CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » Infrastructure

Segregated networks

(8 posts)

No tags yet.


  1. chdot
    Admin

    There's been a lot in various threads and on Twitter etc. about the good/bad idea of physically separated cycles lane.

    To paraphrase -

    'essential to get lots of people cycling'

    'no money'

    'no room in Edinburgh Streets'

    'bad idea, streets should be shared'

    etc.

    Dave put it into some perspective this morning -

    "
    We hear that a parallel road network segregated for bikes is needed to get these people to consider cycling, yet cycling is so unpopular that it can't be justified.

    I have started obsessing over the widths of streets recently though and how easy it would be to build a parallel road network on many of them - Edinburgh has some incredibly wide streets!

    "

    Discuss

    Posted 13 years ago #
  2. PS
    Member

    Here's my contribution from the other thread, which is more relevant here:

    The other thing Edinburgh has is a lot of parallel streets, which could be used imaginatively.

    Take Clerk Street/Newington Road and Causewayside/Ratcliffe Terrace. Some vehicular access is required because of shops/homes on the street, but is there any reason why you couldn't make one carriageway one way for motorised traffic and segregate the other for peds and cyclists? The main N-S route for motorised traffic would remain the wider Clerk Street/Newington Road, and cars heading against the flow of the one-way system would just have to go one extra block on that street before turning back onto Causewayside/Ratcliffe Terrace

    Posted 13 years ago #
  3. crowriver
    Member

    Naturally, David Hembrow (the same) has already lanced this particular boil some time past, ie. 'the streets are too narrow'. No, they are not!

    http://www.aviewfromthecyclepath.com/search/label/notenoughspace

    Posted 13 years ago #
  4. amir
    Member

    Segregated facilities should mean segregated from pedestrians as well as traffic, with enough room for cyclists to pass eachother, allowing multiple speeds.

    Cycling has much greater differentials of speed than walking and motor trasnport (at least within cities).

    Posted 13 years ago #
  5. PS
    Member

    @amir Oh, I agree - when I said one side for peds and cyclists I envisaged a curbed pavement as is (perhaps slightly wider to encourage walking on that side) and tarmac for bikes.

    Posted 13 years ago #
  6. wingpig
    Member

    To quote Dave again:

    "Well, in Paris for instance, they don't get re-attached in the way you'd think (i.e. in any way at all) traffic just turns across the bike lane freely, and when one ends, you just ride on into the traffic stream."

    Ignoring the assumption of what we might have thought the method of re-integration might have been, this "traffic just turns across the bike lane freely" sounds (not having experienced any specific Parisian examples) as if this might (in, for example, a country where cars routinely ignore ASLs) be no better than one of these segregated lanes we already have where cyclists can pootle merrily along away from traffic only to be returned to the road in a way where they have to stop and wait for a space before re-joining the traffic stream they were originally part of. The weird thing going round the outside of the Ocean Terminal roundabout that anth mentioned in his Ten Daftest Facilities video-set thing springs to mind. The path alongside West Granton Access keeps you out of the way of cars but then (if heading south) drops you into the middle of a junction. Even the north spur of the NEPN through the tunnel to Granton from Five Ways exits into a point between the two ends of a light-controlled section. There are the two relatively new crossings at Fountainbridge and Bowmont Place which have pictures of bicycles on the lights but which give up half-way.

    Similarly only-taking-you-so-far is something like the process for heading north via MMW and thence further northwards: MMW takes you to the crossing into Forrest Road, but when the crossing shows bicycle-green, right-turning traffic from Teviot Place is also flowing and has to be yielded to. At the same crossing there's the previously-discussed but-what-if-I-wanted-to-go-along-Lauriston-Place issue.

    There's the King's Stables Road contraflow cycle lane, handy for some things but which then forgets itself when it ends at a pedestrian crossing. Because cyclists can become pedestrians with a couple of simple leg-movements it sometimes seems to have been the fallback position instead of thinking properly about how cyclists' movements could be integrated into the design of a junction.

    Not specifically cycle-related but similarly exhibiting the sort of thing cars do, there's the bit at the roundabout end of Holyrood Park Road (heading parkwards) where two lanes merge into one; by the markings on the road, the right-hand lane (into which cars will usually move when they see a cyclist in the left-hand-lane) is directed to merge into the left-hand-lane, but to assume that cars will do this by giving way to things in the lane they're technically merging into would be daft.

    Where there's an entirely separate network above and beyond the roads-for-cars then segregation will work. It's sort of like our existing pavement/footway system, where a pedestrian can go almost anywhere without ever not being separated from live traffic either by a kerb or a stop line/red light, though it seems at the moment that pedestrians have to stop more often than vehicles. Even if it's for a reason other than narrowness of road (and I was thinking of the bit of Causewayside by Brazilian Sensation in the other thread) then points where segregated traffic is re-integrated would need some consideration to find a way of stopping the belligerence of some drivers from spoiling them.

    Posted 13 years ago #
  7. The slight difference between here and Paris (bearing in mind it's a few years ago now that I rode in Paris) is that here the separated lane is on a pavement, and therefore when it comes to an end the cyclist has to merge with the traffic (and there's usually a Give Way line at the endof the lane).

    In Paris the separated lanes are part of the road and drivers have to merge into the flow of any cycists around. It's a small difference, but it feels a lot different.

    You also have to add in that Parisian drivers are more tuned into the cycling culture than British drivers. Not perfecft, but a lot better. And where they cross segregated lanes to access a junction they DO look out for cyclists.

    Posted 13 years ago #
  8. PS
    Member

    There's a mix of styles in Paris.

    This one's on Boulevard de Magenta and the cyclepath is on the pavement:
    Magenta

    This one is Rue de Rivoli and is on the road, separated by a low kerb, but runs behind car parking bays:
    Rivoli
    At junctions, it just kinda disappears, but I guess drivers have learnt to look for cyclists.
    disparu

    They certainly didn't run down this cyclist and his mate as we did a armagnac-fuelled postprandial Velib crossing of the Place de la Concorde... In fact, I wonder if the chaos to our eyes of Places de la Concorde and Charles de Gaulle is one of the reasons why French drivers are more observant of cyclists - similar to the naked streets concept, they are not mollycoddled with clear lanes so can't switch off and have to stay alert when driving.

    Posted 13 years ago #

RSS feed for this topic

Reply

You must log in to post.


Video embedded using Easy Video Embed plugin