bakky goes undercover then writes too many words, episode 1
Hello folks. Nice day on Thursday for a ride into town - via the trusty Greenbank to Meadows Quiet Route, before a serene glide through the meadows and a nervy swerve through the existing Forrest Road loading gauntlet. Nothing like a rehearsal of how bad the current run is before heading in to comment on it.
The stakeholder session ran from 10am to 12pm in the ‘Urban Room’ (fire the naming guy) at Waverley Court. I counted around 16 workshop attendees and 3 members of the project team - Project Manager Martyn Lings, Senior Transport Officer Paul Renwick, and Paul Matthews who is an AECOM consultant on the project.
They gave a decent intro and overview of the project, skirting over perhaps some of the internal resourcing struggles, including (but not limited to):
- Policy context (Future Streets, Edinburgh City Centre Transformation, City Mobility Plan etc) - including what all these things used to be called before they got snazzy relaunches;
- Along each of these strands, the market research stats that backed up that changes to benefit the most vulnerable road users were welcomed / desired by ~75% of the population asked;
- The overview of North / South corridors and how this removes one for private traffic and private hires;
- How they’re coordinating more between city centre projects - for example, trying to link this to the (hypothetical and unfinished middle of) CCWEL route leading to the switch to two one-way lanes at Hanover St;
- What bus gates are and their function, the concept of flexible loading bays throughout, and some covering out of floating bus stops and particularly referencing that they were still digesting the recent Living Streets research (which I can testify from later conversation around these, they have clearly read and taken on board some of that feedback);
- A bit about heritage that I found it slightly harder to pay attention to (luddite! idiot!)
They mentioned a couple of bits of note - looking at a decent period of time for feedback, construction commencing late 2025, and that the TRO process was an official avenue through which comments should be filed but that they would be taking notes from our group discussions and reflecting on the design as a result.
So - we were then, at our three respective tables, assigned one each of the CEC/AECOM folks in the room to talk through some big A0 prints of each of the PDFs for an hour. At my table were Martyn Lings (PM), a chap from the business improvement district including George St / Hanover St (who unfortunately ended up needing to leave before we got to his patch but was complimentary about the plans on exit), a guy from Edinburgh Central Mosque, and two folks from St. Augustine United church on George IV Bridge. Others in the room included community council folks, Peter fae Spokes, a couple of folk from Edinburgh Uni (including Emma from QOP) and numerous others who I didn’t catch details of (introductions were done during table group sessions).
(Was at a good table - Martyn amenable to us steering him in particular directions, nobody particularly up in arms about ‘those bloody cyclists’, plenty space to dwell on George IV Bridge for the church folks and their logistics concerns, but a very straightforward group for me to steer a wee bit into a) going through the route starting from meadows in a linear / ‘journey’ fashion, and b) have space to cover out our feedback and get some clarifications (and in many cases, definitely felt heard on some of the issues and getting them reflected back).
So - on to our feedback. There were some bits I didn’t manage to push on - a mixture of being new to this kind of session, the opportunity not coming up, or knowing full well we need to be demanding what’s needed and well evidenced elsewhere in the world, but faced with a reasonable and professional interaction not having the heart to be rough on them on some points. Those included:
- Pushing hard on segregated cycleway to Bristo Square;
- Use of temporary materials to have the bus gate implementation at Bank St.
My apologies. Time and experience I am sure will make me punchier.
TEVIOT PLACE, BRISTO PLACE AND FORREST ROAD
PDF of Plan Sheet
@bakky BETTER SEPARATION AT CROSSING - frequent issues with pedestrians in cycleways. Encourage with cycle markings in crossing?
Noted by ML.
@neddie - "flexible" loading bays blur the lines between footway and carriageway. They will legitimise and encourage additional pavement parking. To prevent this, they should be of the same materials as the carriageway and have a proper kerb between the bay and the footway, as well as bollards to prevent footway encroachment
@bakky - This appears to be different for the loading / taxi space outside Radisson Hotel - should be the same for the other George IV Bridge / Forrest Rd Loading spaces also.
Paul Matthews (AECOM) actually noted these in opening presentation as being off different material to the footway - but as clarified in the group, current designs do show the same materials as the footway. I pointed out that while the pavement parking ban has been widely successful with regard to private car parking, failing to delineate these spaces encourages continued bad behaviour from commercial deliveries being made, and that there is a functional role that trumps the aesthetic benefits of using consistent materials. I also pointed out that the kerb needs to be substantial enough (they’re currently discussing the possibility of 60mm kerbs) so as to actually be a bay on the carriageway, not just a pavement you can park on. We spent enough time on this that I know it’s been noted - bollard use project-wide is being avoided at present which I’ll cover a bit more further on. You can see the tension here where they’re itching for these to feel like pedestrian space when loading is disallowed - with e.g. cafe tables and chairs set out in them - so challenging that side of their role is the difficulty.
