CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » Infrastructure

Temporary traffic lights and pedestrian crossings

(30 posts)
  • Started 10 years ago by cb
  • Latest reply from Fountainbridge

No tags yet.


  1. cb
    Member

    http://www.edinburghnews.scotsman.com/news/transport/traffic-light-rethink-for-roadworks-1-3157574

    "
    PORTABLE traffic signals will be set up around any roadworks in Edinburgh where a pedestrian crossing has to be removed.

    The change is expected to apply whenever a pelican crossing is temporarily removed for works lasting for at least one week.
    "

    "
    A council report said: “For shorter works or less busy sites, the expense and work involved in providing any portable pedestrian facility would be difficult to justify and would have significant financial implications for contractors, public utilities or the council.”
    "

    So it can't be justified on the grounds of pedestrian safety?

    I witnessed an old lady trying to cross the Roseburn Street the other week when there were temporary lights there (might still be there?)

    She was harassed by the driver of a Range Rover who lent on their horn. Old lady then promply whacked the side of the car.

    Most amusing.

    Posted 10 years ago #

  2. chdot
    Admin

    "Old lady then promply whacked the side of the car."

    Such anti-social behaviour from someone old enough to know better -

    Well done.

    Posted 10 years ago #

  3. kaputnik
    Moderator

    There's a wonderful old video on youtube, I'm not sure if it's a setup or not, but it's good.

    old lady crossing the road slowly, convertible Merc pulls up and driver leans on horn. Old lady turns and whacks the bonnet of the car with her walking stick. Airbag explodes in drivers face. Old lady continues on her way.

    Posted 10 years ago #

  4. Wilmington's Cow
    Member

    “For shorter works or less busy sites, the expense and work involved in providing any portable pedestrian facility would be difficult to justify and would have significant financial implications for contractors, public utilities or the council.”

    Ah, good old cost/benefit analysis...

    Posted 10 years ago #

  5. Focus
    Member

    @ kaputnik

    http://www.naden.de/blog/bbvideo-bbpress-video-plugin -->

    [+] Embed the video | Youtube video

    " target="_blank">Video Download    		Get the Video Widget

    It's a staged video, a viral for IKEA of all things:

    Old Lady Whacks Car, Air Bag Explodes, IKEA Promoted

    "This viral video which pits an old lady against a pompous jerk with no patience promotes an ethereal website for IKEA which challenges you to imagine odd combinations which, together, form useful home goods. Well sort of. We still don't know why anyone would need bamboo sticks to clean a house.

    The site explains, "IKEA asked 28 designers to explore and experiment. To test new materials, techniques and new ways of working. But most of all, to have fun. They responded with a cavalcade of ingenious and madly innovative ideas for every home bold enough to be unconventional and the results can be seen throughout this website.""

    Posted 10 years ago #

  6. Kim
    Member

    A council report said: “For shorter works or less busy sites, the expense and work involved in providing any portable pedestrian facility would be difficult to justify and would have significant financial implications for contractors, public utilities or the council.”

    Well that is typical of the current administration putting active travel last on the priority list...

    Posted 10 years ago #

  7. kaputnik
    Moderator

    If there is a pedestrian crossing anywhere, it's my understanding it's there because there has already been a cost:risk analysis to justify its position. There shouldn't need to be anything further. It's simply mainintaing the provision of something that's already been agreed to be deemed neccessary.

    Otherwise why are the lights there in the first place!

    Posted 10 years ago #

  8. cc
    Member

    It's the same attitude the council seems to have to its double yellow lines. They're there to alleviate a proven safety problem. So what does the council do? It uses them as a priority parking zone for its friends.

    Posted 10 years ago #

  9. SRD
    Moderator

    This would redress some of the worst cases recently - colinton rd, Broughton, Melville drive.

    But, why are shorter ones exempt? Makes no sense.

    Posted 10 years ago #

  10. twinspark
    Member

    It's like this around South Morningside Primary School in the evenings at present. Yes it's good that the surfaces at various junctions are being relaid (particularly in the braking zones) however again only motorised traffic on the main road has been considered. No temporary crossings to replicate the permanent ones. In fact a load of of barriers in place preventing you crossing for ages with no signage whatsoever!

    Posted 10 years ago #

  11. HankChief
    Member

    Thought I'd revive this thread to share some success I've had with this on Glasgow Road.

    The resurfacing work started on Monday and will last 8-10 weeks.

    8am Monday and they were already ripping up the old tarmac but with the 2 pedestrian crossing in the middle of the 1 km stretch turned off.

    A bit of Tweeting and by the end of Monday we had 1 temporary crossing up and running by home time on Monday (this may have always been in the plan but why not put it out with the cones...).

    A bit more Tweeting and we now have a 2nd set by the Jaguar garage & Family Network 9.

    Good work CEC (& Tarmac I think).

    Posted 8 years ago #

  12. chdot
    Admin

    Wonder if anything has changed on Leith Street since last Friday.

