CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » Commuting

Burnshot flyover

(303 posts)
  • Started 2 years ago by fiefster
  • Latest reply from acsimpson

No tags yet.


  1. crowriver
    Member

    I was out that way last week in the afternoon. Great path out to the Kirkliston Road. Surely would not be too tricky to extend it past the old army HQ, as the current footway there is overgrown and needs resurfacing.

    I avoided that road on the way back in the evening, as it still gets busy and cars going fast on way home after work. Went via Dalmeny village which is part-closed at the moment for roadworks and very quiet, to join the A90 path at entrance to Dalmeny Estate. Beware at the junction before A90 path: quite a few speeding motorists heading to South Queensferry.

    Posted 8 months ago #
  2. handcyclist
    Member

    The underpass is currently having some surfacing work done at the Cramond Brig side.
    It was left today with a lip to get onto the road surface with a 'ramp' made of soil. If anyone was along there this afternoon they may have seen an interesting set of tracks in this soil as I tried several times to get my handcycle over the lip but grounded solidly each time. Eventually I gave up and cursed for most of the way to Craigies as part of the extra 3.5 mile loop required to bypass this 'challenge'.
    I'm not sure why this section is being resurfaced, it looks like the 'lump' up and over onto the road might actually be getting bigger and I won't be able to use it at all without grounding.

    Posted 8 months ago #
  3. chdot
    Admin

    That sounds bad.

    Hope you are reporting/Twittering.

    Posted 8 months ago #
  4. HankChief
    Member

    My contact tells me they are resurfacing it to sort out the ponding issues.

    Posted 8 months ago #
  5. fiefster
    Member

    @redmist, Burnshot Road is pretty much the same going west in the evening, in fact, it is arguably slightly more dangerous rejoining the carriageway at the end of the shiny new cycle path as it requires a lengthy over shoulder check just as the cars turn on their afterburners as they crown the sliproad. Also requires some judicious manoeuvring if fellow cyclists are approaching the path at the same time.

    Make sure you follow the signs on the ground and slow down going up the cyclepath just when it straightens and widens!

    Going east in the morning is returning to pre-bridge removal levels due to, I suspect, motorists believing it is quickest to go round the Dalemny slip diversion and rejoin the A90 into Cramond.

    Posted 8 months ago #
  6. crowriver
    Member

    "Burnshot Road is pretty much the same going west in the evening"

    Yeah I try to avoid Burnshot Road in the evening "must get home as quickly as possible" post-work fatigue driver commute window. Turns it into a high speed race track with half asleep drivers.

    Better trundling along Dalmeny Main Street to the path by the entrance to Dalmeny Estate. The junction with B924 can be a bit hairy though with a similar race track mentality in evidence in the evening: really needs a signalised crossing there for safety.

    Posted 8 months ago #
  7. redmist
    Member

    Thanks for the tip. I went west on Burnshot on a Sat morning recently and it was quiet so I may have been deceived. I did notice that the surface on the "cycling line" was bad for the first bit as you head out of Kirkliston. I was glad to be able to ride near the middle of the road as there were no cars. I'll take the advice and avoid on weekday evenings.

    Posted 8 months ago #
  8. HankChief
    Member

  9. HankChief
    Member

    "A scheme to alter the slip roads and significantly improve the Active Travel (pedestrian/cyclist) provision in the area was proposed, but this required further funding to finance the additional construction costs. An application made to Sustrans for this funding has been initially unsuccessful, however a revised submission has now been made. In order to progress detailed design of the bridge, design will now proceed with an Active Travel provision of reduced scope. If funding is achieved, then the design will be updated during the process.

    The Active Travel provision scope still includes pedestrian- and cyclist-friendly paths crossing the bridge and linking into existing paths, but does not include for any significant modifications to the road network.
    Bridge "

    Posted 7 months ago #
  10. bax
    Member

    charles rennie mackintosh didn't have to put up with any of this foolish active travel budget nonsense

    oh no

    he relied on art nouveau absinthe fumes to see him through the hard times

    no sustrans nonsense required, for the uncrowned king of glesga

    Posted 7 months ago #
  11. fiefster
    Member

    ".... and all temporary Traffic Management cones and signs in the area have been removed."

    Not true, there is still a "diverted traffic" sign and 10yds further on a roadworks sign each taking up half the width of the path

    Posted 7 months ago #
  12. fiefster
    Member

    Signs now gone!

    Posted 7 months ago #
  13. HankChief
    Member

    "
    Active Travel Opportunity
    As discussions with Sustrans progressed, it became clear that the width of the bridge would have to be increased to accommodate the desired segregated Active Travel space. Based on the significant progress of the design to date, incorporation of these changes would not be possible without significant additional cost and delay, and hence the major junction realignment works are no longer being pursued. Having said this, the bridge design already includes for Active Travel provision, and the alignment design considers possible future extensions to the cycle lane and shared-use path.
    "

    https://kevinlang.mycouncillor.org.uk/files/2018/12/20181217-Briefing-No-13-A90-Burnshot-Bridge.pdf

    Posted 2 months ago #
  14. Frenchy
    Member

    Any reason not to physically segregate the cycle lane?

    Posted 2 months ago #
  15. SRD
    Moderator

    a better headline would be "Active Travel Opportunity Missed"

    Posted 2 months ago #
  16. HankChief
    Member

    Why wasn't it factored in from the start...

    The libdems must be pleased as they have been exerting pressure to get the bridge rebuilt & not held up due to active travel redesign...

    Posted 2 months ago #
  17. acsimpson
    Member

    It's also disappointing that they are using invisichips to mark out the cycle lane rather than giving it a red surface. Although given the NCN1 in both directions from the bridge is on a shared pavement I'm slightly surprised to see a separate cycle lane at all.

