Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Weredoomed

  1. ...and Meadowhall is free parking and under cover. Bit of a no-brainer for most shopping TBH.
  2. So Rotherham are in the process of improving access to their borough at one end of the Parkway. What are Sheffield doing at their end? Apart from the square root of nothing, because apparently it's costly and difficult. Gosh, imagine having to put some effort into one's job. You mention structures - there are precisely none in any of the sections of Sheffield Parkway that I've mentioned which are not already paved, so mentioning them as a potential problem is spurious. Sheffield Parkway and it's associated structures were built with a view to making it easy to widen in future. Only the will to actually pursue this is lacking at SCC. If the will is there the money will eventually follow.
  3. Simple sections of extra pavement construction and road marking alterations, with a few new directional signs. Honestly very simple in civil engineering terms. Perhaps some new drainage if the original installation wasn't built with future widening in mind. Overall it doesn't need to be gold-plated. I recall a proposal for an extra lane to be added to Sheffield Parkway as a bus lane a few years ago. If it was possible to do it for a bus lane, then clearly it could be done for general traffic. Much of the construction work could be done as small, discrete schemes over a number of years, all coming into operation in the last year potentially. The taxpayer pays. Whether it happens or not is down to SCC having any interest in making traffic flow better to and from the city centre they are trying to promote. Perhaps they need to look outside the city centre to do this? And not concentrate all their efforts within the IRR. Big schemes are expensive, small ones are not. Like I said earlier, softly softly, catchee monkey.
  4. You'll note that the bridge is already paved: https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@53.3793189,-1.4269308,186m/data=!3m1!1e3?hl=en Excavating the grass verge and converting it to an extra lane would be extremely quick and simple. The 3 discrete sections of verge you can see on that overhead image - any competent civil engineering contract could do that job in less than a month.
  5. That is not, by any stretch of the imagination, "a lot".
  6. Good old SCC, the "sit back and do nothing" attitude strikes again. ...and you conveniently ignore my comments on how easy it would be to widen Sheffield Parkway which, coupled with widening Mosborough Parkway would ease access into the city centre.
  7. I've never understood this "everyone drive in the nearside lane" mentality on a dual carriageway that seems so prevalent in Sheffield. Just bad driving plain and simple. The IRR clockwise, heading towards Glossop Road seems to be a prime example of where this occurs but I'm sure there are many other locations.
  8. Do people realise that it would only require approximately 700m or so of widening for there to be two lanes all the way from Coisley Hill roundabout up to the Sheffield Parkway junction. Which should make traffic flow far better, dare one venture. The 700m need not be done in one hit, rather it is perfectly possible to do it over several years, a couple of hundred metres or so at a time. Softly, softly, catchee monkey. You may also not realise that to make Sheffield Parkway inbound 3 lanes wide from Mosborough Parkway to Park Square would only require around 1km or so of widening. Much of this widening could also easily be done incrementally over a number of years. For example to make it 3 lanes from Mosborough Parkway to the Manor Lane exit, (a distance of around a mile), would only require about 100m or so of new carriageway building, between the Markets exit and entry slip roads. To any civil engineering contractor this would be a very quick and simple scheme to build. Indeed look at Sheffield Parkway generally between Park Square and Mosborough Parkway - the original land take was such as to allow it to be widened to 3 lanes in both directions. And yet SCC have done little to achieve this despite traffic growth over the decades. Makes one wonder why SCC don't actually crack on and do these comparatively small schemes, if they truly are serious about keeping business activity in the city centre vibrant. They are serious about that, aren't they? Oh. Ah. Well never mind, I'm sure the various businesses involved will relocate elsewhere.
