Jump to content
We’re excited to announce the forum is under new management! Click here for details.

NewBiz

Members
  • Content Count

    2,330
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About NewBiz

  • Rank
    Registered User

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. No idea. I'd google it for you but i can't be arsed either!
  2. I'm delighted. Well done SCC Planning dept and Committee!!
  3. It is indeed an exemplar if money wasting ineptitude is what you're after
  4. That's interesting, why you were discussing 'the general thrust of transport policy nationally and locally' on a thread solely about a cycle lanes at Shalesmoor? What is evident is that you and SCC will call black white in an attempt to save face. What's sad is that not only does it not work, but it stifles any chance of an open culture where people genuinely learn from their mistakes. So there's no accountability, so the money keeps getting wasted, and the taxpayer keeps ponying up, and nothing changes.
  5. That's interesting Planner1, but is completely at odds with what you stated in your post of 7th July cut and pasted below. Perhaps you could explain the dichotomy between your statement above, and the one below please Motorists are not the only highway users. This improvement is for non-motorised modes. In a constrained network, you can't promote a step change in travel mode choice without inconveniencing some types of highway user. It's fairly obvious that many car drivers will not change mode unless they are made to. Making car drivers trips slower, more difficult and more costly are all tools of demand management and that is what you are seeing here. It is policy at national government and local government levels to get huge increases in the numbers of people walking and cycling over coming years. That won't be achieved by just letting car drivers continue as normal. The government and local councils have seen big increases in cycling and walking in lockdown and they want to keep those people travelling sustainably as we come out of lockdown. The government are telling local councils to introduce measures to facilitate this and are giving them the money to do it. Thats why you are seeing measures like this emerging in all towns and cities. If the policy aims are to be delivered, its just the start and you are going to see a lot more.
  6. So am I understanding you correctly? You appear to be saying that before installing the lanes, SCC had decided that if at any point the traffic returned to 80%or above of pre-covid levels then the cycle lanes would be removed. Could you therefore please provide the research/scientific/advisory sources they were working from that led them to think there was any possibility traffic wouldn't return to at least 80% of pre-covid levels at some stage, particularly given the fairly predictable reluctance of people to use public transport during a pandemic. Thanks
  7. So Planner1 ''They had criteria for removing the temporary measures which related to queue lengths and traffic levels ( relative to pre-Covid levels). It was the increase in traffic levels which triggered the decision to remove it'' So you're saying the traffic levels triggered the decision to remove it? Could you elucidate please. Obviously queue lengths, which you also mention, were going to lengthen when you cut an arterial road's capacity in half (even given the mitigating factors of lockdown ) So what exactly about the traffic levels was it that 'triggered the decision to remove it' ?
  8. Another very good question. Where's Planner1 when you need him?
  9. Surely any organisation fit to be in charge of public funds has a clear set of criteria by which they measure the merits or otherwise of any proposed schemes?
  10. What I'd like to know, and hopefully Planner1 will be able to help here, is what metrics SCC have been measuring during the trial (ie number of cyclists using the lane, reduction in vehicular transport as a result of greater cycle use, impact on traffic flow, journey times etc) and what criteria would have to be met for it to be declared a success. Specifically what outcomes, agreed before the trial would need to be seen for SCC to make the cycle lane permanent.
  11. The explanation for removing it is laughable. However the appalling waste of taxpayer's ie our money is far from funny, it's a disgrace
  12. My bold, but that sums it up nicely. You couldn't make it up
  13. I don't blame SCC for taking the money, obviously, but given almost certainly the'scheme' is going to be removed then it's a waste of money. If SCC are incapable of understanding that as a basic concept then we're on a hiding to nothing. I'm not going to waste any more time or effort trying to get this very basic idea across. All very depressing.
  14. What makes me want to weep is that because it's central government money it's treated as though it doesn't matter. It's this arrogant stance that I find so disgraceful. Each and everyone of us is paying for it, end of chat. If a white elephant/load of nonsense cost £5 it's £5 too much., and it's £5 that can't be spent on something useful. If only SCC could take this on board Sheffield might ultimately be a much better place.
  15. That's because : a) It's the summer holidays when traffic is hugely reduced b) the majority of people are still working from home (I've just got back from my 1st trip to town since March, and the place is virtually deserted. I'd guess around 10% of the people you'd normally expect shopping, many shops shut, and few offices occupied) All that said, my nephew took 45 mins to get through the area the other day at about 11am, and having been held up many times, has now started trying to avoid it (that's easier said than done when you work, and many of your meetings are in and around about a 5 mile radius of the city centre)
×
×
  • 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.