CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » Infrastructure

Paddockholme cycle barriers

(33 posts)

No tags yet.


12

  1. SRD
    Moderator

    @trapprain - who is a local resident - sent this to council:

    I have put together a blog post outlining issues with the new layout of the cycle barriers at The Paddockholm, Corstorphine, EH12, and inviting solutions:
    http://www.trapprain.blogspot.com/2014/05/the-paddockholm-eh12-7xr-cycle-barriers.html
    Clearly, it is everyone's interest to get this right with an anticipated rise in use of this pathway with the tram stop at Balgreen and the refurbished walkway / cycle path in between?

    He got this reply, which he asked me to share with you:

    I can confirm that the design specified for the chicane included the recommended 3.0m gap between barriers and was to be located at the bend in the path where visibility is most restricted. The current layout was constructed in error by the contractor and we will be asking them to remediate this.

    I acknowledge your concerns on the layout of these chicane barriers and the importance of finding the right balance for path users in any design......,,,

    The construction issues with the drop kerb at the end of the Paddockholm path will also be taken up with the contractor.\end

    I think he's likely to be discussing further, and would like your feedback. Also to alert you to concerns of residents.

    Posted 10 years ago #

  2. chdot
    Admin

    Ho hum.

    What is it with CEC and chicanes!!??

    Must do that 'chicanes I have met recently' post...

    Posted 10 years ago #

  3. chdot
    Admin

    Initial CCE report favourable!

    Posted 10 years ago #

  4. PS
    Member

    I don't know this path at all. Is the chicance at the bit where the path bends round the southern end of this L-shaped building?

    Posted 10 years ago #

  5. Stickman
    Member

    PS - yes, that's it.

    I'm not quite sure what the issue is here (other than not having the 3m gap)? I've found it far easier to negotiate after the changes. Or is it a case of being grateful for any improvements, even when they are flawed?

    Posted 10 years ago #

  6. chdot
    Admin

    "Or is it a case of being grateful for any improvements, even when they are flawed?"

    Think there's an element of 'one person's OK, is another person's compromise'.

    Not that CEC has a good record on chicanes!

    Posted 10 years ago #

  7. SRD
    Moderator

    Chicanes push cyclists and pedestrians into much narrower space than path. much as cyclists reject being mobile speed bumps where 'road narrowing' is proposed as a way of slowing traffic down, pedestrians object to being used in similar fashion on paths.

    it's like someone said "oh look, we'll put them on a collision course, then they'll *have* to slow down." basic premise is wrong.

    Posted 10 years ago #

  8. Stickman
    Member

    Thanks SRD, I hadn't thought of it like that.

    Posted 10 years ago #

  9. PS
    Member

    With the caveat again that I don't know the path, photograph on trapprain's blog suggests that the order of the chicane (passage on the left then right) seems to put a potentially frantically-cycling cyclist onto the inside of the blind corner. Wouldn't it be better to put them onto the outside of the bend?

    Noting, of course, that a cyclist going the other way would then be put on the inside, so I guess it depends on the profile of that curve and exactly where the perceived conflict point is.

    Posted 10 years ago #

  10. chdot
    Admin

    Bollards!

    Posted 10 years ago #

  11. SRD
    Moderator

    also: " if anyone who uses Balgreen to Paddockholm path regularly and feels brave enough we would be grateful if they could have a word with the young adult male with (?brightly-coloured) mohican-style haircut who has been allegedly spotted cycling 'furiously'. "

    Posted 10 years ago #

  12. Coxy
    Member

    I see Mr Mohican most days on my commute home. I wouldn't say he looks very furious to me.

    Posted 10 years ago #

  13. HankChief
    Member

    It's a interesting balancing act between giving enough space for access for all to get through it versus slowing down some cyclists.

    I think he has a point about the set up being such that you are deposited to the inside of the bend when heading West.

    I think that the approach they took was to leave the left barrier (when heading West) where is was and move the right barrier from behind to in front of the left barrier, thereby reversing the direction of the path through. Not sure if this approach was due to money saving or planned?

    Out of interest, why don't you see speed bumps on cycle paths?

    Posted 10 years ago #

  14. chdot
    Admin

    I'm definitely getting more 'anti' chicanes - not just because CEC is being inept

    Also 'liking' the idea of BOLLARDS.

    Partly because (only this week - via CCE!) I've learned that you need an odd number - ie, have 2, that's three gaps, so people (tend to) go through the middle in both directions!

    So I suggest -

    Remove chicanes, put in two or even three bollards along the curved section add some paint saying SLOW and maybe a mirror or two.

    Don't quite get the 'unadopted' bit - CEC has just adjusted chicane(?)

    Posted 10 years ago #

  15. PS
    Member

    Out of interest, why don't you see speed bumps on cycle paths?

    Because we'd complain about them being a crash-causing hazard! ;o)

    Posted 10 years ago #

  16. chdot
    Admin

    "Out of interest, why don't you see speed bumps on cycle paths?"

    Er, not entirely true - canal, Criagleith (OK lumps more than bumps).

    But, yes, better than chicanes (surely!!??)

    Posted 10 years ago #

  17. HankChief
    Member

    @chdot Don't quite get the 'unadopted' bit - CEC has just adjusted chicane(?)

    Where did you see that - are you confusing threads?

    The CEC responses on the chicane thread was talking about differing locations.

    Posted 10 years ago #

  18. chdot
    Admin

    0h !

