CityCyclingEdinburgh was launched on the 27th of October 2009 as "an experiment".
IT’S TRUE!
CCE is 15years old!
Well done to ALL posters
It soon became useful and entertaining. There are regular posters, people who add useful info occasionally and plenty more who drop by to watch. That's fine. If you want to add news/comments it's easy to register and become a member.
RULES No personal insults. No swearing.
stickyHas anyone brought up the concreted 'access' further along the path to the workies 'compound' that's now been removed? I'd love to see that removed and the tarmac path restored.
Looks like it's going! Was getting coned off this morning now it's been dug out. Hope that's the end of the compound and tarmac to be restored.
Other bit still a mess.
Latest developments;
horrid central-island crossing at South Gyle Access being instated. Of course they removed the long-standing temporary crossing first (it was gone on Saturday) and 2 days later they still don't have the new lights turned on, meaning cyclists and pedestrians have to trust their faith in finding a gap in fast, heavy traffic. The way that the temporary (vehicle) lights are installed means they cannot be seen by anyone waiting to cross, so you do not know if you are stepping out infront of a red or a green light.
Also note that the barriers on the island reservoir are sent in from the kerbstones by nearly a foot, thoroughly constricting the available space on an already small island.
Lastly, I note that some new faux-cast iron bollards have been installed along the white line towards the Stenhouse end of the path, exact same type as the one that appeared in the random position at end of the Meadows.
There was a woman trying to cross that with her kiddie trailer this morning. The expression on her face was 'you gotta be kidding me' as she tried to figure out a safe way of crossing with no visible lights and then the 90 degree tight turn. I would guess she waited for the cycle to restart so she was assured of maximum time.
Yup, an almost-completely-unusable crossing at South Gyle Access. 4 bikes and 3 pedestrians made a dash to the central island this morning, and it required much shuffling so we could all fit.
Really, really unsafe. Could barely have been designed any worse.
No point putting it here!! Get one to twitter and local councillors ASAP!! I complained both about Hedge and tree cutting debris and unsafe signs on the A90. 1/2 a day later it was cleared and signs were removed at night (after 4pm) when workies went home.
Get on to them now and it should be sorted by home time!
Dave - unfortunately I don't think tweets will sort out what is a "dig it up and start again" situation - it's not a case of getting out the strimmers or brushes and a few workies. The whole crossing is badly (or not at all) thought out and the logic of replacing a previous single phase pedestrian crossing with a staggered phase needs explained by whomever decided it should be changed. At the very least the railings need removed and reset much closer to the kerbstones. There are 5 lanes of traffic here, so any central island was always going to be compromised for space.
I will be lodging a more formal written assessment of this in the direction of Burns, Hinds etc.
The value of putting it here is as a written record, for all eternity, of the complete failure of thinking around the Tram project. In years to come we can look back with disdain from the hovercar utopia and wondered why we ever bothered trying to make Scotland more cycling friendly. Also it serves to act as a warning to the other unfortunate punters using this route.
NO!! Get them to re instate the temp lights until the perm crossing is complete!
"No point putting it here"
Lots of point. People who might not otherwise have been that way for a while could pop there, witness it and add their complaint to the official pile.
"No point putting it here"
Think DC was being mildly ironic.
Maybe deserves own thread?
I'm not clear -
Does this mean there is (completed?) new infrastructure that isn't joined up to electricity supply?
If so it could be MONTHS!
I've not timed it, and now can't, but I think it may be quicker for pedestrians under the new layout since they can go when then opposite lane of traffic is halted. The width of the thing is just typically Edinburgh quality infrastructure though.
Does this mean there is (completed?) new infrastructure that isn't joined up to electricity supply?
They appear to be resignalling entire junction, assuming that's why power was out and temp (traffic only) signals in place. There was power the other day to the previous "temporary"* arrangement.
* which has been in place for about 2 or 3 years!
Time for Transport Scotland to step in with their 'magic slush fund' for 'essential' infrastructure and add the ped/cycle bridge alongside the tram route that should've always been included there...
Its utterly gobsmacking - take away a perfectly decent (well, kind of) temporary crossing and put in place something staggeringly dangerous.
I got there at 6.30 this morning and still had to wait til the traffic lights went through a cycle (sic) to ensure my own safety - I am an adult for gods sake - what might happen if a child, older person, or partially sighted person was crossing there?
I presumed naively that 'it must only be for today as it is soooo bad' - but nope, still there at 6 tonight.
Its simply irresponsible and the contracters (as kaputnik, uberuce and myself know to our cost) just dont give a monkeys about either cyclist or even pedestrian safety.
I honestly couldnt live with myself if I put that in place - I mean surely they must have some regs or oversight for these kind of things. Might as well tell us to cycle home along the bypass - at least we wouldnt be crossing 5 lanes of traffic.
Especially since there's a school just up from the crossing, and so many kids trying to cross 5 lanes without any working crossing. Utter madness.
The photo shows just how much space is lost in an already narrow island by setting the railings so far in from the kerbstones.
Lights are working now, so less deathtrap-like.
I asked lesley hinds on twitter to have a wee birl through it to see what it is really like.
Think the problem - as shown in kaputnik photo - is that the railings are set a 'standard' distance from the curb but because they have slotted in a 5th lane the central reservation is tiny.
On a 'normal' bike its pretty easy to use - but in single file / one way only.
For pedestrians, I fear the worst if 2 krispy kreme addicts try and negotiate it at the same time.
Just had an email back from the Trams people telling me that the guard rails have been set in so far to "prevent them being damaged by vehicles"!
Great. Guardrails come higher up the pecking order than cyclists or pedestrians! I thought the point of guardrails was to constrain and inconvenience and herd protect the latter, not cause an obstruction and potential danger to them!
