CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » Infrastructure

Roseburn Park - shared path closed (now open!)

(234 posts)
  • Started 1 year ago by threefromleith
  • Latest reply from stiltskin

  1. Stickman
    Member

    https://www.edinburghnews.scotsman.com/news/edinburgh-rugby-in-talks-to-build-7-000-seat-mini-murrayfield-1-4684720

    How much did the SRU/Edinburgh Rugby contribute to the flood works which make this development possible?

    Posted 4 months ago #
  2. Stickman
    Member

    Two short white lines with pedestrian/cyclist signs have now been painted on either side of the buildings in Roseburn Park.

    Did this really require a consultation?

    If this doesn't solve the "problem" cycling in the park then perhaps residents opposed to the segregated route will realise that magic paint isn't a solution.

    Posted 2 months ago #
  3. Noticed that on Sunday on my first ride of 2018, but since I've been off the bike for so long I thought it may have been there for a while.

    The bike side (just before the first building as you head towards Murrayfield) had a big puddle in it and lots of broken glass too, so I suspect many wouldn't have stuck to riding on 'their' side of the path at that spot....

    Posted 2 months ago #
  4. Stickman
    Member

    "Keep Clear" has now been painted on the road at the east end entrance to the park.

    Posted 2 months ago #
  5. It was clear at 6.20am this morning - but I can't see drivers leaving a big clear space like that un-parked in when the streets are chocka with parked vehicles!

    Posted 2 months ago #
  6. HankChief
    Member

    The CCWEL will be building out the kerb there and putting in double yellow lines. You've just got to wait a year or so...

    Posted 2 months ago #
  7. Stickman
    Member

    The Great Roseburn Park Infrastructure Project grinds slowly on. Some tactiles have been installed at the end of one of the new lines of paint. Presumably more are to go in across the full width of the path, otherwise it is a complete waste of time.

    Some good news though: the new "Keep Clear" sign at the entrance is still being observed.

    Posted 1 month ago #
  8. I hate those tactiles. Lethally slippery in the damp / wet when skinny tyres 'tramline' in them.

    I'd love to hear whether the partially-sighted or blind actually find them useful or not.

    Which reminds me - I must get on to the council as most of the tactiles along Broomhouse / Saughton are loose and/or cracked and the see-saw effect adds to the terror of crossing them in the wet.

    Posted 1 month ago #
  9. Stickman
    Member

    https://www.edinburghnews.scotsman.com/sport/rugby-union/edinburgh-rugby/planning-bid-launched-for-new-edinburgh-rugby-stadium-at-murrayfield-1-4747664

    Out of interest, how much did the SRU contribute to the flood works which will make this development possible?

    Posted 2 weeks ago #
  10. gembo
    Member

    @threefromleith, If I was visually impaired I do not think I would be out walking on the Stenhouse path or any other shared use path, tactile pavings or not.

    When no one else around, I confess I veer over the other side and bump the tactile paving on the perpendicular

    Posted 2 weeks ago #
  11. @gembo Me too! Ped-side tiles avoid any tramlining and squeaky-bum moments.

    Posted 2 weeks ago #
  12. ejstubbs
    Member

    @Stickman: Out of interest, how much did the SRU contribute to the flood works which will make this development possible?

    AFAIK they didn't contribute anything. What they did do was to object to the original flood prevention scheme, which was designed to use the training pitches as what they actually are: a flood plain. This objection caused the scheme to be redesigned, resulting in the ugly and much less wildlife-friendly concrete canalisation of the WoL past Roseburn Park that we see today. It was almost certainly also one of the contributory factors to the significantly increased costs and delayed implementation of the project.

    Any hydrologist will tell you that allowing floodwater to flow more freely simply pushes the problem downstream. I know that at one time there was a plan to build a massive retention tank under Donaldson's School. I don't know whether that went ahead, or what it cost if it did.

    On the face of it this does smack somewhat of the SRU taking advantage of the public purse having been raided to protect their playing fields against a once-in-100-years flood event, to turn those now-protected fields in to a nice little earner.

    It also puzzles me why, if Edinburgh currently play at the big stadium next door, they can't go on doing so. Is it because SRU want the option to charge other clients more handsomely for use of the main stadium on the twenty or so days when Edinburgh Rugby would otherwise want to use the pitch?

    Edited to add: given that, according to the article, the training pitch has a synthetic 3G surface, it sounds as if advantage has already been taken of the publicly-funded enhanced flood protection at Roseburn Park.

