Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by AndrewC

  1. What if they've only built up to being the majority because decisions on transport infrastructure investment over the last 7 decades have favoured that mode of transport above all others? We've built for a motoring future for some 7 decades but we're starting to realise that you eventually reach a dead-end. There's only so much space in our cities - eventually everyone driving around in metal box not much smaller than a terraced house living room starts to become a tad unsustainable. A lot of that 'majority' aren't as tied to cars as many die-hard motorists would have you believe. Provide good public transport and active travel alternatives, and you soon see a lot people leave their cars at home. Yes, HGVs and cyclists, together in perfect harmony!
  2. Maybe the volume of cars, vans is so high because the infrastructure for bikes/cargo bikes is so ****e? It's tried and tested in places all over the world; give people decent, safe, convenient alternatives and they will start to leave their cars at home. People in urban areas will generally make transport decisions based on factors like ease, cost, speed etc. It's a politic decision as to what you as a local council etc. give them. The sticking point is that urban areas rarely have the space or money to allow 100% of people to travel by private car. I take it by the wording of your sentence that you don't believe any one on a bike could possibly be going to work?
  3. I don't know where half of what you're going on about there has come from?! EVs pay less tax because they impact air pollution less. Nothing to do with the wear & tear on the roads. In fact, you're right, they still create noise pollution and create particle pollution from brakes and tyre friction etc. More in fact, some people argue, because the batteries are so heavy so, like-for-like EVs tend to be heavier than petrol counterparts. I dare say you're right about revenues from fuel duty and tax. I suspect as CO2 emissions become less of an issue as more people use EVs, then Vehicle Tax may be changed to be based on vehicle weight and potentially dimensions, in order to 'tax' based on wear & tear of the roads. The only green car is no car at all. But all things considered, if we could snap our fingers and theoretically replace every petrol/diesel car overnight with electric, that would be a good thing to do. The pros just about outweigh the cons. I'd still try to encourage people to try and leave their electric cars at home though because of all the other impacts on society that they still have, and the production of battery technology and of course the source power from power stations is still questionable. No one said EVs had fewer crashes, or caused less damage when they crash?! I was talking about car crash damaged compared to the damage bikes, pedestrians do, and fewer crash occurrences compared to those involving public transport vehicles.. The more people out of cars and on to bikes, buses and walking, then the fewer crashes and a massive reduction in money lost to damage on our roads. As a man in the industry, do you know how much money is spent each year in the UK on recovering cars & vans following crashes, compared to how much is spent on recovering bicycles?
  4. Well, the more people and deliveries that use bikes and cargo bikes the better for the road because the downward pressure of a vehicle is exponential depending on weight; the downforce of a person on a bike is a minute fraction of that of the same person in a car (and even though the cargo would be weighty, the cargo bikes themselves are much lighter than their van counterparts). You seem to be suggesting the extra buses and delivery vans would add up to the same amount of wear & tear as the cars they replace, but that doesn't seem to play out in reality in cities which have forged ahead with reducing car dependancy. Whatever the situation with wear & tear, it definitely would lead to fewer vehicles overall and of course bikes take up a fraction of the space cars do, both on the road and in terms of parking. Imagine the section of Ecclesall Road from Pomona Street to the ring-road, but with just buses and a few delivery vans & lots of cyclists using. You wouldn't need half the space it takes up now. And then start imaging the land you save by not needing half the parking space for cars.
  5. Hmm, maybe it was different timings this morning, but Google right now: Car - 4hr 18m Train - 4hr 28m 🤔 If I was going to the city centre in Glasgow, I'd be using the train for that time difference. If you're travelling to the countryside nearby or the suburbs, probably car. Either way, not sure what it has to do with excessive car use in a areas like Meadowhead & Woodseats (this thread)?
