CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » Infrastructure

Canal-Meadows (STILL NOT finally!)

(309 posts)

No tags yet.


  1. LaidBack
    Member

    Not sure what demand on this street would be? Most cyclists have already turned off onto Bruntsfield path with traffic free options for families going to play park.
    Be interesting to see the cycle count data (if such exists).
    The sharp corner at bowling club interesting challenge on a contraflow.
    At least no parking spaces will be lost which is vital of course!

    Posted 11 months ago #
  2. neddie
    Member

    @Laidback, the demand for cycling contraflow on Leven Terrace (which leads into Glengyle Tce) is when cycling North across Bruntfield Links down General Maczek Walk to continue on to the "quiet route" down Lothian Rd (NMW -> Lauriston Gdns -> Lady Lawson St -> Castle Tce)

    I'll draw a map to highlight when I get the chance

    Posted 11 months ago #
  3. LaidBack
    Member

    @neddie - It is on the masterplan then? Useful to see how it links in.

    Posted 11 months ago #
  4. neddie
    Member

    @Laidback

    The "quiet route" along Lauriston Gdns -> Lady Lawson St -> Castle Tce was once on the masterplans, but it's been quietly dropped in favour of the multi-million pound gold-plated Lothian Rd boulevard that probably won't see the light of day for another 2 decades... palm-meet-face

    Posted 11 months ago #
  5. neddie
    Member

    I cycled the "wrong" way down Glengyle today, just for the hell of it. Got one raging driver (pure Malky), enraged by having to apply the brake slightly to pass me.

    What a way to live... continual anger...

    Also, physical protection measures-ish, with some nice flappy motorists-can-drive-right-through-them lumy bollards:

    Untitled

    Sweepstake on long they last before being annihilated ???

    Posted 11 months ago #
  6. gembo
    Member

    The one at top of New Street lasted minutes the first time and then again all the other times

    Posted 11 months ago #
  7. neddie
    Member

    Connection between the Greenbank-Meadows quiet route and West-end (ish), avoiding the Lothian Rd traffic sewer as much as possible.

    The Northern section of the route shown being the one of the QRs proposed by the council

    Dotted red shows another option for residents

    Contraflow is required on Leven St when travelling North

    lothian rd qr2

    Posted 11 months ago #
  8. LaidBack
    Member

    Glengyle cycle contraflow

    Glengyle into Leven Terrace cycle contraflow

    Posted 11 months ago #
  9. chdot
    Admin

    Curious

    TROs?

    No objections from parkers??

    Posted 11 months ago #
  10. Morningsider
    Member

    They are existing yellow lines and you can install a mandatory cycle lane without a TRO. That gets me to thinking about this set-up - is it possible to create a mandatory lane and then segregate it using rubber kerbs? If so, you could very quickly create segregated lanes without the need for TROs, as long as you don't have to alter existing parking restrictions, where they exist.

    Posted 11 months ago #
  11. neddie
    Member

    The double yellows have been extended and loading blips added. 2 parking spaces have been removed, as noticed by chdot. So a TRO would’ve been required, no?

    Posted 11 months ago #
  12. neddie
    Member

    This bit of the road has been closed temporarily, nicely stopping up the rat-running that's avoiding Tollcross - and the world hasn't ended!

    They could simply leave it closed and that would also make the contraflows a lot lot safer

    Untitled

    Posted 11 months ago #
  13. Murun Buchstansangur
    Member

    It hacks me off when CEC paint a line and then install the segregation fully inside it. Either/or or on the line, surely.

    CEC, tell me you only care about motorists without telling me.

    Posted 11 months ago #
  14. neddie
    Member

    TBF, the white lines are really only needed for motorists (mostly to help them go faster and take less care)

    Therefore, I think the lines should be on the driver's side of the segregation. The real issue is that they've made most of the cycling facilities too narrow and the minimum width should take into account the width of the segregation units

    I do also agree that it looks like motors are prioritised

    Posted 11 months ago #
  15. neddie
    Member

    Someone (not sure if it was the council) has reopened the Leven Tce rat-run. Boo!

