Kings Road roundabout replacement

Guest · Post by **Guest** » 05 Dec 2004, 17:37

You may be aware that there are plans to replace the Kings Road roundabout with a new signalised junction to enable bus priority measures and improved pedestrian and cycling crossing. Traffic-light controlled junctions allow intelligent traffic management and anyone who has witnessed this roundabout at peak hours will know that's exactly what we need.

Here is a preliminary drawing for your perusal. I will ensure that your feedback is directed to the appropriate authorities.

Warning - the pdf file is 3.75 MB. Please allow it time to download and don't even bother trying if you are on a dial-up unless you are a very patient person.

http://www.porty.org.uk/pdf/kings_road.pdf

Brian McCrow · Post by **Brian McCrow** » 05 Dec 2004, 18:02

Can we check with the Council if they've taken account of the extra traffic from the proposed Superstore or if this scheme is for a non-Superstore scenario.

What will this scheme do to the queue lengths at different times of the day on the various roads i.e. will they be drammatically reduced?

Who is funding this development? I heard that the Superstore developer had put Ã‚Â£300,000 towards this without strings??

When will it be implemented and how will the public consultation be carried out?

Guest · Post by **Guest** » 05 Dec 2004, 18:44

Can we check with the Council if they've taken account of the extra traffic from the proposed Superstore or if this scheme is for a non-Superstore scenario.

Good question, and one that occurred to me at the CC meeting, though I didn't get round to posing it. I will contact Roger Hargreaves and make him aware of this thread.

What will this scheme do to the queue lengths at different times of the day on the various roads i.e. will they be drammatically reduced?

You will recall that I asked whether it would increase the capacity of the roundabout. I didn't really get a straight answer did I? I like traffic-controlled junctions because everyone gets their turn and I'm sure the stats will show that they are safer. A large percentage of RTA's are centred around traditional roundabouts.

Who is funding this development? I heard that the Superstore developer had put Ã‚Â£300,000 towards this without strings??

My understanding is that Scottish Executive money is already earmarked for this but I think any developer woud be expected to make a contribution.

When will it be implemented and how will the public consultation be carried out?

Not sure. Let's see if we can get Roger onto the forum.

General Tactifer · Post by **General Tactifer** » 05 Dec 2004, 19:31

The main problem with roundabouts is that they rely on responsible users and they seem to be in short supply these days! You don't have to wait long at Harry Lauder Roundabout to find cars turning right from the left-hand lane or not signalling. Used poorly, they are dangerous, particularly to more vulnerable users (motor cycles, pedestrians etc). The removal of this and other roundabouts might be a case of 'abuse it and you lose it'. They also tend to be designed so that pedestrians are forced to take long detours to ensure that road traffic is not delayed - rather inequitable. As you might guess, I wont be shedding too many tears to see the back of this one: let's hope the one at the other end of Harry Lauder Road is next in the firing line!

Alix · Post by **Alix** » 05 Dec 2004, 22:13

What would help would be an underpass, & since the traffic light system is going to be hellish complicated & expensive & possibly slow traffic even more, would it not be a good idea to look further into the future & ease the polluting congestion by digging out a tunnel alongside the rail one?
Alix

Post by **wangi** » 06 Dec 2004, 11:51

ALix, I had a ramble about an underpass idea on the scottish power site thread...

However I think we need to think about this more - PHS is always a nightmare, and obviously a lot of traffic uses the High Street when it could as easy use the bypass. Howabout closing the High Street at the Brighton St / Bath St junction and only allowing buses through?

Brian McCrow · Post by **Brian McCrow** » 06 Dec 2004, 12:24

I've thought about introducing a one way system in Porty to discourage through traffic.

From the Kings Road going east into Porty High Street make this one way with traffic turning up Brighton Place.

Similarily from the Joppa end going West make it one way again going up Brighton Place.

