@chdot That was me and Wingpig behind the 'almost slip' there.
CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » Infrastructure
Road layout changes in the west end at Ryans bar? (Also Haymarket)
(764 posts)-
Posted 11 years ago #
-
Ah ha!
Posted 11 years ago # -
Thanks for the videos folks. The angles to cross the tracks there are insane, quite frankly. Serious incident? Matter of time.
Posted 11 years ago # -
This morning's variation on the Haymarket ASL was one taxi stopped before it in the usual place, and another taxi stopped also not in the ASL but completely blocking the cycle lane access. I actually had time to take a photo, but thought I didn't, so no photo this time.
Agreed, thank you for the videos. How long did that take you, cycling up & down?
Posted 11 years ago # -
Thanks for the videos, wingpig and chdot.
Posted 11 years ago # -
Yes thanks for the videos chdot and Wingpig, wingpig you must have been there all afternoon!
Posted 11 years ago # -
Pleased to report that Rosebery Crescent pointless and unnecessary one way signs have gone this morning, back to 2 way, though do take care crossing Palmerston Place if using this route as traffic has started haring it up and down there since the lights have been turned off... And similarly take care westbound at Melville St/Manor Place junction as many drivers zipping up and down Manor Place are still using BOTH sides of the road BOTH ways as noted this morning... RJ
Posted 11 years ago # -
Took the "diversion" route of Rosebery Cres/Grosvenor Cres/Palmerston Place to get to Torphicen today. Definitely quicker and easier as you can cross the tracks at 90 and avoid most of the lights at Haymarket.
Although I didn't realise they've taken the lights away at the end of Grosvenor Cres, so need to do a right turn across on to Palmerston.
Now just got to find a better way through westbound.....
Posted 11 years ago # -
"you must have been there all afternoon"
"How long did that take you, cycling up & down?"
The first loop took a little longer than ten minutes as I went through Haymarket Yards and stopped just before the Roseburn access slope to help TFP and slippy-colleague direct some tourists to Murieston Crescent from Balbirnie Place and then returned via West Coates, whereas I went up Rosebery Crescent after the second pass. The clips have been trimmed a bit so the creation timestamps in the filenames aren't necessarily the times when I reached the end of Morrison Street.Posted 11 years ago # -
This seems to be an illegal right turn -
But it can't really be an unexpected/unreasonable move for taxis leaving Haymarket Station. Better than a U turn(?)
Dropping off man with guide dogDoesn't seem too unreasonable to temporarily occupy ASL box on this occasion BUT there doesn't seem to be any normal drop-off(?)
6 taxis fit - without blocking the cycle lane - but how is this going to be ensured??
9 taxis - one waiting at red in ASL
Choices (no-one using loop lane on left)
More people arrive on foot than by bike or taxi
Think car on right must have been waiting for someone - no-one got out!
Posted 11 years ago # -
There have been a few comments about Spokes and tramlines, so to clarify...
a. Spokes has a lot less influence on the tram project than some people seem to think!
b. Most of the problems arise because the tramline layout was decided with a 'one track' approach years ago [??] 2008, i.e. deciding the tramline layout first and leaving until later the question of how cycling, walking, buses etc would be integrated. Instead of a holistic design taking all into account at the outset, as would be the case in many European designs.
c. We argued very very strongly against this at the time, even bringing over a Dutch cycle/tram expert (and persuading TIE to pay part of the cost) who did the report for us which is on our tram pages...
[bottom of section 2]. All of its significant recommendations were rejected by the tram designers.d. The non-holistic approach basically happened because the council wanted the tram to happen and it was very uncertain whether they would get the necessary government funding. Therefore the tram project got 100% priority over everything else at that time, and the tramline layout became fixed in stone - or should that be concrete ;)
e. There was a further problem in that after the tram contract was renegotiated by the new council it became virtually impossible for changes to be made to any other aspect of the plans either, until after the contract is complete and the system handed over to the council by the contractors, because of big penalty clauses. [This is part of the reason why tram construction has run more smoothly since then!]
e. Once the tramline layout was decided, Spokes then had the choice of giving up or of doing the best we could to try and ensure the problems were reduced as far as possible. So we attended consultation meetings. Of course the basic problems remain, but we have had some small achievements. Most of these are NOT PERFECT - but they are better than what would otherwise have happened. Those where we had a significant impact (some of which involved a huge amount of effort) include...
i. Getting traffic lanes reduced from 2 to 1 where Mound crosses Princes St, to allow cycle lanes.
ii. Removal of cobbles at the Princes St tram stop (and preventing them at others)
iii. Trial of bike carriage agreed (first in UK)
iv. Provision of the 'jug handle' at Haymarket (note - we were not consulted on the design at all - we just argued this was a really dangerous place for crossing the tramlines, and a jug-handle would help give a better angle).
v. A left turn at foot of Mound. Its design is a big compromise, but they are monitoring it apparently. Once they get something they are happy with they will consider left turns at foot of Lothian Rd and at Dalry Rd.Were changes like this worth the effort, or would it have been better to throw up hands in disgust and let everything proceed without even the ameliorations like above?
