CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » Infrastructure

"GOLF COURSES PATH IMPROVEMENTS, BARNTON"

(338 posts)

No tags yet.


  1. Focus
    Member

    Maybe they are setting them to be as equally (badly) below the level of the path as the others!

    Posted 6 years ago #
  2. DaveC
    Member

    Works still being carried out. Rough plywood over holes with no dismount signs this time, except for the middle of the path where they appear to have removed the blocks and just left that section until last?!

    Also the heavy rain yesterday (26th May 2014) has washed large stretches of sharp stones from the north side 'gutters' onto the paths. CEC will be informed.

    Posted 6 years ago #
  3. DaveC
    Member

    Hello.

    Recently the path between Barnton Ave West and Barnton Ave has been upgraded. I’d like to point out that the sharp stones your contractor put in, in the drainage gullies, for draining rain water, have nearly all been washed out, onto the path by Monday 26th May’s heavy rain. The contractors on site have done nothing to remedy this, and actually if the stones are just pushed back into the drainage gullies then they’ll just be washed out during the next heavy rain. THIS IS SCOTLAND! Perhaps the round beach pebbles further down in the sink aways could be used on the north east drainage gully? With heavy slabs over them to ensure they don’t get washed out again?

    Please pass on to the relevant authority so this can be fixed while the contractors are still there.

    Kind regards,

    Dave C

    Posted 6 years ago #
  4. gibbo
    Member

    Also the heavy rain yesterday (26th May 2014) has washed large stretches of sharp stones from the north side 'gutters' onto the paths.

    I'm speechless.

    The number of times CEC have to redo stuff - at our expense - that never made any sense in the first place...

    Who the hell is making these design decisions? And on what basis?

    Posted 6 years ago #
  5. DaveC
    Member

    I'd guess the council set the tender and the contractor then does the work as required. There is room there for 'interpretation' or 'confussion' or worse 'cost cutting'. Also I assume there are not may standards, or they (council) are ignorant of them. I'd also guess the more junior civil engineers are doing these smaller projects?

    Posted 6 years ago #
  6. PS
    Member

    Yeah, they (Crummock, I think) were working on it on Saturday morning. The rumblestrip in the middle of the path (and therefore the entire path) was fenced off with not even the slightest consideration for cyclists - forced to get off and walk across the stones, thereby risking damaging your cleats.

    The changes just seemed to be installing bigger setts for the rumblestrips, perhaps even laying them higher (and therefore more of a hazard to cyclists).

    Can only hope that the cost for this is coming out of the contractor's pocket rather than CEC's cycling budget...

    Posted 6 years ago #
  7. HankChief
    Member

    A quick game of spot the difference

    Couple of weeks ago


    Barnton Ave by HankChief, on Flickr

    Tonight


    Golf course path by HankChief, on Flickr

    Hopefully you have spotted the addition of 2 bollards with red reflectors on.

    It is quite hard to see the BIG WHITE ROCKS without them.

    Posted 6 years ago #
  8. chdot
    Admin

    Have the tactiles been changed?

    Posted 6 years ago #
  9. chdot
    Admin

    Still don't see any reflectives on the gates...

    Posted 6 years ago #
  10. HankChief
    Member

    Didn't spot a change to the tactiles, but the middle posts on the chicane does have a bit of reflective on it - you can just make it out in tonight's photo.

    Spotted some more reflective where in narrows at the other end.

    The landing lights are good.

    Posted 6 years ago #
  11. Snowy
    Member

    What an absolute mess. Why in the name of clear thinking didn't they just put 3 or 4 bollards across the width of the path and forget about the mess of rocks, gates, poles, gravel, etc ? How much effort and money has been wasted here for a crap outcome?

    Posted 6 years ago #
  12. Stickman
    Member

    What an absolute mess. Why in the name of clear thinking didn't they just ****************? How much effort and money has been wasted here for a crap outcome?

