Jump to content

Sheffield Council - Do they take fixing pot holes seriously?

Recommended Posts

Read the posts and links provided by myself and Verdan and see if you still lol

 

As it happens, I am what most people would think of as an "expert" in these matters. I am a qualified highway engineer and hold a Chartered qualification in Transport Planning, I also have over 30 years experince in the industry.

 

Feel free to explain what qualifications and experience in these matters you have which allow you to belittle people who actually do know what they are talking about.

 

Your expert view appears to be lorrys and buses cause huge damage to the roads you have built (by factors which i will take on your professional knowledge as read, but to a layman seem staggering).

 

The roads you are building just like the rest of the country have lots of lorrys and buses on them.

 

So why are you not building roads to a standard that can take the traffic that they have to take when other local authorities are?

 

I'm guessing Leeds doesn't get it's fuel delivered in churns by people on bicycles or Bristol ask HGV drivers to unload at the city limits and push all the goods in on a hand trolley.

 

Why is Sheffield so bad? You keep being asked this over and over and you never answer it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Why is Sheffield so bad? You keep being asked this over and over and you never answer it.

 

Yes the figures are amazing, but several countries have done extensive studies into this and all come back with the same results: Large vehicles cause far more damage than smaller ones.

 

As for Sheffield, if anyone knew the absolute answer, they'd be a very rich person, and probably very unpopular with however they pointed the finger at.

 

Can anybody really know the answer? As a visitor it appears SCC spent all their money on the city centre and meadowhall areas, yet leaving places like Catley Road (South Carbrook) and Ewden without any major spend in decades. These are two places Amey have promised to do first.

 

Many roads just weren't designed, either in construction or layout for the volumes or types of traffic we now see. The M1 wasn't considered and established buildings are unwilling/unable to move. Where else would you find a steel works within the city boundary?

 

If every road was built to take motorway traffic they would last ages, but cost far more than anyone is willing to pay in taxes. The challenge Amey, and any other Highway Designer now faces is constructing roads that can carry the traffic for a set amount of time. If they know the road will fail in 10 years, they can have the money ready to repair it again.

 

On the otherhand they could just fill in the holes, surface dress the roads and make them look pretty, but the road would fail in 2yrs (or sooner) and they'd have to do it all over again, wasting a lot of money on closing the roads and causing lots of disruption. Yes they will surface dress some roads, but these will be the low traffic roads, or those which will be getting a much stronger treatment in a few years, and the dress is just to see it through for the short term.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes the figures are amazing, but several countries have done extensive studies into this and all come back with the same results: Large vehicles cause far more damage than smaller ones.

 

As for Sheffield, if anyone knew the absolute answer, they'd be a very rich person, and probably very unpopular with however they pointed the finger at.

 

Can anybody really know the answer? As a visitor it appears SCC spent all their money on the city centre and meadowhall areas, yet leaving places like Catley Road (South Carbrook) and Ewden without any major spend in decades. These are two places Amey have promised to do first.

 

Many roads just weren't designed, either in construction or layout for the volumes or types of traffic we now see. The M1 wasn't considered and established buildings are unwilling/unable to move. Where else would you find a steel works within the city boundary?

 

If every road was built to take motorway traffic they would last ages, but cost far more than anyone is willing to pay in taxes. The challenge Amey, and any other Highway Designer now faces is constructing roads that can carry the traffic for a set amount of time. If they know the road will fail in 10 years, they can have the money ready to repair it again.

 

On the otherhand they could just fill in the holes, surface dress the roads and make them look pretty, but the road would fail in 2yrs (or sooner) and they'd have to do it all over again, wasting a lot of money on closing the roads and causing lots of disruption. Yes they will surface dress some roads, but these will be the low traffic roads, or those which will be getting a much stronger treatment in a few years, and the dress is just to see it through for the short term.

 

Well as a layman who has to drive on the result of whatever planning has taken place the result is awful. If I'm not hitting potholes I'm hiting speed lumps (bumps suggests a gentle gradient not the things that litter sheffield and seem to be designed to stop car bomb attacks).

 

Stop spending money on putting things in the road to impede drivers, spend money on good quality road surfaces.

