"Although it's certainly not a complete solution, it does look to me like an improvement which can be implemented quickly"
Does CEC do "quickly"?
What's happening about bikes on trams?
CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » Infrastructure
Road layout changes in the west end at Ryans bar? (Also Haymarket)
(764 posts)-
Posted 9 years ago #
-
So we're to be obliged (by big red signs) to cycle in a 1m-wide strip of paint between the curb and the tram track - regardless of what may be parked on the double yellows? I'm filled with hope, given the fine history that the black cab trade has for not being tempted to drop-off/wait/park/eat their lunch in this location.
Well I for one am going to feel a whole lot more safe and confident navigating my way through this mess.
The signs are my favourite feature, something for the angry driver and hackney carriage-ist to beat us over the heads with when the tram lines bring you down because a parked vehicle or dozy pedestrian suddenly changes your direction of travel.
Posted 9 years ago # -
dozy pedestrian
Agreed.
Everyone seems to have their own preferred way of negotiating Haymarket and mine is to use the extreme left lane (I like that I can take it at a slower
speed) but pedestrians often step out or walk along this bit of "cycle path".Posted 9 years ago # -
"
Lesley Hinds (@LAHinds)
06/01/2015 23:32
@CyclingEdin @Edinburgh_CC @CityCentreLeith @AndrewDBurns @SpokesLothian the plan has draft and this has been requested by cyclists"
"
SRD (@SRDorman)
06/01/2015 23:33
@LAHinds @CyclingEdin @Edinburgh_CC @CityCentreLeith @AndrewDBurns @SpokesLothian no. We asked you to make it safe."
Posted 9 years ago # -
@chdot "Quickly" = without Traffic Regulation Orders etc. It is a very relative term!!
I'm really hoping someone here will come up with a better quick (i.e. relatively quick) proposal than the council's, if there is one. Also good would be anything better than the spokes proposal for the longer term.
It's easy to pick out flaws in what is proposed; much harder to come up with short-term and longer-term alternatives that would be welcomed by a wide range of existing and potential bike users (and ideally are politically & financially feasible).
We've had one person suggesting the cycle lane be widened (which implies pavement narrowed) whilst another points out that pedestrians already spill off the pavement (which is very narrow at rush hour) onto the cycle lane! Both excellent points, but somewhat incompatible, showing the difficulty of finding something even moderately workable given the initial bad tramline layout design.
NB - To add to the cheer (and not to excuse anything) I've just seen photos of Nottingham tramline extension which look as bad or worse than Haymarket from the perspective of safe cycling :(
Posted 9 years ago # -
Is part of the problem subjective safety, and the fact that person A's perception of personal safety may - and invariably will - differ (perhaps greatly) from person B's perception of personal safety? What person A wants from infrastructure is based on differently weighted criteria from person B. The way I cycle and the confidence I have in doing so is going to be more assertive and higher than some others, and less assertive and lower than some others. I probably won't maintain the same level of fitness when I'm old and grey as I maintain now (though Mike Burrows is a good example of staying fit when you're 71).
But if cycle infra is good, we'd all want to use it because it is better than using the road. That tipping point is hard to define, and probably involves a compromise between 'making progress' and 'getting away from motorists'. Insofar as I like to make progress, I use George St rather than Princes St, not because it's necessarily faster, but because on balance it's better.
Posted 9 years ago # -
Re 'bikes on trams' - I phoned late last year and nice chap phoned me back. Alas, it is the Lothain bus policy now, folded bikes in bags only. Evans are promoting their bike to work scheme with a picture of a Brompton which just scrapes in under the £1000 max. Other folders might be cheaper?
Posted 9 years ago # -
Ddf - I find it really bizarre that you think *we* should be coming up with a better design than council professionals.
Posted 9 years ago # -
My solution might be a bit too simple (we seem to be caught between doing virtually nothing, or coming up with weirdly complex fixes in places).
Start this bus lane 200 yards earlier.
Drivers stay out of bus lanes so much more than cycle lanes (even when they're not in operation). That lane becomes a bus lane later on anyway with drivers having to get out of it, so simply move the motorised traffic right a little earlier. Can be traffic-managed very easily by slight tweaks to the stop lines and so on leading up to that point, so becomes a bus lane just before passing Haymarket,
This gives bikes a whole lane to be able to navigate the tram lines easily - and it actually improves traffic flow because you don't have the issue of cars later on having to move between lanes in moving traffic causing a concertina slowing effect back up the line (see traffic management from the preceding junctions for aligning cars properly before they hit the shuffle.
