Jump to content RIP Sheffield Admin Mort

Sharrowvale Parking Scheme - new thread

Recommended Posts

Does anyone know how often you can apply for another pad of visitors passes ?

 

There are no hard & fast rules on this, so as often as you need, within reason. I've not heard of anyone in the Broomhall / Broomhill schemes complaining at not being able to get more.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Funny how your very poor survey caries such weight, yet petitions carry none. And as for interviewer influence, there's as much influence with the questions and how they are phrased, like for instance, the lying by ommision you did in your survey. To explain further what I mean by the lying, I shall repeat my post from first page, which as usual, you completely ignored. I hope I don't have to post this 4 times to get a response like last time.

 

"... the residents were led to believe we would be better off as a result and it was in our interest to OK the scheme.

Not the case. At all.

Planner1 is good in that he takes part on here but is very disingenuous in what he posts at times.

 

If when we were asked in the consultation,that did we want no commuter parking, parking restricted to one car per household, and no parking by anyone without a permit until 6.30pm [thus meaning those whose car is away during day, say 7am-6pm as my girlfriend's car is, now cannot park outside house when she gets home] and less parking in the street overall? Which is what we got. I reckon they would have had a near 100% response of No Thank You and a lot of other much ruder responses.

 

We didn't have a parking problem until this ill thought out scheme was introduced. And all along Planner1 insisted these parking schemes [sharrowvale/Broomhill] were for the resident's benefit.

Planner1 would make a great politician. And that's not a compliment.

 

If you actually want to reduce commuter parking/commuter traffic, make it more attractive to commuters to not drive. Implement a good public transport system, have school buses....

You are using the hitting people with sticks method of encouragement. It doesn't work, it simply annoys people. Use a carrot to change behaviour and you'll get a much better response."

 

Who is to say how much weight the petitions carried with the decision makers?

 

No one, including myself has ever said that everyone would be better off with the scheme. I have said this in previous posts.

 

One size does not fit all and some people will be disadvantaged by any change. That is the nature of implementing transport policy, there are often hard decisions to make and the decision makers have to take a balanced view.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This shows how flawed the arguments that this scheme is to prevent commuter driving, as the scheme doesn't extend far enough away from town for it to work. At the London Road end, Sharrow St and Club Garden Road are in scheme yet the streets on the other side of Sharrow Lane aren't, so commuter cars are now parked there. So if the scheme had extended down to Abbeydale Rd from Sharrow Lane, then this would have had two effects. The people just outside scheme and still within easy walking distance of town now wouldn't be complaining and commuters may actually be discouraged. As it is they now have an extra few minutes walk. Wow what a disincentive.

Anyone with more than half a braincell, could have predicted that.

 

Planner1, the complaints on here are far more about the cack handed implementation of the scheme and not the concept itself. It's half hearted and very poorly thought out.

It's a sticking plaster solution for congestive heart failure - to mangle metaphors.

 

Wherever you draw a boundary line, there will probably be some displacement.

 

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.

 

Sharrow Vale is the largest parking scheme the Council have implemented. Their resources aren't massive in terms of staff and money. They can only do so much each year. Of course it's always possible to do a better job, but that takes more people, more resources and more money, which the Council do not have. They do their best with what's available.

 

The issuing of permits doesn't seem to have been well handled, which of course reflects badly on the scheme as a whole, which is a shame, because a lot of hard work went into geting it that far. I'm sure lessons will be learned.

 

The scheme needs to be given sufficient time to get up and running before judgements are made about it. People seem to be in a hurry to condemn something which hasn't even started operating yet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

do residents of the Exeter drive, lansdowne and washington rd flats have to purchase a permit to use the onsite car parking spaces and do you recieve a discount if claiming benefits?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Wherever you draw a boundary line, there will probably be some displacement.
Not if it too far away from the centre for drivers to walk the last part of journey. The roads just outside the Sharrowvale scheme by London Rd are much closer to town than other areas inside the scheme.

As I said, cackhanded implementation. Especially as some places where cars are actually allowed to park, make for dangerous junctions. Sharrow Lane/Sharrow Street junction for example.

 

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.
Not forgetting that at all. That's part of my complaint. An incomplete ring and not deep enough ring is worse than no ring for those not in areas that are implemented.

You should have done it all in one go, by delaying the start. Rather than by doing it piecemeal. As for being 'deep enough', That doesn't seem to be the case near London Rd. Anything but.

 

Sharrow Vale is the largest parking scheme the Council have implemented. Their resources aren't massive in terms of staff and money. They can only do so much each year. Of course it's always possible to do a better job, but that takes more people, more resources and more money, which the Council do not have. They do their best with what's available.

some of the issues have nothing to do with staff levels as described by my points above and by your own admission below.

