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.
The roads engineers claim that the King's junction is "very tricky" because of the number of bus routes going through it. (But strangely no mention of it being very tricky due to the huge numbers of cars they're trying to plough through it as well)
If they would just put in a handful of bus gates along the Queen St, Western Approach and Lothian Rd traffic sewers all this traffic and the "problems" trying to accommodate *everything* at the King's would melt away
I happened to pass by today (heading towards Bruntsfield) and noted that Tarvit St was closed, ostensibly for the Kings Theatre redevelopment. So junction should be less hairy for the forseeable.
Pukka signage too by the compound in front of the Kings which extends into the roadway -
"Narrow Lane Do Not Overtake Cyclists".
Drivists were chill. All good.
Lucky, I went by that sign yesterday and was immediately close-passed by a white van.
“
#MeadowsToCanal
#Edinburgh council investment prog update was published earlier this year
https://edinburgh.gov.uk/downloads/file/32628/active-travel-invest-programme-jan-2023…
IIRC it was on twitter, and the June 2023 bit was because council is working with
@captheatres to get #TarvitStreet done as part of #KingsTheatre works
“
https://twitter.com/SpokesLothian/status/1650770992132751363
Has anyone got any up-to-date plans for this? Especially for Tarvit St, now that the Kings Theatre is getting built out?
Simple answer seems to be there aren’t any.
Design planned for later this year, build won’t start for ANOTHER TWO YEARS.
No clarity about whether last version of plan (which must exist somewhere) is to be modified or whether whole thing is effectively a new project.
Morningsider called it...
"Yeah - wait another four years and complete the next online survey...
POSTED 3 YEARS AGO #"
“
Looks like some imminent bike improvements around the Kings Theatre.. Cycle contraflow to be introduced on Leven Terrace, Valleyfield Street and Glengyle Terrace to help reduce the impact of the construction works
“
https://twitter.com/finlaymcf/status/1653833052726935552?
“
Works to be completed by 12th May (subject to weather)
“
Nice to see the Council thinking about cyclists when there are long-term road closures.
I'm not quite sure how this will actually look - a proper contraflow would need parking removed from one side of these three streets. That would be amazing, but seems pretty unlikely. Here's hoping (...it's not a couple of signs and some bike symbols stencilled on the road).
First sign spotted -
https://twitter.com/johnrobson87/status/1653870810182893569?
Eh? Those temporary diversion signs are not new. Been there for weeks!
I saw a group of about 6 workies and a guy with a drawing that looked like they were setting up to put in the contraflows
@neddie - amazing to see council confirming what cyclists have been doing (Or wanting to do) for decades. Of course not infrastructure but proves they have white paint. Could maybe use on Meadows paths if any left.
SO
FINALLY
CEC *begins* to implement its ‘bicycle contraflow on one-one way streets’ POLICY
????
That is dangerous and does not comply with the requirements set out in Cycling by Design (see page 82). The contra-flow lane is unmarked, goes around parked vehicles and the opposing traffic lane is too narrow.
I'm not surprised. I'm not even disappointed. I'm just very, very bored of this nonsense.
“Zero parking removed”
Actually new DYLs look like they are replacing two car spaces.
But yes.
Spokes says there will be defenders at the end? Presumably a bit like Rankeiller st?
P82
“
Where traffic conditions allow for mixed traffic streets, consideration can be given to two-way cycling with only minimal delineation of the cycle lane by using advisory lanes.
This can only be pursued where both cycle user visibility requirements and vehicle driver awareness of cycle movements in the opposite direction can be achieved. Narrow streets, parked cars, street furniture and other objects will limit this visibility and awareness, particularly of recumbent and hand cycle users.
“
All a bit weasely.
At least Valleyfield is straight and traffic generally slow.
Will be interesting to see what signage appears at Leven St end.
"That is dangerous and does not comply with the requirements set out in Cycling by Design (see page 82). The contra-flow lane is unmarked, goes around parked vehicles and the opposing traffic lane is too narrow."
@Morningsider, agreed. Design apart, I don't even think the road markings are TSRGD compliant ("Turn right" without an arrow? Don't think so. Arrow without words maybe fine.)
Quite how "professionals" stuffed with public cash and with 10+ years "planning" can serially make screw ups obvious to an half-interested amateur such as myself is a disgrace.
I've contra flowed it quite a few times since the diversion came in and encountered less traffic (and much less aggro) than when I take the signposted diversion...
@chdot - yes, the guidance is pretty weak. However it is clear that the minimal delineation of a contra-flow cycling lane is an "advisory lane" - a broken white line. There is no delineation along most of Valleyfield - just a couple of bike symbols painted on the road.
The reason for not painting an advisory lane is obvious. The road is too narrow and vehicles would always encroach into it. Is it too much to ask that the Council not install cycle infrastructure that doesn't actively place cyclists in danger?
I appreciate this is probably "not a big deal" and that many cyclists will use the lane safely. That's not the point though - we have national and local street design guidance, that is ignored again and again, producing substandard infrastructure. This is not how authorities looking to increase cycling should act.
“I appreciate this is probably "not a big deal" “
Yeah but as you suggest in the rest of the paragraph -
BUT YES IT IS!
I think I will continue to access the canal via Tarvit Street by pushing my bike along the pavement rather than using this shoddy contraflow and then attempting to turn right onto Leven Street.
Setting standards for contraflow cycling along one way streets too high dramatically reduces the probability of adding them.
A few chevrons so drivers don't actively run you over is enough for me. Not all infrastructure will ever be perfect.
I agree we don't want to overcook the infra.
However on Valleyfield St, they could have at least made it safe by removing parking from the lefthand side (in the image). That way car drivers aren't pulling into and out of cyclists travelling the other way!
I suppose I will have to try to stop thinking 'No, no, no! Wrong way!" when I see people cycling towards me when I'm cycling east on Valleyfield Street - I never actually said it to anyone (with or without the Diddy Kong Racing voice), but I always think it.
I used to think that too ('No, no, no! Wrong way!")
But then I figured why should efficient transport have to comply with the mess created by the inefficient? They're only doing what's natural. Driving a car in a city is not natural
Contractors Premier Rail???
You must log in to post.
Cycling in Edinburgh Flickr group
Video embedded using Easy Video Embed plugin
posts