinburgh.

    Sustrans was an offshoot of Cyclebag (the Bristol cycle campaign).

    Here Spokes has been steadily working away for 36 years on various councillors, councils and Governments. (Note to CCEers - that's before most of you started school...)

    Newer and brasher is PedalonParliament (and individuals associated with it, who don't all live in Edinburgh).

    As 'we' have noted, (especially when discussing the NiceWayCode), the majority of bike users drive (and walk).

    Most drivers don't cycle (for various reasons) and probably don't think about the walking bit of their journeys much.

    For people whose main means of transport is their feet (plus probably buses), they are already greatly inconvenienced by a 'transport' (roads) system that corrals them behind railings and fixed crossings timed for optimum 'traffic flow'.

    So now, increasingly, bikes are intruding on 'their' space - legally or otherwise.

    'We' want better on-road provision - segregated sections, cycle lanes repainted when they begin to fade, ASL box enforcement etc.

    Also important to call for any new 'shared use' paths/pavements to be suitable for cycling AND walking.

    Biggest issue is some serious reallocation of roadspace - wider pavements which might be suitable for 'responsible' walking and cycling', more 24 hour cycle lanes - and generally less roadside parking.

    That will only happen when politicians get brave - or at least realise that it's not just car owners who vote (even they won't all be in favour of 'more roads and fewer restrictions'!)

    Posted 10 years ago #

  2. Kim
    Member

    60% of Britons say they never ride a bike – but more dedicated cycle paths and safer roads would get them cycling more. Some interesting social attitudes...

    Posted 10 years ago #

  3. crowriver
    Member

    @Kim, I think the comments on that article reveal more about popular attitudes to cycling than the survey does.

    The survey is *useful* for 'our' purposes, in that it supports cycle campaigners' arguments. However, in my experience (anecdote time) drivers/public transport users who perhaps own bikes and say they would like to cycle more, generally don't. This seems to be the case even when there are quiet shared use paths close to their homes!

    I think the statement "I'd like to cycle more, but..." is a bit like the statement "I'd love to lose weight, but..." or "I'd like to exercise more, but..." Basically, folk are lazy and they do whatever is easiest and less (perceived) effort. Cycling is something many people feel they 'ought' to do, but pedalling even a couple of miles on the flat seems too much like hard work. Add children into the mix and it puts folk off even more. It's just 'easier' to chuck everything/one into the car/on the bus, even if it takes longer and costs more!

    Posted 10 years ago #

  4. cc
    Member

    @crowriver that seems to chime with the noises coming out of the Netherlands. It seems that people there only take to their bikes en masse when it's the easiest thing to do. People are people, everywhere.

    Posted 10 years ago #

  5. Instography
    Member

    Leaving aside that it's YouGov and that a fairly whopping 35% think it's safe to cycle on the roads and that 50% think drivers and cyclists are equally to blame for accidents and that the client seems to be a secret and that, if memory serves, they overstate cycling by a factor of two, it seems like a good survey for "our cause".

    Are people just lazy? I mean, when they say they'd like to do something and then don't, is it just laziness or is behaviour change just a little bit more complex than that? My favourite business author David Maister in the book he published just before he retired: Strategy and the Fat Smoker.

    The primary reason we do not work at behaviors which we know we need to improve is that the rewards (and pleasure) are in the future; the disruption, discomfort and discipline needed to get there are immediate.

    To reach our goals, we must first change our lifestyle and our daily habits now. Then we must summon the courage to keep up the new habits and not yield to all the old familiar temptations. Then, and only then, we get the benefits later. As human beings, we are not good at delayed gratification.

    Of course, this lesson is as true of politicians and transport planners as it is of individuals. The grief for disrupting traffic happens now. The benefits of a healthier, more liveable city only come in the future and for some other transport convenor or council leader.

    Pity the leader who does the leading. They're going to get panned for it.

    Posted 10 years ago #

  6. bdellar
    Member

    Sorry, late to this. In reply to the OP:

    This has resulted in installed infrastructure such as the Inverleith Park/Carrington Road connection - and Seafield Street.

    The latter was mentioned yesterday and described as a "compromise".

    A compromise between what and what? They just seem to have pointlessly added in a section of dangerous pavement to a route that had a perfectly good alternative.

    When turning from the shared use pavement onto Seafield Street do you want to:

    A) Cross Seafield Road and go up Seafield Street?
    B) Cross Seafield Road, join a pavement, turn a blind corner, then exit the pavement and go up Seafield Street?

    How is B) a compromise?

    Posted 10 years ago #

  7. chdot
    Admin

    "A compromise between what and what?"

    Essentially between what they did and spending 'a lot more'.