Not really rocket surgery. Safer, better traffic flow. Ayethangyew.
Posted 9 years ago # -
p.s I'm aware of the irony of that Googlemaps link showing a truck and cars parked in the bus lane just as it starts.
Posted 9 years ago # -
With the new road markings idea, I think it would be better if they didn't add the signs. That way people who cycle the junction regularly and who have their preferred route through would be less presurised by motorists who think they know better, but there is also a more obvious route through for people who are not familiar with the junction.
An even better idea would be signs saying "Drivers: allow cyclists time and space to cross tram tracks" but that's not going to happen, is it?
(Oh, and I think W.C.'s idea is better.)
Posted 9 years ago # -
I'm not really sure what else they can do, other than WC's solution, unless they are going to rip up the whole junction and start again. I really think they need to lose the signs though.
Posted 9 years ago # -
The council are just looking to reduce their liability with the signage. "We told you not to do that, so it's your own fault."
If cyclists are compelled to use the jug handle (and I think that's what's being done), then the traffic light phasing should be amended too, to make the jug handle more attractive.
But then again, I don't use this route, so what do I know?
Robert
Posted 9 years ago # -
The bus lane option would help removing the 'whilst simultaneously managing traffic' difficulty but it is hard to get a route to cross both tracks of the westbound trams at a sensible angle and staying in the left hand lane. You'd still be a taking the path down the left hand side until you were next to the station.
How about a 30 sec headstart at the lights and a wiggly path marked out on the road?
Posted 9 years ago # -
no, its not the jug handle.
Ddf - did anyone discuss taking out the pointless island?
the advance bike lights is a good idea. as long as taxis don't then speed forward to 'make up' the lost time.
were either of these considered by the council?
looks to me like they took the easiest option 'signs and paint'.
don't see why you're promoting it as a good thing.
Posted 9 years ago # -
+1 for Fimm's signage, the proposed signs would actively generate conflict IMO and should be binned immediately.
A head start at the lights would certainly be welcome.Posted 9 years ago # -
I'm not sure how anyone can defend this route. The angle crossing the second track appears to be under 30 degrees. As far as I can tell all this will serve to do is gentle hand hold inexperienced riders up to the point where their wheels disappear from under them.
How many vehicles currently pass that way on each phase of the lights? Could all traffic with 3 or more wheels be moved to the outside lane by the time of the second crossing freeing up enough road space for cyclist to cross at a safe angle without risking being mowed down?
Otherwise could a give way line and signage be added to the main carriageway at the point where cyclists are thrown back into the carriageway at the second crossing?
Posted 9 years ago # -
@DdF
1: Lose the signs, or (if they're allowed to be non-prescribed non-offical suggestion-rather-than-TRO-backed-order signs) change them to say "MOTORISTS: WIND IT IN, STICK TO YOUR LANE AND DON'T OVERTAKE ANYTHING".
2: Remove the stupid island between the jughandle and the proper lane and use some of the kerbing to segregate the corner of the stupid narrow red-surfaced lane from the left-hand lane, after widening it. This would be to try and prevent motor cars from following a 'racing line' and cutting into the cycle lane, protecting the cyclists who would otherwise be perceived to be entering a motor vehicle's space from their previously-hidden position further to the left. A side effect of the removal of the stupid island would be to remove one of the foci of pedestrian road-crossing, hopefully reducing the amound of random cross-anywhere haphazardry.
Posted 9 years ago # -
What winpig said.
Though I might ammend the wording on signage slightly ;-) Perhaps "Give way to cycles"
Posted 9 years ago # -
Oh, and double reds instead of double yellows?
Posted 9 years ago # -
"Ddf - I find it really bizarre that you think *we* should be coming up with a better design than council professionals."
Yes/no.
In an ideal world you would be able to rely on "professionals" to come with sensible, workable - even brilliant - ideas.
Doesn't seem to work (not just Edinburgh of course).
I don't know if it's worse in Edinburgh, but there seems to be a hierarchy where 'traffic engineers rool' - with help from the signals people and some extra desk-bound people saying 'nice idea, but toooo expensive'.
