Tag Archives: floating Bus Stops

Our Future Streets – A discussion on the future of Edinburgh’s streets

City Mobility Plan, , , ,

Thank you for attending our webinar with Daisy Narayanan, head of placemaking and mobility at Edinburgh Council, and Cllr Scott Arthur, convener of the Transport and Environment Committee, who discussed changes to central Edinburgh i.e. the North / South Bridges, Canongate, Cowgate, the Mound and more.

Missed the event? Here is the video on YouTube

Here are the headlines:

  • Edinburgh is very congested and that’s something we have to tackle to hit net zero, as well as accommodate growth: land has been set aside for around 37,000 new houses in and around the city over the next few years.
  • How and when these changes are happening are yet to be outlined in detail. But expecting some / most of it within a year.
  • Traffic modelling shows an expected 10% traffic evaporation once these new proposals go through – the Council has a 30% reduction target in car kilometres by 2030.
  • The proposals to restrict traffic on the bridges etc partly depend on letting traffic flow (partially) through Holyrood Park – Historic Environment Scotland (HES) owns Holyrood Park and is currently consulting on the park’s future – the Council and HES will have to work together.
  • Scott Arthur said he does not foresee any changes to Lothian Bus routes through the city centre, but of course Lothian Buses makes up its own routes, not the Council.
  • This is not a car ‘ban’. Residents and businesses will retain access to areas like Cowgate [editor: unanswered questions if any of proposed areas will actually be pedestrianised].
  • The new proposals mean re-examining plans to make Lothian Road a ‘boulevard’.There is an opportunity to widen pavements on the bridges as well as restrict through-traffic.
  • The Council is considering restricting vehicle access to Calton Road from Leith Street i.e. where the back of Waverley Station is.
  • Any changes to Picardy Place will be incremental e.g. possibly again allowing vehicles to turn onto London Road.
  • The fundamental challenge is the volume of traffic in the city. However, the plans aim to make it easier for people who really need to drive. The tram network is planned to double and bus journey times are planned to decrease by 25% within a decade.
  • The Council and Network Rail are talking about opening certain sections of the South Suburban Railway i.e. Slateford to Portobello, but not the entire loop. Timescale? 2035. Ultimate permission will come from Network Rail.Please email us if you’d like to be sent the slide deck / Zoom chat.

Further reading:

City Mobility Plan – First Review – February 2024

LSEG: Comments on the City of Edinburgh Council’s Draft Public Transport Action Plan 2023

City Mobility Plan, Consultation Response, , , ,

introduction and Summary

We broadly support the new draft Public Transport Action Plan and the central aim to increase modal share of public transport. Good environments for walking (and wheeling) are absolutely fundamental to successful public transport systems because (as acknowledged in this draft Plan) virtually every public transport journey (certainly for bus) begins (and ends) with a pedestrian phase.

However, as with other City Mobility plans (such as for Active Travel, Parking and Road Safety), we think that many of the proposed actions are too slow, too vague – and possibly too numerous. The proposals – and especially the envisaged timescales – cannot possibly deliver the scale of change needed to achieve the 2030 target of a reduction of car travel by 30%.

Delivery of essentially sound plans has been problematic for the Council for at least a decade and we suggest that the 40 “actions” should be reduced to the most important ones so that budgets, staff time and energy are directed to the most effective measures. Accordingly, we suggest that several ‘actions’ could be omitted: around ‘Behaviour change’ (PC1), MaaS (PT12), ‘Data Driven Innovation’ (PT13) and City Centre Transformation (PV 1 and 2) for example. We would favour a tighter focus on tangible service improvements to bus priority and public realm infrastructure including bus stops.

Safety and Accessibility

We welcome the intent to improve access to bus and tram stops (PT1), but the action should be more ambitious, in line with the EASI (Edinburgh Accessible Streets Initiative) outlined in the draft ATAP.  The focus on improved lighting is welcome, but other aspects of the quality and accessibility of pedestrian routes to stops need to be included too. Previous versions of the ATAP included targets (not delivered) to improve at least 20 routes a year to public transport stops and we would like to see a similar target maintained.

