Would traffic flow better by removing all restrictions, no entry, one-way..

[AndrewC 310]

Now think of the options to go to town hall that are closed and if your thinking of using the excuses of; community safety, of rat runs and and congestion and whatever.

This is a city centre your talking about NOT a suburb or terraced street.

 

City centre's are for pedestrians and other vehicles users too! Lots of people walk to and around the city centre psyn!

 

 

now consider how congested the city was a few days ago when it snowed, it was absoluley terrible the jam extended from penistone rd to the police station to the town hall to the moor to eccalsall rd to queens road to woodseats... and I'm sure it probably extended in other directions as well.

 

Too true, too true - the junctions around the top of the moor are a mess and why they haven't opened up the end to allow busses to turn right at the bottom of Pinstone Street is beyond me. But no system is perfect - to dismiss all restrcitions because of one poorly designed section of the system is a bit silly.

[Tony 10]

I'm trying to avoid picking up on individual points but there are a few in your posts that do need comment.

 

Sheffield only has a finite number of roads and junctions and the number of cars exceeds the general capacity of the system, restrictions or no restrictions. The restrictions are in place to get the most from the junctions we have.

No, the most that you can say is that the number of cars exceeds the current capacity of the system.

 

The idea that the restrictions are in place to "get the most from junctions" has no evidence that I see.

 

if unrestricted roads (lets say 4/5 for example) were all allowed to pile into each other at unrestricted junctions it would be chaos. Hands up who fancies replacing Brook Hill Roundabout with the system at the Arc de Triomphe in Paris? Anyone?

Which restriction on Brook Hill roundabout ? There aren't any.

 

 

On a more general note it's plain that there is a distinct unwillingness to learn about the base model. I'm baffled as to why.

[Planner1 438]

On a more general note it's plain that there is a distinct unwillingness to learn about the base model. I'm baffled as to why.

I'd say it is more about your unwillingness to read / comprehend what has been written.

 

As I've said before, the base model reflects the current situation ie it includes all current restrictions.

 

If you want to model what happens if there are no restrictions, that is a scenario which would need to be built and tested. This costs money, there is little enough funding as it is, why waste it on something which is NOT a viable option?

[Planner1 438]

The idea that the restrictions are in place to "get the most from junctions" has no evidence that I see.

 

During my time at SCC we looked at many different junctions and there were times when we had to ban movements in order to maintain capacity.

 

If you want an example, Ecclesall Road / Summerfield Street, right turn from Ecclesall Rd had to be banned to accommodate the movements we wanted to allow, without causing horrendous delays.

 

When movements are banned at junctions, it's usually due to capacity or safety reasons.

[Tony 10]

But the current "base model" doesn't work. Wouldn't it be a good idea to find out why?

[AndrewC 310]

But the current "base model" doesn't work. Wouldn't it be a good idea to find out why?

 

I think you should define 'doesn't work' because I would put it to you that the restrictions in place today are to get the best out of the system we have and I would say that in many/most areas it does its job. I think what you mean to say is, it doesn't work for you, but once again you do so whilst -deliberately, I presume - ignoring all the other users of the roads/streets that the restrictions do benefit. I think I've had enough of this thread - Planner1 is putting it better than I ever could and is the far more experienced voice so I will leave it to him.

[Planner1 438]

But the current "base model" doesn't work. Wouldn't it be a good idea to find out why?

If I was a betting man, I'd have a fiver on "too many single occupant cars"

[andrejuan 10]

It all comes down to the fact that when they build a bridge, they build it to withstand the heaviest load it is likely to encounter. The road planners only consider what a road will encounter on an "average" day.

Nuff said.

[psyn 10]

Obviously in an ideal world this theory holds true - The extreme of this example being that if everyone had thier own route from thier house to the Town Hall there'd be one car per route. No congestion. But the more you bring reality into it the more you should realise the natural restrictions placed on such a theory? Sheffield only has a finite number of roads and junctions and the number of cars exceeds the general capacity of the system, restrictions or no restrictions. The restrictions are in place to get the most from the junctions we have.

precisely it has a finite number of junctions but the nuber of junctions and routes that are available for use is probably less than 1/4 of actual junctions and routes.

nobody expects a private and traffic free road but why would you want a pointlessly busy one?

