Jump to content

Planner1

Members
  • Content Count

    9,123
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Planner1

  • Rank
    Registered User

Personal Information

  • Location
    S10
  • Occupation
    Transport Planner

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Planner1

    Queens Rd Traffic Scheme

    Why not tell the Council then? 2734567 or report it on their website Why would I need to explain that? I don't work for the Council and don't know what was or was not considered. If you are interested contact them. 2734567 or email them via the website.
  2. Planner1

    Queens Rd Traffic Scheme

    You clearly don't understand the way in which traffic signals operate. It is a fairly simple thing to change the timings of traffic signals. That is the amount of green time they will run to a particular approach. Indeed, all traffic signals in the city are linked to a central urban traffic control system which changes the timings automatically to pre-set timing plans which change by time of day. The operators in the control room can also directly impose a particular timing plan or directly control the signals. What you are suggesting is actually temporarily changing the sequence of the signals so they don't run to a particular approach. That is much more difficult as the sequence the signals are allowed to follow is programmed into the signal controller and can't be changed without doing a full "reconfiguration" which means the new setup would have to be designed and properly checked and tested by qualified engineers (which isn't cheap or quick). What actually tends to happen when roadworks are carried out and signals are needed, but operating in a different way to the permanent ones, is that the permanent signals are switched off and temporary traffic signals are deployed. This is much simpler (and cheaper) than reconfiguring the existing signals for the roadworks then switching back to original configuration after works have finished. When roadworks are planned, the Council meet the contractors / promoters of the works and agree what is necessary on site. In the case you mention it might possibly have been necessary to keep the signals operating to ensure pedestrian safety. Regarding your point on the pedestrian push buttons. Most traffic signal junctions nowadays will incorporate fully signalled pedestrian crossings. It is of course possible that at least some of them at any junction can run at a safe point in the sequence when there is no opposing traffic movement. Pedestrian safety is nowadays given a much higher priority than it might have been decades ago, when the car was king and all highway engineers were concerned with was speeding up traffic movements. Nowadays we need to be mindful of the needs of vulnerable people such as those who are blind and partially sighted and those who are not as quick ion their feet as most able bodied people. Signalled pedestrian crossings (stand alone and those incorporated in signalled junctions) include facilities for blind and partially sighted people, ie tactile paving to tell them where crossing points are and tactile devices in the push button unit (rotating buttons underneath the right hand push button unit) which tell them when it's safe to cross. We also need to encourage people to walk more and people do see complex junctions with no specific crossing facilities as a barrier. The fines go to the government, the Council don't get a penny of them. So you're telling us that the Council deliberately put in cameras to raise funds for the government are you? Got any other good conspiracy theories?
  3. Planner1

    Queens Rd Traffic Scheme

    It works reasonably well but is not without its problems. There are collisions caused by drivers who visit premises on the route and, when they come back onto the tidal flow system, assume that the lane configuration is the same as when they went in, which, when the lane configuration has changed in the meantime, can bring them into conflict with other traffic, resulting in collisions. There have also been cases of drivers who are looking up at the gantries not seeing the traffic signals at the junctions along the route and then running the red lights causing collisions (note the presence of a red light camera at the Myrtle Rd junction, which is here because of the number of red light running collisions). Doing any work on the light up signs on the overhead gantries is a problem, as it needs lane closures. The gantries are old as is the control gear that runs the system. It isn't compliant with modern standards.
  4. Planner1

    Queens Rd Traffic Scheme

    They're doing improvements to the Wolsey Rd junction. Modelling results say journey times stay the same. Of course they knew it was there and priced for it. However, you can't expect them to continue to leave something n place that is obsolete and at the end of its life. The contract says they have to replace it at some point and if they can get the same results with a different approach, it is entirely within the contractual obligations for them to ask the Council to allow them to do that. There's a saving for both parties and the end result is the same, so why would you not go ahead?
  5. Planner1

    Queens Rd Traffic Scheme

    No. Amey have priced for maintaining the street infrastructure as it was at the time they signed the contract. The tidal flow system is essentially obsolete and is costly for them to maintain. Amey have come up with the proposals to make changes to how traffic is managed in that area (ie remove the tidal flow system), because it will be cheaper for them to maintain in the long run. So, Amey will pay all the costs of removing the existing system and installing the new system. It will cost the Council nothing. The Council also benefits because when street infrastructure is replaced by some that is less costly to maintain, the difference in cost is taken off the annual maintenance payments to Amey. So, the report says the Council will save circa £250k over the remainder of the Amey contract (about 20 years). It appears they have modeled the new setup and journey times through the area will remain as they are now.
  6. Their parent company is looking to sell them. Doesn’t mean they are “ducking out”.
  7. Doesn't matter who did the work, Amey are contractually responsible for it so they have to pay for it to be fixed if they can't get the sub contractor to do the remedials.
  8. Planner1

    Sheffield council reshuffle

    I'd agree with you to some extent. Some of it is about how much an authority is prepared to invest / fund the function. Sheffield have historically had a very low amount of revenue funding to support the transport planning function, so the service tends to be project oriented and not have resource / funding to develop the underlying plans / policies and pipeline of potential schemes. The current government's reliance on short timescale competitive bidding funding pots like CCAG mean you have to have a pipeline of well developed, deliverable projects in order to bid with any hope of success. Some of it is also about explicitly requiring walking / cycling infrastructure to be included in bigger projects like public transport corridors. Manchester were / are well ahead on initiatives like this, but, in fairness, they are better resourced, which is easier when you have more money (because you 're bigger)
  9. Planner1

    Sheffield council reshuffle

    So where did I mention being on topic then?
  10. Planner1

    Sheffield council reshuffle

    Of course not, but the way you write it implies they waste their whole budget: "Does have a lot to do with how they waste their limited budget though."
  11. The pedestrian crossing is an integral part of the junction setup and is integrated in the overall sequence. You are only expected to stop at a traffic signal if there is a stop line. It isn’t difficult. Designers often put a secondary signal on the far side of the junction if there isn’t space for one on the near side, or it is felt that one is needed for visibility or safety reasons. There are plenty of junctions like that and drivers should have seen them before.
  12. Planner1

    Sheffield council reshuffle

    They aren’t of course. There is the “build it and they will come” counter argument and it has worked elsewhere, so if they do build the infrastructure, we’ll see who is right. The Dutch have traditionally always had much higher levels of cycling than we have, so it’s difficult to compare with them realistically. So is everything you disagree with a “waste”?
  13. Planner1

    Sheffield council reshuffle

    Which has got nothing to do with implementing significant new infrastructure. Councils get given money money for specific purposes. Some other councils have implemented cycle super highways because they were awarded specific funding by the government in a competitive bidding process. Sheffield bid, but weren’t successful.
  14. I've seen people do that in several places. Where exactly do you think the pole that they've "saved" on should have gone? Saying that it's just a pole and a bit of cable is a gross over-simplification. There are also signal heads, electrical connections, ducting and cable access chambers in the footway to consider. But, if the designer or the independent safety auditor thought an additional signal was necessary, it would have been provided. Traffic signal junctions cost hundreds of thousands, so a extra signal or two is no big deal in cost terms.
  15. Planner1

    Sheffield council reshuffle

    Would that be Manchester? They have significantly more funding, having won funding competitions and having devolved funding in place, which might help to explain their enthusiasm. SCC have grand plans for Dutch style infrastructure. Once the devolved funding is in place over here, they might have some money to spend on it.
×

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.