I was in Shandwick Place yesterday. Both pavements were a solid procession of rugby fans walking to the stadium. I saw one tram go west in the ten minutes or so that I was there. Looked like it was stowed out with not much room for the hundreds of folk waiting on the platform at the Shandwick Place stop. All in all it didn't look so impressive for the trams.
CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » Infrastructure
Bus lanes to change
(321 posts)-
Posted 9 years ago #
-
From the Transport Convener's email (Adam McVey)
but the lanes will still be operational during commuting hours and therefore no impact on cycling to and from work is anticipated
This is misleading because the lanes will still be operational during morning commuting hours only
it will change the hours of around 1/3 of lanes in the city as the rest are already on-peak hours only
Again, misleading because the on-peak lanes will lose their bus/cycles status from 16:00 - 19:00
Posted 9 years ago # -
"This is misleading because the lanes will still be operational during morning commuting hours only"
REALLY??
Certainly didn't realise that.
If so, evenings even worse for buses/passengers!
Posted 9 years ago # -
"REALLY??"
i've just had a quick look and I don't *think* so. but i could be wrong.
Posted 9 years ago # -
The part time ones on St John's Road are currently 7.30am - 9.30am and 4.00pm - 6.30pm.
Posted 9 years ago # -
"The part time ones on St John's Road are currently 7.30am - 9.30am and 4.00pm - 6.30pm."
I don't suppose anyone (at the council) remembers why some were/are all day/pt.
I assume there was a GOOD reason - in the various locations.
NOW it seems to be about 'not confusing the motorists'.
EXCEPT that it'll only be 90% with same hours!??
Posted 9 years ago # -
Objection sent, although I'll be writing something more personalized for the councilors this evening.
Posted 9 years ago # -
you've got to wonder what the back story is -- did this come from officials asked for an 'easy (ie cheap) win'? an attempt to get the EEN back on side? the result of some back room deal between parties? or some particular party heavy hitter ?
Posted 9 years ago # -
Myself and Mrs Condor2378 both objected to the proposals today and I also emailed my councillors. Here's hoping it works.
Posted 9 years ago # -
"or some particular party heavy hitter"
That's certainly an option - covers other reasons too.
Doesn't really explain the motivation.
There are those who think 'it's to balance the perceived dis-benefits of introducing more 20mph'.
If true, it's bad logic, bad politics and bad for Edinburgh 'as an attractive place to live, work, visit'.
Posted 9 years ago # -
I'm assuming some or all of these buses would normally be sitting Russell Road?
No, they always do this for the rugby as far as I remember.Posted 9 years ago # -
@Stiltskin:
Yes, and when Celtic played at Murrayfield recently there were supporters buses parked out beyond the zoo.
Posted 9 years ago # -
"Doesn't really explain the motivation"
Assuming said heavy hitter's route to work or to council includes a bus lane that s/he would like to be able to drive on.
Posted 9 years ago # -
Not very profound, but I wrote something too just to add to the weight of blogs that are opposing this, http://unclekempez.blogspot.co.uk/2015/02/please-dont-roll-back-our-bus-lanes.html . Will get my objection in tomorrow.
Posted 9 years ago # -
There's nothing like a looming deadline to get people rumbling, it seems:
http://mccraw.co.uk/edinburgh-bus-lane-castration/
I'm particularly proud of my ghetto poster work, although I suspect the various bodies with a claim on the campaign would be less enthusiastic:
Posted 9 years ago # -
I thought this all came from the decriminalisation of bus lane enforcement in the city. When the police were in charge of enforcement (which was virtually non-existent) the council were quite happy to leave things be.
When the council took charge of enforcement, I'm sure some remember the huge number of fines issued due to camera enforcement, they took fright and ordered a full review of bus lanes. This was during the most heated part of the trams fiasco and I think anything public transport related was considered toxic. My gut feeling is this is a sop to the motoring public - they do make up quite a bit of the potential voter base.
The odd things is, this will satisfy no-one and I doubt it will even win many votes (although I agree with Dave that this is what it all boils down to). People who hate bus lanes (and 20mph, other people etc.) will still do so, bus passengers get longer journeys and cyclists lose semi-protected spaces on main roads.
Posted 9 years ago # -
sent mine in last night:
I am writing to object to ETRO/14/38B and ETRO/14/38A.
This proposed reduction in hours of bus lane operation contradicts several council policies and guidelines, including the Local Transport Strategy (LTS) and the Active Travel action plan, under which council committed to improving and expanding bus lanes, not reducing their hours of activity.