  6. You're making a very common mistake; thinking that because you spend a lot of money owning & operating a car (and I don't deny that you do) then that must mean you're paying more than you should have to. False. Whatever we pay to operate a car, we're usually paying less than the costs we're incurring on society. It's just the costs are surprisingly higher and more numerous than many people realise. The costs to society of car use are immense - far more than is often let on by the motoring industry and others, and far more than most motorists realise. The costs of building and maintaining road infrastructure is eye-watering, even compared to what we spending on national rail or public transport projects, let alone the peanuts that pedestrian & cycling infrastructure costs. There's no such thing as free parking. Air & noise pollution from car use causes massive costs for health services & councils. Etc. etc. As for the specifics you've listed; Permits; As above, on-street parking is paid for by everyone, but supply & demand dictates that pricing is used to manage things. Local parking permit schemes almost exclusively only exist in places where too many people are trying to park. Do you bemoan paying any parking costs? There is no Road Tax in this country. The last thing anything like a road tax - as I suspect you mean it - was abolished in the 30s I think it was?! Road maintenance comes out of council and Highways England budgets, and is funded through general taxation. We all pay for the upkeep of the roads (despite cars owners & other large vehicles doing all the damage). Car Tax is based on emissions, and is - in effect - a tax on pollution. Buy an electric car if you don't want to pay tax. Bigger cars/cost of fuel/fuel grades - If your car uses petrol/diesel then you are using a diminishing resource, not to mention polluting your local area, as well as contributing to global climate change. It's perfectly sensible that the bigger your car, the bigger the tax, and it's perfectly rational that fuel costs are high. We have to move towards phasing out the most polluting cars so that people move towards cleaner engines (even cleaner combustion engines) and electric vehicles, and/or reducing car-use completely. Insurance: Insurance companies and legal requirements for insurance are both based on where they are needed. Car insurance is high because accidents involving car causes a costly amount of damage! Even a modest car 'crash' will end up costing a few hundred quid. Cyclists don't require insurance because on they very rarely cause damage that would make it worthwhile. Bus lanes/gates, and other restrictions are there for a reason. Don't want to get fined, don't go in them. If you disagree with their reason for being, you should take that up with a councillor.
  7. You ask some good questions and make some good points - and I will reply! - but it will have to be later on 👍
  8. Of course it can be wrong, but so can any other method of data collection and analysis? One person sat on a bus stuck in traffic might swear blind that a right-hand turn at that junction would make everything better, but they have zero evidence to back that up and they're influenced/biased by their situation. I honestly have no idea if the council got things wrong or even lied with regards to that particular bit of modelling they did? I'm not sure what they had to gain from doing so though?
  9. I can't believe you read so much in to the 'over or under' bit! Wow. Let's keep it simple - bassett one says extending the tram (with reasonable fares) to somewhere near Meadowhead roundabout would help ease congestion between there and town. They're right. You've even managed to come up with your own workable solution to make Bassetone's suggestion happen. Well done! I quite agree that it's disheartening that so little has been invested in the supertram system over the last 30 years. That doesn't mean we should accept nothing will ever happen in the future. Cities like Manchester and Nottingham have seen rapid extensions made to their systems. It just requires political will and investment. Hard to come by, but they found a way; Sheffield can too. No one who gets the benefit of new supertram extensions reaching their neighbourhoods will give a toss if it utilises the rail network or new tram lines. If it's a way to provide a reliable tram link to people currently not on the system, at half the price of building all new on-street infrastructure, then we should take it. Extensions to Totley, Darnall, Waverley etc. could all make use of tram-train technology.
  10. Probably, to some degree, but standing on the street and staring at the problem is only going to tell you so much. People don't like it because it seems inhuman, but honestly, statistical analysis and computer modelling will give you a much better idea of what's really going on overall.
  11. Finding the investment and political will to do it would be hard work, but a tram or tram-train extension to the south of Sheffield as bassett one suggests is a genuine possibility and one of the first that tends to get mooted when the people in charge discuss these things (for however a short a time they do discuss it). So it doesn't deserve mocking sarcasm.
