biotechpete

20 hours ago, darylslinn said:

And the Netherlands isn't built on 7 hills.... just fields and dykes.

Aren't the council or another authority looking at putting a pure cycle route alongside the river down that corridor ?

They have strong winds though which can be just as tough.

The route I think you mean is a widened footpath near parkwood springs. It won't be lit and will not be suitable terrain for all cycles. It's being funded mainly by sustrans who maintain the transpennine trail - which as an example is often covered in mud and flooded in parts. 

22 hours ago, Annie Bynnol said:

There are advantages in the hourly direct trains to/from the Airport. If the trains were diverted away, there are alternatives particularly if the connection is not cross-platform at Piccadilly.

At the moment Hazel Grove/Taxi/A555 is not an option as only one train a day stops at Hazel Grove from Sheffield and you would need to book a taxi but you would be dropped off at the terminal you want rather than the railway station. The taxi would not need to use the A6 -just  a suburban road and about 200m of the A623(avoidable) then the new A555 to the airport.

Coming back, the taxi is 10m from the platform(stepped ramps or lifts when going).

A couple would save time and money, the disadvantage would be joining a train that could be full.

 

The 199 bus has the disadvantages of not stopping at Stockport(or Hazel Grove)station but on the very busy A6  10 minutes away (at both stations) from the platform.

 

 

There is a surcharge for taxi drop off and pick up at Manchester airport you're looking at £15-20 at least, each way from Hazel Grove. I normally pay £12-15 for a prebooked minicab from Stockport station.

Stockport bus station will soon be rebuilt and linked by a short walk to the train station. Perhaps in time for these timetable changes. 

On 11/02/2021 at 12:38, Annie Bynnol said:

Option A(least reliable train timetable)

1 Airport

1 Liverpool

1 Piccadilly(stopper)

 

OptionB(more reliable)

2 Liverpool

1 Piccadilly(stopper)

0 Airport

 

Option C(most reliable)

2 Liverpool

1 Piccadilly(stopper)

0 Airport

As there are no services to the Airport from Wales and Merseyside, this will be the least politically acceptable.

 

This plan also signals the end of a third fast service to Piccadilly.

B and C would enable a faster times between Stockport and Piccadilly.

 

Airport users should consider a taxi from Stockport. Even better would be a taxi from trains that stopped at Hazel Grove using the new A555.

 

 

 

There is a non-stop bus from Stockport bus station which takes the motorway to the airport. It takes about 10-15 mins but is timetabled as longer to account for traffic delays. It costs £2.50.

https://www.highpeakbuses.com/bus-services/skyline-199/

On 17/12/2020 at 11:25, Planner1 said:

And you really think that the Environment Agency would allow all that filth  to be discharged directly into a river do you? The muck on the road will include oils and in winter de-icing salts, which could be very harmful to aquatic life.

 

I'm no highway drainage expert either, but I can see that the point where it floods its the low point on the roads from several different directions. What happens there is that the local drainage system can't cope with the amount of water thrown at it, so the capacity of the drainage system would need to be improved, or if that is not possible, storage capacity would need to be incorporated to hold the surge in water until the local system can get it away. All of which means a lot of digging and disruption and a lot of cost. That's a lot of money and effort to deal with an occasional minor inconvenience. That probably tells you why it hasn't been dealt with already. 

I've requested this be fixed on a couple of occasions and on the second it was dug up and relaid (poorly) several years ago. A guy I know who works in the industry in the area said the contractor is notoriously poor. I don't think the gully is actually connected to any local drainage which is the source of the problem. The gully is full of water days after it's rained. The only outlet is evaporation and the fact it's always wet contributes to it's regular collapses.

The scale of the problem is more related to the pedestrians and the business premises there which get soaked with muddy waves of water metres high each time a bus or a tram plough through it thoughtlessly.

On 13/07/2020 at 14:39, Baron99 said:

Story from The Star regarding Walkley area. 

 

https://www.thestar.co.uk/news/crime/action-called-sheffield-street-after-cars-spotted-racing-motorway-speeds-2911159

Couldn't agree more with this. I've lived in the area longer than 7 years and it's the worst I've ever known it. It's not just the ususal boy racers either. It's the school mums in their SUVs too.

On 24/07/2020 at 18:43, Jeddo said:

Then you have not noticed that the Councillor covering Ecclesall ward is not mentioned as doing anything about it.

Cllr Masters and Cllr Pullin were there.