    Posted 2 weeks ago #
  13. Frenchy
    Member

    It also puzzles me why, if Edinburgh currently play at the big stadium next door, they can't go on doing so. Is it because SRU want the option to charge other clients more handsomely for use of the main stadium on the twenty or so days when Edinburgh Rugby would otherwise want to use the pitch?

    It's because fans keep complaining that there's not a good atmosphere when there's only 5000 people in a 67000 seat stadium. I doubt they'd have an event on the same night as a match even if the match was in the mini stadium.

    Posted 2 weeks ago #
  14. Stickman
    Member

    This rubbish cost £30k. Unbelievable.

    https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/cycling_and_walking_improvements#incoming-1172879

    Posted 1 week ago #
  15. *bangs head off table until it bleeds*

    For a bit of paint & some tactiles?! Someone's pocketing the cash & doing some creative work with the receipts for the Dulux....

    Posted 1 week ago #
  16. paulmilne
    Member

    Surely the approach ramp and bridge from Roseburn Place would have taken up a fair chunk of that. Unless it came out of the flood prevention works budget?

    Posted 6 days ago #
  17. Stickman
    Member

    No, that was part of the flood works.

    Posted 6 days ago #
  18. Stickman
    Member

    From the minutes of the last Murrayfield Community Council:

    "Cllr Gloyer reported that during a three month trial of road markings for bicycles in Roseburn Park two incidents of cyclists swearing at and threatening pedestrians had been reported. A member of the public who walks his dog in Roseburn Park every day confirmed that such incidents are a daily occurrence. Cllr Gloyer asked that such incidents be reported to her. P Gregson said that the Friends of Roseburn Park would also like to know about them. The same member of the public asked whether the Water of Leith walkway is a cycle path as well as a walkway and was told by P Gregson that it is. It was felt that the removal of the SLOW sign and the installation of markings for cyclists in Roseburn Park may give the impression that cyclists have priority."

    Well worth the £30k then.

    Posted 2 days ago #
  19. paulmilne
    Member

    Most of this sort of thing could have been avoided if they had built a separate cycle track adjacent to the footpath. Big park, lots of grass, but no, let's squeeze everyone together onto one path.

    Posted 2 days ago #
  20. I've been cycling through Roseburn park when travelling to and from work since April 2006, and I've NEVER seen any incidents between cyclists or pedestrians in all that time.

    I'm not saying that they don't happen every now and again (we all know human nature and the way some cyclists and some pedestrians behave), but I'm highly sceptical of an anonymous 'member of the public' who says it's a 'daily occurrence'. You'd think they'd have been gathering video evidence of this by now if they see it daily!

    Posted 2 days ago #
  21. neddie
    Member

    two incidents of cyclists swearing at and threatening pedestrians had been reported

    I wonder what provoked them into doing that, cos I'm pretty sure cyclists don't go around swearing and threatening randomly. They only do that when their very existence is under threat.

    Posted 2 days ago #
  22. gembo
    Member

    A cyclist swore at me the other day in Juni green as I was climbing the bend from where the path was diverted when the housing development went in at the mill site, back up to the original path from whence he was coming. Went like this (I had veered on to his side in the bright sunshine of my daydreams, and he was within his rights to swear, but note he didn't start with swearing)

    Sweary Cyclist: BIKE
    Silly Gembo: Wahooooo

    Sweary Cyclists: Effing Jeffing

    I think h mis perceived my surprise mixed with gratitude as offensive?

    Still quite a bit of swearing. But I am quite thick skinned

    Posted 2 days ago #
  23. wingpig
    Member

    "I'm pretty sure cyclists don't go around swearing and threatening randomly"

    Not randomly, but plenty of turnips visibly huff and puff and tut (albeit not necessarily effingly and blindingly) when their precious momentum is threatened by other path users on a range of paths, not just through parks. I pass through Roseburn Park only rarely, but saw two or three instances of a fast cyclist getting huffy and impatient with a pedestrian over four or five visits.

    Posted 2 days ago #
  24. stiltskin
    Member

    I walk the dogs as well as cycle through the park. There is plenty of crap cycling but if you are getting daily abuse you are probably doing something to attract it.

    Posted 2 days ago #

RSS feed for this topic

Reply

You must log in to post.


Video embedded using Easy Video Embed plugin