"But then the brickwork etc, was there from when it used to be a railway line."
Only on the east side? The original west abutment (at least the visible red sandstone blocks forming the outer face thereof) was taken down, presumably intentionally.
CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » Debate!
Shared Use - the debate (begins) continues
(234 posts)-
Posted 10 years ago #
-
"Are underpasses not dark scary places that people don't generally like using at night.
....
How many people are put off using the ones along the Calder Road?"Of course that is a fair point. There are a few in Livingston I wouldn't fancy going through late at night, the one from Dechmont to Livingston, and the Howden to Cragshill underpasses would be on my 'avoid' list. Probably none in Livingston as (perceived) unsafe as the Calder Road underpasses though.
It's one of the interesting dilemmas of the 'direct' as opposed to 'follow the road' arguments for/against shared use paths. All of the Livingston shared use paths are direct routes to places, and well away from the less direct road routes. But equally there is a perception that they are unsafe *because* they are hidden away from the road.
So what do we want? Safe from cars, or, safe from people (bearing in mind the 'safe from people' is probably more a perception than a reality)? Is it possible to have both?
Posted 10 years ago # -
IIRC one of the reasons the segregated paths in Milton Keynes are not better used is that they are perceived as unsafe. Indeed I remember visting in 1990 and there had been a spate of muggings.
The reason they were unsafe though is because the majority were driving on the good, fast, dual carriageway network...
Posted 10 years ago # -
Three types of safety. Underpasses don't work without "social safety".
Posted 10 years ago # -
@baldcyclist "Somebody get back to the forum when you've ridden this junction on the way back from Porty, rather than the way out...
let's bodge a hazardous shared use corner instead"
I'm going to have to get out the crayons and draw this up, 'cause i'm still struggling with it. I think the junction at Seafield is crap - but for different reasons it seems! If i get round to it, i'll do it on another thread! (go through it at least 4 times a week)Posted 10 years ago # -
last night, I was on the 35 going past the canal basin entrance and spotted that the pavement along there is shared space:
I recall discussion back when this was 'opened'. But I obviously did not appreciate how it worked - basically they've just bunged that sign up there, that you can see from the bus. But is it obvious to pedestrians?
My bus was sat at the stop for quite a while, so I watched several streams of cyclists come off the lights and up towards the basin, as well as others coming along the pavement. Very busy with pedestrians - lots of buggies, suitcases etc. I didn't see any crashes, but it didn't look terribly friendly either.
What do others think?
Posted 10 years ago # -
I use that a few times a week depending on how late I am and how busy fountainbridge looks. Can't say its ever been a problem. If cyclists keep their speed reasonable its perfectly simple to dodge between the streams of peds going along the pavement.
Posted 10 years ago # -
@SRD - I'm guessing that it's to provide access to the Toucan crossing joining up with the 754 from Lochrin Basin. The shared use section seems to be just covering the section immediately before and after the junction. Better than a "no cycling" section between the Basin and the junction!
Of course, where the path goes once you cross is a bit of a mystery... Possibly the path between the buildings on the other side is also shared use, the one that runs to Port Hamilton. Or perhaps it's just to allow cyclists to leave the 754 in all directions during the pedestrian phase.
Robert
Posted 10 years ago # -
Like steveo, I use this during the week and there's no problem with peds. Unfortunately vehicles do mount the pavement to park at and around the quay entrance and restrict the access and view so it's a case of travelling slower when going through.
Posted 10 years ago # -
I was less concerned about the 'problem with peds' than with the 'problem with bikes'....
Especially if the peds have little indication that the pavement is supposed to be shared use.
I'm not suggesting there should be 'no cycling' at the end of the basin - but rather that the shared space needs to be more clearly signposted and managed - especially given the uphill, bumpy surface, and somewhat narrow conduit.
Posted 10 years ago # -
I think we overthink the whole shared space thing. On the whole, no one cares about bikes on pavements apart from cyclists overly concerned about the perception of cyclists and the Evening News' professional commenters. Take a trip to Ghent and watch in awe the complete disinterest as cyclists and pedestrians completely fail to interact in any physical sense.
Posted 10 years ago # -
^^
More or less that, on my recent Livi trip for my Intra blog, pretty much no-one I came across gave me a second look.
If you look at Scotland as a whole there are only 4 places with a population greater that 100,000 (Towns and cities by population), and aside from the cities, population density is pretty small. Ideal for shared use.
Posted 10 years ago # -
"Take a trip to Ghent and watch in awe the complete disinterest as cyclists and pedestrians completely fail to interact in any physical sense."
More noticeable than the interaction between different modes of travel in Ghent (taken as read after a week in Bruges) was the complete lack of elfnsafety surrounding huge holes in the travel-channel surface, resulting in no conflict-zones created by restricting the available travel-channel areas through the medium of easily blown-over plastic fencing. People naturally avoided holes, avoided trams, avoided the swinging buckets of excavators and avoided the tour buses occasionally swinging past simply by being trusted and expected to do so.
I never got round to doing so but was tempted to email the council to ask them about the various bits of shared-use-marked footway around that bit of Fountainbridge in order to work out what had actually been intended besides access/egress from the canal and access to the wee delivery roads round the back of Loudons.
Posted 10 years ago # -
I'm not opposed to shared space. I actually rather like it. But it seems to work better when it is either people travelling in roughly same direction (eg as SMW was), or just milling around. Having two diametrically opposed flows as at the canal basin entrance - where pedestrians are going one direction, waiting for buses etc, and cyclists cutting across them, seems problematic.
