Arundel Gate - Improvements?

[Planner1 437]

didn't there used to be a big subway under the roundabout? has that gone now? surely that was safer & easier for everyone.

In the post you were quoting, I was discussing Woodseats.

 

If you mean Arundel Gate, there was a subway, which has now been filled in. Over the years it became very unpopular, many avoided it and many others found it very intimidating or difficult to use because of the steps. There was also an underpass for traffic, which was dangerous and difficult to maintain.

 

They were designed at a time when vehicular traffic had priority over everything and many of the ills of modern society, vandalism and antisocial behaviour, weren't so prevalent and the fear of them wasn't a great concern.

 

These days, subways are a maintenance liability. Often damp and uninviting, they are extremely unpopular with pedestrians and often difficult to use by those who are less able.

 

People generally find subways are a barrier to getting around and much prefer to cross the road at surface level. That's why in most places the subways are being filled in and surface level crossings provided.

 

Can anyone really argue that Arundel Gate / Eyre St in it's current form isn't a huge improvement on the old dual carriageway and underpass, which was ugly, unpleasant, difficult to cross and effectively severed part of the city centre?

Edited October 26, 2010 by Planner1

[anywebsite 10]

I did mean Arundal Gate, I didn't read the whole thread.

 

I can see how it'd be hard for wheelchair users & other people that have problems with steps, but that was one of the better underpasses for everyone else. I've never known it to be at all intimidating. I wasn't aware of a massive increase in vandalism or antisocial behaviour either. If the council weren't forever digging everything up & changing things, maybe they'd have the money to maintain what they've got.

 

It only severed the city if you can't negotiate a set of stairs, or if you're scared of your own shadow. That particular subway wasn't ugly, unpleasant or difficult to cross.

 

I can see how the traffic underpass was difficult to maintain, I remember it flooded fairly often, but it did take some traffic off the roundabout.

 

Woodseats is an absolute nightmare for traffic, I do whatever I can to avoid it. It's a shame the tram was never extended to cover the south west, it'd help a lot.

Edited October 26, 2010 by anywebsite

[andyrad29 10]

having visited Barcelona recently i noticed they have a dual carriagway underpass near the marina and it takes so much traffic out of the city, there were never any snarl ups and it just simply works so well. its not untill you get back to Sheffield and see how wrong we are getting it by making the roads smaller and sending everyone the same way etc. etc.

[heeleybird 10]

In the post you were quoting, I was discussing Woodseats.

 

If you mean Arundel Gate, there was a subway, which has now been filled in. Over the years it became very unpopular, many avoided it and many others found it very intimidating or difficult to use because of the steps. There was also an underpass for traffic, which was dangerous and difficult to maintain.

 

They were designed at a time when vehicular traffic had priority over everything and many of the ills of modern society, vandalism and antisocial behaviour, weren't so prevalent and the fear of them wasn't a great concern.

 

These days, subways are a maintenance liability. Often damp and uninviting, they are extremely unpopular with pedestrians and often difficult to use by those who are less able.

 

People generally find subways are a barrier to getting around and much prefer to cross the road at surface level. That's why in most places the subways are being filled in and surface level crossings provided.

 

Can anyone really argue that Arundel Gate / Eyre St in it's current form isn't a huge improvement on the old dual carriageway and underpass, which was ugly, unpleasant, difficult to cross and effectively severed part of the city centre?

 

It's not often I agree with you Planner but this time you're probably right, it's just a pity that we have to have pavements wider than a main thoroughway through Sheffield. Also find that outside the Town Hall, 300ft wide pavement,

10ft wide road. Takes me back to when the city centre came to a full stop because 1 bus broke down, maybe if we let buses use the occasional bit of pavement,then when they break down as they sometimes do other traffic (including the emergency services) can still get through:

[Captain_Scarlet 10]

Can anyone really argue that Arundel Gate / Eyre St in it's current form isn't a huge improvement on the old dual carriageway and underpass, which was ugly, unpleasant, difficult to cross and effectively severed part of the city centre?

I disagree (no surprise there). Eyre Street and Arundel Gate are smaller, full of stationary traffic, full of traffic lights when there used to be far more convenient subways (the remaining one I use because I don't have to cross the road). anywebsite, I agree with you.

 

They're both uncomfortable to cross as a pedestrian as lights do not change when the button's pressed and to drive on as the carriageway zig-zags and there are crossings every few yards.

 

The roads are just as "difficult" to cross as they were as they're still roads. The amount of money spent on laying all this granite, redesigning Furnival Square several times, adding "urban art", chopping trees down five is obscene when the road is consistently stationary.

 

Both roads are now grey and boring and unpleasant to look at, a lot like the new Moor.

So the pedestrians don't appreciate the improved walking environment and more plentiful and safer crossing opportunities? Drivers don't appreciate the improved parking arrangements and bus users don't appreciate the priority measures, bus stop infrastructure improvements and shorter journey times? Doesn't that pretty much cover "the majority" and wasn't there something in it for all of them?

There is no improved crossing and there is no more parking!

The crossings are: too numerous, inconveniently placed and do not function when activated.

