Bus stops in the lane are the best option, especially in town where speeds are low. There is no reason low occupancy vehicles should be allowed to jump in front of high occupancy ones.
CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » Infrastructure
M2GS - Meadows to George Street
(179 posts)-
Posted 4 years ago #
-
Bus stops in the lane are the best option, especially in town where speeds are low.
I would hope it indicates Lothian Buses' intention to roll out contactless payment methods to speed up boarding time.
Posted 4 years ago # -
@PS That's coming very soon. Most, if not all, buses have had the posts for contactless readers installed recently.
Posted 4 years ago # -
contactless payment methods to speed up boarding time
Presumably, you're still going to have to tell the driver which fare you want and wait for them to press the right button?
Not sure it's going to make that much difference between contactless and bunging in a handful of coins you've pre-prepared (and the driver never bothers to count)
Posted 4 years ago # -
Presumably, you're still going to have to tell the driver which fare you want and wait for them to press the right button?
Unfortunately, yes. It it pretty quick though. Should hopefully speed things up with visitors!
Posted 4 years ago # -
i was behind someone paying contactless on marathon day--the payment was quick.
unfortunately she spent a few minutes trying to work out her route with the driver--that part wasn't quick.Posted 4 years ago # -
Presumably, you're still going to have to tell the driver which fare you want and wait for them to press the right button?
The ideal would be a London-style approach of passengers tapping in and out on each journey and, at the end of each working day, some back office internet brain in the cloud working out what the most appropriate (ie cheapest) ticket for your day's travel is. If LB/TfE don't put this in place now the city will be well behind the pace.
Posted 4 years ago # -
Living Streets response:
Concerns over pavement widths, displaced traffic and their usual issue of floating bus stops.
Posted 4 years ago # -
“
5. They’re dangerous for pedestrians
A surprisingly common charge – surprising in that it has absolutely no basis in logic, let alone reality. Sure, some elements of cycle lane design might seem new to Britons – for example, “floating” bus stops where passengers cross a cycle lane to reach them – but when they’re designed well there is no evidence they cause danger.
More basically, there’s no getting away from the fact that motor vehicles are much, much, much more dangerous. On average each year in the UK between zero and two pedestrians die after being hit by bikes. About 400 a year die after being hit by motor vehicles, including more than 60 struck while on the pavement.
“
Posted 4 years ago # -
their usual issue of floating bus stops
The annoying thing about this is that Living Streets do not offer any realistic alternative.
What do they prefer:?
a) That cyclists are sent back on to the carriageway at bus stops, thereby severing the safe route and making it unusable by the very people we are trying to encourage?
b) That cyclists pass the bus stop on the carriageway side, straight into the path of alighting bus pax?
c) That some sort of hair-brained underpass/overpass scheme be provided for bus pax / cyclists?
d) No cycle lane at all, meaning more people driving (dangerous) motor vehicles?
They do have a point about 2-way cycle lanes, though. Another reason why bi-directional cycle lanes are a really bad idea.
Posted 4 years ago # -
e) alternating streets used for buses and bicycles? Bridges for buses, George IV Bridge/Mound for bikes?
Posted 4 years ago # -
Also, the LS response contradicts itself:
First:
a 2-way cycleway along the east side of the route... is preferable to the alternative of 1-way cycleways along both sides of the street
then:
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.
Implying that they want 1-way cycle lanes.
Posted 4 years ago # -
"They do have a point about 2-way cycle lanes, though. Another reason why bi-directional cycle lanes are a really bad idea."
Elsewhere LS welcome bi-directional cycle lanes through George IV Bridge, the Mound and Hanover St as "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".
At best, they really are not terribly consistent in their likes and objections. At worst, they're a block on progress.
Posted 4 years ago # -
A two-way cycle lane on the Mound is insanity. Downhillers will collide head-on with uphillers and blood will be spilt unless there are chicanes and sleeping policemen. It's bananas.
Posted 4 years ago # -
I’m not sure bananas will help. Much too slippery
Posted 4 years ago # -
the proposed 3m wide cycleway serving many fewer cyclists [than pedestrians], 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
Such a modification will mean that families using the cycle route will be UNABLE. TO. RETURN. HOME.
FTFY.
Posted 4 years ago # -
Indeed @iwrats. Why does it feel like so many of these schemes have been designed by someone who has never ridden a bike as an adult?