Bus Services

We strongly support the proposed measures to give buses more priority, particularly through PG3, PG4 and PG6. We want to see early implementation of the 7-7-7 model of enhanced bus lanes (bus lanes operating seven days a week, from 7.00am to 7.00pm). It should be noted that bus lanes also give significant improved protection to cyclists from other traffic. We would like to see the Plan say more about enforcement of bus lanes (and protection of bus stops from parking). We welcome the PG4 intent to give buses priority at signals and suggest that this should also consider enhanced pedestrian priority ‘ABC’ measures outlined in the ATAP.

We welcome the various references to the Bus Service Improvement Partnership and the Council’s intention to access the Scottish Government’s £500 million fund to promote bus use. However, we would like to see a clear explanation of what the Council’s plan is for this fund (or a date when it will be produced).

On the other hand, we do NOT support the notion of seeking to stop buses crossing the city (“to not through”, referred to on page 32); and we suggest that the action referring to ‘bus stop realignment’ (PG5) should be deleted. Bus stops which are unnecessarily close together can be removed but a wholesale programme to review the spacing of bus stops is unwarranted and would be a waste of valuable staff resource.

Bus stops

The plan does not give enough priority to the need to improve bus stops. PT7 focuses solely on ‘continuing bus shelter replacement’ which is inadequate. We need to improve the standard of bus shelters and seats. Crucially, build-outs (sometimes termed ‘boarders’) are needed at many bus stops. These ensure that passengers can have level boarding onto the bus, act as a strong deterrent to stopping/parking at bus stops and provide more space on the pavement for pedestrians to pass. The lack of such a programme is a serious omission in the plan at present.

The Plan (like the ATAP) is silent on the conflict with pedestrians which can be introduced at bus stops by cycle infrastructure. ‘Floating bus stops’ undermine the confidence of some bus users, especially blind people, to the extent that some people will avoid using them altogether. Their value in terms of providing priority and safety to cyclists needs to be balanced against the risk to pedestrians/bus users. We consider that the best way to manage these conflicts is to use floating bus stops sparingly: only where the case for cyclist safety is especially compelling. This may mean, for example that they should not be used in low-speed or low traffic streets (certainly, for example, where bus gates significantly reduce general traffic).

Trams

Living Streets Edinburgh has been a strong supporter of the tram for many years. However, with the welcome completion of the Newhaven extension, it would be prudent to pause and consider whether future major developments should take the form of tram or ‘Bus Rapid Transport’ (BRT). The cost, disruption and amount of public space taken up by the trams (which are poorly integrated with bus stops) are significant downsides. We note an inconsistency in the draft Plan which should be clarified: in the text, the section on Mass Rapid Transit (PR6) refers to a “mass rapid transit solution” which could be tram or BRT. However in Appendix A, PR6 refers only to tram.

Living Streets Edinburgh Group

June 2023

Smokey Brae Consultation – LSE Response

Consultation Response, , , , , ,

LSEG supports the proposals for Smokey Brae in the consultation advertised in April 2022: https://consultationhub.edinburgh.gov.uk/sfc/smokey-brae-improvements-developed-designs/

Smokey Brae is currently at total odds with the transport hierarchy. It feels like a hostile environment for anyone not moving in a car. The current layout puts pedestrians in as an afterthought and is particularly unsuitable for anyone pushing a pram or using a wheelchair. The pavement is too narrow, and traffic moves incredibly quickly and close to those using it. The pavement creates a pinch point that when two adults walk through in opposite directions on foot, they struggle to pass. If a pram or wheelchair is involved, one party must give way. Currently, walkers and wheelers who choose to avoid this junction due to its inadequacies must make a 15-minute detour.

LSEG greatly welcomes the proposals to redesign Smokey Brae and create a space that respects the transport hierarchy more.

We strongly support the introduction of continuous pavement with raised table junctions. We would like you to implement these using pavement materials rather than road material as this will emphasise pedestrian priority.

The designs appear to reduce the overall footway space available for pedestrians by removing the pavement on the eastern side of the road. However, this seems to be a reasonable compromise as there is currently no safe crossing near the railway underpass, and the existing footway is too narrow.

If it’s possible to make the proposed new pavement even wider, LSEG will welcome this. However, we appreciate this may not be easy to do given the overall width available and the welcome introduction of safe infrastructure for cyclists. Perhaps you could achieve this by closing the road from the T-junction to the Meadowbank House entrance to both northbound and southbound traffic, except for emergency vehicles only. This change would allow the fire service quick access to the south and create ample room for walkers, wheelers and cyclists alike.

