CityCyclingEdinburgh was launched on the 27th of October 2009 as "an experiment".
IT’S TRUE!
CCE is 15years old!
Well done to ALL posters
It soon became useful and entertaining. There are regular posters, people who add useful info occasionally and plenty more who drop by to watch. That's fine. If you want to add news/comments it's easy to register and become a member.
RULES No personal insults. No swearing.
They already have some (but probably not many) electric bikes for this.
They should replace a portion of their van fleet with cargo bikes. That would set the tone well and get a lot of the folk responsible for delivery of services aware of the need for improvements for cyclists. And improve air quality. And reduce congestion. And save money...
They should replace a portion of their van fleet with cargo bikes.
An excellent proposal of course. Would we envisage the van drivers being retrained or the posts being made redundant and new delivery cyclists recruited?
What might a risk assessment of the proposed change look like? Clearly some risks are mitigated by city cycling whilst others are increased.
Another win for HankChief/Twitter
I just spotted it on someone else's tweet and knew that you'd all know what to do...
I do wonder what our elected representatives make of a sudden rush of interest on a particular issue. Hopefully they take it in the right spirit...
"I do wonder what our elected representatives make of a sudden rush of interest on a particular issue."
Do you care?
Twitter (other mediahums are apparently available) is a microcosm of 'reality'.
If politicians (etc.) choose to interpret a flurry of tweets from half a dozen people as 'representative' of interest, then fine by me.
If a bunch of people who happen to ride bikes see problems, target those who might have an interest in doing something, propose some solutions, remain polite, thank people who have done something, then all good.
Repeat.
I don't think the Sustrans roundabout design is particularly good practice:
- the entrance & exit carriageways are flared which allow high vehicle speeds
- the bend radii are not tight, again allowing high vehicle speeds
- the pedestrian crossing is not at a point that is perpendicular with the carriageway (the carriageway is flaring at this point)
- no cycleway is shown (these things need to be explicitly shown to UK designers, otherwise they just won't include them)
The key points of good "Dutch" roundabout design are:
- pedestrian & cycle crossings are at a point which is perpendicular, i.e 90 degrees, to the carriageway*
- only 1 lane of traffic on entrances/exits
- tight bend radii and no flaring of the carriageways, to slow vehicle speeds
- overrun area in centre to allow HGVs to turn
- raised tables at crossing points (?)
See: http://www.aviewfromthecyclepath.com/2014/05/the-best-roundabout-design-for-cyclists.html
*This point is one that makes a 7 times difference to the safety of a "Dutch" roundabout in the Netherlands.
I hope that Harts and Martin will mention these points when they meet with the council officer dealing with this...
Excellent meeting yesterday. Active Travel team representative, traffic design officer from Council, Martin from Spokes and me.
Acknowledgement that Silverknowes was a cock-up and A LOT of lessons identified (we called them that in the military, because it remains to be seen if they are learnt...)
Realistically, we aren't going to be getting a Dutch roundabout because resurfacing budget is only around £300k, but suggested improvements to crossings and roundabout itself will be looked at and fed back. Obviously, ditching peripheral cycle lane.
We also discussed wider issues. Traffic officer said he would be delighted if there were cycling infra CPD, he says the officers just go with the latest guidance (often outdated) and interpret that as best they can (Cycling by Design). But it's clear that car-culture still dominates thinking. It was great to have such a frank exchange. Agreement that training seminar to Council officers would be represent excellent value...
Will feedback in due course.
@Hart's Cyclery - good to hear, good work.
...lessons identified (we called them that in the military, because it remains to be seen if they are learnt...)...
As someone who participates in Lessons Learned meetings, I like this A LOT. :-)
We have a design update and it looks much better. Well done to Harts & Spokes for contributing to the design.
which I converted into a tweet
SILVERKNOWES ROUNDABOUT UPDATE
Officials have now agreed a final plan for the new roundabout at Silverknowes. A number of changes were made following concerns, particularly from cycling groups.