A related comment is that the tram people can say that 'Spokes agreed' so we are somehow endorsing them. On the few occasions they have tried to imply this we have made the position clear, that we are trying to get the best of a bad job, not agreeing that everything is perfect. e.g see page 7 of Spokes 107.
Posted 11 years ago # -
A jug-handle in isolation (or segregation) would probably have been OK, but it's the plus-taxi-rank aspect of the current implementation which is the biggest problem.
Posted 11 years ago # -
"A jug-handle in isolation (or segregation) would probably have been OK, but it's the plus-taxi-rank aspect of the current implementation which is the biggest problem."
As well as the fact it necessarily means when the lights are green on the main road those on the jug handle are red, and are many cyclists going to want to leave the green lit route to go and wait in an ASL (with taxis)?
Posted 11 years ago # -
The jug-handle could be improved with flexible bollards on the left-hand side. This would (probably) reduce taxi encroachment. Given the proximity of the tram envelope at the exit of the taxi rank there is probably not much scope to run the bollards further out.
With the different light phasing as well, it creates the same sort of merge-back-onto-main-carriageway problem that has been created at the eastern end of the Broomhouse-Stenhouse path. Taking road space away from 'cars' to create an at-grade on-slip is probably never going to happen at that point, and it would make it even more dangerous if the 'recommended route' for cyclists was demarcated using reflective studs. Even white paint is slippery enough already.
Posted 11 years ago # -
The "jug handle" could also have been improved by some use of contiguous red tarmac to indicate the "safer" route through it, and not running it straight into a red light...
The taxi rank could be improved by having separation of "pick up" and "drop off". As it is, there's nowhere convenient for the taxi to drop someone off if there are others waiting to pick up fares. Given it's a pretty major public transport (bus/tram/local and national trains) interchange, space for 5/6 taxis to queue and none to drop-off is pretty poor.
As it is, I think taxis will continue to use the right-side of the jug handle to drop off, and to either wait or drop off in the ASL, unless there is some sort of physical segregation. There's just not room in the current layout for it to be pratical as both the main through cycling route and the main through taxi route.
Posted 11 years ago # -
At least once the trams are running, we won't get the problem of the taxis backing up into the main carriageway!
Posted 11 years ago # -
"won't get the problem of the taxis backing up into the main carriageway!"
Not until they have got twelve to fill up available space...
Posted 11 years ago # -
"won't get the problem of the taxis backing up into the main carriageway!"
Aye right, until a tram comes along and everyone moves down one to let the tram past, blocking the ASL, and as chdot said, blocking the entire lane!
When you look at the southern tram line, as it passes the Jug Handle, it vias wildly from the northern tram track! Why they didn't bring the southern track north to meet the northern track is beyond me! This would have left plenty of room for cycles and even (hesitates) taxis to back up out of the 'drop off/pickup' with no issues to cycles. This also would have left a better angle for cyclists to cross the tracks leaving the jug handle as a proper, two lane pickup/drop off.
Posted 11 years ago # -
Since nobody has done so yet, could I just say thanks to DdF for providing a clear and thorough explanation of Spokes' position and history of engagement with this issue. It must have been incredibly frustrating that the result is (at best) afterthought / piecemeal consideration to cyclists from the tram people. And even if nobody else feels the same, I'd like to express my thanks to Spokes for their efforts in achieving even these small victories in the face of intransigence, ignorance and inaction from TIE.
Note I have no connection with Spokes - I'm not a spokesman (or even a Spokes man), but I can appreciate that it would be a test of any Spokes volunteer's dedication if their efforts go unappreciated. Until a light goes on in our transport planners' collective minds, we need organisations like Spokes (and of course PoP, and CCE'ers) to chip away with 'incremental gains' (sure I've heard that before somewhere) that do at least ameliorate some of the worst sections.
Unfortunately though, it's going to take an accident (or hopefully a number of minor ones, rather than one major one) before we can expect to see any changes at this particular point, and even then it's not clear what the solution could be. My money's on a Cyclists Dismount sign...
Posted 11 years ago # -
ii. Removal of cobbles at the Princes St tram stop (and preventing them at others)
This IMO is a pretty major victory. Those we're not only stupid but dangerous and unnecessary. Good job.