Parking spaces on the road are a luxury and private parking should never, ever count as a contributing number of parking spaces within the city centre.

Bus journeys are not shorter, the no right turn on Furnival Gate is an example of how planners have it wrong.

 

You simply lie Planner1, there is no good crossing, no more parking and buses are not faster, what world do you live in to think anything you've said is true? I am amazed, I have to take a photo of you to see if you're real seriously.

[Planner1 437]

There is no improved crossing and there is no more parking!

If you read my post properly, I said more plentiful and safer crossings. A couple of new ones were added when the scheme was implemented and the carriageway was narrowed at some of the existing ones.

 

I saw a survey done shortly after the scheme was completed that counted the number of cars parked in the shopping area. There were more after the scheme was completed because of the way in which they reorganised the parking bays.

 

The crossings are: too numerous, inconveniently placed and do not function when activated.

I doubt that the thousands of pedestrians who use that area daily would agree with you.

 

The crossings don't operate instantly for pedestrians in the interests of smoother traffic flows and reducing delays to drivers. You can't have it both ways.

 

private parking should never, ever count as a contributing number of parking spaces within the city centre.

Can you point us to where it says Councils have a statutory duty to provide off street parking? In most large cities, the surface level car parks are generally sites awaiting development. Multi storeys are much more space efficient, but are too expensive for Councils to build, so they will inevitably be provided by the private sector. That's the way your government wants it isn't it? Services being provided by the private sector.

 

Bus journeys are not shorter,

Star article quoted buses as being thirty odd seconds quicker through Woodseats, so it must be true.

[Planner1 437]

having visited Barcelona recently i noticed they have a dual carriagway underpass near the marina and it takes so much traffic out of the city, there were never any snarl ups and it just simply works so well. its not untill you get back to Sheffield and see how wrong we are getting it by making the roads smaller and sending everyone the same way etc. etc.

That rather depends on whether you plan your city for cars or people.

 

Ask anyone where the worst place in the world for traffic congestion is - answer - where I live.

[xgrifterx 10]

i'd like to know how much the giant weetabix structures cost that can be seen floating in the milk of the roundabout???

 

xgx

[Planner1 437]

It's not often I agree with you Planner but this time you're probably right, it's just a pity that we have to have pavements wider than a main thoroughway through Sheffield. Also find that outside the Town Hall, 300ft wide pavement,

10ft wide road. Takes me back to when the city centre came to a full stop because 1 bus broke down, maybe if we let buses use the occasional bit of pavement,then when they break down as they sometimes do other traffic (including the emergency services) can still get through:

The road outside the Town Hall can easily accommodate two way traffic. It doesn't need to be any wider.

 

People keep wittering on about one broken down vehicle causing huge queues, but exactly the same thing happens in any major city at peak times because the network is congested. If you take away a significant amount of capacity at peak times there will be problems. Can you name any major city, anywhere in the world where they specifically build additional road capacity "just in case" there is an incident at peak times? Remember, the money for major road schemes comes form the Government. There is never enough money to go around and they are not going to give you the money to build a 6 lane road when a four lane one will do the job.

[Sagan1 10]

Every First bus is put through a bus wash every night and swept clean. Only if there is a liquid spill or a biological hazard [s**t, P**s, Blood] it will be took out of sevice and mopped with disinfectant. Drivers have to stop people getting on with opened burgers. But when the passengers put them up their jersey or kept in a bag, then scoot upstairs and start eating them whats he to do. Stop bus, shout upstairs only to be ignored or told to f**k off, then get on radio or phone for the police to wait there for 30 mins. Meanwhile everyone wants to go home after a hard days graft. Better off just letting it go.

Edited October 26, 2010 by Sagan1

[Bulgarian 10]

For your information, there are a lot of people who own a car but choose travel to work by other means. Walking, cycling, car sharing or public transport. That's their choice, for many reasons, which could be because they find it more convenient, quicker, more healthy or environmentally friendly or a combination of factors.

 

I don't know anyone who has a car and uses public transport, unless it's a taxi home after a night out, I think these people are a myth.

[heeleybird 10]

The road outside the Town Hall can easily accommodate two way traffic. It doesn't need to be any wider.

 

People keep wittering on about one broken down vehicle causing huge queues, but exactly the same thing happens in any major city at peak times because the network is congested. If you take away a significant amount of capacity at peak times there will be problems. Can you name any major city, anywhere in the world where they specifically build additional road capacity "just in case" there is an incident at peak times? Remember, the money for major road schemes comes form the Government. There is never enough money to go around and they are not going to give you the money to build a 6 lane road when a four lane one will do the job.

 

I know we're going off track here planner and I assume I'm one of the people who you term as a " witterer" but the point I'm trying to make is that there is a difference between slow moving congested traffic, as you find at peak periods, as opposed to stationary traffic that cannot move, and I emphasize the word CANNOT, due to the fact, AND it is a fact that some of our inner city centre roads are just not wide enough to let vehicles get round other vehicles that may for whatever reason be causing an obstacle.

 

Why do the highways department planners always assume that they are right in creating " bottlenecks " is it just a way of controlling the flow and speed of vehicles along certain stretches of road.