CITY DEVELOPMENT TRANSPORT

A GUIDE FOR THE DESIGN, CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE OF USER FRIENDLY BUS STOPS

BUS-FRIENDLY DESIGN GUIDE

BUS-FRIENDLY DESIGN GUIDE

Produced and published by The City of Edinburgh Council. City Development: June 2005

CONTENTS
1 Introduction
Aims of this document Relationship to other documents Background Structure and scope of this guide
PAGE

3
3 3 4 4

General considerations
Waiting Location Information Security Bus-bike travel Maintenance Specific policies

PAGE

6
6 6 8 8 9 10 10

Siting and Layout of Bus Stops and Shelters

Siting Minimum obstructed footway width Public utilities and emergency services Frontagers Road safety Underfoot conditions Public safety and crime prevention Erection of shelters by contractors Provision of seats Protection of bus stop Conclusions

PAGE

11
11 12 13 13 13 13 14 15 15 15 17

Interchanges
Prioritising interchange sites

PAGE

19
19

Bus-friendly carriageways
Speeds Constraints Traffic Regulation Orders, Bus lanes etc Maintenance Crossings

PAGE

21
21 21 22 23 24

CONTENTS

6 7 8 9

New developments Appendices Glossary Further Reading

PAGE PAGE PAGE PAGE

25 26 37 38

1
1.1

INTRODUCTION
The City of Edinburgh Councils Local Transport Strategy sets out a vision of a transport system that is accessible to, and serves, all. It seeks to maximise peoples ability to meet their daily needs within short distances without the need to use a car. A high quality accessible public transport system is essential to achieving this vision. A high quality accessible transport system must pay close attention to meeting the needs of those who use it. This guide is designed to ensure that bus infrastructure achieves just that.

PAGE

1.2

Aims of this document

To ensure that infrastructure gives appropriate priority to the bus users needs, in particular by: Ensuring that bus stops are appropriately sited Ensuring that buses can draw in close to the kerb Ensuring that bus stops are laid out in a user-friendly manner Ensuring that appropriate facilities are provided Ensuring the application of good design

Relationship to other documents

1.3 The Bus-Friendly Design Guide can be used as a stand-alone document, but is part of a suite of documents which focus on the needs of sustainable transport users. This suite comprises:

INTRODUCTION

Movement and Development; an overview of traffic and transport design in new developments, which offers both strategic and detailed guidance. Edinburgh Standards for Streets, which will offer detailed guidance concerning activities affecting our streets, including design and layout relating to bus stops. The Bus-Friendly Design Guide, providing detailed guidance on the design of on-street public transport infrastructure. These documents form part of the Development Quality Handbook (see Further Reading), to emphasise that key features in a street, such as bus stops, must be designed to integrate with the street as a whole. New developments, upgrades of existing infrastructure, and even simple renewal schemes should be designed in a way that takes into account the overall context of the streetscape in which they are located. 1.4 Some of the contents are repeated within each guide. However, the vast

PAGE

majority are not, and therefore all three documents should be referred to when undertaking any project on-street. The Council has also published a CycleFriendly Design Guide.

Background
1.5 Most public transport journeys within the city are made by bus. However, despite the importance of good bus infrastructure (bus stops, shelters, and carriageway), it often receives less priority than it deserves. To remedy this, the City of Edinburgh Council reviewed design and construction issues from the users point of view; and developed the guidelines set out in this document. Most bus stops were installed on a pragmatic, stop by stop basis, over time. However, this approach meant that the needs of the bus passenger could be relegated below those of other road users. In the past bus stops were often sited to minimise inconvenience to everyone except the bus user; could be blocked by parked vehicles and other obstructions; and minimal facilities are often provided. In 1986 the local authority took over responsibility for bus stops. Initially it focused on replacing shelters, many of which were in very poor repair, and increasing total numbers. However, the installation and management of stops has become increasingly complex, because of competition for footway space with other uses (e.g. cable and utilities), higher public expectations (e.g. cleanliness), and perceived or real increasing vandalism/anti-social behaviour. Stops, shelters and other street furniture must be planned as an integrated whole; achieving a user-friendly design, and ensuring that passengers, especially less mobile people, can use them. In the past, such people were sometimes prevented from using buses by the lack of provision. Now it is recognised that this is not acceptable. Bus design has changed significantly to provide step-free access, as well as improved journey quality and this requires matching bus stop provision, particularly: Ensuring that bus stops are well located Ensuring that stops are well laid out, with appropriate facilities Providing level or near-level access, which means that buses can draw in close to the kerb, and boarding and alighting points are not obstructed

1.6

1.7

1.8

INTRODUCTION

Structure and scope of this guide

1.9 Chapter 2 of the Bus-Friendly Design Guide sets out issues to be considered relating to bus stop infrastructure and facilities. Chapters 3 and 4 outline the technical requirements applying to bus stops and interchanges. Chapter 5 sets out issues to be considered relating to road carriageways on bus routes. It also outlines bus-specific technical requirements. Chapter 6 considers issues in new

PAGE

developments. The appendices include technical drawings, guidance on bus boarders, relevant City of Edinburgh Council policies, and checklists. 1.10 The guide does not include details of the consultative processes required by the City of Edinburgh Council whenever a change to the street environment is proposed. An outline of current procedures is included in Appendix 6, but details should be sought from the City Development Department in these circumstances. The guide focusses on the needs of bus passengers and operators. It does not incorporate statutory requirements governing infrastructure design; for example, permitted signs and carriageway markings. These must be referenced from the relevant technical notes and directives. The guide should be used in conjunction with the other relevant documents mentioned above; Movement and Development in new developments, which addresses pedestrian routes, including those to and from bus stops; and Edinburgh Standards for Streets which offers detailed guidance at the streetscape level. The guide reflects the Councils policy (Local Transport Strategy) that where there is competition for road space, preference will be given to meeting the needs of pedestrians, cyclists and public transport users; thereafter freight, deliveries and the private car. The Councils Cycle-Friendly Design Guide reflects similar principles. This document should be useful for anyone involved in bus stop and road design. It reflects the nature of Edinburghs bus fleet, particularly the mixture of single and two-door buses, and absence of articulated vehicles. Where different vehicle designs predominate, some of the technical specifications should be reviewed. The interface between bus and road is crucial; as highlighted by low-floor buses. Vehicle manufacturers (and their customers) need to bear this in mind in developing and introducing new models.

1.11

1.12

1.13

1.14

INTRODUCTION

PAGE

2
2.1

GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS
This chapter sets out a number of general issues which should be considered in relation to the provision of bus stop infrastructure and facilities.

Waiting
2.2 Research for the Scottish Executive (Interchange and Travel Choice, Institute for Transport Studies, Leeds University and Transport Research Institute, Napier University, 2001) indicates that bus users attach a particularly high penalty to waiting. It is therefore one of the main disincentives to using public transport. It appears that passengers overestimate waiting time; and that it frequently involves low-level stress. Therefore, waiting should be made as attractive as possible. The research for the Scottish Executive indicated that the most important interchange facilities are: Good shelters Real-Time information Printed timetable information Good signage These factors should therefore be considered wherever bus stops are installed or improved.

GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS

Location
2.3

A modern, high-quality shelter, with internal lighting

Good location is vital. Research indicates that potential passengers are prepared to walk further to catch a train than to catch a bus. Not only are expectations of bus stop accessibility (understandably) higher, but there also appears to be a relationship with the perceived quality of the journey. Furthermore, research suggests that 200-250 metres is a cut-off walking distance especially for people with mobility difficulties. Beyond that, bus use, especially by people with walking difficulties, declines rapidly. However, reducing walking distances below 150-200 metres appears to produce diminishing returns, because those with the severest walking difficulties (who comprise a relatively small proportion of the whole) do not benefit until distances reduce substantially. Bus stop locations must reflect the prevailing urban design and street patterns. Key considerations are: (a) Ideally no house or workplace should be more than 300 metres from the nearest pair of bus stops; sheltered/retirement homes, schools, shops, etc. should be closer. (b) Where new development includes areas of intense pedestrian activity, they should be located to provide ready access to bus services.

2.4

2.5

PAGE

(c) Very few developments will be of such scale that new, extended or diverted bus services can serve them without long-term revenue support (the Waterfront, South East Wedge, and Royal Infirmary developments around Edinburgh indicate the scale required). Therefore the layout of any development needs to be designed to minimise walking distances to existing bus routes. (d) In developments such as leisure complexes and superstores, foyers and main entrances should be close to bus stops; but this should not require long and circuitous bus routes through the site. This will mean, for example, that public buildings are placed along existing bus routes, with car parking areas located to the rear. (e) The most convenient location for a bus stop is often at a road junction, because junctions connect a number of pedestrian routes; thus maximising the catchment area and reducing walking distances. Unfortunately over recent years there has been a trend to locate stops away from junctions, often disadvantaging passengers. This trend must be reversed, and pedestrian crossing facilities provided, if bus travel is to become more convenient. (f) Footways to and from bus stops should be direct, with dropped kerbs or raised crossings at all crossing points. (g) Hail and ride services can be considered in less densely developed areas such as rural west Edinburgh. In principle, such services reduce walking distances, for example by allowing passengers to wait outside their house if it is on the bus route (rather than having to walk to a bus stop). However, this means that facilities (such as information, shelter etc.) that are normally available at a bus stop cannot be provided. Existing street furniture such as lamp posts can be used instead; at the very least some notice must indicate that a particular street is on a hail and ride route. However, notices and timetables can create informal gathering points, and therefore must be safely located in terms of personal security and road safety; whereas if such gathering points exist, consideration should be given to forming an official bus stop. (h) The location of bus stops, particularly those with shelters, can be a sensitive issue. Some householders or traders request removal of a stop from outside their property, even if it has been on the same spot for many years. Aesthetics and perceived security concerns are probably the most often quoted reasons. However, removal/relocation usually disbenefits bus passengers, and sometimes result in complaints from new frontagers. Therefore bus stops should generally not be moved except in exceptional circumstances, or where bus passengers or operations will clearly benefit. 2.6 In Edinburgh, the Council has an established mechanism for considering new or relocated bus stops, which must be followed in all cases. Details are available from the Public Transport Team in City Development.

GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS

PAGE

Information
2.7 In Edinburgh, under formal agreements with the Council, bus operators provide timetable information at stops and Lothian Buses provides service numbered bus flags at stops. Experience shows that this generally ensures quicker and more accurate updates (for example when routes change). The Transport (Scotland) Act 2001 gives Councils certain rights and duties to ensure adequate information provision in their areas. The Council intends publishing its Bus Information Strategy in 2005.

2.8

GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS

The Council provides the appropriate bus stop equipment or furniture. Information displays should comply with the guidance set out in Chapter 3. Detailed guidance will be provided by the Bus Information Strategy. General considerations when providing information include:

Clear, user-friendly information located inside a bus shelter.

2.9

(a) Information should be readable at all times, including non-daylight hours. (b) Ideally, displays should have their own lighting, but where this is impractical, careful placement relative to street, shop or other lighting may suffice. (c) Lighting levels should also be assessed with regard to security. (d) All bus stops should have a name agreed with local bus operators; this avoids a situation where passengers are confused by the name on a bus flag differing from that appearing in operators timetables. (e) Where Real-Time Information (RTI) is provided, it requires particular specifications. Posts supporting RTI displays should not be used for any other purpose, as there is a risk that they may become a surrogate bus stop pole; a function which they cannot fulfil appropriately. RTI specifications which relate to siting and equipment design are set out in Chapter 3. The specifications applying to displays will be set out in the Bus Information Strategy. (f) The needs of disabled people, particularly those with visual impairments.

Security
2.10 Consultants working for the City of Edinburgh Council examined a variety of routes to bus stops and identified a number of key issues, as follows: (a) Passive/Informal surveillance levels (b) Frontage development and type of on-street activity

PAGE

(c) Forward surveillance (d) All-round surveillance (e) Where routes are lined with trees and foliage, the vegetation is well maintained and trimmed back (f) Signing of designated route where appropriate (g) Presence of CCTV (h) Provision of good, relevant and easily understood information at bus stops (i) Provision of Real-Time Information (j) Shelters designed with the see and be seen principle (k) Good standard of lighting, especially where routes involve segregated footways or include a number of unavoidable twists and turns

GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS

Basic modern shelter, suitable for lightly-used stops. The clear barrel roof allows in natural and artificial light, and avoids an enclosed ambience. The proximity of a lamppost ensures enhanced lighting.

(l) Condition of bus stops, shelters and surrounding streetscape. An audit checklist was produced; this can be used to carry out audits for bus stops, routes to stops and shelters. (See Appendix 4). 2.11 Improvements in automated information may provide passengers with better and more reliable information. However in terms of safety, the consultants identified that there is no substitute for knowing that someone is available if assistance is required.

Bus-bike travel
2.12 Bus-bike interchange has received relatively little attention to date. By encouraging potential passengers to cycle to/from the appropriate bus stop, bus service catchment areas can be considerably extended. This requires secure cycle parking at appropriate bus stops (since the widespread carriage of cycles on buses is likely to be impractical). Therefore appropriate sites must be identified. In rural parts of the City of Edinburgh Council area, distances to/from a choice of bus routes may be sufficient to warrant bike-bus travel. Bus networks are such that a choice of routes will probably be available only from the edge of the city inwards.

2.13

PAGE

10

Another type of service which may be particularly relevant for bike-bus travel would be long-distance bus/coach routes. This points to the installation of secure cycle parking at bus stops on major roads passing through rural areas, such as the A90 or A71. Within the built-up area, it may not be relevant, since the distances involved and bus networks are such that, having started the journey on a bike, the cyclist is much more likely to complete it that way.

Maintenance
2.14 A high standard of maintenance of bus infrastructure is required not only to protect these assets, but because poorly-maintained shelters and bus lanes, and outdated road markings etc. create a negative impression, that public transport use and users are undervalued. This requires commitment from all relevant parties, including the highway and street cleaning authorities. In some cases private or quasi-private interests will have a role to play, for example the owners of advertising shelters or city centre management companies. Bus shelters, timetable cases etc which have been vandalised, covered by graffiti or flyposting should be quickly reinstated. Whilst such infrastructure usually sustains only surface damage, even this has a negative impact on passengers sense of personal security. Where possible, the opportunity should be taken to install hard-wearing materials, ranging from carriageway construction to bus shelter glazing, to minimise long-term maintenance requirements.