Of course that all trumps the desires of the people who are *supposed to* run the city - the elected councillors. You can be sure David Begg would have said 'yes, surfacing is more expensive than chips - but that's what I want. AND I want it replaced before it wears out.'
(He was, of course responsible for acres of green on the bus lanes.)
Seems the CCE crowd-design is going well -
Some 'drivers must' signs
Remove the island
Give cyclists a 30 second headstartI was going to say 'Give cyclists a 10 second headstart' - but it would be easier to reduce (if too long) rather than increase!
Additionally needs some of this -
That really is Edinburgh - near the airport.
Anyone who says 'too expensive' doesn't care about 'safety'.
Anyone who says 'it's about traffic flow' should be sacked.
Posted 9 years ago # -
the spokes proposal, with extensive segregation, is likely to slow down faster cyclists
In the Netherlands, segregated routes are made so that they are more attractive to cyclists than using the road - this includes fast cyclists. The layout is defined and the traffic lights are timed such that there is no speed advantage to cycling on the road.
Let's stop designing our own junk and follow best practice from those that know.
Posted 9 years ago # -
What edd1e_h said. It needs to be segregated so that folk can negotiate it in their own time. In European cities where they take cycling seriously there are tram tracks everywhere, but there aren't any (many) incidents when there's proper segregation because people don't feel hounded to cross at inappropriate angles because they're away from traffic.
IT'S NOT ABOUT 'FAST' CYCLISTS! Who cares if they're mildly inconvenienced. It's about normal folk on bikes who'd probably cycle a bit more if they didn't go A over T thanks to the nonsense of Haymarket.
Posted 9 years ago # -
Agree with edd1e and harts - this is definitely one where 'muddling through' is not good enough.
Posted 9 years ago # -
All this stuff about traffic regulation orders taking ages is nonsense. The Council could use an experimental traffic regulation order (as used in George Street) to reallocate road or pavement space to cyclists at this junction in a matter of weeks.
I reckon a version of the SPOKES proposal could be done with paint (mandatory cycle lanes on Haymarket/Clifton Terrace) and the upgrade of a couple of crossings to toucans. All it would take is a bit of political will and a bit of imagination.
Posted 9 years ago # -
If I was tweaking that new design (clearly, purely as a stop gap measure before the Roseburn to Leith Walk cycle link blasts a swathe of wide, segregated cyclepath all the way through here...) I'd do this:
As per Wingpig, remove that island (it's unnecessary if we're putting this new lane in) and straighten the proposed cyclelane so it's away from the tramtrack and the proposed swing out of the jug handle is less pronounced.
Segregate the cyclelane, whether by a kerb or bollards, all the way along Haymarket Terrace. A gap in the segregation as it goes over the tram tracks (assuming the trams can't run over any sort of barrier), but segregation continues as soon as you're over the tracks (at least until the road straightens) to protect cycles from cars encroaching as cycles rejoin the main carriageway. Stick a whopping great bollard there just to make sure. If the current lanes are not wide enough for that then shift the westbound ones north a little by removing the (currently wasted) hashed tarmac between eastbound and westbound carriageways. Maybe reduce the footprint of the traffic light island there if necessary. If that means cars have to take more care around the traffic light there, then that's a good thing, isn't it?
Stick something (anything?) rough and sandpapery on the tracks at the crossing point to try to provide some sort of grip there.
As for the signs? There's going to be enough crap for people (drivers, cyclists and peds) to look out for and worry about at that junction without giving them a three line textbox to read...
Posted 9 years ago # -
@PS, I'd agree segregation at least until the tracks have been crossed is the only way I can see to have cyclists crossing at a sensible angle while not dodging traffic.
Posted 9 years ago # -
I traverse this junction regularly and only feel comfortable taking the offside (right most) lane.
Invariably I'm coming from Torphichen Place and always hit a red light at the bottom of Morrison Street. From a stationary start, the vast majority of motor vehicles give me time to negotiate the first set of tracks. The second set is fairly easy by comparison and needs less manoeuvring and can be taken a lot quicker. The only issue I've had is the odd impatient driver who after undertaking me, nips in ahead of me again a wee bit too early.
I've never been comfortable with the nearside lane, and was once almost squished exiting the "jug handle" by a coop articulated lorry who veered left into the "cycle lane" to squeeze by a taxi waiting to right/U turn at the junction with Roseberry Crescent.
improvements to this junction would be very welcome.