  9. Define "a lot". Of all the people who travel into the city centre to work or shop, what percentage of them cycle? You seem to be claiming that cycling and walking are the best thing since sliced bread and cars are effectively the spawn of Satan, so please provide figures to support your views, given your claimed association with the responsible officers. Personally I don't see "a lot" of cyclists, rather "a tiny number, just barely into double figures on a very good day", would be a far more accurate description based on the roads I use to get to/from the city centre. Several of them are very steep, I'd hesitate to walk up them, let alone cycle and certainly do neither at my age. I'm not aware of any busses that run on a few of them either, so public transport might not be a viable option either. There's certainly no trams in sight that I could use either. I'm concerned that the Manchester report you quoted elsewhere seems to indicate that no matter what is done, bus usage is set to fall. Which makes one wonder whether busses are in any way, shape or form actually "sustainable" and why so much public money is thus being thrown at them. Indeed, one could argue that road widening, including the demolition of properties that you seem horrified at the prospect of is what is actually needed to improve traffic flow. Rather than, for example, the mess that is the route into the city from Meadowhead, a single carriageway road that cries out to be a dual carriageway yet SCC flee from the very idea. Because, you say, it's apparently "too expensive". More expensive than killing off the economic activity in the city centre and thus the long term interests of the city? With that attitude, it makes one grateful that the officers at SCC were not present when the motorway network was proposed last century - they'd be against it on cost grounds alone no doubt, short-sighted that they are. Perhaps "road widening on the cheap", by of doing away with bus lanes, opening road space to all traffic might improve matters generally, rather than the tinkering around the edges on the back of discrete commercial developments approach that SCC seem to currently operate under. One can't help but think that both the officers and councillors at SCC suffer from a distinct lack of vision. You also say the politicians make the decisions, which is true only to the extent that they make their decisions based on what council officers tell them. Are you sure they are told all options, however unpalatable some of them might be?
  10. The good burghers of Rotherham, Barnsley, Doncaster and Chesterfield must love you so, so much. Great way to kill off Sheffield city centre and drive business to surrounding towns. Truly you are a genius. Incredibly short-sighted but a genius nonetheless. The (rapidly aging) population of hilly Sheffield can walk and cycle to town or use an unreliable bus, (which doesn't actually take them from very close to their house to their desired destination in numerous cases), or go by car to somewhere else. No prize for guessing which it will be. What's that you say? The other towns will be as stupid as Sheffield and destroy their business and retail centres by making them expensive and/or inaccessible to cars? You sure about that? I'd put a good £20 on Chesterfield and the others rubbing their hands in glee at the prospect of all that business coming their way.
  11. If only Sheffield could be reclassified as a London Borough. Imagine the enormous pile of money central government would throw at us!
  12. SCC do have a permit scheme. https://www.sheffield.gov.uk/roadworks How well, if at all, they enforce it is an entirely different matter altogether of course.
  13. Let's face it, the CAZ is just another nail in the coffin of the city centre. I very rarely go there these days. In fact, apart from occasionally using part of the IRR to take the missus to/from work and picking the daughter up from the station now and again, I can't recall the last time I went into the city centre itself, early this year at a guess? God-awful one way/otherwise restricted road system, expensive parking, tatty shops and chuggers/chavs all over the place. Best avoided. If SCC and planner1 want a nice city centre for pedestrians to wander around in, sure, the CAZ is just the ticket. The chavs will be able to mug the chuggers in a nice, clean air environment. How nice.
  14. We are not talking about through traffic, we are talking about commuter traffic being forced onto a single, vulnerable route that is prone to gridlock in the event of an incident. I note planner1 carefully ignores that aspect of the situation. It is also highly short-sighted to block roads that can act as alternative routes in the event of an incident on the only available major route around the city, as I have already mentioned. If the CAZ scheme is going to be decommissioned by 2025 - only 6 years hence - the obvious question is why go to the expense of installing and running the scheme for such a short period of time in the first place. Particularly as not a single spade has been put in the ground yet to actually install a single sign or camera. I doubt the scheme will be operational, at best, until some time in 2021, so only operational for around 4 years - an even shorter period of time. Which makes the 2025 date highly likely to not be correct - or even a downright lie? My predictions: 1) The income from the scheme will be comparatively small initially. 2) Cars will have to be added as the scheme won't be meeting it's targets. 3) There will be some excuse trotted out to NOT remove it in 2025 but "sadly" SCC will be compelled to keep it in place for several years afterwards. 4) I strongly suspect we are unlikely to see the back of the CAZ any time before 2030, or ever. 5) As the saying goes, "££KERCHINNNGGGG££" Oh, and no mention of the SCC incinerator that seems to be producing a significant percentage of the pollution in the first place. Why is the closure of that plant not being proposed? It would seem the obvious solution to stop the air quality problem at one fell stroke. Whilst we voters "Have to remember", you seem to forget that we are also aware that SCC has a budget to find from somewhere. To suggest they won't milk the motorist and not find an excuse to do so is and for us to not realise what they are doing is frankly, either utterly naive or grossly insulting.
