CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » Infrastructure

Meanwhile, in Lochend...

(114 posts)
  • Started 13 years ago by wingpig
  • Latest reply from crowriver

1…34

  1. Vez
    Member

    Hello everyone (long time visitor, first time poster). This bridge is on my commute and I am equally disappointed about it. It's almost like they're teasing us with the decent infrastructure (resurfacing, no bollards, no 'No cycling' sign) by leaving it like that for a few days before they ruin it. Like crowriver I would really like to know who to write to about it.

    As well as the practical difficulties of getting around the gates, they also send a visual message that cyclists aren't welcome, maybe not even allowed. I definitely feel like I'm getting more disapproving looks from people crossing over the bridge by foot since the gates went in.

    Posted 11 years ago #

  2. chdot
    Admin

    Welcome Vez.

    These are the councillors with both sides of the bridge in their ward -

    http://www.edinburgh.gov.uk/councillors/specificWard/10/leith_walk

    http://www.edinburgh.gov.uk/info/20050/neighbourhood_services/1526/managing_local_services_and_improving_your_area

    Posted 11 years ago #

  3. crowriver
    Member

    I can only assume that the community council complained so loudly when told the signs gad to go that they placated them by promising that they would slow the cyclists down.

    Is that what yours does? I was a bit surprised by some of the anti-cyclist rants in the minutes of prior meetings of Leith Central CC. However I've not seen any record of this bridge being discussed.

    Interestingly the Crawford Bridge is on the border of two CC areas: Leith Central and Craigentinny/Meadowbank. The latter doesn't appear to have any web site so I've no idea if they have met to discuss this.

    I've already bothered my councillors quite a lot on Leith Walk. Might be time to start pestering the Neighbourhood Partnership and Community Council for a change...

    Posted 11 years ago #

  4. crowriver
    Member

    Leith Neighbourhood Team have been duly e-mailed. I'll see if I get anywhere with this approach before going down the 'political' route.

    If anyone else in the local area is fed up about this 'improvement' then you can find the NP contact details here.

    Posted 11 years ago #

  5. Vez
    Member

    I've emailed the Leith & City Centre team, the 'Cycling<at>Edinburgh.gov.uk' email address, to see if there's anyone on the end of it, and Maggie Chapman (Green councillor for Leith Walk) as the politician most likely to care...

    Posted 11 years ago #

  6. chdot
    Admin

    Welcome Vez

    Cycling@ is definitely read.

    Worth contacting all councillors in a ward, they need to know the strength of feeling about issues.

    Posted 11 years ago #

  7. Vez
    Member

    Thanks @chdot, good to know!

    Posted 11 years ago #

  8. crowriver
    Member

    I've also e-mailed cycling 'at'.

    No response yet from Leith team, I'll keep you posted if I hear anything.

    @wingpig, have you traversed this bridge yet?

    Posted 11 years ago #

  9. wingpig
    Member

    Been through it on a bike (without camera) on Tuesday morning, when it seemed somewhere between Hope-Lane-Porty-end and Thorntreeside-before-widening - ridable on a road bike, albeit slowly, though the bridge is only narrow and usually populated during rush hour. Shall bairn it at the weekend during daylight.

    Posted 11 years ago #

  10. crowriver
    Member

    I find I can ride the Bothwell Street end, slowly. Only if there are no peds approaching, but that was true of the bollards also. The Albion Terrace i find too steep going either way, and I am convinced the gates are closer together also. I have to dismount, peds or no peds.

    The bigger issue for me will be trying to get the tandem through. Haven't tried it yet as I'm not sure it will fit at all, even with a dismount. I could just ride through the old bollards.

    Posted 11 years ago #

  11. crowriver
    Member

    Well, I am pleased to report some progress on the Crawford Bridge. Cycled that way this morning and one of the chicanes at the Albion Terrace end has been moved! It's been placed about a metre further up the slope. You can see the weld marks on the bridge where it was before, and the drilled hole where the bolt used to fit has been filled with cement. It is now rideable realatively easily. Reckon a tandem or cargo trailer would go through too.

    Also notice that blue shared use signs are now at both ends, so that will hopefully stop the pedestrians scowling at cyclists on the bridge.

    I hope it was our e-mails to the council that did the trick, or maybe a supervisor inspected the work and realised it was unusable. Whichever, it's a lot better than it was. Would have been better without any chicanes at all, but this is good enough for now.

    Will add photos here in a minute or three.

    Posted 11 years ago #

  12. crowriver
    Member





    Posted 11 years ago #

  13. Vez
    Member

    Hey that's brilliant news on Crawford Bridge. I am looking forward to weaving gently through the new improved chicane tomorrow morning. Would be good to think our emails had an effect, if not a reply (well, I didn't hear back from anyone?)

    Posted 11 years ago #

  14. crowriver
    Member

    Neither did I, but hopefully the council were stung into action by such quickly off the mark missives.

