"LEITH TO PORTOBELLO CYCLE ROUTE IMPROVEMENTS"

CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » Infrastructure

"LEITH TO PORTOBELLO CYCLE ROUTE IMPROVEMENTS"

(231 posts)

Started 10 years ago by chdot
Latest reply from crowriver

No tags yet.

« Previous 1…456…8 Next »

SRD
Moderator

Tulyar's post above is an EXCELLENT example of why local people/activists should not be relied upon.

I know this contradicts my post above. I totally agree with chdot that the council should have the expertise to do this stuff right, or at a minimum follow the guidelines. and if they don't, they should work with sustrans, as they were supposed to have done here.

BUT, I also wonder if we could have influenced it a bit earlier if we'd had someone on the ground with just enough knowledge to say 'this is bad', even if they don't have the expert knowledge to say what might work better.

Posted 10 years ago #
chdot
Admin

"BUT, I also wonder if we could have influenced it a bit earlier if we'd had someone on the ground with just enough knowledge to say 'this is bad' "

Yeah, but

But, BUT

This is not some novice council feeling its way into the brave new world of 'active travel'.

AND it's (allegedly) working with Sustrans.

Posted 10 years ago #
Rabid Hamster
Member

Ask Lesley?...

Posted 10 years ago #
chdot
Admin

"Ask Lesley?"

Again -

"

Cycling Edinburgh (@CyclingEdin)
24/04/2014 11:08
@LAHinds @SustransScot @sustrans @adamrmcvey @CllrChasBooth @AndrewDBurns @Edinburgh_CC need to read this

http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=12173&page=4&replies=122#post-150111

and react

"

Posted 10 years ago #
allytibbitt
Member

With regards local consultation, I've personally raised concerns over the use of chicanes on cycle paths several times with local officials over the years, and specifically with regards to this path too. Other folk connected with Greener Leith have also been consulted on this via the Leith Links Steering Group.

The trouble is if other folk argue that the gates are necessary, because it's the way it's always been, or the Police do for "community safety reasons," (which is what happened on the path near Leith Academy), and no-one appears to be able to show willingness to spend time putting together a design that could resolve all the issues for all the stakeholders, or explaining best practice guidance, then this guddle is what you get.

Historically, SUSTRANS have been the only organisation that have managed to cut through the competing interests, possibly because cash talks louder than anything else.

Posted 10 years ago #
chdot
Admin

"Historically, SUSTRANS have been the only organisation that have managed to cut through the competing interests, possibly because cash talks louder than anything else."

Indeed.

Perhaps they are just too busy and want a 'quiet life' (and more SG money) these days.

Posted 10 years ago #
SRD
Moderator

good points ally. personally, my argument would be that the path simply shouldn't be shared use. but it's taken me a while to figure that out. so i understand why it's not the obvious answer to everyone.

i think our principle should be "if the path is so heavily used that it requires 'forcing people to dismount' or making the path unattractive, then presumption should be against shared use".

Although tulyar's point above raises lots of other structural environmental nudge factors that would also help in instances like this, so its not so back and white.

Posted 10 years ago #
chdot
Admin

"so its not so back and white"

Never is!

"i think our principle should be "if the path is so heavily used that it requires 'forcing people to dismount' or making the path unattractive, then presumption should be against shared use"."

That's slightly more problematic.

Should this not be shared use because it is (sometimes) heavily used?

The problem at the school is that the entrance is directly onto the (not wide enough) path.

With a mass of people accessing school there can't be that many 'cyclists' wanting to charge through.

A larger tarmaced area with some paint and strategic 'slow down' humps would surely avoid most problems(?)

Posted 10 years ago #
SRD
Moderator

you could be right. I'm no expert. that's why we need better design input from council and sustrans!

Posted 10 years ago #
kaputnik
Moderator

As I pointed out above, the path is "heavily used" for at most probably 1 hour a day (giving a 30 minutes in the morning and in the afternoon). There of course is activity outside these times but not a whole school entering or exiting the premises.

It does not take a genius or a lot of money to provide a solution outside these gates that accomodates everyone - cyclists, walkers, people with wheelchairs and prams, children and adults. Some creative use of bollards, paint and some low-level fencing or walling across part of the path would sort it out.