  15. Shocking you say? Well if it's short circuiting then, yes, there clearly is something not right with it. Is my taxi here already...
  16. Just remember how much cash this will put in the council's coffers. EVERYTHING else is secondary.
  17. Oooo, no, no, no Resident, how dare you suggest our "betters" at SCC (and planner1) are wrong, because, in the la-la land that SCC inhabit, everyone will buy a bike and cycle everywhere. In a very hilly city with an ageing population. Yes. Right. Naturally. Yay, let's all be green and save the planet...
  18. ...and traffic in Sheffield is certainly more at risk of gridlock, due to SCC's stated desire to, "Concentrating traffic onto the Inner Ring Road is a key and long held part of the City Council‟s strategy to managing levels of motor traffic in the city centre." taken from SCC's online document: http://democracy.sheffield.gov.uk/documents/s33612/Inner Ring Road Consultation Report.pdf "Concentrating traffic" = putting all your eggs in one basket, see my earlier comment re Upper Allen Street for example. The long term strategy is badly flawed. Not that SCC would ever admit it of course. So where does the CAZ charge go to, if not into SCC's coffers? If SCC aren't interested in the money, where will they send it? If SCC were truly concerned about air quality, they would NOT include the IRR in the scheme, only the roads in the city centre WITHIN the IRR. But they won't do that, will they, because to do so would reduce their income.
  19. And here's the problem. When the Inner Ring Road was finished off a few years ago Corporation Street towards Mowbray Street was made a dual carriageway, with 2 lanes heading towards the Parkway. Which was fine, EXCEPT that in it's old, pre-IRR configuration, there were 3 lanes available to traffic and fewer traffic signals as well. Come the shiny new IRR and what do we get. 2 lanes and lots of traffic signals - result, a highly congested bit of road. But oh so very carefully designed and modelled by SCC's paid experts. Now correct me if I'm wrong planner1 but a throughput reduction of 33% (more when the traffic signal delays are considered), is a good thing how exactly? Doesn't take an expert to see that would make the situation worse. So one might venture that planner1's much-vaunted professional traffic engineers are not actually experts at all, but merely technicians using inaccurate, flawed software that is not fit for purpose. Which is presumably why what appear to be widening works are underway on there now? Trust their obviously flawed judgement? Do you think that's wise? They aren't worried because they just don't care, perhaps they don't go home that way and thus don't "enjoy" the "delights" of the IRR? And we know well that moving traffic as quickly as possible isn't a good thing. That's why SCC does it's damnedest to make it go as slowly as possible - which they are exceptionally good at doing. This slow moving traffic doesn't do anything for the air quality but never fear, SCC now have a plan to make some cash out of their incompetence, so it's all good, eh?
  20. I see the charging zone INCLUDES the Inner Ring Road. Genius move by SCC. Not. That won't cause congestion in the areas immediately OUTSIDE the IRR, now will it children? For example, let's say you are going to one of the hospitals. If your journey currently includes driving part of the way on the IRR, no problem. In future, when cars are charged, (as they inevitably will be - and I dare planner1 to say such a scenario WON'T happen because we all know it will with this short-sighted, car-hating, money-grabbing council), then you'll be stumping up a tenner, (or more?), for the joy of driving possibly around a mile or less on the IRR. So what will you do to avoid the charge, particularly if it's a journey you make frequently, or even twice daily? You'll join everyone else who is trying to find a route through Crookes and Broomhall, won't you? Then, when the residents of those parts of the city kick off to the council about all the extra traffic, SCC will start closing roads in those areas, making this "CARS ARE EVIL" rat-running impossible. And making it even harder for people to get around than it already is. The ultimate aim being to force everyone onto the IRR and generate a nice pot of cash for SCC. Of course, any incident will cause gridock but planner1's mates at the council will say something trite along the grounds of, "Traffic generally flows well", giving the gridlock situations the Nelson's eye treatment. Like I said, genius move. Don't believe me, take a look at Upper Allen Street, which used to be a very useful alternative to Netherthorpe Road at times when that was at a stand still due to, say, a bus breaking down somewhere in the city centre, causing general mayhem and gridlock. So what have SCC done to this alternative route? Google Maps is your friend. Alternatively, let's say you want to pick up/drop off someone at Midland Station - that'll cost you a tenner as you'll be driving on the IRR to get there. The fact that there's 30 minutes free parking in the multi-storey at the side of the station? Well whoop-dee-do, what a big saving that will be. I'd venture that many pick-ups/drop-offs for the station in future will occur on South Street. Don't know where that is? Look it up. Oh, and I don't doubt for a single second that SCC will impose some Draconian parking restrictions on South Street in future to deter car drivers from using it to avoid SCC's incompetently thought out CAZ. In short, if SCC had even the tiniest scrap of sense, (oh look, a flying porker has just gone past the window), the IRR would NOT be part of the CAZ. But then they wouldn't make as much money out of it, would they children? Which is not the object of the exercise, goodness me no, it would be wrong to think that. Yes. Right. As I said in an earlier post, the good burghers of the towns surrounding Sheffield must be rubbing their hands in glee at all the extra business and jobs that will be coming their way. Sheffield though? Oh it's screwed, completely and utterly screwed if this CAZ is implemented in the currently proposed form.