The scooters I've used in other countries are restricted to about 15mph. They're widely used on small roads and bike tracks. Can't see why we couldn't allow the same here if we modify our city centre streets for people instead of 2 tonne metal boxes.

3 hours ago, Ghozer said:

I can say myself that you are wrong, I got stopped at the bottom of a hill by police for going 'too fast down the hill, causing a potential hazard to myself and others" or something along those lines...

Was on a push-bike (hybrid mountain/road bike) - no motors or assists.... (was about 10 years ago now too)

Unless they just had a slow day...

Give you a ticket for that "causing a hazard to yourself and others" law breaking did they?  

Just because they stopped you doesn't mean they did so lawfully. As I can too attest to after having been stopped and breathalysed without due cause.

On 24/04/2020 at 09:24, TrickyDickie said:

Speed limits apply to all vehicles on a public road, motorised or not. If there is a speed restriction applied to a specific type of vehicle, that takes precedence. There is also another offence of fast and furious riding, an old offence originally applied to horse riding.

This is a common misconception. The road traffic act 1984 and rule 124 of the highway code through which speed limits are enforced refer and apply to motor vehicles only. There is no offence of travelling in excess of the speed limit on a bicycle or other  form of non-motorised travel. 

The offence of wanton and furious cycling makes no mention of speed and in any case can only be applied in the case of an accident where serious injury or death has ooccurred. It is an offence against the person and not a highway law therefore a cyclist cannot even be legally stopped by police simply for being over the motor vehicle speed limit. 

The other offence police use is careless and inconsiderate riding but speed by itself has never been prosecuted in this way.

13 hours ago, RJRB said:

I assume you can go as fast as the speed limit downhill

Does the speed limit apply to e-bikes?

I would imagine their not classified as motor vehicles and so not subject to the motor vehicle speed restrictions.

You can book through a travel agent, though I wouldn't recommend it if you are on a budget. Sometimes you can find a deal often it's a lot more expensive.

I've done Alpe d'Huez, booking my own accommodation direct, then taking my own gear in the car. Bought the lift pass in resort. 

The things you need to think about about are 

1. What resort do you want to go to - cost, family friendly, night life, good ski school, easy runs, hard runs etc?

2. How will you get there - flights and transfers or drive.

3. Do you need to hire equipment?

4. Do you need a ski school?

5. How much is the lift pass?

Quite honestly I wouldn't ski in France by choice. The resorts and skiing aren't that great value. Lots of people go just to be seen there. In Europe I'd go to Austria, Italy, Bulgaria or Andorra.  The cheapest way I've found is flights to Thessoloniki and bus transfer to Bansko.

Alternatively if you have the money to spend on Val d'Isere you'll likely find much better value resorts and higher quality skiing spending a week in North America.

Ski magazines and websites often have advice for resort choice. Most resorts have their own tourist websites which list accommodation, ski schools, equipment hire, lift passes etc.

A while back they said they were having trouble attracting chefs to keep the place running. Apparently Brexit Britain was not a place they wanted to come to and were preferring Germany instead.

On 24/07/2019 at 12:16, Janus said:

The last 2 posts don't seems to be about   VED remaining on the car, or being put on fuel.

Mine clearly was, it's just that you seem not to have taken the points onboard. What that proposition in practice means is scrapping VED. It's blatant cakeism. Why 'shift' VED to fuel? How about putting VED on income tax, or insurance premium tax, or whatever? It's a tax designed to raise revenue to pay for public services. 

I think there's a fundamental flaw in the inherent assumptions at play in this discussion in as much as people seem to think that VED and fuel duty are somehow designed to pay for roads, they aren't.  

As the house of commons transport committee puts it

Quote

We entirely understand that motorists do not like paying tax – nobody 
does. However, trying to create a balance between motoring taxes and 
expenditure on roads is not a good way to make public policy or a basis 
for major public expenditure decisions. Road investment should be 
justified on wider transport policy objectives, needs and benefits.

As with all taxes, the best way to prevent avoidance is to spread the costs in multiple ways.  VED is higher on big cars mostly because drivers of big cars can afford to pay a bit more tax.

Roads are largely paid for, not from general taxation, but from council tax. 

Indeed the costs of motoring, roads, pollution, injuries and related issues result in a subsidy from tax payers to motorists. Reflecting these costs in fuel duty alone would be over 15p/km or a pump price, based on average mpg of over £2.70 per litre.

All that said, I'd like to see VED or some other tax include some element of vehicle weight and therefore road damage caused.

