CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » Infrastructure

Urgent - Leith St Statutory Order Re-advertisement - Removal of bus lanes

(68 posts)

123

  1. Klaxon
    Member

    This is important enough to signal boost into it's own thread so it's not lost amongst Picardy talk.

    OBJECT to BOTH TRO/17/81 and RSO/17/13 Leith Street

    Objecting is easier than ever as the bus lanes are proposed to be fully withdrawn along the full length of Leith St. So all previous RSO objections are valid, PLUS the fact that the bus lane removal will materially, negatively, impact bus service for every Leith St route.

    I have just had an email clarifying that previous objections will still stand but you may wish to extend them with more detail.

    It is now impossible to claim in good faith that the plans for this area are being produced to benefit public transport, this is a wholesale reversion of 20 years of incremental priority to bus routes to Leith.

    Does anyone know which are the relevant local transport policies and strategies that currently apply citywide?

    Posted 7 years ago #

  2. Klaxon
    Member

    One may find it interesting to read the findings of the Scottish Government's 2000 study into Edinburgh's then new Greenways (launched 1997)

    http://www.gov.scot/Publications/2000/05/fc190343-bf4a-44fb-947f-f2282237e1dc

    It seems much of their early success is credited to "constant patrolling between 0730 and 1830 by 35 Traffic Wardens and 5 supervisors on any one day"

    Posted 7 years ago #

  3. Morningsider
    Member

    Klaxon - Edinburgh Local Transport Strategy policy PubTrans7:

    "PubTrans7 The Council will continue to maintain the bus lane network, review it regularly and extend it or enhance it where opportunities arise. It will deploy bus lane cameras to ensure the network can function as intended."

    Details: http://www.edinburgh.gov.uk/downloads/file/3525/local_transport_strategy

    Posted 7 years ago #

  4. Morningsider
    Member

    The Council's Public and Accessible Transport Action Plan also states:

    "Reliability and faster journeys arising from new and improved bus lanes accounted for much of the patronage growth over the past decade"

    Details: http://www.edinburgh.gov.uk/downloads/file/357/public_and_accessible_transport_action_plan

    Although no direct link to bus lanes, it's hard to see how this decision could support the vision and aims set out in the Council's Transport Vision 2030:

    See:http://www.edinburgh.gov.uk/downloads/file/355/transport_2030_vision

    Posted 7 years ago #

  5. Trixie
    Member

    So this new shopping centre is for car pilots only is what I'm getting from these plans.

    Posted 7 years ago #

  6. crowriver
    Member

    Interesting reading here (my bold):

    ---

    Public objections and inquiries: Anyone may object in writing to an order by the date specified on the notices or if later within 21 days of the notice being given and publicity being adequate (see above). A public inquiry only has to be held in certain circumstances, namely: that it affects loading and unloading at certain times of the day; or bus services. Full details are given in Regulation 9. If the authority decides to hold a public inquiry it must give notice of the fact and the inquiry must begin within 42 days of that notice being made. The inspector decides how the inquiry is to proceed.

    ---

    From: http://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/SN06013/SN06013.pdf

    However, I missed this bit:

    "As this is effectively a devolved matter for Scotland, the rest of this section talks about England and Wales only."

    So the grounds and/or procedures for an inquiry may be different in Scotland...

    Anyone know if they are?

    EDIT: I found this and while I'm not a lawyer, it seems an objection is valid on grounds of "affecting bus services" only if the TRO proposes restricting/forbidding buses (public service vehicles)? Not when relaxing a restriction to general traffic?

    http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1999/614/part/II/made

    Posted 7 years ago #

  7. chrispaton
    Member

    • It is now impossible to claim in good faith that the plans for this area are being produced to benefit public transport, this is a wholesale reversion of 20 years of incremental priority to bus routes to Leith.

    Yikes, that's pretty strong.

    Have you considered that removal of the bus lane might be a good thing for buses? This might seem counter intuitive, but the current bus lane forces all non-bus traffic into the right hand lane until it ends nearer the junction. This means that buses heading for Princes Street in the right lane are held up by all the non-bus traffic in this lane. Removing the bus lane means the non-bus traffic for North Bridge can use the left lane and reduce pressure on the right lane.