And the police I know don't know one thing about how to properly design a cycle path - their corporate attitude towards cycling is 20 years in the past and they treat it as a nuisance which occasionally needs clamping down on and the rest of the time is best off ignored in the hope it might go away. While their heads stay buried there, they shouldn't in my opinion be allowed a say in such things as path design. If they really gave a **** about "community safety" they could start by enforcing 20mph speed limits and getting serious about parking abuse and aggresive driving.

Posted 10 years ago #
allytibbitt
Member

In my view, it works pretty well as a shared use path, even though the width is constrained for most of its length by a line of trees which no-one would want to see cut down.

I don't think anyone thinks the current school entrance arrangements are ideal.

My personal gold-plated future-proofed solution is bending the cycle path outside the trees at the school entrances in order to make sufficient space for a clearly demarcated cycle path there (with planters between the trees to make the border semi-permeable to people on foot). Surface treatments could be used to make the pedestrian/bike spaces clear, and encourage everyone to be nice.

As kaputnik says, it's not really that much of an issue now. But, given that it'll probably be another twenty years before any money is spent on this path again, it might be worth thinking about what might happen if numbers of pupils and cyclists increase more (both are likely).

Posted 10 years ago #
chdot
Admin

" if numbers of pupils and cyclists increase more (both are likely)"

Second one is planned for!!

Posted 10 years ago #
riffian
Member

Kaputnik said: they (the police) shouldn't in my opinion be allowed a say in such things as path design. If they really gave a **** about "community safety" they could start by enforcing 20mph speed limits and getting serious about parking abuse and aggresive driving.

Couldnt agree more.

The police are always complaining about 'role expansion' but seem very happy to offer an opinion or get involved with things they have no or little expertise in.

Posted 10 years ago #
Tulyar
Member

Police, as I found from long call yesterday are often required to sing from a different hymn sheet.

A *******g obvious and 100% safer route in London could replace one where 3 have died in past 2 years and more will likely die in the next few years, but because traffic flow, design standards and theory get in the way we cannot use the much (and I mean much) safer route overall since the access to it counters so many standards and practices.

New York has achieved a great deal in a short time because some senior officials were courageous enough to say "OK try this with temporary markings and kerbs and we'll see how it works" and blow me what informed folk had been calling for did work, and was made permanent - but actually built permanently when any planned maintenance took place - saving the substantial cost of a stand-alone project.

Oh and @SRD was that praise <blushes> or a rap on the knuckles.....

Posted 10 years ago #
chdot
Admin

"but because traffic flow, design standards and theory get in the way"

and especially "traffic flow"

But that's not the case here.

Nor is it known if police views (or anyone else's) were taken into account.

This is just a lazy design not worthy of CEC or Sustrans - whatever the pressures to 'compromise'.

It's not really as though 'money' is the problem. Rising Cycle Budget, matching money from Sustrans/SG.

So...???

Posted 10 years ago #
crowriver
Member

So, this afternoon on our way to the Royal Mail eastern depot to pick up mail order goodies, No.1 son and I decided to investigate how Seafield Road path was getting on. Well I wish we hadn't bothered!

Not only is the railway bridge blocked off completely, but the temporary crossing seems to have been switched off for the weekend. Great. It was busy Friday afternoon rat run traffic and very stressful to cross the road. Son was not happy. I had to do my policeman impression with my hand up to 'stop' the cars while standing in middle of road. Goodness knows how pedestrians are supposed to manage.

While trundling along the narrow path opposite, I could see that the widening of shared use is progressing (no photo alas). Kerb is in place and backfilling with aggregate going on. No tarmac yet. Of course now one would have to cross a side road junction to get to Porty: tricky given traffic volumes. Luckily we were turning there into Craigentinny so we didn't face that trial.

Jolly bad show by the contractors though for leaving the crossing in that state!

Posted 10 years ago #
SRD
Moderator

If that the same one that we crossed at last weekend (not sure), then temp crossing worked fine on sat.

Suggest you tweet CEC, your 'team', nigel bagshaw and lahinds asking for it to be reinstated ASAP.

Posted 10 years ago #
le_soigneur
Member

The temporary crossings were in operation today. I think they took them off during the Easter hols and there doesn't appear to have been any construction activity there since so they hadn't put the ped crossing lights back on, until this weekend.

Posted 10 years ago #
crowriver
Member

I think they took them off during the Easter hols

Oh good. Just when novice and young cyclists might be wanting a traffic free route to the Prom and the beach. How thoughtful of them. Anyway state schools went back last week, maybe private ones didn't. Not Easter holidays any more.

there doesn't appear to have been any construction activity there since

Makes sense, but rather disappointing. Why do the work over Easter if they'll be taking a week or more off? Why shut path for 5 weeks when it might have only taken 3 weeks otherwise?