Posted 4 years ago # -
When I e-mailed the design team they were all 'yeah yeah we did the analysis and two one-way lanes is the worst option please feel free to finesse our design WHICH WILL LITERALLY HAVE CYCLISTS ANNIHILATING EACH OTHER'.
Posted 4 years ago # -
"the proposed 3m wide cycleway serving many fewer cyclists [than pedestrians], 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"
By which they mean forced to. Downhill cyclists will already be allowed to use the carriageway as will uphill cyclists.
I'm not sure that the proposed bi-directional cycleway is much better for families. It's not designed to allow a parent to ride next to a child while also allowing others to pass.
Posted 4 years ago # -
@IWRATS - Perhaps it's a Muond collider?
That was poor, I'm sorry.
Posted 4 years ago # -
Good Afternoon
As you have previously signed up to the mailing list for the Meadows to George Street Active Travel project, I am sending you this email to advise that the summary Concept Design consultation report is now available (attached) and on our website, here:
https://meadowstogeorgestreet.info/consultation/
You will find the key highlights from the consultation held between 27th May and 07th July on this webpage.
As a project team we will now take some time to develop the design further, before opening up further consultation in early 2020.
Thanks for your continued interest in the project.
Regards
Kevin Gauld
Active Travel Project Manager: MGS and WEL
City of Edinburgh CouncilPosted 4 years ago # -
Good - but also disappointing that we have to wait and consult more before the TRO process even begins.
Support for the general principles has been demonstrated, so can we resurrect the vague embryonic dynamism that led to the George Street lanes experiment (mixed with a bit of the boldness of Open Streets)? An experimental order to shut Forrest Road and make Bristo Place two-way NOW? Maybe even to implement the Bank St traffic restriction? That would achieve a huge portion of the benefits of the scheme without any of the consultation overheads, legal wrangling, or delays, and (assuming chaos didn't happen) would neutralise a lot of the criticism.
Instead, judging by the Roseburn stuff, we're going to be waiting until 2025 before a shovel even hits the ground.
Posted 4 years ago # -
The Bank St bus-gate is the most important thing to go in first, IMHO
Traffic will drop dramatically along the route once in.
Posted 4 years ago # -
Yeah - and it should be the simplest to implement.
Posted 4 years ago # -
I don’t get why they seem insistent on delivering things like bus gates at the same time as the public realm improvements when it could surely be a quick win. Reduces traffic & makes it more pleasant to cycle/walk/use public transport while we wait 10 years for the TRO/RSO hearings.
Posted 4 years ago # -
Results of the consultation now available
https://meadowstogeorgestreet.info/consultation/
"
CONSULTATION SUMMARY
47,000 people reached through Facebook
1,416 online surveys completed
27,000 hits on the project website1000s of comments received through online or face- to- face discussion
Overall, there is an 78% level of support/ strong support for the projectThe summary report provides a more detailed look at the information presented and collected.
"Posted 4 years ago # -
78 pages
“
Prepared for:
City of Edinburgh Council
by:
AECOM Infrastructure & Environment UK Limited
“
How much?
Posted 4 years ago # -
The consultants on the M2GS scheme are milking it for all its worth! They have submitted a very detailed "consenting strategy" and application to the Council's planning department. Thing is, the scheme doesn't need planning permission and the consultants are well aware of this.
The consultants have also applied for an Environmental Impact Assessment screening decision, in effect asking the Council whether an EIA is needed. As far as I can see, there is no requirement for such a decision. The scheme is not an "urban development project" as claimed - which covers shopping centres and sports stadiums. It's simply alterations to existing streets, for which the Council already have permission.
I do note that the report doesn't mention the need for a redetermination order - the one thing likely to hold the project up (see Roseburn).
This sort of thing really gets my goat - the taxpayer being fleeced by consultants while the scheme languishes in limbo for years.
Posted 4 years ago # -
@Morningsder This sort of thing really gets my goat - the taxpayer being fleeced by consultants while the scheme languishes in limbo for years.
Agreed. Professionalism of inaction whilst generations pass and politicians come and go.
Everyone is a winner except the end user.
Oddly enough road schemes seem to go faster - couldn't be anything to do with consultants favourite mode of transport? EVs will not save the day... Greta.Posted 4 years ago # -
Has any infrastructure associated with AECOM ever come to fruition? Just give the job to whoever OK’d the Portobello Road
Posted 4 years ago #
Reply »
You must log in to post.
posts
