Idiotic/dangerous new bus stop site on Abbeydale Road ..

[Planner1 438]

The crossing I'm talking about is this one https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@53.38185,-1.484043,3a,75y,156.8h,90t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1s6cwUlW5tTkULDiEXpuG3bA!2e0 would it be too much to ask of people to use the crossing a little further down at the tram stop.

 

Why not have an underpass for cars there, like the tram has got?

 

Have you seen how many people cross at that point? There are huge numbers. Car drivers are not the only road users and sometimes they need to give way to pedestrians. If the crossing wasn't there, how many people would jump the railings rather than trail down to the next crossing. How many tragedies would it need before drivers realised they sometimes have to stop to allow people to cross safely.

 

The space between the university building is very constrained at that point, to put in ramps to an underpass for cars and maintain the traffic coming off the roundabout doesn't look very feasible, never mind the huge cost and the fact that traffic underpasses are maintenance liabilities and very difficult to access when there are collisions and breakdowns (which, if you recall were a significant problem with the one on Arundel Gate which was filled in)

[adamf 10]

I don't think councils should facilitate pedestrian laziness all the time.

 

No-one in a car should complain about "pedestrian laziness".

[E-Man Groovin 27]

The crossing I'm talking about is this one https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@53.38185,-1.484043,3a,75y,156.8h,90t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1s6cwUlW5tTkULDiEXpuG3bA!2e0 would it be too much to ask of people to use the crossing a little further down at the tram stop.

 

Why not have an underpass for cars there, like the tram has got?

 

I must admit, I've thought this myself too.

 

I think you might need to accommodate the fact that perhaps the philosophy and values of sizeable numbers of folk in this city, including those who make decisions, may be somewhat different to those you will find in some other cities and towns, (for example Milton Keynes where I spent a year).

 

I'm not saying it's any better or worse. In Milton Keynes they love their national speed limit city centre highways and pedestrian bridges and walkways, whereas in Sheffield often the traffic is required to give way to pedestrians - I guess we're a bit more pedestrian-centric and environmentally friendly. In Copenhagen they have mahoosive cycle lanes (and a flat geography!) which make getting around by bike a joy. In Sheffield we try our best but haven't quite made our cycling provision that comprehensive.

 

However in Sheffield we've got that amazing village vibe and the surrounding greenery which is worth a lot. But in some other cities underpasses for cars are not unusual, and in others the fast roads and excellent cycle lanes are cited as reasons for a good quality of life. However some of these (London!) have much worse traffic problems, but you could also argue that this is offset by better public transport provision. Sheffield may not be worse than these other cities perhaps - maybe only different.

 

Many folk I like and admire greatly are seriously into the environmental and pedestrian thing. However, personally, it's not the inanimate that interests me. I'm about the people, whether they be car drivers, pedestrians, bus users or tram passengers. Allow me to explain: I feel just as much for the man who lives in an area poorly served by public transport who is frustrated by traffic hold ups as he drives home to see his kids after a long day at work, just as much as for the bus driver who can't pull out because of selfish drivers.

 

That's how I see it.

[RollingJ 2,041]

I know this is a REALLY old topic, but if you are still interested (Alcoblog?) - after many months and numerous conversations with local councillors - they have reduced the extension by 50%, making it less dangerous, but the 'traffic planners' did not agree with us (myself and all three local councillors), that the build-out should not even be there.

 

They did admit, despite Planner1's assertion to the contrary, that there was a 'design error' with the build-out.

[Beauchiefs 10]

I know this is a REALLY old topic, but if you are still interested (Alcoblog?) - after many months and numerous conversations with local councillors - they have reduced the extension by 50%, making it less dangerous, but the 'traffic planners' did not agree with us (myself and all three local councillors), that the build-out should not even be there.

 

They did admit, despite Planner1's assertion to the contrary, that there was a 'design error' with the build-out.

 

I agree with you, it should never have been built there and even though it has been reduced it is still an obstruction.

[Xt500 10]

No, its an attempt to keep motorists and all other road users safe.

 

Or just another of many purpose built bottlenecks to snag up our roads.All in the name of safety of course

[Alcoblog 10]

I know this is a REALLY old topic, but if you are still interested (Alcoblog?) - after many months and numerous conversations with local councillors - they have reduced the extension by 50%, making it less dangerous, but the 'traffic planners' did not agree with us (myself and all three local councillors), that the build-out should not even be there.

 

They did admit, despite Planner1's assertion to the contrary, that there was a 'design error' with the build-out.

 

Yeah ... they did the 'work' around two weeks ago having left the the run up to the extension decked out with a garish red and white plastic warning barrier for the best part of thirteen months. I guess they left it this long to see how many accidents it caused?.

 

It took a works unit three days to carry out the latest work which also included burning off the bus stop marking in the middle of the road, leaving a nasty mess to the new road surface and putting up reflective bollards to warn drivers of the impending damage their cars going to sustain a nanosecond later.

 

It'd be interesting to know how much this fiasco's cost, including what settlement was made so far as the two (that I know of) fairly serious accidents caused due to its idiotic design to the drivers concerned.

 

Still ... at least we now know that it takes the Council thirteen months to build a bus stop. Money well wasted. Let's hope the planners are proud of their latest achievement.

[algy 11]

 

They did admit, despite Planner1's assertion to the contrary, that there was a 'design error' with the build-out.

 

Sounds familiar. When they had to reverse the stupid bus stop works at Bents Green part of the cost was borne by the contractors as they'd done the work incorrectly.

 

It'd be interesting to know how much this fiasco's cost, including what settlement was made so far as the two (that I know of) fairly serious accidents caused due to its idiotic design to the drivers concerned.

 

Simple, put in a freedom of information request about the cost. We did about the Bents Green fiasco. A request costs nothing and you submit it via the council website.

[RollingJ 2,041]

Sounds familiar. When they had to reverse the stupid bus stop works at Bents Green part of the cost was borne by the contractors as they'd done the work incorrectly.

 

 

 

This wasn't the contractors fault - it was a design error by SCC's planners.

[Justin Smith 10]

Or just another of many purpose built bottlenecks to snag up our roads.All in the name of safety of course

 

And what`s wrong with traffic calming in the name of safety ? I`d like some on my street, and, of current relevance, I`ll bet Jasmyn Chan`s parents wish some had been installed on Normanton Hill, or a speed camera at the very least.....

Edited October 11, 2014 by Justin Smith