CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » Infrastructure

One-way streets

(43 posts)
  • Started 11 years ago by lionfish
  • Latest reply from crowriver

12

  1. lionfish
    Member

    An email to Lesley Hinds (June 24th):

    Hello,

    Thanks for speaking at the bike breakfast last week!

    During the breakfast bike rides I had the chance to speak to several people on my ride. One thing that kept coming up was that one-way streets need to be made two-way for cyclists (as cyclists don't need as much space, etc). Examples include Valleyfield Street (part of the family bike network), Leamington Road, Jane Street and many roads around Tollcross.

    The one-way roads at the moment are often a considerable difficulty for cyclists. The alternative route is often very long, or dangerous and is usually completely unnecessary.

    I was pleased to discover from SPOKES that the council has already promised to make such streets 2-way, and that item C11 (page 46) in your Active Travel Action Plan says: "Compile programme of exemption of cyclists from one-way restrictions by September 2011 and implement programme by April 2014."

    I'm emailing first to say how much I support such an initiative, and second to ask if you could send me the programme of exemptions (so I can share it with the others on my ride, who were discussing the one-way roads).

    Yours sincerely,

    Mike Smith

    PS For an example, the one-way restriction on Jane Street would mean a detour of over a km each day for my partner (see: http://goo.gl/maps/Zh97 ).
    PPS I've cced my ward councillors in too.

    Posted 11 years ago #

  2. lionfish
    Member

    Got a couple of replies from Lesley:

    June 25th:
    Thanks for your e-mail. I will get an answer to your question.
    Lesley

    June 26th:
    I will see what response I get from officers and get back in touch with you.
    Lesley

    Then yesterday I had a reply from Michelle Coyle:


    Dear Mr Smith

    ONE-WAY STREET EXEMPTIONS FOR CYCLISTS

    Thank you for your email of 24 June 2012 regarding your query about the possibility of exempting cyclists from one-way restrictions.

    There is now a presumption against creating any new one-way streets. If, however, new one-way streets have to be implemented to manage motor traffic, there is a presumption in favour of exempting cyclists.

    Due to resource pressures, the Active Travel Action Plan action to draw up a programme of exemptions for cyclists on one-way streets has not yet been undertaken and is therefore not currently available. However, it is intended that this work will be completed in the next 12 months and we consider that it will still be possible to reach the target for implementation of 2014. Please note that the programme will need to take into account the individual circumstances of each street and identify whether an exemption can be implemented safely. The implementation of any exemptions will also be subject to the approval of the necessary Traffic Regulation Orders which are subject to statutory consultation.

    Should you require any further information, please contact us at transport.strategicplanning@edinburgh.gov.uk.

    Yours sincerely

    Michelle Coyle
    Strategic Services Manager

    Posted 11 years ago #

  3. SRD
    Moderator

    good one lionfish, but if resources such a problem, *why* didn't they do leamington road while it was all dug up?

    have been meaning to email them about the cycle counter..didn't the last spokes mailout mention this?

    Posted 11 years ago #

  4. Baldcyclist
    Member

    Grove St is a particular anoyance of mine, often meet other cyclists cycling towards me on that street, had words with a few of them!

    The Google example above isn't a particularly good one, I notice the "or walk, 19s" option, there problem solved ;)

    *edit, although I do admit I'm more of a motorist who cycles (more than I drive though!), so going where the road goes is just second nature to me. I've been cycling in Edinburgh for over 20 years and honestly didn't know there was a network of cycle paths until not very many years ago.

    Posted 11 years ago #

  5. mgj
    Member

    This really smacks of, "not enough of our fellow cyclists were killed this year, so we want to create opportunities for many more of them to have head-ons with cars".

    Valleyfield as an example; what is wrong with either Tarvit St or Leven Terr/Glengyle Terr? Are there that many people headed on bikes to Lupe Pintos or the cushion shop?

    Posted 11 years ago #

  6. Min
    Member

    How many of our fellow cyclists were killed last year in head on collisions on one-way streets?

