Woodseats the nightmare continues

[Planner1 438]

So...surprise, surprise, the council measures journey times and they are magically shortened. An independent review however finds the opposite is true and the council are being economical with the truth.

Do you know when each of these measurements was done? The "independent" review was done some time later, so conditions could easily have changed in the meantime.

I wonder where he could have arrived at such a conclusion?

Couldn't be that one political party had an issue with what was done and how it was done under another party's administration could it?

[richkent 10]

Many people perceive that congestion went up, particularly towards city, because the queue was relocated further back up towards Meadowhead, where it could be managed an public transport given priority.

 

How is the queue managed? And public transport gets stuck on Meadowhead in this 'managed queue' because it's one lane until part way down the hill.

[JME52K 10]

Problem is that most drivers tend not to drive in the peak hour only ones, even at times when they can.

 

 

I do see what you mean but it's probably because you get so far on and cars are (legally) parked in that lane and then drivers are reluctant to let you back in the other lane.

[Total Chaos 10]

They will proberly never sort it out

 

Not when a large percentage of the council think like planner1 does,its not our fault, its the drivers.Even on a sunday i have driven up and got stuck in traffic,it starts at the first load of traffic lights at the cross roads,just down from the school.

[Planner1 438]

How is the queue managed? And public transport gets stuck on Meadowhead in this 'managed queue' because it's one lane until part way down the hill.

The queue was managed at the set of traffic lights on Meadowhead, which have now been switched off. See: http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?q=Meadowhead,+Sheffield&hl=en&ll=53.337088,-1.481335&spn=0.0004,0.000871&sll=52.8382,-2.327815&sspn=9.377429,28.54248&oq=meadowhead,+sheffield&t=h&hnear=Meadowhead,+Sheffield,+United+Kingdom&z=21&layer=c&cbll=53.337088,-1.481335&panoid=hm_D5Rm8Vc2o17FiEi3Q4w&cbp=12,345.04,,0,0

 

The bus lane at these signals allowed the bus to get to the front of the queue.

 

---------- Post added 13-03-2013 at 18:32 ----------

 

Not when a large percentage of the council think like planner1 does,its not our fault, its the drivers.Even on a sunday i have driven up and got stuck in traffic,it starts at the first load of traffic lights at the cross roads,just down from the school.

So traffic queues are nothing to do with the number of vehicles wanting to drive down the same stretch of road at the same time being higher than the capacity of the road then?

[Doctor Drew 10]

Do you know when each of these measurements was done? The "independent" review was done some time later, so conditions could easily have changed in the meantime.

 

Couldn't be that one political party had an issue with what was done and how it was done under another party's administration could it?

 

Whether or not a political advantage was made from the reviews findings is irrelevant. I also fail to see the relevance of the fact that the independent measurements were undertaken later than those of council. Stop trying to shift the blame on to some unknown and undefinable variable in an attempt to deflect blame.

 

The unavoidable fact is that congestion and journey times have increased. The changes have been independently assessed and found wanting. Instead of avoiding this fact and trying to blur the issue by blaming peoples perceptions or the price of fish, why not admit the error and attempt to remedy it?

I for one would have far more respect for organisations such as SCC if they would occasionally admit they have made a mistake, apologise and act positively to make amends.

 

“It is better to offer no excuse than a bad one.”

― George Washington

[Planner1 438]

Whether or not a political advantage was made from the reviews findings is irrelevant. I also fail to see the relevance of the fact that the independent measurements were undertaken later than those of council. Stop trying to shift the blame on to some unknown and undefinable variable in an attempt to deflect blame.

 

The unavoidable fact is that congestion and journey times have increased. The changes have been independently assessed and found wanting. Instead of avoiding this fact and trying to blur the issue by blaming peoples perceptions or the price of fish, why not admit the error and attempt to remedy it?

I for one would have far more respect for organisations such as SCC if they would occasionally admit they have made a mistake, apologise and act positively to make amends.

 

“It is better to offer no excuse than a bad one.”

― George Washington

I believe I explained the relevance of the time difference.

 

When the Council did the original surveys, I recall people on here saying that the journey time improvements were due to people diverting off that route whilst the works were in progress and having not yet come back to the route by the time the initial survey was done.

 

Maybe they were right and traffic volumes increased over time and had affected journey times by the time the second survey was done?

 

I haven't seen the detail of the survey results and I dare say neither have you, so I can't comment on whether the overall volumes of traffic had changed, so any views on why the journey times changed are just speculation.

 

People on here seem to focus on the vehicle journey time as being the be all and end all of the scheme. It was not, it was a bus priority corridor scheme which also aimed to deliver improvements for pedestrians. If you read the independent review, from my recollection it recognises that the scheme actually delivered pretty much everything else it promised, the journey time improvement was the only thing that wasn't achieved.

