3m shared use pavements are worse than useless unless they have priority over side roads. Otherwise they encourage you to turn your back on traffic before crossing.
CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » Debate!
Meanwhile in Midlothian
(124 posts)-
Posted 4 years ago #
-
There are a few minor roads crossing the shared path, and it should be easy enough to have these as raised crossings to help enforce priority. But part of the current plans looks as if it would have many driveways and garage accesses crossing one section of the path, encouraging car-driver reversing over the path, so this would have to be changed to save any credibility for the active travel claims. There also need to be proper links to the nearby cycleways and minor roads, and developer contributions to meet the costs. IMHO
Posted 4 years ago # -
“and developer contributions to meet the costs”
Is MidL good at getting these?
I seem to remember CEC arranging for a developer to pay for a road crossing, but didn’t actually ask for the money!
Posted 4 years ago # -
Is MidL good at getting these?
Good question!
I have no idea, but I hope so, since a senior councillor told me it was their main source of funding for active travel...
Posted 4 years ago # -
When do objections / comments have to be in by?
Posted 4 years ago # -
13th April (Monday).
Posted 4 years ago # -
Spokes response: https://twitter.com/SpokesLothian/status/1248600817067790336
Posted 4 years ago # -
I responded as follows:
I wish to object to this application for the following reason:
1. Lack of proper cycle path through the site to connect the Roslin-Shawfair path with the NCN196 path.
The development is a perfect opportunity to create an important missing cycle link, connecting the Roslin to Shawfair path with the Penicuik to Dalkeith path (NCN196). These paths are heavily used by both commuters and leisure cyclists (including myself) and forming this missing link would contribute greatly to reducing car use and hence reducing climate damaging- and toxic gas emissions.
To encourage people to switch from car to bikes, the cycle path must be inclusive, contiguous, convenient and safe.
Inclusive means that it should be suitable for all bike users (ages 8 to 80, all genders, both fast or slow cyclists) and suitable for all bike types including cargo bikes, tandems, small-wheeled bicycles, hand-cycles, wheelchairs, and tricycles.
Contiguous means that it should be connected, complete and not “give up” where things get difficult.
Convenient means that it should be direct, well-graded, free from obstructions (e.g. chicanes) and cyclists have priority over side roads and driveways.
Safe means it should be physically separated from motor traffic, include safe crossings of major roads and to be open and overlooked.
I would be prepared to withdraw my objection if a cycle path connection, meeting the above requirements is provided. Note that shared-use footway that meanders or gives-way at every side road would not be considered acceptable.
Posted 4 years ago # -
@Frenchy
I couldn't access Spokes' response from the link you posted above
Posted 4 years ago # -
The links in the tweet are to planning portal documents, so don't work, but the response is there as an image, so should still work.
I'll post the text here tomorrow anyway.
Posted 4 years ago # -
Spokes objection:
Residential development at Land East of Auchendinny
Planning reference: 20/00089/DPPSpokes objects to this planning application because it does not provide an active travel route between Auchendinny and Roslin, as required by Midlothian Council's Active Travel Strategy, Green Network Supplementary Guidance and Local Development Plan.
This development presents an excellent opportunity to create a high quality active travel route between Auchendinny and Roslin, yet the proposed layout does not achieve this. There are already excellent existing active travel routes between Roslin and Gilmerton, and between Penicuik and Auchendinny. It is therefore especially important to take this opportunity to create an active travel route between Auchendinny and Roslin as it will fill in the missing link between these two existing routes. Cycling between Roslin to Auchendinny currently means going along the B7026 which has several problems which make it unsuitable for many cyclists (very steep at the south end, a nasty junction at the north end, and a high speed limit in between). There are also no pavements on the back road between Roslin and Auchendinny. It is also worth noting that the increased traffic levels which would undoubtedly arise on the B7026 from the proposed development would only exacerbate these issues.
The need for an Auchendinny-Roslin link is addressed in Midlothian Council's Active Travel Strategy and in its Green Network Supplementary Guidance, both of which show active travel routes connecting Roslin to National Cycle Network route 196 via Auchendinny. The Active Travel Strategy says that this route will be built via "the new development site" - i.e., the site in the present planning application.
Scottish Planning Policy (paragraph 273) says that new developments should prioritise active travel over car usage. This is not being adhered to in the proposed development.
Finally, we believe the proposed layout would contravene policies DEV 5 and DEV 6 of the Midlothian Local Development Plan, which state that development proposals should facilitate accessibility, integrate existing active travel routes, create new active travel links between key destinations and provide cycle parking. The proposed layout fails to meet these criteria.