As well as reducing through traffic it will allow us to widen the pavements on the North side of the High Street opposite the Town Hall for pavement cafes, trees etc

It will allow parking on the approach roads i.e. opposite the Forester Arms there could be parallel parking. Similarily the road from Joppa could have parking on one side.

We will make the roads safer, reduce pollution, make the place look better and more pleasant for walking, cycling etc.

Maria · Post by **Maria** » 06 Dec 2004, 13:40

But what will it do for Brighton Place? Can't see any benefit there for residents of that street.

maggle · Post by **maggle** » 06 Dec 2004, 14:47

How about a big sign saying local traffic only, might not cost much, but could see if it worked.

Brian McCrow · Post by **Brian McCrow** » 06 Dec 2004, 16:10

Marya

It would make it easier as there would be one way traffic. We would expect the traffic volumes to be quite low as it should be only local traffic plus buses.

Maggle

We did discuss having a sign saying local traffic no through road and we think it's a good idea.

ceejam · Post by **ceejam** » 06 Dec 2004, 17:07

Don't like the one way traffic idea, it would mean that if I wanted to go from work to my parents house, I'd need to go up Sir Harry Lauder road or Brighton place, onto Milton road and down Brunstane Road, doubling the length of the journey!

Now that makes no sense! Are you from the David Begg school of traffic planning? Just stop cars using roads, and look how quiet that street is, regardless of the gridlcok all around!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Brian McCrow · Post by **Brian McCrow** » 06 Dec 2004, 17:53

Ceejam

I think you've illustrated your own point. Why are you driving to your parents when you could use public transport or walk or cycle.

Alternatively if you have to use your car it wouldn't be a hardship to go this alternative route as it's hardly miles out of your current route!!

However, with a one way you wouldn't touch the Town Centre.

Or you could park by the Foresters and enjoy a very pleasant walk to your parents passing the crowds of people enjoying a traffic free latte or glass of wine!!

mr magnolia · Post by **mr magnolia** » 06 Dec 2004, 18:22

Brian McCrow wrote:I've thought about introducing a one way system in Porty to discourage through traffic.

From the Kings Road going east into Porty High Street make this one way with traffic turning up Brighton Place.

Similarily from the Joppa end going West make it one way again going up Brighton Place.

Does anyone (here) know what the through traffic count is? And what is forecast to happen to it following congestion charging? Its possible that may make a difference?

Before you could think about your plan, Brian, methinks the road would possibly have to be de-registered as a Primary Tourist Route.

Brian McCrow · Post by **Brian McCrow** » 06 Dec 2004, 18:42

I don't know the official definition of a Tourist Route but I would have thought it should still be ok as more Tourists would be encouraged to visit Porty.

We'd need discussion with someone who understands these definitions.

Guest · Post by **Guest** » 06 Dec 2004, 20:41

Here's Roger's response to Brian's questions:

Bob

Had a look at your forum. Very impressive. Reluctant to sign up as I might end up as a repository for a range of Council issues. Happy for you to filter specific questions to me about the proposal. Other and more radical proposals I would suggest should be directed through your Councillors.

From the questions posted I can advise in response:

The last I heard about the Superstore application was that it was still under consideration. The application will be supported by a traffic impact assessment and the ability of the surrounding road system to cope will the generated traffic will be one of the factors taken into account in reaching a decision. The store therefore has not been taken into account in the signalisation scheme at this point in time. It is, however,considered unlikely that it would generate significant additional traffic during the key am and pm peak periods.

The scheme is about introducing bus priority and improvements for cyclists and pedestrians. As indicated at the meeting the signals will also allow the queue lengths on the different legs to be better balanced. It won't get rid of the queues!

Your comments on funding and development contributions are correct.

As indicated the next stage will be to analyse the results of the consultation and then take aboard any arising issues. The updated design would then form the basis of the Traffic Regulations Order which would then be advertised. We would hope to be in a position to build the scheme in late 2005/early 2006.