Posted 11 years ago # -
Hear hear panyagua.
Ddf, you can now go off and do something more constructive - like banging your head against a brick wall.
Dealing with the tram planners just sounds staggeringly awful.
Posted 11 years ago # -
Friend down on tram tracks on Princes Street yesterday. Rear wheel written off and probably rear brake arms too. Heavy bruising, thankfully nothing broken. Caused by trying to pass stopped busses and feeling oblidged to keep going in a probably less-than-desirable line by the bus following close behind, which narrowly avoided hitting her when she came down.
Coming through Haymarket off the downhill, traffic will be moving faster than on Princes Street bus station. Someone's going to get badly hurt when they find their route blocked by taxis and are forced across the tracks at a speed and angle not of their choosing.
Posted 11 years ago # -
From pictures of Haymarket by station the surface flatness profile is still sub standard by the standards set down in ORR guidance for tram tracks. In Sheffield following the very expensive civil action (Roe vs Sheffield Supertram & Others) where a motorist came to grief through poor surface profile of the tram rails in the road, they meticulously inspect to maintain a MAXIMUM height of the railhead above the road of 3 mm yes 3 millimetres - little more than the thickness of a £1 coin should anyone have the opportunity to check this (perhaps after you've fallen off?). Tramways Act 1878 et seq makes the tram operator responsible for road surfaces between the rails and extending 18" beyond the outer edge of the outside rails for a tram line in the carriageway. Incidents should be reported in format of HSAW RIDDOR (Reporting of infectious diseases and dangerous ocurrences regulations?) although Nottingham had special coding of Stats 20 reports for Stats 19 crash data to record tram line crashes.
The other story that I'm finding of interest is the cracking of the slab track system on the viaduct. I've had some experience of another project where the track slab has to be decoupled from the viaduct structure to ensure that relative movement can take place, presumably to avoid the stresses imposed on the rails from transferring through the track slab to the viaduct structure and immunising the viaduct from vibration etc. If not decoupled might this cause the track slab to crack? DM if any detail emerges.
Note also the road crossings where the angle is skew of less than 60 degrees, and would appreciate any comment/ pictures, especially of the flatness and threshold detailing with the road surfaces. If the detail is right with no step greater than 6mm then generally few problems but if surfaces around the rails present additional gaps and steps beyond that of the track itself the 2 wheeled road user faces a complex series of wheel deflecting hazards rather than just 2 rails
Posted 11 years ago # -
There's frankly little excuse for so many taxis blocking the jug handle - they are all connected to their control room by radio so once one leaves, the controller can send another to wait there. Frankly, if there are more than can fit in the rank, the driver and company should be fined for obstruction.
Posted 11 years ago # -
Oy oy oy! Those moving pictures are pretty hairy. The most sensible solution is some segregated infrastructure to guide cyclists through Haymarket, but what's the chance of that?
Posted 11 years ago # -
"
Spokes CycleCampaign (@SpokesLothian)
11/10/2013 13:51
@EdinburghTrams Be v careful #cycling. Some new #tramline crossings may be dodgy @CyclingEdin @edfoc @Cyclelaw1 @west_team @innertubemapSpokes CycleCampaign (@SpokesLothian)
16/10/2013 17:41
@EdinburghTrams @CyclingEdin @edfoc @Cyclelaw1 @west_team We were right :( 2 days, 3 known #Haymarket crashes, 2 with injury & #bike damage"
Posted 11 years ago # -
What does CEC expect?
The problem is not the rails. The problem is partly design but mainly drivers, forcing cyclists into making rushed* and unplanned manoeuvres. Cyclists will happily cross rails given suitable space and time to do so. But in almost every instance they are allowed neither, because it has been engineered-out from the start.
Signage saying "Careful now" is mean and patronising.
* I do of course bear in mind a small selection of cyclists who are going faster than they ought to in an absence of motorists but in an excess of weather.
Posted 11 years ago # -
Posted 11 years ago #
-
Yesterday was my first day on the new road layout, coming into the city centre past Haymarket was so much nicer that bumping round the crescents. Coming back out was good as well until my back tyre found some slippy track and kicked out from underneath me. Luckily I had been following the chat on here so had slowed down and also noted the slippy tracks sign so was able to remain vertical. My biggest concern however was when I tried to go straight on from the cycle lane as the tram tracks go past Haymarket and to the left. It felt to me as though I has to move out into the tracks and momentarily cycle along them to go straight. Maybe just poor positioning on my part but not surprised people have fallen already and maybe need some padding for the winter
Posted 11 years ago # -
Wobbly high-viz bloke in second video looks familiar
;-)
Posted 11 years ago #
Reply »
You must log in to post.
posts
