CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » General Edinburgh

"duff scheme with poor pedestrian and cycle provision" South Queensferry

(177 posts)

No tags yet.


  1. Baldcyclist
    Member

    I mostly avoid Scotstoun Avenue due to being hit by a car there a few years ago, tend to go Station Road. It's a marginally longer route, but also somewhat quicker.

    I regularly find myself being overtaken on the bridge by faster cyclists who have already overtaken me on the wee hill up to Dalmeny.

    I did hear on the train from some locals that the current route is being closed. There was much uproar as the apparently didn't know about the new route being built.

    Posted 7 years ago #
  2. minus six
    Member

    as Panyagua noted upthread, there's resistance to the Station Rd route as it looks like it involves significant descent/reascent to/from FRB

    but the access road directly under the bridge makes this a swift proposition either way, using Stewart Terrace as the connector

    Posted 7 years ago #
  3. BurntOut
    Member

    I avoid Station Rd because I always seem to get held up at the primary school there. Maybe I just need to get up earlier. Never had a problem with traffic on Scotstoun, although I suppose with all the new houses it's only going to get busier.

    Posted 7 years ago #
  4. biggles1982
    Member

    so that's the "new path" open. Completely underwhelmed with it. Hopefully this is not the finished article. yet again cars are given priority by the fact that there is a set of chicane barriers either side of a road within the estate followed by the big yellow temporary ones which have been mentioned above. Can't say I'm particularly impressed with the choice of surface either.

    I really don't understand why they have been allowed to provide something which is actually worse than what was there originally.

    Posted 7 years ago #
  5. crowriver
    Member

    "I really don't understand why they have been allowed to provide something which is actually worse than what was there originally."

    That's neoliberal economic policy for you. Scottish government hasn't helped by making it so easy for developers to overturn council planning decisions on appeal.

    Posted 7 years ago #
  6. acsimpson
    Member

    I heard back from Barrat and the council today. Will write more tomorrow but suffice to say it's not all bad news ( I think)

    Posted 7 years ago #
  7. biggles1982
    Member

    one thing I noticed is that the chicanes on either side of the road are actually set up differently. one overlaps the other doesn't.

    Posted 7 years ago #
  8. scotti
    Member

    From what I've read on the local FB page, don't be surprised if you're subjected to open hostility passing through the new estate.
    It would seem that dog walkers and cyclist are getting the evil eye and comments from residents.
    I'm sure that lovely monoblock surface will be very grippy when the weather gets cooler.

    Posted 7 years ago #
  9. deckard112
    Member

    Will the original path remain open though? I can't see how they'd close it?

    Posted 7 years ago #
  10. scotti
    Member

    The path was closed on Tuesday without warning. They will be building houses right up to the existing boundary of the older housing estate.
    It's not the first time it has been moved, it used to run up the side of the railway line.

    Posted 7 years ago #
  11. paddyirish
    Member

    The chicane at the bottom of the hill is a complete momentum killer when heading towards the bridge. I don't like the new route at all, though at this stage my dislike is not enough to change to go via Station Rd.

    Posted 7 years ago #
  12. acsimpson
    Member

    So here's my update on what I have found out so far, it's a bit long and rambling so please send me requests for clarification. I emailed Cala, Barrat, the cycling team and the architects involved in planning the site.

    The architects haven't acknowledged my email.

    Cala got back almost immediately and said they would go and speak to the site team and get back to me, 3 weeks later I haven't heard from them again.

    Barrat Homes took a while to get off the mark but phoned up for more details last week and then phoned back yesterday. They made it clear that Cala have been contracted by them to provide the infrastructure for the whole site. They can obviously provide some pressure if the infrastructure doesn't meet the contracted standard and he left a phone number for me to discuss any further concerns. He has spoken to Cala homes and provided me the email address of the person he dealt with. Cala's response to him was that they had designed the cycle path in accordance with LTN 02/08 (http://www.ukroads.org/...pdf). I'll paste the relevant section in the next post to save space here.

