Boulders were away again this morning - they lasted less than 48 hours.
CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » General Edinburgh
"duff scheme with poor pedestrian and cycle provision" South Queensferry
(177 posts)-
Posted 7 years ago #
-
Judging by the fresh straw on the path, I guess their removal was in order for the farmer to access his harvest.
Posted 7 years ago # -
There were reports locally that cars were driving along the road and U-turning when they realised the error of their ways.
Posted 7 years ago # -
A couple of well placed bollards (wearing high vis and helmets obviously) would sort that and allow bikes, pushchairs and scooters through...
Posted 7 years ago # -
I've restarted using Scotstoun Ave again on the way into town, for a bit of variety.
Pleasantly surprised that motoring speed levels have noticeably dropped off a bit on the boulevard itself.
The chicane / dropped kerb alignment nonsense seems deliberate to me, in a 'totally stupid but professing to be clever' kind of way.
Sometimes i find it hard to believe that we're living in the early days of a better nation.
Posted 7 years ago # -
Temporary wooden barrier at bottom of slop joining the old path over the railway has now been replaced with something more permanent. Also a gate has been installed just before/after (depending which way you're going) the railway. Hopefully this is in line to be upgraded at some point.
Posted 7 years ago # -
"Sometimes i find it hard to believe that we're living in the early days of a better nation."
Think the soundbite is 'live as though ... "
Most people aren't doing so.
http://www.oysterband.co.uk/lyrics/songs/The_early_days_of_a_better_nation.html
Posted 7 years ago # -
twas Alasdair Gray wot i was misquoting.
Posted 7 years ago # -
@bax
You were quoting Alasdair Gray quoting Dennis Lee on the cover of the first edition (I think) of Lanark.
Posted 7 years ago # -
Niggles (or anyone else) could you please post a pic of the new barrier? I owe Cala an email which I had planned to send this week as I have time. Not working though so won't be riding that way and would be good to know what I'm talking about.
Posted 7 years ago # -
acsimpson - I'll try to remember to take one on the way home tonight. I'm not particularly impressed with it - the fences are still very close together and there's a big overlap. I suppose I just don't see the point of it at all, really.
Posted 7 years ago # -
I took some photos a few weeks ago when I completely failed to be able to steer the torpedo through that chicane gate. I'll post them here later.
If Cala thinks this ridiculous, for 'torpedo' substitute 'cargo bike' or 'tandem' or 'trike'.
Posted 7 years ago # -
acsimpson - I have some photos. Sorry, but I can't figure out how to upload them to the forum, so PM me if you want them and I can mail them to you.
Posted 7 years ago # -
Not 3 metre spacing (the torpedo is 2.8 metres long):
Approaching as wide as possible and using maximum steering lock, this is far as I was able to proceed:
(photos taken 20 Aug; click to embiggen)
You might think 'Well, why not just pick up the back end and swivel it all through?' The reason I couldn't do that is because there isn't the space; the chicane gates are too tight, and the second one is too close to the fence to get the machine swivelled around. Pretty darn poor, considering this is basically one of at most three routes between the FRB and Dalmeny, and is the one that provides for the least loss/gain in elevation.
Posted 7 years ago # -
@arellcat - those are the old 'temporary' barriers. They have new metal ones now but they didn't look to be much wider than the temporary ones.
I'm not on the bike today or I'd have taken a photo tonight. Will try to remember tomorrow.
P.s...and off topic...that is a fantastic looking machine you have! I have never seen anything like it before :-)
Posted 7 years ago # -
Finally figured this out. (Sort of) Here are the new barriers:
">
">Sorry, but I can't get the images to appear any bigger.
Posted 7 years ago # -
http://www.transport.gov.scot/report/j185500-06.htm#cycleways
It's not clear from the pictures whether there is 3m gap between the barriers but even if there is, the fact that there is a considerable overlap between the barriers would likely mean that I would have to stop and manually wiggle my child trailer through there, which is already in contravention with the design guidance.
The guidance also states that the chicane should be placed at least 5m from any bend or junction which doesn't seem to be the case here and it says that the rider should meet the barrier on the left hand side first whereas the opposite is true here.
In my experience they will justify completely ignoring the guidelines on the basis that "the current layout has taken a practical approach to achieve the best balance of the needs of cyclists and pedestrians at this location".
Posted 7 years ago # -
these barriers are straight out of the 1970s
there's no hope really, is there
Posted 7 years ago # -
"It's not clear from the pictures whether there is 3m gap between the barriers"
When I cycled that way on Saturday I didn't take a tape measure, however given that it was a bit tricky to get through the chicanes on my modest Raleigh tourer I suspect they are not 3 metres apart. More like 1.5 metres, at a guess.
Frankly they seem a faff for pedestrians, let alone cyclists.
"these barriers are straight out of the 1970s"
Well no, the stainless steel gives them away as being C21st. IIRC chicanes were not much in evidence at all in the 1970s, but then neither were shared use paths. The chicane designs here are retro reinvention of 1980s anti-cyclist hysteria perhaps?
If you're on a cargo bike, tandem, or hauling a trailer I reckon it's Station Road as the most viable option...
Posted 7 years ago # -
Why is it recommended for the first gap to be on the right? Naively I'd've assumed it should be the other way round.
