I have posted this in the Cramond Brig Chicane thread but it is more relevant here. This is the response which I finally got from Cala in October. It varies from yes we didn't really think it through to we couldn't care less. Plain text is my email and underlines are the response.
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.
Our Consultant engineer confirmed that LTN 2/08 was used in consultation with Chris Brace who was the Council Cycling Officer at the time and who agreed the overall design.
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? The two chicanes adjacent to the bus turning area were deemed to be necessary because this was likely to be a busy junction shared by pedestrians/vehicles and cyclists. The junction at the south end of the cycleway was also considered to be a potential danger spot where the two paths meet and where sight lines are restrictive.
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? Our Consultant engineer has confirmed that the spacing’s noted on the design drawing comply or are greater than that specified in LTN 2/08 “Cycle Infrastructure Design”.
3) The southern chicane has recently been changed to a steel barrier from the previous wooden installation. The timber barriers were only ever intended as a temporary arrangement 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? I have not been able to establish why this is other than the fact that there is no specific delineation separating cycles /pedestrians so either sides could be used cycles or pedestrians..
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. I am sure we can arrange to have reflective tape put on the barriers , however both sets of barriers are located directly beneath lamp posts which should assist
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.
Our Consultant engineer has confirmed the guidance notes do suggest bollards and barriers should be 5m from kerb edge but that is only a suggestion and that there is 5m clearance from the back barrier and the kerb edge.
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. See response to 5 above ) We will review the dropped kerb arrangement in advance of the final surfacing with a view to ensuring it won’t unduly impede or misdirect cyclists, although the point of the barriers is to slow pedestrians and cycles at these junctions.
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. Noted – we witness cyclists on a regular basis using the road at the northern end rather than the cycleway. 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? The crossing was designed and approved as an uncontrolled junction and there are no plans at present for zebra etc crossing at this location.
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? The path will have priority at this crossing, which will have considerably less vehicular traffic than the crossing at the northern chicane ,
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? This path is a public right of way and is owned by Lord Rosebery