    Can use this for a lot of Edinburgh cycle "improvements" - fill in the asterisks as required.

    Posted 6 years ago #
  13. Arellcat
    Moderator

    Great. That's another bit of previously good infrastructure that is now inaccessible to velomobiles.

    Posted 6 years ago #
  14. kaputnik
    Moderator

    That's fabulously rubbish.

    "We are going to widen the path to improve cycling so we must make sure that we widen the narrowed path incase people cycle on it".

    Great to see the council knuckledraggers finding ever more daft ways to fritter away the hard campaigned for and easily blown cycling budget...

    I hope you don't mind, Hank, I annotated your picture.

    Posted 6 years ago #
  15. HankChief
    Member

    Kappers - great edits.

    I have to correct a couple of bits though...

    There are small reflectors on the centre of the gates, which you can just about make in the photo on the up posts.

    The gates are set quite a distance apart so you can get through with a large/unusual bike - see Dave's photo up thread, but it's not totally straightforward.

    Posted 6 years ago #
  16. chdot
    Admin

    "

    Lesley Hinds (@LAHinds)
    05/06/2014 09:18
    @CyclingEdin @cocteautriplets @Edinburgh_CC have you made theses comments to cycling team?

    "

    Posted 6 years ago #
  17. SRD
    Moderator

    David Martin from Dundee recommends "Ask for the use case documents that specify the problem, and the assessment of alternative alleviation methods."

    anyone want to do that?

    also mentioned that the access officer has been a 'good ally' with regard to getting chicanes respaced. do we have one of those

    my concern though is less with getting chicanes respaced, and more with getting them to recognize that chicanes create conflict. they don't seem to get this.

    Posted 6 years ago #
  18. chdot
    Admin

    REMINDER

    This is what CEC said three weeks ago -

    (Tactiles)

    "

    in the wrong direction! (they are at least of the correct profile!) This was a mistake by the contractor and had already been picked up by our design /delivery team. Snagging work is due to take place in the next 1-2 weeks and this will include converting two of the rumble strips at the west end to humps as they are completely ineffective as laid. We are under a lot of pressure from residents there to tackle excess speeding from cyclists and we have needed their cooperation in order to undertake the path improvement works and to have the path adopted for maintenance by the Council.

    Re. the chicanes gates these will be having reflective strips and reflective route signs added to them.

    "

    No mention of new bollards. Don't know if any of rest has been done - apart from tiny patches of reflectives.

    (Main point still undesirability of forcing pedestrians and cyclists through chicane.)

    Posted 6 years ago #
  19. DaveC
    Member

    Remember that the gate remain unlocked with no padlock so any wider vehicles can gain access by opening the gate.

    There are reflective bands, not strips round the centre poles.

    Posted 6 years ago #
  20. Baldcyclist
    Member

    I think tactiles have been changed, you rumble over them rather than slide through them now.

    Posted 6 years ago #
  21. chdot
    Admin

    Just noticed SRD's post above mine -

    "

    my concern though is less with getting chicanes respaced, and more with getting them to recognize that chicanes create conflict. they don't seem to get this.

    "

    Exactly!

    Posted 6 years ago #
  22. SRD
    Moderator

    @baldcyclist you mean, they've put the right sort of tactiles in, but the wrong way round????

    Posted 6 years ago #
  23. kaputnik
    Moderator

    my concern though is less with getting chicanes respaced, and more with getting them to recognize that chicanes create conflict. they don't seem to get this.

    How hard can it be for the council to get that if you widen rather than constrict the path at a pinch point then you will alleviate the problem!

    The obvious solution at Cramond, if there had been a problem (see comments about Use Case above), would have been to properly segregate the cyclists from the pedestrians at this point for a short distance. It's not as if there isn't MASSES of room to do this. I wouldn't even be adverse to properly set rumble strips - if there is proven to be a need for them.

    Posted 6 years ago #
  24. chdot
    Admin

    "How hard can it be for the council to get that if you widen rather than constrict the path at a pinch point then you will alleviate the problem!"

