CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » Infrastructure

Meadows cycle path route gets £360k upgrade

(82 posts)

No tags yet.


123

  1. cb
    Member

    http://www.scotsman.com/news/transport/meadows-cycle-path-route-gets-360k-upgrade-1-2778491

    "
    Councillor Jim Orr, vice-convener of the council’s transport, infrastructure and environment committee, said: “We plan to 
significantly improve the cycle track up to the standard of Middle Meadow Walk and hope to have this done around May and June.

    “This is part of a wider plan to connect the canal to the Innocent Railway as part of a ‘family network’ running all over 
Edinburgh.”
    "

    360k to do the easy bit? Wow.

    Posted 11 years ago #

  2. fimm
    Member

    They do say "lighting improvements" which might cost more?

    Posted 11 years ago #

  3. mgj
    Member

    The comments are quite moronic on that article. Of course none of them point out that that makes 3 separate cycle routes parallel to each other through the Meadows (including the on road section). I'd rather we had more grass than tarmac in our city, so this get the thumbs down from me. How they intend to connect this up to the canal interests me; are they going to take that banana shaped island out of Gilmore place?

    Posted 11 years ago #

  4. Wilmington's Cow
    Member

    But they're not 'adding' tarmac are they? I thought it was upgrade of existing paths? And while the parallel paths might seem overkill for cyclists, for pedestrians they're a little too far spread to suggest there should only be one.

    (apologies if they are actually adding tarmac - last I looked at the plan I was fairly sure they weren't).

    Posted 11 years ago #

  5. SRD
    Moderator

    The paths will be widened somewhat, but not as much as they 'ought' to be (from a cycling perspective), because FOMBL protested at the risk to the trees.

    Posted 11 years ago #

  6. fimm
    Member

    The Spokes man (Spokes spokesman? Spokesman for Spokes? Sorry) quoted in the article says "It’s very narrow and I don’t know how much they will be able to do about that, but at least if the quality of the surface is improved that will help ..." which implies that there won't be much if any more tarmac than before...

    Posted 11 years ago #

  7. fimm
    Member

    FOMBL? Friends Of Meadows B? L?

    Posted 11 years ago #

  8. Arellcat
    Moderator

    Friends of the Meadows and Bruntsfield Links.

    http://www.fombl.org.uk/

    :-)

    Posted 11 years ago #

  9. kaputnik
    Moderator

    Underground, overground, fombling free

    Posted 11 years ago #

  10. SRD
    Moderator

    Except FOMBL doesn't want recycling. or barbecues, or just about any use of the meadows and links other than genteelly sitting on a bench (and listening to classical music)

    Posted 11 years ago #

  11. EddieD
    Member

    I stopped using NMW on my commute in favour of either Melville Drive-MMW, or, as now, I just stay on Melville drive and the Buccleuch Street - cars don't suddenly (well not for a few years now) step sideways (no left turns) or have loose dogs.

    Posted 11 years ago #

  12. Wilmington's Cow
    Member

    I usually use the on-road Melville Drive option, but if going to PY take NMW. The reason being the right hand turn off MD onto MMW is often a bit difficult (a world class cycling city would have, on what is part of the QBC remember, a turning lane for bikes); and I'm too belligerent about it to want to turn left onto Argyle Place then 180 degrees to the crossing onto MMW.

    Posted 11 years ago #

  13. Dave
    Member

    NMW isn't so narrow really (more than twice the width of some other shared use facilities) - the main problem is that the *cycling* part of NMW is stupidly narrow.

    Admittedly I rarely need to use it, but when I do I treat it as unsegregated (riding eastbound on the nominally pedestrian side) rather than playing chicken with a stream of oncoming cyclists on something just a few feet wide.

    Posted 11 years ago #

  14. chdot
    Admin

    "other than genteelly sitting on a bench"

    I want sheep and the Boroughloch back.

    And the emergency helicopters.

    I'm sure some people would like allotments again too.

    I have some sympathy with 'no more tarmac' argument, but the reality is that the current NMW is not 'fit for purpose' for existing walk/cycle use and 'we' are trying to encourage more users.

    Posted 11 years ago #

  15. Wilmington's Cow
    Member

    "Admittedly I rarely need to use it, but when I do I treat it as unsegregated (riding eastbound on the nominally pedestrian side)"

    So you ride on the pavement...

    'nominally pedestrian' sounds frighteningly similar to 'otherwise law abiding'.... ;)

    Posted 11 years ago #

  16. steveo
    Member

    Generally I do to tbh. Usually when we're riding to the office after PY I end up a little on the ped side, given its a very narrow path and two abreast is pushing it a little....

    Posted 11 years ago #

  17. cb
    Member

    "How they intend to connect this up to the canal interests me"

    Me too.

    Possibly the easiest way would be to route the family network up the Bruntsfield Links path.
    Then you could remove parking from the SW site of Leamington Terrace and put in a properly segregated two way bike path linking up with a (closed to cars) Leamington Road and onto the canal.

    That would miss out the busy, bumpy Lochrin basin although it would introduce some hills.

