CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » Commuting

Burnshot flyover

(365 posts)
  • Started 7 years ago by fiefster
  • Latest reply from minus six

No tags yet.


1…345…13

  1. Harts Cyclery
    Member

    Well, things seemed to have moved on since my last post...

    What a load of nonsense from the Council and, apparently, the MOD. The underpass goes from one public road to another, it is probably technically owned by the MOD, but they don't control access at the moment, so it is absurd to 'refuse permission' whatever that means. It is totally outside the wire.

    The solution here is simple and inexpensive and could be done in a morning by a pair of workers and an LDV flat bed filled with cones.

    Simply cone off the immensely long slip road up the hill such that there is enough room for a pair of bikes to pass. 2.5m should be ample. This would make the (double width slip road) slip road narrow where it departs the A90, but still wide enough for the largest vehicles.

    Gonna send a few emails...

    Posted 7 years ago #

  2. HankChief
    Member

    Mrs Chief had a Kirkliston based colleague who because of Burnshot diverted to the A8 Cycle Path only to be confronted by the roadworks on that. He's now driving to work :-(

    Perhaps we should organise a mass using of the underpass to see what sort of response we get given that we'd be threatening National Security ;-)

    Posted 7 years ago #

  3. biketrain
    Member

    Bridge was closed tonight. However gates were open.

    Posted 7 years ago #

  4. chdot
    Admin

    "Perhaps we should organise a mass using of the underpass to see what sort of response we get given that we'd be threatening National Security ;-)"

    Well clearly nothing would happen, because there is absolutely nothing wrong with using the underpass.

    If there was it would have gates at each end!!!

    There are several underknown things here -

    1) what has the MoD said no to?

    2) have they any legal (or other) reasons for saying no?

    3) in which level of reality is it dangerous for peds/bikes to go over the bridge?

    4) how is it safe to go UNDER the bridge?

    5) what process would be required for coning off (NOT with plastic things) the sliproad?

    6) has a diversion been signposted?

    7) who is responsible for any/all of this?

    8) when will we find out?

    9) other

    Questions about when/how will bridge be repaired/replaced can wait.

    Posted 7 years ago #

  5. chdot
    Admin

    "Bridge was closed tonight. However gates were open"

    ?

    Closed as in there were notices saying it was closed?

    So if this is a public safety emergency there is some severe dereliction of duty going on.

    Posted 7 years ago #

  6. biketrain
    Member

    @chdot.

    Just to clarify. There were cones and road closed signs on both side of the bridge. The gates were both unlocked and open at either end. If you arrive a Burnshot Flyover from Craigies Farm you are presented with a diversion sign suggesting you head North along the A90. However there is also a sign that says 'No Cycles or Pedestrians'. I did not see any diversion signs for those that use 'Active Travel'.

    Posted 7 years ago #

  7. Frenchy
    Member

    Council said they'd be locking the gates today.

    I was assuming they were leaving them open until they'd put diversion signs in place. Suppose we'll find out...

    Posted 7 years ago #

  8. chdot
    Admin

    "Council said they'd be locking the gates today."

    Yeah that's what I was told when I was there on Tuesday.

    Just bizarre.

    An 'arbitrary' danger.

    Anyone seen whatever paperwork went with the original closure to motor traffic?

    Posted 7 years ago #

  9. biketrain
    Member

    I couple of photos from last night.

    Closure or not.

    Diversion or not.

    Posted 7 years ago #

  10. chdot
    Admin

    Just needs a couple of these -

    http://www.cyclinguk.org/news/2012-03-05/signs-times-relaxed-rules-for-no-entry-except-cycles

    Posted 7 years ago #

  11. Murun Buchstansangur
    Member

    Is there a TRO for this road closure?

    Posted 7 years ago #

  12. Harts Cyclery
    Member

    It's useful to know your way around the MOD Operator! Just spoken to someone at Craigie Hall, who preferred to remain nameless, but senior enough to confirm that they have absolutely NO ISSUE WITH UNFETTERED PEDESTRIAN and CYCLE ACCESS to the underpass - which is kind of obvious because it's been open to the public for years.

    What Cllr Work is probably crossing his wires over is that the Council have been asking for public vehicular access through Craigie Hall, which Craigie Hall have, rightly, totally rejected. They have no issue with ped/cycle access to underpass.

    The chap I spoke to says he's been getting hassle about this for months of the Council and that they 'need to get it sorted'.

    Posted 7 years ago #

  13. Klaxon
    Member

    I'm at a loss as to why they'd even try to request access for vehicles through Craigiehall. Both west sliproads at Burnshot are still open and the Riverside Road junction only connects to the Northbound A90.

    Posted 7 years ago #

  14. Murun Buchstansangur
    Member

    Well done HC for cutting through the nonsense.

    What would public vehicular (presuming they meant motor rather than cycle) access through Craigiehall have achieved anyway? Westbound A90/Kirkliston traffic can still use the offramp. Townbound traffic entering A90 at Craigiehall rather than Burnshot on-ramp would still have to first head east then turn round at B924 junction.

    Council is (largely) useless.