General Tactifer · Post by **General Tactifer** » 06 Dec 2004, 20:49

maggle wrote:How about a big sign saying local traffic only, might not cost much, but could see if it worked.

Unfortunately, in my experience, the only way a big sign would have an effect on the average motorist in Edinburgh is if you hit him over the head with it!

General Tactifer · Post by **General Tactifer** » 06 Dec 2004, 20:56

ceejam wrote:Are you from the David Begg school of traffic planning?

Our loss and Westminster's gain!

mr magnolia · Post by **mr magnolia** » 08 Dec 2004, 12:14

The scheme is about introducing bus priority and improvements for cyclists and pedestrians. As indicated at the meeting the signals will also allow the queue lengths on the different legs to be better balanced. It won't get rid of the queues!

'Balancing the queues' will mean increasing the entry queue from Porty High Street, which from my vantage point on the No. 26 doesn't seem to be very big at all at present. The proposed improvements do not show any bus priority measures at the signal junction, albeit that there is a new greenway section, although that in itself seems to suggest that someone thinks the queue lengths will lengthen.

I don't know if this comment adds to the sum of human knowledge, but it does look to me as though traffic flow out of Porty may be the one to suffer under this new system, and its already pretty jammed up further back down the High Street as it is just now.

Maria · Post by **Maria** » 08 Dec 2004, 19:39

It would make it easier as there would be one way traffic. We would expect the traffic volumes to be quite low as it should be only local traffic plus buses.

It is not necessarily the traffic volume that bothers me at the moment Brian, it is the frequency of the heavy, double-decker buses that thunder down the cobbles, shaking the foundations of my house. If you want to experience this first hand for yourself you don't need to come to my house (though you'd be most welcome!), just sit on a bench in Brighton Park and feel the ground shake as a bus passes. Your plan will divert ALL Portobello bus routes down this street. Historic and picturesque cobbles may be, but designed to cope with modern transport they are not.

CatzVP · Post by **CatzVP** » 30 Dec 2004, 09:13

General Tactifer wrote:
ceejam wrote:Are you from the David Begg school of traffic planning?
Our loss and Westminster's gain!

Westminister is welcome to him

Pal of Porty · Post by **Pal of Porty** » 14 Jan 2005, 13:32

CatzVP wrote:
General Tactifer wrote:
ceejam wrote:Are you from the David Begg school of traffic planning?
Our loss and Westminster's gain!
Westminister is welcome to him

I used to play football with David Begg when I was at school. He was an excellent header of the ball. If Westminster have a team he will definitely be selected.

Gemini · Post by **Gemini** » 16 Jun 2005, 20:08

From tonights letters in EN

Traffic in Portobello is being mismanaged

WHILE Edinburgh has the reputation of having some of the worst maintained roads in the country, the city fathers are going to squander materials and manpower on the construction of traffic calming measures on a number of short, dead-end streets in Portobello, each carrying very few motor vehicles.

While speeding is taking place along the main road through Portobello every day, nothing is attempted to do anything about it, where a simple, cheap speed limit can be quickly put up.

Portobello now carries an impossible burden of extra motor transport due to the enormous expansion in Leith, while a traffic choker is being deliberately maintained in its centre in the form of a now unnecessary pedestrian crossing right beside inadequate bus stops. This pedestrian crossing is a leftover from the time when the Portobello bypass was built, but motorists, due to inadequate signposts, kept going through Portobello.

Now also the bypass is inadequate and should be dualled with a flyover at each end. Traffic lights at the Seafield roundabout are supposed to be our salvation, but they will not solve anything with

For fear of being litigated against , I shall refrain in answering this highlighted statement.

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 31 Oct 2006, 15:19

From today's EN Letters Page:

Roundabout way to solve traffic trouble

Talk Porty ~ Portobello

Kings Road roundabout replacement

Kings Road roundabout replacement

Kings Road Roundabaout

Re: Kings Road Roundabaout