- News
- Reviews
- Bikes
- Accessories
- Accessories - misc
- Computer mounts
- Bags
- Bar ends
- Bike bags & cases
- Bottle cages
- Bottles
- Cameras
- Car racks
- Child seats
- Computers
- Glasses
- GPS units
- Helmets
- Lights - front
- Lights - rear
- Lights - sets
- Locks
- Mirrors
- Mudguards
- Racks
- Pumps & CO2 inflators
- Puncture kits
- Reflectives
- Smart watches
- Stands and racks
- Trailers
- Clothing
- Components
- Bar tape & grips
- Bottom brackets
- Brake & gear cables
- Brake & STI levers
- Brake pads & spares
- Brakes
- Cassettes & freewheels
- Chains
- Chainsets & chainrings
- Derailleurs - front
- Derailleurs - rear
- Forks
- Gear levers & shifters
- Groupsets
- Handlebars & extensions
- Headsets
- Hubs
- Inner tubes
- Pedals
- Quick releases & skewers
- Saddles
- Seatposts
- Stems
- Wheels
- Tyres
- Health, fitness and nutrition
- Tools and workshop
- Miscellaneous
- Buyers Guides
- Features
- Forum
- Recommends
- Podcast
news
Leith Walk cycle lane (Allasan Seòras Buc, Twitter)‘Moronic’: Edinburgh Council to make changes to bizarre zig-zag cycle lane after social media backlash
The City of Edinburgh Council’s transport convenor has confirmed that changes will be made to a controversial new bike path in the city.
The northbound Leith Walk protected cycle lane, which is currently under construction as part of the council’s Trams to Newhaven project, has been heavily criticised on social media for its non-linear layout, featuring frequent sharp bends as the path winds its way around parking bays and other obstacles.
I still cannot believe this is actually being built. We really spent limited tax funds on this. Someone was PAID genuine money to create this design and then somehow, thinking people approved it. Was the project remit create accidents and make Edinburgh look moronic? #Edinburgh pic.twitter.com/7jGkWfrJFl
— Allasan Seòras Buc 🦓🌻 (@Airisaiia) April 6, 2022
Locals have also shared images online of lampposts situated right in the middle of the path, despite the bends, while others have criticised the poorly-placed utility covers and lack of space afforded to pedestrians.
Edinburgh's Leith Walk. New build cycle lane on the widest street in the city. pic.twitter.com/ijZ29NpzTy
— 𝙾𝚟𝚎𝚛𝚕𝚊𝚗𝚍𝚎𝚛 (@overlandertheb1) March 1, 2022
It's not finished and I hope it can be improved but the Leith walk cycle path looks terrible, the tactile paving inconsistent, ultiity covers badly placed and the pavement too narrow. This is the 2nd path put in in last few years, very frustrating if it's inadequate again. https://t.co/DLxz06ndAF pic.twitter.com/rRd2qFLasa
— pete morrison 🇺🇦 (@phabbay) April 7, 2022
David Hunter, the convenor of Living Streets Edinburgh, criticised the scheme and accused the council of failing to prioritise those on foot.
“Leith Walk is not only one of the busiest pedestrian routes in the city, it's also an important destination in its own right for thousands of people who live locally,” he told the Edinburgh Evening News.
“So it is incredibly disappointing to see some of the pavements along the tram route are less than two metres wide, failing to meet even the council's own ‘absolute minimum’ width standards.
“Apart from anything else, this will impact cyclists as inevitably pedestrians will continually walk in the cycle way as there's barely room for two people to pass on the pavement.
“It is only fair to say that some parts of the tram route, like the new London Road junction and parts of Constitution Street, will be hugely improved for people on foot. But what should have been an opportunity to introduce a real quality walking environment has been compromised by failing to put pedestrians first.”
Teresa Perchard, the Scottish Conservative candidate for Leith at the upcoming local elections, has described the Leith Walk path as “an accident waiting to happen”.
She said: “The council has only had 17 years to get this right and what they have produced is an utter dog's breakfast which pleases no-one and actually makes Leith Walk more dangerous for pedestrians and cyclists alike.
“Both the transport convenor and the [Lothian cycling campaign] Spokes lobbyists wanted these changes and this is the perfect illustration of what happens when bias, arrogance and self-interest drive public projects.
“If you'd asked the transport department to come up with the worst possible scheme for Leith Walk, they couldn't have done a better job. Once again, the tram project has made Edinburgh a national laughing stock.”
The council’s transport convenor Lesley Macinnes has defended the project and confirmed that changes will be made to the path’s layout before it is completed. The SNP councillor also stressed that the path is not yet open to cyclists and claimed that some of the critical online commentary “has been premature”.
“No-one is happy with the current situation but this is a far from finished part of the overall project,” she said. “There are clear issues in how the design has been applied during construction and these have been raised as defects.”
> Row over Dorset cycle lane that drivers claim is “too wide”
In a series of tweets outlining the agreed alterations, Macinnes said that the ‘taper’ forming the current cycle path line will be changed to meet the council’s street design guidance, flattening out the existing zig-zag route, which she hopes will “remove some of the concerns about safe cycling”.