    The perceived (possibly real) 'problem' is (fear of) (cycle) speeding.

    In general I think BOLLARDS are better, BUT even if chicanes are 'optimum' for reducing cycle speeds at the bottom of Barnton Avenue, forcing pedestrians through them when there is plenty of space for an alternative path (connecting with the pavement!) is STUPID.

    Posted 6 years ago #
  25. DdF
    Member

    Many valid complaints about the both the design and the installation. Another problem with the existing setup is that if excessive speed is the problem then the chicane/stones/etc only reduces that at the entry to the path, not along it.

    But what is the answer to this comment from the council (as quoted above by chdot)..
    We are under a lot of pressure from residents there to tackle excess speeding from cyclists and we have needed their cooperation in order to undertake the path improvement works and to have the path adopted for maintenance by the Council.

    If paths are to be created the Council does have to resolve this or find some sort of compromise, it is no use just disregarding it. For example, it was objections from locals over many years which prevented the railway path to currie being tarmaced despite money being available on at least 2 occasions. Are there in fact any solutions possible which are reaonsably acceptable to all parties?

    Some ppl have suggested bollards, but knowing one person who hit a cycleroute bollard in broad daylight, with injury to self and bike, I am dubious. [the bollard was removed, in part as a result of that crash]. Also how do bollards work out for blind people? I don't like chicanes but haven't yet heard of anyone crashing into one.

    Posted 6 years ago #
  26. SRD
    Moderator

    I want to know more about how they respond to residents complaints. If road residents complain about a road speed being too high, they measure speeds and look at accidents. do they do the same with paths? do they consider alternatives? or are chicanes just a knee-jerk reaction?

    doubtless pedestrians ASK for 'gates' but do they really understand the implications of them? http://deceasedcanine.blogspot.co.uk/2014/05/the-trouble-with-chicanes.html

    Posted 6 years ago #
  27. wingpig
    Member

    "I don't like chicanes but haven't yet heard of anyone crashing into one. "

    "Bang - straight into one of the black metal railings which obstruct the path"

    Posted 6 years ago #
  28. kaputnik
    Moderator

    We are under a lot of pressure from residents there to tackle excess speeding from cyclists

    Considering there is no definition of either "speeding" or "excess", it smells strongly of the sort of council-brand fudge that can be concocted whenever "residents associations" / dog t*rd depositors don't want a path to be used for cycling for whatever reason.

    The path originates in a downhill road, or course people will be going fast. As fast even perhaps as a car! However we wouldn't expect pedestrians and cars to mingle here, so why did they ever expect sharing the path here would do anything other than antagonise both parties (cyclists and gerroffmylandists). Proper segregation here for a short length would have been a properly considered solution, and in my opinion can't see how it would be any more expensive than the bollards / gates / tactiles attempt.

    Posted 6 years ago #
  29. chdot
    Admin

    Later post on the Leith Links 'chicane event'.

    Posted 6 years ago #
  30. PS
    Member

    @DdF The council comment ("...this will include converting two of the rumble strips at the west end to humps as they are completely ineffective as laid. We are under a lot of pressure from residents there to tackle excess speeding from cyclists...") suggests that they are talking about the west end of the path, where it narrows to approx 2.5 metres and there isn't an option to widen it due to walls on either side. This was certainly the area where Crummock were digging up the rumble strips again a couple of weeks ago. I'd have thought speed tables at that end of the path would be adequate to slow cyclists down, as would the nature of the path through the constriction (drains, hidden driveway entrances and an uneven surface make high-speed cycling there somewhat dicey).

    Of course, the way to reduce the risk of high speed A to B cyclists on this path would be to provide proper segregated cycling facilities along the length of the A90, so cyclists in a hurry can use that direct route into town safely...

    Posted 6 years ago #

RSS feed for this topic

Reply »

You must log in to post.


Video embedded using Easy Video Embed plugin