  12. This was debated around 4-5 years ago and at the time there was traffic modelling which showed that because a right-turn would require an additional sequence at the lights, it did still actually work out quicker overall if the buses took the longer route (left, round the roundabout, then back up). Of course, the road has changed both in layout and the general level of congestion since then (it's a quieter road now) so that debate could be done again. The modelling might show a different result now. As Rolling says, it does feel a bit like that junction has been changed 3-4 times in as many years, though... Not quite sure what you mean here? The new office building? It's a bit narrower now then when the Grosvenor was there but not to the extent that buses can't navigate it, surely?
  13. I can't answer for Bargepole but most people simply need to start reassessing just how 'vital' their car is and questioning whether there really aren't any viable alternatives. You say there is no alternative and to some extent with car-centric suburbanisation and poor public transport we have created many issues for ourselves, however, when people own cars that are sat outside they suddenly start massively lowering their threshold for what they consider necessary use. It's a massive confirmation bias. Once you've chucked a few bags of shopping in the boot of car at the supermarket half a mile from your home, suddenly you wonder how anyone ever managed to carry bags before. Once you've driven a mile in 2-3 minutes instead of having to walk it in 15 you tell yourself you simply don't have time to walk anywhere any more. People get somewhat brainwashed and attached to their cars. There are people who do need cars. Some people all of the time, and a lot of people some of the time; but these are relatively small numbers. People with mobility issues, people who have kids placed in schools several miles from home, people shifting grand pianos etc.; but these really don't make as many trips as you might think. I'd say upwards of 60% of daily car trips could be questioned. Of course, it's a two-way street. People need help in order to start making that decision to ditch the car easier. We need to do a few major things; Reverse the trend for low-density, car-centric housing development. We must start building communities which provide as many services/jobs/public transport connections within walking/cycling distance as possible. Barret-home suburbs where you need a car just to get to your solitary local shop need to be discouraged. Make walking/cycling more attractive and accessible. Improve the quality of cycle lanes and pavements, and tackle issues like pavement parking and dangerous junctions. Improve public transport. I actually get on fairly well with Sheffield's public transport but I'm one person with a specific set of circumstances. Every route needs to be more regular. The tram needs to be expanded. It might seem unlikely but honestly places like Manchester and - to give a more Sheffield-scaled example - Nottingham have shown what good planning and investment can do. Instead, every bus lane is squabbled over in this city, and the supertram can barely afford to maintain what it has now, much less build new routes. The above will take investment & political will. I never thought I'd say the Tories were doing a good job on anything, but they have been pretty sharp on telling councils to take the active travel routes, and making funding available for it. Nottingham has shown that city centre parking levys can work, and businesses aren't averse to them if it means they get investment in local transport in return. It's doable, but people have to start accepting that the car and roadspace devoted to the car is going to be squeezed as a result. People often like to think the car & car drivers are hard-done-by, which is funny, because honestly, when you look at the money and land given over to motoring since WW2, no transport mode has had more resources spent on it. It's had an easy ride. Sorry, long post. In answer to the actual thread question, don't expect any actual new road, ever. Road building in urban areas is a pretty toxic policy even if you've got a nice empty space to use; through a relatively built-up area like Woodseats etc.,? No chance. No one is paying for the land or the tarmac.
  14. That's because by and large when a Brit or other 'westerner' is relocating to another country they are doing so by personal choice, with financial backing, pre-arranged jobs/housing etc. - that is the privilege of coming from relatively wealthy nation where security & bigotry doesn't force people to leave against their will. Asylum seekers are fleeing their home countries not because they want to, but because they have to - bigotry, war, famine etc. is literally putting their lives in danger. In doing so they must leave behind every almost every official piece of financial/job security, possessions, assets etc. There is no ringing ahead for a few weeks to sort yourself out with a good job and a house. If the tables were turned and for some reason you had to flee the UK against your will, and you landed on a beach in France, don't pretend you wouldn't expect help and goodwill.
