Closing Roads To Traffic & Widening Pavements For Social Distancing

[Martin C 81]

2 hours ago, *_ash_* said:

I think could be solved with buses cycles and taxis being allowed to go down Church St. The make an opening to access Arundel gate or Park Square.

 

If a tram is there and waiting. Tough, bus will have to wait. It will still be quicker than the long way around.

The only other real option I can see would be a right turn from West St into Carver St, bear right into Wellington St, left into Rockingham St, left into  Charter Row continuing into Furnival Gate (with the junction with Pinstone St being reworked into 'straight ah'ed to resume normal routes approaching  Furnival Square roundabout. 

[Baron99 779]

Never understood SCC's  preponderance fascination with oversized pavements & the even more ridiculously massive corner sections throughout the city centre, other than to reduce the width of carriage ways & therefore slow traffic in the city centre?  And don't even get me started on the ridiculous number of traffic lights? 

 

Couple this with a great deal of road closures & the introduction of many one ways & you have what we have in more normal times, gridlock in the city centre, even outside rush hour times in the city centre which then impact into the suburbs as the main arterial become backed up. 

 

How cynical of SCC to use the fear surrounding COVID-19 to try & push this one through.  As for Dame Storey to chip in, her views would carry a bit more weight if she actually lived in the city rather than in the rural idyll of the village of Disley. 

 

Yes there has been an increase in cycling during the pandemic, mainly driven by, for some, by necessity, for others by curiosity & the pleasure of virtually empty roads, including the lack of public transport as well a tremendous spell of decent weather but once we do get back to normal, the weather changes & people realise that there is a difference in just cycling around your local area on a chosen, nice flat route with no rush to be anywhere soon to actually having to make a decision on how long it's going to take you to get to & from work with all those hills in the way, as well as having to carry all the stuff you need to carry out your work or think about all the shopping you're going to collect on your way home from work, then the bikes will be put away because they are no longer practical... oh & autumn & winter are coming up; don't fancy cycling in the driving wind & rain. 

 

The lifeblood of a successful city is its citizens & it requires that they get into & about in that city, whether that be by public transport or private transport, (including by bicycle, which have their place) but that requires access to the city centre.  There is no problem with having pedestrianised ares which people can easily get to but to then start joining them up is foolhardy.  The small pedestrianised area with that particular shop that you could once get to by bus is now half a mile away because the bus has been rerouted on the whim of a bunch of councillors. 

 

So Dame Storey wants people to walk 1km, tell that to a pensioner having to carry their heavy shopping much further than they once had to & then to wait even longer for a bus that is taking even longer to arrive because traffic is squeezed onto a decreasing number of city centre roads?

 

Then again, I don't suppose Dame Storey has such problems in tiny Disley? 

 

 

 

 

Edited May 23, 2020 by Baron99

[RollingJ 2,002]

@Baron99Thanks - you just saved me a load of typing.🤣

[Guest busdriver1]

10 hours ago, Michael_N said:

So how will buses from West Street heading into City actually get down onto Arundel Gate? You'd have thought they would keep the road open to cyclists and buses to aid public transport and active travel, rather than once again causing all this disruption.

 

Makes you wonder where they find the people who come up with these hair brained ideas... 

The answer is quite simple. They don't really care. They have attended courses run by people who are "experts" in traffic management and the value of this work is evident by the free flowing nature of traffic in citys today.  They counter criticism by saying that all citys have the same issues. This is true, but what is also true is that those same citys sent their staff on the same courses on how to deal with it with the same predictable results. Large areas of city centres have become ideal places for the fit and healthy whilst the less able are confined to those areas they can manage to get access to by public transport that has to counter these restrictions and suffer the congestion caused by them. Since several of the officers who come up with these schemes often dont actually live or work in the affected areas they dont really care.

Yes the city centre will become a bit nicer for some. For others they will see it quite rightly as another nail being banged into the coffin of Sheffield city centre.

[Bargepole23 337]

20 minutes ago, busdriver1 said:

The answer is quite simple. They don't really care. They have attended courses run by people who are "experts" in traffic management and the value of this work is evident by the free flowing nature of traffic in citys today.  They counter criticism by saying that all citys have the same issues. This is true, but what is also true is that those same citys sent their staff on the same courses on how to deal with it with the same predictable results. Large areas of city centres have become ideal places for the fit and healthy whilst the less able are confined to those areas they can manage to get access to by public transport that has to counter these restrictions and suffer the congestion caused by them. Since several of the officers who come up with these schemes often dont actually live or work in the affected areas they dont really care.

Yes the city centre will become a bit nicer for some. For others they will see it quite rightly as another nail being banged into the coffin of Sheffield city centre.

