Railway parking madness

[1978 14]

Trying to be constructive, one of the things that may deter some from picking up from Q park is having to go up one or two floors. It delays what should be a quick in and out movement. If the ground floor, or even half the ground floor, were set aside for 30 minutes it might encourage more to use it.

 

When I was collecting on Tuesday evening I was amazed to get through the lines of taxis without any difficulty and straight into Q park where there were plenty of spaces on the ground floor. And there was only one car in the drop off zone. If that were always the situation I'd wonder what's the problem, but it's not.

[cytine 40]

Daven, Thank you for your assesment of my communication skills. I can assure you that I am neither aggressive or arrogant, just annoyed at your sanctimonious comment. You clearly said that people are "lazy and have apoplexy if they are not dropped at the door" I'm simply trying to make the point that not all disabilities are visible/physical. Not everyone can pull a suitcase from the Q Park then across the station, I couldn't.

May I suggest that you are the one that needs to take a deep breath and think before posting your narrow minded comments.

[Planner1 437]

How does the council/station/BTP deal with people parking in the drop off area currently?

 

The drop off area is on land owned by the station, so any issue is a matter for East Midlands Trains, who run the station. I don't believe they carry out any enforcement action as such. Their staff may occasionally ask drivers to move on.

 

The Transport Police would not be interested, the drivers are not committing any crime.

[Daven 10]

All your posts are on this topic are ideologist posts, if you don't mind me saying Daven (as this may look rude).

 

'People can use their legs and walk' type things, are all ideologist in this situation that the topic is about.

 

(also, for one, something that I haven't seen anyone notice is that if the OP entered from Royal STandard, then they are using the Forncett Street access, which is by FAR the worst of the 2 options for entering the station from this side of town) - edit: in this case, the best option with experience is kick them out early, and turn right onto Suffolk

 

How are people supposed to know that if they don't do it regularly?

 

Shoreham way in is always my choice, but often not much better.

 

-

 

The ideology aspect is because- yes - you CAN park for x hours in the car park, but luggage or not, it's quite obviously not an option that most people take.

 

I'm no planner, but even from driving for 25 years, I notice the same things all the time... crap junctions have lots of accidents... crap layouts cause traffic build ups...

 

and everyone online says 'well if people didn't do this or that', etc.

 

In this case, it's nonsense. There is no defence of this layout that I've seen, from anyone, here or in real life.

 

It's dreadful.

 

-

 

I think your text thing really says it all. This is what I do when picking someone up, but bypassing the 'rules' - I use my brain, as you do, and most of other people who have experience of the place do. You have far to much respect for the average person!

Thank you.

Yes - I do respect people - although I don't think that too much respect is possible.

[Guest makapaka]

My thoughts are that I can't really understand your description of what the problem was.

Where did you turn into the station, there are two entrances. Which lanes were blocked that stopped you reaching the car park?

Why is an empty area of privately owned land relevant? Are you suggesting that the council steal it?

 

It is really poor for access and egress though isn’t it. Of course the council can’t steal land but they can influence it by planning. I believe the land the qpark is built on was owned by the same people that own the adjacent wasteland and would be better positioned there which could have made more space for the exit onto the ring road.

[Daven 10]

Daven, Thank you for your assesment of my communication skills. I can assure you that I am neither aggressive or arrogant, just annoyed at your sanctimonious comment. You clearly said that people are "lazy and have apoplexy if they are not dropped at the door" I'm simply trying to make the point that not all disabilities are visible/physical. Not everyone can pull a suitcase from the Q Park then across the station, I couldn't.

May I suggest that you are the one that needs to take a deep breath and think before posting your narrow minded comments.

 

I am neither narrow minded nor sanctimonious.

I am respectful and open to discussion and willing to listen to others point of view.

I understand the needs and difficulties that those with disabilities have to live with on a daily basis - you really have no idea how much that is the case. This is on a personal and professional level.

If you can't acknowledge that other people have different opinions to yours then I would suggest that a forum is not the place for you. Accept that your opinion may not always be that of others. Debate is always healthy so long as those involved understand what debate is.

