Jump to content

AndrewC

Members
  • Content Count

    2,302
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by AndrewC

  1. It doesn't 'lead to' Meadowhall any more than it leads to the city centre? There are a number of schemes in the Connecting Sheffield project that are in other places in and around the city centre, and although cycling schemes for Ecclesall Road & London Road themselves aren't part of that, those two roads are going to be getting a bus-centric overhaul in the long-term. What that will look like - not sure. You build the infrastructure for what you want, not what you have. It's a key part of the council and private developers plans for the area that industrial traffic and the majority of private motor vehicle traffic (that are mostly only passing through) is kept away from the high street area, giving over space for traffic calming, active travel infrastructure (cycle lanes, pavement improvements) and public transport improvements. It's been an easily accessible street for cars and lorries for decades and all that has done is pretty much kill of any potential the area has for regeneration. There are developers waiting to move ahead with a some large-scale, key residential developments in the nearby area who are waiting for Attercliffe Road to be improved in this way. That's not speculation, there are big developments already in the works behind the scenes. And when you talk about injections of money, property development is the best way to bring £££s in to the area. There are jobs in the area too, and no one is saying all industrial/warehouse premises need to be removed, it's just that their access into and out of the area is going to be adjusted so as to keep it off the primary high street.
  2. With the Herdings Park line 'just up the road' and with such an array of destinations all lumped together in the area, it is a tantalisingly good spot to extend the tram out to along the ring road. I know there are buses out there but the tram is a real game-changer for most people when it comes to leaving the car at home and taking public transport. Though truthfully, most problems are caused by local residents driving to the retail park and all the through traffic (between West & South Sheffield and Chesterfield), so it might be good for new visitors from the city centre etc, but it might not actually impact much on the traffic which causes problems on the roundabout. Unfortunately 'just up the road' probably equates to countless millions in construction costs and so you can expect to never see it materialise in our lifetimes save for a remarkable turnaround in national transport spending policy. Utilising the tram-train technology (as tested nationally between Meadowhall & Parkgate), might be a cheaper option but would still be tricky to route up the hill from Millhouses/Totley and still cost plenty. I know some people won't like to hear this but ultimately, you can keep trying to do what you want to the roundabout, adjoining roads, access points etc., road widening (you'll just encourage more cars), amendments to the lane layouts (rearranging the deckchairs with minimal impact on traffic levels). But the real problem is always too many cars. Too many of the trips generated by all these destinations and through routes are taken by private motor vehicle. But, build a retail park with a massive car park in the middle of low-density cluster of suburbs, and everyone is going to drive, aren't they? And when you suggest that maybe they should try not to, or suggest taking a minimal amount of car parking spaces and road space to provide better walking and cycling facilities (including for cargo bikes) then usually people just laugh at you and call you ridiculous, and tell you their specific reason for why they couldn't possibly do without the car and so completely dismiss the idea of anyone walking or cycling, before going back to wondering why there is so much traffic on their roundabout...
  3. That is indeed another very possible future timeline, yep.
  4. I don't disagree that it's unlikely Doncaster will ever rival Manchester but it's a little short-sighted to simply look at the public transport situation now and state - 'that means it can never be any better than it is'. The connections grow and change with the airport. Investment in connections helps the airport to grow, and growth in the airport helps makes more and better connections more financially viable and attractive. Needless to say, public transport connections to Manchester Ringway airfield decades ago were non-existent! There have been interesting proposals to try and link DSA up to the nearby East Coast Mainline, opening up new markets including London, and - more important locally - opening up the chance of a direct train from Sheffield to DSA via Doncaster, but sadly they've been knocked back. Shame; would have been a game-changer.
  5. I don't understand - you seem to agree that it's currently dangerous for cyclists and that largely comes about from the slightly mad way drivers use it, and the fact that bikes & cars are on the roundabout at the same time. The proposal should help by taking bikes away from the roundabout itself and providing segregated crossings across each of the feeder roads. The priority given to cyclists and pedestrians at those crossings - over the drivers in cars - should also, over time and with the right enforcement, encourage drivers to take more care at the roundabout (slow down, observe the junction properly, etc.) rather than use it irresponsibly as - like you say - often happens now.
