CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » General Edinburgh

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

(177 posts)

No tags yet.


  1. bax
    Member

    dalmeny chicanes gaps are way too tight and are unhelpful to negotiate uphill but when you add smartphone distracted pedestrians and/or untethered wayward dogs / toddlers in the mix, as is often the case, its beyond a joke

    Posted 9 months ago #
  2. acsimpson
    Member

    Judging by the state of the grass/hedge either side of the barriers (being non compliant I'm going to stop calling them chicanes) plenty cyclists have discovered it's less convenient to ignore the non-path for that stretch.

    Posted 9 months ago #
  3. chdot
    Admin

    The development will include footpaths and cycle routes that connect to South Queensferry itself, and there will be a provision of 25 per cent affordable homes.

    https://www.edinburghnews.scotsman.com/news/politics/plans-for-nearly-350-south-queensferry-new-builds-granted-1-4714013

    Posted 8 months ago #
  4. fiefster
    Member

    @acsimpson, a while back you posted a response from Cala about the plethora of chicanes on the cycle path:

    "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."

    The building work at this part of the site now seems pretty much to be finished. As promised, can we expect Cala to now remove these "barriers"? Although they do have an air of permanence about them.

    Posted 8 months ago #
  5. acsimpson
    Member

    Hi fiefster,
    I emailed Dennis again at the end of March to ask about progress but haven't yet had a response. I've just send him a little chaser so will report back when I hear anything.

    Did someone mention they have a cordless angle grinder?

    Posted 8 months ago #
  6. fiefster
    Member

    As the ground gets drier I think the detours over the grass will be getting used more often to bypass the chicanes!

    Posted 7 months ago #
  7. Klaxon
    Member

    Cala, providing someone regularly nips their ears, have been good on Brunswick Road at doing what they said they would.

    Posted 7 months ago #
  8. chdot
    Admin

  9. HankChief
    Member

    I feel an FOI coming on to see what CEC consented to...

    Also, the RCC refers to Edinburgh Streets Design Guidance which can out last year. I don't recall much discussion on here about them, but maybe I missed it. Looks alright (if adhered to)

    http://www.edinburgh.gov.uk/info/20089/roads_and_pavements/906/edinburgh_street_design

    Posted 5 months ago #
  10. Morningsider
    Member

    The details are all set out in documents included in the Application for Approval of Matters specified in conditions of planning application 11/00995/PPP. Use reference number
    13/03310/AMC in the Council's planning portal.

    There are two documents of interest - the Design and Access Statement and a Cycleway longitudinal section. Neither of these show any chicanes

    Posted 5 months ago #
  11. deckard112
    Member

    First commute back from holiday today and note they've surfaced the roads in the scheme now (good) but relocated the first barrier heading East rather than remove it (bad). Better than where it was given the kerb didn't line up with the access but they make no sense whatsoever.

    Posted 5 months ago #
  12. Blueth
    Member

    Deleted

    Posted 5 months ago #
  13. Blueth
    Member

    I've always had the feeling going through there that the layout of the (modern design, latest psychology) scheme is designed to encourage motorists to drive slowly. That being so, if they insist on having physically enforced chicanes for safety reasons should not they be on the road rather than the cycle path.

    Posted 5 months ago #
  14. biggles1982
    Member

    First commute in over a week and I noticed the resurfacing and relocation of the chicane. Interesting that unless you join the path at the pavement before entering the estate there is now a strange kerb which you cross over before joining the path heading south. Does anybody else spend more time concentrating on negotiating the chicanes than what traffic is coming? kind of defeats the purpose of them.

    Posted 5 months ago #
  15. bax
    Member

    is the resurfacing at agilent finished?

    i had a bit of a barney with the contractors a week ago, and have changed my route since to avoid further argy bargy as i know full well i just wouldn't have backed down

    in other news the digital counters are up and running on FRB today, it seems

    Posted 5 months ago #
  16. bax
    Member

    checked out this chicane resit at the agilent anti-cycling zone

    they've engineered conflict by funneling all forms of path users narrowly through numerous chicanes

    and now by moving back the chicane nearest the road, have created a rectangular box area between the chicane and road that is perfect for loitering and chatting

    eg dog walkers, pram pushers, mobile phone enthusiasts, schoolkids

    this mixed demographic generally doesn't have much interest in accommodating the progress of cyclists

    and realistically there's no reason why they should

    Posted 5 months ago #
  17. acsimpson
    Member

    I haven't seen it yet. But it sounds like the space in the cycling by design guide which allows family groups to ensure they are together before proceeding to cross the road.

    Posted 5 months ago #
  18. bax
    Member

    by jove ac, that sounds likely and reasonable to boot

    if only cycling had a separate channel

    Posted 5 months ago #
  19. HankChief
    Member

    Cycling by Design 6.5 is Access controls (Chicanes & Bollards)

    Posted 5 months ago #
  20. Blueth
    Member

    6.5 Access controls on cycle routes should be avoided wherever possible, and only used where there is a proven requirement.

    Has the requirement been proven here, or at many other places for that matter?

    Posted 5 months ago #
  21. HankChief
    Member

    FOI response on the approvals for the chicanes

    http://www.edinburgh.gov.uk/site/custom_scripts/proxy.php?file=/documents/19755/19755%20Response.pdf

    Attachments

    http://www.edinburgh.gov.uk/site/custom_scripts/proxy.php?file=/documents/19755/19755%20Information.zip

    From Road Safety Audit

    "Where long straight cycleways are provided and then cross a carriageway there can be an increased potential for vehicle/cycle conflict.

