Forth Road Bridge after work each evening

[alangla]

Davie said:

The bypass has gotten much worse too, perhaps as the Edinburgh clean air zone and spaces for people has done little aside for force more drivers to take evasive action and thus use the bypass. And on that note, some character was on the radio last week proclaiming a flyover / redesign of Sheriffhall was ludicrous and would increase pollution... obviously several miles of cars, buses and wagons sat idling on a bad day is fine though. My only reservation with the flyover plans is that yes, it'll clear Sheriffhall faster (?) but will it not then just move the issue to Musselburgh as the lights there can be a ballache too... see also the junction at Hermiston Gait. To my untrained eye, there needs to be continuously flow at these pinch points by way of slip roads that bypass the light controlled junctions for through traffic.

I can't help feeling that Hermiston Gait, at least for the A720 Westbound - M8 Westbound move, could be largely sorted using some plastic bollards or concrete barriers and some white paint.
2 options - bollard lane 1 on the slip, then round the roundabout onto lane 1 of the M8, traffic in the filter lane is then exempt from stopping at the lights & traffic off the roundabout uses L2 or, for a more comprehensive solution, bollard lanes 1 & 2 from the slip round to L1 & 2 of the M8, then, where the hatched off L3 ends, slew all 3 lanes across onto the hard shoulder for a couple of hundred yards, merge L3 into L2 just before the A71 slip, then slew back across so by the time you get to the A71 you've got 2 lanes + hard shoulder, so A71 traffic is merging to L1 and roundabout traffic joins in the new L3 and merges to L2. Wouldn't be super quick, but eliminates the lights for the main movement at the junction.

The really comprehensive option I guess could be to open the barrier between the A720 and A71 further back, have A720 - M8 traffic cross onto what's now the A71 slip, reduce the A71 to 1 lane and have that traffic merge to the A720 - M8 flow. Whether that would back traffic up the A71 onto the Calder roundabout is a different question, but it would give a complete, 2 lane, free flow route from the A720 - M8, especially if the M8 was reduced to 1 lane from the roundabout to the A71 merge, similar to the eastbound A720 here.

Any thoughts, or am I talking complete rubbish?

[Leithen]

I have, on occasion, come off the A720 at the Calder Roundabout and then onto the M8 slip. Just doing my bit to ease congestion...

[s2kjock]

Davie said:

The bypass has gotten much worse too, perhaps as the Edinburgh clean air zone and spaces for people has done little aside for force more drivers to take evasive action and thus use the bypass. And on that note, some character was on the radio last week proclaiming a flyover / redesign of Sheriffhall was ludicrous and would increase pollution... obviously several miles of cars, buses and wagons sat idling on a bad day is fine though. My only reservation with the flyover plans is that yes, it'll clear Sheriffhall faster (?) but will it not then just move the issue to Musselburgh as the lights there can be a ballache too... see also the junction at Hermiston Gait. To my untrained eye, there needs to be continuously flow at these pinch points by way of slip roads that bypass the light controlled junctions for through traffic.

The Sherriffhall flyover (if it ever gets built - see A96 dualling programme for guidance) is bound to increase pollution over time as more will use the A720 who might have avoided it due to that stshow of a roundabout, and as you say the pinch points will just move elsewhere. Even without these, the numbers exiting and joining from all the junctions on the bypass will just keep growing and the "south Edinburgh car park" just gets more rammed.

I used to think little about heading from the North and West of Edinburgh to Seafield/Newcraighall for shopping or out to East Lothian for a trip, I'd need a really good reason to do it nowadays regardless of the time of day or day of the week.

Ultimately it was really bad planning to build a capital city district half bounded by a large body of water.

[simoid]

Leithen said:

I have, on occasion, come off the A720 at the Calder Roundabout and then onto the M8 slip. Just doing my bit to ease congestion...

I assume you don’t try to race the traffic that goes the ‘conventional’ way… my satnav takes me up to Calder now presumably as it’s noticed I like it

[Leithen]

simoid said:

Leithen said:

I have, on occasion, come off the A720 at the Calder Roundabout and then onto the M8 slip. Just doing my bit to ease congestion...

I assume you don’t try to race the traffic that goes the ‘conventional’ way… my satnav takes me up to Calder now presumably as it’s noticed I like it

Never.

[sherman]

Leithen said:

simoid said:

Leithen said:

I have, on occasion, come off the A720 at the Calder Roundabout and then onto the M8 slip. Just doing my bit to ease congestion...

I assume you don’t try to race the traffic that goes the ‘conventional’ way… my satnav takes me up to Calder now presumably as it’s noticed I like it

Never.