The changes include;
- The removal of the cycle lane around the perimeter of the roundabout,
- The reduction down to one lane on and off the roundabout from Silverknowes Parkway by introducing footway build outs,
- The creation of a dedicated cycle lane on the north side of the roundabout to the rear of the existing footpath and behind the bus terminus on Silverknowes Parkway,
- The pedestrian refuge island in Lauriston Farm Avenue to be changed to a zebra crossing,
Well what can I say?
Amazingly quick and well done to all involved (some on CCE - no surprise there then...)
Next, Picardy Place(?)
- The creation of a dedicated cycle lane on the north side of the roundabout to the rear of the existing footpath and behind the bus terminus on Silverknowes Parkway,
Ah, so that's what they're doing to the pavement.
I tried to take a bus from the Silverknowes terminus a few days ago and was wondering why they were digging up the pavement.
TBH, I don't get it. Why, of all the places in Edinburgh, put a very short segregated bike path there?
If I were a cynic, I might guess:
(A) Because some of the roundabout cost is being taken from the active travel budget, so to keep the money, they had to come up with something now the cycle lane isn't happening.
(B) The council has agreed to spend 10% on active travel and they're looking for ways to do this without affecting drivers.
So they're creating low value infrastruture in obscure places, rather than in the town centre where it would have maximum benefit.
Gibbo - I don't think cynicism is merited here.
I think Spokes established that the funding for project isn't coming from the cycling budget.
The cycle lane gives a route around the back of manoeuvring / parked up buses and allows them to rejoin the carriageway once 2 lanes appears rather than having to take primary in the outside lane (something not all cyclists will do)
The diggers were about to start on this project and thanks to the fuss we made and the design input from Spokes & Harts working with CEC's Active Travel team, we have a result that is far better than previous design and included in the existing budget.
It's a good example of where working together we can get a better solution and I hope sets the tone for direction the current Administration & Cllr Macinnes want to take us.
That inner roundabout lane is going to be a nice big reverse camber ala Europe right?
@gibbo - @HankChief is right.
I was chatting to Hart's about this and it's fascinating to hear the thinking behind the original design and how the changes were made. A lot of it came from just challenging the prevailing assumptions and getting them to think about why they'd defaulted to a standard design.
I'd like to propose that Hart's sits in on every future design meeting and loudly asks "why?" at every opportunity. It seems to get results.
I also like the sneaky wee floating bus stop that they've added: means it's something we can point to in future.
@klaxon - I think so
Great! They keep cars slow and buses slower.
@hankchief
The diggers were about to start on this project and thanks to the fuss we made and the design input from Spokes & Harts working with CEC's Active Travel team, we have a result that is far better than previous design and included in the existing budget.
It's a good example of where working together we can get a better solution and I hope sets the tone for direction the current Administration & Cllr Macinnes want to take us.
I agree. It was great work by the forum members who banged the drum and credit to the councillors who were both willing to listen and act.
@stickman
I'd like to propose that Hart's sits in on every future design meeting and loudly asks "why?" at every opportunity. It seems to get results.
I'd like to propose that, whenever cycling infrastructure - or, indeed, any change that could affect cyclists (like Burnshot overpass diversion) - is brought up, the council consults an actual real-life cyclist.
It seems that, most of the time, when they think "traffic" they don't remember that cyclists are part of "traffic."
And, when they do remember, they usually come up with nonsense.
Are the detailed plans available yet? To my mind, one of the most important improvements which (still?) needs to be made is to slow the traffic down at the roundabout.
I am really, very, extremely pleased that the pedestrian refuge on Lauriston Farm Road has become a zebra crossing and that it is even on a raised platform - I honestly cannot thank those involved enough!! However, I still have big concerns that pedestrians on the south pavement cannot see oncoming traffic and the traffic cannot see them and think it could be improved with fairly minor tweaks.
I seem to recall that one of the reasons for putting the refuge there was to prevent large vehicles using Lauriston Farm Road. If this is the case then why do we need the road to be so flared? Why not extend the pavement at the corners with the roundabout? The current layout allows drivers to exit the roundabout at a speed at which they would unable to stop if they discover someone is on the crossing.
