Sharrowvale Parking Scheme - new thread

[jezzyjj 10]

I think that there are quite a few people who would take issue with you on that. Car ownership is far from universal, so can hardly be a "necessity".

 

Oops there was a typo there, now corrected.

Car ownership has become necessary for many, many people as we live further away from work, school, family and shops than in the past and public transport is simply not up to the change. So too may people need cars. Not want, need. If I never drove again, I wouldn't care, but sadly a car is essential for today's society, so I have one. Not through choice, though.

I would happily use a bike for local travel [which I do] and the train for longer distances, but I used the train last week. Dear me, when it's cheaper for one person and far less awkward/time consuming to just drive, is it any wonder that cars are so popular.

But the railway's awful service is a whole other thread.

[Litotes 63]

You're forgetting that the Sharrow Vale scheme is part of the phased implementation of the larger Peripheral Parking Zone. Once the phases are all implemented, there will be a ring of permit parking schemes around the city centre, deep enough to deter much of the commuter parking.

 

So there are plans for the eastern side of the city? If so, where?

 

If there are plans, then why have they not been publicly discussed?

[Planner1 428]

Well you do it in one go but amortize the cost over several years. It's not a difficult concept.

Can you imagine the council building Ladybower Dam the same way? Sadly I can? They'd build the the left half and several years later, build the remaing half and claim it was too hard to do it all in one go. Ignoring the water [or cars in this case] pouring through the breach.

 

And how exactly is that? Did you not realise other cities had introduced parking schemes? Maybe you could have seen how they did it. Sharrowvale is hardly unique or really that different from Broomhill.

 

 

Actually I said you treat us as being thick with your patronising tone, which I find insulting. So how does that help your argumnet?

And if some people have made big mistakes as I believe has happened with this scheme and even you admit, then saying they are not smart is being descriptive, not insulting.

 

It's always nice and simple when you're just sitting there criticising. Dealing witht the reality of working in Local Government and the complex fiancial arrangements (not to mention the politics) which go with it are something entirely different. If there was a simple, easy way to do it, it would have been done.

 

I'm not aware of anyone who has completely encircled a city centre the size of Sheffield with residents parking schemes in one go.

 

Plenty of different places have residents parking schemes, there are also many different approaches.

[Planner1 428]

So there are plans for the eastern side of the city? If so, where?

 

If there are plans, then why have they not been publicly discussed?

 

Have you not been reading?

 

The Peripheral Parking Zone was consulted on, in the areas right around the city centre during 2001. The Council's Cabinet agreed the plan in 2002. The plan is to encircle the city centre with residents parking schemes on a sequential basis.

 

The plans have only been firmed up as far as Broomhall, Broomhill, Sharrow Vale and Crookesmoor, the rest need to be developed.

[jezzyjj 10]

Residents will benefit if they find commuter parking to be a problem. The details of the scheme were made plain from the start, people could make their own decision on whether they benefitted and comment / object accordingly.

I was never sent the fine details of the scheme. besides, seeing as the details were changed after I'd been 'consulted', such as Saturday parking, that rings hollow.

If I had, I'd have kicked up a big stink before we were landed with the scheme.

 

I do wish you'd stop with this "you admitted" stuff, as if there's something to hide.

Ah but that's how it comes across with your posts. A few little snippets about the reality of the scheme. Then a few more snippets, which change the sense or menaing of previous posts. As I said before, you'd make a great politician.

 

The approval to proceed with the Peripheral Parking Zone was given in 2002, following an extensive consultation. That is public record and not anything which needs to be "admitted".

Funny as we weren't consulted until after that date. Well after.

And it was the fact that you admitted that a decision had already been made, after your claiming that we had been consulted, so it seemed like you were backtracking. Hence the verb 'admitted' seems quite apposite and very pertinant.

 

Each section of the PPZ is subject to it's own consultation exercise and is taken to the appropriate Council Planing Board for a decision on whether it proceeds. There are no foregone conclusions, the Board could say that it shouldn't proceed if that's what they felt.

Ah, this is where you contradict yourself.

You previously said that the scheme was decided in 2002 and was going ahead regardless.

And again it's the board who decides, not those affected. So were they given as little information as we were?

[Planner1 428]

Funny as we weren't consulted until after that date. Well after.

And it was the fact that you admitted that a decision had already been made, after your claiming that we had been consulted, so it seemed like you were backtracking. Hence the verb 'admitted' seems quite apposite and very pertinant.

 

 

Ah, this is where you contradict yourself.

You previously said that the scheme was decided in 2002 and was going ahead regardless.

And again it's the board who decides, not those affected. So were they given as little information as we were?