2.15

GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS

2.16

2.17

Specific policies
2.18 The City of Edinburgh Council has adopted a number of specific policies concerning bus stops; these must be addressed when carrying out any work at or near bus stops within the Council area. The policies are listed in the Local Transport Strategy 2004-2007, and relevant sections are set out in Appendix 3.
A busy bus stop located on a narrow footway. There is no shelter because of the lack of space. Parked cars either side of the stop prevent buses from pulling in to the kerb. Sites like this would clearly benefit from a bus boarder, which should deal with all these problems.

3
General

GUIDELINES ON THE SITING AND LAYOUT OF BUS STOPS AND SHELTERS

PAGE

11

These guidelines are central to achieving the aims of this document; in particular to ensuring that bus stops are appropriately sited, user-friendly, and have appropriate facilities, that buses can draw in to the kerb, and that good design is applied. The guidelines have been developed over a number of years. This chapter incorporates and supersedes the Councils Guidelines on the Siting and Layout of Bus Stops and Shelters. A bus stop is generally designed around the shelter, as it is the major fixture.

Siting
3.1 (a) Bus stops should not, except in exceptional circumstances, be sited in laybys. Where appropriate, they should be enhanced by bus boarders. They should be sited so that an unobstructed boarding area at least 2000mm by 2000mm can be formed. This, and the disembarking area, should be as level as possible. The placement of other bus stop equipment, and bus box markings, is determined in relation to this area, following the process set out in paragraphs 3.1(b) 3.6(j) below. Correct layouts are illustrated in Diagram 2 (Appendix 1), and the drawing at the end of this chapter. (b) Shelters are to be erected on the footway at recognised bus stops where there is sufficient footway width to accommodate the shelter, allow for the passage of pedestrians, including wheelchair users and double buggies, and maintain the highest possible safety standards. (c) No part of a shelter, pole, bus stop flag or Real-Time Information display is to be sited within 450mm of the kerb edge, or a vertical plane through it. (d) A clear width of not less than 300mm is to be provided around the perimeter of all shelters to allow for street cleaning and shelter washing, except as specified in paragraph 3.1(e).

GUIDELINES

(e) Bus stop poles have two functions: to indicate the location of a bus stop (in conjunction with a bus flag), and to provide an aiming point for bus drivers. As the bus should stop with the leading edge of the entrance door in line with the aiming point/pole, it must be precisely located so that the bus entrance stops next to the boarding area. Particularly at busy bus stops, a bus stop flag may be mounted on the approaching end of the shelter (flags must not be mounted anywhere else on a shelter). In this case a pole is unnecessary, and the shelter becomes the aiming point. Bus stop equipment (e.g. pole and shelter) must not conflict with the boarding (or disembarking) area, or obstruct the view from the shelter of approaching buses. The gap between the closest surfaces of a pole and shelter must be no more than 300mm. Diagram 2 (Appendix 1) illustrates the appropriate layouts for poles and shelters.

PAGE

12

(f) Bus stop poles may be fitted with no more than one 1200mm by 260mm information panel, which must be attached parallel to the kerb and locked in that position. If more than one panel, or a panel larger than 1200mm by 260mm is required, it must be located elsewhere at the stop, so that passengers reading it do not obstruct the view from the shelter of approaching buses. More detailed specifications will be provided in the Councils Bus Information Strategy. No other items may be fitted to poles except small parking/waiting restriction plates as described in paragraphs 3.10(b) and 3.10(c). (g) Real-Time Information displays must be sited upstream of a bus stop so that information is presented to waiting passengers from the same direction as approaching buses. RTI display mounting poles must not be used for any other purpose. More detailed specifications will be provided in the Councils Bus Information Strategy. (h) No bus stop, or associated equipment (e.g. pole and shelter) is to be sited or laid out in a way that requires waiting passengers to queue with their backs to oncoming traffic. (i) Other items of street furniture (e.g. lampposts, seats, pillar boxes, waste paper bins and telephone kiosks) should not interfere with access to/from the shelter or stop, or obstruct waiting passengers view of approaching buses. Where such items are located in close proximity to a bus stop it may be necessary to provide unobstructed footway widths in excess of the minimum detailed below. Bins should be sited downstream of the stop. (j) Only poles and shelters of a style and colour approved by the Council are to be erected. Bus stop poles, where fitted, must be inserted into the footway to a depth not less than 400mm below the surface. (k) Enclosed shelters require a separate entrance and exit. Access to both must be clear.

GUIDELINES

(l) Bus stops should generally not be moved except in exceptional circumstances, or where bus passengers or operations will clearly benefit. Where a stop is moved, even if only a few metres, the new location must be reviewed to ensure compliance with the guidelines set out in this Chapter, especially those relating to road markings.

Minimum obstructed footway width

3.2 (a) Where pedestrian flows are high, or where there are other items of street furniture in close proximity including Real-Time Information displays, particular care must be taken over footway widths around a bus stop. Ideally the minimum is 2000mm, on major pedestrian routes 3000mm. Reference should be made to Movement and Development for more detailed guidance.

PAGE

13

(b) An unobstructed width of at least 1400mm must be provided along any length of footway adjacent to a shelter. A reduced width of 900mm may, exceptionally, be allowed at half-end panels to cantilever shelters but not along the length of the shelter. Particular care should be taken to ensure that where a bus stop pole is installed, it does not restrict the passage of passengers and pedestrians.

Public utilities and emergency services

3.3 (a) No bus stop infrastructure (e.g. pole or shelter) is to be erected in such a manner as to prevent reasonable access to any existing public utility manhole, toby or street lighting column. (b) No bus stop infrastructure (e.g. pole or shelter) is to be erected within 200mm of an existing fire hydrant or obscure a fire hydrant sign.

Frontagers
3.4 (a) No pole or shelter is to be erected at a new location without first informing affected residential or commercial frontager(s). Affected frontagers are those whose property directly borders the shelter site. (b) No bus stop or associated infrastructure (e.g. pole or shelter) is to restrict reasonable existing access to any adjacent frontager. (c) No bus stop infrastructure (e.g. pole or shelter) is to restrict the use of any existing shop blind.

Road safety
3.5 (a) No bus stop infrastructure (e.g. pole or shelter) is to be erected where it would conflict with minimum sight distance requirements. (b) If new bus stop infrastructure (e.g. pole or shelter) will conflict with existing road signs, consideration should be given to relocating signs. New road signs should not be sited in conflict with an existing bus stop.

GUIDELINES

Underfoot conditions
3.6 (a) No bus stop infrastructure (e.g. pole or shelter) is to be erected on a made up footway with an unsatisfactory surface condition; if necessary, the footway should be upgraded (b) Where no made up footway exists an area of hardstanding is to be constructed to accommodate the shelter and boarding area. If possible, this should be connected to the nearest made up footway. (c) No bus stop is to be located where existing road gullies would preclude safe underfoot conditions for alighting and boarding passengers, on both one and two door buses.