    If there's one thing I've taken from all these consultations it's that the Council go to great lengths to look at things from a lot of perspectives. Do you seriously think they're trying to make bus flow worse? Have you contacted them to ask?

    Posted 7 years ago #

  8. chdot
    Admin

    Leith Street should be buses and bikes only!

    Cars seem to be managing now that it’s shut.

    Bus passengers less so.

    Posted 7 years ago #

  9. Frenchy
    Member

    Leith Street should be buses and bikes only!

    Council officer at the Picardy Place event today was saying this is on the table.

    Posted 7 years ago #

  10. chrispaton
    Member

    So here's a question that I've been pondering: which of the three north-south routes in the city centre would be your priority for traffic removal? For the avoidance of doubt, I'm meaning Lothian Road in the west, George IV Bridge / The Mound in the middle, and Bridges / Leith Street in the east.

    In the long term I'd love to see traffic reduction and removal across the board, but the pragmatist in me recognises that this won't happen overnight. So I think we in the cycling community need to consider where our priority is as we are only likely to convince the council to do radical traffic elimination on one of the three in the short term.

    For me, it's George IV Bridge / The Mound that should be the priority. This fills the biggest gap in the network and is easily accessible by bike from multiple directions: south west (Bruntsfield and Morningside via Leamington Walk), south (Marchmont and Grange via Middle Meadow Walk and QuiteRoute 6), and to a lesser extent south east east (via Meadows-Innocent and the QBIC).

    What do others think?

    Posted 7 years ago #

  11. chdot
    Admin

    “This means that buses heading for Princes Street in the right lane are held up by all the non-bus traffic in this lane“

    Depends how far they get up the left before signaling right - traffic is supposed to let buses out of bus stops/lanes.

    BUT left lane could have traffic light priority at the top.

    Posted 7 years ago #

  12. crowriver
    Member

    "Do you seriously think they're trying to make bus flow worse? "

    The Council didn't design this. A firm contracted to the St James developers did. No mention of Edinburgh Council on the proposed plans.

    Posted 7 years ago #

  13. Morningsider
    Member

    Frenchy - what!? Are there now two Councils? One good - putting out plans for cycle infrastructure, bus priority and high quality public realm. One evil - proposing to rip up bus lanes, build huge gyratories and approving hotels in the shape of a Richard the Third?

    Posted 7 years ago #

  14. crowriver
    Member

    Maybe:

    Good Council - Transport & Environment Committee

    Bad Council - Economic Development Committee

    The GAM contract deal came from the latter, rubber stamped by main Council with only two day's advance notice!

    Posted 7 years ago #

  15. neddie
    Member

    @chrisp

    Removing the bus lanes will simply result in the buses being stuck in all the queuing cars that have been induced into the system by the lures of a “free flowing” gyratory.

    If transport planners & their models think that traffic is just gonna flow without bus lanes, they are as deluded as they were in the 60s

    Posted 7 years ago #

  16. Trixie
    Member

    The logjam caused by removing the bus lane will force Lothian Buses to re-route a load of services. Thus making it a permanent pain to get to Leith by bus(as it is currently).

    It's so backwards my eyes are popping. To the extent I'm now wondering if this is a squirrel to get everyone up in arms to (successfully) campaign against it in order to take focus off the gyratory?

    Maybe I just need a lie down.

    Should be buses, peds and bikes only during working type hours. Enforcement camera could fill council's coffers. They make an absolute mint from the bus gate camera at the RIE.

    Posted 7 years ago #

  17. chrispaton
    Member

    • The Council didn't design this. A firm contracted to the St James developers did. No mention of Edinburgh Council on the proposed plans.

    Sure, the people contracted to do the design aren't CEC. But CEC are clearly hugely involved in the whole thing, as evidenced by the Phil Noble (head of the Active Travel team) and Ewan Kennedy (head of Transport Planning and Policy) being present at today's event. To suggest that CEC aren't aware of what's going on and fully aware of the design proposed and its implications is just not the case.

    Posted 7 years ago #

  18. Frenchy
    Member

    @Morningsider - I should be clear, the officer was saying it might happen at some point in the future, rather than "this is currently being looked at" (although it might be!).

    Also possible that they were fed up from answering the same questions all day and was just throwing ideas out there that they thought might appeal to those listening at the time.