It is also not clear what the red inner part of the roundabout is supposed to be and whether the design will encourage drivers to go around or through it (and therefore maintain their speed).
I use this roundabout very regularly and the only cyclists I see turning to go along Silverknowes Parkway are sport cyclists heading towards Marine Drive doing circuits. I'm not sure they will use the new cycle lane. Leisure cyclists such as families or older cyclists tend to be travelling between NCN1 and the Cramond Foreshore. It is a shame that this has not been facilitated, but at least I will be able to (illegally) cycle on the pavement with my little ones to (illegally) use the new zebra crossings.
"... sport cyclists heading towards Marine Drive doing circuits. I'm not sure they will use the new cycle lane..."
As one such cyclist, I can tell you that I won't be using that lane and I don't expect any other similar cyclist will be either.
But both as a sports cyclist and also as someone who also transport cycles through there (on the way to ParkRun) I welcome any changes that will encourage drivers to slow down.
"encourage drivers to slow down"
Indeed, as we were about to head up from the foreshore yesterday evening there was a driver coming down who must have been in excess of 70mph (in a 30mph). Didn't catch his reg, but have reported similar to the Police on numerous occasions but am yet to see any enforcement.
Ok.... I'll try and capture all the points. Firstly, Martin McDonnell from Spokes was also at the meeting, along with a memeber of the Active Travel team and the engineer responsible for the first design. Martin was there primarily to feedback to the Spokes Planning Group, as he was not too familiar with the area. (Chdot, apparently he is still waiting for a log on? Maybe ping him a message on twitter?!)
There has been no extra money for this. All these changes to the original design were delivered within the original resurfacing allocation. Therefore, we were never going to achieve a gold standard here, but had to try and improve what we could.
The island on LFR was there to create the geometry to prevent long vehicles entering LFR. I REALLY wanted that crossing to be a zebra because as a father who pushes their child around in a buggy around here, I know that LFR is horrible to cross. Originally the engineer was reluctant because of the geometry requirement. I suggested a small triangular kerb arrangement at the roundabout before the crossing to create the geometry, but he was concerned that would have drainage issues (drainage is a surprisingly big issue at the junction because it is all in the centre of the roundabout, not at the outside). However, the engineer, whether through signage or changing the pavement kerb has satisfied the geometry requirement. I don't know how exactly, but I have to trust his professional judgement here.
The bike lane behind the bus stop was actually the engineer's idea at the meeting. I am a racing cyclist, I do laps around Silverknowes. I know I and others won't use this sport cycling because it'll interfere with our Strava times (!), but it is MUCH better for citizen cyclists to be clear of the busy bus stop and allows them to join the carriageway in a much safer place. Also, it allows for future improvements to Silverknowes Parkway that are outside the scope of the resurfacing of the roundabout (hint: it won't be a dual carriageway forever). We couldn't get a continuous path over the golf club entrance because cars would have had to stop in the bus stop, which the engineer wanted to avoid. (and setting the path back further would have been too complicated and made the path less direct).
The centre of the roundabout is designed as a bus back wheel over-run only. The roundabout itself is now a narrow single lane, so cyclists can 'take the lane'. There really won't be space to allow vehicles to pass (unless the drivers are total idiots). I don't know the exact composition of the over-run surface. Again, there are budgetary and drainage issues.
What else... Oh, the single lane entrance/exit to SK Parkway is to reduce the speed of vehicles entering the roundabout and to make the crossings shorter on each side of the road.
Silverknowes Road has problems in terms of delivering a zebra. There are a lot of driveways and large trees. Without moving driveways and cutting down a tree there is not currently space to build a zebra close to the junction. Again, this is something that could be done in future, but could not be done within budget or timescale here. Certainly, Silverknowes Road from the roundabout up to and past the shops is a devoid of crossings. If I were a Silverknowes local (I live in Cramond, so although I'm very familiar with the area I'm not a true local...) I would engage with the Davie Mains and SK association or whatever it's called to get a crossing put in. The only crossing is the lollipop lady at the junction of SK Cres/Road in the morning and afternoon, which is ridiculous.