A new coloured surface will be laid, both as marked improvement on the current surface and to help visually delineate the cycle and footpaths, while a team is also investigating the possibility of installing different levels for pedestrians and cyclists.
Macinnes also confirmed that the poorly positioned lampposts “provide lighting for the area during construction” and “will be removed as soon as it is possible to attach the lighting to the overhead position as planned”.
The councillor said that she expects these issues to be resolved “wherever possible” by the time the cycle lane is opened, which is currently scheduled for July.
Ryan joined road.cc as a news writer in December 2021. He has written about cycling and some ball-centric sports for various websites, newspapers, magazines and radio. Before returning to writing about cycling full-time, he completed a PhD in History and published a book and numerous academic articles on religion and politics in Victorian Britain and Ireland (though he remained committed to boring his university colleagues and students with endless cycling trivia). He can be found riding his bike very slowly through the Dromara Hills of Co. Down.
Latest Comments
- Simon E 0 sec ago
The OED defines "woke" as currently 'alert to racial or social discrimination and injustice’....
- Biker Phil 6 min 29 sec ago
They won awards last year too. It is a refreshing channel to watch. You should try watching it, much better than the BBC, ITN, SKY etc. They are...
- eburtthebike 39 min 31 sec ago
“This isn’t the first time a local authority has failed to consider the relevant government guidance before removing schemes designed to get more...
- eburtthebike 47 min 37 sec ago
Musk: “The only reason I am here, Jonathan, is because you are a friend.” Hilarious! As if he has friends.
- chrisonatrike 1 hour 43 min ago
Indeed! To pinch from CyclingMikey again:
- Surreyrider 1 hour 51 min ago
The answer is obviously no. A gravel bike is for riding gravel....
- richliv 3 hours 7 min ago
I bought something from Wiggle last week (on credit card), it arrived without issue. So for now, they are functioning.
- mike the bike 3 hours 43 min ago
Anyone looking for a GoreTex jacket because they think it's waterproof and breathable might care to look at Ryan's review of the material on the...
- Car Delenda Est 3 hours 51 min ago
If local communities wanted to march their children off a cliff would that be the right choice? Because that's what's happening right now..
Add new comment
23 comments
Before everyone beats up on the Council, this looks like bad implementation by the contractor rather than bad design per se. Anyone who's worked in design knows how easily even the best design can be comprehensively traduced by incompetent execution.
The zig-zags (albeit less extreme, see point above) are standard practice for floating bus stops with the intention of slowing cycle traffic where there may be people milling around. And the 'lip' at the edges is there because the final surface hasn't been laid yet.
I'm sure your explanation is correct but actually we've missed the elephant again. The reason this is done this way is to provide a tram bypass around the bus when it is stopped. This is entirely a design choice. Sounds sensible of course - we want to keep the trams flowing. But then wait - the trams will stop to let people out. And if "capacity" is an issue why do we have both trams and buses (both directions) here? And look at the space higlighted - for vehicles on right, unused space between tram tracks centre (image below).
It's all choices. The tram issue here is complicated by poor decisions by the council. Decisions both in the large e.g. wild overoptimism about costs, belief that we could get a tram network in short order. Also the detail e.g. locking in certain kinds of power cable supports necessitating a central space between tracks - possibly due to a "we're going to get this tram to Newhaven no matter what cost..."
Compare what they've produced - which to be fair is relatively advanced for the UK - with how you should do it:
https://bicycledutch.wordpress.com/2013/09/05/riding-around-the-bus-stop/
...and you'll see that the main design concerns in the UK version are the familiar "don't hold up motor vehicle traffic" and "slow down those dangerous cyclists!" Just look at the widths of the Dutch cycle lanes and the radii where they do turn. Remember - this is Edinburgh council * who've long form in assuming they understands cyclists' requirements (and those of the trams for that matter) very well thank you while seeking minimal external advice and guidance.
* Sustrans are / were fairly chummy with the council. Although problematic in the past they now seem to be saying / writing things which get it right. So maybe they're helping here?
"But how will any traffic flow without otherwise?" comes the question. This is a reasonable observation but has its own assumptions.
- Having carried out all these alterations (disrupting traffic on this road for years...) and this being a "street" (e.g. a "place" in Edinburgh's language - "people centric") somehow it's still vital to have two-way traffic 24/7 here - bus AND tram? But if not what could be an alternative? Well bus gate solutions for one were proposed.
- Flow is important - but it was accepted that the trams stop traffic for a fairly long period to cross at several points to the south (Picardy place, Princes Street). Yes - shorter than bus passenger loading but a relatively long phase.
- Passenger boarding will take too long - however there's nothing to stop Edinburgh Council telling Lothian buses to speed up passenger boarding by employing a conductor to do ticketing *after* people have boarded - just like the tram! Several cities have "bendy buses" - essentially tram/bus hybrids. These are not without their own issues but they're clearly not totally unviable.
Final post - reference:
The location of the photo (it's looking north) in Google maps.