FORREST ROAD, CANDLEMAKER ROW AND GEORGE IV BRIDGE
PDF of Plan Sheet
@neddie - The cyclist advanced stop line (ASL) at (@bakky - ‘just North of’) Candlemaker Row needs to be the full carriageway width, for cyclists that have exited Candlemaker Row (or the local shops) and wish to turn right into Chambers St.
The reason given for this not being at the full width is due to the tight turn radius for vehicles exiting Chambers St turning left, who would sweep through the ASL if it was at the full width (which is undesirable). While on the subject of ASLs, there was mention made about the team having considered whether they were needed across the length of the project because of the presence of the cycleway. I made a case for their inclusion based on the cycleway not only providing a through-route but also enhancing the various destinations along the way - I may have cause to be on the carriageway at any point in this route and I should have the usual protections when I am. An alarming comment came in the later discussion of ASLs at Hanover St as apparently there may be a review of them in the city centre in future due to their apparent effect on bus route times, but for now I made a strong case for them remaining a feature of this project (and later added to their number, with any luck).
@neddie - Bollards should be installed to protect the footways from pavement parking, especially on Forrest Rd and George IV Bridge - @bakky adds - existing retained?
The current bollards on George IV Bridge are there apparently primarily out of concern for vehicles exiting the carriageway at points where we’re bridging over e.g. Cowgate, Merchant St, etc. The new designs do not feature bollards, but the team have been trying an approach where street furniture is planned in such a way as to serve the same purpose with regard to preventing footway parking. Signage, poles etc on the east side will be moved out to the segregating island along the length of the cycleway freeing up pedestrian space, and along the west side apparently placed in such a way as to have no van-sized encroachment opportunities for Mr Bezos or anyone else.
@bakky - No Zebra marks on cycle lane crossing above the Cowgate (mistake?) - same at corner of National Library in G / RM / BS plan sheet.
Not a plan mistake - too many zebras in the cycleway creates too much stop-start for cycle traffic, and can lead to them being ignored. They are included mainly at bus stops, or where they tie in with either blue badge/loading or carriageway crossings, and otherwise left off.
@neddie - Bus shelters need to be located on the "floating" areas of the floating bus stops (it isn't clear on the plans if they are). They need to have 4 sides, a full roof, a front door/opening and a rear door/opening, to be effective and comfortable in the Scottish weather”
@bakky - Containing small kids (your own, ideally) waiting impatiently in bus shelters is also substantially easier in walled shelters.
I also made the further point that in a number of places in the city, the style of shelter with a roof and single back wall does us OK because we have a building facade it’s up against serving as a secondary wall - but here, with the shelters on segregated islands, much more exposed. There was a nod to the fact that they have a limited range to choose from based on existing shelter contracts, that fully walled shelters trap dirt and encourage unsavoury overnight behaviours, and also that floating bus stop research tends to favour the back wall being against the cycle way to avoid conflicts there with folk waiting. Seemed like this was a bit stuck for said reasons - having grown up with much more sheltering shelters I find that frustrating.
@bakky - CYCLE PARKING on floating islands appears to be set perpendicularly, which is not suitable for longer cycles such as cargo bikes depending on the width of the floating island
Noted by ML. I explained oor bakky is a good 256cm long and that a mix would be helpful, or potentially some of these long cargo-specific ones that have been popping up.
@neddie - two further cycle "escape" lanes/gaps are required for cyclists to enter/exit the segregated cycleway on the long section along George IV Bridge (if they have stopped at the shops for example)
This was noted by ML, with the caveat that the drop-throughs for pedestrian crossings of the cycleway can be used for this purpose as well - e.g. at Augustine United, above Cowgate, and outside National Library.
GEORGE IV BRIDGE, THE ROYAL MILE AND BANK STREET
PDF of Plan Sheet
@bakky - Hostile vehicle mitigations (yet to be designed in, but marked on the plan as yellow dashes just north of Victoria St) are shown as going across the cycleway - these should provided in such a way that they still allow passage for wider cycles such as cargo trikes and trishaws
ML did note this but also mentioned consulting with the Thistle Foundation on accessible cycles of various types regarding the project.
