CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » General Edinburgh

"duff scheme with poor pedestrian and cycle provision" South Queensferry

(114 posts)

No tags yet.


  1. acsimpson
    Member

    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

    Posted 6 months ago #
  2. DrAfternoon
    Member

    The south chicane in particular has clearly had very little thought put into it. The 90 degree turn already forced sensible slowing down. I'd argue in fact that the chicane makes it more dangerous, switching you from a state of slowing down to accelerating when you're on the actual danger spot.

    It would also be very easy to improve the sight lines by chopping a few bushes.

    Posted 6 months ago #
  3. dougal
    Member

    "although the point of the barriers is to slow pedestrians and cycles at these junctions"

    I hadn't realised speeding pedestrians was such a problem!

    Posted 6 months ago #
  4. Arellcat
    Moderator

    I think it would be helpful if Cala shared their copy of LTN 2/08 "Cycle Infrastructure Design".

    Posted 6 months ago #
  5. chdot
    Admin

    You suggesting it's got pages missing??

    Posted 6 months ago #
  6. Arellcat
    Moderator

    Not missing per se, but curious about the dimensioning they quote.

    Posted 6 months ago #
  7. Morningsider
    Member

    LTN 2/08: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/cycle-infrastructure-design-ltn-208

    Probably the relevant section:

    8.15.5 If staggered (chicane) barriers are used, the
    arrangement should be designed to slow cyclists
    rather than force them to dismount (see Figure 8.10).
    Chicane layouts should provide gaps of at least 1.5
    metres between barriers and walls, and at least the
    same distance between barriers. Tandems, tricycles
    and child trailers require at least 2 metres between
    consecutive barriers.

    Posted 6 months ago #
  8. Frenchy
    Member

    Notably, Cycling by Design says there should be a 3m gap, I think.

    Posted 6 months ago #
  9. biggles1982
    Member

    Cycled through here this morning and there's now two new chicanes to negotiate at the road at the mid-point on the slope down towards the railway path. That's 5 chicanes which now need to be negotiated from the previous situation of not having to go through any.

    You can cycle on the grass around one of them. I think I may adopt this approach to see if they get the hint. I expect this will be met with a large obstacle being put in place to ensure the chicane is used.

    Posted 6 days ago #
  10. Frenchy
    Member

    @biggles - I'm struggling to picture where the new barriers are. Are they on the new path between Main Street and Scotstoun Avenue?

    Posted 6 days ago #
  11. Beano
    Member

    "The south chicane in particular has clearly had very little thought put into it. The 90 degree turn already forced sensible slowing down. I'd argue in fact that the chicane makes it more dangerous, switching you from a state of slowing down to accelerating when you're on the actual danger spot."

    Last week, due to having to go round the fenced-off hole that has been there for what seems like forever, i hit the deck going round this corner when my front wheel got caught in damaged paving between the path and the temporary surface installed (due to the hole)

    no damage done but i now go around the corner a completely different way than i used to!

    Posted 6 days ago #
  12. Beano
    Member

    @frenchy - Yes the new barriers are on the south side of the new housing scheme path joining main st and scotstoun Av.

    they are at the point where cars will be driving to access the properties that face the path going to dalmeny (i.e. to main street).

    Posted 6 days ago #
  13. acsimpson
    Member

    I've resisted putting his email address here previously but as it appear that Dennis Swanson of Cala homes is not a man of his word (see my message at the top of page 4 of this thread). He clearly stated:
    The path will have priority at this crossing, which will have considerably less vehicular traffic than the crossing at the northern chicane
    If anyone else would like to join me in emailing him then please fell free to use his address which I am no longer refraining from publishing: Dennis.Swanson@cala.co.uk

    I haven't yet had the displeasure of seeing the chicanes myself but think I may drop him a missive tonight anyway.

    I have also previously emailed the active travel team about this but suspect it may be better to take some photos first. I'll not be passing for a few days so could someone please take some for me.

    Does anyone know if the active travel team have any say in when/if roads are adopted. Presumably the council shouldn't be adopting non compliant cycle paths and I suspect that this path now has at least 6 non compliant chicanes on it.