    Posted 7 years ago #

  15. Harts Cyclery
    Member

    Just emailed Cllrs Work, Lang and Cc'd ACH:

    Dear Cllrs Work and Lang,

    I am emailing regarding the on-going saga of the Burnshot Bridge. As of this week, the bridge has now been closed to pedestrians and cyclists, thus cutting off one of only 2 public routes west out of Cramond and Barnton for non-vehciular users (ie. active travel).

    I have a solution to this problem which is simple and inexpensive.

    The underpass between the weigh-bridge and East Drive is a perfect alternative to crossing the A90 and pedestrian cycle access up to the Kirkliston Road could be made by coning or barriering off the immensely long slip road. Where the slip road actually departs the A90, it is double width, so could be easily coned off to allow pedestrian and cycle use in both directions whilst still allowing even the largest vehicles to use the slip road. Once down to the bottom of the slip road, pedestrians and cyclists could be directed to the underpass and then join the main NCN1 route once on the other side.

    I have spoken this morning to the --------------- at Craigie Hall and he confirms that they have absolutely no issue with unfettered use of the underpass, which is obvious because it's been open to the public since its construction. What he does have an issue with is the Council asking for vehicular access inside the wire, through Craigie Hall, which is perhaps where you are getting your wires crossed, Cllr Work.

    I'd be keen to speak to someone involved with traffic management to propose my solution to this long-term issue.

    Yours sincerely,

    Posted 7 years ago #

  16. chdot
    Admin

    Needs something like this -

    Posted 7 years ago #

  17. Harts Cyclery
    Member

    Just spoken to Kevin Lang. He's going to propose it to the Council Officer leading on this.

    Posted 7 years ago #

  18. chdot
    Admin

    Why oh why does this sort of thing have to be sorted out by 'us'???!!!

    Quite a bit been happening on Twitter with CEC offering (half?) untruths - 'MoD said no', 'diversion in place' etc.

    Pathetic.

    Posted 7 years ago #

  19. Blueth
    Member

    Coned off cycle "contraflow" seems to be working fine on the north side of the FRB, so why not something of the sort at Burnshot?

    Posted 7 years ago #

  20. crowriver
    Member

    @Harts Cyclery, good work!

    @chdot, "Quite a bit been happening on Twitter"

    Well that's the problem with Tw*tter. 140 character limit not conducive to nuanced communication. Also very public, so council folk revert to defensive, cautious responses.

    Posted 7 years ago #

  21. chdot
    Admin

    "Also very public, so council folk revert to defensive, cautious responses."

    I'm sure that's true in some cases.

    In this one most of problem was the Council's official Twitter account putting out untruths plus the local councillor putting out the same messages because that's what he had been told as 'fact'.

    Posted 7 years ago #

  22. chdot
    Admin

    "

    Norman Work (@CllrNormanWork)
    12/05/2017, 14:10
    @hank_chief @harts_cyclery @reggietricker @Edinburgh_CC @CyclingEdin @SpokesLothian CEC now say they will look again at the underpass option but now using width restrictions as a possible issue on slip. Keep the pressure on

    "

    Posted 7 years ago #

  23. Morningsider
    Member

    Where does the prohibition on bikes using the A90 begin? From a quick swatch at streetview, the first sign I can see saying No Cycling is just after the slip road up to Burnshot Road. If this is correct then you could legally use the underpass and slip road/hard shoulder as it stands.

    As for lane widths, these are set out in the attached section of the Design Manual for Roads and Bridges:

    http://www.standardsforhighways.co.uk/ha/standards/dmrb/vol6/section1/td2705.pdf

    Not quite sure which is the appropriate minimum lane width for the slip road here, given the odd layout. Taking a punt - 3.65m would seem reasonable. Although, if you count it as a hard shoulder then anything down to 2.75m is fine. Hard to tell, but you should be able to fit a narrow segregated cycle lane down the slip road.

    Posted 7 years ago #

  24. neddie
    Member

    you could legally use the underpass and slip road/hard shoulder as it stands

    Only in one direction.

    Posted 7 years ago #

  25. crowriver
    Member

    Aye, this has been pointed out further up the thread. Legal, but safe? Only for 'brave' cyclists and 'foolhardy' pedestrians.

    Posted 7 years ago #

  26. Harts Cyclery
    Member

    Kevin Lang got back to me last night:
    --
    Council officials are going to investigate the option we discussed.
    --

    Hopefully common sense prevails!

    Posted 7 years ago #

  27. chdot
    Admin

    "Council officials are going to investigate the option we discussed."

    Hope that includes opening the bridge to pedestrians and cyclists!

    Posted 7 years ago #

  28. Harts Cyclery
    Member

    No, I think it's safe to say the bridge is out of action. This is the slip road and underpass option.

    Posted 7 years ago #

  29. I were right about that saddle
    Member

    @Harts Cyclery

    Nice work. Shame they didn't think of this.

    Posted 7 years ago #

  30. chdot
    Admin

    "No, I think it's safe to say the bridge is out of action. This is the slip road and underpass option."

    I'm sure you're right!

    Still want to know why light traffic is banned on bridge but heavy traffic is allowed to hammer along underneath!

    Posted 7 years ago #

RSS feed for this topic

1…345…13

Reply »

You must log in to post.


Video embedded using Easy Video Embed plugin