CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » Infrastructure

Silverknowes Roundabout - Danger Alert

(155 posts)
  • Started 6 years ago by HankChief
  • Latest reply from Harts Cyclery

Tags:


  1. I were right about that saddle
    Member

    I can see that chuckies and paint keep people in jobs, but I can also see that they strongly hinder making progress to segregation by consuming time, money and political bandwidth. This roundabout alone will consume thousands of pounds in futile conflict. These lanes are what I would propose if I was utterly opposed to actual cycle infrastructure. They are the chaff of the transport hierarchy war.

    We'll only get there when the moon is in the Seventh House and Jupiter aligns with Mars. Then peace will guide the planets and love will steer the stars.

    Posted 6 years ago #
  2. Frenchy
    Member

    I suspect that it would be very hard to find a single person who had decided to start cycling because of pink paint or, even less likely, chuckies.

    Of course, but I do think it will be part of the thought process for a lot of people who are considering cycling to work. It certainly was for me - I remember being asked "is it safe?" by family members and replying "Yeah, there are cycle lanes most of the way".

    I believed it too, and may not have started cycling if I hadn't.

    Posted 6 years ago #
  3. chdot
    Admin

    "but I can also see that they strongly hinder making progress to segregation by consuming time, money and political bandwidth."

    That's different from your original proposal to remove existing.

    If you were/(are) saying 'no more lanes unless they are segregated' you have a good point.

    Posted 6 years ago #
  4. I were right about that saddle
    Member

    That's different from your original proposal

    A lady can change her mind.

    I'd say they were two separate ideas. Digging up the tarmac with pink chuckies would be controversial and expensive. Letting the pink paint wear away less so.

    I wouldn't have thought a moratorium on advisory lanes would be controversial at all. Most people ignore/can't see/dislike them anyway.

    The only group I can see with a vested interest in them are the CEC active transport people. I'd say they are the sole current beneficiaries.

    Posted 6 years ago #
  5. neddie
    Member

    I think the advisory painted-on lanes did once serve a purpose of promoting/marketing cycling.

    But things have moved on.

    "We" now know they are not safe, not useful and a waste of limited resources. They have served their purpose, it's time to move on to what is known to work (by looking to continental Europe)

    Posted 6 years ago #
  6. gembo
    Member

    I was just in the Stirling cycle hub, not sure what it is, a bit of a bike library. Good map of the trossachs, very large. They agreed segregated infra. They also like speed bumps

    Posted 6 years ago #
  7. davidsonsdave
    Member

    As a resident of the area, a member of the local association (like a community council) and someone who uses this roundabout very regularly to cycle the little ones to nursery, I am quite incensed about this scheme. I have asked for more information on the consultation process here as it appears to have been non-existent.

    This roundabout has been in a poor state of repair for years and I do wonder whether the cycling bit has tacked on to access the 10% budget like Morningsider suggests.

    The restructure of the access to the golf course car park is good as there is problems with the current entrance/exit, and the zebra crossing is long overdue. However, the zebra's should really be on a raised table to slow the cars that speed on the excessively wide roads.

    The pedestrian island on Lauriston Farm Road will encourage pedestrians to cross at a location where (on the South pavement) they are totally unable to see (or be seen by) oncoming traffic. It is inviting a tragedy.

    I'm very pro-infrastructure and have had numerous problems with dangerous driving at this roundabout when I have simply been taking my children to nursery by bike but the bike lanes in this scheme are completely useless. They help no-one and conversely reduce safety and simply should not be built.

    Posted 6 years ago #
  8. Harts Cyclery
    Member

  9. fimm
    Member

    There's a pdf here which means you can zoom in. I can't work out how wide the cycle lanes are intended to be.

    I also thought it was the roundabout at the bottom of the hill, by the prom, rather than the one at the top of the hill by the golf club. Don't ask me why I thought that. The one at the top is only about one car wide anyway.