It also downgrades public transport by de-prioritising it, which is particularly disappointing given edinburgh's commitment to public transport, which greatly adds to its liveability.
There is rarely if ever off-peak congestion in Edinburgh, so I fail to understand what solution is being found here. It seems likely that these bus lanes will become like other part-time bus lanes -- essentially loading zones for taxis and vans, which potentially increased numbers of cars use the original lanes.
I cannot see how this will help Edinburgh deal with its air pollution targets - instead it seems likely to encourage more private car use, and increase city centre congestion.
All of these effects will be detrimental to the great number of city centre residents and workers,who rely on the public transport system to get, while signalling to private car drivers that they are free to clog up the city. Sadly this means that any of those with essential journeys -- especially the elderly and infirm, as well as emergency vehicles -- will find it less easy to navigate the city.
Finally, bus lanes provide cyclists with a small respite from traffic on some of our busiest roads. Luckily most of our bus drivers are well-trained, and buses rarely turn across the path of cyclists on bus lanes. The proposal to reduce their hours (and to include motor bikes in them at all hours), can only increase their danger, and discourage people from cycling.
This cannot possibly be a progressive step for Edinburgh to take, and I hope it is reconsidered before our statisticians note an increase in 'accidents' and KSIs within the city,
Posted 9 years ago # -
One of my councillors forwarded me a form letter that basically said the committee want to homogenise operating hours and felt it was "more equitable" to switch off the all day lanes. I'm like... more than half of the people living in Edinburgh don't drive through it (in many parts, more than half don't bother to keep a car at all). What weirdass definition of equality is this?
Posted 9 years ago # -
Just skimmed the pre-ETRO report.
http://www.edinburgh.gov.uk/download/meetings/id/44353/item_72_-_bus_lane_network_review
"
5.2 It is anticipated that signage costs of £130,000, required as a result of these proposals, will be met from 2015-2016 Penalty Charge Notices’ revenue.
"
That's alright then - what else would money be spent on??
"
5.3 If either or both the trials are unsuccessful there will be additional costs to change the bus lane signs back.
"
So there is an assumption/pressure for it to 'succeed'?
"
5.4 If there is an objection from a bus operator there will potentially be additional costs for up to two changes of bus lane signs (at the end of the ETRO and following any public hearing).
"
SO if LBuses don't like it, it will revert to current times.
THEN (after "public hearing") THAT might be overturned.
Weird.
Posted 9 years ago # -
I am writing to object to the Traffic Orders ETRO/14/38B and ETRO/14/38A which propose changes to the bus lanes. My objection is on a number of points, as follows.
The proposal to reduce the hours of operation of bus lanes directly contradicts the council’s own policies and guidelines, including the Local Transport Strategy (LTS) and the Active Travel action plan. These define a council commitment to improve and expand the bus lanes and increase the usage of public transport and cycling over private car use. I do not understand how this can be achieved by reducing hours of bus lane operation and allowing different types of private vehicles in them.
The bus lanes fulfill a very useful purpose in that they keep these lanes free of parked and waiting vehicles in a manner which the council can and do enforce; by lifting the restrictions on bus lanes during “off peak” hours, I worry that the bus lanes would become like all too many main roads around town and blocked by antisocially parked, waiting or otherwise abandoned vehicles that the council or police are unable or unwilling to enforce. This would be at the expense of bus passengers and cyclists who are delayed by having to navigate around all these obstructions. Furthermore it is intimidating and unsafe for cyclists to constantly have to move around obstructions in the bus lane and into the outside lane of faster traffic.
This proposed change will do nothing to discourage the use of private motor vehicles in the city centre, which are a major contributor to the legally unacceptable levels of atmospheric pollutants city residents already have to suffer.
The bus lanes provide a form of respite for cyclists, where they have a safe refuge from the main flow of faster, motorised traffic. This is a benefit at all hours of the day, not just during peak traffic hours. While bus lanes are not a perfect cycle route, they are a vast improvement on cycling a 30mph arterial road, and they follow direct routes from A to B around town, where there is almost never a direct and convenient, traffic-free cycling alternative. By de-prioritising bus lanes, we effectively de-prioritise cycling on these routes, which contradicts fairly ambitious local and national government targets to increase the rates of cycling for all journeys (not just peak-time commuting).
Like a substantial number of people in Edinburgh (and over 50% of residents in my ward), I have no access to or use for a motor car and I get around quite adequately by foot, bus and bike. I object to any downgrading of public transport and useful facilities for cyclists for the benefit of the motorist as this is at the expense of the many, not the few.