    Posted 11 years ago #

  7. SRD
    Moderator

    Given the small number of contra-flows on one-way streets in Edinburgh, we can only hope the answer is none. in fact, I presume we would know if there were ever problems with cyclist-car interactions on them? I've not heard of any. And I don't think this would be an issue on ones like Leamington rd. I've heard nothing to suggest that there is any danger involved. Just that they don't have the manpower to actually implement the required notifications etc.

    More seriously, though. I have wondered about the options for Valleyfield - Tarvit street. letting cyclists go straight across would be a big change.

    I presume it would require right hand turns from Tarvit st onto Home St to be banned? or maybe give them a delayed turn arrow? And give cyclists an advance green?

    But there are many people who find the right hand turn from Gilmore Place into Leven st extremely intimidating, so a straightahead might encourage them.

    On the other hand, the benefit of the Valleyfield route is that it puts you straight onto the (confusing) shared use path to the meadows. You just have to tackle that right hand turn first.

    Another point - as a cyclist, I quite like one way streets (as long as I am familiar with them) because it limits the hazards en route. they're very frustrating when cycling somewhere unfamiliar though, as I've found in Glasgow and London.

    Posted 11 years ago #

  8. chdot
    Admin

    "This really smacks of, "not enough of our fellow cyclists were killed this year, so we want to create opportunities for many more of them to have head-ons with cars"."

    Well, yes, but.

    Without starting a debate about segregated infrastructure (here) -

    There are places where a contra-flow (route) would be a real advantage to people on bikes - and a potential extra reason for some to cycle (or more often) with greater convenience.

    There are plenty of two way streets barely wide enough for a car and bike to pass. Of course there will be some drivers who don't 'understand' about contra-flows - a tiny number may even think 'you're not supposed to be here so I'm going to run you over'.

    We are a long way away from banning parking from at least one side of the road. Probably just as far from 'proper segregated provision'.

    In the meantime it's better to have as many people as possible using the less than perfect road system.

    Contra-flows (if properly designed/implemented) will help.

    They should also indicate that CEC is slightly serious about countering the general assumption that cars (should) have priority - and always will.

    I'll believe things have changed when they put back the contra-flow in Forbes Road.

    It was removed because it was 'dangerous' (there's a bend in the middle). One improvement would have involved 'losing' a couple of parking spaces. Local councillor backed residents who didn't like that idea.

    Of course this was only 'dangerous' when cars were parked on both sides - evenings and weekends.

    It's all about priorities and policies.

    Free storage for people who own large wheeled boxes or a real desire to encourage 'active travel'(?)

    Posted 11 years ago #

  9. cb
    Member

    If not a proper contraflow down the entire street then a properly segregated 'exit point' for cyclists would be useful, as this is where I see the real danger being with drivers swinging into the 'wrong' side of the street.

    Leamington Road for example. That is such a short and quiet road in terms of traffic volume that I would be happy enough with a rubbish narrow bit of red paint really just to 'make it legal' (it wouldn't make it safer than it already is*)

    But exiting Leamington Road onto Gilmore Place would need a bit more protection than paint.

    Traffic light controlled junctions are more complicated. A contraflow on Murieston Place would be a great shortcut, but would require some jiggery-pockery with the traffic lights/sequences to accommodate it. Hence I can't see it happening there.

    *I don't go the wrong way down Leamington Road. I tend to go round the long way or avoid that route.

    Posted 11 years ago #

  10. SRD
    Moderator

    "But exiting Leamington Road onto Gilmore Place would need a bit more protection than paint." Why? I do it all the time (one of the very few places where i disregard the rules of the road).

    Posted 11 years ago #

  11. cb
    Member

    Well, it's quite narrow and a car coming into the street could justifiably swing round the corner on 'your' side of the road.

    Posted 11 years ago #

  12. SRD
    Moderator

    Could just be the time of day that I go by, but I regularly see cyclists turning in there, but almost never cars.

    Posted 11 years ago #

  13. Wilmington's Cow
    Member

    Given cars park on the street, and it's one way, I would imagine that some cars do turn in there ;)

    [standard admonishment disclaimer]
    If I'm heading that way I get off and push up the street.

