Maybe they are setting them to be as equally (badly) below the level of the path as the others!
CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » Infrastructure
"GOLF COURSES PATH IMPROVEMENTS, BARNTON"
(338 posts)-
Posted 10 years ago #
-
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 10 years ago # -
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 10 years ago # -
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 10 years ago # -
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 10 years ago # -
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 10 years ago # -
A quick game of spot the difference
Couple of weeks ago
Barnton Ave by HankChief, on FlickrTonight
Golf course path by HankChief, on FlickrHopefully 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 10 years ago # -
Have the tactiles been changed?
Posted 10 years ago # -
Still don't see any reflectives on the gates...
Posted 10 years ago # -
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 10 years ago # -
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 10 years ago # -
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 10 years ago # -
Great. That's another bit of previously good infrastructure that is now inaccessible to velomobiles.
Posted 10 years ago # -
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 10 years ago # -
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 10 years ago # -
"
Lesley Hinds (@LAHinds)
05/06/2014 09:18
@CyclingEdin @cocteautriplets @Edinburgh_CC have you made theses comments to cycling team?"
Posted 10 years ago # -
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 10 years ago # -
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 10 years ago # -
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 10 years ago # -
I think tactiles have been changed, you rumble over them rather than slide through them now.
Posted 10 years ago # -
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 10 years ago # -
@baldcyclist you mean, they've put the right sort of tactiles in, but the wrong way round????
Posted 10 years ago # -
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 10 years ago # -
"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 10 years ago # -
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 10 years ago # -
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 10 years ago # -
"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 10 years ago # -
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 10 years ago # -
Later post on the Leith Links 'chicane event'.
Posted 10 years ago # -
@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 10 years ago #
Reply »
You must log in to post.
posts