The plans should therefore be amended as follows:
• Direct access to NCN 196 must be possible for cyclists and and pedestrians at the two points indicated in the Active Travel Strategy. We realise that these points are outwith the site boundary, but developer contributions to pay for the connections should be made a condition of planning permission. These connections should be built before the houses are occupied, to allow sustainable travel patterns to be established early.
• Pedestrian and cyclist access to the back road past the Oatslie landfill site should come out directly opposite the old railway line through the landfill site. This will facilitate a future path to Roslin following the old railway (as shown in the Active Travel Strategy).
• The other shared use paths shown in the Active Travel Strategy and Green Network Supplementary Guidance (to the southern end of The Brae, to the north-east corner of the site and to Firth Crescent) should be added to the plans.
• Developer contributions should also be made towards continuing the active travel route towards Roslin (through the Oatslie site), and towards creating a shared use path from the north of the site to the proposed cycleway along the A701.
• The main north-south cycle path through the site is severed by the grass verge on the south side of the long west-east street through the site. This should be changed to allow pedestrians and cyclists to easily continue along the path in a direct manner. A toucan crossing should also be included at this point.
• Shared use paths should have clear priority where they cross side streets. This includes at the junction where the main vehicular access to the site meets The Brae.
• The road adoption layouts show the cycle paths as being 3m wide. Cycling by Design gives 3m as the “desirable minimum” width for a shared use path. In a new development such as this, where space constraints are not an issue, shared use paths should be at least 4m wide, in order to minimise conflict between users.
• Cycle parking should be provided. We would expect, at minimum, dedicated cycle stores to be built near any flats included in the development.
• There are discrepancies between the documents for the footpath layout in the eastern corner of the site (immediately north west of Lee Lodge). The Overall Site Layout and the Greenways and Links plans show a simple, direct footpath connection, but the Road Adoption Layout shows a different layout, with steps and an S-bend. Since the site is flat at this point, we don’t see a need for stepped access, and so presume the simpler layout is correct, but this needs to be confirmed.Posted 4 years ago # -
Her Majesty's Government > Scottish Government > Transport Scotland > Sustrans > Spokes > CCE > atomised punters
Where in the Hierarchy of Power should active travel decisions reside?
Posted 4 years ago # -
Where in the Hierarchy of Power should active travel decisions reside?
CCE, obviously.
Posted 4 years ago # -
Fairly that, aye.
Posted 4 years ago # -
About a hundred more documents have been added to this planning application this week (Land East of Auchendinny Planning reference: 20/00089/DPP). Some may be relevant to previous comments but there is a lot of other stuff to sift through to find it.
Posted 4 years ago # -
After their first set of Spaces for People plans were all either rejected or cancelled, Midlothian Council is trying again:
They are consulting on three possible road closures:
Crawlees Road, Mayfield (active travel would benefit connecting between Gorebridge, Mayfield, Newtongrange, Dalkeith and NCR1).
Oatslie Road, Roslin (active travel would benefit between Roslin and Auchendinny and between NCR196 at Dalmore Mill with the Roslin to Shawfair active travel route).
B7003 Roslin Glen Road (active travel would benefit between Bonnyrigg/Rosewell and Roslin/the Bush and vice versa).
Note that "The project, which has not been considered by councillors, will only go ahead if local people are in favour of it and it is approved by elected members.", so do respond!
Posted 4 years ago # -
As an admin of the residents' facebook page of one of the nearby settlements to one of these proposals, I've spent the last two days doing my bit by declining posts to the page inviting people to object to this. The B7003 one especially seems to be ruffling a few feathers.
Posted 4 years ago # -
The B7003 is one of the few routes across the Esk, and is effectively the main option for anyone who lives in Rosewell, or points nearby, to get to the A701. Yet Midlothian has built loads of new houses in Rosewell and done nothing about improving access. As far as I know, Rosewell doesn't even have its own GP surgery and patients go to Roslin. The comments Cllr Parry is getting on her FB page are pretty much a resounding "NO!" (mainly drivers and school run parents, the elderly, won't someone think of the children!, and some residents who live in the glen itself.)
The B7003 is not a road I like to cycle northwards on, not because it's really steep, which it is, and not because there are blind corners, which there are, but because vehicle speeds are (allowed to be) much too high. As always, the danger is not the road but motorists.
Given the lukewarm ambition of Midlothian towards SfP measures, and even lukerwarm reception to its first tranche of measures, I'm actually wondering what Midlothian's rationale is for these road closures. The B7003 is gradually falling to pieces again on the south side; I think it must be less than ten years since it was closed for months to shore up the side of the hill, and it will probably happen again anyway. I find it a remarkable coincidence that the proposed closure is in precisely the same place as the collapse.
