Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About AndrewC

  • Rank
    Registered User
  • Birthday 03/06/1985

Personal Information

  • Location
  • Interests
  • Occupation

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. It had it's time, but it's now actually more of a hinderance to the area, not a benefit. It's old, and it's structural integrity is dubious It's dimensions and internal layout mean it's lacking compared to more modern MSCPs, including the ones built nearby in Sheffield city centre over the last few years - which in itself another weakness; whereas it once the only major MSCP in the area, ones on Arundel Gate & Eyre Street have usurped it. The area around it used to be fairly dead and unimportant so a faceless car park and access road didn't make much difference, but times have changed. With the new Heart of the City 2 development, the changes to Charter Square, the loss of John Lewis itself, the Radisson Hotel development which will face it on Burgess Street etc., etc., it's now no longer the place for a large, MSCP with no ground level activity, and drawing cars in along the access roads. Now John Lewis is closed, it's lost it's main USP. Nah, a handful of people might still claim it has a good use but for most it's just an old car park in the way of developing something much more useful.
  2. I agree with most of your posts there driver151, but I have to say, everyone on this thread has been on the side of the conductor/public transport staff apart from the comments made by BigAl1 which you've quoted.
  3. That's irrelevant, if in the very next sentence you basically say 'but they had it coming because their employer upsets me now and again'.
  4. Airing these grievances on this particular thread - rather than one actually meant for Stagecoach gripes - isn't exactly a great look. You basically look like you're condoning physical abuse of tram conductors. That's never acceptable, and no amount of frustration with timetables or cancelled services changes that...
  5. Well, the irony is the Coronation Chicken is a slightly weird English concoction, and most south-east Asian people will probably a) agree that's muck and b) correctly tell you it's English muck. But putting that to one side, I'm not sure how 'offensive' it is, but then I'm not 'foreign' in relation to Len Goodman. But it does definitely smack of a certain institutionalised arrogance that says 'Britain/the Empire knows best' and 'anything foreign must be awful', which is at least embarrassingly xenophobic, yes. In my experience, when certain Brits call something 'foreign muck' what they tend to mean is that it has 'flavour'.
  6. The council own a handful of retail units here and there but nothing major and nothing like a significant portion of Sheffield's retail space. I'd hazard a guess that probably 95% or more of Sheffield's retail sq ft is privately owned and leased. Whatever the exact figure, to say the council 'own the shops in the city centre and rent them out' is ludicrously misleading.
  7. Funny you should say that, since that is exactly what they are doing. With regards to electrification of the mainline - most of your arguments don't really hold much water. First of all, disruption to the local area is temporary (yes, even in the context of 2-3 years that can be described as 'temporary'. These things take time but the work will be finished eventually), and the idea that the wonderful views from Millhouses etc are going to ruined by the new infrastructure, I'm not sure you'll really see all that much. Most of the railway from the park is already screened by existing trees that won't be removed as far as I'm aware? As for saying, 'there's no bad smells - just a bit of diesel'...erm..?! The current services can be unreliable and some improvements to services and times can be made with electric trains. You say fares won't drop, obviously that's a contentious issue since we all know fares are a bit of a sham in this country! I'd perhaps say ask yourself how much they would continue to carry on increasing by, if they continue to rely on ageing, diesel-powered locomotives which use an outdated and ever more expenses fuel. Which brings me to the last point: Electrification of our railways is as important in tackling both local pollution and global climate change as changing buses, lorries, private motor vehicles from petrol/diesel to electric is. There's no plausible argument for allowing trains to continue to use fossil fuels if electrification is deliverable - it's unsustainable in both environmental and economic terms.
  8. No. I was just pointing out that it has happened before. For reference. And most normal people would have just taken my comment as that, instead of assuming I was attacking them. Why do you spend all day every day on this forum, being so belligerent and pedantic?
  9. It might seem ludicrous but it has happened before, albeit in London, and the subject building was altogether more interesting and worth 'saving'...
  10. I was talking about dimensions, which is the important bit when considering parking situations (bigger cars put pressure on available parking space). https://www.autocar.co.uk/car-news/features/investigation-why-are-cars-becoming-so-wide#:~:text=Another reason why cars have,of McDonald's and the rest. So if you have driveway and garage space for your cars, who is making you pay for something you have 'already paid for'?
  11. Yeah, it's been a few years since I last braved it, but as I recall from my younger days Carver Street could be absolute chaos as early as 10pm on a Friday/Saturday... West St can be that way too in the bars and pavements but the road itself tends to stay relatively clear - it's probably the tram that people feel less brave about getting in to a game of chicken with...
  12. Oh. I gave you the benefit of the doubt and assumed you weren't daft enough to make a link between VED and road funding. I was wrong. Fair enough. VED is a tax on the emissions your car makes. It doesn't have anything to do with funding the roads and confers you no extra rights or privileges over anyone else in terms of ownership of the road. Electric cars don't pay VED. Are you going to claim you have more right to roadspace and free parking over electric car owners, as well as cyclists etc.? It's funny that you asked in your previous post, 'How boring does repeating the same nonsense time and time again have to be spouted?', because you wouldn't believe how often motorists need that above point about VED/road tax explained to them. Cars absolutely are getting bigger. And when it comes to parking issues and space for roads in urban areas, that is a massive factor. There are more cars on our roads than ever and they are all on average bigger than previous generations of model and for some reason motorists expect society to keep giving up more and more space to accommodate that - it's nonsensical and arrogant - and unsustainable. As for why you shouldn't 'enjoy' cars; well, you're welcome to but that kind of brings us back to the original issue. You can't expect to not pay for your enjoyment. Including the privilege of having a space outside your house. Keep safe .
  13. All taxpayers pay for the road, but if the demand for the road space becomes too much then it's not unreasonable that some extra costs may be incurred to manage that. That's kind of the way the world tends to work. I pay for the roads through my tax but I don't own a car. I accept that some of that goes towards road and parking spaces for cars in the same way I accept that some of my taxes pay for NHS treatment of smokers, even though I don't personally smoke. But there are limits. Cars are getting physically bigger with each generation of model, and car ownership continues to rise (it has doubled in 30 years from 20 million to 40 million in the UK, or thereabouts). Why should I continue to subsidise that when it's clearly unsustainable?
  14. I don't understand this logic - surely junctions and accesses should be protected against parked cars, irrespective of the squeeze that then puts on the remaining parking spaces? Are you saying that if too many cars are owned/parked locally then it's ok for residents to say, "oh, go on then, just pop it on the junction/across the neighbours driveway. Never mind about visibility for people turning in/out"??
  15. Even if you've paid for the car, and the VED tax, and insurance, and MOT etc., why shouldn't you also have to pay to store the car on public property, if you haven't got anywhere else to put it? None of those other costs cover the parking, so why wouldn't you expect to also have to pay for that? Free on-street parking is a privilege, not a right.
  • 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.