Should Sheffielders be thoroughly ashamed of our roads?

[Nickscape 10]

The roads in this city are terrible, we moved to sheffield not long ago from Warwickshire, the roads there are so much better, they are made from good materials and last a long time. Electric and Gas companies simply were not allowed to dig holes in the road to lay pipes etc, everything was done at once and then the road re-surfaced, none of this digging holes and trying to fill. Our car has quite stiff suspension, it was never an issue before moving to sheffield but here it just cannot cope with the amount of holes on every road, even the main routes into the city and is sometimes impossible to drive.

 

Some of the roads near us were re-surfaced last year, 'chips' were put on the top and rolled, its already nearly back to how it was with holes everywhere, what a waste of time, time to do things properly.

[chemistuk 10]

Yes, we should be ashamed of ourselves. After all we vote in the councillors who maintain them.

[ReginaldD 10]

I think if the council hadn't spent so much putting down speed bumps or other traffic calming measures such as road narrowing on every road possible we would have had enough money left to repair the damaged roads.I don't disagree on putting bumps near schools or areas with a lot of pedestrians,But i think the city went a bit bump happy and put a lot of them in unnecessary places.

 

 

 

I just want to echo the above

[HeadingNorth 11]

I just want to echo the above

 

Even though it is not true?

 

If the council hadn't spent so much money on traffic-calming measures, the money would have been taken away from them, because it was for traffic-calming measures and not for street repairs.

[Forumosaurus 10]

Been on BBC today, maybe Sheffield City Council should get one of these

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/8529964.stm

[psyn 10]

Even though it is not true?

 

If the council hadn't spent so much money on traffic-calming measures, the money would have been taken away from them, because it was for traffic-calming measures and not for street repairs.

 

so,

they can only spend it on traffic calming measures, next year they get the same and spend it all, then next year and next simply for the sake of not having it. The'll put how many measures in? it resembles a rollercoaster these days, and im not talking nemisis I'm thinking the grand national from blackpool.

Theres no good reason for allowing a road like gleadless rd to be left asis where its so bumpy and lopsided next to a forty foot drop and on a bus route, and to leave it in such a bad state -for,3,4 5 9+ years so thats not blameable on the weather- and then put speed bumps on a road like eastbank after thhey move thhe school away from it. Then you've got the travisty of high green, penistone rd, oh whats the point %75 of roads in sheff are abysmal.

hey but look on the bright side park hill flats are having x amount of £millions spent to polish that turd.

[redrobbo 10]

...and then put speed bumps on a road like eastbank after thhey move thhe school away from it.

 

The speed humps on East Bank Road were indeed installed after the new Springs Academy opened. However, you overlook that the new school entrance is now off Hurlfield Road, and children from Arbourthorne and Norfolk Park cross East Bank Road to get to the Academy.

 

Traffic and accident surveys showed that speed humps were needed to slow down speeding traffic in order to make the road safer for children who cross it twice daily.

[HeadingNorth 11]

so,

they can only spend it on traffic calming measures, next year they get the same and spend it all, then next year and next simply for the sake of not having it. The'll put how many measures in?

 

That may well be a good reason for building less traffic-calming measures, but it still has no bearing whatsoever on the state of the roads. The council - as I have said before on both this topic and others - are not allowed to spend the deckchair rearrangement budget on avoiding icebergs. Only on rearranging deckchairs.

[mahonia 10]

Been on BBC today, maybe Sheffield City Council should get one of these

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/8529964.stm

 

Looks rather good

[psyn 10]

That may well be a good reason for building less traffic-calming measures, but it still has no bearing whatsoever on the state of the roads. The council - as I have said before on both this topic and others - are not allowed to spend the deckchair rearrangement budget on avoiding icebergs. Only on rearranging deckchairs.

 

does any one know exactly what constitutes 'deckchair rearrangement'?

nice term by the way.

as it seems the general method is bumps on the road but not say, lolipop ladies, bridges or barriers or better road markings.

 

maybe the council should think about following the govt method of putting all cash in a pile and spending it as appropite?

[Planner1 441]

does any one know exactly what constitutes 'deckchair rearrangement'?

nice term by the way.

as it seems the general method is bumps on the road but not say, lolipop ladies, bridges or barriers or better road markings.

 

maybe the council should think about following the govt method of putting all cash in a pile and spending it as appropite?

 

Normal transport funding comes to the South Yorkshire Authorities as a partnership

 

The funding for maintenance is given to us separately from funding for other new initiatives / infrastructure.

 

The Department for Transport require us to provide "outputs" detailing what we have used the initiatives / infrastructure money to provide. These have to be in line with the aims of the Local Transport Plan, which expresses the transport strategy for South Yorkshire. We also have to report on indicators like road casualties or congestion. Success against indicators brings more funding.

 

The current Local Transport Plan (LTP2) ends next year and the guidance from Government for the new one (LTP3) is that they are adopting a more "hands off" appproach and that he new LTP will be our own strategy and delivery plan rather than a way of reporting progress against the Government's aims. They say they are going to be less prescriptive and there are less reporting requirements.

 

In most Council's the available funding is split into smaller "pots" like Casualty Reduction, Danger Reduction, new crossings, cycling measures etc. This ensures that a good "spread" of initiatives are funded.

 

As I understand it, Sheffield are devolving an increasing amount of decision making on smaller transport type schemes to Community Assemblies, who will each have six figure budgets and be able to decide what type of measures they want.

[L00b 441]

But shouldn't the state of the road network require a strategic consideration?

 

Should decisions about road re-surfacing (included in these "smaller transport type schemes" you mention?) really be left to ever-discrete local bodies, ad hoc?

 

Where we end up with Moon-like portions in certain areas, with no £s left in the "area kitty" to fix them, due to political shifts, shenanigans and pet projects?

 

Sounds a bit like an exercise in hand-washing