CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » Debate!
“Traffic chaos prompts calls for Rosyth bypass“
(38 posts)-
Posted 5 years ago #
-
A985. My most hated road (from a cycling perspective). Classic response to solve the problem of too much traffic: build a new dual-carriageway.
Posted 5 years ago # -
Can't they just filter the route through Rosyth and use the road by the docks instead? Was surprised when driving through there the other day that the main road goes through such a residential area.
Posted 5 years ago # -
That article contains so many contradictions my head hurts.
Are they suggesting the problem was caused when the QC was closed and that the solution is to build a new road to cope when the current new road is closed?
What I assume they are really asking for is the original plans for the A823(M) to be completed taking it west towards Limekilns.
@jonty, The road by the docks is no more suitable for heavy traffic at least not without being rebuilt. The main route along Hilton Road is just as residential as the A985 route.
Posted 5 years ago # -
The petition zoomers appear to actually want the entire A985 to Kincardine dualled, along with a new section connecting Limekilns to the Pitreavie roundabout, cos of pearls of wisdom like "Having the road upgraded would help with the regeneration of the area which includes towns like High Valleyfield, Kincardine, Rosyth and Dunfermline". Long way to go changing the mindset of places like these.
Posted 5 years ago # -
"Having the road upgraded would help with the regeneration of the area which includes towns like High Valleyfield, Kincardine, Rosyth and Dunfermline"
Afterall The M90 and countless extra houses have help so much with keeping jobs in Fife. The only thing extra roads in Fife seem to help with is funnelling people into the west of Edinburgh.
Posted 5 years ago # -
Looks as though the Rosyth bypass is on the cards as part of the next lot of housing development at Broomhall, as you said @acsimpson it will extend west from the A823(M):
https://www2.gov.scot/resource/doc/212607/0083305.pdf
Edit: Without any new public or active travel investment then this should add on another thousand or so car journeys across the new bridge every day :)
Posted 5 years ago # -
That is a pearl of a find, CocoShepherd, though the developers weren't offering to fund or build the Bypass, certainly not, just fill it up even more with single-occupant vehicles.
Other corkers from the professional liars (sorry, developers):
'Broomhall will have the capacity to become a city neighbourhood of equal stature to Edinburgh’s 'Stockbridge'.' (accompanied by a photo of Mellis')
'The ambition of our proposals are fully supported by the Broomhall Estate owner, Lord Elgin.' I'll bet they are...
Posted 5 years ago # -
It is certainly heavily laden with tosh.
A favourite of mine, seemingly on education, is:
"This enables the development of localised, flexible and diverse learning environments, that change the physical space that is required in which to teach and offers the possibility of learning beyond institutional (often fortified) walls." Whoever came up with that must've been proud of themselves.
I also love how they are re-branding buses as Rapid Transit Connections.
I found this a few weeks ago as I've been on at the council etc. asking for some cycle lanes along the A985, the chances of which I think will be detrimentally affected by the opportunity to build a new bypass despite there being NO MONEY ANYWHERE FOR ANYTHING.
Posted 5 years ago # -
That's a fine snapshot in time:
"Dunfermline’s outstanding location has the opportunity to be further enhanced by the proposed new multi-modal Forth
crossing.
As well as providing additional car capacity, the new bridge could provide Light Rapid Transit (L.R.T) links to Dunfermline from the international airport and Edinburgh’s western business and financial headquarters."It's slightly depressing that the only image in the first 30 pages which doesn't appear to be taken within 50miles of the site is the one of a busy cycle path. Given the flora I would guess it's from Australia.
I didn't see any mention of active travel routes while skimming through it but instead repeated suggestions from the maps that they would happily replace the existing cycle paths in Dunfermline with light rail. I can't imagine why the current campaigners are asking for roads rather than light rail.
"...capacity to become a city neighbourhood of equal stature to Edinburgh’s 'Stockbridge..." But just in case it doesn't they'll connect it to the motorway to ensure it can be just another commuter suburb of Edinburgh.
Posted 5 years ago # -
@acsimpson
In order to allay your concerns, a control+F search confirms that the word 'cycling' appears not once but twice within the 79-page document. Also the rights-of-way throughout the site will remain as such and are being branded as Principle Green Routes.
Posted 5 years ago # -
My favourite bit from that PDF is the screen grab from "The Good Life" on p33.
Didn't know Felicity and Richard were local residents.Posted 5 years ago # -
Hmm, I wonder who the first to complain will be if they close off the current access road from the roundabout?
Posted 5 years ago # -
I wonder how it will all fit in with this -
Posted 5 years ago # -
There are now two big housing developments due to be built west of Dunfermline, the above Broomhill development and one west of Crossford. Combined total of between 2000 and 4000 houses. You'd think that Fife Council could come up with some sort of sustainable transport suggestions to include with these proposals but I can't find out if they have. Emails to question the local councillors have fallen on deaf ears. Actually my local community council are trying to drive forward a ~1 mile long segregated bike lane project to link up with Dunfermline but FC have left it to residents to provide/source funding. They just aren't interested. Building new bypasses however, now you're talking...
Posted 5 years ago # -
That's a shame it's only a few years since Fife were goading CEC by saying they will be the first council to spend 10% of their transport budget on cycling. I guess the new administration isn't so proactive.
What path are you looking at?
Posted 5 years ago # -
The local community Council have drawn up some plans for a path linking Crossford to Dunfermline. In relative terms it would be spectacular: completely segregated from the road and wide enough for bikes to pass one another. But in reality its just a one mile long path. The smart thing to do would be to team up with the marketing department of a professional developer to produce a shiny brochure full of inspirational pictures and artistic quotes.