 

As Planner1 says above - if unrestricted roads (lets say 4/5 for example) were all allowed to pile into each other at unrestricted junctions it would be chaos. Hands up who fancies replacing Brook Hill Roundabout with the system at the Arc de Triomphe in Paris? Anyone?

why would it be chaos?

some thing my driving instructor said always sticks with me and I think its applicable to what your thinking,

-when driving towards another car - 'always try and remember that the guy in the other car probably doesn't want to crash into you just as much as you don't want to crash into him.'

you (and to a certian extent Planner1) seem to think that opening up most roads to unrestricted acess and other sensible options would result in mayhem , but you have no foundation for this theroy, none of us alive have ever driven in these situations nor apparently has the 'model' been run to see what would happen.

I can appreciate certian traffic lights and certian one way streets and even certian no acsess, but A lot of lights and junctions are there simply for the sake of it.

example

Theres no way in the world that the junction of queens,london road wouldn't be improved if the bus gate was removed.

ok I'll take into account the school; how does diverting traffic left around a park towards bramall lane then right to a junction to go right onto queens then past the same park and school help?

it doesn't make any sense.

From a child safety point of view;

barriers, lolipop ladies and a pelican crossing (bear in mind that the kids should only be wandering about this area for two periods of the day really) would benifit esp when you take into account that youve just diverted all the traffic along a park edge where children are probably more likely to be unsupervised and also around that area for a greater period of the day.

Now look at traffic that had no intention of doing anything but passing the end of queens rd is forced onto it and along it just to leave it?! not to mention that traffic heading towards town is halted to allow the right turn,on a road that could easily accomodate a permanant left turn lane

why not simply install a round about at queens/london/

a light controlled one if you must,

the main problem is really heely bridge , so why not widen it as that is the true bottle neck of that area?

If your feeling really adventurous you could bury/raise the road past the school.

Or if you was really sensible you'd change the main entrance of the school and take away the pavement and the now pointless toilets to further improve the potential roundabout.

and thats just one junction that is blocked and badly planned.

the school is now a glorified roundabout.

annd there are probably 25/30 sets of expensive traffic lights in place where a circle of grass and bricks would do better.

sorry for the length of the post but that might highlight what an excissive waste of time was spent not fixing a problem.

[Captain_Scarlet 10]

Thank goodness there are people like you psyn. Why indeed is it better for traffic to be taken on a merry-go-round when the direct route is blocked? Why is a deviation that prolongs a trip better than just going straight ahead? The lights are set to give more time for Bramall Lane traffic because Alsine Street as more traffic on it. Reduce that time at he junction with Queens Road and augment the green light time for London Road traffic. Also, any reason why traffic can't go up Queens Road when traffic turns right? There's no traffic crossing it? If there's a pedestrian it'd pressed the button which more often than not isn't.

[Tony 10]

If I was a betting man, I'd have a fiver on "too many single occupant cars"

 

So what? I appreciate the arguments about car use, safety public transport and environmental issues but that has nothing to do with this discussion.

 

The current model doesn't work and you personally (and I assume the highways dpt by association) don't see any need to find out the fundamental ways that our roads operate unless you are promoting an ANPR system that nobody else wants.

 

If we understood how the roads truly worked, with or without restrictions, at a time when there is massive investment in the network, it might just be possible to implement viable options drawn accurate conclusions from reliable evidence.

 

Is the idea of removing restrictions not to be mentioned inside the town hall for fear of admission of error? Maybe it's fear of losing funding allied to tinkering to put right earlier failures?

 

I won't take a bet based on a hunch over empirical evidence.

[TimmyR 10]

Get a bike, you can go where you like then. I shun this society obsessed with rules by flaunting them.

 

And wearing a thick hat over ears drowns out the complaints.