Rat-running and large vehicles (Bath St, Straiton Pl etc)

[Bob Jefferson]

Our goal should be to discourage through-traffic on Portobello High Street. You don't do that by speeding up vehicle progress at the expense of convenience and safety to pedestrians.

[Makaveli]

Surely more through traffic means more potential customers on our failing High Street non?

[wangi]

Our goal should be to discourage through-traffic on Portobello High Street. You don't do that by speeding up vehicle progress at the expense of convenience and safety to pedestrians.

And the circle is complete.

Think about it - talk above about rat running along Bath St, Straiton Pl etc... That's because the High St is blocked up. Address that and you remove the pressure on the other streets.

[Bob Jefferson]

Improve the traffic flow (to the likely detriment of pedestrians) and you simply invite more traffic. Conversely, if removing the rat runs brings traffic to a standstill on the High Street, then drivers will start to avoid it.

[seanie]

Improve the traffic flow and more people will chose it as a route, leading to the same congestion as before.

[Pal of Porty]

Our goal should be to discourage through-traffic on Portobello High Street. You don't do that by speeding up vehicle progress at the expense of convenience and safety to pedestrians.

I too wish to discourage through traffic in Portobello and I think that is why the Harry Lauder 'by-pass' was built in the first place. However the work completed at the previously mentioned junctions, particularly the Milton Link, has generated additional traffic coming through Porty as I described above. Porty High Street is now an established rat-run and the 'blockage' casued by the Town Hall crossing has done nothing to deter this as the alternatives are far worse.

I am happy with the crossing at the Town Hall and it really is well used. When I had my walking stick and could not walk too far, it was a major struggle for me to have to do the extra 70 metres to cross the road. Additionally, as I could only walk slow, I found the short distance between the pavements to be a real bonus on the Town Hall crossing. I am more than capable to walk the 70m now but I am sure there are many people in Porty who find the extra distance difficult in the way that I used too.

Sync the Town hall in with the Bath St. lights at peak times and leave it as a 'on demand' crossing at other times. Simples.

[Bob Jefferson]

What you describe is perfectly possible and it might improve traffic flow but that in itself is likely to generate more traffic. But the cost of that is inconvenience to pedestrians using the Town Hall crossing during peak times. A 40 second delay seems like a long time when you are used to a much quicker response time and I would be concerned that some pedestrians might become impatient and not wait for the pedestrian phase. It's a question of balance. Do the possible advantages outweigh the disadvantages? Perhaps a trial is required? I have requested some info from the relevant section in the Council as to how such a scheme might work and will publish their response.

[Epykat]

I think the sesquence of lights going along the High Street at the top of Bath Street is at green for far too long compared to the time at green going from Brighton Place to Bath Street. People, especially teenagers, get frustrated having to wait so long to cross and take chances all the time. I also totally agree with POP about the Milton Link lights and the Kings Road Roundabout. I'm sure I must waste an hour a week just sitting at the lights!

[Bob Jefferson]

Message sent today to Tony Booth at CEC.

Tony

Further to our telephone conversation this morning, there is currently a discussion within the Portobello community re the possible synching of the pedestrian-activated request crossing at the Town Hall and the phased crossing at Portobello High St/Brighton Place/Bath Street in order to improve traffic flow during peak times. Could you assist in providing information on how the crossings currently work (with timings) and how such a proposed scheme might work? Could they be synched during peak times and revert to 'on demand' at other times? Could a trial scheme be introduced if there was demonstrable local support for this and, if so, could 'before and after' traffic monitoring be undertaken to measure the results?

[Makaveli]

Good work there Bob. Will be good if a trial can be set up as I am convinced a more free flowing section on the High Street will benefit both drivers and pedestrians.

[Grunk]

Isn't there some confusion here? The Town Hall pedestrian crossing is pedestrian-activated, not phased. If no-one presses the button then traffic is not hindered. Are people suggesting that this crossing should be synched with the phased crossing at the crossroads? How exactly would that work? As for getting rid of, or down-grading, the crossing at the Town Hall, take a look at the number of primary school-aged children who use this crossing twice a day to get to and from school. Pedestrians rule, motorists can wait. And if drivers could try stopping at the red light, that would be most appreciated.