    Posted 6 years ago #
  10. Harts Cyclery
    Member

    The top roundabout is immensely wide. Could easily fit 2 cars side by side on it. Needs proper redesigning making the most of the massive, wasted centre circle.

    Posted 6 years ago #
  11. Harts Cyclery
    Member

    https://www.google.co.uk/maps/place/Silverknowes,+Edinburgh+EH4+5HA/@55.9720278,-3.2725891,88m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m5!3m4!1s0x4887c619c38ae7e9:0xd0591826e7a6fdc0!8m2!3d55.971451!4d-3.27246

    Posted 6 years ago #
  12. Murun Buchstansangur
    Member

    The new entrance to the golf course is concerning too. Huge risk of cyclists being left hooked.

    Posted 6 years ago #
  13. neddie
    Member

    @Harts

    Your design is good, but the bend radii need to be reduced massively, to keep vehicle speeds down where cycles/peds are crossing. The Dutch do this also. Usually with a portion of the outer of the centre island drive-able-over for HGVs to turn.

    I suspect the proposed improvements are really just resurfacing, with the red paint lanes thrown in as a 'bonus*'

    *ROFL

    Posted 6 years ago #
  14. Frenchy
    Member

    I suspect the proposed improvements are really just resurfacing, with the red paint lanes thrown in as a 'bonus*'

    Pretty sure this will be the case, which does mean that they won't be using the active travel budget for it.

    Posted 6 years ago #
  15. DdF
    Member

    @IWRATS "I suspect that it would be very hard to find a single person who had decided to start cycling because of pink paint" - incorrect

    @Frenchy "Pragmatically, they are probably a necessary intermediate step between no infrastructure and great infrastructure" [and his 2 paras before that] - very very correct.

    Evidence - see page 3, which was at a time when the council 'streetscape' dept was trying to remove the coloured cycle lanes.

    Secondly - re Silverknowes rbt, AFAIK Spokes knew nothing about this and I strongly suspect there has been no consultation because of the process below.

    The Council has a newish policy which has come in gradually over the last couple of years, to consider installing cycle facilities when a road is resurfaced - hence recent Dundas Street and the problematic recent one in @rankeillor? street.

    In principle it is great that they now have this policy - and it is all funded by the road resurfacing budget, not the cycle budget. There is virtually no additional cost if the road is anyway being resurfaced as it is just a matter of using red chippings instead of black, then a few white lines.

    So just because a new cycle facility appears does not mean it is funded from the cycle budget or originated by the cycle team.

    And, if I am right, then Silverknowes is not a 'cycle project' but a resurfacing project, into which cycling and walking have been slotted, rather than purely resurfacing the roundabout exactly as it was before.

    The big (huge!) problem is that these schemes are not publicly consulted on, unlike schemes which originate as cycle schemes from the cycle team, which are sometimes almost over-consulted. This is a point Spokes has made several times, but with no success as yet.

    Don't know to what extent the resurfacing people liaise with the cycle team - you would certainly hope that happens, and I imagine it does happen to some extent, but this is the second odd scheme to appear via the resurfacing route.

    I am assuming this is the origin of the Silverknowes rbt and, if so, it would explain the absence of consultation.

    To rebuild the roundabout in Dutch design would involve significant reconstruction, not just resurfacing, and in that case would very likely include cash from the cycle budget - which would certainly be a worthwhile use of such funds! (and staff time from the cycle team)

    Posted 6 years ago #
  16. Murun Buchstansangur
    Member

    @DdF given they are changing the ingress/egress from the golf club in a way likely to conflict with cyclists and the pedestrians they are building a crossing for, I don't think it can just be written off as just resurfacing. I've seen consultations for much less.

    And the resurfacing one is a lousy 'policy' if it allows some amateur to design something contrary to all the guidance, putting cyclists in more danger than before.

    Posted 6 years ago #
  17. Frenchy
    Member

    the problematic recent one in @rankeillor? street.

    East Preston St?