Forcing cyclists to use the jug handle is not IMHO an improvement. It's a cheap, and very nasty cop out by a council that doesn't care a single jot about the safety of cyclists.
Posted 9 years ago # -
Just seen this - I can't quite believe the proposed signs. Just as Bikeability does I take the rightmost lane as it's in my opinion the route where you have the most control over your line - taking the left and you risk pedestrians and bad parking etc... As Arrellcat points out the real problem here is negotiating the impatient drivers at the same time as negotiating the junction itself. What I would really appreciate is big signs saying that Cyclists may take the entire lane and not to attempt overtaking or undertaking them just as wingpig suggests - the proposal to command cyclists to stay in their lane is a massive kick in the teeth if you ask me. I cannot see how this in interpreted positively.
I like WC's bus lane suggestion - I was thinking something similar, and I agree with PS's implementation suggestions.
I do think, however, the asymptotic convergence of the tramtrack to the road is a problem which is unsurmountable no matter how many plasters we stick over it. I know this proposal is about a quick fix - but I worry that quick fixes end up as accepted permanent fixes through planning inertia.
If we really want to encourage cycling, then surely we need to be investing the same amounts of money as we do in motorway and tram infrastructure.... I would like to see a bridge over this entire junction for cyclists - the geometry of the tram lines seems entirely incongruous with making cyclists, pedestrians, drivers and trams share the lines. But then when putting a tram line down to Edinburgh park they didn't think to extend the bridges to incorporate the cycle lane so obviously that's a vain wish..
Posted 9 years ago # -
This is crap and introduces new hazards my 2 votes are 1) heading West from Atoll Place - use West Maitland Street eliminates sub optimal rail crossing angles and uses route with professional drivers all travelling in same direction at roughly similar speeds. 2) right hand lane from Morrison Street which provides safer crossing angles which minimise the potential of having the tyre contact patch solely in contact with the tram rail head WITH side forces on the contact patch arising from carrying out a turning manoeuvre as the tyres cross the rail.
Note here on quality of the installation of tram rails across Edinburgh IF THE TRACK AT THIS LOCATION HAD BEEN INSTALLED TO THE STANDARDS SPECIFIED BY ORR DESIGN GUIDANCE AND ACHIEVED BY RECENTLY COMPLETED TRAM ROUTES IN BLACKPOOL AND MANCHESTER THE FLATNESS PROFILE WOULD DELIVER A RAIL HEAD 2MM BELOW THE ABUTTING CONCRETE WHICH WOULD THEN BE FLUSH WITH TARMAC SURFACE WHICH MATES WITH THE CONCRETE. This arrangement significantly improves the ability to keep the tyre contact patch (approx 120mm long) on a high-friction surface either side of the rail surfaces and eliminates the potential of the tyre being lifted up clear of the high friction surfaces either side by a 'high' rail profile.
Manchester's latest extension to the airport, delivered 12 months ahead of schedule, within budget, and funded entirely by the city, has seen the contractor MPT consistently delivering the final concrete screed at +2mm above the rail top surface. The final (third pour) screed has a more expensive graded roadstone in the mix, and at 24hours the green concrete is pressure jetted to deliver the optimum friction for the road surfaces either side of the rails.
The case of Roe vs Sheffield Supertram and others sees Sheffield assiduously monitoring this transverse profile, and taking action when the rail head is more than 3mm above the abutting road surfaces, on the existing track (Roe is a car driver who received life-changing injuries when the tyres of his car were lifted clear of the road by the tram rails). Observations and scaled measurements noted for Edinburgh's tram tracks suggest that the serious hazard of rail surfaces higher than road surfaces may be widely present.
Analysing the route being proposed for cyclists with regard to making a turning manoeuvre as the cyclist crosses the rails, I see that the proposals have cyclists 'confined' in a 1.0m wide lane (see later notes), and for both Westbound and Eastbound tracks the cyclists are required to be turning as they cross the rails. for the Westbound track this is a severe reverse curve, turning first right and then left. The dire transvers flatness profile of the rails (I have photos but no time to set up for this forum) in the road with sunken flexible gap filler, which does not seem to have had any friction grit, and 'flush finish' specified (as has been done for Nottingham and other systems) suggests that this arrangement may well deliver no reduction and potentially an increase in the number of falls.
