Closing Roads To Traffic & Widening Pavements For Social Distancing

[Planner1 438]

On 18/06/2020 at 10:07, RollingJ said:

To be honest I have no idea what they are trying to do there - bus lay-bye 'coned off', pile of un-compacted tarmac and severely obstructed road.

As I have better things to do than read blogs - especially the dross created by SCC - what road are we on?

You clearly have a short memory about what you said previously. See my bold bits. 
 

You said you had no idea what they are trying to do and couldn’t identify the road. 

[Planner1 438]

9 hours ago, Resident said:

2. From people in the transport industry/PTE that I know it was not discussed. The council told them it was happening and to deal with it. Do you really think if it was discussed there would have been an agreement to close a road that 10+ routes use throughout the day's service

So from what you are saying, council told them what they wanted to do, operators /PTE didn’t like it, but council decided they were going to do it.

 

Sounds like a discussion to me.

 

The buses can’t have everything their own way. The council has to consider everyone’s needs and the bigger picture. Seeing the bigger picture and adapting to change is historically something the bus industry hasn’t been good at (with the odd exception)

[Andy C 86]

a big frustration here is just how behind schedule all this work is.

 

The council has closed Leopold and Pinstone Street and imposed other restrictions and changes on 15th June to aid social distancing to allow the shops to reopen as planned. This is of course the right thing to do.

 

However you'd think the new bus route and bus stops would also have been built ready for the 15th June...

[RollingJ 2,042]

18 minutes ago, Planner1 said:

You clearly have a short memory about what you said previously. See my bold bits. 
 

You said you had no idea what they are trying to do and couldn’t identify the road. 

As you are an expert at picking/choosing and twisting comments to belittle others - while not answering real questions, I'll avoid any further comment unless I can behave in the same manner, but sadly that is not my style.

[Planner1 438]

2 hours ago, RollingJ said:

 

I now know where the photo was taken, but can't quite see the relevance of that point.

I am well aware of what is being constructed there, and why.

 

I had considered that, but it looks, in that photo, as if the work is being done with little planning - One pile of tarmac, with an unsafe (for mobility scooter users) access ramp - both haphazardly placed. It is obviously not finished  yet.

 

 

I know - as does everyone else - the 'facilities' at bus stops and accept that these need construction, but would it not be an idea to at least make it appear that this is being done in an organised manner? As to the 'safe distance' markings, are you suggesting people can't work out for themselves a roughly seven foot distance?

Your comment that 'the PTE' will be installing these markings suggests that Amey, who I assume are doing the groundwork, are incapable of doing them as part of their job.

 

And at the apparent rate of progress, they will probably be completed just in time for them to be removed. I understand  they just need to be safe and functional, I don't expect anything more - or less.

 

The point is that you change your story.

 

First you don’t know where it is ( which is odd seeing as you profess to know so much about it), then you do know.

 

At first you haven’t got a clue what they are doing and why, now you fully understand it.

 

People might think you are just using any excuse to have a go at the council.....

 

If you bothered to look at the photo properly, there isn’t just one area of new tarmac and, they aren’t just “piles”.  They have been placed and shaped.
 

How can You deduce that little planning has gone into the job from looking at that photo? Just from that one photo I can see method, organisation and what they are trying to achieve. Blocks have been placed to keep vehicles out, tarmac construction is taking place and temporary access ramps have been provided. It Looks temporary but I can see what they are building and it all looks orderly and safe. It all takes thought and planning.
 

Instead of posting unconfirmed opinions on here, I actually contacted the council and found out whether what I thought they were doing was correct. You could have done the same.

 

You know what they say about people who make assumptions........

 

If, as you profess, you knew anything about the bus industry, you’d know that the street furniture (ie the shelter, the stop pole, flag, information board or display) at bus stops belongs to the PTE and is installed and maintained by them, not the council. That’s why they will be putting in the distance markers. Different organisation with their own contractors. 
 

Most shops and places that folk visit are putting in the distance markers, they are just trying to help people stay safe. Why do you feel the need to criticise that?

[Planner1 438]

33 minutes ago, Andy C said:

a big frustration here is just how behind schedule all this work is.

 

The council has closed Leopold and Pinstone Street and imposed other restrictions and changes on 15th June to aid social distancing to allow the shops to reopen as planned. This is of course the right thing to do.

 

However you'd think the new bus route and bus stops would also have been built ready for the 15th June...

How do you know it is behind schedule? When was it scheduled to take place?

 

Remember this is being done because the government are funding it. The funding initiative and the bidding work needed was all to a very tight timescale and didn’t give councils a lot of chance to organise everything. It’s an emergency response, which will be why they haven’t got it all done yet. Also there are of course restrictions on when work can be carried out in sensitive locations like the city centre that everyone including the council have to work to, so that limits how much  can be done.

[Andy C 86]

11 minutes ago, Planner1 said:

How do you know it is behind schedule? When was it scheduled to take place?

 

Remember this is being done because the government are funding it. The funding initiative and the bidding work needed was all to a very tight timescale and didn’t give councils a lot of chance to organise everything. It’s an emergency response, which will be why they haven’t got it all done yet. Also there are of course restrictions on when work can be carried out in sensitive locations like the city centre that everyone including the council have to work to, so that limits how much  can be done.

I'd like to think it would have been scheduled to be done for 15th June. It hasn't been finished in time.

 

Leopold Street and Pinstone Street closed on 15th June. Alternative route via Furnival Gate still not open!

[Resident 1,193]

1 hour ago, Planner1 said:

So from what you are saying, council told them what they wanted to do, operators /PTE didn’t like it, but council decided they were going to do it.