    The Council then emailed a few minutes later and have sent the same email today:
    Thank you for your e-mail on 15 July 2016 highlighting your concerns about the cycle control measures on the rerouted section of NCN1 that passes through Dalmeny Park.

    Having liaised with the local inspector for the scheme, I can confirm that the timber barriers installed are a temporary measure to prevent vehicles using this path during the construction process. Any permanent measures will comply with both City of Edinburgh and Transport Scotland’s guidelines.

    So the good news is that the temporary wooden barriers might be just that, temporary and removed when the site is finished. Cala will be as aware as anyone that sub contractors can ruin their reputation while not all maintaining the strictest adherence with traffic laws. I will need to email Cala to clarify.

    I'm a little confused by these responses though as Cala appear to be using a DoT document which I assume is irrelevant as transport is devolved. Unfortunately Dot guidlines are rather tighter on chicanes than cycling by design (2m rather than 3m).

    The permanent barriers they have installed also don't meet either set of guidelines, although they are spaced wider than the temporary ones (3m+ I guess) they should be set back 5m from the road to allow groups to reform before crossing.

    My next comments are more about my experience of the path so far. I haven't used the northern stretch of the path and probably rarely will because the infrastructure encourages me onto the road at the chicanes, my comments are therefore aimed and the longer southern stretch. The dropped kerb is poorly aligned which means you can't approach/ depart from the chicanes along the line of the path on the road side without dropping down a slopping kerb. The actual dropped kerb is about 6 £1 coins high so between 15 and 20mm. It seems quite high but I can't remember what the requirements for new dropped kerbs are, I will ask if this is the final road surface although it looks like it is as manholes are flush.

    I don't personally dislike the monoblock as much as others seem to. It is a lot smoother than badly laid tarmac such as the meadows to innocent route and I don't think will frost as badly as the tarmac on the exposed parts of the A90 path. Although we will need to wait until winter to find out. It's also very wide currently although there is plans to install benches and other street furniture on it if I remember correctly. The southern road crossing appears to be designed to offer visual priority to the path rather than the road which is a huge positive.

    @scotti, Although I hadn't seen an exact date, the closure wasn't entirely without warning. The developers applied for a stopping up notice or whatever it is called last year. More recently there has then been a couple of small signs on the path itself. The new signs being installed at the southern end were the final warning that it was imminent.

    @deckard, the line of the old path will become back gardens for the housing so unless you fancy riding it like the grand national...

    Incidentally does anyone choose to follow the official route from there to the bridge. Plenty people opt for Scotstoun Avenue or Station Road but Rosebury Avenue seems to combine the worst parts of both.

    Posted 7 years ago #
  13. acsimpson
    Member

    Here's the relevant bits of LTN 02/08, I've included 5.2 as the planning application includes such a chicane on Scotstoun avenue so I will try to ask Cala to confirm they plan a cycle bypass (remind me if I don't confirm) Cycling by design also contains the same requirement:

    5.2 Cycle bypasses
    5.2.1 Physical traffic calming measures can sometimes create problems for cyclists. In general, measures involving vertical deflection (e.g. humps or cushions) tend to reduce cyclist comfort, while horizontal deflection measures (e.g. build­outs or other road narrowings) are more likely to introduce cycling hazards.
    5.2.2 Central reserves, refuges, traffic islands, and build­outs can create pinch points for cyclists which can bring them into conflict with motor vehicles. For example, drivers may attempt to overtake cyclists ahead of the narrowing to avoid being delayed (speed reducing features on the approach can help here). Drivers may also attempt to overtake a cyclist within the narrowed section.
    5.2.3 As traffic calming measures are predominantly aimed at reducing motor vehicle speed, it is usually appropriate to provide a means for cyclists to circumvent them where practicable. In the particular case of features which narrow the road, a cycle bypass will not only reduce potential hazards for cyclists, but it also allows the designer to choose a more effective width in terms of speed reduction. Cycle bypasses are particularly beneficial at chicanes.
    5.2.4 Cycle bypasses should be at least 1.2 metres wide and free from sudden changes in direction (minimum radius 4 metres recommended). This helps ensure they are accessible to cycle trailers and other non­standard cycle arrangements such as recumbents or tricycles. The exit alignment of a bypass should not require cyclists to merge abruptly with motor vehicles. If car parking near the bypass is likely to obstruct cyclists entering or leaving it, the arrangement should be designed to discourage or prevent it by, for example, introducing waiting restrictions or physical measures. Figure
    5.2.5 Bypasses need to be regularly swept, as detritus can be a skid hazard and may cause punctures. The bypass should ideally be wide enough to accept a mechanical sweeper. If the bypass is at carriageway level, consideration should be given to moving surface­mounted gully gratings or replacing them with kerb face gratings.
    5.2.6 Alternatively the bypass can be raised to the level of the adjacent footway using a gentle gradient at each end. Figure
    5.1 shows such an arrangement alongside a pinch point. Its raised profile makes it less likely to become cluttered with unswept debris.