  6. In defence of these councils, a lot of these schemes have been removed only because of a small group of objectors - usually the kind of people who wish they could legally marry their BMWs and get upset because 1x parking space has been removed, or their journey has a few extra seconds added to it - kick up such a loud fuss that the councils cave in and put things back as they were, despite them being generally successful and well-received schemes. See : Kensington High Street cycle lane.
  7. SFGE Properties. Registered in Ashford, England. Mentioned in the news link in the OP.
  8. Lots of it is student living but the permanent non-student increase in the city centre population is just as healthy in Sheffield and most other big UK cities. Certainly nothing like 'people leaving in their droves', so I'm not sure where sedith is getting that from...
  9. If you find it hard to believe, then why don't you come to the logical conclusion? Which is that they do grasp the concept, but politics, finances, land ownership issues have all scuppered any idealistic plans. Most council planning departments would probably love to do all the 'obvious' things that people like you suggest on here, but are constantly having to make do with what little influence and power they have.
  10. It's don't think it's that complicated, or indeed that different from what currently happens. It basically moves the bus routes slightly and stops through-traffic using Arundel Gate. Basically, instead of buses using Pinstone Street southbound, they'll use Rockingham Street. A 2-way bus gate on Furnival Gate will allow for a complete loop around Rockingham Street, Furnival Gate, Arundel Gate, High Street/West Street so buses can circulate around the city centre and for the most part take similar routes through town as they do currently. Bus Gate on Arundel Gate will basically stop private cars using it as a cut-through town, whilst still allowing private cars access to the car parks at either end of Arundel Gate. Private cars will still have the same access to John Lewis car park.
  11. There will be full taxi & drop-off/pick-up arrangements on Burgess Street - the hotel spans the block. Useful, perhaps, but not essential, especially for such a central site. Transport statement on the planning app confirms there is no parking included in the proposals themselves, and that they will utilise existing city centre parking, potentially with special arrangements as alchresearch says.
  12. Not sure what flexibility SCC have in varying business rates. I think it's already a variable rate based on a number of factors, so it already takes in to account the size and nature of the businesses. I'm not sure what flexibility they have to subsidise or cancel altogether the BR for one street? Guess it probably could be done.
  13. If the surface in question had some kind of stonework etc. on it (i.e. it wasn't just standard tarmac), then the way it usually works is, a private operator (water, gas, electric company etc.) comes in, digs the hole, does whatever they need to do, then fills the hole in with tarmac as a quick fix. Then the council and/or council contractor (i.e. Amey) comes along at a later date to fix the surface to the previous standard. Forcing the private operators to leave it exactly how they found it as soon as they're done would indeed be the ideal scenario, but would probably require the council to be in possession of a) Money and b) Legal enforcement that it probably doesn't have.
  14. The scaffolding that has plagued the top end has come down now (bar some at ground level because paperchase is being fitted out, I believe). That's certainly been up too long and the council have some blame to accept for that. Otherwise, I'd be interested to know what some of the people posting above think the actions/responsibilities are that the council should have in relation to Chapel Walk? I doubt they have much control over the rent, or the upkeep of the premises, or the general difficulties many independent retailers have faced over the last 20 years, be that Sheffield or anywhere, scaffolding or no scaffolding?
  15. Most adult cyclists on the roads these days are also qualified drivers and as such have studied the highway code (including sections on bicycle use) as much as any other road user, and often have their bikes insured as part of their car insurance as well. Roads & pavements are paid for from general taxation, so cyclists, pedestrians are as likely to have paid a proportionate amount of tax towards the roads as any other citizen has. The VED tax applies to vehicles based on emissions, hence why pedestrians, cyclists, electric cars etc. do not have to pay it, and is not used directly to fund highways in any case.