  21. Open air defecation? I think we can all be glad we don't live in India!
  22. Well *_ash_*, it seems pretty clear that taxis will be paying, as unfortunately you're effectively a captive audience to help fill the coffers of SCC. I don't doubt they'd squeeze you dry if they could. I feel for you mate. My suggestion - move your taxi to a neighbouring town, they'll be bustling soon enough. Based on your figures, unless the existing figures are only just over whatever the legal limit is, then it also seems pretty clear that the initial charging regime won't work and that the ordinary car driver will be coughing up cash to enter the zone. Or more likely getting a job elsewhere and NOT doing their shopping in the city centre. If there is pollution at the station, why can't SCC charge the train operators to enter the zone as well as bus and taxi operators? Isn't that being prejudiced against one group whilst favouring another? How can that be justified? Which, as I said, will all have our neighbouring towns and Meadowhall rubbing their hands at all the extra business coming their way. Although again, if the problem areas are only as you state, it's questionable why SCC are proposing the zone boundaries that they are doing - much of the zone doesn't suffer air quality problems if your quoted locations are correct. In which case, why is the zone so big, other than to generate income for SCC? How can that be justified? CAZ is not the only way to reduce pollution in the city centre, as I pointed out. Much larger P&R facilities on the outskirts will reduce pollution. But P&R wont generate cash for SCC, so that extra provision is highly unlikely to occur. If SCC were smart enough, (there's that flying piggy again), they'd impose a charge of, say, £10 for a car to enter the zone but provide a P&R service that cost, say, £5. I think if the P&R service was reliable enough, most folks would pay £5 rather than £10. "Reliable" and "SCC" - boy there's a lot of pork in the air today! So what options are SCC going to propose other than eventually charging everyone and totally killing off the city centre? They won't propose any other option, will they? Because they want the money, short-sighted that they are... SCC anti-car? Why would anyone think that? Unless they lived in cloud-cuckoo land...
  23. Interesting to see that the survey says cars won't be included in the charging regime. But if the air quality figures aren't met then SCC might well consider adding cars into the scheme. Well fingers crossed the figures are met, because if they aren't and cars are charged, that will nicely kill the city centre off completely. I bet Rotherham, Doncaster, Barnsley, Chesterfield and Meadowhall will be rubbing their hands in glee at all the extra business and jobs that will be coming their way. Of course, if SCC had any sense, (oh look a flying porker), they'd massively increase the amount of park and ride around the city to encourage folks to use public transport. Nicely fixing the air quality. But that wouldn't generate any income for them via the charge, so expanded P&R won't be happening if cars do end up being charged. You read it here first...
  24. It also shows a lack of situational awareness and a lack of care and thought towards other road users, due to the manoeuvres they need to make to get past, as WiseOwl182 rightly says. If you're driving something that can't get beyond 50 (a loaded HGV or a wide load for example), then that's fine but if your vehicle can achieve the limit then you should do so if traffic conditions permit, it's just good, polite driving. If you're an experienced driver, you will doubtless have encountered a slow moving wide load on a motorway. These things tend to take up two lanes and chug along at 50/60 at best. You'll frequently find a queue of traffic extending back a considerable distance, (sometimes miles), as other traffic queues to get past it in the remaining lane. The same principle occurs if someone drives at 50 in the nearside lane on the 2 lane 70 section of the Parkway.
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.