Posted 10 years ago # -
Official shared use pavement in the heart of the city!
Is it too grown up for the NiceWayCode?
Posted 10 years ago # -
That is going to be a nightmare! I wish it wasn't so, but it will be.
and you know who will get all the flack? the cyclists.
Posted 10 years ago # -
If you mean The Mound/Princes Street 'infrastructure' that's not new.
Just highlights the piecemeal nature of decision making - and also demonstrates the crassness of the 'grow out of it' message of the nicewaycode.
It's there because CEC/Tram 'forgot' that it used to be possible for bikes to turn left there. Or perhaps it 'forgot' that Spokes (and others) would make a fuss.
There are plenty of places (still) where "cyclists dismount" is the policy/reality.
'We' expect a left hand turn (for bikes) to be maintained (and two way cycling on Princes Street when the trams run) - and probably should. After all the SG "vision" is that by 2020, 10% of all journeys taken in Scotland with be by bicycle - CEC has a similar vision/aim/target/policy which (I think) includes 15% for commuting.
It ain't gonna happen without a lot more effort and a real attempt to reduce car use - particularly in urban areas.
"
The current mode share of cycling is 2% across Scotland, although this varies between local authorities. To illustrate what significant increases might look like, for a 20% mode share by 2020 (Atkins/Aberdeen University research), 70% of car and other motorised journeys of less than 5ks would need to switch. For a 10% mode share, a third of such journeys under 5ks would need to switch to bike."
From a COSLA/Transport Scotland document.
THAT is the officially recognised 'reality'. Imagine a third less motor traffic. That ought to help encourage more people to want to cycle - though of course there are strong arguments for 'improve the infrastructure first'.
Which brings us back to "shared-use" this is (apparently) seen as the soft target - with pedestrians as the soft (not) targets.
This is political. Somehow it's easier to inconvenience people who walk rather than people who drive. Actually it's perverse - in general people walk/drive/use public transport/cycle.
Obviously in the case of Mound/P St. drivers have been inconvenienced (and banned from Princes Street). Somehow "The Tram" has managed to subvert the 'don't upset the motorists' mantra big time!
The building of the tram line has been disruptive, but no advantage was taken of this to encourage walking and cycling. York Place is open again for general traffic (though the original plan didn't include a tram stop there).
Obviously there is no equivalent money for walk/cycle infrastructure and not much of a 'mindset change' to do things differently. 'We' generally want better 'cycle infrastructure' it should be a prime CEC policy that this shouldn't be (or seen to be) at the expense of pedestrians.
Shared-use isn't a bad idea. It requires intelligent/sensitive design without compromises and some education.
There has been enough discussion on here about the NEPN, canal etc. showing that sharing shared-use has conflicts - and conflicts of expectations/attitudes.
Bike users suffer from 'motoring infrastructure' and driver attitudes. It's not reasonable that pedestrians should suffer similarly from 'cycling infrastructure' and cyclist attitudes.
Posted 10 years ago # -
This also from Insto about St Andrew's square
http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=10828&page=3#post-124376
does seem to suggest that all sorts of places have 'become' shared space by dint of signs going up.
Posted 10 years ago # -
Bike users suffer from 'motoring infrastructure' and driver attitudes. It's not reasonable that pedestrians should suffer similarly from 'cycling infrastructure' and cyclist attitudes.
Isn't it reasonable though? (But not desirable, certainly.)
Perhaps "understandable" or "inevitable" is the word I'm trying to find.
Posted 10 years ago # -
The foot of the Mound arrangement looks like a recipe for accidents - conflicts of direction, as well as conflicts of cyclist and pedestrian speed / weight.
It does look as if the transport planners see walkers as a soft touch - either that or they don't get out enough to see the realities of shared space in the wrong locations. Common sense seems to be in short supply too often when it comes to the public realm - just look at the tiny shelter on the nearby Princes Street tram stop, with seats for - wait for it - six people!
I suspect that there is an element of 'putting a blind eye' to all this - boxes get ticked, and the troublesome business of trying to manage shared space can be quietly forgotten, unless enough sensible cyclists and walkers create a suitable stooshie about these sub-optimal solutions. It would be great to see a united front for a suitable test case brought to the notice of the Council.
Posted 10 years ago # -
@Davidspaven it doesn't even meet their own minimum safe crossing angle standards;
Cross at an angle between 60° and 90°? by the Magnificent Octopus, on FlickrPosted 10 years ago # -
k'nik - that's true too. i made the mistake of going that way last week - terrifying.
but I think davidspaven was referring to the apparent suggestion that cyclists wishing to turn left should just go up on the pavement.
Posted 10 years ago # -
"
This also from Insto about St Andrew's squarehttp://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=10828&page=3#post-124376
does seem to suggest that all sorts of places have 'become' shared space by dint of signs going up.
"
Posted 10 years ago # -
Isn't that an old sign? There used to be a segregated path there IIRC
Posted 10 years ago # -
I think the sign is new, can't remember if it was previously 'proper' shared use.
Pavement must have been wider before the Tram.
Posted 10 years ago # -
Posted 10 years ago #
-
Posted 10 years ago # -
Well the tram has obliterated the cycle path, has it also claimed all the racks too?
Posted 10 years ago # -
Posted 10 years ago #
-
"
Maureen Child (@MaureenChild1)
08/09/2013 21:05
Took this in London a while back. Pedestrian Priority - Considerate Cycling Welcomed.http://pic.twitter.com/qIBZj9ZJKv
"
Posted 10 years ago #
Reply »
You must log in to post.
posts