    @Beano, sorry to hear you came off I also nearly did so and meant to email them. I'll be adding this to my email to Dennis to ensure that they cannot use a defence of ignorance should anyone hurt themselves or their bike at this negligently maintained stretch.

    Posted 6 days ago #
  14. acsimpson
    Member

    On second thoughts I have copied the active travel team into my email to Dennis. If anyone can take pictures though then I will forward them on.

    Posted 6 days ago #
  15. bax
    Member

    so you say there are FIVE chicanes now ?!

    when one single toucan/zebra crossing at the road junction would have done the job ?

    don't understand these conflict-engineered chicanes that concentrate peds and cyclist together into a narrow funnel

    especially when the peds on this route are often chaperoning several young children or merely focusing on smartphones while fido meanders along unleashed

    or sometimes doing both at once..

    Posted 5 days ago #
  16. BurntOut
    Member

    Sorry acsimpson, not on the bike again until next week, but I'll take some pics then if no one beats me to it.

    It's deeply frustrating but sadly completely expected that there are five chicanes for cyclists and pedestrians (three in the space of about 20m) but not a single measure to slow down cars. Apart from a few signs, of course.

    Posted 4 days ago #
  17. acsimpson
    Member

    Cala have replied (quite quickly) with some good new re the temporary chicanes, see the second paragraph:

    "I was on site this morning to check the temporary tarmac joint – it looks like because of the restricted exit between the protective temporary Heras fencing and the sign post, cyclists may be over shooting the side of the path while negotiating this corner, and this may have contributed to broken the edge of the tarmac. I don’t mean to be flippant but this this might explain why the groove is the width of a cycle tyre as you noted . In any case, we will ensure that this area of tarmac will be repaired at the same time as the final layer of tarmac is laid over the water valve which is currently in progress. However these works are being carried out by David Wilson (Barratt) and perhaps Andrew Rule/Martin Eaglesham could assist with timescales on this.

    The barriers placed across the cycleway at the southern road crossing are a temporary measure. These have been put in place as a safety measure while we are installing the monobloc surface to our main road out of this phase. While these works are on going our clients have to access their properties from the Barratt side and so there will be increased traffic across the cycleway while these topping off works are completed. These works will be taking place over the next 2/3 months as we complete this phase of the site. It is our intention to remove the barriers thereafter."

    If bikes are responsible for causing the tyre grabber then it must be some of the worst installed tarmac available. 'll contact Barratt and ask them about their plans to re-instate/fix the detour.

    Posted 3 days ago #
  18. rider73
    Member

    nice work @acsimpson

    Posted 3 days ago #
  19. Rob
    Member

    "These have been put in place as a safety measure ... there will be increased traffic across the cycleway while these topping off works are completed."

    Why isn't the chicane across the road?

    Posted 3 days ago #
  20. HankChief
    Member

    Pictures on Twitter

    (Sorry don't know how to easily embed photos from other media sources - can do Flickr but not from my phone)

    Posted 3 days ago #
  21. Frenchy
    Member

    Don't look Cycling by Design compliant, either.

    Posted 2 days ago #
  22. acsimpson
    Member

    Don't look Cycling by Design compliant, either.

    as per the other four which I have seen on site.

    I didn't do a detailed assessment this morning as I was too busy admiring the desire line forming on the recently laid turf on either side. I'm pretty sure the barriers are too close together and they are too close to the road they are suppose to be protecting.

    Given that two of the other barriers on site were installed with wooden barriers in advance of metal ones replacing them I'm a little concerned about the permanent appearance of these barriers. I think we'll need to ensure we closely monitor this and as soon as the road through the site is open start pushing for their removal.

    Posted 2 days ago #
  23. chdot
    Admin

    Does anyone know if all barriers are on developer owned land?

    If so will ownership/responsibility pass to (all) owners or CEC or?

    Posted 2 days ago #
  24. acsimpson
    Member

    The barriers are within the boundary of the HP site and therefore I assumed owned by the developers currently.

    I don't know whether the spine path will be adopted along with the roads. The answer may lie in the planning permission but I don't have time to dig just now.

    Alternatively the project manager (details up thread) may be able to help answer your question.

    Posted 2 days ago #

RSS feed for this topic

Reply

You must log in to post.


Video embedded using Easy Video Embed plugin