Jump to content

Tony

Members
  • Content Count

    21,881
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Tony

  • Rank
    Registered User
  • Birthday 01/04/1968

Personal Information

  • Location
    Gone
  • Occupation
    Formerly Admin at Sheffield Forum

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. Obviously Google is a complete mystery to SF users these days! https://nostalgiapens.com/about-us/
  2. ^^ this is a very good assessment. Negotiations are just that - negotiations. Until the final version comes together there is little point in getting excited or upset about any particular aspect that either party might push for.
  3. It's a sad loss but they moved online. Google is your friend. 👍
  4. The Mini Holland's are certainly interesting, not just for the furore they create (trees!). ISTR an informal study up in Walkley that recently looked at transport modes and shopping where the motor car and the need for adjacent parking was way down the list. That's encouraging for district centres and it seems to be being reflected in the Mini Holland schemes so it will be good if a UK body of evidence will be pulled together over time. On here I have given public bodies a bad rap over the years (and will continue to do so) not because I think they only employ incompetents rather than the usual mix of good, bad and totally unless staff, but because the politically led system means that they are institutionally incapable of good decision making unless it is very short term. Politicians quite naturally think continually about elections so everything is tinged with short-termism with a layer of whatever ideology floats their boat - who wouldn't?! Neither am I convinced that money / lack thereof is the cause of all ills although it is an easy excuse for poor institutional performance. If we fill transport planning departments with transport planners we will keep getting solutions that look like transport, when that's not necessarily what people actually want or need. In other words, if the only tool you have is a hammer, every problem is treated as a nail. I'm totally unconvinced that building and widening more roads, tinkering with junctions and traffic light timings, introducing charging or low emission zones, forcing cars out or introducing eye watering parking charges is going to have the overall desired effect of reducing congestion and it's effects. It's not done for half a century so there's little reason to think it will any time soon. I'm equally unconvinced that we should try to sustain our city centres by putting them on life-support. The way we use our urban environment changes every couple of decades and virtually any building that isn't an actual house has a limited useful lifespan of 20-30 years so there's no point in trying to plan new commercial buildings including apartment blocks to last two hundred. The needs of changing technology and working patterns will make a building redundant long before bricks go out of fashion. We should expect and plan for change while maximising the existing infrastructure that does have a longer lifespan - roads mainly. I'd like to see clear demarcations created between people zones and vehicle zones. So yes, pedestrianise Division St (for example) but at the same time re-reintroduce traffic on all the adjoining side roads that have been cut off, restricted or one-wayed. Bring those millions of square metres of expensive tarmac road infrastructure back into use and permanently eliminate that which will be reallocated to people. Eliminate as many controlled junctions, road markings and signs as humanly possible - you'll be very aware of the various experiments in Friesland - and force drivers interact with their environment and other drivers so that passive rather than active road safety takes over. Engineers and planners must resist the urge to over-design and fall back on highway design guides when simple human focused (not rule based) solutions can be implemented. That's a bit of a spiel, but hopefully there are a few thoughts to move the conversation on.
  5. This is why many people don't bother here any more. Any chance of conversation is met with a salami-sliced response that reinterprets, distorts and misrepresents in order to win some point that the other person didn't make and cares even less about. It's playground hair pulling and definitely not Oxford Union debate. The simple truth is that UK <> AUS free movement of any kind is a matter for negotiation, always was, always will be. It's negotiation. Anyone outside the negotiation who is making predictions or having hard expectations really should have a look at themselves, especially on SF. Find me somebody (apart from you and your point scoring) who cares about AUS travel not being visa free post Brexit and I'll buy you a pint. For what it's worth I would be very surprised if there was not some form of free movement negotiated for certain professions and / or sectors depending on what the other is looking for.
  6. The only mistake that Delphene made was not just booking the first appointment given and then ringing first thing every day to try for an earlier one. There's no doubt that getting an early appointment is difficult if you aren't continually in the system, especially for people with commitments in the working day. People shouldn't have to block the phone lines or visit the surgery to merely get an appointment. Hope that you are sorted out now Delphene.
  7. It's crystal clear really L00b. There is no karma, it's no more than two nations deciding what they feel is best for themselves which they may or may not adapt depending on a forthcoming negotiation. You might also want to read those articles again because neither of them say that the UK expects free movement UK<>AUS and both of them say that Australia won't be giving it, both two days ago and in September. You seem to be in the hard and fast predictions game which is a bit ambitious given the experience of the last few years and an inability to read the articles you're using to make the predictions.