The back road between Auchendinny and Roslin past the landfill site seems a strange one too. It's not very busy at the best of times, and isn't really much of a shortcut for cycling because it snakes around the place. I've used it a few times going west but found it quicker going up to Gowkley Moss and back down again!
Posted 4 years ago # -
Surprised people aren't clamouring for a bridge :)
Posted 4 years ago # -
The Roslin Glen closure (or rather the portion of it they are proposing to close) doesn't make sense. The roads round by Kirkettle/Rosslynlee (which are actually quite nice to cycle) form an obvious ratrun to avoid the closed part.
Posted 4 years ago # -
@edinburgh87, ah, the great Roslin Glen Viaduct. Don't give the people on SABRE any ideas, they'll just go mad with armchair proposals, like "realign the B7003 eastwards to a conventional T-junction with the A6094, convert the stub of the ex-B7003 to the viaduct approach, run the viaduct over Wallace's Cave and between Roslin and Dryden farm, to the eastern side of the Institute, demolish the barn of Langhill Farm, and construct a new roundabout there with the B7006."
Posted 4 years ago # -
"I'm actually wondering what Midlothian's rationale is for these road closures."
"Well, we tried!"
Posted 4 years ago # -
@Murun, the back road that leads up past Lea Farm and towards Kirkettle and Gourlaw is also really steep as far as The Old Waterhouse. I wouldn't cycle that way unless I had to! I like the Rosslynlee/Firth Mains road a lot though, but no doubt that will change in time too once the hospital becomes redeveloped for housing.
Posted 4 years ago # -
I haven't spoken to anyone at Midlothian about this and I don't know the rationale for closing part of B7003, but maybe it's because the road has been closed here in the past (for years ?) and motorists managed to find alternatives. And there is a fair chance the landslide will close it to most vehicles again soon anyway. Even if there were millions available to rebuild it, it would be closed during the works.
The B7003 is one of few routes across the Esk, and is effectively the main option for anyone who lives in Rosewell or Bonnyrigg to get to Roslin etc, so it should be made better for walking/cycling by being less attractive for motorists. The bit which would still be open would need changes too - maybe a 20mph limit (like the A768?).
Re"..vehicle speeds are (allowed to be) much too high ...", guess how many speeding fines Police said they issued in Midlothian in April - June this year? -Posted 4 years ago # -
The Crawlees Road closure would be great. Students based at the Gorebridge Beacon who want to go cycling off-road have very few options. There's muddy Gore Glen or the pavements around the village. Closing Crawlees Road would open up a route through Mayfield and Newbattle and down to Dalkeith and the NCN.
Posted 4 years ago # -
@cyclingmollie, you better vote early and vote often for that option as I fear the people of Midlothian have their Down with this sort of thing Placards already painted.
None of the iconic cities where cycling infra is good ever let the people have their say except maybe at election time. Even London has kept the TfL approach when the admin changed
Posted 4 years ago # -
I wrote a chunky letter of 'support in principle' for the closures, pointing out that just shutting that bit of the B7003 won't really make any difference for active travellers unless they also do something about speed. It seems incredible that in the 21st century you cannot safely walk down that road from the Roslin end, the alternative being a whole lot of offroading and stair descending.
Posted 4 years ago # -
The Roslin Glen Road was great during the lock down. I'm not keen on the ascent during busy times because of daft overtaking plus impression of impatience. My OH with her ebike was happier but hated the descent.
An enforced 20mph limit would be good. I cannot see this being popular and I'd rather have a focus on more impactful projects rather than having car living Midlothian railing against cycling.
Closing the back road to Auchendinny would not be the best investment - I went there today and saw one car. It's a wide road (formerly more important?).
Crawlees Road makes some sense. It is good way to avoid the A7 to and from Gorebridge. I've not had problems when cycling there but it is a ratrun.
I would have liked to have seen something with more impact. For example, closing off Dalhousie Road at the A7 roundabout would reduce through traffic in Eskbank (and some of the speeding). All of the closures above are rural, so useful or journeys between towns. But we could do with improving the areas where people live, to make a better place for walking, playing, running, cycling, without all the pollution, noise and danger.
Posted 4 years ago # -
Incidentally, I se the bike gate/torture device/illegal obstacle that was reinstalled on the Roslin Loanhead cycle path has now been removed again.
Posted 4 years ago # -
Getting the train to Eskbank is probably the best solution for a Gorebridge resident looking for flat, non-muddy off-road cycle routes, though as you say amir Eskbank itself is far from ideal.
Posted 4 years ago #
Reply »
You must log in to post.
posts