 

How hard can it be?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If all drivers drove to the posted restriction, the roads would be less damaged, not perfect, but speed does have an effect. As such, and not just for safety, speed "lumps" have been used with great affect on reducing vehicle speeds.

 

But sometimes drivers dont learn, and they only reduce their speed at the obstacle. One of the biggest complaints i hear from residents is speed bumps. But as soon as i offer to remove them and put in a camera they complain further. Until i point out that the camera only penalises those who break the law, tables punish everyone.

 

Yes speed restrictions are backed by law. If you dont like it, complain to your council or live elsewhere. Restrictions have been increased in the past, and the proposals to increase motorway restrictions are proof people are willing to consider it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If all drivers drove to the posted restriction, the roads would be less damaged, not perfect, but speed does have an effect. As such, and not just for safety, speed "lumps" have been used with great affect on reducing vehicle speeds.

 

But sometimes drivers dont learn, and they only reduce their speed at the obstacle. One of the biggest complaints i hear from residents is speed bumps. But as soon as i offer to remove them and put in a camera they complain further. Until i point out that the camera only penalises those who break the law, tables punish everyone.

 

Yes speed restrictions are backed by law. If you dont like it, complain to your council or live elsewhere. Restrictions have been increased in the past, and the proposals to increase motorway restrictions are proof people are willing to consider it.

 

Sticking lumps of concrete in the middle of the road as a way of modifying behavior is fine, if you're an anti-tank commander. I don't speed, I support cameras, hell I'd be happy for ghilley suited chaps in the bushes with radar guns and £10,000 fine if you are caught. Making the roads less useable to deal with a minority is totally stupid. (not your lots fault I appreciate).

 

It'd be nice if there was a feeling that the people planning our roads were doing it to make them usable by law abiding people. There is no such sense.

 

We "plebs" can't change that, only you guys can change that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Your expert view appears to be lorrys and buses cause huge damage to the roads you have built (by factors which i will take on your professional knowledge as read, but to a layman seem staggering).

 

The roads you are building just like the rest of the country have lots of lorrys and buses on them.

 

So why are you not building roads to a standard that can take the traffic that they have to take when other local authorities are?

 

I'm guessing Leeds doesn't get it's fuel delivered in churns by people on bicycles or Bristol ask HGV drivers to unload at the city limits and push all the goods in on a hand trolley.

 

Why is Sheffield so bad? You keep being asked this over and over and you never answer it.

The standards to which roads are built here are no different to anywhere else in the country.

 

I think you will find that I have explained what I understand to be the reason for the state of Sheffield's roads several times on a number of threads.

 

It is a well accepted fact that for several decades now, successive governments have not given Local Authorities sufficient funding to maintain roads to what most people would feel is an acceptable standard. There is a national backlog of works totalling many billions. I've seen plenty of roads in other towns and cities which are every bit as bad as Sheffield's, it's a national problem.

 

Why are Sheffield's worse? SCC took over maintenance of the roads from South Yorkshire County Council in 1986. After that, for a good number of years, Councils received the funding for many of their functions in what used to be called the single capital pot. There were nominal amounts given for each function, but it was up to individual Councils hat they actually spent it on. Some types of funding still comes through in that way.

 

I was at quite a junior position in those days and didn't deal with budgets at corporate level. But, I was told by my then manager that SCC did not spend anything like their nominal allocation on roads, they spent it on other priorities. I have no figures to back this up, but that's what I was told by people who should know. Yo can underfund this kind of activity for a long time and people won't see much difference, but, over longer periods, the deterioration in road network condition begins to be seen.

 

Nowadays, the funding for roads comes through differently and SCC spend what they are allocated by the Government, which isn't enough in the first place and isn't anywhere near enough to reverse the trend of deterioration. That's why they found that he only way to address the problem and get the necessary money was via the PFI route.

 

This is why decisions on roads and transport are made by your elected representatives. There is never enough money to do everything that people would like, so they have to prioritise and make the difficult decisions and, they are accountable to us at the ballot box.

 

---------- Post added 05-12-2012 at 21:52 ----------

 

Stop spending money on putting things in the road to impede drivers, spend money on good quality road surfaces.