    And also 'doing something now' - or possible never...

    Doing something now seems to be a compromise too far - but might shake-up some thinking about "shared use".

    Posted 10 years ago #

  8. bdellar
    Member

    But what was there already worked fine! I can only assume that they think they improved things by adding in a pointless dangerous detour onto a pavement...

    Posted 10 years ago #

  9. crowriver
    Member

    A compromise between what and what?

    Presumably the original crossing was thought to:

    a) - inconvenience drivers (including Lothian Buses employees) wanting to turn right into Seafield Street/turn left into Seafield Road. I mean, come on, holding up the entire junction just for some pesky cyclists/pedestrians?

    b) - the odd bus passenger (very rarely anyone except the driver on the bus at this terminus) who might be wanting to embark/disembark at the nice wide pavement on the west side of Seafield Street. Can't have cyclists along there, nope.

    So, let's inconvenience cyclists and pedestrians on the other side then! Oh and anyone entering/exiting the cafe.

    Posted 10 years ago #

  10. chdot
    Admin

    "I don't think they can claim to have completed the Leith Links - Portobello route either."

    Posted 10 years ago #

  11. wangi
    Member

    chdot, crowriver - you're missing Barnaby's point i think... Consider the image below:

    How is the red path any safer, desirable or quicker then the green path? It's not. The signs, paint, conflict, enforcement notice against cafe, etc etc are all an utter waste of money & time.

    Posted 10 years ago #

  12. Wilmington's Cow
    Member

    Thing is, there's nothing actually stopping you taking the green line is there?

    Posted 10 years ago #

  13. chdot
    Admin

    @w ?

    @WC presumably that would be going through the ped phase on S. St .(?)

    Posted 10 years ago #

  14. Wilmington's Cow
    Member

    I might be wrong, but I don't think there's a ped light for crossing Seafield Street, just for crossing Seafield Road. Off to check Googlemaps...

    Posted 10 years ago #

  15. chdot
    Admin

    "Off to check Googlemaps"

    Too recent for that.

    But I don't know either!

    Posted 10 years ago #

  16. chdot
    Admin

    "
    the416anthill (@the416anthill)
    29/07/2013 17:04
    @visitguelph @cityofguelph Policy a start. 1st step cycletracks on Wyndham?

    These signs show U have roadsafety prob.

    http://pic.twitter.com/6I1482qP2B

    "

    Posted 10 years ago #

  17. crowriver
    Member

    Having crossed this junction on a weekly basis over the past year, I have used it when there was a different arrangement: namely a standard junction set of traffic lights with a pedestrian phase.

    This has now been changed to incorporate a toucan crossing on the eastern crossing of Seafield Road at Seafield Street. This may (or may not) speed up the crossing for pedestrians and cyclists, but it also means if heading up Seafield Street from Seafield Road one could encounter oncoming traffic turning left, including the bus service which uses the turning circle there. One could also fall foul of traffic turning right from Seafield Road into Seafield Street.

    Not a major issue currently as the street is quiet most of the time, but not great for young children.

    You can see the junction on streetview here: http://goo.gl/maps/E5nFv (Interestingly seems to have been mapped before the widened path became officially shared use; also no toucan, just a pelican).

    Logically the pedestrian crossing ought to be on the other side of the junction, to connect to the wide pavement and bus stop on Seafield Street. The only logical explanation for it being on the cafe side is to facilitate traffic turning from the west side of Seafield Road into Seafield Street, and vice versa. Presumably this is a leftover from when the Eastern General was still here, as indeed is the bus service. If the planned housing developments ever go ahead for that site, then Seafield Street will get a lot busier than it is now.

    Of course what should have happened is an 'all red' phase at the junction (all green for peds/cyclists) to allow cyclists to cross safely to/from Seafield Street. Instead there is a 'compromise', ie. safety/convenience for cyclists and pedestrians has been sacrificed in favour of convenience for motor traffic.

    Posted 10 years ago #

  18. wangi
    Member

    ?

    There are now three sets of lights at that junction: two sets of ped/cycle lights across Seafield Rd (either side of Seafield St); plus a pedestrian set across Seafield St. See photos at http://barneysbikeblog.blogspot.co.uk/2013/08/seafield-pavement-cycling.html

    @WC: "Thing is, there's nothing actually stopping you taking the green line is there?" - correct, but money and infrastructure has been put in place to coerce me to take an alternative which puts me into conflict with cafe / pedestrians. It's just bloody stupid.

    Posted 10 years ago #

  19. Wilmington's Cow
    Member

    Ah, that makes sense (or rather, it doesn't, obviously, but now I understand all the changes!).