    Posted 8 years ago #

  13. Klaxon
    Member

    Simple answer... no

    Posted 8 years ago #

  14. dougal
    Member

    There have been temporary lights on Leith Street outside Omni all week. None outside Baillie Gifford.

    Posted 8 years ago #

  15. chdot
    Admin

    Presume CEC thinks that's 'enough'.

    But doesn't fit with the apparent policy -

    "
    PORTABLE traffic signals will be set up around any roadworks in Edinburgh where a pedestrian crossing has to be removed.

    The change is expected to apply whenever a pelican crossing is temporarily removed for works lasting for at least one week.

    "

    Posted 8 years ago #

  16. fimm
    Member

    Good work HankChief.
    But it shouldn't be up to individuals to chase stuff like this. It should just happen.

    Posted 8 years ago #

  17. chdot
    Admin

    "it shouldn't be up to individuals to chase stuff like this"

    True.

    It's good that people do, it's also the case that 'rules' (ignored or not) and things like the rising cycle budget are often a result of people campaigning - even just contacting their councillors.

    Posted 8 years ago #

  18. chdot
    Admin

    In addition I think quite a lot has been achieved in the last couple of years by using Twitter. Most councillors are on it and so are all the Local Teams.

    Posted 8 years ago #

  19. mgj
    Member

    Can anyone tell me why the current provision isn't enough? Where is a pedestrian coming from or going that they cant use the crossing at John Lewis or the top of Leith Street?

    Posted 8 years ago #

  20. chdot
    Admin

    Didn't ask

    Posted 8 years ago #

  21. Wilmington's Cow
    Member

    "Can anyone tell me why the current provision isn't enough?"

    Mainly because it was there before, and means there were three crossings that have been reduced to two, and people have got used to there being one in the middle, as chdot's picture demonstrates.

    Baillie Gifford offices are right there, and the Omni car parking, as well as heading down to the back entrance of Waverley. The other side of the street only really has the entrance to the hotel I suppose. But the fact so many people were crossing there, and clearly still are, at least demonstrates that for some it's obviously the most convenient crossing point for where they're going to / coming from.

    "Where is a pedestrian coming from or going that they cant use the crossing at John Lewis or the top of Leith Street?"

    Or put another way, we can't hold up traffic too much, let's take away some of the pedestrian provision so they don't get in the way.

    To reverse the question, why should pedestrians be forced to go to the bottom or top of the street just to get across when there was a perfectly good crossing in the middle?

    Posted 8 years ago #

  22. PS
    Member

    I'll use the middle crossing to get from Broughton Street to the Calton Road entrance to Waverley. I use it because it is more direct, less busy than the Omni crossing and I don't have to fight my way through the crowds waiting at the bus stops in front of the Rockstar/Baillie Gifford office. I'm a creature of habit.

    Posted 8 years ago #

  23. Min
    Member

    There is no crossing at Greenside Row either so even if you have crossed at the official crossing, you still have to try and run across here if you can. Slow-moving people need not apply.

    Posted 8 years ago #

  24. stiltskin
    Member

    As an aside the roadworks on Glasgow Road are pretty good as a cardio workout. Over half a mine of bollarded single lane with a queue of traffic behind certainly puts the pressure on. Not an ideal set up for a cyclist unless you are looking for a KOM on the Strava segment which runs the length of it

    Posted 8 years ago #

  25. mgj
    Member

    Not shown in that photo; a big trench behind the white van, part of the time at least. Moving diggers and workmen. It's a building site. Council would be negligent if it encouraged crossing at that point.

    We need to avoid the knee jerk criticism when there is a perfectly good reason for things being the way they are.

    Posted 8 years ago #

  26. chdot
    Admin

    "Council would be negligent if it encouraged crossing at that point"

    Perhaps.

    So contractors are negligent by not blocking area completely?

    Did so, comprehensively, for tram work.

    Posted 8 years ago #

  27. mgj
    Member

    Probably, yes.

    Posted 8 years ago #

  28. Min
    Member

    But it somehow is not negligent to not bother putting in a crossing at all, like at Greenside Row/90% of all other roadworks? I don't really buy it.

    Posted 8 years ago #

  29. Wilmington's Cow
    Member

    "We need to avoid the knee jerk criticism"

    This is very true - might have been less jerking of knees if it had been pointed out earlier! ;)

    Doesn't detract from the basic principle that in general pedestrians are not well served when it comes to roadworks, and it'll be interesting to see when the works move away from this section if a temporary crossing goes in.

    Posted 8 years ago #

  30. Fountainbridge
    Member

    Not shown in that photo; a big trench behind the white van, part of the time at least.

    Again not a decent photo, but shows the end of the trench. There was easily enough room for a pedestrian crossing. Until Friday there were no barriers on the John Lewis side so lots of people still trying to cross. Today I noticed there's now barriers down the complete side, along with a pile of soil on the road.

    151006164235IMG_3492 by Paul Fountain, on Flickr

    Posted 8 years ago #

RSS feed for this topic

Reply

You must log in to post.


Video embedded using Easy Video Embed plugin