If you go the traditional way and go down the slip to hermiston gait but pull into tge second lane you can get into a filter lane for the fast lane of the m8 at the bottom and pass alot of the traffic. Half the time you can get down the slip before the lights change.

[simoid]

“ Lane 2 of (2) on the Northbound Queensferry Crossing is currently restricted due to a broken down HGV, road users should approach with caution and expect delays.”



Looks fun

[Halmyre]

simoid said:

“ Lane 2 of (2) on the Northbound Queensferry Crossing is currently restricted due to a broken down HGV, road users should approach with caution and expect delays.”



Looks funnormal

FTFY

Before anyone asks why the broken-down HGV is in lane 2, it's because of fking idiots who sit at 40 mph in lane 1.

[Davie]

I passed under the Southbound approach earlier today, ie the roundabout at the Inverkeithing park and ride and the matrix boards on the slip round were showing 30mph... yet the traffic was light and flowing well.

Doesn't seen uncommon either, few times I've come down the M90 past Amazon and the gantries have been showing 40mph for no apparent reason - this was before the blanket 40 limit whilst they get the soapy water out on the cables. Though on that note, the tailbacks on Saturday were mental.

My wife's family are in East Lothian and she's making noises about going to see them on Saturday. I think she'd be better off going to Anstruther then setting sail on a lilo than attempting to take on the traffic over the bridge and round the bypass. It's just grim.

[dan TCE]

Davie said:

Doesn't seen uncommon either, few times I've come down the M90 past Amazon and the gantries have been showing 40mph for no apparent reason - this was before the blanket 40 limit whilst they get the soapy water out on the cables. Though on that note, the tailbacks on Saturday were mental.

It's like this all the time it's hellish! Huge unnecessary braking to go past the gantries with the cameras too at that speed, just feels wrong when there's no congestion...

[irc]

Edinburger said:

I had always hoped they'd do that too, Many motorways down south do, it just seems to make so much sense - especially when yoi have three lanes filtering into six potential exits within a mile.

You are mistaking the current bridge congestion for being a problem. It was planned from the design stage. They didn't want the new crossing to have increased capacity as they wanted to force people on to public transport. Hence a 4 lane bridge built for 1960s traffic volumes was replaced with another 4 lane crossing despite 50 years of traffic growth.

Don't complain if you voted SNP. You voted for it.

". The project was not intended to increase the capacity of the route for traffic. The
business case states that increased demand for travel across the Forth will need to
be met by public transport. This is in line with the Scottish Government’s objective
to maintain traffic volumes and increase the use of sustainable transport"

https://www.audit-scotland.gov.uk/uploads/docs/rep...

[Halmyre]

irc said:

Edinburger said:

I had always hoped they'd do that too, Many motorways down south do, it just seems to make so much sense - especially when yoi have three lanes filtering into six potential exits within a mile.

You are mistaking the current bridge congestion for being a problem. It was planned from the design stage. They didn't want the new crossing to have increased capacity as they wanted to force people on to public transport. Hence a 4 lane bridge built for 1960s traffic volumes was replaced with another 4 lane crossing despite 50 years of traffic growth.

Don't complain if you voted SNP. You voted for it.

". The project was not intended to increase the capacity of the route for traffic. The
business case states that increased demand for travel across the Forth will need to
be met by public transport. This is in line with the Scottish Government’s objective
to maintain traffic volumes and increase the use of sustainable transport"

https://www.audit-scotland.gov.uk/uploads/docs/rep...

Thanks to the Greens for that. If it wasn't for the SNP there might have been an even longer delay before the new bridge was built - and you know what happened to the old bridge...

[irc]

Halmyre said:

Thanks to the Greens for that. If it wasn't for the SNP there might have been an even longer delay before the new bridge was built - and you know what happened to the old bridge...

The Greens were not in govt and the SNP would have got support from other parties for a proper bridge. Pity they did half a job. I suspect making it 6 lane would not have been too much more.

Just like the M80 past Cumbernauld. Over capacity as soon as it was opened. It would have added 10% to the £320M cost to do it properly as a 6 lane according ton a civil engineer I know who is involved in Scottish roads.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M80_motorway#M80_Ste...

[simoid]

I just don’t get the traffic levels thing. In a decade or we’ll all be in personal metal boxes run by electricity instead of internal combustion so attempting to restrict traffic instead of expanding to help it seems daft.

Hopefully lots of major companies continue with their hybrid/WFH and keep the rush hours semi manageable.