    Posted 11 years ago #

  14. SRD
    Moderator

    Yes, I am aware that cars do actually turn in and park, or even go around the corner. But, my (inadequate, but regular) observations suggest that more cyclists use that road than cars. Anyone for a traffic count?

    Posted 11 years ago #

  15. Min
    Member

    I cycled up that street the wrong way for 3 years without realising it was a one-way until one day I saw a van coming down towards me and realised it was too narrow to be anything else. The fact it took that long to get to that point must show it is not very common!

    Posted 11 years ago #

  16. Baldcyclist
    Member

    The No Entry sign, and the Give way road markings kind of give it away as a one way street.

    Also like the lady waiting patiently for the Google maps car to drive past so she can cycle the wrong way down the street...

    Posted 11 years ago #

  17. Roibeard
    Member

    @Baldcyclist - are you sure? She may just have stopped there to debate how to get to avoid the No Entry, as at no point does she pass the sign as Google drove up the Terrace or along Rope Walk.

    I prefer to believe we have evidence of a law-abiding cyclist™...

    Robert

    Posted 11 years ago #

  18. lionfish
    Member

    Just to resurrect this thread.

    `However, it is intended that this work [making the list of roads] will be completed in the next 12 months' - in the letter dated 10 July, 2012.

    Less than two months to go - maybe I should send them a reminder email?

    Posted 11 years ago #

  19. neddie
    Member

    Progress is just too slow...

    Posted 11 years ago #

  20. 559
    Member

    I use the cyclist westward contraflow on Gordon Street, Glasgow, most days. There is a number of issues, namely;

    >Pedestrians do not look west before crossing, as they are focussed on the vehicles heading east

    >Road marking demarcation between the two lanes does not stand out

    >Junction with Union Street is a problem with vehicles turning across your bow

    >Some of the drivers do not expect cyclists to be coming down the one way, in their eyes the wrong way

    Posted 11 years ago #

  21. minimoth
    Member

    Hi 559,
    Interesting comments, so do you think this is a misguided policy or is there anything you can suggest to overcome these issues or is it something we might just have to live with.

    For me to avoid a one way street (which I am currently not legally allowed to cycle down) I have to do a 1/2 mile long detour. As a result I break the law pretty much everyday and I very rarely have a negative response from drivers. Often some wait for me to pass with a smile.

    Posted 11 years ago #

  22. 559
    Member

    Hi minimoth,
    I don't think it is a misguided policy, but do think that it has to be applied very carefully.
    The problems with vehicles on Gordon Street, i think is a down to poor signage, they are mainly turning into Gordon Street from Union Street, so their focus is on the turn,not signage. There is no white demarcation line merely a change in direction of the cobbles where the line would be.

    The problem with pedestrians is two fold, albeit linked, lack of awareness that this lane is exists and a natural tendency to focus on the dominant traffic flow. For them, looking out for bikes is a bit like our first few hours in a foreign city, when crossing roads.

    I can fully understand the desire to shortcut one way streets, but in the event of something occurring, as it stands just now you are legally defenceless.

    You are very fortunate that drivers in your instance are mostly considerate.

    Posted 11 years ago #

  23. Wilmington's Cow
    Member

    "For me to avoid a one way street (which I am currently not legally allowed to cycle down) I have to do a 1/2 mile long detour"

    At 10mph that's 3 minutes of your time... I guess it's part of the humanc ondition that we don't like sticking torules where we think they're daft, but if we say "I'll ride down this one way road the wrong way because to do otherwise would lose me three minutes and it's daft not to be able to cycle along here" there's not much of a moral high ground to argue against "I'll drive down this 20mph road at 30mph because to do otherwise I'd lose 3 minutes of my time and it's daft to have this street as a 20mph road anyway."

    Yes. Yes. I know that drivers kill more people etc etc etc. But it's almost akin to saying stealing a Mars Bar is okay because bankers cost the economy more money and it's not really a serious breach of the rules.

    And if another cyclist says they run red lights because it's safe to do so and they very rarely get a negative response from pedestrians.