 

The Sharrow Vale Area was consulted about the PPZ and the residents parking scheme, quite separately, five years apart.

 

I have never said that the scheme was going ahead regardless, I didn't make such decisions so would hardly have said that.

 

I have previously pointed out that the Sharrow Vale scheme is part of the wider PPZ, which was approved in 2002. That doesn't mean "going ahead regardless".

[jezzyjj 10]

It's always nice and simple when you're just sitting there criticising. Dealing witht the reality of working in Local Government and the complex fiancial arrangements (not to mention the politics) which go with it are something entirely different. If there was a simple, easy way to do it, it would have been done.

Believe it or not I do try to bear that in mind when discussing this. Even so it strikes me as a failure of organisation, imagination and thinking, that are responsible for many of the failings I see.

 

 

I'm not aware of anyone who has completely encircled a city centre the size of Sheffield with residents parking schemes in one go.

The congestion zone in London was done in one fell swoop. Which I think is even larger. And don't say that's different as that not parking as it's only different in that that it was far harder to do and sell than what has happened in Sheffield.

 

 

Plenty of different places have residents parking schemes, there are also many different approaches.

And my experience of say Wandsworth, is that it's better for residents, vistors, shoppers and the Council too as it's cheaper to enforce and run than what you have done.

Why not learn from others mistakes and ideas, rather than staring afresh?

[jezzyjj 10]

The Sharrow Vale Area was consulted about the PPZ and the residents parking scheme, quite separately, five years apart.

We were! News to me.

 

 

I have never said that the scheme was going ahead regardless, I didn't make such decisions so would hardly have said that.

 

I have previously pointed out that the Sharrow Vale scheme is part of the wider PPZ, which was approved in 2002. That doesn't mean "going ahead regardless".

 

Well as the posts where you said that are now missing.....and whether you made the decision or not is irrelevant.

[jezzyjj 10]

Have you not been reading?

 

The Peripheral Parking Zone was consulted on, in the areas right around the city centre during 2001. The Council's Cabinet agreed the plan in 2002. The plan is to encircle the city centre with residents parking schemes on a sequential basis.

You're building a dam sequentially. Not a smart bit of engineering really.

 

 

The plans have only been firmed up as far as Broomhall, Broomhill, Sharrow Vale and Crookesmoor, the rest need to be developed.

Unless you tackle the issue of Public transport, it's as I said before a sticking plaster solution to solve congestive heart failure.

 

Sheffield showed how good public transport could be in the 70s/80s. But successful Labour policies were an insult to Thatcher especially as even the rich benefitted, so it was stamped out for 'our benefit'. Funny how no-one was better off then after that spiteful policy was introduced either.

[Ned Ludd 10]

Dear Planner 1

If you refrain from any more dialogue a lot of people may get their lives back as there will be no-one on the Forum for people to have the last word against!

Perhaps everyone getting so steamed up should campaign for cheap, reliable public transport which is run by the public sector and put pressure on conservative politicians of all hues to get it sorted.

This obsession with the car is unhealthy when the planet is spiralling towards melt-down

[Litotes 63]

Jezzy,

 

Unfortunately you are on a loser here - the council has no power to implement any form of 'joined up' thinking as far as a viable alternative to commuting.

 

Despite there being areas where the council could put park and ride carparks, they have no power over delivering a bus service to there.

 

At least this is what we have been told.

 

It would be logical to think they would have made sure that there were alternative transport options before implementing a draconian and generally unwanted (as far as my canvasssing has shown) scheme - but no!

 

Goodness knows how other cities manage it.

[Suffragette1 10]

As far as I can see this scheme is of no benefit to anyone other than the Council for whom vast revenue is raised. And no doubt our council tax will still go up above inflation next year as it always does. As many poeple have already mentioned, most cities offer the first permit free and the 2nd at cost.

 

Parking spaces have been reduced as a result of the scheme and residents are in fact finding it far harder to compete for the fewer places available. We're also in a limbic state as commuters and non-permit holders continue to ignore the new restrictions thereby making it even harder on residents.

 

We have also been given lots of conflicting advice from council staff. My husband who hasn't got a permit due to the 1 permit per household policy now finds it impossible to park in our road when he returns from work; this did not happen before.

 

I personally will be policing our road and reporting any infringements once the scheme comes into effect on 22nd. I suggest that everyone does the same and takes down registration numbers and reports and offenders. It seems that many motorists ignore parking restrictions anyway, look at the number of vehicles found parked in bus lanes each day during rush hour, which is infuriating.

 

I agree that public transport needs to be efficient and cost effective but I remain convinced that many of the commuters drive out of laziness rather than necessity. And this also applies to many of the parents driving their children to school, many could walk but choose not to.