Not for profit planning
  • Home
  • Services
    • Accessible transport
    • Inclusive streets and public realm
    • Strategy and planning
    • Governance
    • Policy development
    • Culture and heritage
  • News and updates
  • About me
  • Blog

Don't mess with Princes Street buses lightly!

12/6/2017

9 Comments

 
Picture
During his recent work in Edinburgh (1) the influential Danish urban designer Jan Gehl reportedly described Princes Street as a “big bus station”. Certainly, the pedestrian environment is dominated by traffic, which can also obscure the famous views to the Old Town and Castle. There now seem to be growing whispers of a radical change to Edinburgh’s transport system; to shift buses off Princes Street.  
​

The Council is currently consulting on hugely unpopular proposals for a triangular gyratory system on Picardy Place (2) on the north-east edge of the UNESCO World Heritage site. Officials have recently claimed that one benefit of the scheme is that it would enable buses from the north side of Edinburgh to terminate there and turn around. Passengers for Princes Street and beyond would then be expected to change onto an expanded tram network, so removing hundreds of buses a day from Princes Street. This is not something that should be considered lightly.
Picture
Edinburgh’s bus network is widely recognised as the best in Scotland, with 27.4% of adults reportedly using the bus nearly every day, and bus use at nearly twice the Scottish average (3). Buses are relatively cheap, modern and frequent and contribute significantly to Edinburgh’s enviably low share of commuting by private car. There is a reason that so many buses travel along Princes Street - that it is where people want to go. Bus passengers also value direct services. There is considerable resistance to interchanging on public transport (4), and of course having to get off the bus and onto another vehicle is harder for some people than others: notably disabled people, older people, parents with small children, those with luggage etc. These equality issues are a fundamental consideration. A major change in the bus system without careful thought could risk this success story.

So what can be done about congested Princes Street? I carried out a snapshot survey of traffic on Princes Street recently and found that local buses accounted for only half of the traffic on the street (table and chart below). Taxis and express buses also contributed significantly to traffic levels and this holds true even excluding bicycles (which occupy negligible space).  This snapshot (for one hour on a November Wednesday afternoon) may not be typical, but it indicates that local buses aren’t the whole cause of Princes Street congestion. 
Picture
Picture
If the tram is extended to Leith, as seems the intention, there would presumably be a significant reduction in bus services which duplicate much of the route. It should also be possible to re-route some bus services two that more cross Princes Street, rather than run along it. There are also a number of other options to reduce congestion that don’t require any changes to local bus services at all. All these options can - and should - be explored fully before any thought is given to the nuclear option of forcing passengers to change public transport:
  • banning taxis;
  • banning express buses;
  • banning private tourist coaches, minibuses etc;
  • setting up a terminus for coaches at the west end of the city;
  • enforcement of red light jumping and yellow box encroachment which snarls up traffic,
  • adding bus stops, to reduce bus queuing on Princes Street;
  • adjusting traffic signal timings.
Picture
Of course, there will be pros and cons with all of these options, but these kind of measures - and no doubt others - could realistically halve the number of vehicles on Princes Street. They should be thoroughly explored before an assumption takes hold that making passengers change buses is a good idea. Hopefully, the ‘City Centre Transformation’ initiative announced by the Council in October 2017 to look at how best to manage the city centre will provide a means to do that.
  1. Gehl Architects, Public Space Public Life, 1998/2010 http://www.edinburgh.gov.uk/downloads/download/237/edinburgh_revisited
  2. http://www.edinburgh.gov.uk/news/article/2394/latest_picardy_place_designs_revealed
  3. Edinburgh by Numbers 2017, Tables 109,111 http://www.edinburgh.gov.uk/info/20247/edinburgh_by_numbers/1012/edinburgh_by_numbers
  4. For example p90 in: http://www.trpa.org/documents/rseis/New%20References%20for%20Final%20EIS/Balcombe%20et%20al%202004.pdf
9 Comments
Tom
12/8/2017 04:47:02 am

Great blog article, A possibility for LB to explore also is to reduce the time that buses spend at stops on Princes St. A small city centre zone where tickets are only sold off bus, more Ridacard validators are installed inside buses and drivers don't check cards or tickets would markedly speed boarding times. This would cost in equipment and ticket inspectors, but it would cost LB less than being thrown off Princes St which I fear may be the result of the increasingly heard "To Not Through" mantra.

Reply
David Spaven link
12/8/2017 06:21:37 am

An excellent analysis. The 'interchange penalty' would significantly undermine the public transport offer and encourage car use.

The long time spent at bus stops on Princes Street is also due to the ludicrous single-door arrangements now applied by all operators in the city. Urban buses on the European mainland have two or three doors as standard, allowing the segregation and simultaneous movement of joining and leaving passengers, and thereby reducing delays.