    Meanwhile Valleyfield St remains closed to cars and it has really come alive in the space of a day! I saw a group of 4 walking down the mIddLE oF thE RoAD, 2 bikes going with the flow and 1 contra-ing. Great to see! What a shame it won't last

    Posted 11 months ago #
  16. neddie
    Member

    Well? This is a bit pants innit?

    Untitled

    Signalled to a speeding Porsche driver to slow down here, as there was a kid on a bike right in front. Window rolls down, "I've got eyes, you should be police!". Strong stench of dooby-wackers

    Posted 11 months ago #
  17. chdot
    Admin

  18. chdot
    Admin

    REPLY!

    https://twitter.com/finlaymcf/status/1658921059620384770

    (He’s on TEC)

    Posted 11 months ago #
  19. boothym
    Member

    So am I right in saying that the current arrangements (Tarvit Street closed to vehicles and new contraflows added) matches how this project is meant to be once implemented?

    Posted 11 months ago #
  20. toomanybikes
    Member

    Guess there's two questions. 1) Should parking be removed here as its a key route?

    2) Should similarly narrow streets not be given one way cycling exemptions? If not, what is the width threshold to do it.

    If you have to remove parking on all vaguely narrow streets to contraflow them, reality is we're not getting many exempted streets quickly.

    Posted 11 months ago #
  21. neddie
    Member

    The issue here is the rat-running along Leven Tce and Glengyle Tce to avoid Tollcross.

    This was set in place by the council in the 1980s (no doubt to give the illusion of "improving flow") banning all turns on Lauriston Pl into Lauriston Gdns and instead encouraging cars to rat-run round the Lady Lawson St / Lauriston St gyratory*, then bomb it down Lauriston Gdns, then cross Melville Dr to continue the rat-run along Leven Tce.

    It's a terrible rat-run that should have been stopped up years ago.

    The solution is to put bollards on Leven Tce. This would have the added benefit is severing (or at least reducing the effectiveness) of the Lauriston Gdns rat-run.

    I'm all in favour of removing parking, but this probably wouldn't be necessary if the Leven Tce rat-run was stopped up

    *There's even custom signage to indicate that cars should do that, here: https://goo.gl/maps/XJkrCJsTN5hXFdzf6

    It's absolutely bonkers, the lengths the council have gone to, to enable rat-running through residential streets

    Posted 11 months ago #
  22. chdot
    Admin

    I have contacted officers about this as there are a lot of concerns from residents

    https://twitter.com/mg4citycentre/status/1659185432423219201

    Posted 11 months ago #
  23. SRD
    Moderator

    I find that worrying rather than encouraging. have the residents ever complained about the rat run?

    Posted 11 months ago #
  24. toomanybikes
    Member

    @SRD almost certainly not, status quo bias rules supreme.

    Posted 11 months ago #
  25. MediumDave
    Member

    Possibly many of the complaints can be summarised as "MUH PARKING"

    Posted 11 months ago #
  26. MediumDave
    Member

    I am a contraflow enjoyer by the way, despite the sketchy way it is implemented.

    Just to watch the cagers fulminating makes my day...

    Posted 11 months ago #
  27. boothym
    Member

    "I have contacted officers about this as there are a lot of concerns from residents"

    https://twitter.com/mg4citycentre/status/1659185432423219201

    I clicked on that tweet and below it was another one by that Cllr from yesterday: https://twitter.com/MG4CityCentre/status/1658787099099660290
    "Surgery at Tollcross Community Centre @ 6pm this evening. Do come along if you have any issues, new traffic flow system at Leven Terr or the Tollcross junction"

    Posted 11 months ago #
  28. acsimpson
    Member

    I wonder where the "residents" reside. Is it similar to the "residents" (of North Gyle) who are complaining about the new pocket park on Featherhall?

    Posted 11 months ago #
  29. chdot
    Admin

    Not specifically, to their credit the majority of residents of these streets emailing me have stressed their support for active travel / cycling before explaining their concern about safety.

    https://twitter.com/FinlayMcF/status/1659300172948463616

    Posted 11 months ago #
  30. Arellcat
    Moderator

    Ah yes, the "I care so much about safer walking and cycling that I think they should do it somewhere else that's more safe" brigade.

    Posted 11 months ago #

RSS feed for this topic

Reply »

You must log in to post.


Video embedded using Easy Video Embed plugin