Posted 10 years ago #
SRD
Moderator

It was on in Easter Saturday. Tricky to navigate on tandem though.

Posted 10 years ago #
drnoble
Member

I am pretty sure the pedestrian crossing closer to Leith wasn't working when I cycled past yesterday about 14:30. The Portobello end crossing was working, but I just joined the road rather than cycle on narrow pavement where there were pedestrians trying to navigate the mass of roadwork signs blocking the pavement.

Wasn't until I was past that I thought it a bit odd, should have gone back to check...

Also, it doesn't look like the new pavement will be much wider, or have they still to fully re-align the kerbs? The road has loads of space, so not sure why they couldn't narrow by almost 2m to give a 3-4m wide footway

Posted 10 years ago #
kaputnik
Moderator

I tweeted East Team and they acknowledged it had been disabled "in error" by the contractor over this weekend.

I assume it got to 2:15 on the Friday afternoon and the contractors were so keen to leave they just pulled the plug and effed off for the weekend, leaving the site in a mess and no alternative route.

Or perhaps they were actually under orders to turn it off, as the council was loathe to cause delays to otherwise law abiding motorists out driving over the weekend, at the expense of those wishing to walk or cycle...

Posted 10 years ago #
Klaxon
Member

The notes from the north end TRO are available here, can't remember if they've already been posted.

http://www.edinburgh.gov.uk/download/meetings/id/42561/item_72_-_leith_programme_-_tro

I had put in a letter myself in support of mandatory cycle lanes, and that's listed under the 'non valid' reasons for objection. The proforma response was

Mandatory cycle lanes are not generally used in areas where vehicles are permitted to
cross the lane (e.g. Side road entrances, parking and loading bays, bus stops). These
lanes are most useful when there are few side roads and no parking or loading
requirements along the route.

A justification that leaves me wondering how bus lanes ever got the go ahead in Edinburgh - they'll only ever use a mandatory cycle lane where no cars or pedestrians will ever cross it!

Posted 10 years ago #
bdellar
Member

New slabs have gone in on Leith Links. They're the right slabs, but they still incorrectly tell visually impaired people that pedestrians should be on the north side, and cyclists on the south, no matter whether they're going east or west.

There's a photo here:

http://twitter.com/branaby/status/461190305136795649/photo/1

Posted 10 years ago #
chdot
Admin

I went by about 3, didn't notice the changes (no work going on).

Access to St. Mary's Primary

Looks like need/desire for 'all-weather milling area' - could be useful to keep passing bikes away from school entrance.

Posted 10 years ago #
chdot
Admin

"

Never use gates, chicanes, or similar pinch points as these exclude many legitimate users, such as people with disabilities. The risk of motorbikes using these routes is not great enough to restrict free movement of larger bicycles or pushchairs and wheelchairs. Parked cars must not block the movement of people through the bollards.

"

http://www.makingspaceforcycling.org/MakingSpaceForCycling.pdf

P13

Posted 10 years ago #
urchaidh
Member

They've been laying the new surface at the Seafield end over the last few days, they widened path looks pretty much done and they were working on resurfacing the narrower section over the bridge this morning. Could be finished soon I guess.

That said, there was a rectangular manhole cover on the path that looked like it was still sitting quite proud of the surface, so maybe there's another layer to go on.

Posted 10 years ago #
kaputnik
Moderator

@urchaidh did you notice any attempt to widen path at bridge i.e. remove the cantilevered-out chevron signs, that sort of thing?

Posted 10 years ago #
urchaidh
Member

Sadly I haven't seen any evidence of changes to the armco or chevrons on the bridge, and I'm guessing if they're resurfacing in there now that nothing more is going to be done this time.

I think (from an earlier post) that the path leading onto the bridge from the Porty end is now a bit wider though there are new lampposts taking back some of the space.

The cooncil say they are still looking at options (i.e. carrying out a feasibility study) for the bridge.

Posted 10 years ago #
kaputnik
Moderator

Thanks Urchaidh. Given they've already installed one of the new lamp posts in the narrow section on the inside of the path boundary, I think my previously posted pessimism for this section was not unfounded.

Posted 10 years ago #