And yet the evidence points to increases in retail spend after pedestrianisation. Please provide your evidence to the contrary.

2 hours ago, Baron99 said:

Never understood SCC's  preponderance fascination with oversized pavements & the even more ridiculously massive corner sections throughout the city centre, other than to reduce the width of carriage ways & therefore slow traffic in the city centre?  And don't even get me started on the ridiculous number of traffic lights? 

 

Couple this with a great deal of road closures & the introduction of many one ways & you have what we have in more normal times, gridlock in the city centre, even outside rush hour times in the city centre which then impact into the suburbs as the main arterial become backed up. 

 

How cynical of SCC to use the fear surrounding COVID-19 to try & push this one through.  As for Dame Storey to chip in, her views would carry a bit more weight if she actually lived in the city rather than in the rural idyll of the village of Disley. 

 

Yes there has been an increase in cycling during the pandemic, mainly driven by, for some, by necessity, for others by curiosity & the pleasure of virtually empty roads, including the lack of public transport as well a tremendous spell of decent weather but once we do get back to normal, the weather changes & people realise that there is a difference in just cycling around your local area on a chosen, nice flat route with no rush to be anywhere soon to actually having to make a decision on how long it's going to take you to get to & from work with all those hills in the way, as well as having to carry all the stuff you need to carry out your work or think about all the shopping you're going to collect on your way home from work, then the bikes will be put away because they are no longer practical... oh & autumn & winter are coming up; don't fancy cycling in the driving wind & rain. 

 

The lifeblood of a successful city is its citizens & it requires that they get into & about in that city, whether that be by public transport or private transport, (including by bicycle, which have their place) but that requires access to the city centre.  There is no problem with having pedestrianised ares which people can easily get to but to then start joining them up is foolhardy.  The small pedestrianised area with that particular shop that you could once get to by bus is now half a mile away because the bus has been rerouted on the whim of a bunch of councillors. 

 

So Dame Storey wants people to walk 1km, tell that to a pensioner having to carry their heavy shopping much further than they once had to & then to wait even longer for a bus that is taking even longer to arrive because traffic is squeezed onto a decreasing number of city centre roads?

 

Then again, I don't suppose Dame Storey has such problems in tiny Disley? 

 

 

 

 

You seem to be arguing for wider, faster roads through the city centre?

[RollingJ 2,002]

11 hours ago, Michael_N said:

So how will buses from West Street heading into City actually get down onto Arundel Gate? You'd have thought they would keep the road open to cyclists and buses to aid public transport and active travel, rather than once again causing all this disruption.

 

Makes you wonder where they find the people who come up with these hair brained ideas... 

I wonder too. Reminds me of the time, many years ago, when my employers decided to get the then 'go-to' experts - time and motion study - to streamline our way of working. They spent about 10 weeks 'analysing' our current ways, then presented the 'answer'. Management said 'that's the way, implemented it, and within a fortnight we ground to a halt. Guess what happened next?

[Guest busdriver1]

10 minutes ago, Bargepole23 said:

And yet the evidence points to increases in retail spend after pedestrianisation. Please provide your evidence to the contrary.

Please provide evidence that I suggested such.

[Annie Bynnol 612]

3 hours ago, Baron99 said:

Never understood SCC's  preponderance fascination with oversized pavements & the even more ridiculously massive corner sections throughout the city centre, other than to reduce the width of carriage ways & therefore slow traffic in the city centre?  And don't even get me started on the ridiculous number of traffic lights? 

 

Couple this with a great deal of road closures & the introduction of many one ways & you have what we have in more normal times, gridlock in the city centre, even outside rush hour times in the city centre which then impact into the suburbs as the main arterial become backed up. 

 

How cynical of SCC to use the fear surrounding COVID-19 to try & push this one through.  As for Dame Storey to chip in, her views would carry a bit more weight if she actually lived in the city rather than in the rural idyll of the village of Disley. 

 

...

 

Then again, I don't suppose Dame Storey has such problems in tiny Disley? 

 

 

 

 

I assume you have never been to the "...rural idyll..." of  "...tiny Disley" ,  where everybody is obsessed by traffic .

Not many idyllic villages have the shuddering, thunderous  and continuous roar of hundreds and hundreds of  HGV dusty stone and cement lorries every day.

Not many idyllic villages are gridlocked by commuter rush hour traffic for six hours a day,

Not many  idyllic villages have a continuous  day and night stream of freight lorries and vans moving  goods from the east coast ports and the East Midlands to the airport, Stockport, Manchester, Merseyside and beyond.