There is (at least there used to be) a pedestrian crossing at toll-cross that was phased to coincide with the lights.

It's not a particularly difficult problem to solve. The crossing has an active window (coinciding with the junction phases) which is the only time (during rush hour) that it can go red. When a pedestrian presses the button, the lights go red on the next active window.

I think the issue is, as has been mentioned, that traffic shouldn't be using Portobello high street. The Milton Road junction is just not up to the job. Whoever commissioned it probably drove through it once at 3am on a sunday and decided that it would do.

I think that councillors/transport planners really need to take advantage of some of the consultants available (or learn how to do the job themselves). Edinburgh is small enough to run traffic simulations of the whole city and optimise the traffic flow through all of the designated arterial routes.
However if you suggest this to any of the city transport planners (I've tried), the stock response is that you are an idiot, and there is no way you could possibly think of a better solution than they could.

[Bob Jefferson]

Yes, that seems to be how it would work. But, as I understand it, it does rely on someone crossing at the main junction. If no-one presses the button then the pedestrian phase is bypassed and any synched crossing wouldn't have a window. Until recently, I believe it was policy not to sync crossings in this manner but in certain circumstances it is now regarded as an option. The bottom line is that there are just too many cars on the road and, until that is addressed, tinkering around the edges will make very little difference. And above all, let's make sure that we prioritise the safety of pedestrians, particularly the most vulnerable like PoP.

[SoupDragon]

I'm wondering how easy it will be to get out into the High St from the area if a one way system is introduced,
at present we try to drive up Bath St as there is better chance of getting out due to the traffic lights.
But I do feel a one way system is long overdue

Wonder if the speed limit will be made a uniform 20mph instead of the 20mph going West on Straiton Place and 30mph going East, not that a lot of rat runners obey the 20mph

[Bob Jefferson]

What? It's 20 mph going west and 30 mph going east? On the same stretch of road? That can't be right! Think you could be right though about the problem with an increase in traffic turning right from Bellfield Street into the High Street. Would probably require lights.

[SoupDragon]

Sure I've mentioned the confilcting signs before
Been like that for years
I did try phoning the council once but got bounced from dept to dept, I was also asking about all the grey poles with no signs on them at all ( example just outside no 9 )


on the corner of Regent St and Straiton Place - looking West

other side of same sign - looking East




but coming into the area via Bath St, Regent St Bellfield St, Marlborough St the signage is for 20mph, which were put up when they put the speed bumps in, the signage in the photos predate them all I think
and the grey metal poles were put up one Sunday but no one ever came and put any signs on most of them , some did get No Parking eventually

[seanie]

Maybe I'm missing something but how do the pictured signs conflict?

[Makaveli]

The empty poles maybe for 20mph repeater signs that would be required to enforce a 20mph speed limit - I cannot see the pics from SoupDragons post (my IT seems to have blocked the pics) so cannot tell what type of 20mph sign is already in place.

[Bob Jefferson]

There is no conflict that I can see. Straiton Place is 20 mph between Bath Street and Regent Street and 30 mph between Regent Street and Bellfield Street, regardless of the direction of travel.

[SoupDragon]

No there is a conflict
Bellfield St, Regent St, Marlborough St and Straiton Place are all in the 20mph zone
The speed limit signs are posted at the top end of the streets near the High St

So if you come in via Bellfield St its 20mph , still 20mph into Straiton Place and 20mph into Bath st
Revese that journey its 20mph down Bath St then 30mph posted just before Regent St

So travelling up Marlborough St, Regent St, Bellfield St toward the High St and along Straiton Place eastward, you can say its 30mph if you passed that sign

If you came down Regent St turned along Straiton Place then up Bellfield St its 20mph as you wont have passed the 30mph sign

[Bob Jefferson]

I stand corrected. In that case, we need to get rid of both of the signs as one is not required and the other is clearly wrong.