  15. Hi Gabriel, I don't think I've seen any solid plans for it, and wouldn't expect any right now because the area is in limbo until the markets site moves forward with a genuine strategy. I assume it's internal fittings as a tavern remain, hence why it's still empty - any internal works that someone would need to do to make it suitable for letting to a different use would probably be more than it is worth right now. If you look around it - the building next door to it and the parade of shops on the south side of Exchange Street - they have found uses, tenants etc, so there is scope for activity but I think it is the awkwardness of refit which would be holding it back. I'm not sure about the roof but if you are right about that then it only exacerbates the above issue. It's just more cost that an owner/developer just isn't going to bother taking on right now. On the plus side, every outline plan for the castlegate/markets site I've seen always seems to include both the tavern and it's neighbour buildings in them. I don't think they're listed, but certainly it seems like the council like the idea of maintaining them. I do to; I think so much of the older character has been lost around that area that it's good to try and retain what is left, and if possible it would be good to see it become a pub again. Whatever uses the market sites finds over the next decade I don't think it would hurt having a revamped Market Tavern/Tap & Barrel at opposite corners...
  16. Exactly. As a pedestrian, badly parked cars cause me to risk my safety on a daily basis. Walking in the road when the pavement is blocked, blind crossing because a car is too close to the junction, etc. Cyclists are far more like pedestrians in their movements & behaviours (the Danes & Dutch learned this a long time ago), and if you provide good infrastructure they can co-exist very well. The same can't be said of cars & drivers. Vehicles are too big, and drivers too careless.
  17. I'm a pedestrian/public transport user 90% of the time. Occasional driver, haven't been on a bike in years, truthfully. I hardly ever see cyclists on the pavement, or running red lights at crossings when I'm using them. My experience is cyclists on pavements usually travel slow and steady enough for it to barely be an issue. If you're somewhere like The Moor for example there's so much space that it's a complete non-issue. At crossings, I'm not sure I've ever had to stop crossing because of a cyclist who didn't stop for me. If they move through the red-light after I've crossed because the crossing is clear, it's really causing no one an issue apart from drivers with chips on their shoulders.
  18. We have fully embraced car culture in this country (sadly). The expectation that the car is king on the road means pedestrians and cyclists have had to relent, by and large, and that has basically conditioned drivers to assume all pedestrians & cyclists are going to get out of their way, unless they (the driver) give express permission otherwise. So in the situation mentioned above - cars turning in to a T-junction - it's basically assumed that when the car wants to turn, it will, and only another car would stop it from doing so. Pedestrians on the road crossing had better get out of the way or wait etc. Don't get me started on pavement parking and a host of other things. These planned changes go toward trying to reverse that mindset, and quite rightly to.
  19. Nope, that's not true at all, but if it makes you feel better by playing a hard-done-by victim, you go for it. Not sure what politics has to do with these opinions, so presumably you just chuck 'far left' at anyone who doesn't agree 100% with you? That's telling... Thrush Central?! What the hell are you on about?!
  20. Incredible the double-lives so many people on these forums lead. On the one hand they will tell you that they 'never go in to town any more, there's nothing there', but on the other hand they all seem to be experts about what terrible, awful monsters are to be found down every street. The truth is the permanent population in the city centre has increased massively over the last decade, and even many student flats find tenants for the out-of-term periods over the summer. Stop attacking residential developments. They do far more for the city centre economy than a few people whinging on an internet forum. The retail offering is certainly not what it was, or what Leeds, Manchester can offer now, but it's actually probably better than it was 10 years ago. The Moor is a pretty good success story to be honest, and the second Heart of the City project is going to provide space for new retailers and businesses. Sure, it means you have to find new uses for areas like Castlegate & Fargate but we're already seeing investment in new residences, University, entertainment, food, offices, etc in both those areas. It's not just a shopping centre with warehouses around it any more. It's changing to try and become a diverse place for people to live, work, and do everything else in. It's a tough world trying to make your city centre competitive these days, and I'm far from the councils biggest fan, but it's not all that 1-dimensional. I can appreciate the rose-tinted view of people who remember the shopping mecca of the 1980s, and yes, it's a shame that was lost, but honestly, city centres need to be SOOOO much more than a shopping centre these days, and to ignore all the good investment and development of the last 2x decades is ignorant and damaging. What a weird comment to make about 2x nationally-renowned theatres and the Showroom Cinema, to name but three institutions in the theatre/entertainment land of Sheffield city centre. 👌
  21. During my years in Sheffield, Devonshire Green has seen investment in the paving, the new flowerbeds & walls along the top section, a new outdoor seating area for The Forum, and the green itself has been pretty well kept and managed. It has hosted Tramlines, Cliffhanger, and numerous other events over the years and on sunny days it seems like it is well used by folk. What should be done with it if not all that?