The current plan by the council:
https://www.edinburgh.gov.uk/tramstonewhaven/downloads/file/549/final-landscaping-designs
I'd suggest if you're slowing cycle traffic to the extent of the number of zigzags shown here, you've essentially made it not worth putting in a cycle track in the first place.
Don't forget - the "model" for cycling is normally "not very many cyclists, on one shape of bicycle, in single file. They'll be riding at a speed that many people without stabilisers would struggle to stay upright yet somehow without wobbling as we've given them a narrow space. Also they're quite happy to stop more often than people on foot as they'll be giving way to trams, cars and pedestrians".
I am very pleased that Edinburgh is starting to see cycle infra not just as a "maybe" add-on. That in itself is remarkable for the UK. Component parts of the design are clearly "good" e.g. low, forgiving kerbs. Where they could do much better is to take advice from people who understand (transport) cycling in the round. Make no mistake - each time any new development comes up spending anything - and certainly more than a fiver - on bikes is a huge battle. Every time. Given that it's important to get the maximum value out of those battles.
The UK is still fundamentally ignorant about the basics of cycling as transport. Cyclists are neither slow cars nor fast pedestrians - they have their own requirements. It's not a good idea to mix cyclists and pedestrians in the same space - but pedestrians crossing cycle paths isn't the big drama that crossing roads is. Making cyclists stop (rather than slow) is a real barrier. We need networks, not just a scheme here and there. There must be a place to store your bike both where you start and at your destination.
1.Spend
2.Build
3.Consult
Yet another council scheme where no actual users appear to have been consulted, neither apparently were any design standards. At least they have agreed that it will be changed, as far too often once it's there, it is never modified, probably because it would be too embarrassing.
Changed, yes - but if I'm reading the comment about 'noticeably flatten[ing] out the line' right, they're not actually proposing to remove the zigzags - just to round off the corners a bit. So it'll still be rubbish - just a bit less rubbish than it is at the moment.
They could bank the corners like a berm, that might be fun?!
i usually hate what passes for 'cycling infrastructure' but that's an idea I can really get behind!
Lamp posts in the middle of the cycle path are as inexplicable as dog poo bags on trees. Nobody thinks it's right, nobody ever owns up to doing it, nobody can explain why it happens, but it's rife in every town in the land.
My girlfriend cycled straight into one a few years ago! It seemed like she was just stupid, but it's painted a deliberately invisible colour and honestly had no reason to be there. Interesting that they've had to put hi Vis tapes on it and the cycle path isn't even open yet!
The lamp posts are due to be removed - the street lighting will be in the middle of the road but the old lamp posts can't be removed until it's in place.
However, the rest of it is pretty much as planned - an absolute mess.
Hang on! So they laid all that shiny new tarmac in stupid sharp zig-zags, knowing full well that they intended to change it all before it opened for use? I'm not sure that's any better...
I was just about to write the same thing. Absolutely madness that someone has approved a scheme that isn't fit for purpose and those in charge of the budget have mitigated it by saying that it's all going to be ripped up anyway. As an Edinburgh resident and cyclist, albeit one that isn't likely to use that route much, I'm livid that I have part-funded this nonsense.
Alessandro, good point well made. As a fellow resident I share your annoyance at my cooncil tax funding this waste of money thru inbuilt rework.
Contractors must be delighted to get a contract from the clowncil knowing they'll screw us for add ons.
Having thrown shade on this previously I guess it's possible that some of this is a consequence of "path dependence" / uncertainties in scheduling and needing to have some things that "work". So a) the lampposts have been explained - I'd accept that. b) Replacing the surface of the cycle path might be needed anyway because of the timing for shifting the posts. So maybe the idea was better to have *something* there until then.
However even being charitable I can't explain the stupid wiggles. They're "planned" / "real" because they've definitely baked those in with kerbs / edging etc. Were they concessions to parking / refuse containers / utilities access that "we can't move"? I know the street does change width somewhat and it's true it's a major pedestrian way in parts. I guess whatever the smaller answers the real issue is there is still space guaranteed for motor vehicle access in both directions. This was a choice. A major argument for the tram was "capacity". However it won't replace the buses - in part because the massive underestimate of costs meant we don't have the (dream) tram network just a line. Trams can help (when combined with bikes!). I think these issues could be managed (shops want loading access, we want buses through here). But despite boldly spending vast sums and causing massive disruption for years they couldn't be more radical on motoring.
Oh - and for anyone who's not been the side street crossings look like a mess.
Less the tarmac, what about the custom fitted slab work?
Surely being Edinburgh, the cycle route should pointlessly cross the tramrails at a foolishly shallow angle?
As someone who lives here (albeit not in the centre) this is both totally normal and also unusual. Normal parts:
What's unusual here:
The leaflet from the Conservative candidate in my ward has three ward-specific pledges above the usual list of platitudes that they all have. One is to remove a cycle lane. The second is to remove an LTN. The third is to oppose permits for parking, to conserve freedom/ allow the current free for all with pavement parking rife.
So as per usual, the things that they want to conserve smell of oil.
When you see the amount of waste in the tram projects to date you could have done the city centre in full-dutch cycle infra and snuck that by in the margins of the overall budget.