    Posted 6 years ago #
  18. DdF
    Member

    Yes, East Preston St, not 'Rankeillor?' St.

    Posted 6 years ago #
  19. I were right about that saddle
    Member

    @IWRATS - incorrect

    We discussed this at our office Bicycle User Group and it is clear that many staff are encouraged to cycle by the safety of the coloured surfaces.

    Were you seeking the views of the city's open-air drinkers or something?

    Maybe the coloured strips had novelty value for drivers in 2006, now they are just part of the carriageway, as evidenced by the wear patterns of the pink paint.

    Posted 6 years ago #
  20. davidsonsdave
    Member

    @Murun Buchstansangur The current arrangement for access to the golf course car park means that cars wishing to enter the car park drive directly at you as you sit on Silverknowes Road waiting to enter the roundabout after coming up from the beach. I also find there is unnecessary conflict with cars leaving the car park as they choose to ignore you as it isn't entirely clear that you have priority.

    The proposed new entrance would be at the beginning of where the bus stop currently is. There are a lot more buses using this stop than there are cars visiting the golf club but there doesn't seem to be a current issue of buses left hooking cyclists here.

    Posted 6 years ago #
  21. davidsonsdave
    Member

    Note that this roundabout is right at the end of a lot of bus routes so they swing around here before sitting at the bus stop at the golf club (which is probably why the surface of the roundabout is always in such a poor condition).

    Posted 6 years ago #
  22. acsimpson
    Member

    GSR is the best example of on road cycle lanes which I can currently think of. I don't remember anyone saying that they don't think they should be there and I'm pretty sure Hankchief will have evidence that they have help increase cycling rates to Gogarburn.

    Of course GSR is a slightly special case as it isn't plagued by the parking issues of many (more urban) roads. The example of the mound from DdF's linked bulletin is another good one. I suspect one of the biggest differences between 2006 and now is the number of badly parked vehicles. Provided a advisory cycle lane can be kept clear of parked vehicles then I think they are better than nothing, however a single vehicle can render at least 100m before it worse than it would otherwise be.

    I'm sure we all have similar opinions of "cycle" lanes in the door zone of parked cars.

    DdF, it's good to hear that red chip zones are to be considered whenever resurfacing work is carried out and that it doesn't come from the cycle budget. Clearly it isn't mandatory to include them though as recent resurfacing work on Maybury Road doesn't.

    My memory of the roundabout cycle lanes is from when they appeared at the now removed roudabout at the end of Minto Street, by Cameron Toll in the 90's(?).

    They were worse than useless to turn right on then and driver behaviour (IMHO) has worsened since then.

    Posted 6 years ago #
  23. Harts Cyclery
    Member

    @nedd1e_h give me a break on the geometry! Haha. I knocked it up using shapes on powerpoint. More representational than actual scale. Just to give an idea what can be done. The current centre circle is so massive and wastes so much space. Much of it could be used whilst still leaving plenty of room for the buses to turn. See Cramond Road if you want to see what a bus can turn round.

    Posted 6 years ago #
  24. Murun Buchstansangur
    Member

    @davidsonsdave Yes, the current GC entrance is abysmal and I am not arguing for it to be retained. The moving of the GC exit further down Silverknowes Rd makes sense. I'm just not sure the combo of roundabout (with or without red marking deathtraps)->zebra crossing->left turn to GC in the space of roughly 10 metres is a safe or sensible idea, especially when the markings on Silverknowes Parkway past the zigzags encourage gutter cycling coming off the roundabout.

    Creating a new combined entrance/exit for the GC on Silverknowes Rd looks to me to be the best idea - as you say the level of GC usage does not seem to warrant the one-way system they've planned.

    I think bus drivers pulling into the bus stands to wait anyway would be less likely to impatiently left hook a cyclist, but I may be wrong.