    It is noted that at present the footway/cycleway is provided with a chicane barrier arrangement where it ties into Packard Street. This would appear to be an effective measure to highlight the presence of a crossing point and slowing down cyclists at the bend in the road at this point.

    The proposals appear to imply the chicane barrier will be removed and replaced with road markings.

    It is understood that the council tend to prefer that barriers on cycle routes are excluded from designs where possible.

    The road safety concern is that, especially in wet and night time conditions, the proposed road markings can lose their conspicuity.

    Cyclists and indeed pedestrians who are not paying full attention to their route can then cross the live carriageway without due care and attention."

    I also note that this is all referring to the chicanes nearest the bus turning and not the ones further South

    Posted 3 months ago #
  22. neddie
    Member

    The entire language in the "Road Safety Audit" above smacks of cyclists and pedestrians being second-class citizens.

    Where are the chicanes & raised tables to slow cars? Why should pedestrians & cycles give way?

    "live carriageway" As opposed to "dead cycleway"? Yes folks, cars make things 'live'.

    How's about a live cycle- and footway and a dead carriageway?

    Posted 3 months ago #
  23. neddie
    Member

    "Where long straight roads are provided and then cross a cycleway there can be an increased potential for vehicle/cycle conflict.

    It is noted that at present the road is provided with a chicane barrier arrangement where it ties into Packard Street. This would appear to be an effective measure to highlight the presence of a crossing point and slowing down motorists at the bend in the road at this point.

    The proposals appear to imply the chicane barrier will be removed and replaced with road markings.

    It is understood that the council tend to prefer that barriers on cycle routes are excluded from designs where possible.

    The road safety concern is that, especially in wet and night time conditions, the proposed road markings can lose their conspicuity and drivers cannot be expected to look for them when they have important text messages to send re: their cat.

    Motorists who are not paying full attention to their route can then cross the cycleway without due care and attention."

    FTFY, Mr/Ms Road Safety Audit

    Posted 3 months ago #
  24. 14Westfield
    Member

    I would also add that the crossing near the bus stop has been changed from a give way coming out of the housing to an inlane turn.

    Now the drivists has speed merrily through with no need to slow down for all the plebs who hare held behind the barriers..

    PS I have still never seen a car use the lower access road, it is overwhelming used by cyclists and walkers - as the mass of desire lines around the obstructions demonstrate!

    Posted 3 months ago #
  25. Beano
    Member

    'duff' scheme right enough. I'm by no means up to speed with the right way to lay out a new development but as a cyclist who often travels through here i must admit my thoughts have always been that they have designed this 100% for the car driver and given very little consideration to the ped/cyclist.

    coming from fife - if you are on the road, have a car behind you and want to head along the cycle path to dalmeny you have to do a daft "i'm turning right" signal and sit there before the corner whilst the cars coming in the other direction cut the corner and the driver behind you looks perplexed.

    also...at the barriers at the dalmeny end..why couldn't they have stop or give way signs to the drivers? The road appears to only serve a dozen or so houses; i can't understand why they didnt halt/stop/give way the drivers and give priority to the pedestrians.

    Don't get me started on going from the cycle path (South-North) to Inverkeithing at Ferrytoll...just down-right dangerous!!

    Posted 3 months ago #
  26. HankChief
    Member

    https://twitter.com/CALAHOMES/status/1032541826765529089?s=19

    "Hi there, our team is making touch with someone who has made the same complaint to clarify. If you would like to PM us your concerns and contact details, I can request they also reach out to you? Many thanks, CALA Homes"

    Posted 3 months ago #
  27. Frenchy
    Member

    I am that someone. Update soon, hopefully.

    Posted 3 months ago #
  28. Frenchy
    Member

    Unordered answers to various questions:

    The Cala person I spoke to says the council asked for the barriers to be put in, and will have specified the positions and layouts.

    Some of the barriers were repositioned in July, and should now be compliant. I haven't been through since then - can anyone confirm?

    A road safety audit is happening in the next couple of weeks, as part of the council's process for adopting the roads. This will look at the possibility of removing the barriers.

    The person I spoke to had concerns about cyclists crossing the roads, especially now that buses are using the turning circle. They think two of the barriers should be removed, but that the other four should remain. The two they think could be removed are those connecting towards the David Wilson site (the two furthest south, then?).

    Posted 3 months ago #
  29. acsimpson
    Member

    As far as I am aware there are only 5 barriers although I haven't ventured further north than Scotstoun Avenue.

    The barriers nearest the bus turning circle were indeed moved in July and are now closer to being compliant with cycling by design.

    Cala repeatedly assured me that the road at the southern end of the site would not have barriers and that the ones which are installed are only a temporary measure. Although they have been ignoring me since February.

    This road is not on the main route to any houses so only used to get from one side of the site to the other (eg bin lorries). This traffic is tiny in relation to people using the north south path so any control should be placed firmly on the road. The state of the grass around the barriers also suggests they are being routinely bypassed.

    As an aside which I don't have the time to argue with the council/cala NCN1 to the North of Packard Way is useless. It crosses a side street with all the elegance of a coiled spring. Forcing you to slow to an almost stop while looking for approaching traffic over your shoulder. This would have been a prime candidate for a Copenhagen junction but instead would simply serve to create conflict if it wasn't so effective at encouraging cyclists to use the road.

    Posted 3 months ago #
  30. acsimpson
    Member

    Also:

    "The Cala person I spoke to says the council asked for the barriers to be put in, and will have specified the positions and layouts."

    Someone isn't telling the whole truth (or perhaps none at all). Hankchief's FoI clearly stated that the council has only approved the two barriers at the bus turning circle.

    Posted 3 months ago #

RSS feed for this topic

Reply »

You must log in to post.


Video embedded using Easy Video Embed plugin