[Grunk]

Yes, that seems to be how it would work. But, as I understand it, it does rely on someone crossing at the main junction. If no-one presses the button then the pedestrian phase is bypassed and any synched crossing wouldn't have a window. Until recently, I believe it was policy not to sync crossings in this manner but in certain circumstances it is now regarded as an option. The bottom line is that there are just too many cars on the road and, until that is addressed, tinkering around the edges will make very little difference. And above all, let's make sure that we prioritise the safety of pedestrians, particularly the most vulnerable like PoP.

Took me a while to work out what you meant, as I had a different idea of when the phasing would occur.

So my idea of the synching would be that the crossing window was when the crossroads was green on the bath street/brighton place directions. As there is less traffic coming from these directions, the traffic that is waiting there would fill the gap between the crossing and the crossroads. Then at the end of the phase the whole porty high street direction can go green and traffic can flow.

Obviously any pedestrian phase at the crossroad would also create a valid window.

Another way to improve flow, would be to restrict parking opposite bus stops, so that cars can pass when buses are stopped. Especially since bus stops seem to be put just before traffic lights, so the bus must queue in the junction traffic only moving forward on a green phase, but then blocking the way for the rest of the green phase whilst people get on and off.

[Bob Jefferson]

Think the issue with coinciding the Town Hall pedestrian phase with the green light for Brighton Place/Bath Street might be vehicles turning left out of BP backing up and blocking the box junction but worth considering.

Re the erroneous signage at Regent Street, Council is aware and looking into it so hopefully will be resolved soon.

[SoupDragon]

The rat running is as bad as ever, I know a certain percentage are dropping kids off at nursery or parking in Straiton Place to walk to Towerbank but the majority seem to be rushing along as fast as they can, down Bellfield St, along Straiton Place and up Bath Street.
And we've still got the conflicting speed signage

[Puerto bella]

Next traffic consultation event will be mid Dec - 14th has been talked of. Make sure you look out for it and tell people to go along.

[Bob Jefferson]

And we've still got the conflicting speed signage

You're kidding me! That was 5 months ago I spoke to the guy and he assured me that he was going to attend to it that week!

[Puerto bella]

That's nothing....I've got an emails dating back to 2004 with a certain lady councillor....

[Makaveli]

I was just sat at the junction on the Hight Street just now and you get 7 cars through and they then get stopped at the pedestrian crossing at the Town Hall meaning nothing is moving. I can't imagine how much pollution is being put into the air on the High Street due to cars not moving.

You know the quickest and easiest way of stopping the rat running? Get rid of the pointless pedestrian crossing outside the Town Hall.

I brought this up before and was shouted down because people can't walk a few extra yards to cross at the lights but I stand by my comments that you could solve a lot of traffic problems by either getting rid of these lights or by synchronising them. Until this is done I am afraid that people will use the side streets to get along to the junction quicker.

[SoupDragon]

Bob, I'm not surprised in the least
I had mentioned it to the cooncil myself, years ago, got bounced around from dept to dept no one seemd to be interested, same with the grey poles, they're still there signless

[rmolehusband]

You know the quickest and easiest way of stopping the rat running? Get rid of the pointless pedestrian crossing outside the Town Hall.

I'd agree that the best way to reduce rat running is to make the rat run slower and less appealing than the 'main' route, but you can do this in two ways - make the 'main' route faster, as your removal of the crossing would do, or make the rat run slower.

Sadly, when you increase the capacity of a road, the traffic tends to increase to fill the capacity and you're back to square one. Removing the pedestrian crossing would have no real effect on the congestion on the High Street and so no real effect the rat running.

Making the rat run slower is the way forward (blocking it altogether would be a bit unfair on the residents). Apart from the reduction in traffic, the reduced speeds would make what traffic was left slower and safer. The impact n residents' journey times would be negligible.

I brought this up before and was shouted down because people can't walk a few extra yards to cross at the lights

Hardly 'shouted down' - sever al people, myself included, disagreed with you. Several others thought you were on the right lines but a bit extreme, and that altering the phasing would be enough.

And that few yards is 140. Not a lot, but maybe a bit under two and a half minutes walk at 2mph. I very much doubt that removing the crossing would speed up the average journey though the high street by more than that.

[Makaveli]

OK maybe not shouted down

But how would you make the rat run less appealing?

People don't like being stationary in traffic and even if you reduce the speed limits on the rat runs it will not be a big enough deterant. You would need to block off routes and as you said this is not fair on local residents.