I saw what I thought was a golden labrador this morning running along the A57 towards Hollow Meadows, near the Mortimer Rd junction. There didn't appear to be any owners around so I circled back when it was safe to turn around, to look for it. Unfortunately I couldn't find it.

Thought I'd post it here in case anyone knows of a lost dog fitting the description.

On 14/05/2019 at 11:44, Planner1 said:

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. 

The lack of devolved funding and the failure to succeed in CCAG funding could easily fall as further valid criticism of SCC and the political administration. Yes GM has flagship schemes, but the amount of new infrastructure is irrelevant to the basic design of what is already in place. 

My borough has consulted cyclists in a cycling forum for over 20 years. As such, much infra is already in place at a reasonable standard, CCAG and mayoral funds are being used to fill missing links and resurface paths. But the ambition, the desire to build good, usable infrastructure has been there for ages. Yes people still complain and compromises crop up but the cycling officers generally succeed in getting designs implemented. Perhaps that's why they get funding where Sheffield fails.

The standard of current infrastructure in Sheffield has nothing to do with what funding they get now, or in future, it's a reflection on design practice and historic long term planning, for which fair criticism can be made of those who designed and built it.

17 hours ago, Planner1 said:

If you're really interested, why not send in a request for the stats instead of posting it on here?

And here's another one of the problems, everyone who uses the road thinks they are a better transport planner or highway engineer than the people who are doing it for a living. If you truly understood the difficulties and constraints involved, you might not be so critical.

Having spent some time with officers and planners on the other side of the pennines, looking  with enthusiasm at the ways to implement equivalent standards to the London cycle design standards, I feel criticism of Sheffield's efforts justified.

The forestry commission planted a number of, often non-native, fast growing woodlands to replenish our tree stock which had been decimated during both world wars. Now that these trees are mature, and our national wood stock is fairly secure, they are being logged, partly because coniferous woodlands have pretty poor biodiversity. The replacement trees are slower growing native deciduous woodlands which offer much better habitats for wildlife.

1 hour ago, dutch said:

Those northern trains are funny, they are really old ancient, outdated, for a country that claims to be on the top, it reminds me of journeys I made in India long time ago.

We are driving to M A next week, meet and greet parking. Last time we took motorway because of intense mist over the pennines but prefer more direct routes.

The direct trains from Sheffield to the airport are operated by transpennine express. The trains on the route are relatively new Siemens trains, the ones I have been on have been recently refurbished too. On a number of other routes to the airport there are even newer trains being introduced this year.

before people start with over sensisitive knee jerk reactions here are the questions do please try to understand the questions and please only reply if your answer is legally correct. i only stipulate this because there are some that are clueless that would and probably still will post useless comments.

 

are football clubs legally allowed to close nearby roads to traffic?

and if so by what right?

and who empowers them the right to do so?

 

or other events aside from football but the two secondary football teams wednesday and united seem to be the main protagonists.... during game days both put people ..not police officers... on some roads and deliberately block trafic causing diverted traffic to cause further interuptions to traffic flow and consequently very often traffic jams

 

please no speculation or fanciful comments ....... facts only please preferably with links to evidence

 

also

 

may any road user regardless of number of wheels or means of propulsion without fear of penalty or prosecution choose to ignore those people apparently being employed to obstruct the road?

 

again i say football clubs because the two i mentioned seem to do this the most often of course it applies to any other events you might know of that actually obstruct traffic

Clubs are not entitled to close roads, without authority, at random.

Local authorities will grant the right to close the roads at the club's request, or they, or police, in fact stipulate it as a condition of an event licence. Other events such as road running or cycling events may also similarly close roads.

The local authority has the power to close roads for events using either section 21 of the town police clauses act 1847, most commonly, or a temporary traffic regulation order under section 16A of the road traffic act. In either of these cases, the closure can be enforced by cones and signage.

Contravention of a road closure, in the first case is an offence under section 36 of the road traffic act 1988. That is a failure to comply with traffic signs (offence TS50, which is three points and a £100 fine). It is an offence in itself to contravene a road traffic regulation order with a vehicle under sec 16C of that act.

A person who contravenes, or who uses or permits the use of a vehicle in contravention of, a restriction or prohibition imposed under section 16A of this Act shall be guilty of an offence

In this case, the offence is a moving traffic offence under Traffic Management Act 2004.