LSEG members have noted that the Jock’s Lodge crossroads have abysmal pedestrian crossing times. Those who need to cross the road must wait for 2-minutes between signals and only have 7 seconds to cross. People who want to go down Smokey Brae will need to use these crossings. Pedestrians coming from Portobello Road will now have to as the pavement has switched sides. Therefore we think it should be a requirement to adjust the timings of these crossings to give more priority to pedestrians; 7 seconds isn’t enough!

Lastly, we’ve mentioned in our other answers to the survey that we would like the introduction of seating and wildflowers. Due care should be given to the seating positioning so as not to obstruct the natural movement of people through the area.

General response to various cycle schemes under ‘spaces for people’

Consultation Response, Cycle Routes, , , , , ,

This is a general response to the various cycle schemes advertised under the ‘spaces for people’ initiative (eg Wester Hailes Road, Ferry Road, Comiston Road, etc).

We support improvements to cycling infrastructure which encourages cycling and reduces motor traffic, so long as it is not detrimental to the actual and potential walking environment. Organisations like Spokes have rightly been very clear that new space for cycling must come from space for motor vehicles, rather than for walking. We therefore wish to record our support for the overall programme. However, we have two significant qualifications.

Pedestrian improvements

It is hard to see *any* improvements for people walking in these schemes? While general pavement widening may be difficult to achieve simultaneously with installation of cycle lanes, this should be a priority where pavements are especially narrow (eg south side of Ferry Road). We would expect to see at least significant efforts to remove pavement clutter such as signage poles and guard rails and simple measures such as cutting back hedges, sweeps of roadworks debris (traffic cones, sandbags, etc.) We also want to priority for pedestrians increased at all signalled junctions. Given that almost everyone is a pedestrian in their own neighbourhood, such measures are also likely to increase local support for these schemes, including among people who don’t cycle.

Floating Bus stops

We note that there are dozens of ‘bus stop bypasses’ or ‘floating bus stops’ proposed in these cycle schemes, which route cyclists between the bus stop and the pavement, rather than on the road. There appear to be at least: 13 on Comiston Road, 10 on Ferry Road, 9 in Wester Hailes, 7 on Meadow Place Road and 5 on Fountainbridge.

As the Council’s Active Travel team is well aware, the Living Streets Edinburgh Group has never been happy with this design concept which means that bus passengers boarding – and especially alighting from – buses have to cross a cycle way and may therefore unexpectedly encounter a cyclist, possibly travelling at considerable speed. While we recognise the benefits for cyclists, this design can only disadvantage bus users and pedestrians, especially older people and blind people, many of whose representative organisations have objected to the design concept.

Living Streets Edinburgh did not object to the first Leith Walk examples, on the understanding that a full monitoring and evaluation was carried out. The Council eventually agreed to this in 2017 but although we understand that this exercise has long been completed, it has never been published. It is wholly inappropriate to use the Covid19 pandemic and ‘spaces for everyone’ programme as the means for the sudden mass installation of these controversial bus stop designs at virtually no notice and with minimal consultation.

We therefore strongly oppose their inclusion in the Council’s current proposals. We suggest that instead, a much wider review exercise is taken at a later date, to consider the use of floating bus stops in the city strategically, once evaluation evidence is in the public domain. This should involve all relevant interests – walking, cycling, bus passengers, disability groups, etc.

Response to Meadows to George Street: Concept Design Consultation

Cycle Routes, George Street, , , , ,

LSE strongly supports and welcomes the general thrust of the City Centre Transformation proposals and is making a separate submission to that effect. With regard to this consultation, the design proposals embodied in the Concept Design for the Meadows to George St. Project are particularly welcome. The enhanced priorities for walking, cycling and public transport envisaged are essential for the improvement of the Meadows to George St. Route and for the city centre as a whole.

Traffic Reduction and Pedestrianisation

The proposals to remove general traffic from George 1V Bridge and part of the Mound, and to eliminate the outmoded Forrest Rd./Teviot Place/ Bristo Place gyratory scheme are particularly welcomed. So too is the intention to restrict access along Forrest Rd primarily to walking and cycling, with restricted loading/ unloading hours for deliveries. This would release the potential to create a vastly improved environment for pedestrians in and around Forrest Rd.  The extent to which that potential is realized will depend on there being effective management and enforcement regimes in place regarding both access for deliveries and the disposal of waste. All too often such good management and enforcement have been lacking to date.  We therefore would expect to see proposals for effective scheme management and enforcement advanced in parallel with the detailed designs for this scheme.  We also have reservations as to whether all bus services should be removed from Forrest Rd, as discussed below.