I have variously heard that Lothian scrapped two-door operation because (a) passengers were fraudulently boarding the bus through the exit door, or (b) there were concerns about litigation if passengers stumbled on the exit steps, away from the driver's immediate observation. I suspect the real reason is that two-door buses are more expensive to purchase, operate and maintain. All part of the scandalous lack of strategic bus policy direction in Scotland / UK (other of course than London, and N Ireland (?) where a more sensible franchise system applies).

Reply
Chris Day
12/9/2017 08:47:52 am

Indeed. If only I'd kept a record of the letters and phone calls I took when I worked for CEC citing having to change buses as a reason for not using/no longer being able to use buses.
As for the Jan Gehl nonsense (can anyone take seriously a report which says that buses reduce light on Princes St?), it's about time someone pointed out that emperor had no clothes. They were told (several times) that to achieve what they wanted you'd have to change the law.

Anyway, rant over. David's right about the volume of other traffic but politically I can't see taxis being taken off. And, a couple of years ago, CEC backed down from removing private coaches (apparently driving along Princes St is an essential part of the tourist experience). It does highlight the importance of not letting other vehicles (e.g. PHCs) in.
I suspect increasing the number of bus stops wouldn't help, rather the opposite.
All the rest is eminently sensible, though; but of course small, practical steps doesn't get the headlines.
re David's points, a) and b) are correct. At first I feared that adopting one-door buses would be a disaster but with hindsight I don't think it makes a lot of difference (and provides more seats downstairs). The problem is really how long it takes people to board, which is a combination of things (some structural, some to do with passenger behaviour)

Reply
Harald Tobermann
12/17/2017 10:11:12 am

Interesting snapshot analysis. A few observations:

1. not a single tram?
2. one direction only? Proportions travelling in both directions may well be different.
3. local buses, as opposed to other traffic (except trams), stop repeatedly along the route (again with different behaviour both ways). It is this behaviour which creates biggest congestion impact and is amplified by inefficient single door system, painfully slow ticket/validation on entry, inefficient bus stop design, and far too often poor driver behaviour (not pulling in properly and jossling)
4. the interchange penalty would reduce/disappear with a proper through-ticketing system and reliable (and well-designed) bus time-tabling. Interchange is the norm in modern urban transport systems - the challenge is to make it smooth and easy.

Until Lothian Buses accepts their role in fixing the issues above, they don't deserve to be called the "best" bus operator in UK or Scotland: at best they may be the least bad.

Reply
David
12/18/2017 03:08:34 am

Thanks for some interesting comments. I didn't record trams, as they are/should be a known and fixed quantity. Traffic both east and west-bound is recorded in the table and chart - very similar in fact.

There are many interventions that could improve/reduce traffic flow on Princes Street before any thought should be given to the idea of terminating buses short of Princes Street...

Reply
David Spaven link
12/17/2017 10:49:46 am

Yes, there is much that needs improving in the bus system.

I think interchange can work well out in the 'suburbs', eg where a shortish feeder bus journey connects smoothly (and with through ticketing) to a longer tram / train journey. But the psychology of trying to persuade people to leave the bus just 5 / 10 minutes short of their ultimate destination would surely be very difficult?

Reply
Harald Tobermann
12/17/2017 11:20:25 am

I do not advocate a tram-only first New Town. But southbound LB 10, 11, 16, 22 are candidates, though not necessarily with interchange at Picardy, but at tram stops north of Balfour Street. Residents of Scotland's most densely populated area would travel by tram to city centre and interchange near Lothian Rd for journeys further south (this would require serious tram signalling improvements and a nearby tramstop!).

Reply
Wanderlust Trevor link
12/20/2020 03:00:35 am

Thanks for this bloog post

Reply
Indian Escorts Bellingham link
2/4/2025 09:49:45 am

Hello matte nice post

Reply



Leave a Reply.

     “I hate the way everyone responsible for urban life seems to have lost sight of what cities are for. They are for people” Bill Bryson, Neither here Nor there, 1991 p61

    Welcome to my occasional blog: mostly this is about making public places inclusive and attractive, but I may touch on other policy and governance topics…


    Archives

    August 2023
    April 2023
    November 2022
    January 2022
    May 2021
    March 2021
    December 2020
    December 2019
    July 2019
    April 2019
    February 2019
    January 2019
    September 2018
    April 2018
    January 2018
    December 2017
    November 2017
    August 2017
    May 2017
    February 2017
    January 2017
    December 2016
    November 2016
    September 2016
    February 2016

    Categories

    All

    RSS Feed

Powered by Create your own unique website with customizable templates.