    Too much speedreading or alcohol or both

    Posted 10 years ago #

  19. Cyclingmollie
    Member

    chdot: "What is it with CEC and chicanes!!??"

    Ooh, I think I know. I had a senior CEC employee explain to me how it works. She goes to meeting A, hears an idea and then passes it off as her own at meeting B.

    Ideas get passed around to impress others who want to impress in turn. No need to closely examine the ideas; quite the opposite in fact. My own experience bears this out.

    Posted 10 years ago #

  20. chdot
    Admin

    I'm sure that happens, but it doesn't really explain why no-one comes up with a better idea...

    Posted 10 years ago #

  21. chdot
    Admin

    Posted 10 years ago #

  22. HankChief
    Member

    Errr... Good diagram, showing that the Southern barrier should be moved East (& further from the Northern one), resulting in Westbound traveller exiting on the outside of the corner (with better sightlines)

    Sadly that is not what they have done...

    Paddockholm chicane by HankChief, on Flickr

    This photo is looking East and you can see that the Northern one has been moved further East (and not that far from Southern one)

    I see that in the first post the Council have acknowledged that The current layout was constructed in error by the contractor and we will be asking them to remediate this.

    I'm sorry, but the amounts of hoops and money that the council have to go through to get anything changed, including drawing detailed plans is then completely wasted by employing a contractor that then installs something different.

    CEC should be forcing them to fix it as well as billing them for the plans that they had to draw up which were then completely ignored.

    I don't get annoyed often, but this has. What sort of contractors are CEC using that don't look at or don't care about following a plan? How can they stay in business with such sloppy work?

    Are these the same people who have still to correct the signage on the cycle route 9? It's been a couple of months since they were put up and they are still wrong.

    Come on CEC you can do better than this...

    Posted 10 years ago #

  23. chdot
    Admin

    "

    Chicanes should be placed at least 5.0 metres from any bend or junction, so riders can approach them straight on.

    "

    Posted 10 years ago #

  24. neddie
    Member

    It was probably the same contractors that did this:

    Posted 10 years ago #

  25. SRD
    Moderator

    update: http://www.trapprain.blogspot.nl/2014/05/dropped-kerb-at-paddockholm-eh12-7xr.html?m=1

    Posted 10 years ago #

  26. chdot
    Admin

    "
    contractor is back today to grout the setts. I have asked our engineering team to raise the other issues with the contractor.

    "

    Posted 10 years ago #

  27. chdot
    Admin

    Seems it didn't happen today!

    "
    Alan Alexander (@trapprain)
    16/05/2014 18:10
    @CyclingEdin @cocteautriplets @SRDorman @west_team Nothing to see here? #FridayFail

    http://twitpic.com/e3ynz4

    "

    Posted 10 years ago #

  28. Tulyar
    Member

    Took a look on the blog site.

    Pen as scaling = 10mm diameter?

    Dropped kerb upstand - standards = 0mm to +6mm for pedestrian and cycle traffic - fail.

    Laying new tarmac - cut edge of existing tarmac to a sound and square edge, and pour/paint a tar seal and lay new tarmac to but against a sound and vertical face. Feathered edges invite early failure.

    Setts? looks more like a concrete kerb sliced up with a stone cutting disc, and some of the cut corners have crumbled, presaging further deterioration, especially if it gets wet freezing conditions.

    Gaps between setts/slabs, need to check standards for that one, but for level crossings the limit for gaps between panel units is (officially) 10mm. (Actual checking on site suggests that this is frequently exceeded). Gaps here (pen=10mm) may exceed 10mm.

    Almost as rough as parts of Edinburgh's on-street tram tracks.

    Posted 10 years ago #

  29. HankChief
    Member

    @Tulyar - do you have a link to the standards you are quoting?

    Could be useful...

    I asked the trams about the east side of the depot entrance which has quite a bump, and was told it had been checked and was within standards. I wasn't convinced.

    Cheers

    Posted 10 years ago #

  30. Tulyar
    Member

    Well back I think on the Trams thread (the interminable Trams thread) I listed all the tolerances I could find for things like dropped kerbs (6mm max - ideal= 0mm) ironwork in the carriageway and footway (+3mm max) edges of footways (+3mm for any kerbs) and recently I posted the diagram from ORR guidelines for tram rails installed in a roadway (Part 1 of Tram design guidance page 7).

    For Level Crossings the Group Standards (Network Rail) set the level variation (5mm) between rail and roadway panels and the gap (10mm) and also the flangeway gap, between the rail and the surface in the 4-foot. I recall this is around 60mm, because it was checked after a fatal incident (Staines Moor) and the gaps were found to be slightly wider than they should have been.

    If you are referring to the dropped kerb it should be 6mm max for cycles and wheelchairs. Remember that the railway which has far higher loadings from trains (a 20T static axle load for Class 43 at 125mph can whack down at around 80T distributed dynamic load per sleeper in figures I've seen quoted. A Class 67 is especially impressive I'm told - will see if I can get a figure from the automated measuring point on ECML at Ferryhill Co Durham. All that punishing loading yet the points that critically have to be properly aligned to avoid causing a derailment and fail-safe if even a plastic sheet gets trapped by the moving blade are maintained to tight tolerances - yet we cannot have roads without potholes.....

    Posted 10 years ago #

RSS feed for this topic

12

Reply »

You must log in to post.


Video embedded using Easy Video Embed plugin