    Posted 6 years ago #
  25. davidsonsdave
    Member

    Received this from my local councillor:

    Silverknowes Roundabout and Silverknowes Parkway carriageways were identified as requiring to be resurfaced as part of the Capital Maintenance programme due to their current condition.

    Additional works were included at the request of the Localities Team which included the reconstruction of the footways, the increase in width of the roundabout to stop vehicle overrun on the footways (especially buses), the introduction of pedestrian crossing facilities on each leg of the roundabout to improve pedestrian safety, and the re-location of the entrance to the golf club off the roundabout where most of the recorded accidents had taken place.

    In line with the Edinburgh Street Design Guidance the addition of cycle facilities was also introduced to the design of the maintenance scheme.

    The consultation for the scheme was carried out in June 2016 which included the Councillors for the Ward, the MP for the area, Lothian Buses, Edinburgh Leisure, Davidson’s Mains and Silverknowes Association representing the residents and the Active Travel team. There were no concerns raised as part of the consultation. Please see below the comments and reply’s regarding the cycle facilities from the Active Travel team.

    The works were initially due to start in January 2017 when the golf club is least busy, however due to the late delivery of the Road Safety Audit and the amendments to the design as a result of the audit it was not possible to meet that date. It was decided therefore to postpone the works until September 2017 when the attendance to golf club is getting quieter.

    Active Travel Comments and Responses

    1. What purpose does the existing service strip through the roundabout serve? Can long articulated vehicles negotiate the Roundabout North to South and South to North without it?
    This used to be a route for long vehicles but is no longer used, the long vehicle could not negotiate the roundabout and the strip was there to allow them over it instead of round. This route is no longer used and the strip serves no purpose anymore.

    2. The existing golf club car park will now have a redundant strip of tarmac previously used as part of the entrance / exit. Have we consulted them? Would they prefer this was grubbed up and seeded as per the entrance off the roundabout?
    I am currently in consultation with Edinburgh Leisure over this, I daresay they would want to keep it as the car park is a one-way system and the strip is used to allow traffic flow in a loop round the car park.

    3. Has the Vehicle Restraint System on the Roundabout been assessed. Can it come out? Same thought process as guardrail assessment.
    The vehicle restraint system has never been hit in the last 25 years and is not required especially as the width of the roundabout is to be increased by 2m reducing the likelihood of collisions due to the increased space for vehicle to manoeuvre.

    4. The kerbs on the corner of Silverknowes Parkway and Silverknowes Road have been battered from overrun of presumably buses or other HGVs. What provision is being made to prevent this happening again. Perhaps the approach lanes on Silverknowes Parkway could be reduced to one for motor vehicles and a cycle lane?
    The kerbs are currently being overrun due to the lack of space for vehicles on the roundabout. The increase in width of the roundabout will eliminate this from happening.

    5. It seems to me that the design is limited to cyclists cycling around the roundabout then sees them spat out onto the various carriageways with no further provision.
    Point taken on this but I would envisage this being a phased approach to the introduction of cycle facilities in the area unless we can secure additional funding to introduce cycle lanes on Silverknowes Parkway for it’s entire length.

    6. Can Zebra Crossings be introduced on the other three legs?
    The widths of the other legs of the carriageway does not lend themselves easily to Zebra’s also the pedestrian volumes on the other legs are very low and would not justify the added expenditure.

    7. Is there room to reduce the inscribed circle diameter of the island and introduce a continental style roundabout where cyclists are fully segregated from vehicles throughout their time on the roundabout. So they would still use the carriageway on the approach and exits but be guided into a segregated circumference. See [pretty picture of a continental roundabout] below. If you did go for something like this likelihood is Sustrans would want to help fund it.
    There is no room on the South side of the roundabout to introduce this due to residential properties and on the North side we would have issues with land acquisitions.

    [pretty picture of a continental style roundabout here]

    As previously stated the primary objective of the scheme is for the carriageway surface renewal of the roundabout on Silverknowes Road and the addition of the pedestrian crossing facilities and cycling facilities were introduced to the design as per the Edinburgh Street Design Guidance.