PAGE

14

(d) No stop is to be located where there is an unrestrained rainwater outfall at the rear of the footway. (e) Where ground level discharge of rainwater from the shelter roof is required the outlet is to be at the grounds lowest point. (f) To allow for street cleaning, prevent the build-up of litter and for ease of maintenance a gap of 150mm (approximately) is to be provided between the footway level and the lower transom of the shelter. (g) Where a shelter or stop pole is removed, all traces of it are to be removed and, in particular, no protrusions are to be left which would cause a trip hazard. (h) The kerb height at the bus stop (or at least the boarding/disembarking areas) should be between 125 and 150mm above the carriageway. However, if the installation of such a kerb would create a new step, an unsafe pavement or a pavement slope exceeding 1:12 in the bus stop area; or if a bus cannot override the kerb in this location, a lower kerb must be fitted. (i) 180mm high special docking kerbs (e.g. Kassel Kerbs or equivalent) may be installed on a fully-protected full length bus boarder, site conditions permitting (see particularly paragraph 3.6(h)). (j) As described in paragraph 3.1(a), detailed bus stop site definition begins with the identification of an unobstructed 2 x 2 metre boarding area. If it subsequently proves that it is not possible to comply with the guidelines set out in paragraphs 3.1(b) 3.6(j), the process should be restarted, choosing an alternative boarding area. (k) Roads that require to be crossed to reach the bus stop should be equipped with a conveniently located dropped kerb or similar facility, within 50 metres of the stop.

GUIDELINES

Public safety and crime prevention

3.7 (a) If possible, care should be taken to avoid a shelter obscuring vision from the road of cash dispensing machines or night safes. (b) Where possible and with the exception of advertising panels on advertising shelters, shelters are to be glazed to provide inter-visibility between people inside the shelter and those outside. (c) Consideration is to be given to siting bus stop infrastructure to minimise or prevent the shelter being used as a means of gaining access to adjacent properties. (d) Bus stops and shelters should be well lit.

PAGE

15

(e) Bus flags attached to a free-standing bus stop pole or lamppost must be secured so that the bottom edge of the flag is 2300mm above the footway. Exceptionally flags may be secured with the bottom edge up to 2800mm above the footway; but flags must not be secured higher than this, nor lower than 2300mm. (f) Bus stop security should be assessed by using the security checklist which comprises Appendix 4 of this document.

Erection of shelters by contractors

3.8 All shelters must be erected in accordance with the relevant Council contracts. These are available from Transport Planning in the City Development Department. The quality of reinstatement should comply with the requirements of The Edinburgh Standards for Streets.

Provision of seats
3.9 (a) Seats should normally be provided; they are to be positioned at a height of 650mm above footway level, as in the case of a perch (Bum Rail). However, where a more substantial seating arrangement is provided, then this is normally positioned at a height of 500mm above the level of the footway. (b) Seats usually form an integral part of a shelter structure. If the shelter is sited on a gradient, one end will be higher than the other. Where the resulting height difference is substantial, the preferred solution is to divide the seat into shorter lengths, each section being centred 650mm or 500mm (see paragraph 3.9a) above the ground.

Protection of bus stop

3.10 (a) No bus stop or the adjacent passenger waiting area is to be obstructed by scaffolding, skips or other building equipment. City Development will not issue (any relevant) permits in circumstances where a bus stop or adjacent passenger waiting area would be unnecessarily obstructed. If it is absolutely necessary to accommodate building works within a bus stop the developer should provide a resited stop and shelter as close as possible to the original site, restoring the original site on completion unless otherwise agreed with the Council. (b) Bus stops which are designated by a pole and flag only may be obstructed by other vehicles (unless a Traffic Regulation Order covers that section of carriageway). Therefore, to protect a bus stop, a bus box should also be installed, together with the appropriate signs. This prohibits other vehicles from stopping within the box during the times specified on the signs; and is called a Bus Stop Clearway.

GUIDELINES

PAGE

16

However, there may be exceptional circumstances in which this is unnecessary. For example: where general traffic has no access (even so, care is needed; tour coaches can use Princes Street; but should not be allowed to load/unload at bus stops). where a bus lane is in force throughout the period that buses operate (this implies a bus lane operating from 05.00 to 23.59, and no night buses; a situation which does not currently arise). where other restrictions offer equal or greater protection. (c) Bus boxes must comply with diagram 1025.1 to 1025.4 of the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2002. They should be 3 metres wide; in exceptional circumstances this may be reduced to 2.7 metres wide; maximum length 37 metres, and generally no less than 25 metres long. Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2002 specifies the requirements for the appropriate signs. To minimise street furniture (see paragraphs 3.1c-3.1i), new signs should be placed on shelters and existing posts as far as possible. Provided the box and signs are properly implemented, no additional markings should be necessary. In Edinburgh, Bus Stop Clearways operate for 24 hours each day. (d) The precise location of a bus box is critical, but frequently determined by local conditions. The overriding objective is to enable buses to facilitate boarding and alighting by stopping conveniently for passengers, close to the kerb and boarding area; and to pull away from the stop (see Aims of this document). The interaction of passengers with bus stop infrastructure (particularly shelters) must be taken into account. Bus box location should generally be calculated relative to the bus stop aiming point (see paragraph 3.1e), and is illustrated in Diagram 1 (Appendix 1). (e) A bus box must ensure that a bus can:

GUIDELINES

manoeuvre on approach to a stop stand at the stop parallel to the kerb next to the boarding area pull out from the bus stop (f) However, in some circumstances other considerations apply. Normally a short bus box is not long enough to allow a bus to pull in and out. But where a bus stop is sited
This bus box has not been set out properly, and has faded. The exit should be much further downstream.

PAGE

17

immediately upstream or downstream of a pedestrian crossing, road junction, or similar feature, the crossing/zigzags may protect the bus stop exit or approach from parked vehicles. The following formula should be used: Where the approach is protected: bus box centre 14m, exit 9m, total box length 23m Where the exit is protected: bus box entry 14m, centre 13m, total box length 27m Bus boxes should protect every bus boarder (except in the exceptional circumstances described in 3.10b above). However, boarders are usually much shorter than 25 metres; instead they facilitate boarding by realigning the kerb. Therefore bus boxes should be the same length as the boarders they protect. (g) Diagram 2 (Appendix 1) demonstrates why certain shelter configurations are no longer recommended. In particular Type 5, although previously widespread, is no longer recommended in any circumstances, as a 2000mm by 2000mm boarding area cannot be sited so as to be usable by passengers using the shelter. However, removal of the leading end panel or a panel at the top (rear) left corner of the shelter may make it acceptable. (This may compromise weather protection). Or, by siting the shelter further from the kerb, a Type 7 layout is created, which is acceptable. Type 2 is not generally recommended, as passengers have to step onto the carriageway to enter it, and passengers alighting from a single door bus can be trapped inside the shelter. Doorways at the top (rear) corners of the shelter overcome these problems, but may compromise weather protection. Type 3 requires at least 1100mm clear space (preferably more if possible) between the end panels and any obstruction/building line at the rear of the footway.

GUIDELINES

Conclusions
3.11 Careful consideration, design and construction of bus stops and the associated infrastructure is essential if it is to be user-friendly. The work must be driven by the users needs, rather than convenience of construction, since in most cases the stop will be substantially unchanged for many years to come. Where any new or reconstruction of the local highway/footway network is planned, opportunities for improvements to bus stops must be integrated from the earliest stages. Once a stop has been installed or reconstructed in accordance with these guidelines, it should be regarded as a permanent fixture.