    8.14 Access control
    8.14.1 Barriers at cycle route access points are commonly provided to prevent entry by cars and vans etc. They become more of a problem for cyclists when designed to exclude motorcycles. Motorcycle barriers should only be introduced after a definite need has been established, because measures that reliably exclude motorcycles invariably exclude some cyclists, including users of tricycles, cycle trailers and handcranked cycles. Wheelchairs and mobility scooters will also be excluded. Dismounting to manoeuvre a cycle with an occupied child seat through barriers can be hazardous.
    8.14.2 Measures to control motorcycles are only as good as the weakest point in the route boundary – if fencing can be breached, access barriers will have little or no effect. If potential misuse by motorcyclists is raised as an issue during the consultation stage of a new project, it might be better to set capital funds aside to cover the cost of barriers, should they prove necessary, and monitor the scheme in operation. If concerns are found to be justified, funds will therfore be available to address them.
    8.14.3 Arrangements may be required to accommodate wheelchair users to comply with the Disability Discrimination Act 1995. A common method for allowing wheelchairs to bypass access controls is to install a gate equipped with a RADAR (Royal Association for Disability and Rehabilitation) lock. These locks can be opened with a key purchased from RADAR. However, this may still result in loss of access to some types of bicycle and tricycle, and many disabled people will not have a key.
    8.14.4 Bollards are the preferred method of access control for larger vehicles, spaced a minimum of 1.2 metres apart, preferably 1.5 metres. For an additional deterrent effect, they can be installed as two staggered rows with a minimum 1.2 metres between rows (see Figures 8.5 and 8.6). Bollards should ideally be placed at least 5 metres from any bend or junction, so that riders can approach them straight on. Bollards can be hazardous on unlit routes and at sites where forward visibility is restricted by the layout or by other users.
    8.14.5 Where motor vehicle access is required for maintenance, removable bollards or a self­closing gate for pedestrians and cyclists adjacent to a locked main gate can be used. Self­closing gates can also be used where gates are required to prevent livestock escaping. If there is a series of gates in close succession it may be preferable to fence off the cycle route to reduce the need for users to stop and start. This also reduces the likelihood of gates being left open. Specially designed cattle grids are available for use on cycle tracks and footpaths. Figure
    8.14.6 Barriers with a wheelchair bypass are commonly used. They offer access for unladen solo bicycles and will deter most motorcyclists (see Figure 8.7). This type of barrier can cause problems for cyclists with panniers, laden tandems, tricycles, child trailers and some types of mobility scooter and is therefore unsuitable for long­distance recreational routes. The low barriers can damage cycle wheels or cause a fall if a rider fails to line up properly on approach. They may also create a trip hazard for blind or partially sighted users
    8.14.7 A­frame barriers (Figure 8.8) permit ordinary cycles, tandems and most wheelchairs to pass, but they need to be carefully installed to ensure they operate as intended. They exclude some powered wheelchairs, mobility scooters and many types of bicycle trailer.
    8.14.8 Where access controls are next to a carriageway they need to be set back far enough to accommodate likely users. For example, a family group waiting for others to pass through the controls could require a space 5m long to ensure all are clear of the carriageway.
    8.14.9 Conventional kissing gates can be altered to accommodate solo cycles and wheelchairs but will invariably exclude most non­standard bikes including trailer bikes, trailers, tandems, tricycles and many cycles adapted for disabled users. They are not generally recommended on cycle routes. Figure
    8.15 Speed control and segregation
    8.15.1 Where there is potential for conflict, it may be better to widen the route or address visibility issues rather than install controls. If this is not possible, it may be appropriate to introduce measures to slow cyclists down, such as rumble surfaces, humps, or staggered barrier arrangements (barriers should be considered last).
    8.15.2 Warning features such as SLOW markings may be useful for alerting cyclists approaching a hazard. The deliberate imposition of tight radii, although inappropriate in the general run of a path, is an effective way of bringing speeds down on the approach to a potential conflict point. There should be good visibility through bends or speed­reducing features.
    8.15.3 Where cycle routes are retro­fitted to pedestrian subways with right­angled approaches, cyclists can be guided away from the inside of the corner using barriers or other means (see Figure 8.9). This helps reduce the potential for conflict with pedestrians. Cycle Infrastructure Design 49 Figure
    8.15.4 Barriers placed under bridges on disused railways and canal towpaths may introduce personal security issues, as people sometimes loiter and congregate at these locations. Barriers are best located in more open areas if practicable.
    8.15.5 If staggered (chicane) barriers are used, the arrangement should be designed to slow cyclists rather than force them to dismount (see Figure 8.10). Chicane layouts should provide gaps of at least 1.5 metres between barriers and walls, and at least the same distance between barriers. Tandems, tricycles and child trailers require at least 2 metres between consecutive barriers.
    8.15.6 Barriers and access controls need to be clearly visible. Partially sighted people appreciate colour as well as a tonal contrast in their surroundings (DfT, 2002) Yellow and black gives the greatest contrast. Retro­reflective bands should also be considered.