Silverknowes Road (north) isn't really crossed much (folk tend to stick to one side of the pavement once they're heading down to the prom) again, there wasn't the justification for a zebra within budget or timescale.
Needless to say, there are all sort of issues with traffic management of LFR and Cramond Road more generally that need addressing in the medium term.
In sum, given the budgetary and time constraints, I'm pretty happy with the result here. It has been a huge lesson for the Active Travel team and the road engineers, as well as to the Council more generally. I emailed Lesley McInnes of the back of this with some points to take forward, the main one being CPD of staff so that they are conversant with latest best practice for active travel.
Any more questions? I'll try my best to answer them!
gibbo, do you have an issue with the Burnshot bridge diversion? That was my doing as well.
I have never specifically asked to be consulted, it's just because, in both cases, I've proposed solutions that were actually deliverable and the council officers/councillors got back to me. My emails are obviously more effective than I give them credit for.
Certainly, I am hoping that the Council consult the likes of Spokes properly about these things so that it's not left to individuals like me (albeit trying to best represent cyclists).
Thanks for getting involved - it is a much more positive result than I thought we would end up with, but it is human nature to always want just a little bit more!
"hint: it won't be a dual carriageway forever" I was hoping that part of the reason for building the bike lane would be that it could be extended to run the length of the Parkway. It is currently a bad mix of pavements and broken glass to get the little ones to the Saturday playgroup and a segregated cyclepath which can link in with Forthquarter/Waterfront Ave would be good for this and to make other trips feasible.
The single lane entry to the roundabout at SK parkway is a vast improvement for the zebra there - much better for pedestrians. However, it is currently coned off down to one lane and I haven't noticed a speed reduction yet. Perhaps that will come, but it all depends on the construction of the build out and red centre area.
It is my understanding that the DM & SK association have tried to get a crossing put in but there was some issue (possibly with sightlines) so the council doesn't want to put one in where the School crossing lady is positioned. Putting one in further down would be tricky as the road is so wide and further up, not so good as it is out of the way for most people so they would cross at the current location anyway which is on the desire line - the whole thing is a stalemate!
"hint: it won't be a dual carriageway forever" I was hoping that part of the reason for building the bike lane would be that it could be extended to run the length of the Parkway.
Indeed. That was discussed. The dual carriageway serves no purpose in an area like this. The same is true for Pennywell Road. I have no idea when something like this might happen, but the engineer said it was something that was getting 'looked at'.
@harts ... I'm hugely impressed, but the one question I do have is regarding
"We couldn't get a continuous path over the golf club entrance because cars would have had to stop in the bus stop, which the engineer wanted to avoid."
I see it all the time in the UK, but not elsewhere. Any reasonable cycle infrastructure in the UK is *always* subservient to THE CAR. I've seen long stretches of dedicated cycle path alongside a primary road, but the cycle path ALWAYS has to concede on roads joining the main road. The reasoning behind that seems to be the same as above; did the engineer explain why that is? Why must free flowing cycle traffic always concede to motorised traffic, even when that motorised traffic is already stopping (or at least slowing) to join a superior road?
B-t-T, yes, it is irritating and we did challenge it. It is as I said, the engineer didn't want cars waiting in the bus stop with buses potentially maneuvering. We just decided it wasn't worth dying in a ditch over, but I would do on main arterial routes, if it were up to me!
In practice it probably won't make a difference, but the fact it is a red line that a bus pulling into a terminus shouldn't wait 10 seconds for a car turning into a private car park speaks volumes.
Middlefield should be held up far and wide. The design just works, without any signs or markings.
Indeed.
Credit in all of this result is also largely due to Martin who fed back very well to the Spokes planning group, as well as being an active part of the meeting. The Spokes PG fed back when the initial redesign dropped and this was where they challenged the lack of continuity in the cycle lane. Again, were this junction being designed from scratch this would hopefully have been sorted, but we had to make the best from a bad starting point.
You must log in to post.
Cycling in Edinburgh Flickr group
Video embedded using Easy Video Embed plugin
posts