The issuing of permits doesn't seem to have been well handled, which of course reflects badly on the scheme as a whole, which is a shame, because a lot of hard work went into geting it that far. I'm sure lessons will be learned.
Odd as Sharrow was not the first part of scheme. Didn't you learn from Broomhill? Obviously not.

 

 

The scheme needs to be given sufficient time to get up and running before judgements are made about it. People seem to be in a hurry to condemn something which hasn't even started operating yet.
I don't have to wait to be stabbed, before realising a knife in the guts may hurt.

Likewise with this farrago. We did not have a parking problem before, we now do. You assume we are completely thick it seems.

I am not against reducing commuter traffic. It's just that this so called solution is a very, very poor way of doing so. It's like giving a patient with bad back, painkillers and then claiming that you've cured them. You're treating symptoms, not causes. Which is a useless way of sorting out problems.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What I can't understand is, why do people think its their right to park outside their own homes?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No one, including myself has ever said that everyone would be better off with the scheme. I have said this in previous posts.
Hmm seeing as the previously thread is now convieniently innaccessible, that's hard to prove. But the impression I got from the questionaires we were asked to fill in and your previous posts is that the residents would benefit. Otherwise why would anyone agree. You had to let people believe it was in their interests otherwise you would have got a 100% response of 'get stuffed' from the questionaires.

It was sold as 'residents will benefit'. Saying otherwise is simply perpetuating the deceipt.

 

One size does not fit all and some people will be disadvantaged by any change. That is the nature of implementing transport policy, there are often hard decisions to make and the decision makers have to take a balanced view.
And some sizes fit none, which unsurprisingly you forget to mention. And as for balanced views, it's obviously not going to happen when decisions are made by those who who aren't smart enough to realise the problems they are causing and aren't interested in oposing views/alternative proposals.

You admitted it was going to happen regardless, as it had been decided some years earlier, 2002 if I remember correctly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Not forgetting that at all. That's part of my complaint. An incomplete ring and not deep enough ring is worse than no ring for those not in areas that are implemented.

You should have done it all in one go, by delaying the start. Rather than by doing it piecemeal. As for being 'deep enough', That doesn't seem to be the case near London Rd. Anything but.

 

some of the issues have nothing to do with staff levels as described by my points above and by your own admission below.

Odd as Sharrow was not the first part of scheme. Didn't you learn from Broomhill? Obviously not..

 

To implement the whole of the PPZ in one go, would probably take more than half of a year's funding allocation for Sheffield's highways / transport schemes and there are a lot of competing demands. It's simply too big to do in one go. Sharrow Vale is a big scheme in residents parking terms, I don't think the Council would want to do anything larger in one chunk.

 

Yes lessons are learned from every scheme, but Sharrow Vale is a much different area to the others which have gone before.

 

I must take issue with your insulting tone, it is not necessary to call people names, hjust because they have a different viewpoint. It does your arguments no credit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What I can't understand is, why do people think its their right to park outside their own homes?
Well as society has changed, car ownership has changed from a luxury to a necessity for many. Thus being able to park your car in the same postcode as where you live is kind of handy and to suggest otherwise is somewhat naiive.

Besides seeing as for the last 100yrs [age of houses on road]one could park outside on street on my road no problem. I'm annoyed there is suddenly a problem, when we were led to believe, it was in our interest to implement scheme.

It's only a few muppets, like the one mentioned by a poster above, who demand to park outside their front door as opposed to on the street.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hmm seeing as the previously thread is now convieniently innaccessible, that's hard to prove. But the impression I got from the questionaires we were asked to fill in and your previous posts is that the residents would benefit. Otherwise why would anyone agree. You had to let people believe it was in their interests otherwise you would have got a 100% response of 'get stuffed' from the questionaires.

It was sold as 'residents will benefit'. Saying otherwise is simply perpetuating the deceipt.

 

And some sizes fit none, which unsurprisingly you forget to mention. And as for balanced views, it's obviously not going to happen when decisions are made by those who who aren't smart enough to realise the problems they are causing and aren't interested in oposing views/alternative proposals.

You admitted it was going to happen regardless, as it had been decided some years earlier, 2002 if I remember correctly.

 

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

 

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".

 

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well as society has changed, car ownership has changed from a luxury to a necessity.

 

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".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
To implement the whole of the PPZ in one go, would probably take more than half of a year's funding allocation for Sheffield's highways / transport schemes and there are a lot of competing demands. It's simply too big to do in one go. Sharrow Vale is a big scheme in residents parking terms, I don't think the Council would want to do anything larger in one chunk.
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.

 

Yes lessons are learned from every scheme, but Sharrow Vale is a much different area to the others which have gone before.
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.

 

I must take issue with your insulting tone, it is not necessary to call people names, hjust because they have a different viewpoint. It does your arguments no credit.

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • 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.