A really dissapointing response, I'll be back out with my measuring tape to challenge their defence that "there's a defined minimum distance to set these back from the kerb" to ask if there's a defined minimum width for the island.
The basic reponse boils down to an admission that they're squeezing pedestrians and cyclists right out to maintian 5 lanes of traffic at all costs, and to "protect us" on the tiny island they've put in guard rails and to "protect" the guard rails they've set them so far in from the kerb as to constrain the island to pretty much a single bike-width.
I'll cheekily suggest that they move the kerb out 1 foot in each direction in my response.
I don't suppose anyone knows if there's a defined minimum width for pedestrian islands?
Kaputnik, I've been having a look through the Highways Agency's "Design Manual for Roads and Bridges", vol.6 section 3 part 5 "The Geometric Design of Pedestrian, Cycle and Equestrian Routes" (TA90/05).
http://www.dft.gov.uk/ha/standards/dmrb/vol6/section3.htm
Paragraph 7.4 says, for pedestrian-only routes:
"A route is considered unbounded when it is not adjacent to a physical barrier such as a wall or fence at the edge of the route. Where it is not practicable to provide widths of 2.0m for the full length of a route, widths of 1.3m may be provided over short distances."
Paragraph 7.16 to 7.23 cover shared routes:
"Shared use facilities should generally be restricted to where flows of either cyclists or pedestrians are low…the preferred minimum width for an unsegregated facility is 3.0m."
There is in theory volume 8 section 5 that deals with the specifications for pedestrian crossings, but the majority of the guidance note is missing.
"The central refuge of a staggered crossing should be :-
long enough to indicate the segregation of the crossings. A minimum of 3 metres between crossing limits is recommended;
wide enough to allow pedestrians to pass each other between the crossings. A recommended minimum width of 3 metres will give 2 metres between guard railing;
of sufficient capacity to accommodate pedestrians waiting to cross."
Local Transport Note 2/95
The Design of Pedestrian Crossings
Would two wheelchair users going in opposite directions be able to pass each other in the island?
@Wingpig not a chance.
Kaputnik - You might want to direct the trams people to the following policy:
"Where 2 stage crossings are required guard rail/
‘visirail’ should be omitted, unless an overriding
safety requirement is identified"
Developed by none other than the Council (see page 22):
http://www.edinburgh.gov.uk/downloads/file/985/edinburgh_standards_for_streets
Arellcat - Volume 8, Section 5 of the DMRB is a Northern Ireland supplement to Local Transport Notes 1 and 2 of 1995, which are still in force. You can find LTN2/95 Design of Pedestrian Crossings here:
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/3814/ltn-2-95.pdf
This is clear that the minimum width of an island should be 2m, but should be more - dependent on location.
To allow wheelchairs to pass is why it should be a minimum of 2m between any railings:
"However, 2 metres is considered a reasonable minimum to allow for two wheelchairs to pass each other"
LTN 2/95
Arellcat: DMRB volume 8 section 5 says to use LTN 1/95 and 2/95)
The railings or barrier are meant to stop peds stepping/falling onto the road, not meant to stop vehicles from mounting the footway and hitting pedestrians. If railings are too near the kerb and are hit by motor vehicles the railings will then probably hit any pedestrians, so if there have to be railings the kerbs need to be far enough out to protect them.
update: my previous comments are mainly for pedestrian refuges, not shared with cyclists. Cycle Infrastructure Design LTN2/08 says "Staggered or split crossings are not generally recommended for cyclists, because they can cause delay to people crossing and give rise to potential conflict between cyclists and pedestrians, but in some locations they may be the only practicable design solution. Refuges at staggered crossings should be at least 2 metres wide between barriers to accommodate cyclists, and the stagger should be arranged so that users are facing oncoming traffic on the lane that they are about to cross."
Thanks all, I shall try and form a coherent, technical reply. Must measure the relative distances first though.
Haven't seen this being mentioned yet: The entrance to the path on Balgreen Road by the Jenners Depository is now OPEN!!!
Lots of glass on it today between stenhouse and civil service.
Hate that, can't see it this time of year.
The once-muddy bit across the inappropriate rumble strip slabs just a little closer to the Broomhouse/Saughton crossroad (along from the Saughton House - the one to goes up to the tram bridge across Saughton Road)... Didn't you complain to the council through Twitter about the mess the tram contractors were leaving, Kaputnik?
Seem to recall it was cleaned up thoroughly in November and a proper kerb put in place, but it is now such a mess again where vehicles have driven through the grass and subsequent mud, tracking it across the shared path along Broomhouse Drive that just walking across it this morning in walking boots was slippy and unpleasant. Dread to imagine what it would have been like on slicks given it was dark and wet.
@Meepmeep yes I did complain and they came along and dumped a load of gravel where vehicles had churned and excavated the verge into a muddy, flooded rut by driving through it. They put a load of cones on it too, but the very next day they had been moved and trams vehicles were back at the platform so were obviously determined to keep driving across here. Needless to say, all that has resulted is that they are now churning the gravel onto the path.
Took a measuring tape to the South Gyle Access island this morning;
Total width of island = 2.4m.
Inset of railings = 0.51m (each side)
Available width inside railings = 1.38m
Wasted space outside (and including) railings = 1.02m
Available width of island for cyclists / pedestrians as a percentage is 58%.
Wasted space = 42%
So with a little bit of re-adjustment of the railings, the recommended minimum of 2m could just about be met.
Amusingly, the inset of the railings from the kerbstone is to protect the railings from damage, not those behind them!
Interestingly there were 2 folks in Council Jackets looking at this Junction and taking pictures on Friday morning.
I made sure that negotiation of the crossing was as laboured as possible...
You must log in to post.
Cycling in Edinburgh Flickr group
Video embedded using Easy Video Embed plugin
posts