    Posted 7 years ago #
  14. scotti
    Member

    I live in Queensferry, and I wouldn't recommend the official route either. Rosebery ave is a nightmare of parked cars, crap surface and speed cushions.
    I use Scotstoun ave, but can understand why people dislike it.

    Posted 7 years ago #
  15. deckard112
    Member

    Thanks all, lots of good info there. I'm a near daily user of Scotstoun and only had one incident there which hasn't put me off. I guess I've always viewed the access to the old path from Scotstoun as a bit fidgety so not having that and having a chicane instead seems to amount to the same thing. Will try out the new route tomorrow and see!

    Posted 7 years ago #
  16. crowriver
    Member

    The access to the path to Dalmeny from Scotstoun Ave was a bit of a faff anyway, so I daresay the new path won't be much worse. I use Rosebery Ave and find it's alright to be honest. Cuts out various junctions which seems on the balance of probability, somewhat safer, especially given the end of Scotstoun Ave is so close to a busy roundabout entrance/exit. If I'm in a bit more of a hurry I'll generally just use Station Road instead, less convoluted and reasonable sight lines.

    Posted 7 years ago #
  17. acsimpson
    Member

    Yes, the corner at the scotstoun end of the path definitely slowed you and caused conflict. You can see what's on the other side of the chicanes so provided the temporary one goes I think it's an improvement.

    The path is alsoat least twice as wide so pedestrian cycle conflict should be reduced.

    Posted 7 years ago #
  18. deckard112
    Member

    Used it this morning and found it to be fine. As someone mentioned earlier the drop kerb doesn't line up and the chicanes are a bit of a faff but I liked the fact the path was really wide. Less conflict than the old one. I assume the temporary speed bumps will be replaced/removed when the road is properly surfaced?

    Posted 7 years ago #
  19. LaidBack
    Member

    One person's cycle path is another person's parking opportunity. Road is double yellowed so I would just miss out the monoblock section in front of sales office and the closest, non-overlapping, set of barriers.
    Sustrans NCN 1 Dalmeny new route by LaidBackBikes, on Flickr

    Sustrans NCN 1 Dalmeny new route by LaidBackBikes, on Flickr

    Temporary barriers mentioned still there. Gate further along gone though which is big help.
    2016-08-14_06-56-22 by LaidBackBikes, on Flickr

    Posted 7 years ago #
  20. acsimpson
    Member

    I agree, I can't think of a reason why I would use the stretch with the parking. I don't think the cycle path continues further through the site plans either.