The diversions of general traffic away from George1V Bridge via Chambers St and Market St are very welcome in principle, but it seems obvious that this will mean higher traffic levels on the Bridges and Jeffrey Street. Not all of the diverted traffic can realistically be expected to evaporate. It therefore seems reasonable to expect to see some analysis of the expected impact, especially on the Bridges route, since it is already operating under stress, with a poor accident record, being often congested, and where current conditions for pedestrians are as bad as or worse than those on George 1V Bridge. Until these impacts are clarified, we cannot unreservedly support these traffic proposals.

 

The Cycleway

The design concept proposals envisage a 3 metre wide, 2-way cycleway along the east side of the route, through George 1V Bridge, the Mound and Hanover St. This is preferable to the alternative of 1-way cycleways along both sides of the street, in that it allows more space for wider pavements, and reduces the conflicts between pedestrians and cyclists at bus stops, halving the number of such locations. There remain nevertheless some serious difficulties associated with the floating bus stop design, and at the east side stop at the foot of the Mound in particular.

Floating Bus Stop Provision

Our concern over floating bus stop design centres on the conflicts they introduce between cyclists and pedestrians crossing the cycle lane to board a bus, or alighting from buses into the cycle lane. It is worth noting that the recent re-introduction of rear door exit buses by Lothian Buses is almost certain to make the alighting conflicts greater. Moreover we are still awaiting the findings from the promised evaluation of the Leith Walk floating bus stop.

We are not aware of any precedents of busy two-way cycle lanes at floating bus stops, either in Edinburgh or elsewhere in the UK. The Council’s own street design guidance (Factsheet C4, Segregated Cycle Tracks) only addresses one way cycle tracks at bus stops. This design therefore does not appear to conform to Council design standards.

The proposed design for the crossing points at the floating bus stops has included some highly desirable elements that LSE would regard as essential. The two raised and zebra striped crossings of the cycleway, linking to the floating platform on either side of the stop/shelter position, are of vital importance. Sufficient width, height, and ramping will all be critical to how well they help to reduce conflicts with cycling. A standard crossing width will not be adequate given the peaked nature of crossing at bus boarding times, and we suggest that they should be of at least twice the standard width, if not more when based on current and forecast passenger pick up and drop off levels.

At the foot of the Mound, and to a lesser extent in Hanover St., cyclists would be approaching the bus stop downhill, at speed in many cases, and creating severe conflicts with pedestrians at the stop. This is unsafe. At the 3rd June workshop cycling representatives also raised concerns about the suitability of the 2-way cycleway provision over this steep downhill section, and it was suggested that downhill cyclists should use the carriageway instead. We would strongly endorse this suggestion, as it would reduce the most severe conflicts that are otherwise likely to arise.

The platforms associated with the proposed floating bus stops would provide some additional space for awaiting passengers, but at the busy stops and pavements involved there is concern that this space would still be inadequate to allow for the concentration of conflicting pedestrian movements, and for safe interactions with cyclists in particular. Moreover those concentrations are being intensified at some of the busiest stops, in Hanover St and at the bottom of the Mound, by having a single stop and a single shelter for all bus services. The loss of already inadequate shelter and seating space at these stops will inevitably mean worse conditions for waiting pedestrians, and for those with mobility impairments in particular. We can see no justification for this and wish to see these losses compensated for by the provision of additional shelter and seating. That provision should be informed by an analysis of pedestrian flows and passenger usage at peak times of the year for the stops involved.  It is difficult to believe that this has been undertaken for these stops to date (if it has can we please see the results?), but it should become a routine procedure wherever a reduction in stop and/or shelter/ seating provision is under consideration.

Other Bus Services and Stops

A similar reduction in provision of bus stop facilities is seemingly proposed in shifting the provision of bus services from Forrest Rd. to Teviot Place, and gives rise to similar concerns. This shift is also likely to result in longer walks to most destinations and have adverse effects on the growing proportion more vulnerable bus users who are mobility impaired as pedestrians. We would wish to see a thorough analysis of this issue being undertaken before a commitment is made to the move. More generally this is an important issue that has not been receiving sufficient attention as yet in developing the wider City Centre Transformation proposals.