    Posted 11 years ago #

  18. chdot
    Admin

    "How they intend to connect this up to the canal interests me"

    Indeed

    I'll take bets on it being Tarvit Street - Gilmore Place.

    Leamington is already an option - but feels longer (and certainly hillier).

    There's a future option that would use Lochrin Place and straight through the when-it-happens development where Arnold Clark used to be. (Has the advantage of avoiding Gilmore Place - and some of the cobbles).

    Posted 11 years ago #

  19. chdot
    Admin

    Of course a contra-flow on Valleyfield Street would be an improvement.

    Posted 11 years ago #

  20. Wilmington's Cow
    Member

    "Generally I do to tbh. Usually when we're riding to the office after PY I end up a little on the ped side, given its a very narrow path and two abreast is pushing it a little...."

    So do I, but I'll not refer to it as the 'nominally' pedestrian side. I'm breaking the law when I do so (not even just 'technically' - another favourite of the otherwise law-abiding motorist - but actually physically and definitely breaking the law and I know it).

    Posted 11 years ago #

  21. kaputnik
    Moderator

    I want sheep and the Boroughloch back.

    You got the loch back for a good part of last year


    And the emergency helicopters.

    There was a Sea King one day last year, around November.

    With regards to NWM, I don't think the argument that there's already a bit of tarmac there is much of an argument not to do something about how rubbish it is.

    The Melville Drive lanes are single yellow only and generally full of parked cars in the evenings and weekends. Gets worse in the summer.

    Posted 11 years ago #

  22. stiltskin
    Member

    Out of interest, how are you supposed to know which bit of the NMW is for bikes? It isn't obvious from what I can recall & I haven't noticed any signs saying 'no cycling' on the 'other side'

    Posted 11 years ago #

  23. EddieD
    Member

    Aye - I stopped using NMW for the reasons above. Interestingly, the signs conflict (or used to, when I used it) about whether it's segregated or fully shared use.

    I just found it was too narrow on the cycling side (and hte bit where the cycling side flip flops is just silly), and I'd had to stand on the brakes when a pedestrian side-stepped in front of me once too often.

    Posted 11 years ago #

  24. Wilmington's Cow
    Member

    @stiltskin

    There are little (faded and chipped) pictures of bikes on the bike side every now and then - in general, it's the narrower side.

    Posted 11 years ago #

  25. Dave
    Member

    "Admittedly I rarely need to use it, but when I do I treat it as unsegregated (riding eastbound on the nominally pedestrian side)"

    Leaving aside the question of whether or not it is legally signed (which we are above), I was more angling at the fact that it's physically impossible to use the NMW without straying onto the pedestrian side.

    If anyone doubts this I'd be happy to arrange a Y-frame trailer and child trailer for two doubters to ride towards each other if a demonstration is required :)

    The 'nominally' referred to the fact that the council have built a path that you basically have to ride on the ped side to use, hence it's not much of a pedestrian side at all (lit. in name only?).

    Admittedly, I could make more of an effort, by riding on the cycle side and just swerving out of it as necessary, instead of ambling along on the opposite side altogether. But then, I am an evil man.

    Posted 11 years ago #

  26. SRD
    Moderator

    " it's physically impossible to use the NMW without straying onto the pedestrian side."

    It's not physically impossible. I do it all the time, but you have to slow down when someone passes you. It's a pain. it's not impossible.

    Posted 11 years ago #

  27. kaputnik
    Moderator

    I've never figured out what you're expected to do if you find a pedestrian, a pensioner, a mother and pushchair etc. on the narrow bit of a path painted off as the "cycling side".

    The legislation works that the cyclist can only legally be on one side and the pedestrian can be on either.

    Is it more respectful to demand that the pedestrian cede way to you so you avoid having to cross the hallowed white line, or do you do what any right-minded person would and cross the line to pass them.

    Perhaps the correct procedure is to dismount, push past and then remount? Goes to show though that the promotes or such segregated paths have never actually tried to use the things.

    Posted 11 years ago #

  28. fimm
    Member

    I stopped using NMW even to go to PY after a couple of attempts - admittedly I have a left turn rather than a right turn to get on to MMW. Also I fear I'm a bit of a speed merchant, even on the Brompton.

    Do you think they might put some more tarmac round that tree where you go from Valleyfield Street to the crossing of Melville Drive? Or is that the sort of thing the FOMBLs would object to?

    Posted 11 years ago #

  29. fimm
    Member

    @kaputnik (but OT) I once read (in a comment on some blog somewhere) of someone who stopped her bike to ask two women who were blocking the cycle path if she could pass. She was treated to a huge rant about how she should be on the cycle path, to which she responded by silently pointing to the big picture of a bicycle that the ranter was standing on...... they moved.....

    Posted 11 years ago #

  30. SRD
    Moderator

    " Or is that the sort of thing the FOMBLs would object to?"

    Bingo. Likewise widening that bit of path/making the angle less acute. I (and others) lobbied for this, but it was rebuffed because of the trees. If those trees fall/get cut down anyway (as seems likely)I will be very annoyed.

    Posted 11 years ago #

RSS feed for this topic

123

Reply »

You must log in to post.


Video embedded using Easy Video Embed plugin