PAGE

18

Figure 1: Bus stop with cantilever shelter

GUIDELINES

4
4.1

INTERCHANGES
Passengers generally prefer direct public transport routes, but these are unlikely to cater for the full range of journeys which they wish to make. So making it easier and more attractive to change buses en route could radically increase the journey options available. The City of Edinburgh Council is currently developing the concept of on-street interchange. This is where a number of different bus routes converge, and therefore passengers can change between routes if they need to. This Chapter deals with on-street interchange; off-street interchange (e.g. bus stations) are outwith the scope of this document. Detailed guidance is available in the Interchange Design Guide. The Council has designated a number of on-street sites which will be branded as interchanges (primarily bus-bus, but also bus-rail), with considerably improved facilities. The concept will be extended and promoted through offroute information. The first on-street interchanges in Edinburgh are: Haymarket Interchange East End Interchange West End Interchange Foot of the Mound Interchange Tollcross Interchange Cameron Toll/Lady Road Interchange Elm Row Interchange Drum Brae Roundabout Interchange Portobello Town Hall Interchange Royal Infirmary Interchange

PAGE

19

4.2

4.3

There are so many points where routes intersect, and route combinations that, to give the concept of on-street interchange meaning and a high profile, a selection process is needed. This does not prevent the experienced passenger interchanging where he/she wishes; but it does mean targeting resources and guiding the less familiar passenger to selected points on the network. The Council has adopted the following formula to prioritise sites (the designation of an interchange site must be validated by the Transport Planning Manager in City Development).

INTERCHANGES

4.4

Prioritising interchange sites

4.5 The method produces a figure reflecting the number of public transport movements through each site and the number of interchange movements that are not currently accommodated. Taking Drum Brae roundabout, Corstorphine, as an example, the process is: (a) Count the number of bus movements per hour (weekday off-peak) on each point of the compass. (NB if the site is a junction with more than four arms, group arms together to produce a total of four). At Drum Brae:

PAGE

20

Northbound: 21 Eastbound:48 Southbound:25 Westbound:13 (b) Multiply these together to get a factored score. 21 x 48 x 25 x 13= 327600. (c) Examine every possible movement (i.e. east to north, south to north, west to north; south to east, west to east, south to west); count hourly (ordinary weekday daytime) bus frequencies on each. At Drum Brae, four potential movements have less than 6 direct buses per hour and are therefore deemed to be poorly served, namely north to west, west to north and west to south and south to west. (d) The importance of these movements is assessed, taking account of social need and travel demand, and scored accordingly; 3 points = highly important, 2 points = moderately important and 1 point = low importance. At Drum Brae, each of the four poorly served movements is adjudged to be of low importance. Therefore, they score a total of four points (4 x 1 = 4). (e) The sum of the multiplied movements is multiplied by the importance of the poorly served movements. At Drum Brae this is calculated as 327600 x 4 = 1,310,400. Then this figure is divided by 100. The site therefore has an rating of 13,104. Prioritisation between potential interchange sites is determined on the basis of which has the highest score. 4.6 Once a site has been designated as an interchange, passenger facilities are upgraded. Whilst each site differs, the following common features apply: A particular emphasis on allocating roadspace in favour of buses and bus passengers Interchange branding (installation of the interchange logo and branded street furniture, maps and timetables) shows that it is a designated site. 4.7 Design and construction of each interchange site is co-ordinated by the Transport Planning Team in City Development. As well as the physical components of the interchange site (which are drawn from a range of specially designed street furniture), it is important that the fact that it is a designated interchange is projected to the travelling public. This means that the journey opportunities that can be created by changing buses at the site appear not only on information at the site itself, but is carried through public transport maps and bus timetables, which are available elsewhere.

INTERCHANGES

5
5.1

BUS-FRIENDLY CARRIAGEWAYS
Factors which need to be considered in order to ensure that the road network is as bus-friendly as possible are set out in this chapter.

PAGE

21

Speeds
5.2 The City of Edinburgh Council places a high priority on improving road safety. Limiting vehicle speeds is an important component of this. Roads are grouped hierarchically: (a) 20 mph road; mainly residential streets and streets with a high level of pedestrian or cycle activity. (b) 30 mph road; main streets and urban arterial roads where pedestrian and cycle activity is low, or protected by formal crossings. (c) 40 mph road; single carriageway roads with few junctions and minimal walking or cycle activity. The Council is already introducing 20 mph zones in category 1 above. 20 mph limits will also be considered on some low flow rural country lanes. 5.3 A 30 mph speed limit is proposed on all urban roads in Edinburgh where the 20 mph limit does not apply. The only exceptions would be limited lengths of suburban dual carriageway and purpose built single carriageway, with a 40 mph limit. Long term, this limit would apply to all other non urban single carriageways with a significant traffic function. The Council believes that 20 mph limits will have little impact on bus journey times, which in areas like Edinburgh are primarily affected by factors such as traffic congestion, road junctions and passenger loading times. Core route sections will, in any case, be subject to the 30mph limit applying to main streets and urban arterial roads.

BUS-FRIENDLY CARRIAGEWAYS

5.4

Constraints
5.5 Carriageways on bus routes should ideally be at least 6m wide, up to 7.3m where frequencies are high. Buses need corner radii that accommodate their large swept turning circle (in the order of 10-12 metres radius). However, opportunities for ideal matching of bus routes and carriageways are very rare, since routing is determined primarily by other factors. In almost all locations , the existing streetscape cannot, or should not, be fundamentally altered, and due consideration must be given to the citys townscape. There may be exceptional cases where carriageway widening over a limited length might benefit bus services. However, the cost involved is such that it would arise only in the context of a major new (probably permanent) development such as a high-capacity busway. Furthermore, carriageway widening is likely to impinge on other sustainable transport (such as footways). It is therefore generally unacceptable, as is altering corner radii where these currently help to reduce general traffic speeds.

PAGE

22

5.6

Recent amendments to European regulations may have a more serious impact on highway infrastructure. In particular, the maximum permissible length of buses and coaches will increase. It is too early to predict the specific impact of the new regulations, but it may lead to pressures to alter junction layouts, the siting of road signs and other infrastructure. The cost of such works is clearly a concern, but the greatest risk is that they would disadvantage pedestrians and cyclists, for reasons similar to those outlined above. In these circumstances it would be preferable to introduce Traffic Regulation Orders imposing a maximum vehicle length of 13 metres on the relevant road. This would allow existing bus types to continue using the road, but would protect the infrastructure and road users from the negative impacts of longer vehicles. There may be a limited number of major radial corridors where it is appropriate to accommodate longer vehicles. In such cases, length restrictions must be retained on side roads, preventing the turning movements which cause particular difficulties for pedestrians, cyclists and infrastructure. Therefore long vehicles are confined to a permitted route, ideally on a direct route between the urban boundary and the primary destination within the city (e.g. bus station).