 

How hard can it be?

A lot more difficult than you, or most people on here could imagine.

 

Nowadays, most highway funding is given for specific schemes and projects, you cannot merrily decide to spend it on something else, particularly not on maintenance.

 

The Government provides most of the funding and when the current administration came to power, they slashed mainstream transport funding. However, they have released it again in dribs and drabs, in specific, time limited funding steams which Local Authorities have to bid competitively into. Here, that is usually done on a South Yorkshire or Sheffield City Region basis and they have been very successful in winning these bids, much more successful than local rivals like Leeds. Local Sustainable Transport Fund (LSTF) and Better Bus Area Fund (BBAF) are recent examples where we have won substantial amounts. These bids are time consuming and expensive to put together and there is no guarantee of success.

 

The money is time limited and you have to state very clearly in your bid what you will spend it on. If you don't deliver a particular project, you have to give the money back, you can't spend it on something else.

 

---------- Post added 05-12-2012 at 22:03 ----------

 

It'd be nice if there was a feeling that the people planning our roads were doing it to make them usable by law abiding people. There is no such sense.

 

We "plebs" can't change that, only you guys can change that.

 

The problem we have is that most people are not law abiding citizens when it comes to using the road. Most people will exceed the speed limit if they can and they feel there is no chance of being caught. A lot of work is being done and it's clear that it's working towards getting speeding perceived as being just as antisocial and unacceptable as drinking and driving. You can see that attitudes are beginning to change.

 

We currently need the threat of enforcement and physical measures to ensure people go slower, in order to reduce the toll of casualties, which cost this country huge sums of money.

 

There are moves afoot to make 20mph zones the default in residential areas. They now have SPECS cameras that can enforce 20 zones. The only way I can see there being less need for traffic calming measures is if use of these cameras becomes widespread.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes, buses do cause damage too and there are a lot more of them in urban areas than rural areas.

 

It's believed that HGV's cause disproportionate damage because of the suspension setups they employ.

 

So, what about all the other cities in the country? How do HGVs cause more damage here than in other similar sized cities?

 

The real reason is the money wasn't spent on the roads, as SCC hate people getting anywhere, as you've just admitted. Instead of filling potholes & resurfacing they narrowed roads & installed speed bumps.

Edited by anywebsite

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On the subject of tamping down potholes with a work boot , surely Ameys or SCC should start vetting staff on how much they weigh, in order to optimise the tamping down of potholes ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So, what about all the other cities in the country? How do HGVs cause more damage here than in other similar sized cities?

 

The real reason is the money wasn't spent on the roads, as SCC hate people getting anywhere, as you've just admitted. Instead of filling potholes & resurfacing they narrowed roads & installed speed bumps.

 

No one is saying HGV's cause more damage here than elsewhere.

 

Can you point out where exactly I have "admitted" that SCC hate people getting anywhere?

 

If you took the trouble to read what I write properly, you'd know that money allocated for projects like speed humps and narrowings can't be spent on maintenance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Read the posts and links provided by myself and Verdan and see if you still lol

 

As it happens, I am what most people would think of as an "expert" in these matters. I am a qualified highway engineer and hold a Chartered qualification in Transport Planning, I also have over 30 years experince in the industry.

 

Feel free to explain what qualifications and experience in these matters you have which allow you to belittle people who actually do know what they are talking about.

what use did your transport planning qualification do for you on the woodseats fiasco :huh::hihi::hihi:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
what use did your transport planning qualification do for you on the woodseats fiasco :huh::hihi::hihi:

 

Do you think that one person project manages every transport scheme in Sheffield?

 

The Council has a team of project managers / transport planners.

 

Woodseats wasn't one of my projects.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Do you think that one person project manages every transport scheme in Sheffield?

 

The Council has a team of project managers / transport planners.

 

Woodseats wasn't one of my projects.

 

 

Every project I have worked on has a project leader. It has always had one person who is in overall charge of the whole project and is responsible for its outcomes and results. Are you saying that council planning is different??

 

Serious question planner1. Did anyone lose their job over the woodseats fiasco, or face any discliplinary procedures?

 

Im not asking for names btw.

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.