[Tannedbaldhead]

Halmyre said:

irc said:

Edinburger said:

I had always hoped they'd do that too, Many motorways down south do, it just seems to make so much sense - especially when yoi have three lanes filtering into six potential exits within a mile.

You are mistaking the current bridge congestion for being a problem. It was planned from the design stage. They didn't want the new crossing to have increased capacity as they wanted to force people on to public transport. Hence a 4 lane bridge built for 1960s traffic volumes was replaced with another 4 lane crossing despite 50 years of traffic growth.

Don't complain if you voted SNP. You voted for it.

". The project was not intended to increase the capacity of the route for traffic. The
business case states that increased demand for travel across the Forth will need to
be met by public transport. This is in line with the Scottish Government’s objective
to maintain traffic volumes and increase the use of sustainable transport"

https://www.audit-scotland.gov.uk/uploads/docs/rep...

Thanks to the Greens for that. If it wasn't for the SNP there might have been an even longer delay before the new bridge was built - and you know what happened to the old bridge...

Green spin,
The truth was if they upped the capacity of the New FRB all they would have done is pushed the congestion further into Edinburgh and Fife where the road infrastructure wouldn't have been able to cope. I remember listening to someone explaining it on Radio Scotland at the time. A six lane bridge would have required massive investment increasing the capacity of all the roads in the vicinity. The money wasn't there. Rather than it looking like a fk up the Scottish Govt decided to play the "we meant it" card citing environmental considerations.

[irc]

Tannedbaldhead said:

Green spin,
The truth was if they upped the capacity of the New FRB all they would have done is pushed the congestion further into Edinburgh and Fife where the road infrastructure wouldn't have been able to cope. I remember listening to someone explaining it on Radio Scotland at the time. A six lane bridge would have required massive investment increasing the capacity of all the roads in the vicinity. The money wasn't there. Rather than it looking like a fk up the Scottish Govt decided to play the "we meant it" card citing environmental considerations.

But since a Forth bridge is a 50 year item it would have made more sense to future proof it. Easier that than finding 15 or 20 years down the line after population and traffic growth it is the major choke point.

There is relatively little increased cost building dual 3 rather than dual 2 approach roads at the time of construction . Much more expensive to upgrade later unless provision. was made at the time of building with bridges wise enough for later upgrade.

A good example of this approach was the Killiekrankie section of the A9. Built around 40 years ago when most of the A9 was remaining single carriageway.

But as it was on a steep hillside and required massive piles it was done as dual carriageway. So now 40 years on when the A9 is being dialled the toughest section is already done.

No doubt it cost more to build at the time but we are benefitting now.

[simoid]

Crossing the forth quickly just shifts traffic to other pinch points… the A90 is now 1 lane at rush hour from Cramond to Barnton

[5 In a Row]

I don't think making it 6 lanes would help - look at down South, all that happens is people end up in lanes 2 & 3 and lane 1 stays pretty empty apart from trucks.
The M74 is a fairly quiet 6 lane and it appears 50% of the traffic using it is doing 65mph in lane 2 and WILL NOT MOVE OVER.

Unless the whole of UK drivers learn lane discipline like, say, the Germans or Belgians then additional lanes are almost pointless.

[irc]

5 In a Row said:

I don't think making it 6 lanes would help - look at down South, all that happens is people end up in lanes 2 & 3 and lane 1 stays pretty empty apart from trucks.
The M74 is a fairly quiet 6 lane and it appears 50% of the traffic using it is doing 65mph in lane 2 and WILL NOT MOVE OVER.

Unless the whole of UK drivers learn lane discipline like, say, the Germans or Belgians then additional lanes are almost pointless.

I don't use the Forth bridge but around Glasgow the drivers can fully utilise 6 lanes at rush hour. I'm sure the east coast drivers would learn.

But what do I care? It doesn' affect me. If people don't think a 6 lanes bridge has a greater capacity than 4 lanes then maybe they are getting the road system they deserve.

[5 In a Row]

I understand that 6 lanes has greater capacity, I'm just saying that the majority of road users are too stupid to work out how to use the extra lane they have and naturally gravitate to the furthest right one they can manage.

One of my most frustrating drives was coming straight off the Eurotunnel, heading north, having driven in Europe for a week and driving along the 4 lane bit of the M25 past Heathrow seeing lanes 1 and 2 practically empty and 3 and 4 full and driving at 45-65 depending on what numpty was at the head of the queue.
Utter madness.

I can't speak for rush hour but whenever I've used the M74 its been very quiet and you regularly catch up with someone sitting in lane 2 at 65 with clear road for a mile ahead.