Posted 7 years ago # -
Before an obstacle people are only concentrating on it and not what's beyond. So with the pictured arrangement you end up coming out (at speed?) on the side of oncoming traffic. Whereas the other way around you exit on the correct side.
That's all I can think of anyway.
It looks much easier to navigate than the one at the golf courses in Barnton? I came off on that one after my tyre caught on the kerb.
Posted 7 years ago # -
@frenchy - the temporary barriers had you going the other way and I commented to a fellow cyclist that, approaching from the north, that turn could get quite slippy in the wet/mild frost (we all know the dalmeny micro climate).
@Dave's point does seem more logical though!
@ACsimpson...I would have took pics this morning but left my phone charging in the upstairs bedroom grrr...at least someone beat me to it.
Posted 7 years ago # -
Thank for the details and photos. For anyone with time to spare this is my email to Cala:
I have been given your name by Barratt Homes with reference to the new shared use "Spine" path at your Dalmeny Park Development.
I have several concerns about this path primarily around the chicanes none of which appear to comply with the current guidance for the installation of chicanes. Andrew mentioned that the path had been designed in accordance with the department of transport's LTN 2/08 although he wasn't sure why this would have been used rather than the Scottish equivalent (Cycling by Design). Can you clarify if there is a reason for this.
Whichever document is used it seems that there are a number of substantial shortcomings in the design of this path, particularly regarding the three chicanes. Can you please explain your reasoning regarding the following seven points and what, if anything, you can do to remedy them.
1) Both of these documents state that access controls should only be used where there is a proven need and that bollards are the preferred method of access control. Why then have chicanes been used in a brand new installation?
2) Where a chicane is used the guidance states that the gap should be at least 3m. The southern chicane appears to be closer to 2m for no good reason. When towing a child trailer or accessible cycles it is necessary to dismount to get through the gap, given the number of parents using this path with small children and it's status as the primary cycling route north from Edinburgh can you please explain why it is so narrow?
3) The southern chicane has recently been changed to a steel barrier from the previous wooden installation. The new barriers have been swapped so that users will meet the barrier on the right first. Again this appears to be against the guidance which states that the left barrier should be met first. Is there a reason for this?
4) Currently the barriers have no reflective material on them making them hard to see during the hours of darkness. As the nights are drawing in can you please ensure that this is remedied ASAP.
5) The guidance states "Where access controls are next to a carriageway they need to be set back far enough to accommodate likely users. For example, a family group waiting for others to pass through...". Neither the middle nor northern chicanes currently comply with this guidance. This is likely to lead to cyclists waiting on the road if the chicane is not clear when they approach them. Creating an unnecessarily dangerous situation.
6) The middle of the three chicanes has a substantially greater overlap than the northern chicane, on the other side of the road. This leads cyclists away from the dropped kerb and discourages them from using the northern section of the path. Is this installed this way deliberately or do you have plans to fix this when finalising the road surface? (This wouldn't be an issue if the chicanes had been set back 5m as advised in the guidance.)
7) The outcome of having the chicane on the northern section appears to be that no cyclists use this section as they prefer to use the road as it is far more convenient. Were the cycle path to be given priority rather than the road then along with improvements to the chicanes most cyclists would remain on the path for it's full length. This could possibly be done with the installation of a zebra crossing with parallel provision for cyclists. Has this been considered or does the presence of dropped kerbs mean the plan is to leave this as an uncontrolled junction?
My other questions are regarding what appears to be another road crossing towards the southern end of the path. What plans if any have been made regarding this? The path doesn't appear to have dropped kerbs, does this mean that the path will retain priority with vehicles on the road required to give way?
Finally, I assume that the path outside the southern boundary of the site is not controlled by you. Do you know who owns/looks after this path?
Thanks for your time.
Posted 7 years ago # -
Interested to see what the response is from Cala. Thanks for chasing this up.
Posted 7 years ago # -
If anyone else would like to contact them then PM me for the email address.
Posted 7 years ago # -
Well done @acsimpson...agree with all the points. (and yes I use the road too rather than the northern bit of path).
Another point I'd noticed was the road heading out to Scotstoun Av.; the speed humps (or whatever they are called these days) extend the full width of the road. Is that normal for a new development? are they there to stay? They require you to go very slow over them but I don't know if that's because the site is still a 10mph zone until completion.
Posted 7 years ago # -
You should copy all local Councillors and the local MSP also.
If you email them soley, I expect they will ignore you in the frst instance, hoping you'll go away.
Posted 7 years ago # -
DaveC. Yes, perhaps I should have done that, too late for this one now but I have been promised a reply later this week so will see what the responses is.
Beano, you've reminded me that I forgot that end of the site entirely. I think the current speedbumps are temporary as the road surface around them doesn't match the other places yet. The planning permission shows a chicane on Scotstoun Ave just outside the site. We should also be asking them to confirm that it will have a cycle bypass. There's no shortage of space after all.
Posted 7 years ago # -
Also worth pointing out to developers (not just in this case) that some residents will be cyclists and that decent facilities might actually encourage people to think 'that would be a nice place to live'.
Posted 7 years ago #
Reply »
You must log in to post.
posts