@bakky - How does access to High Street for e.g. Taxis interplay with cycleway crossing?
and
@bakky - HOW TO ACCESS LAWNMARKET from George IV Bridge segregated lanes?
Through the magic of traffic signals in both cases. A cyclist-only phase here means that there’s no issue crossing the traffic lanes you’re otherwise turning right (southbound) or left (northbound) into the path of, because they’re held at red while you’re doing so. This also justified away @neddie’s feedback on a cycle escape gap southbound at Bank St for right turn into Lawnmarket - this will be in one cycle-only phase to either cross / turn into the mouth of the High St or turn right / left into Lawnmarket.
This - and other dedicated cycle phase impacts elsewhere in the route - I found it hard to reason about, but the key thing here is the reduction in the volume of traffic. The pedestrian phase at Lawnmarket/Bank st/High St will still run every other phase, but you’d expect the north-south traffic phases to be shorter due to volumes and then a go-wherever cycle phase as part of the program. This might have been obvious to others - hard to visualise some of this on routes you fight your way through often.
@bakky - ST GILES ST concerns - sidestreet turns across segregated lanes elsewhere present conflicts, and sometimes even collision (Comiston Rd downhill). Removable bollards?
@I were right about that saddle (in thread history) - “I have twice had a well-founded belief that I just escaped death whilst cycling. The second was on North Bank Street, going uphill in the pink lane when I was just taking the turn to cross the junction with St Giles Street and a car passed into that street from North Bank Street at speed, close enough to touch. Simply hadn't seen me and treated the junction as a straight ahead.”
@bakky This ^ is similar to the danger present at the Western Approach Road entry from Dundee Street
We talked about this and ML noted. Mention was made here of the continuous footway - so it shouldn’t look like a turning opportunity by any means. My suggestion of removable bollards (exceptions are talked about here for events purposes) was thwarted by High court access needs - though I believe this is exit-only, where there does appear to be a reasonable sight line and for a limited number of vehicles. Described on plans as “Vehicle access prohibited at St. Giles Street / Bank Street junction - with access via High Street.” This remains a point in the route I’m uncomfortable with, where just shy of the bus gate there is a clear opportunity to use St Giles St to rat run round and get back out to return down George IV Bridge, and enabling crossing the cycleway on a downhill to do so is asking for trouble with no physical prevention in place.
Also of note in this section - the ASLs on Bank St Northbound and North Bank St Southbound denote a signalised ‘give/go’ for buses, where it’s otherwise too narrow to manage the corner sweep for both.
NORTH BANK STREET AND THE MOUND
PDF of Plan Sheet
@bakky - What stops a taxi right-hooking me as it enters Market Street, coming downhill from North Bank Street?
The dedicated cycle phase. You’re not clear to fly down over the mouth of Market St at the same time that northbound vehicle traffic is, so this is safe.
@neddie - A cycle "escape" lane/gap is required for cyclists to exit the segregated cycleway travelling up the Mound and wishing to turn into Mound Place using the ASL
As above, because there’s a separate cycle traffic light phase, an exit to the ASL to make that right isn’t needed - you just come out of the lane when the bike goes green and make the right while traffic is waiting for their turn…
@bakky - At RSA - is that cycle parking on the island (weird diamond shapes)? See previous comment about perpendicular-only racks and longer family cycles
Confirmed and noted. So the other renders of these that look like wee diamonds, e.g. on segregation kerb at Hanover St, are also denoting cycle parking.
We also talked at this point about the Living Streets findings regarding floating bus stops. For example, folk tend to ignore the zebras and cross at any point, so that devalues them and nobody pays attention to them - so may be better not to have them. Similarly, Living Streets explores whether multiple ‘Slow’ warnings painted in lane as near bottom of mound in these plans is effective as an information-dense environment can take a downhill cyclists’ attention away from watching pedestrian movements so possibly safer not to have.
THE MOUND, PRINCES STREET AND HANOVER STREET
PDF of Plan Sheet
@Harryjwilliamss on Elon Musk’s hellsite - wondered about width of lanes on Hanover St as they look narrow
1.5m at narrowest points - some designerly fluctuations on plans, but at least that.
@bakky - Any mitigations for traffic crossing cycleways into Rose Street?
Rose St is one way, so not as much of an issue at West side - at east side, one way cycle way means folk are only coming down the hill, so there’s a decent sight line before a turn is made?
@bakky - No southbound ASL at bottom of Hanover Street?
This was noted by ML and believed to be an error of omission. At this stage, as discussed earlier, ASLs are a welcome secondary protection in the project and I do believe they are useful when e.g. emerging from a destination near to the route and on the way to rejoining it. Covered those points again here.