 

Sounds like a discussion to me.

 

The buses can’t have everything their own way. The council has to consider everyone’s needs and the bigger picture. Seeing the bigger picture and adapting to change is historically something the bus industry hasn’t been good at (with the odd exception)

So what you're saying is that if I were to tell you your house is being decorated and then I rocked up and painted it pink floor to roof, with no input from you or your partner, we discussed that did we? 

 

As for the suggestion that the council are looking at the bigger picture. The council has time and time again proven to act with myopic tunnel vision, often missing the forest because of the trees. 

 

I also note that I gave 5 points of contestation to your post yet you've ignore the majority.

 

Congestion charge, Clean Aiz zone, whatever you want to call it, two sides of the same coin. 
 

[Andy C 86]

14 minutes ago, Resident said:

So what you're saying is that if I were to tell you your house is being decorated and then I rocked up and painted it pink floor to roof, with no input from you or your partner, we discussed that did we? 

 

As for the suggestion that the council are looking at the bigger picture. The council has time and time again proven to act with myopic tunnel vision, often missing the forest because of the trees. 

 

I also note that I gave 5 points of contestation to your post yet you've ignore the majority.

 

Congestion charge, Clean Aiz zone, whatever you want to call it, two sides of the same coin. 
 

I agree and disagree with some of this in various shades.

 

The main issue I have with the Clean Air Zone is that private cars are exempt but extra costs are being piled on to public transport, taxis and tradesmen, an environmental initiative that encourages car use seems misguided to me!

 

I think in terms of the temporary Covid-19 initiatives it is unfair to say the council hasn't considered the bigger picture. On a short timescale and reliant on government funding, a lot of work has clearly gone in to planning changes to the road layouts including new bus routes and stops and provision for deliveries etc to shops in the affected area, all to help the City Centre economy start rebooting. The actual plan looks fine to me. The issue is the implementation - not all the work was done in time for the 15th June changes and this has seriously impacted on the delivery of bus services. The council seems good at lecturing bus operators on the quality and reliability of their service but seems incapable or unwilling to play their part in that.

 

Seems to be more and more examples that suggest the council aren't supportive of public transport and are keen to be seen as the motorists friend.

Edited June 19, 2020 by Andy C

[Planner1 438]

1 hour ago, Resident said:

So what you're saying is that if I were to tell you your house is being decorated and then I rocked up and painted it pink floor to roof, with no input from you or your partner, we discussed that did we? 

Bad analogy. The bus operators don’t own the house (the highway), they just get to use what’s provided. They might have a view on the colour (or the highway in this case), but the property owner ( the highway authority ie the council) gets to pick. 

[Planner1 438]

1 hour ago, Andy C said:

I agree and disagree with some of this in various shades.

 

The main issue I have with the Clean Air Zone is that private cars are exempt but extra costs are being piled on to public transport, taxis and tradesmen, an environmental initiative that encourages car use seems misguided to me!

 

I think in terms of the temporary Covid-19 initiatives it is unfair to say the council hasn't considered the bigger picture. On a short timescale and reliant on government funding, a lot of work has clearly gone in to planning changes to the road layouts including new bus routes and stops and provision for deliveries etc to shops in the affected area, all to help the City Centre economy start rebooting. The actual plan looks fine to me. The issue is the implementation - not all the work was done in time for the 15th June changes and this has seriously impacted on the delivery of bus services. The council seems good at lecturing bus operators on the quality and reliability of their service but seems incapable or unwilling to play their part in that.

 

Seems to be more and more examples that suggest the council aren't supportive of public transport and are keen to be seen as the motorists friend.

I think you have to take into consideration that these are political decisions and politicians want to be re-elected. Politically it’s a very difficult decision to have to start telling private motorists that they have to pay to enter your city centre. Manchester tried a ballot on a congestion charge and failed to get it through. There was political fall out from it.

 

You are being more than a bit disingenuous regarding the council’s attitude to public transport.

 

For many years they have put considerable effort and many many millions of pounds into improving bus routes and bus stops. That work continues.

 

They also enforce bus restrictions via cameras and civil enforcement officers. You might argue they could do more of that, but again, there’s the issue of public/political acceptability. What is acceptable to you or me might appear insufficient to some or  excessive to others. There’s always a balance to be struck.

 

The pandemic has changed the way a lot of people travel and more are walking and cycling, which is something the government, regional and local authorities have been trying to encourage for many years. It is therefore perfectly understandable that they are doing whatever they can to lock in the benefits of this travel mode shift and keep it going on the right trajectory.

 

Theres also the point that public transport can’t shift anything like as many people as before doe to the distancing requirements. You might therefore understand that it might be less of a priority, certainly until things move back to something closer to previous normality. The measures being put in are temporary and could be removed when things change, or it’s found they aren’t effective. Or, they could be made permanent if they work. The point is that the government is giving local authorities the money to try these things out and pushing them to use it. The council would be remiss if they didn’t take the opportunity. 

[Planner1 438]

1 hour ago, Resident said:

 

Congestion charge, Clean Aiz zone, whatever you want to call it, two sides of the same coin. 
 

Can’t agree with that.

 

Congestion charge is about managing congestion and raising funding for transport initiatives. Councils can implement them if they want, but so far, only London has been able to garner enough public support to implement one.

 

The CAZ is about improving the quality of toxic air and it is being effectively imposed On councils by the government (and the courts, via the threat of massive fines which will be passported to councils by the government)

 

The both involve charging some drivers, but the aims are very different.