    Posted 10 years ago #

  20. PS
    Member

    "Thing is, there's nothing actually stopping you taking the green line is there?" - correct, but money and infrastructure has been put in place to coerce me to take an alternative which puts me into conflict with cafe / pedestrians. It's just bloody stupid

    I went through the junction from Seafield St to the shared use path a few weeks ago and just took the green line. Quicker, more convenient, safer.

    I can only assume there is some design manual that has been followed robotically without the application of commonsense to generate the new layout.

    CEC should apply an observable desire line approach and sort this out.

    Posted 10 years ago #

  21. crowriver
    Member

    There are now three sets of lights at that junction

    There were three sets before. The difference now is there are button-activated pedestrian crossings on all three. Oh and a couple of extra dropped kerbs.

    I went through the junction from Seafield St to the shared use path a few weeks ago and just took the green line.

    Which is what you are supposed to do when going that way.

    It's on the way back (ie. from Seafield Road to Seafield Street) that there are 'complications' due to the lights sequence.

    "Thing is, there's nothing actually stopping you taking the green line is there?"

    Except perhaps a right turning car or bus coming into Seafield Street from the west section of Seafield Road?

    Somebody get back to the forum when you've ridden this junction on the way back from Porty, rather than the way out...

    Posted 10 years ago #

  22. Wilmington's Cow
    Member

    "Except perhaps a right turning car or bus coming into Seafield Street from the west section of Seafield Road?"

    Yeah, that's the sequencing change etc. that I didn't know about. All very odd (and as has been said, it's a quiet street, so why the need....?)

    Posted 10 years ago #

  23. crowriver
    Member

    it's a quiet street, so why the need....?

    Lothian buses.

    Maybe also planning ahead for new residential development? In which case the shared use path needs to extend all the way up Seafield Street, instead of petering out further up.

    Posted 10 years ago #

  24. Baldcyclist
    Member

    Or you could just have this kind of arrangement, you know, embed it, so that the shared use path never comes into contact with a road, anywhere, ever...

    Shared use path in Livingston

    Posted 10 years ago #

  25. crowriver
    Member

    Bit tricky at close to sea level next to a sewage works.

    Much easier/cheaper to just have an 'all red/all green' traffic lights phase across the entire junction so that peds/cyclists can take whichever line they wish. Then whack some tarmac and kerb further up one side of Seafield Street to connect with the Restalrig railway path.

    Oh, but that might hold up motor traffic for an extra 15 seconds, so let's bodge a hazardous shared use corner instead.

    Posted 10 years ago #

  26. PS
    Member

    It's on the way back (ie. from Seafield Road to Seafield Street) that there are 'complications' due to the lights sequence.

    Ah, understood. I guess I crossed on the green light as opposed to the ped green man.

    Sounds like the junction reflects CEC's institutionalised traffic prioritisation...

    Posted 10 years ago #

  27. Baldcyclist
    Member

    Bit tricky at close to sea level next to a sewage works.

    Hmm, yes, a wee bit more tricky, you would have to raise the road in such a case to enable the underpass, like this one....

    Another Livingston shared use path (well actually the same one, just further up the path)

    Posted 10 years ago #

  28. crowriver
    Member

    In fairness, at Leith Links CEC did replace a substandard bridge and ramp with brand new facilities which are great. But then the brickwork etc, was there from when it used to be a railway line.

    It would potentially be possible to do a bridge/ramp solution at Seafield Street too: just carry on from where the old path used to go down some steps and build a long platform bridge all the way to the other side of Seafield Road. A bit expensive though.

    All they really need is to change the traffic lights sequence and extend shared use path up Seafield Street a bit...

    Posted 10 years ago #

  29. Baldcyclist
    Member

    "But Livingston is a 'new town', it's easy to do that when building 'new'" (I'm just pre-empting the 'new' comments)

    Both of those underpasses are more than 40 years old now, one of them probably 47 years old. I would hazard a guess that much of the infrastructure built in Edinburgh (and much of the rest of the country) is 'newer' than the Livingston shared use infrastructure.

    Instead of the much touted "We need to *start* building infrastructure for *everyone*" mantra.

    I prefer the:

    Why did we *stop* building it, can you just do what you used to do (in Livingston) please?

    Posted 10 years ago #

  30. cb
    Member

    Are underpasses not dark scary places that people don't generally like using at night.

    They took some out in Stirling a few years ago and installed pedestrian crossings (although, to be fair, I'm not sure what the reason for doing so was).

    How many people are put off using the ones along the Calder Road?

    Posted 10 years ago #

RSS feed for this topic

1234…8

Reply »

You must log in to post.


Video embedded using Easy Video Embed plugin