    Posted 6 years ago #
  26. Murun Buchstansangur
    Member

    Would be interesting to see that Road Safety Audit.

    Posted 6 years ago #
  27. crowriver
    Member

    "The consultation for the scheme was carried out in June 2016 which included the Councillors for the Ward, the MP for the area, Lothian Buses, Edinburgh Leisure, Davidson’s Mains and Silverknowes Association representing the residents and the Active Travel team. There were no concerns raised as part of the consultation. "

    Hm. This is a foretaste of how things are going to be under the new Localities system. No consultation with Spokes, CTC/CUK (I thought they were statutory consultees?) or any other cycling organisation. No community council consultation?

    Time to start watching Localities like hawks, then! And/or join any local residents' association if such exists in your area...

    Posted 6 years ago #
  28. ih
    Member

    Sounds like the Active Travel team said the right things re segregation round the roundabout, but were just wafted aside.

    The last paragraph says it all; This is a road resurfacing project and we only thought about pedestrians and cycles because we had to.

    Posted 6 years ago #
  29. newtoit
    Member

    "This is a local roundabout for local people drivers."

    Posted 6 years ago #
  30. Harts Cyclery
    Member

    I got this stock email too.

    Here's my rather hastily written response:

    Thank you very much for this. Why are some projects subject to consulation with people the team in charge of them see fit and others (such as the obviously desirable resurfacing of the paths in Davidson's Main park) subject to open consultation? Why was this not subject to open consultation?

    Is the author of this email seriously suggesting that the design meets the spec of the image he includes? Can he not see what makes the roundabout in the image safe compared to the design at Silverknowes? The 2 are in no-way comparable.

    The current lanes trap cyclists on the outside of the roundabout and traffic is not expected to yield at exits as cyclists travel round. This is known to be extremely dangerous. Experienced cyclists would simply negotiate this roundabout like a car because of this danger, yet less confident cyclists would be exposed to the danger of being 'left-hooked'. The design in the image implies (or should imply, if it is best practice (it is very low resolution, so it's hard to tell)) that cars exiting the roundabout would yield to cyclists in the lane. Totally different emphasis on priority.

    Also, note in the image the segregation between motor traffic and cycles on the roundabout itself. There is ample room given the huge centre circle for such a design to fit. We know that buses can negotiate very small turning circles if required (see Cramond Road). Indeed, Zebras on every road is what adds to the safety, because drivers must be more attentive leaving the roundabout. Simply excluding them because of seemingly low footfall makes the design considerably less safe for cyclists. In any case, Lauriston Farm Road is busy. We know this because it is rammed with cars top to bottom at rush hour every day. As someone who walks round here regularly with a child in a buggy, I know myself that zebras on each road would be greatly welcomed. Further, the whole point is that we are meant to be encouraging walking and cycling. We don't do this by designing out walking and cycling infrastructure because of seemingly low demand - that simply reinforces bad travel choices.

    This may not be a big roundabout in town, but why can it not simply be done properly? It would be useful for these teams to deliver a good roundabout at a location like Silverknowes, observe how it works, and let it lead their designs elsewhere in the city. The Scottish Government just doubled the spending on active travel - they didn't intend for it to deliver substandard designs like this. Whilst the Active Travel Team obviously asked questions, it is clear that the design team did not appreciate the risks that not addressing these issues would create. The Active Travel team, to be blunt, should have challenged the responses much more robustly - you'd have to ask the Active Travel Team why that didn't happen.

    These works need to be halted until proper, open consultation feedback can be included, especially from groups that interested parties know they can trust - like Spokes. Indeed, I know a number of actual councillors would not support a design like this had it been consulted on properly.

    I have cc'd Cllr MacInnes as TEC convener so that she has sight of this.

    Kind regards,

    Posted 6 years ago #

RSS feed for this topic

Reply »

You must log in to post.


Video embedded using Easy Video Embed plugin