    Posted 2 months ago #
  18. Morningsider
    Member

    The proposed bridge has 14.5m of useable width. Just 6.5m is carriageway (although a further 1.5m is painted cycle lane - which is effectively carriageway).

    Anyway, you could fit a 2.5m wide pavement and 1.5m wide cycle lane on either side of the carriageway. No big redesign needed. A quick re-jig of one kerb line to create two 4m wide foot/cycle ways either side - with segregation between pedestrians and cyclists achieved using a white line. Should add almost nothing to the cost and take almost no effort to design.

    Posted 2 months ago #
  19. fimm
    Member

    Is there any point putting in a cycle lane on the bridge, given that once off it you are on a 60 mph road that doesn't have and is not likely to have any cycle provision on it at all? Anyone willing to cycle on that road probably isn't going to bother with murderstrip cycle lanes...

    Posted 2 months ago #
  20. SRD
    Moderator

    From sustains on twitter: Hi. Although an application was submitted through our Community Links programme, no funding has been approved by Sustrans for this project to date. Hope this helps clarify things a wee bit!

    Posted 2 months ago #
  21. SRD
    Moderator

    @fimm - there's a principle here - why are we building crap infra? any new builds should have decent infra required.

    (was cycling up Lauriston place this morning and thinking how easily they could have improved it when it was repaved recently).

    Posted 2 months ago #
  22. neddie
    Member

    @fimm

    There is potential to reduce the speed limit of this road to 40mph, since it is a common route for cyclists.

    Not providing any infrastructure on the bridge could make it more difficult to make the case for 40mph

    And all cycling infrastructure has to "start somewhere"

    Posted 2 months ago #
  23. fimm
    Member

    That's what I mean, build it properly or don't bother, because if you build rubbish in a place like that no one will use it because anyone happy to cycle the Kirkliston Road will just use the road on the bridge and will then get abuse for not using the murderstrip...

    Posted 2 months ago #
  24. HankChief
    Member

    Is this a glimmer of hope...

    "East Junction Feasibility
    Parallel to the design, a feasibility study into options for improving the sharp bend at the East junction of the bridge are being investigated. The Consultant is investigating removal of the traffic island and/or re-prioritisation of traffic, to potentially improve the safety of all users. Extension of the cycle lane beyond that shown below, to link into the existing cycle route NCN1 is also being investigated. Further details will be available in January.
    "

    Posted 2 months ago #
  25. Stickman
    Member

    “The libdems must be pleased as they have been exerting pressure to get the bridge rebuilt & not held up due to active travel redesign...”

    The same LibDems who are up in arms over the change that will speed up the TRO process? Those LibDems?

    https://www.edinburghnews.scotsman.com/news/politics/edinburgh-council-labelled-disgrace-over-road-closure-changes-1-4844917

    Posted 2 months ago #
  26. acsimpson
    Member

    @Hankcheif,

    I had accidentally assumed that the aerial shot of the bridge in your linked document was looking west but now realise it is actually looking east which is even more baffling. The inivisichip strip is heading into town (does a murder strip have to include parking?).

    That basically means that the shared use footway will be isolated on the wrong side of the main flow of traffic from Burnshot Road into Edinburgh. It also means that the shared use path apparently dumps all users onto the slip road at the western end.

    While extending the cycle lane to meet the NCN1 may be a small improvement, unless they find some way to stop vehicles coming south from the A90 encroaching on it then it will be pointless.

    Although I appreciate that good infrastructure has to start somewhere I am not convinced that what is on offer here is good infrastructure. It is of such a short length that the reduced risk from using the shared use path is offset by the increased risk of getting to it. Meanwhile the only outcome of using the inivisichip lane is either being blocked by traffic coming up the southbound slip or having the merge back into the main flow of traffic at the eastern end.

    Posted 2 months ago #
  27. HankChief
    Member

    I now know a bit more...

    The citybound invisichips will extend past the top of the sliproad coming from the A90. So once you are on them you will be able to exit straight onto NCN1 path without having to merge back into traffic.

    The West bound shared used path will become much more useful if/when the Craigiehall site (the old army barracks) gets developed into houses. Fully expect faster riders to ignore it.

    There is only fields on the right-hand side once over the bridge so no need for shared use route as nothing for less confident rider to get to and faster riders unlikely to use it as it would mean giving way to slip road traffic.

    Posted 2 months ago #
  28. fimm
    Member

    Hankchief, does "exit straight onto NCN1 path" mean "get onto the pavement"? Because I never descend on the pavement there, you'd have to be hard on the brakes all the way down and it is so narrow it is much better to leave it for people cycling up (who have no choice) and descend on the slip road.

    I agree with what people are saying about getting it right first time.

    Posted 2 months ago #
  29. HankChief
    Member

    Fimm. Yes. Personal choice...

    What do people think is a better option?

    Without extending the scope to a much wider area, I'm not sure what would make a step change improvement to it.

    Personally, I'd do without the citybound paint but I can see why they have put it in.

    Posted 2 months ago #
  30. Blueth
    Member

    I concur with Fimm, having previously communicated to the Council, in response to requests for comments, on the folly of having descending and climbing cyclists share that narrow pavement when there is a scarcely used bus lane adjacent.

    The new scheme would seem to be a good chance to direct Edinburgh bound cyclists to use the bus lane.

    Putting a stop line at the junction where traffic comes off the A90 would be a good idea (it can't be seen in detail on the pictures).

    Posted 2 months ago #

RSS feed for this topic

Reply »

You must log in to post.


Video embedded using Easy Video Embed plugin