Sheff Council - Shalesmoor Road Layout

[RollingJ 2,034]

23 minutes ago, Planner1 said:

Never been great has it?

No, but it gets worse with every 'improvement'.🤣

[alchemist 37]

2 hours ago, RollingJ said:

It was - I've just checked back, but that link was the council 'spin', which also mentioned the Shalesmoor scheme, in a press release on a page/site that I'm guessing not that many people know about - I didn't until I stumbled upon it earlier in the year, looing for something else.

 

However, I am asking for the links to the legal instruments.

Was it in a locked filing cabinet in the basement, where the light was out and the stairs broken, behind a sign saying beware of the tiger?

[RollingJ 2,034]

Just now, alchemist said:

Was it in a locked filing cabinet in the basement, where the light was out and the stairs broken, behind a sign saying beware of the tiger?

Not quite - but apart from the broken stairs being bit of a problem - I found it.😄

[darylslinn 10]

3 hours ago, Planner1 said:

Google is your friend. You should try it. See: https://www.sheffield.gov.uk/home/roads-pavements/covid-19-traffic-orders

Where does this state the closure of lanes on Shalesmoor.... and if this document is relating to Shalesmoor then they put the lanes in too early....  "This Order shall come into operation on the 16th day of July, 2020"

Wrong order ?

[RJRB 688]

Is there a notice about when you the barriers are coming down,or must we live it longer than necessary due to financial constraints or continued failure to just say we got it badly wrong.

 

 

[convert 10]

5 hours ago, RollingJ said:

No, but it gets worse with every 'improvement'.🤣

Bit like the roads in Sheffield then...

[Planner1 437]

6 hours ago, darylslinn said:

Where does this state the closure of lanes on Shalesmoor.... and if this document is relating to Shalesmoor then they put the lanes in too early....  "This Order shall come into operation on the 16th day of July, 2020"

Wrong order ?

The one that is called Shalesmoor Traffic Order says it came into effect on 5th July, but it relates to banned turns and road closures. Can’t see anything else.

Edited July 18, 2020 by Planner1

[Resident 1,185]

1 hour ago, Planner1 said:

The one that is called Shalesmoor Traffic Order says it came into effect on 5th July, but it relates to banned turns and road closures. Can’t see anything else.

So does this mean SCC have acted improperly and the lane closure is in fact not covered by any order?

[Planner1 437]

8 hours ago, Resident said:

So does this mean SCC have acted improperly and the lane closure is in fact not covered by any order?

I doubt it, they are well used to doing the necessary orders for any scheme and they know this one will be subject to scrutiny.

[Hayley1 10]

On 16/07/2020 at 10:35, Planner1 said:

I do find it rather hypocritical when motorists trot out the pollution argument. If they were that concerned about it they'd be either driving a zero emission vehicle or using a more sustainable form of travel.

You clearly didn't read my post. I find your comment rather insulting 

 

On 16/07/2020 at 20:48, ECCOnoob said:

As I have said before a big part of that "clean air" is down to what comes out of the back of vehicles not the specific use of them. 

 

You keep banging on about electric or alternative fuel personal  cars being just as bad to the environment exhaust fumes but bicycles are not made out of pixie farts and magic beans.  the manufacturer development and distribution of those has just as much impact on the environment as any other vehicle.

 

People have explained several times that bicycles are not a feasible option to the majority of travellers.  If there is "green" money to be invested it should be on alternative fuels and better public transport systems not taking some lazy and half assed approach at simply attacking car drivers and making their lives even more difficult.

 

No matter how many times you try to persuade me otherwise it is absolutely clear that cycling is and always will be predominantly a leisure activity.

 

The world has moved on dramatically from the turn of the century.  People are working and living bigger distances is all the time.  We are not living in twee country villages where we can pootle around on our bikes to access all the things we need.

 

Motorised transport is here to stay and the solution to the environmental issues of such pressing concern will be finding better and greener ways of powering it.  That is not pedal power.  

 

I am breathless to know your theory of why clean air is going to suddenly create all these extra jobs and taxes. I think it's you living in a dream world.

 

Yes I suspect lots of car driving posters have children. They will be children who grow older and pass their driving test and will expect the freedom to be able to get around where they need to go as far as they need in a car. They will be children who will be required to work and study and live in different places around the country or even the world because that is a modern way that globalisation is taking the economies.  Those children will not be doing it on the back of the bike.  