BUS-FRIENDLY CARRIAGEWAYS

5.7

Traffic Regulation Orders, Bus lanes etc

5.8 Council policy TN1 states that where there is competition for road space, preference will be given to meeting the needs of people with mobility impairments, pedestrians, cyclists and public transport users. Policy PT11 states that the use of bus lanes will continue to be reserved for buses, taxis, cycles and emergency vehicles only. These policies, and the programmes to extend and improve bus lanes which follow from them, are an important tool in reducing bus journey times and improving reliability; which are essential for encouraging greater use of public transport. The use of common standards makes it easier for other road users to understand the relevant regulations which apply in and around bus lanes, and assists their design and implementation. The City of Edinburgh Council is working to ensure that the hours of operation of bus lanes are consistent; so throughout the city bus lanes would operate either between 7.30-9.30 and 16.00-18.30, or from 7.30 to 18.30. Public parking bays associated with bus lanes allow parking either for up to half an hour or up to two hours, depending on local needs (for example the type of shops nearby). The ideal width for a bus lane is 4.25 metres. This allows space for buses and cycles to pass each other safely. However, if there is not sufficient space, this can be reduced to 3 metres. At some heavily-used bus stops a double bus lane has been introduced, allowing buses which do not serve the stop to overtake others which do. Bus lanes are enhanced by the application of coloured surfacing. Only green

5.9

5.10

5.11

5.12

PAGE

23

thermoplastic or epoxy resin should be used (red coloured surfacing denotes cycle lanes). This surfacing is not defined as a carriageway marking, and should be carried through pedestrian crossings and other breaks; this avoids the appearance of a series of short bus lanes, which are generally less self-enforcing than continuous lengths. Particular care should be taken with road markings and coloured surfacing in environmentally sensitive areas. In these areas coloured markings should be restricted. 5.13
Bus lane enhanced by the application of coloured Traffic Regulation Orders (TROs) surfacing. The lane width is reduced to the minimum provide the mechanism by which bus to accommodate a pedestrian crossing island. lanes are introduced, although the regulations governing parking/waiting at bus stops have recently changed (see Chapter 3.10). In essence, there are two types of regime at bus stops:

BUS-FRIENDLY CARRIAGEWAYS

Bus stops including bus boxes and appropriate signs, where stopping (except permitted vehicles) is prohibited at times specified on the signs Bus stops designated by a pole and flag only (with or without a shelter), at which other vehicles may stop or park unless some other Traffic Regulation Order prevents them from doing so. 5.14 The new regulations allow highway authorities to designate bus stop clearways without the complex and lengthy processes associated with TROs. In Edinburgh, bus stop clearways operate 24 hours each day.

Maintenance
5.15 As noted in Chapter 2, a high standard of maintenance of bus infrastructure is required to protect assets and create a positive impression of public transport. The carriageway condition in bus lanes is particularly important because, research indicates, bus passengers are more vulnerable than car passengers to the effects of poor ride quality. Cyclists, who also use bus lanes, are, arguably, even more vulnerable. Because of the heavy wear at bus stops, there is a case for stronger carriageway construction at these locations. Bus shelters, timetable cases etc which have been vandalised, covered by graffiti or flyposting should be quickly reinstated. Where possible, the opportunity should be taken to install hard-wearing materials to minimise long-term maintenance requirements.

5.16

5.17

5.18

PAGE

24

Crossings
5.19 Passengers almost always have to cross a road to get to or from a bus stop. As discussed in Chapter 2 (2.3-2.6), many passengers benefit if bus stops are located at or near road junctions. Where this is the case, the location of pedestrian crossing points will be a function of desire lines and junction geometry. Elsewhere, however, bus operations may have a more direct impact on the placement of pedestrian crossings (zebra, pelican, puffin or other). Ideally, crossings are sited upstream of a bus box. This is generally safer, as passengers do not have to cross in front of the bus; and does not have to delay buses departure until passengers are clear. Clearly, this arrangement means that pairs of bus stops are staggered, so that both are downstream of a single crossing. However, such an ideal arrangement is, in many cases, unachievable. The siting considerations set out in Chapter 3 should take priority.

5.20

BUS-FRIENDLY CARRIAGEWAYS

5.21

Figure 2: Bus stops staggered for pedestrian crossing

6
6.1

NEW DEVELOPMENTS
Movement and Development, a Traffic and Transport Design Guide for Developments in the City of Edinburgh, shows how to design developments that are compatible with the Councils transport policies. Movement and Development is concerned with all the main modes of transport, but Chapter 5 is particularly concerned with bus services. Some of its provisions have been incorporated in the preceding chapters of this document. Those which have not are summarised below. (Developers with a specific interest in the requirements for new developments should consult Movement and Development itself.) New, extended or diverted bus services can serve only the largest new developments without long-term revenue support (e.g. the Waterfront, South East Wedge, and Royal Infirmary developments around Edinburgh). Therefore development layouts must minimise walking distances to existing bus routes. Footways to and from bus-stops should be direct, and dropped kerbs or raised crossings provided at all crossing points. In developments such as leisure complexes and superstores, foyers and main entrances should be close to bus stops; but this should not require long and circuitous bus routes through the site, although bus turning circles should be provided where appropriate. Where developments are adjacent to an existing bus route, bus stops should be examined for possible improvements, at the developers cost. This may comprise installation of new or relocation of existing stops, and/or upgrading facilities at existing stops, such as installing Real-Time Information. On sites adjacent to Local Distributor roads, bus stops and shelters may be required on the Local Distributor. On sites which extend 300m or more from a Local Distributor, bus stops and shelters may be required on the General Access Road (which must at least 6m wide). Bus routes must be reasonably direct and connect the centres of the residential, business and shopping areas which they serve. Bus shelters should normally be provided; they should not obstruct vehicle sight lines or footways, and should be to a design agreed with City Development. Culs-de-sac should provide suitable access and turning arrangements for Dial-a-Ride and Dial aBus type vehicles, i.e. minibuses for use by disabled people. The potential occupants of a new development must be informed of any new or relocated bus stops adjacent to that development.

PAGE

25

6.2

6.3

6.4

NEW DEVELOPMENTS

6.5

6.6

PAGE

26

APPENDIX 1

Diagram 1: Placement of bus boxes, (Bus travelling left to right)

APPENDIX 1

PAGE

27

Diagram 2:

Bus pole and shelter placement. (Bus travelling left to right) Note guideline 3.1e

APPENDIX 1

PAGE

28

Diagram 3: Bus pole and shelter placement; options on very wide footway (Bus travelling left to right) Note guideline 3.1e. This option should use enclosed shelters only

APPENDIX 1

7
Bus Boarders
1

APPENDIX 2

PAGE

29

Bus boarders are designed to prevent parking at bus stops, to facilitate a straight run-in to the kerb (and exit) by buses, and to facilitate boarding and alighting. These three factors are interrelated. Where existing bus lay-bys are infilled, the same objectives usually apply. Finally, in some cases boarders may be installed to extend a narrow footway at a bus stop. Policies PT6 and PT7 in the Councils Local Transport Strategy (see Appendix 3) are particularly relevant. PT6 indicates that traffic management and road maintenance schemes should include measures for buses and their passengers. Local conditions vary so much that detailed technical guidance is inappropriate, although boarders should comply with the rest of this document, and reference The Edinburgh Standards for Streets. Special care must be applied when considering the siting of a bus boarder within the Edinburgh World Heritage Site and in Conservation Areas. Designs should take in the surrounding urban design context and the details applied within it. Bus boarders should be 2 metres wide, to ensure that the kerb line is outside any cars parked next to the stop. Bus boarders should be protected by bus boxes (see guideline 3.10). A wider boarder may sometimes be required; for example where there is noseto-kerb parking next to the stop, or where unusual road configurations apply. In exceptional circumstances, a boarder which is less than 2m wide may be required, usually where carriageway widths or configurations prevent a full width boarder. However, possible unintended outcomes must be considered; boarders which are less than full width often fail to deter parking, in which case parked vehicles project further into the carriageway than before installation. Furthermore, they may need to be longer than a full-width boarder, because of the extra manoeuvring space required by buses; this may conflict with other local requirements (see below). It is more difficult to compile general rules about the best length for boarders. Whilst greater protection of the stop is theoretically achieved by a long A half-width boarder, installed primarily to allow pedestrians to boarder, it is important to pass the stop on a narrow footway. Limited carriageway width prevents installation of a full-width boarder. recognise that channelling parking away from the stop may require welcoming alternatives. Put simply, if a bus boarder occupies a long stretch of road, the car driver may decide to take a chance and park on it; but if the boarder is shorter and creates parking bays, he/she will use these in the first instance. This means that in practice the minimum acceptable length may be better.