    Posted 7 years ago #

  19. Ed1
    Member

    It may make it quite a nuisance to cycle with no bus lane

    Posted 7 years ago #

  20. Klaxon
    Member

    The published statement of reasons gives no reasons for the changes and simply describes them. In my opinion it is important that objections are made. This will mean the changes have to be justified in the report that comes to the TEC - thus becoming matter of public record.

    It is possible that my statement in the original post is a long reach, but after yesterday's meeting it seemed apparent to me the St James GAM project is not being lead by the political arm of the council and comes on the back of quite a long power vacuum in an election year.

    I'm not below a bit of hyperbole to stimulate debate, action, and draw out more detail.

    Posted 7 years ago #

  21. threefromleith
    Member

    Leith Street has been effectively reduced to a single lane & the bus lane completely unusable between Calton Road and Princes Street for the last few years, as there have been cars parked almost 24x7 on the double-reds in it, untroubled by parking attendants.

    Removal of the bus lane (on that side of the road at least) will make no difference to the situation if things continue as they were before.

    What we need are the bus-lanes being retained, strict parking enforcement and bus-lane cameras (if they are to persist in allowing cars to use Leith Street).

    Posted 7 years ago #

  22. chdot
    Admin

    https://twitter.com/fountainbridge/status/933252496335630337

    Posted 7 years ago #

  23. Klaxon
    Member

    Threefromleith

    I had at one point drafted a paragraph saying exactly what you have but left it out for brevity

    I don’t think the layout here has performed well here even with enforced bus lanes due to the dysfunction of the North Bridge junction. Generally half the buses want to move right for Princes St and almost all private vehicles want to move left for bridges.

    The solution here isn’t to enable more driving in the left lane

    The solution for cyclists isn’t to force them into general traffic as they reach the steepest point a slow uphill climb

    Posted 7 years ago #

  24. crowriver
    Member

    "To suggest that CEC aren't aware of what's going on and fully aware of the design proposed and its implications is just not the case."

    I wonder what input the individuals who are currently taking flak from consultees actually had into the design? That's ultimately the question: who had the power to influence that design? Everyone seems to be turning around and saying it wasn't them and passing the buck whenever public concerns are raised?

    It's all fiendishly murky.

    "after yesterday's meeting it seemed apparent to me the St James GAM project is not being lead by the political arm of the council and comes on the back of quite a long power vacuum in an election year."

    This.

    If we don't watch out, we'll be sold this pig in a poke and have to live with it for the next twenty years at least.

    Posted 7 years ago #

  25. chrispaton
    Member

    • The published statement of reasons gives no reasons for the changes and simply describes them.

    I must agree with you on that, Klaxon. While I reckon there might be benefits of removing the bus lane, none of us should have to make guesses about that or any other part of the plans -- they should be explaining the rationale for each change.

    Posted 7 years ago #

  26. crowriver
    Member

    No, there is a "reason" given in the first paragraph of the SOR:

    "The alignment of Leith Street will be altered to take account of the new development and it is proposed that a number of changes be made."

    The "reason" is the St James redevelopment.

    Posted 7 years ago #

  27. McD
    Member

    Just a "heads up" that the segregated cycleway on Leith Street will need to close for a few hours for re-surfacing works once the new (widened) pavement is ready. Was going to be Thursday 7th December between 9.30am and 3.30pm but now put back to January.
    Signage and stewards will be present to assist during this period.
    Cyclists will need to walk their bikes up a short stretch of pavement during daytime off-peak hours.

    Cyleway closure diagram

    Posted 6 years ago #

  28. McD
    Member

    Draft Spokes Response to Leith Street proposals.Hope it helps.
    Leith St RSO/TRO response

    Posted 6 years ago #

  29. crowriver
    Member

    @McD, very detailed, thanks. Will be useful in formulating my own objection.

    Posted 6 years ago #

  30. neddie
    Member

    Spokes' objection to TRO/17/81 & RSO/17/13 (Leith St):

    http://www.spokes.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/1712-Spokes-objection-to-TRO-17-81-RSO-17-13-Leith-Street.pdf

    From: http://www.spokes.org.uk/documents/members-campaigning/edinburgh/princes-st-city-centre/

    Posted 6 years ago #

RSS feed for this topic

123

Reply »

You must log in to post.


Video embedded using Easy Video Embed plugin