Tony 10 #781 Posted July 24, 2020 Let's have a look at the ambulance video again. This time keep an eye on the blue car in front of the ambulance. Obviously the ambulance was blocked by other traffic not the cycle lane but putting that to one side the ambulance would have been faster by waiting in the queue than messing about with bollards. It will be a lot faster once the permanent cycle lane creates an emergency priority lane. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
NewBiz 10 #782 Posted July 24, 2020 Given the Council's stance on use of cars, one can assume they will not therefore be giving the go ahead to the proposed 300 houses stuck out up the Loxley Valley, nearly in the Peak District, miles from any shops, schools, GP surgeries or decent public transport. So that at least is an upside! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
Planner1 424 #783 Posted July 24, 2020 8 hours ago, Michael_N said: How long before Sheffield scraps their schemes? https://www.wakefieldexpress.co.uk/news/environment/pedestrianised-wakefield-city-centre-road-set-be-reopened-scheme-scrapped-2921396 Theirs was put in for a different reason though wasn't it? Seems Wakefield businesses don't want to embrace cafe society. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
Planner1 424 #784 Posted July 24, 2020 49 minutes ago, NewBiz said: Given the Council's stance on use of cars, one can assume they will not therefore be giving the go ahead to the proposed 300 houses stuck out up the Loxley Valley, nearly in the Peak District, miles from any shops, schools, GP surgeries or decent public transport. So that at least is an upside! So you prefer the existing decaying factory then do you ? Where should the new housing be located in order to meet the government housing targets? The developer is proposing a bike shed and a home working "hub", so clearly they expect the residents to work from home and cycle to the shops. Public transport routes usually go where there is some demand. The new housing might create enough to encourage an operator to service it. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
RJRB 677 #785 Posted July 24, 2020 48 minutes ago, Planner1 said: So you prefer the existing decaying factory then do you ? Where should the new housing be located in order to meet the government housing targets? The developer is proposing a bike shed and a home working "hub", so clearly they expect the residents to work from home and cycle to the shops. Public transport routes usually go where there is some demand. The new housing might create enough to encourage an operator to service it. I am not against the Loxley Valley scheme but the thought of a host of cyclists heading to Hillsborough to do their shopping amuses me. Once again they will be outnumbered by cyclists heading in the opposite direction towards Bradfield and district. As for Public transport serving the areas with demand,perhaps Shalesmoor /Derek Dooley Way required bus lanes rather than cycle lanes. Do any buses go through Shalesmoor? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
Planner1 424 #786 Posted July 24, 2020 27 minutes ago, RJRB said: As for Public transport serving the areas with demand,perhaps Shalesmoor /Derek Dooley Way required bus lanes rather than cycle lanes. Do any buses go through Shalesmoor? Yep, there are stops on both sides, see: https://goo.gl/maps/2LKqGunUwv475JWr6 You can see a No57 bus on the Google Maps images. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
alexander874 17 #787 Posted July 24, 2020 7 minutes ago, Planner1 said: Yep, there are stops on both sides, see: https://goo.gl/maps/2LKqGunUwv475JWr6 You can see a No57 bus on the Google Maps images. Routes 57, 81, 82, 86, 135. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
RJRB 677 #788 Posted July 24, 2020 45 minutes ago, alexander874 said: Routes 57, 81, 82, 86, 135. Bus lane it is then Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
alchemist 35 #789 Posted July 24, 2020 9 hours ago, Tony said: Let's have a look at the ambulance video again. This time keep an eye on the blue car in front of the ambulance. Obviously the ambulance was blocked by other traffic not the cycle lane but putting that to one side the ambulance would have been faster by waiting in the queue than messing about with bollards. It will be a lot faster once the permanent cycle lane creates an emergency priority lane. Obviously the fact that a previously 2 lane road was made a 1 lane road with an empty unused cycle lane next to it was purely coincidental Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
NewBiz 10 #790 Posted July 24, 2020 10 hours ago, Planner1 said: So you prefer the existing decaying factory then do you ? Where should the new housing be located in order to meet the government housing targets? The developer is proposing a bike shed and a home working "hub", so clearly they expect the residents to work from home and cycle to the shops. Public transport routes usually go where there is some demand. The new housing might create enough to encourage an operator to service it. That's right Planner 1 I do prefer the derelict factory. I would love to see the Council's rationale when they approve the 300 or so houses (which let's be honest, they're going to do despite huge opposition from local people, peak Park, CPRE, and others) and how it marries up with their announcement of a climate change emergency. I suspect it will be entertaining, but ultimately will see the destruction of a beautiful valley, treasured by 1000's and be an utter disgrace. As for where else i think the Council should build, well perhaps take a rein check anyway given the current economic climate, but if there is still a need for housing why not start with the acres and acres of wasteland stretching from Leppings lane to virtually town, all served by public transport, cycle lanes and much of it within very easy walking distance of town, railway station, bus interchange, tram etc etc? 10 hours ago, Planner1 said: So you prefer the existing decaying factory then do you ? Where should the new housing be located in order to meet the government housing targets? The developer is proposing a bike shed and a home working "hub", so clearly they expect the residents to work from home and cycle to the shops. Public transport routes usually go where there is some demand. The new housing might create enough to encourage an operator to service it. I just have to add that if the Council really is so naive as to think that because a development has a 'proposed' bike shed and a proposed 'working hub' whatever that is, that that means the resident will 'work from home and cycle to the shops' then they really should not be left in charge of such area blighting decisions Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
FORE 12 #791 Posted July 24, 2020 12 hours ago, Planner1 said: So you prefer the existing decaying factory then do you ? Where should the new housing be located in order to meet the government housing targets? The developer is proposing a bike shed and a home working "hub", so clearly they expect the residents to work from home and cycle to the shops. Public transport routes usually go where there is some demand. The new housing might create enough to encourage an operator to service it. Well it appears at the moment there are 797 objections and 20 supporting. Seems pretty conclusive to me. If the developer gets the go ahead they won't give a toss when their 'sovs' are rolling in. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
darylslinn 10 #792 Posted July 24, 2020 4 hours ago, NewBiz said: That's right Planner 1 I do prefer the derelict factory. I would love to see the Council's rationale when they approve the 300 or so houses (which let's be honest, they're going to do despite huge opposition from local people, peak Park, CPRE, and others) and how it marries up with their announcement of a climate change emergency. I suspect it will be entertaining, but ultimately will see the destruction of a beautiful valley, treasured by 1000's and be an utter disgrace. As for where else i think the Council should build, well perhaps take a rein check anyway given the current economic climate, but if there is still a need for housing why not start with the acres and acres of wasteland stretching from Leppings lane to virtually town, all served by public transport, cycle lanes and much of it within very easy walking distance of town, railway station, bus interchange, tram etc etc? I just have to add that if the Council really is so naive as to think that because a development has a 'proposed' bike shed and a proposed 'working hub' whatever that is, that that means the resident will 'work from home and cycle to the shops' then they really should not be left in charge of such area blighting decisions And when they can no longer carry groceries on their bicycles and they revert to a motorised vehicle to get to the supermarkets which way do they travel..... oh yes down Holme Lane and through Hillsborough Corner which is congested at the best of times, so potential for another 300 plus motor vehicles added to that route. These are the problem area that the planners should be looking at and not adding to the problem by allowing housing schemes such as this to go ahead. Deluded planners, deluded council with their pie in the sky ideas.... how many back handers do they receive by the way ? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...