    I'd still walk it, or detour, if only (well, above the above) because as 559 says there's a quick and easy assumption to make that you were in the wrong if anything at all happens with some opposing traffic.

    [/killjoy bad guy]

    Posted 11 years ago #

  24. minimoth
    Member

    Hi, Just got prompted to come and look at this again. I agree in principle that I shouldn't be going down oneway streets the wrong way...... and in other places in the city I abide by the rules even if I think it stupid. However in the case I am talking about there are two things that make it more dangerous.

    Firstly, it's probably helpful for you to know where I'm talking about. I work on Tennant Street, Leith. My detour involves going onto Bonnington Road (a right turn - not too bad here but still more traffic) and then right at the traffic lights on Great Junction street, not a pleasant and a pretty busy junction. Then down Great Junction street amongst the parked cars, buses and pedestrians to the traffic lights at the bottom of Leith walk and then another right turn at that huge intimidating and messy junction.

    This is definitely more that a 3 minute cycle and puts me in considerably more danger than my current illegal alternative.

    So why don't I walk? Often the only way I can walk is down the middle of the road. There are garages along that end of Jane street with cars parked on the pavement and there isn't enough space to walk a bike between the car and the wall.

    So the result is I cycle fairly apologetically (on pretty horrible cobbles) to get to Leith walk.

    Posted 11 years ago #

  25. wingpig
    Member

    Less danger by turning left onto Bonnington Road, turning left again into Pilrig Park then sneaking through to Balfour St, avoiding GJS and the mankiest lower bit of Leith Walk. Pilrig St isn't particularly bad, and has a proper junction with Leith Walk.

    Posted 11 years ago #

  26. minimoth
    Member

    "good idea wingpig - will try that from now on. I quite often go via the cyclepath instead and go into town that way. Or Bonnington Road and McDonald Road" [transcribed by lionfish :]

    Posted 11 years ago #

  27. lionfish
    Member

    ok people. There was some disagreement about whether it's a good idea (or at least concerns regarding implementation). Me personally: I think that many of the streets are one-way to allow more space for car parking, and are really not helping with making this a cycle-friendly city. For example Rutland Street provides a good low-traffic link from the (albeit slow) off-road route to the canal from the West End - currently one-way.

    With regards to concern that traffic won't be expecting cyclists going the other way: In France they manage very well by putting a warning to vehicles entering the road that bikes are exempted from the restriction, so people know to look for them - easy!

    Posted 10 years ago #

  28. lionfish
    Member

    Anyway, the reason I resurrected this thread is because I've had a bit more correspondence with Lesley and the transport people.

    My email:

    "I'm writing in reference to the email you sent me a year ago (attached), responding to a query about making exemptions on one-way streets for cyclists. Your email noted that due to resource pressures the programme of exemptions was not yet available at the time of writing, but that it would be completed within 12 months. Do you know if it's now available, and if so whether it is ready for circulation?"

    Reply:

    "Thank you for your e-mail dated 23 July 2013 regarding progress on the above planned work. There have been continuing resources pressures over the past year and due to this the work to review one-way streets has not yet started. However, the Council has now recruited an additional officer to work on cycle projects and it is planned that this will enable the one-way street assessment to now be progressed. This does mean that implementation of exemptions will now be delayed – we estimate that these will take place in the years 2015-17."

    I'm really disappointed - I think there's quite a few places in town which need this sorting out, and delaying it by several years is a bit hopeless.

    Posted 10 years ago #

  29. lionfish
    Member

    Just quoting the letter from a year ago:

    "However, it is intended that this work will be completed in the next 12 months and we consider that it will still be possible to reach the target for implementation of 2014."

    Posted 10 years ago #

  30. kaputnik
    Moderator

    Exchanged a few tweets with SNP Councillor (Pentlands) Bill Henderson the other evening about the glacial pace of chance in Edinburgh with regards to cycling as he "disagreed" with me about the problems with our cycling infrastructure in town. Although he did agree there was "more to be done"...

    Posted 10 years ago #

RSS feed for this topic

12

Reply »

You must log in to post.


Video embedded using Easy Video Embed plugin