A like button is needed here. Well said.

[Planner1 437]

58 minutes ago, Hayley1 said:

You clearly didn't read my post. I find your comment rather insulting 

If you care to look properly, I was replying to someone called Ravenger. Unless you've got multiple identities on here........

[Weredoomed 10]

On 18/07/2020 at 09:58, Planner1 said:

You’re approaching this from a completely false premise, that road capacity for motorists is sacrosanct and nothing should be done to delay motorists. That isn’t the case.

 

The authorities are never going to achieve the step change in take-up of sustainable travel modes without inconveniencing motorists.

 

Roadspace reallocation is a perfectly legitimate measure in the modern transport planners toolkit, so it would be unprofessional of them not to explore this possibility with the decision makers.

And what, pray tell, are these sustainable travel modes in hilly Sheffield with an aging population?

 

Bike - non-starter for the majority of people.

Bus - unreliable. Let's conveniently ignore social distancing, which is with us for the foreseeable future.

Tram - limited to no access for the majority of the city's population, ditto on social distancing.

Walking - depends how far you need to go, for what purpose and how hilly it might be along the way, see also reference to aging population above. Shall we conveniently ignore vulnerable females travelling around in the dark?

 

What is this magical sustainable travel mode that will suit the majority of the population for the majority of the time? Like it or not, it's a car for all who can afford one. That's why there are so many of them, whether you like it or not. It will take users everywhere they want to go, (SCC road closures excepted), at whatever time of day they wish to travel and in virtually all weather conditions. Why should anyone switch to suit the politically correct aspirations of SCC's transport planners when the non-car options are not viable?

 

Also what excuse for cutting car usage will be trotted out when, in  few years time, cars are less or non-polluting?

 

It would also be highly unprofessional to the point of gross incompetence to "explore a possibility" which it is obvious will increase congestion and thus pollution, because that's what these "experts" you leap to defend are charged with reducing.

 

On 18/07/2020 at 12:50, Planner1 said:

How is it condescending to know what tools are available to you in your profession?

 

How those tools are deployed are decisions for politicians and there is of course stakeholder engagement to inform decisions. 
 

The politicians have to take decisions for the greater good. Because no matter what they decide, someone is going to be unhappy, the decision makers are accountable at the ballot box.
 

What exactly do you expect a temporary installation to look like? 

Whilst there may be a number of tools in the planners box, not all of them will be appropriate, so to suggest something inappropriate, as at Shalesmoor, displays either:

 

Condescending arrogance ("We know what's best peasants") or

Disinterested indifference ("We've been told to do something, we don't care if it works or not") or

Incompetence ("We've no idea whether it will work, despite past knowledge of how quickly a loss of capacity causes mayhem in the city centre but, durrrr, let's do it anyway").

 

So which is it?

 

If you expect anyone to believe that councillors are qualified to make the call as to which is the best solution, think again. Sadly the officers who advise them are not accountable - when was the last time one of them was disciplined for providing wrong advice? Where are the meeting minutes that show the officers who presented the options to councillors, (if any were presented in the first place, which I doubt), tried to steer councillors AWAY from an option that would cause increased congestion and pollution? Will any officer be censured over Shalesmoor - don't try to tell us someone will be having a standing interview without coffee and biscuits over this one.

 

What stakeholder engagement occurred at Shalesmoor? What comments were received about the TTRO by SCC after they had posted it, as they are legally required to do?

 

Having read the Shalesmoor TRO, I note that there seems to be no mention in it of the closure of a lane to motor vehicles. This is because lane closures do not require a TRO, even as part of a TTRO. So quite how any member of the public was supposed to be aware of this grossly negligent scheme prior to it being installed is a mystery to me. Little wonder then that it came as a surprise to the people of Sheffield. Well done SCC for doing things sneakily, in an attempt to achieve your agenda.

 

To emphasise the last sentence above, SCC could legally reduce the IRR to a single lane in each direction for motor vehicles for the full length of the road and not need a TRO, temporary or otherwise, to do so. They could also do it with no notice whatsoever. Not that they would be so anti-car, now would they?

Edited July 19, 2020 by Weredoomed