    Posted 11 years ago #

  15. SRD
    Moderator

    Excellent! Well done everyone.

    Still incredibly annoying that we have to pursue is after the fact, but at least it got sorted quickly.

    (I raised it with the cycling officers but like you did not hear anything back).

    Posted 11 years ago #

  16. crowriver
    Member

    I think the cycling folks at CEC must read CCE. Received this reply today, which (if you are reading) I hope the sender won't mind me sharing. (My bold below)

    "CRAWFORD BRIDGE (ALBION TERRACE/BOTHWELL STREET)

    Thank you for your enquiry, dated 12 November 2013, regarding the above location.

    Crawford Bridge was previously illegal for cyclists to use and complaints had also been received from local residents/pedestrians about the behaviour and illegality of cyclists using the bridge.

    However, the Council recognised the local and strategic importance of the bridge for cyclists and its use in providing an alternative, quieter, route for them. We therefore chose to convert the bridge legally to shared use for pedestrians and cyclists. The conversion has included repairs to the surface of the path and the addition of blue, shared use signs, to make clear the new designation.

    In order to address the concerns that had been raised by pedestrians about cyclists, and to minimise the risk of collisions at the entry/exit points of the bridge (which have limited visibility for people joining from the sides), we installed chicanes to limit the speed which cyclists can reach at these locations.

    Unfortunately the barriers at the Albion Terrace end of the bridge were initially installed too close together but this has now been rectified and, in response to complaints received from cyclists, we have chosen to further increase the space between the barriers at both ends to 2.5m. We consider that this provides adequate space for a variety of cyclists to negotiate, including those with trailers or child carriers, without compromising the speed limitation purpose of the barriers.

    Please note that the barriers have been designed to enable them to be swung flush with the bridge parapet. This is to facilitate large numbers of pedestrians accessing/ egressing Easter Road stadium before/after football matches and we have let the Police know that this arrangement is in place.

    Should you require any further information please contact me on the details provided below.

    Yours sincerely

    Project Officer (Cycling) Transport Planning"

    So pretty much as I/we thought. Interesting though that both chicanes will be reset at 2.5m spacing.

    Posted 11 years ago #

  17. Dave
    Member

    Since it wasn't a pavement it presumably fell under the provisions of the Land Reform Act, but I suppose ten years is a reasonable time for the council to update signage...

    (Are the council the only people who missed the passage of the Land Reform Act? I sometimes wonder).

    Posted 11 years ago #

  18. crowriver
    Member

    Since it wasn't a pavement it presumably fell under the provisions of the Land Reform Act

    That's what I assumed also, though maybe railway bridges are a different case? Anyway, I would question whether cyclists using this bridge was in fact illegal. At least now that it is officially (rather than de facto) shared use no-one, even disgruntled dog walkers, ought to be in any doubt that cyclists have the right to be there.

    Posted 11 years ago #

  19. chdot
    Admin

    "Would be good to think our emails had an effect"

    I'm sure they did. I assume there were emails from people not on CCE, but raising it here and encouraging each other to 'complain' must have made a difference!

    "I think the cycling folks at CEC must read CCE."

    Oh they do...!

    "Received this reply today, which (if you are reading) I hope the sender won't mind me sharing."

    Probably not - but I've removed their name.

    "I would question whether in fact cyclists using this bridge was in fact illegal"

    That does seem improbable. Did anyone see (but perhaps not read) notices about 'change of use'?

    Posted 11 years ago #

  20. Vez
    Member

    I got same reply earlier on today, pdf attached to an email from "Transport (VIP Use)" which I liked. Maybe this is the start of VIP treatment for cyclists?

    Posted 11 years ago #

  21. chdot
    Admin

    "VIP Use"

    Aka 'politicians, priority'.

    Sounds like a councillor had raised the issue and reply was (primarily) written for them.

    So 'complaining' works!

    Posted 11 years ago #

  22. crowriver
    Member

    So 'complaining' works!

    So it seems. A two-way street though, if the official reply is anything to go by. Pedestrians have also complained, it would appear. This was then used as justification for installing the chicanes...

    Posted 11 years ago #

  23. chdot
    Admin

    "Pedestrians have also complained, it would appear. This was then used as justification for installing the chicanes"

    Well yes but.

    Pedestrians presumably believed that bikes were banned (see signs) - bit like Porty Prom.

    Whether people on bikes were behaving badly/going too fast in a fashion that the (revised) chicane will sort is, perhaps, an unknowable.

    Posted 11 years ago #

  24. crowriver
    Member

    Yes, you are right again chdot.

    I'm currently mulling my response to the CEC response. Don't want to be overly negative after they rushed to correct the mistake, but do want to question the rationale and justification for the chicanes.

    Posted 11 years ago #

RSS feed for this topic

1…34

Reply

You must log in to post.


Video embedded using Easy Video Embed plugin