  8. Honestly, people make this forum so difficult and unfriendly with these confrontational responses instead of trying to have a conversation where we all learn a bit. The example trip is for demonstration purposes of how the wheel and spoke ringroad design works. It is not a complaint about a particular journey. Yes, I ride a bike. I travel by foot - often all the way to the centre from the very edge of the city, I occasionally drive, but less than the other modes of transport. I use the train, I fly and I often use the bus too so I feel reasonably enlightened about the different modes and how they interface with each other. I am also a designer of urban environments and understand how people respond to good design and poor design. I feel my experience and credentials are as good as most to be able to comment without needing to be taught a lesson about how it is in the real world. I like cars but I like people and nice places more. You are quite right to point out that the photos are, I believe, Dutch. What you might not be aware of is that until the 1970's Holland's highway infrastructure was just like the UK's. They changed it with good urban design that was centred around people and low impact transport so that cars were given third place behind pedestrians and bikes. Your complaint that Sheffield drivers couldn't do is is both unsubstantiated and judging by the Dutch example, nonsensical. I suppose the only complaint left is that Sheffield is too hilly, but since most bike journeys in Sheffield are on the hilly west that falls away too, and we can always walk if a bike is too difficult. People adapt and change. https://www.dutchreach.org/car-child-murder-protests-safer-nl-roads/ Also, we will all have noticed that nobody in the Dutch photos feels the need to wear either a helmet or hi-viz and that there are people of all ages from children to pensioners. The graphs in the above link tells you how safe Dutch roads are now, and how dangerous they were when their roads were like ours. I don't happen to think that congestion charging is the answer, nor is building more roads, nor is restricting access to anything but the very inner core of the city. The solutions lie in changing habits by giving people better options to choose from instead of making existing options worse. We can keep complaining about how terrible the UK / Sheffield roads are or we can have open minds to actual evidence, be a little less selfish and give confidence and motivation to people like Planner 1 and the politicians that fund them to change things with more carrot and less stick.
  9. Sheffield's version of a "ring road" (for there are many types) is that a motorist at the hub who wishes to drive to anther part of the hub is required to travel along a spoke to the wheel, around the wheel, back down a spoke to the other part of the hub. It's difficult to describe in words, but for example if you are in the John Lewis car park and you wish to drive to Howden House, a journey of 2-3 miles taking 15 minutes is required. Try it for yourself. https://www.google.co.uk/maps/dir/John+Lewis+Customer+Car+Park,+31+Burgess+St,+Sheffield+S1+2HF/Howden+House,+1+Union+St,+Sheffield+S1+2SH/@53.3812017,-1.4868128,14z/data=!3m1!4b1!4m14!4m13!1m5!1m1!1s0x48798281b96162a1:0x113f18d071627ff2!2m2!1d-1.4711804!2d53.3793071!1m5!1m1!1s0x487982817cecf0ef:0xc9353fcd92970d0a!2m2!1d-1.4702571!2d53.3782856!3e0?hl=en-GB This is what is colloquially known as a Horlicks. There are many reasons for it but it is still a Horlicks. It creates additional traffic, congestion, pollution and danger to other people. On bikes having priority, it's a well known road planning method. All that really changes is that the give-way junctions are for cars, not bikes. For example, the Penistone Road cycle lane would be a continuous stripe of red tarmac all the way from Grenoside to town. If a car wishes to turn left to exit Penistone Rd, or right to enter it, they wait to give way to bikes that are on the red stripe. So for example, a roundabout where cars give way to bikes; Straight lines are easy T junctions are a breeze I am certain that Planner 1 will be very familiar with this highway design where cycle lanes have priority and motorists have to give way. I have a hunch that he and his colleagues would adopt it like a shot if the political will was there. If only highways engineers and traffic planners could resist their natural urges to over-design we might be in with a chance of enticing people to leave their vehicle at home.
  10. There is a lot of merit in pedestrianising much more of the innermost core of the city but difficulties arise because SCC has made a Horlicks of their wheel and spoke approach to the ring road. The idea that vehicles should get on the ring road merry-go-round to access adjacent points has failed to address congestion, in fact it has exacerbated it. Perhaps the salami-slice funding approach over the decades is to blame but I have little confidence that SCC can deliver anything but more of the same problems. A little more carrot and a lot less stick seems a more intelligent way forward than to keep kicking motorists. Maybe it is time to remove restrictions / one ways / dead ends / waiting restrictions / controlled junctions and redesign the city centre so that pedestrians and bikes have lane and junction priority over vehicles, including on major roads. In other words, motorists always give way to people and bikes, not the other way around.
  11. Not really in the way you seem to. The irony is that you seem to be laughing that the UK can implement similar immigration controls to Australia's, which was a major plank of the Leave campaign. In this case the irony is on you for bringing it up L00b. There is no reason to think that the UK is entitled to any exceptionalism beyond that which can be agreed between two willing negotiating partners such as the UK and Australia, or the UK and the EU27. Whatever is agreed can suit the circumstances of the individual nations with compromise as appropriate to the overall negotiating objectives. It's strange to imagine that all UK citizens should be able to wander in and out of Australia without Australia agreeing to it, but it's not ironic.
  12. Why and how is that different to the present situation viz methadone, counselling etc? We must not pretend that prescription heroin will prevent begging and street drug abuse by people with either complex needs or criminal intent. I am pleased that you are not advocating a liberal approach to psychotics but you have left me wondering what problem prescription heroin would alleviate for both society and the individuals.
×
×
  • 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.