APPENDIX 2

PAGE

30

In determining the minimum acceptable length, the following factors apply: A The need to ensure that passengers boarding and alighting from both oneand two-door buses do so on the boarder. This suggests a minimum length of 7 metres (which is the longest distance between the front of the entry door and the rear of the exit door in the current vehicle fleet, plus a contingency). However, if this is impractical, it should not prevent a boarder installation. If a stop is used by single-door buses only, and is likely to for the foreseeable future, only one door needs to be catered for; therefore the boarder could be as short as 3 metres. B Whether a shelter is to be installed on the boarder. This will typically require an extra 4-5 metres downstream. This does not assist bus operation, since an effective boarder allows a straight ahead exit from the stop anyway. Therefore the additional length of boarder required for a shelter may conflict with the practical issues noted in paragraph 5. However, it allows the shelter to be moved out of pedestrian flows.

180mm high docking kerbs (e.g. Kassel Kerbs) may be installed on a wellprotected full length bus boarder, site conditions permitting. In particular, if such an installation would create a new step, an unsafe pavement or a gradient exceeding 1:12 in the bus stop area, a standard lower kerb must be fitted. Reflective frangible bollards (colour contrasting, at least 1m high) will usually be required on the outside corners of the boarder. These must not obstruct boarding/alighting passengers. The Local Transport Strategy has a presumption against bus lay-bys. They attract parking by other vehicles, obstructing the bus stop and negating their purpose. They can make it difficult for buses to pull out and re-establish their place in the traffic flow.
An infilled layby, previously frequently blocked by parked cars. Parking In urban areas (like most spaces have been retained in a recessed area (bottom of photo), whilst of Edinburgh) traffic speeds buses can now pull in to the kerb. are, or should be, 30mph or less; rather than retaining a lay-by consideration should be given to speed controlling measures. Bus stops can themselves be used as a traffic calming measure in some circumstances.

10

APPENDIX 2

11

12

Lay-bys may be retained only where services terminate, or in very exceptional circumstances. In these situations, the lay-by width (no buses are more than

PAGE

31

2.55m wide), entry and exit angles should all be set at the minimum, to facilitate access to the kerb. Where lay-bys exist, designs should follow the recommendations of Guidelines for the design of Bus Bays and Bus Stops to accommodate the European Standard (12m) length bus. (Published by the London Bus Priority Network Steering Group, and available from the Environmental Services Department, London Borough of Bromley, Bromley Civic Centre, Stockwell Close, Bromley, BR1 3UH.) This publication also includes some very useful research into bus approach/exit and manoeuvring angles. However, much of the document reflects conditions which are unique to London (e.g. rear-entry platform buses, and it does not clearly apply the Local Transport Strategy philosophy), so it cannot be used in its entirety. 13 When installing a boarder, consideration should be given to the needs of cyclists.

Figure 3 Plan of typical bus boarder

APPENDIX 2

7
PAGE

APPENDIX 3
SPECIFIC CITY OF EDINBURGH COUNCIL POLICIES CONCERNING BUS INFRASTRUCTURE

32

PT5

The Council will introduce measures to provide bus priority including bus lanes, selective vehicle identification, queue management systems and other priority initiatives where appropriate, to ensure travel by bus is as convenient, rapid and reliable as possible. When carrying out traffic management and road maintenance, there will be a presumption in favour of including measures to favour buses and their passengers, including: bus boarders, bus shelters, bus stop clearway markings, widened footways, dropped kerbs, additional formal and informal crossing points to get to stops, and improved surfacing of roads and footways, bus lanes where necessary, selective vehicle detection at new or modified traffic signals (including pedestrian and/or cycle crossings) to give trams and buses priority, and Real-Time Information facilities at bus stops on key corridors. Explanatory note: this is intended to improve local infrastructure by integrating improvements with planned maintenance programmes. Bus boxes, together with the appropriate signs, now comprise mandatory clearways. Maintenance programmes should also review the location of road markings.

PT6

PT7

There will be a presumption against bus lay-bys except on high-speed rural roads or where bus layover occurs. Explanatory note: lay-bys are sometimes described as facilities for buses or bus passengers. In practice, however, they attract parking by other vehicles, obstructing the bus stop and negating their purpose. Furthermore, they can extend journey times by making it difficult for buses to pull out and re-establish their place in the traffic flow. Finally, most lay-bys require buses to approach and depart at angles that make it difficult or impossible to line up with the kerb.

PT11

Use of bus lanes will continue to be reserved for buses, taxi, cycles and emergency vehicles only. Explanatory note: this is partly to ensure the safety of cyclists and pedestrians. Taxis are an important component of the public transport system, particularly for accessing long distance public transport trips. However, there are some specific locations where they are not permitted to use bus lanes or gates. Private hire vehicles are excluded due to their similarity to private cars, leading to problems of policing bus lanes. Goods vehicles are not allowed access to bus lanes because of the potential danger to cyclists and to avoid diluting the purpose of the lanes.

APPENDIX 3

APPENDIX 4
SECURITY AUDIT CHECKLIST
Audits would generally be carried out on existing facilities; newer facilities would not necessarily require to be audited if up to date and good design practice has been employed. A clear area of influence would be given to, or established by, the auditor, to clearly define the extent of the audit. However, the auditor could go beyond that area if there are issues relating to associated routes. Before visiting the site the auditor should have a general overview of the area to be examined, including public transport trip generators such as shops, health centres and schools. Before visiting the site the auditor should contact Lothian Borders Polices Public Transport Liaison Officer and the local division to establish if there are any recent/ongoing local problems or incidents, and any possible links to public transport. The site should be visited both in daylight and during the hours of darkness to fully establish conditions at all times. The audit should be carried out on foot and begin with examination of security issues in the immediate vicinity of the stop. The audit should then work away from the stop along all routes leading to and from it. These routes will be on both sides of the road, to ensure that journeys to and from the stop are catered for. It may be worth pairing off bus stops where they are close to each other, as passengers often depart and return to the same bus stop pairing. The auditor should then use the checklist and also make appropriate notes on each individual item identified, taking pictures with a digital camera where appropriate. The reporting format should identify individual problems and associated solutions.

PAGE

33

APPENDIX 4

The process should conform to the Councils Quality Assurance procedures.

PAGE

34

Bus Stop Security Audit Checklist

Item
History

Possible Issues
Is there any knowledge of security/crime problems on bus services using stops within the catchment area being audited? Is there any knowledge of security/crime problems relating to bus services in the catchment area? Are there other security/crime issues that need to be considered?

Surveillance

Do buildings/other road users provide passive surveillance? What is the level of activity during the day and night? Is the presence of others comforting or intimidating? Does CCTV or other means provide active surveillance? Can existing CCTV be used to improve security on route or at stops? What is surveillance like in all directions at stops and on routes to stops?