  22. Back in 2003 when I first came to Sheffield, you visited Kelham Island for the pubs and yes, there was a mostly industrial landscape that leant visits to the likes of the Fat Cat and KI Tavern a romantic, bygone character, but that was then and this is now. Who is moving to Kelham Island for the quiet, industrial backstreets? It's bars, cafes, riverside nature, human-scale streets and cultural industries. It might be overly modern and faceless to some people, but not to many others who call it home, and what the area is like now offers far more to the city-centre economy than the departing industry (no offence to that industry, which deserves a good home). I'm not sure you can describe Kelham Island in it's current form as a 'bog standard' housing estate. Areas like the Little Kelham development have some of the most distinctive architecture in the city, the hospitality offering across the area is varied and popular, and generally I think it's a well-kept collection of buildings and streets. If you look at Upper Allen Street and up towards West Street - that is what an inner-city residential area should avoid being, in my opinion. That is an area that suffers from short-term tenancy, lack of character, lack of hospitality and modern industry. To that end, I would concede that the potential for too many short-term tenancies around Kelham Island is a concern, but it's a long way from that at present.
  23. There's certainly still a lot of questions to answer - and another good reason why simply having fewer cars on the road would help in easing the transition - but just to pick up on the worry about the recharging technology; as tinfoilhat says above, it is advancing at an incredible rate. Manufacturers and governments know that people are demanding consumers, and they'll work hard to keep getting more miles out of quicker charges. Just to clarify something regarding the 2030 'ban' mentioned by a few people above, with a slight suggestion of '9 years until everyone is in an electric car'. That's not the reality. 2030 will see a UK ban on sales of new petrol/diesel cars; it doesn't extend to second-hand sales of petrol/diesel cars (though I'm sure that will follow at some point, maybe 2040-2050), nor is it an outright ban on using petrol/diesel cars on the road. In fact, given only a small portion of cars on the road any given year are new, the vast majority of people won't see that ban impact their choices until we move one, two, three or more years down the line, as those new electric cars from 2030 onwards filter through the market. Hybrids too can still be sold until 2035, and still thereafter if they meet certain specifications. Another factor about all this which we haven't touched on yet, is radical changes in the way we own and use cars full stop. Obviously there are traditional methods of reducing car use (investment in public transport, active travel etc., better urban planning (15-minute cities etc)., but another thing to consider is that for many the traditional concept of owning your own car, parking it up at home (where you may or may not have to plug it in to charge etc.) may well become an old-hat style of car use anyway. Expect rentals, car sharing etc to increase. It may well be when you need a car in the future, a fully-charged car is delivered to your street!
  24. To answer the short-term context of your question; with great difficulty. I don't know the exact rules in the UK/Sheffield right now, but you are right that trailing a cable over the pavement is at best a hazard that pedestrians - not least those with mobility issues - could do without, and at worst is illegal. Hopefully some people on this forum can give you some advice from their own experience but I would encourage you to speak directly with the Council. It would be a good exercise in getting the council to clarify their position on this if more people ask the question... To answer the long-term context of your question; I don't see why people think the refueling of electric cars en mass will be much different to the refueling of petrol & diesel cars? Very, very few people fill their cars up with petrol & diesel at home. As more electric cars hit our streets over the coming decades, you will see electric fueling stations pop up, just as we have petrol stations. In fact, it's likely that existing petrol stations will themselves adapt in to providing drivers with the fuels they need for their cars. You charge your electric car up at the station, drive around, and before you run out of juice you make sure you visit the station again. Just as you do now with petrol. There are already electric charging points appearing in both Sheffield and other cities. By 2030, trailing a cable from your house to your car every night will probably not be necessary, driveway or not.
  • 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.