A dimension of 1.0m is given for the extracted detail for the cycle lane width - this is totally inadequate as it is a) at least 0.5m narrower than the recommended standard and b) on a significant cycling corridor where a width of 2.0m is appropriate for the volume of cycle traffic. It is well noted that the DKE of a cyclist moving even at low speed is at least 90cm and cyclist speeds of 15-25mph are common on main commuting corridors such as the A8 - this lane is totally not fit for purpose in this respect.
Looking at the full plan I suggest that a visit is needed at a quiet time of day, armed with a tape measure straightedge and camera, as the detail illustrated on the drawing scaled against the traffic lanes shown (3.0m?), and photographs suggest that 1.0m is an optimistic view of what may be delivered. The cycle lane is also almost totally overlaid by the DKE of the tram (see pictures) and it is not clear whether these required markings are in place - basically you cannot have cyclist and tram present at the same time.
18.19 Tramcars are significantly wider than the
tracks on which they run, and the overhang increases
on curves. This “swept path” (which is the developed
kinematic envelope plus a safety margin, typically
300 mm) may be indicated by the use of colour,
texture or differences in level. It may also be shown
using road markings to either diagram 1010 or 1066.
The size of the safety margin should be agreed with
the Railway Inspectorate. The swept path should be
shown where it is not apparent from the carriageway
or kerbs. Where there is on-street parking, it is
essential that the swept path is visible to ensure that
vehicles are not left in a position to obstruct trams.A further confirmation of this job filled with compromise is the specification of a Diagram 1057 marking 750mm wide which has to fit on to the nominal 1000mm wide cycle lane that loses 300mm on the nearside to paint the yellow lines. Do the sums and you'll see that we have that classic of a cycle lane so narrow that you cannot fit the diagram 1057 logo into it, and you cannot paint it on to the tram rail.... You cannot also paint on the polymer seal which directly sits between the concrete and the rail, and the detailing on this drawing appears to require the application of a chamfered edge to the surfacing which is to finish 20mm short of the (sunken) sealing strip, which in Nottingham was specified and installed with the addition of roadstone grit to improve its friction coefficient, and in such a way that it did not settle or shrink to produce a second hazardous 'groove' to trap or deflect cycle tyres. This has not been done for the sealing system used in Edinburgh as far as I can see, and the quality of pouring at some places (eg St Andrew Square) has left deep voids where the polymer sealant has not been poured to fill the gap to the top.
To deliver this cycle lane the yellow lines have been specified to a reduced standard 50mm width instead of the TSRGD specified 75mm (for a road with speed limit of up to 40mph), with no additional note on detail to avoid the known hazards of thermoplastic line markings thickness <3mm - and addition of non-skid filler) The coloured surfacing spec should also include the same spec and @arellcat has noted other locations where excess thickness of coloured surfacing has created a ridge hazard capable of bringing down a cyclist. I do note that a chamfered finish is called for on the edge detailing alongside the tram rails but it is not clear if this applies where the cycle lane is not confined by the nearside tram rail.
That ridge hazard where surface flatness falls outside the specified tolerance for a carriageway surface (and the 6mm maximum for a dropped kerb) also exists where the concrete side detailing and seal slot abutting the tarmac extend 345mm from the edge of the coloured lane markings in to the cycle lane - putting this potential hazard of a ridge that can deflect a cycle tyre off-course right in the middle of where a cyclist will be told to ride. There is nothing in this design which requires any mitigation for the lack of flatness in the transverse profile of the road surface. The kerb edging and blockwork of the Haymarket taxi/set down lay-by also appear to extend into the cycle lane width at the West end.
The cycle lane also puts cyclists in a very direct conflict of route with the many buses pulling in at the bus stops at Haymarket Station, at a point where the cyclists' concentration is very likely to be focussed on safely crossing the Northernmost tram rail at a decreasing angle with both the course of the cycle and tram rail progressively curving to reduce the angle of crossing.
Tape measures, cameras, and some testing rides along the proposed alignment anyone?
Scaling from the May 2014 Google Streetview photos suggests that 1.0m is possibly not quite delivered at some points (distance from kerb to outer yellow line = 225mm, distance from rail edge to edge of concrete = 365mm Width between rail inside edges = 1435 mm (between inside faces of keepers approx 1300mm))
Posted 9 years ago #
Reply »
You must log in to post.
posts