Environment Is the stop located where passengers can see and be seen? If a shelter is provided, what type is it? can improvements ensure it allows for see and be seen? Do the stop and shelter suffer from vandalism? Are there good quality timetables and other information? Is there real time information? Does street furniture cause unnecessary obstruction around the stop? Does vegetation obscure sightlines or provide areas where people can hide or be obscured? Is the stop well lit during the hours of darkness? Can timetable information be easily read in the hours of darkness? What level of activity is there on routes to the stop? Are there any areas at the stop or on routes to it that could be a cause for concern? (Derelict land, parkland, unoccupied buildings, congregation points) Are there any blind corners, narrow paths or other areas that could be improved to provide better surveillance? Does vegetation on routes to the stop impair good surveillance, obscure lighting and narrow footways? Are there any underpasses/overbridges that create a feeling of isolation? can alternative routes be accommodated? What quality is the general lighting in the area? can improvements be made? Do the general area and routes to bus stops give the impression of a well maintained and welcoming environment? Are there locations where stone throwing/similar activities can occur? Is it possible to close off these areas or remove the source of ammunition through clean up operations or improved maintenance?

APPENDIX 4

7
ITEM Do bus stop locations reflect prevailing urban design and street patterns? No house/workplace more than 300m from paired stops Intense pedestrian activity/special requirements Development layout minimises walking distance Information readable at all times Agreed stop name RTI support poles used solely for RTI Secure cycle parking where appropriate Complies with all of Chapter 3.1 Complies with all of Chapter 3.2 Complies with all of Chapter 3.3 Complies with Chapter 3.4 Complies with Chapter 3.5 Complies with all of Chapter 3.6 Complies with all of Chapter 3.7 Complies with Chapter 3.8 where relevant Complies with all of Chapter 3.9 Complies with all of Chapter 3.10 Carriageway width is adequate Is a maximum vehicle length TRO required? Bus lane hours consistent (7.30-9.30, 16.00-18.30 or 7.30-18.30) Bus lane at least 4.25m wide (3m minimum) Yes = pass No = fail

APPENDIX 5
BUS-FRIENDLY DESIGN CHECKLIST
Not Notes if yes/no applicable not relevant

PAGE

35

APPENDIX 5

Bus lane green surfaced Bus stop clearway as appropriate Carriageway and stop maintenance satisfactory Pedestrian crossing points correctly located (controlled crossing required only if passengertraffic volumes are high) Bus boarder complies with Appendix 2 (Other than on high-speed rural road, or where buses layover) Bus stop is not in layby?
1 2 In areas of intense activity/special requirements, maximum walking distances to bus stops should be reduced (see para 2.5) See para 5.7. To protect junctions or infrastructure siting e.g. signs, especially if they protect pedestrians and cyclists. If this is an issue, a TRO should impose a maximum vehicle length of 13 metres. However, on a limited number of major radial corridors it may be appropriate to accommodate longer vehicles, whilst retaining length restrictions on side roads.

7
PAGE

APPENDIX 6
CITY OF EDINBURGH COUNCIL; CONSULTATIVE PROCEDURES RELATING TO THE INSTALLATION, MOVEMENT OR REMOVAL OF BUS STOPS AND SHELTERS

36

On 4 May 2004 the Executive of the Council considered a report on recent changes to the Road Traffic Act 1988, and to The Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2002. The revised legislation (effective 31 January 2003) makes it an offence to stop, park or wait within a marked bus stop, unless specifically exempted under the Act. The Council decided: To note that all bus stops from now on would be marked as 24-hour clearways as funding permitted. To note that the Director of City Development intended to submit any representations received to Local Development Committees using a similar procedure to the one for Traffic Regulation Orders. To request the Director of City Development to provide sufficient notice to local members for them to carry out their own consultation.

There is no statutory requirement to consult or notify over the introduction of bus stop markings, bus stops or shelters, except where advertising shelters are proposed (which fall within the usual planning process). To improve consultation on bus stop clearways, it was decided that the most effective method was to display notices at each affected bus stop for normally 3 weeks. These describe the proposals, with accompanying drawings. A contact address is included. This procedure is similar to that used when intending to install, for instance, a pedestrian crossing. This notification widens the scope for comment to all, such as passengers, bus operators, traders and others who might be affected, rather than limiting it to immediately affected frontagers. Any objections which cannot be easily resolved by the Department are reported to the appropriate Local Development Committee. As with bus stop clearways, the street bill notification process is used for all matters relating to bus stops. Proposals to erect advertising shelters remain subject to the planning process. Local Members are also advised of any proposed bus stop changes in their wards prior to any notices being displayed, with a brief synopsis of the works.

APPENDIX 6

GLOSSARY

PAGE

37

Approaching end The approaching end of a bus stop or shelter is the end that faces upstream. A bus which is about to call at the stop is heading towards the approaching end. (See Trailing end). Cantilever shelter Bus shelter with one or three sides. (See Enclosed shelter). Downstream A bus is downstream of a given point on its route if it has passed that point. For example, if it has left a bus stop, it is downstream of the stop. (See Upstream). Enclosed shelter Bus shelter with four sides. (See Cantilever shelter). End panels Almost all bus shelters are rectangular in shape (when seen from above, plan view) Sections forming the short sides of a shelter are referred to as the end panels. (See Half-end panels, Wall). Half-end panels End panels (see above) of reduced width. They are used where the footway on which the shelter stands is narrow, and a full-width end panel would inhibit pedestrian flow. They are also used where a full-width panel would inhibit passenger access to buses. Shelter entrance/exit The concept of a bus shelter entrance or exit is open to different interpretations, so the interpretation used in this document is explained below for clarification. In this document, the terms entrance/entry and exit are used from the viewpoint of a passenger wanting to board a bus. Thus the intending passenger walks towards the shelter and goes in through the shelter entrance (or entry). He/she then waits inside the shelter; when a bus arrives, he/she boards the bus via the shelter exit. Clearly these terms usually relate to an Enclosed shelter (see above). However, they are sometimes also used in relation to a Cantilever shelter. (See above). Trailing end The trailing end of a bus stop or shelter is the end that faces downstream. A bus that is leaving the stop will pass the trailing end (having previously passed the approaching end). (See Approaching end). Upstream A bus is upstream of a given point on its route if it has not passed that point. Thus, if it is approaching a bus stop, it is upstream of the stop. (See Downstream). Wall Almost all bus shelters are rectangular in shape (when seen from above, plan view) Sections forming the long side or sides of a shelter are referred to as the wall or walls. (See End panels).

GLOSSARY

PAGE

38

FURTHER READING
Guidelines for the design of Bus Bays and Bus Stops to accommodate the European Standard (12m) length bus: London Bus Priority Network Steering Group, available from the Environmental Services Department, London Borough of Bromley, Bromley Civic Centre, Stockwell Close, Bromley, BR1 3UH.)

Guidelines On The Siting And Layout Of Bus Stops And Shelters: City of Edinburgh Council, 2003. Local Transport Strategy: City of Edinburgh Council, 2004-07. Inclusive Mobility; a guide to best practice to pedestrian and transport infrastructure: Department for Transport. Interchange Design Guide: Steer Davies Gleave. Movement and Development (Traffic and Transport Design Guide for developments in the City of Edinburgh): City of Edinburgh Council, 2000.

FURTHER READING

For further details contact: City Development Transport PO Box 12474 1 Cockburn Street Edinburgh EH1 1ZL.

PUBLISHED BY THE CITY OF EDINBURGH COUNCIL CITY DEVELOPMENT TRANSPORT IAD/ APRIL 2006