@bakky - Really counterintuitive direction of travel here for a southbound cycle emerging from the segregated lane.
They reckon this is somewhat mitigated by dedicated cycle phase of lights. I made the point that the paint on this junction is going to need properly maintained to keep folk taking that weird line safely across the tracks to the segregated lane. I also made noises about the two-stage right being unintuitive and hard to communicate, and why do we need it if there’s a dedicated cycle phase? The answer of course is you could be trying to turn right along Princes St through a relentless southbound stream of happy cyclists in our new town cycling utopia, and as such you need to wait off to the left until that ceases and Princes St West-East traffic resumes. Don’t like it but.
MARKET STREET
PDF of Plan Sheet
@neddie - A physical means to slow down taxis passing through the Market St bus-gate is required, particularly in the eastbound direction. There will be a lot of pedestrians crossing here for the station, and more could be done to prioritise their crossing.
There’s a narrowing and difference in materials, but I also mentioned here this could easily be a zebra. Noted by ML.
@DuddingstonD - Are bus gates just signed with the expectation that drivers will obey them or will they have cameras? I suspect if the former case, the Market Street gate will regularly be ignored.
Signed and ANPR Camera enforced. I think the east-west traffic knock-on if it wasn’t would have been too great. This bus gate is here on account of traffic modelling results from the introduction of the mound bus gate.
Also of note here - they're looking at an ETRO to allow Private Hires (not just Hackney Cabs) through the Market St bus gate.
@DuddingstonD - Taxi rank on East Market St seems a bit close to zebra crossing; taxis setting from the front of the rank will immediately come upon the crossing. Rank should be moved east a few car lengths.
Noted by ML.
@DuddingstonD - Zebra crossing on East Market St should be extended across Jeffrey St as well.
Noted by ML.
@DuddingstonD - "Potential drop off point on Jeffrey St" on visualisation drawings seems a bit vague. This is currently often used by HGVs servicing nearby hotels. Will HGVs be allowed to use it?
Not a loading space - drop off as in private citizen station drop-off. So no, not for HGVs (as if that will stop them…)
@DuddingstonD - I assume the change out of the existing pelican crossing at the Waverley Station entrance is due to expected reduced motor vehicle volumes due to the bus gate?
ML looking into this as he thought it might actually be a mistake on the plans.
General point - Continuous Footways
@neddie - "continuous footway" should have continuous material used throughout the crossing, and should not be broken by double-yellow lines crossing perpendicular to the footway (the continuous footway appears to be broken by double-yellows at the Royal Scottish Academy/Festival Square; St Giles St; Victoria St; Candlemaker Row; Bristo Port; Forrest Hill; Meadow Walk; and the entrance to McEwan Hall)”
@bakky - Check about double yellows (can’t see that myself on plan images). St Giles St, Bristo Port, McEwan Hall entry, and RSA / Festival Sq entry have continuous material in plans; Candlemaker Row, Forrest Hill, Victoria Street, not continuous in plans - should they be? Ask about Cockburn St and Brighton St (project-adjacent).
Forgot to ask about double yellows - I don’t see these in the plans and didn’t at the A0 scale they were printed at either.
Candlemaker Row isn’t continuous because of the frequent bus use of that exit and the crowds you get by Bobby; Forrest Hill has an Edinburgh University depot behind it that will have exemptions for passing through Forrest Rd at whatever time they feel like. Victoria St is raised table, but not treated as continuous footway due to Heritage / vista concerns - iconic and heavily photographed view of the city etc etc. They have generally avoided continuous footway on any side street that is busy (my words, couple days after, sorry).
@neddie - continuous footway across Cockburn St and across Brighton St would be desirable
We timed out so I didn’t get to ask about these, but there were some other questions that strayed outside the project area that were swerved so not sure it would have landed anyway.
- - -
Outside afterwards I had a bit of chat with Peter, from Spokes, who asked if I knew his son. As it turns out, I was raising a good amount of his feedback at the session!
On the way home a chap on an interesting wee ebike started asking me about the bakfiets. I was chatting it up, talking about weights and cargo, as we rode round Bedlam and down middle meadow walk before parting ways at the links; turns out he owns multiple restaurants on the mound, wondered if I’d heard they were pedestrianising the area, said he was looking into cargo bikes to work around his delivery logistics. I chatted up options, Farr Out, Carla cargo, higher footfall and benefits for businesses from less through traffic. Looks like life finds a way!
posts