  16. A few things; 1. the OP is talking about a mobilty scooter, not the kind of scooters I think you're referring to. With regards to 'cyclist law-breakers being ignored by the police', well: 2. Studies (I do have some links somewhere but I'll have to dig them out) have shown levels of 'law-breaking' by mode of transport are roughly even (and that takes in to account the varying numbers of drivers/cyclists/pedestrians etc), if anything motorists break the laws of the road more routinely than any other mode. 3. As most police forces will be happy to tell you; when a cyclist or pedestrian breaks the law, it results in (pretty much 100% of the time) - at most - an annoyance. When a motorist breaks the law it can frequently end up seriously injuring or killing people. The number of deaths on roads & pavements in the UK over the last 5-10 years say, caused by cyclists or scooters is still in the single figures, I believe. The number of deaths on roads & pavements in the UK over the last 5-10 years say, caused by motorists number well in to the 1,000s. And then there's the ridiculous damage costs caused by motor vehicle accidents too. Obviously you can't defend serious lawbreakers on bikes & scooters who really cause genuine issues (not just nothing-events that get some motorists a bit upset), but there are levels to this. So - long story short - you can understand why police forces that have limited resources choose to focus on lawbreakers who cause serious injury, deaths and untold damage costs to the council/insurers/public etc. and make it more of a priority than policing lawbreakers who barely register on any of those metrics, right?
  17. Of course they knew there was a reservoir there... Their issue relates to not properly designing for that fact. I've no doubt the issues will be resolved and in a decade or mores time people will have largely forgotten about this, but to refer to this as nothing more than a setback is a truly heroic stretch of positive thinking! Getting this far in to the build of quite a large building only to discover someone has screwed up so badly that it needs to be taken down again - that is quite a major setback. Even if the extra construction costs are covered somehow by insurance, the University are still going to suffer by way of this facility being probably 6-12 months behind schedule now? This is about a private-developer scheme that hasn't been properly engineered/designed and so needs to be partly or fully taken down. How does that relate to the retail quarter situation?
  18. Delivery drivers from places on Ecclesall Road; parking wherever they like (including fully on the pavements (Dominos Pizza, Cemetery Road)), pulling out and turning across the road aggressively, then shooting off at high speed, either way up Ecclesall Road or up Broomgrove/Southgrove Roads. And all to deliver a 12" pizza and some chips before it gets cold. In a 5-door estate. That's who it is rushing about round my way, anyhow..
  19. I think you and NewBiz are being a bit black & white here. It isn't true to say that no developer ever ends up building any affordable housing, ever. Of course affordable housing gets built, it's just that often the amount that is eventually agreed on and physically built is often much less than originally agreed at first, and yes, quite often that ends up being nothing. It's a tug of war between developer and council planning office - weighted by law & resources in favour of the developer - and to that end, there will be obvious losses but also some successes. Not every Developer is powerful and resourceful enough to completely overcome the planning system, and it's also fair to say that screwing over the local planning office every time isn't necessarily in a Developers interests either? I think Planner1 describes the situation very well. It's not a great one - I don't think you or Planner1 would disagree on that - but it should explain why planners do what they do. Aim high, follow the national guidance, work with what they've got to secure the most of the agreed plans and hope that they can secure as much of that as they can. What else would you have them do? Do nothing? Not bother? 5% affordable housing is better than the development not going ahead at all.
  20. What a weird comment? Clearly not true. Sure, a lot of city centre flats will tend to be focused towards students, and you have pockets outside the city centre like Ecclesall Road, Broomhill, Crookes (and even those areas still have probably just as many non-students living in the area); but the vast majority of Sheffield is free of students full stop, let alone in any great numbers.
  21. Most of The Moor has been/is being redeveloped with private investment, as most developments generally are. Save for the odd self-financed building (think the new market may have been council money?) very few developments, however civic-focussed they may appear, are proposed by the council. If developers are hot for the Moor, luke warm for the NRQ area around John Lewis, and wouldn't think about building retail or offices around castlegate even if you paid them, then the council really have to go with the flow...
  22. Chelsea Park is lovely, mainly due to the fact that it's quiet, cos no one knows about it.. I've never noticed a dog poo problem?
  23. Where? The section between Dove Holes & Whalley Bridge isn't in the peak district; there is a tiny stretch that bypasses Taddington between Buxton & Bakewell. Certainly nothing akin to the M62 though. I think dualling the Snake or Woodhead passes would be largely pointless (not to mention excessively expensive) in terms of improving speed/traffic congestion - they take you largely uninterrupted across 95% of the Peak District; the real issue is (and I don't agree with Penistone999 often/ever) the urban pinch points through Glossop, Mottram, etc.
  24. Sheffield Forum: "THE COUNCIL WASTE OUR MONEY AND ARE INEFFICIENT " Also Sheffield Forum: "Why aren't the council paying someone to wander around aimlessly looking for problems that no one has so far complained about?"
×
×
  • 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.