As for attracting more traffic if the pedestrian crossing was removed or brought in line with the junction light sequence I don't think that would be the case as where is the extra traffic coming from? I doubt anyone who uses Sir Harry Lauder would then change and come down into Porty as that wouldn't make any sense.

The only solution to the blocked High Street is sorting those pedestrian lights - either by removal or by changing the sequence.

[wangi]

But how would you make the rat run less appealing?

Simple, make Straiton Place one-way so you can only go SE (away from Bath St, toward Bellfield).

[Mark Cameron]

Agree with Wangi but could this even be implemented only during peak times with appropriate penalties for cars caught contravening this?

Also what often strikes me as being a cause of conjestion on teh high street is that the vehicles parked on both sides of the street (on the block stretching from Boots towards Joppa) cause the bottleneck. When you get two large vehicles (bus/lorry) at that point an immediate tailback is created as they try to navigate the tight space.

Has any of the discussion about congestion ever discussed double yellows on one side of that stretch? Honestly think that plus a one way system on Straiton at peak times would make a big difference with hopefully small consequence to residents.

[Grunk]

The first thing that needs to be done is to ensure that all the junctions are working at maximum efficiency. To do this the bottlenecks need to be identified and the timing adjusted to suit.

The simplest way to identify a bottleneck is to see where a queue of backed up traffic starts from. As can be seen on most days the queue starts at the pedestrian crossing, it is clear after that. This means that too many cars are coming in vs the amount of cars going out. The fix would be to phase the pedestrian crossing during rush hour.

Other blockages include bus stops and T-junctions. Where vehicles stopped block traffic. A solution would be to put (enforced) double yellow lines opposite these, ensuring that even when a vehicle is stopped, there is space for traffic to flow.
WRT bus stops, having them just before a junction isn't great. The bus can only move up to the stop when the lights are green, it then stops at the junction blocking traffic through the green phase. It then moves off during the red phase, so an entire phase has been missed.

After that, you can look into making streets one way, as doing that doesn't remove the blockage, so traffic backs up even further making other rat runs more appealing (e.g. windsor place, st. marks place).

I guess the broader point is why are so many people choosing the Portobello route rather than the Portobello bypass (HLR), the town centre traffic cannot simply be residents only can it? Although I've not checked recently I imagine there is probably an issue at the milton road junction and the new kings road junction (which seems to have had massive holes in it for ages).

[rmolehusband]

People don't like being stationary in traffic and even if you reduce the speed limits on the rat runs it will not be a big enough deterant. You would need to block off routes and as you said this is not fair on local residents.

In this case, where the rat run is fairly obvious and in one direction then maybe some one way restrictions would fix it. Other than that, there are numerous traffic calming (not speed bumps!) measures than can be installed that severely impact through traffic without really causing residents any significant delay. These can be combined in most cases with improvements in on street parking to generally improve the environment for residents.

How do any residents of the Rosefields feel about Rosefield Avenue being closed off, I've always assumed this was down to prevent a rather appealing rat run round the cross?

As for attracting more traffic if the pedestrian crossing was removed or brought in line with the junction light sequence I don't think that would be the case as where is the extra traffic coming from? I doubt anyone who uses Sir Harry Lauder would then change and come down into Porty as that wouldn't make any sense.

Textbook traffic planning, if you build/widen/improve it, they will come. If, as you suggest, the removal of the town hall crossing improved the flow of traffic enough to reduce rat running, it would also make the route appealing to those currently using an alternative such as SHL.

The only solution to the blocked High Street is sorting those pedestrian lights - either by removal or by changing the sequence.

That's two solutions, removing them or changing the sequence. For the reasons I've already mentioned I doubt either will make a blind bit of difference, but while I would strongly object to removing them I wouldn't see any problem in changing the sequence.

[Bob Jefferson]

As a resident of Rosefield, I can tell you that I was delighted when they closed off Rosefield Ave. Prior to that we had a lot more traffic racing through the area at dangerous speeds. Now it's mainly local residents as it is one big cul de sac. Pedestrian safety has to be paramount in any proposal. Inconvenience to motorists is way down the list.