At the workshop we were informed that under the revised bus stop arrangements there would be no breaches of the CEC standard for the maximum walking distance between stops, which we understand to be 400m. It is understand that only one bus stop is to be removed under the concept design proposals, that being at the uphill stop on the Mound close to the junction with Market St. LSE does not object to this change since this stop is little used and does not serve any significant destinations. However, with no compensating changes being made to the stop locations along the route on either side, the distance to the next southbound bus stop (National Library) is about 500m. There will be pedestrians undertaking a longer and steep uphill walk, so there should be seating provided at intervals to help ease them on their way. The additional space proposed for pedestrians at the junction with Market St., and in association with the welcome closure of St Giles St. to traffic from Bank St., would seem to offer suitable locations. Such provision is especially important given the heavy demand for bus passengers and other pedestrians to visit the High Street.

Pedestrian Crossings

The loss of the median strip, which currently enhances the crossing opportunities for pedestrians throughout George 1V Bridge, is regrettable, but is seen to be acceptable given the wider pavements and reduced 6.5m carriageway width envisaged, provided that the current number of locations for crossing facilities is retained.

More formal enhanced crossings are proposed, light controlled at the Chambers St junction and with a zebra facility approximately half way along. It seems that dropped curb crossing points are envisaged at the other locations, but it is not clear from the on-line consultation drawings that this is the case, so we would appreciate clarification. There is a high demand for crossing next to the Victoria St. Junction and a clearly designated crossing facility is needed at this point in particular.

The proposed crossing of Bristo Place, Bedlam to the Museum, will provide a welcome and much needed facility.

Pavements

Wider pavements and other additional pavement space are an integral and very much needed feature of the concept proposals, and we look forward to the detailed development of these proposals.

There remain nonetheless some pavements where widths that are sub-standard remain; specifically along the Mound beside the RSA and National Galleries, and in Bristo Place. The space available at the east side Hanover St junction with Princes St also remains inadequate for the intense concentrations of pedestrians wanting to cross there.

The Mound galleries section is a particular concern. It is only ~ 2m wide, in contrast to the 3m minimum desirable width specified by the Council’s Design Guidance. This pavement serves many pedestrians, especially at peak seasons for visitors.  Those numbers can only be expected to increase, and a wider pavement should clearly be provided here. It would also be running alongside the proposed 3m wide cycleway serving many fewer cyclists, unless that section is modified to allow downhill cyclists to use the carriageway. Such a modification would have the added advantage of making it easier to accommodate the widened pavement that is needed.

The Bristo Place east side pavement is only ~ 2.5m wide, and can be expected to have to accommodate substantially more pedestrians if the relocation of the Forest Rd bus stops to Teviot Place goes ahead. We would therefore wish to see a wider pavement included here in developing the detailed designs. All the more so, and essential, if a loading area is to be  part of the design. From the exhibition drawings it would appear that a loading area is envisaged that overlaps with the existing pavement, and would take up most of the existing pavement width! This would be totally unacceptable for pedestrians.

It is claimed that a SUSTRANS analysis concluded that “all pavements reach the desired comfort level of the Edinburgh Street Design Guidance”. It is difficult to understand how this conclusion could have been reached in regard to these particular sections of pavement, and we can only surmise that the analysis was undertaken at an off peak time of year and with no allowance for the increases in activity that are to  be expected over the years to come. We would like some clarification on this and would appreciate the analysis being made available.

Greyfriars Bobby

The numbers of worshipers arriving at the wee dug’s statue, to stand and stroke and photograph him, have long resulted in severely obstructed space for pedestrians with crowds spilling over into the carriageway much of the time. The increased space it is proposed to provide will help to alleviate the current conditions, but will not eliminate the problems. Those problems moreover can only be expected to grow as the numbers of tourists continue to increase. It is surely therefore  time, in association with this project, for Bobby to be provided with a new home, away from the street and safer for all concerned. Preferably perhaps this should be in Greyfriars Kirkyard, where he can  be re-united with his master and where the worship can take place in appropriate peace. Please make him party to the project too.