A moving traffic contravention is—

(a)an offence under section 36 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 (c. 52) of failing to comply with the indication given by a traffic sign that is subject to civil enforcement (see paragraph 9), or

 

(b)an offence of failing to comply with a traffic order in so far as it makes provision for a requirement, restriction or prohibition that is conveyed by a traffic sign subject to civil enforcement.

The traffic management act 2004 also gives the local authority the power to designate individuals as "traffic officers" to direct traffic. This is in effect anyone who is working for whoever the local authority designates an authorised person. Ie a steward at a club could be a traffic officer at the say so of the club should the local authority designate someone at the club an authorised person for the event.

(1)This section confers the following powers on a traffic officer—

(a)a power, when the traffic officer is engaged in the regulation of traffic in a road, to direct a person driving or propelling a vehicle—

(i)to stop the vehicle, or

(ii)to make it proceed in, or keep to, a particular line of traffic; ....

 

©a power, when the traffic officer is engaged in the regulation of vehicular traffic in a road, to direct persons on foot (or such persons and other traffic) to stop;

(d)a power to direct a person driving a mechanically propelled vehicle, or riding a cycle, on a road to stop the vehicle or cycle.[/Quote]

 

Amendments to the Road Traffic Offences Act 1988 mean that ignoring the direction of a traffic officer is the same offence as ignoring a uniformed constable directing traffic.

Under what power can the council demand the removal of estate agent signs in gardens?

I guess this one:

Anyone who displays an advertisement in contravention of the Regulations commits an offence. For example, by displaying an advert without the necessary consent or without complying with the conditions attached to that consent. It is then immediately open to the local planning authority to bring a prosecution in the Magistrates’ Court for an offence under section 224 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. The penalty on conviction for the offence is at level 4 on the standard scale (current maximum £2,500) and in the case of a continuing offence a further daily fine of up to a maximum of one tenth of that amount (£250) until the contravention ends.

Schedule 3 of Town and Country Planning (Control of Advertisements) (England) Regulations 2007.

 

Miscellaneous temporary advertisements

Description

3A. An advertisement relating to the sale or letting, for residential, agricultural, industrial or commercial use or for development for such use, of the land or premises on which it is displayed.

 

Conditions and Limitations

3A. —

 

(1) Not more than one advertisement, consisting of a single board or two joined boards, is permitted; and where more than one advertisement is displayed, the first to be displayed shall be taken to be the one permitted.

 

(2) No advertisement may be displayed indicating that land or premises have been sold or let, other than by the addition to an existing advertisement of a statement that a sale or letting has been agreed, or that the land or premises have been sold or let, subject to contract.

 

(3) The advertisement shall be removed within 14 days after the completion of a sale or the grant of a tenancy.

 

(4) No advertisement may exceed in area—

 

(a)where the advertisement relates to residential use or development,0.5 square metre or, in the case of two joined boards, 0.6 square metre in aggregate;

(b)where the advertisement relates to any other use or development, 2 square metres or, in the case of two joined boards, 2.3 square metres in aggregate.

(5) Where the advertisement is displayed on a building, the maximum projection permitted from the face of the building is 1 metre.

 

(6) Illumination is not permitted.

 

(7) No character or symbol on the advertisement may be more than 0.75 metre in height, or 0.3 metre in an area of special control.

 

( No part of the advertisement may be higher above ground level than4.6 metres, or 3.6 metres in an area of special control or, in the case of a sale or letting of part only of a building, the lowest level of that part of the building on which display is reasonably practicable[/Quote]

An extra subsidy would have to be made payable through SYPTE by South Yorkshire residents for the Tram Train to accept SY ENCTS passes as nationally neither trams or trains are required to accept them.

Supertram does accept them though.

Seeing as he has apologized , he knew full well he was out of order.

Well he apologised when told to, he spent a day or so doubling down on his comment trying to defend it.

Brexit will result in such mass unemployment that they'll make full monty 2. In the new version, Carlisle's grand-kid will be injecting crack in an abandoned supertram shed. The universities and hospitals, will no longer be the city's biggest employers. The universities having suffered massive loss in student numbers after a scandal of locals being recorded mugging foreign students for food. The NHS will be in the process if being privatised and sold. The hallamshire will be closed down due to high maintenence costs, but the council will inexplicably buy it to save it from demolition, only to leave it derelict.

I suspect the experience of our tram-train to Parkgate will make it much harder to sell a business case for any similar projects, anywhere.

Manchester believed they had a better case last time around and that they have one now. Tram-train through Cheadle is in the latest multi-modal plan.