Off-peak by definition means times that are out with the peak levels of road traffic, therefore there are not levels of congestion at these times to “solve” by allowing the private motorist into the bus lane. If there was an issue, this would apply to public transport as well as private motorists and therefore would be a strong justification to maintain the bus lane. Any good experiment requires a hypothesis to be tested, and I cannot rationalise what the hypothesis for this one is; beyond proving that bus lanes are a cheap and effective way to promote public and active transport for the many and by meddling with and de-prioritising them we increase city centre pollution, encourage private car use, increase congestion and decrease levels of pollution-free cycling and walking around town.
This proposal appears to be little more than a solution in search of a problem.
Yours Sincerely,
Mr K. A. Putnik
Posted 9 years ago # -
nice one. hope you're going to send to your councillors as well?
Posted 9 years ago # -
Just a reminder -
"
WHAT YOU CAN DO
By Weds 18 Feb: object to the order(s). Email… trafficorders@edinburgh.gov.uk, stating that this is an objection to ETRO/14/38B and/or ETRO/14/38A. Then give your reasons. Your objection should include your own postal address. If you are short of time, it is not essential to look up the Orders.A lengthy objection is not necessary – just say what you think, and why.
More at -
Posted 9 years ago # -
in case anyone's wondering (it's not totally clear on the spokes website bits that I consulted)
ETRO/14/38B is the one that changes the hours of the bus lanes
and
ETRO/14/38A is the one that lets motor-bikes into them all at all times.
Posted 9 years ago # -
"
This is an objection to ETRO/14/38B and ETRO/14/38A.
I could give you a long list of reasons (as many have) but I'll keep it simple.
These proposals are very much against the spirit of most of CEC's recent (good) initiatives on ActiveTravel and discouraging car use.
They would also seem to be very much against CEC POLICIES, and the ATAP etc.
It is a good idea to review locations and operating hours of bus lanes, however (in line with above) it is reasonable to assume that some current p/t lanes should be made full time - not ALL the other way round.
There is little congestion in Edinburgh outside 'rush' hour. It is caused by too much traffic. Increasing the amount of available road space during the the day will discourage cycling (in particular further discourage those currently reluctant to try cycling) and (probably) increase the amount of traffic - and possibly speed.
It is not clear if these are 'all or nothing' proposals.
IF any buslanes get reduced hours the ones on Leith Walk (in the process of being made more pedestrian/cycle 'friendly' - AND due to be 20mph) should DEFINITELY NOT be included.
Cheers,
Ch.
Posted 9 years ago # -
"
Rangifer Revolution (@RangiRevo)
17/02/2015 12:25
@LAHinds @adamrmcvey Is anybody actually in favour of bus lane change? Seems lose-lose decision for everybody, & costs lot of money"
"
Lesley Hinds (@LAHinds)
17/02/2015 14:32
@RangiRevo @adamrmcvey all Councillors on the Committee"
I think some will be changing their minds.
Posted 9 years ago # -
Question.
Given it's the Transport Committee who vote on this, is it more effective to write to Transport Committee members, or to my local councilors asking them to apply pressure / convey my displeasure with the proposals to the T.C. members?
Posted 9 years ago # -
Copy to both Kapps as time tight
Posted 9 years ago # -
I asked 'what happens next' -
"
There have been a number of objections received relating to both Orders therefore, a Report will need to be put before the Transport & Environment Committee for a decision to be made on the matter. Mr Vallance will consider all points raised once the consultation period has ended and prepare a Report based on his findings. The Report will be available on the councils website approximately 7 days before the Committee meets. I can also confirm that all objectors will be notified in due course when this information is available.
Kind regards
"
So a while yet...
Posted 9 years ago # -
Deadline to object is today/tomorrow.
Feedback via report etc will be longer
Posted 9 years ago # -
Its grerat that so many folks have sent in objections.
The thing that worries me is that these mostly concentrate on the reduction of hours part of the experimental proposals.
Along with this (and I think this is a very retrograde step for all the reasons rehearsed) I am very concerned that allowing motorcyles will create even more conflict in these lanes and lead to a lot of weaving by motorcyclists who may pass close to cyclists at fairly high speeds. I have seen the research which shows that this does not result in a significant increase to the incidents of cyclists accidents, but it does seem to lead to an increase in KSIs for motorcyclists. I can only assume this is the case because cyclists get out of the way.
It really does not bode well for the comfort of cyclists using these lanes, and I am really pleading with folks to raise this issue also in their responses to the experimental TROs.Posted 9 years ago #
Reply »
You must log in to post.
posts