    How did you find the kerbs on the southern (permannet) barriers.

    Posted 7 years ago #
  21. LaidBack
    Member

    I approached very slowly as have 20" front wheel and was paying attention to barrier alignment too much. May well have been a bit too deep as you described earlier.

    As you say part of the path may become a communal area with seats etc. Parents with children will use maybe but regular commuters will take the shortest line away from potential conflict. In this case the road lets you enter the second barrier at better angle.

    Posted 7 years ago #
  22. acsimpson
    Member

    "In this case the road lets you enter the second barrier at better angle."

    Although as noted above the dropped kerb stop short of the edge of the path so the best line involves bumping up 80% of a full kerb.

    Posted 7 years ago #
  23. Beano
    Member

    I'm a daily user of this section of the NCN and must admit I do quite like the monoblock section - don't know why haha. I think it could do with some segregation though which would save dirty looks from peds as I pass.

    Similarly to everyone else I think the access at both ends could be improved.

    Going North to South through it I decide to nip left (at a level bit) onto the pavement before the first speed hump and come off the pavement after the speed hump - again a flat pavement to road transition. What I keep having to remember is that although the road says one way...it currently isn't so you have to keep your eyes peeled for the car coming from the estate.

    @acsimpson - whilst that barrier at the south end looks 'temporary' I think it is only the wood/barrier itself that is temporary. Watch this space but it wouldn't surprise me if the wood is removed and replaced with a metal one....in exactly the same place. The monoblock IS laid after all ;-)

    as for the other path with the steps...once that's opened up all that will happen is that you will have one (or two) lines down the side of the steps that bikes travel down as the steps are not enclosed either side.

    Posted 7 years ago #
  24. Arellcat
    Moderator

    I hope those wooden temporary barriers in LB's photo will be replaced with an alignment like the photo immediately preceding.

    The FRB to Edinburgh run is going to become my commute :) :/ and the torpedo will not fit through the wooden chicane as currently built. The only alternative then appears to be Station Road and Bankhead Road to Dalmeny.

    Posted 7 years ago #
  25. acsimpson
    Member

    Arellcat, I've sent you a pm with the contact email of the guy from Cala who is dealing with the site. I've not been in touch with him directly but spoke to the Barrat Homes person who had been in touch with him.

    Cala are dealing with the infrastructure for the whole site.

    I can obviously refer to child trailers and tagalongs but it wouldn't hurt for someone with first person concerns regarding other unusual vehicles to also contact him.

    Posted 7 years ago #
  26. BurntOut
    Member

    Is anyone else tempted to use the rocky/muddy bit just to the right of the offending barrier as you go down the hill? I almost did this morning but bottled it at the last minute.

    Posted 7 years ago #
  27. acsimpson
    Member

    I can see the temptation but I'm not sure it would save any time unless there's someone coming the otherway or blocking the chicane.

    Posted 7 years ago #
  28. paddyirish
    Member

    @arellcat, how high is the torpedo- would it fit under the yellow barriers?. Can imagine the uphill part on the way home will be a nightmare for a recumbent...

    Posted 7 years ago #
  29. Baldcyclist
    Member

    Only been through this once, found it ok.

    Maybe further up thread haven't been checking, but unless they keep the east side of what was the original path unobstructed by barriers, or boulders (as it is just now), then no matter how wide and lovely the new infrastructure is it will be negated by having to bunny-hop round the old obstruction...

    Posted 7 years ago #
  30. paddyirish
    Member

    Some responsible citizen had removed the top of one of the yellow barriers, meaning it was much easier to negotiate yesterday morning.

    Unfortunately his irresponsible twin has put the boulders back on the Old A90.

    Posted 7 years ago #

RSS feed for this topic

Reply »

You must log in to post.


Video embedded using Easy Video Embed plugin