 

Just look when you next pass at the  dirty, narrow windows and pavements whose residents have pleaded for years for respite from the noise, dirt, vibration and illegally high levels of the most damaging types of pollution. All this is expected to rise with the A555 link to the airport M56, M60 and M6.

 

 

Just a reminder the "...rural idyll..." of  "...tiny Disley" is in Cheshire and on the border with Stockport on the A6.

 

 

[Baron99 779]

2 hours ago, Bargepole23 said:

And yet the evidence points to increases in retail spend after pedestrianisation. Please provide your evidence to the contrary.

You seem to be arguing for wider, faster roads through the city centre?

No, I'll settle for standard sized roads through the city centre that will will allow public transport, commercial vehicles & private vehicles to access all parts of the city. 

 

You've only got to look at the chaos that's been caused since last year in the West Bar / Snig Hill / Bridge St junction, now that planners & the final sayers in all this, certain SCC councillors have created. 

 

Yes the area looks visually aesthetic but the reality for both motorists, buses & their passengers is that an unnecessary bottle-neck has been created that adds to & increases standing traffic & therefore obviously creates more pollution. 

 

This has been brought about by making an oversized pavement in an area that doesn't have the footfall of the city centre & creating not only an oversized but also a slightly unusually shaped corner section.  This results in buses travelling along Bridge St & up to Snig Hill, having to swing the buses out into Snig Hill's downward cartridge way, which they then block.  This in turn causes traffic jams back up Snig Hill and among the following traffic, mainly other buses, along Bridge St & the additional traffic coming from West Bar up Snig Hill. 

 

Ridiculous. 

 

Another, was the previous bright idea of blocking the right turn off from the bottom of Pinstone St on to Furnival Gate, meaning that buses could no longer turn directly here & on to Charter Row.  For years the buses have been forced into making an unnecessary left hand turn to go down then up Furnival Gate, often getting stuck in standing traffic at the roundabout at the bottom of Furnival Gate, once again while unnecessary burning diesel while standing stationary & creating pollution. 

 

The knock on affect is also to create a further backlog up Pinstone St to the Peace Gardens. 

 

Reading the initial post headline, the only ones rubbing their hands at the prospect of a bit more of the city centre being closed off will be the owners of Meadowhall. 

 

2 hours ago, Bargepole23 said:

 

 

 

2 hours ago, Bargepole23 said:

 

 

 

Edited May 23, 2020 by Baron99

[Planner1 428]

2 hours ago, busdriver1 said:

The answer is quite simple. They don't really care. They have attended courses run by people who are "experts" in traffic management and the value of this work is evident by the free flowing nature of traffic in citys today.  They counter criticism by saying that all citys have the same issues. This is true, but what is also true is that those same citys sent their staff on the same courses on how to deal with it with the same predictable results. Large areas of city centres have become ideal places for the fit and healthy whilst the less able are confined to those areas they can manage to get access to by public transport that has to counter these restrictions and suffer the congestion caused by them. Since several of the officers who come up with these schemes often dont actually live or work in the affected areas they dont really care.

Yes the city centre will become a bit nicer for some. For others they will see it quite rightly as another nail being banged into the coffin of Sheffield city centre.

So, everyone everywhere who designs, implements and approves highways schemes has got it wrong? What exactly do you consider should be  the right approach?

 

You're wrong about training courses, most councils can't afford to send people on many training courses, SCC included. The training budget for their transport and infrastructure service is very very small.

 

One of the points I think you are missing is that in order for city / town centres to thrive, nowadays the view is that they need to become residential areas. Its the only way to ensure a good number of customers for the businesses. For that to happen and be attractive to people as a place to live, traffic levels need to be as low as possible. The same applies for it to be an attractive place to visit, or do business.

 

Have you actually thought about what you're saying about the people who design schemes in areas not living there? If I'm designing a scheme in say Chapeltown, do I have to live there?  It is nice to have a feel for the place you are designing a scheme for, but it really isn't necessary, or practical in my view for the designers and planners to live there. It isn't an occupation  / service you can really devolve to neighbourhood level. However, you can get the "feel" for the place by doing good public / stakeholder engagement and getting the local councillors involved. However, that does take time and money, both of which are often in short supply.

 

There are a small number of engineers and planners who work on these scheme in local authorities. Some local authorities are actually very short of staff and find it really difficult to recruit. They often rely on big consultancy companies to provide staff or services and they could come from anywhere in the country. Even bigger authorities like Sheffield would probably get consultants to design the bigger schemes because they don't have the in-house capacity (or sometimes expertise) to do the bigger ones. 

 

Change is always difficult and there are often winners and losers. Is staying as we are working?

 

19 minutes ago, Baron99 said:

No, I'll settle for standard sized roads through the city centre that will will allow public transport, commercial vehicles & private vehicles to access all parts of the city. 