Posted 5 years ago # -
Crossford kids go to school in Dunfermline do they not? That alone should be good enough reason for the council to want to build a path.
Posted 5 years ago # -
I asked Fife Council about the plans for active transport links in the new Broomhall development in Dunfermline. They are happy to confirm that there will be a network of:
2-3 m wide Adopted Greenways- dedicated pedestrian & cycle routes.
So basically cyclists are supposed to use the pavements.
Posted 5 years ago # -
So basically cyclists are supposed to use the pavements.
with give way markings at every single household driveway
standard dunfermline practise
Posted 5 years ago # -
From the Council, page 23 of this planning document:
"Proposed Street Hierarchy is acceptable in principle, but a number of the large parcels of land would appear to have only one means of vehicular access. The housing sites shall be provided with multiple points of vehicular access with the proposed street network and with adjacent sites. The proposed "Greenways" shall not present a barrier to suitably designed minor street links between adjacent housing sites."
Says it all?
Posted 5 years ago # -
Dunfermline - the anti-Holland.
Posted 5 years ago # -
@Coco, just like the Edinburgh portal you can't link to specific documents. You do seem to be able to link to the planning application though: https://planning.fife.gov.uk/online/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=summary&keyVal=OIFLV3HFIDK00
Failing that the reference number is 16/04155/EIA.
The approval document has condition 29 which sounds more positive than your quote above:
29. The Travel Plan required under condition 3(y) shall set out proposals for reducing dependency on the private car and shall identify measures to be implemented, the system of management, monitoring, review, reporting and the duration of the plan. The Travel Plan shall be agreed in consultation with Transport Scotland as the Trunk Roads Authority. The land use shall not be brought into operation until the Travel Plan has been agreed and is in operation.
Reason: To be consistent with the requirements of Scottish Planning Policy (SPP) and PAN 75 Planning for Transport.@bax, While I share your frustrations at Fife's penchant for degrading giveway markings at every driveway (and signpost) it looks to me like these paths will at least not cross any driveways. Instead they will just be pointless paths which are slower than staying on the road as you have to give way at every road crossing. There might be a few sections which are away from roads and very pleasant for getting about the site but they certainly haven't been designed with active travel through the site in mind.
Posted 5 years ago # -
@acsimpson
Apologies, didn't realise that the link wouldn't work. I've had a good dig around the planning application and several of the documents. The Travel Plan appears to relate to the development of surrounding roads (Grange and Limekilns Rds) to accommodate construction vehicles, and modification of some junctions on Queensferry Road. Also, the roundabouts at Pitreavie and the Kings Road primary school are to have traffic lights installed. A huge proportion of the objections list increases in traffic as a main concern so the Travel Plan is I think in response to those objections.
From what I've seen, these Greenways aka pavements are the proposals for reducing dependency on private car use. But as you point out they'll be slower than using the road so really there wouldn't appear to be any benefit to them = not really any incentive for people to stop using their cars.
Call me cynical but active/sustainable transport just seems like more of a box ticking exercise for the council....
Posted 5 years ago # -
@Cocoshepherd, yes I agree. I did a little more digging after my last post and that seems to be the case. The only hope is around the meaning of the word barrier in the sentence
"The proposed "Greenways" shall not present a barrier to suitably designed minor street links between adjacent housing sites.If they mean it's not an administrative barrier then things look better at least for travel around the site. eg the minor road at the south of Dalmeny park where the spine path almost maintains continuity across the road. However if they mean a physical barrier then we really are doomed.
Unfortunately the route through the site on Grange road appears to be taking a leaf out of Aberdour Road's book. ie Large roundabouts with cycle lanes that force you to turn your back on motor traffic before you can cross the road. As bax says this is allowing bikes on the pavement not providing a cycle path. It shouldn't be so hard for them to provide one safe continuous cycle path from the South boundary to the North Boundary. Even if this is along the railway at the eastern perimeter of the site.
Posted 5 years ago # -
I'm not 100% sure but it seems like they are building houses pretty much right down to Rosyth. Which would mean a new by-pass won't actually be built. Either that or it would need to be squeezed into a really tiny band of land and would intersect a couple of those prized Greenways. This is according to plans that a councillor has just sent me. Happy to send to anyone interested.
So goodness only knows what drivers will do the next time the Queensferry Crossing is closed.
Edit: similar planning file available on the planning portal, named as 03 - SUPERSEDED MASTERPLAN LAYOUT, a drawing published 19th Dec 2016.
Posted 5 years ago # -
Oh... Now that's interesting. In additon to 03 - SUPERSEDED MASTERPLAN LAYOUT there is also 03A - MASTERPLAN LAYOUT which I assume is the newer one. I didn't spot it before but the updated one does appear to have a greenway beside the railway for most of the length of the site. Unfortunately it also appears to have lost a section of parkland.
Posted 5 years ago # -
Well spotted. That's a positive I guess. Now is it too much to ask that they connect it to Rosyth station/the park & choose?
Slight tangent but the A985 is really going to be horrible.
Posted 5 years ago # -
"The proposed "Greenways" shall not present a barrier to suitably designed minor street links between adjacent housing sites.
surely what they mean is, the "greenways" will be so shoddy that nae <rule2> would ever consider using it, so nae worries there, my fellow lodge brethren !
Posted 5 years ago # -
@bax, only time will tell. I'm sure they'll be great until at least the first Autumn when the leafs are left to rot in situ.
Posted 5 years ago #
Reply »
You must log in to post.
posts