[northernboy 13]

The queue was managed at the set of traffic lights on Meadowhead, which have now been switched off.

 

The bus lane at these signals allowed the bus to get to the front of the queue.

 

Well in reality what often happened is that the bus sat at a red light while all the cars merrily continued on their way in the right hand lane... The signals very rarely seemed to actually detect that there was a bus there, in fact quite often the bus driver would move over into the right hand lane before he reached the signals!

 

I think it was the correct decision to switch off the signals and this has clearly had no adverse effect on my journey times either as a bus passenger or car driver.

 

I agree that there appear to be "too many" pedestrian crossings along Woodseats, however I don't think they affect my journey times at all. If my vehicle is stopped by a red light at a pedestrian crossing, once the lights have turned green it generally only takes a few seconds for me to catch up with the vehicle in front, so overall my journey is not taking any longer - but it's probably less fuel-efficient than just driving at a steady speed without stopping & starting.

 

I'm still baffled why some of the pavements need to be quite so wide, for example by the bus stop near Woodseats Library (and why is the bus shelter set back so far from the edge of the road?!)

[Penistone999 10]

 

People on here seem to focus on the vehicle journey time as being the be all and end all of the scheme. It was not, it was a bus priority corridor scheme which also aimed to deliver improvements for pedestrians. If you read the independent review, from my recollection it recognises that the scheme actually delivered pretty much everything else it promised, the journey time improvement was the only thing that wasn't achieved.

 

 

Bus priority

Pedestrian Improvements

 

I see no mention there of improvements for MOTORISTS. So as long as the council got another silly bus lane built ,to hell with motorists who`s journey times were increased at the same time. But of course ,the council arnt anti car are they. ?

[WallBuilder 10]

I am beginning to notice that people are saying journey times are slower but isn't that the same all over the city if not the country, car numbers are always increasing the roads cannot cope. Some of the supposed issues were dealt with when they allowed traffic to turn left off Meadowhead on to Abbey Lane and buses no longer have lights to give them priority, however the slow moving or stationary traffic was still in evidence so that obviously wasn't the problem. The idea was mentioned several posts back that two into one wont go and that would seem to be the issue. However I shop in the Woodseats area like many, many other people and do not want the road to become a continuous dual carriageway because then all the car drivers would be moaning that all the parking spots had been removed

[Doctor Drew 10]

I believe I explained the relevance of the time difference.

 

When the Council did the original surveys, I recall people on here saying that the journey time improvements were due to people diverting off that route whilst the works were in progress and having not yet come back to the route by the time the initial survey was done.

 

Maybe they were right and traffic volumes increased over time and had affected journey times by the time the second survey was done?

 

I haven't seen the detail of the survey results and I dare say neither have you, so I can't comment on whether the overall volumes of traffic had changed, so any views on why the journey times changed are just speculation.

 

People on here seem to focus on the vehicle journey time as being the be all and end all of the scheme. It was not, it was a bus priority corridor scheme which also aimed to deliver improvements for pedestrians. If you read the independent review, from my recollection it recognises that the scheme actually delivered pretty much everything else it promised, the journey time improvement was the only thing that wasn't achieved.

 

What you have just said makes no sense whatsoever. If what you say is correct, then traffic volume didn't "increase over time" it settled back to it's original level resulting in longer journey times for the equivalent traffic levels. If you believed that to be the case then why were you quoting the councils journey time measurements taken during the initial period as evidence that the scheme was a success? You can't have it both ways.

 

Also, you say that improved journey times were not the priority. My earlier post stated quite clearly that the review concluded "the primary objective to improve journey times for traffic on the A61 through the suburb was not met."

 

Perhaps you will be good enough to post a link to the full review to allow us to assess it for ourselves. Statement such as "from my recollection" are hardly useful. Particularly when you "haven't seen the detail of the survey results"

 

I suspect that Councillor Auckland was correct. The "Town hall knows best" attitude comes through in your posts loud and clear and frankly this is resembling an attempt to nail jelly to the wall.

[Planner1 438]

What you have just said makes no sense whatsoever. If what you say is correct, then traffic volume didn't "increase over time" it settled back to it's original level resulting in longer journey times for the equivalent traffic levels. If you believed that to be the case then why were you quoting the councils journey time measurements taken during the initial period as evidence that the scheme was a success? You can't have it both ways.

I'm just quoting what was said and done at the time, I am not speculating either way. All the people who used the route before might have returned, others might have joined them. I don't know and neither do you.

 

I am sure I have a copy of the "independent" study somewhere, I will look it up.

 

---------- Post added 13-03-2013 at 20:14 ----------

 

 

Also, you say that improved journey times were not the priority.

No, I said it wasn't the only deliverable of that scheme, there were many others.