No mention or appreciation of pedestrians (or cyclists) or the impact that all these motor vehicles have on them.

 

When we get out of our vehicles we are all pedestrians, we need a safe and pleasant environment, which isn't dominated by motor vehicles.

 

We tried building more and bigger roads back in the 60's/70's/80's. That resulted in swathes of the city centre being cut off from other parts and some parts being pretty unpleasant places to be. 

 

The scheme down West Bar / Snig Hill is the first part of a bigger scheme. Might be an idea to judge it when it's finished. Also there's due to be a huge amount of redevelopment in that area which will change the feel of it completely and bring a lot more people in.

[Baron99 779]

23 minutes ago, Planner1 said:

So, everyone everywhere who designs, implements and approves highways schemes has got it wrong? What exactly do you consider should be  the right approach?

 

You're wrong about training courses, most councils can't afford to send people on many training courses, SCC included. The training budget for their transport and infrastructure service is very very small.

 

One of the points I think you are missing is that in order for city / town centres to thrive, nowadays the view is that they need to become residential areas. Its the only way to ensure a good number of customers for the businesses. For that to happen and be attractive to people as a place to live, traffic levels need to be as low as possible. The same applies for it to be an attractive place to visit, or do business.

 

Have you actually thought about what you're saying about the people who design schemes in areas not living there? If I'm designing a scheme in say Chapeltown, do I have to live there?  It is nice to have a feel for the place you are designing a scheme for, but it really isn't necessary, or practical in my view for the designers and planners to live there. It isn't an occupation  / service you can really devolve to neighbourhood level. However, you can get the "feel" for the place by doing good public / stakeholder engagement and getting the local councillors involved. However, that does take time and money, both of which are often in short supply.

 

There are a small number of engineers and planners who work on these scheme in local authorities. Some local authorities are actually very short of staff and find it really difficult to recruit. They often rely on big consultancy companies to provide staff or services and they could come from anywhere in the country. Even bigger authorities like Sheffield would probably get consultants to design the bigger schemes because they don't have the in-house capacity (or sometimes expertise) to do the bigger ones. 

 

Change is always difficult and there are often winners and losers. Is staying as we are working?

 

No mention or appreciation of pedestrians (or cyclists) or the impact that all these motor vehicles have on them.

 

When we get out of our vehicles we are all pedestrians, we need a safe and pleasant environment, which isn't dominated by motor vehicles.

 

We tried building more and bigger roads back in the 60's/70's/80's. That resulted in swathes of the city centre being cut off from other parts and some parts being pretty unpleasant places to be. 

 

The scheme down West Bar / Snig Hill is the first part of a bigger scheme. Might be an idea to judge it when it's finished. Also there's due to be a huge amount of redevelopment in that area which will change the feel of it completely and bring a lot more people in.

"No mention or appreciation of pedestrians or cyclists?" 

 

I suggest you re-read my original post. 

 

To be able to use the city centre, people have to be able to get there in the first place.  It appears now that SCC don't even want public transport running through certain areas of the city centre?

 

To close off from Pinstone St, to traffic heading downwards, obviously means  the removal of all the bus stops at the Peace Gardens.  Effectively the end of the road will be the Town Hall then?  

 

As for the West Bar area?  Go on then, you seemed to be clued on the subject?  Tell us all more? 

[ECCOnoob 1,021]

I'm totally lost about what this is supposed to achieve.

 

As far as I understand it most of Pinstone Street is already closed off to general traffic and the only vehicles allowed are public transport or authorised access such as deliveries.

 

At the moor end, thanks to the council's ingenious design of blocking off one side of the road to furnival gate - traffic is left with absolutely no choice but to go onto Pinstone Street and then are shunted around Burgess Street towards John Lewis.   Unless the council are going to completely redesign the access to John Lewis's car park traffic will still have no option but to go that way.  The council are certainly not going to upset John Lewis - in fact they will bend over backwards and think of England to make  them happy because they are petrified of losing the only prime asset we have got in the city centre the meadowhall doesn't.

 

To me if these proposals are accurate it seems the council has got to try and redesign the entire road network from Charter Square to John Lewis car park and change at least a dozen or more bus routes which will no longer go through the prime artery of the city centre shopping areas.  I can't see that going down well with the retailers and brands who have chosen to invest millions on the council's heart of the city developments.  Nor do I imagine will it be particularly pleasing to HSBC and CMS and Radisson hotels  who have signed a dotted line to move into their brand new shiny buildings.  

 

"....Oh sorry lads we're just going to cull the bus routes and transport access that goes to your front doors..."

 

All seems very odd to me.