Maybe by developing a good sense of humour and social conscience you will be able to move on and allow yourself to accept diversity and embrace the differences we all have.

Edited November 1, 2017 by Daven

[Hammerstein 10]

Daven, Thank you for your assesment of my communication skills. I can assure you that I am neither aggressive or arrogant, just annoyed at your sanctimonious comment. You clearly said that people are "lazy and have apoplexy if they are not dropped at the door" I'm simply trying to make the point that not all disabilities are visible/physical. Not everyone can pull a suitcase from the Q Park then across the station, I couldn't.

May I suggest that you are the one that needs to take a deep breath and think before posting your narrow minded comments.

 

Daven has always been a valued member of the SF community with his knowledge and understanding.

You seem to be a very unhappy individual who seems spoiling for an argument.

From previous conversations on SF I know that Daven is none of the things you are accusing him of being.

Calm down mate.

[cytine 40]

Daven has always been a valued member of the SF community with his knowledge and understanding.

You seem to be a very unhappy individual who seems spoiling for an argument.

From previous conversations on SF I know that Daven is none of the things you are accusing him of being.

Calm down mate.

 

Be assured that I am not at all unhappy or spoiling for an argument. I am commenting on his posts on this topic not others he made.

As you are a fan of Daven, I'll bow to his and your superior knowledge and understanding. And you accuse me of not understanding debate even though neither of you know anything about me and refuse to see my point of view.

Edited November 1, 2017 by cytine

[Hammerstein 10]

Be assured that I am not at all unhappy or spoiling for an argument. I am commenting on his posts on this topic not others he made.

As you are a fan of Daven, I'll bow to his and your superior knowledge and understanding. And you accuse me of not understanding debate even though neither of you know anything about me and refuse to see my point of view.

 

Oh dear.

You aren't doing yourself any favours are you -your post is very telling. It is you who seems unable to debate and listen to others opinions.

Why not just get back on topic and discuss the poor planning for parking and dropping off at Midland station?

[cytine 40]

Oh dear.

You aren't doing yourself any favours are you -your post is very telling. It is you who seems unable to debate and listen to others opinions.

Why not just get back on topic and discuss the poor planning for parking and dropping off at Midland station?

 

I'm just answering the attacks on me or am I only allowed to "Debate" if you and Daven agree?

 

But, as you say, to get back on topic. It doesn't matter what anyone says about access to the station. The council, planners, rail company and Uncle Tom Cobley and all, they will never admit they have got it wrong.

Sheffield station has a beautiful facade but access is appalling and is a poor advert and welcome to visitors to our city. Our leaders should be ashamed.

[ENG601PM 10]

My thoughts are that I can't really understand your description of what the problem was.

Where did you turn into the station, there are two entrances. Which lanes were blocked that stopped you reaching the car park?

Why is an empty area of privately owned land relevant? Are you suggesting that the council steal it?

 

That council can't steal something that they own. They have been tinkering with the roads around the station for years and each time they manage to make it a bit worse than it was before. The taxi lobby is so strong in Sheffield that the council is frightened to upset them for the same reasons that the Rotherham scandal was allowed to happen. The only thing that will improve access at the station is strong a council that does the right thing instead of trying to be seen to be doing the right thing.

[Cyclone 10]

The fact is that most people are not disabled, visibly or invisibly, and they still don't want to use the Q-park.

It takes extra time, it feels like an unnecessary barrier to picking someone up.

I don't pick up very often, but I don't go into the car park when I do. As a minimum there is the issue that passengers can't get into it! What stupid design is that. So not only do I have to faff about finding a space on floor 7, I then have to walk down to collect the person who's arriving. By the time we get back to the car, and out of the car park we would be halfway home if I used the drop off zone, so that's what I do.

 

Who designs a station for the 4th or 5th biggest city in the country with 'drop off' spaces for no more than 6 cars (and that would be a squeeze). It's ludicrous and stupid.

 

Re: the land at the side of the station, the council still don't own it, and planning laws won't help them get it turned into roads. It's too late to move the Q-park, it's built.