Jump to content
The Christmas Logo Competition is back. See thread in Sheffield Discussions for details ×

Sheff Council - Shalesmoor Road Layout

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Planner1 said:

Opposition councillor criticises party in power. There’s a shock...........

Maybe next time the government will give them enough time to do proper consultation....

That’s pretty lame.

He spoke for many that recognised the scheme as a complete farce from the get go.

If the Government,represented in this case by Grant Shapps provides anything other than eye catching gestures I will be pleased and surprised.

As a representative of the Planning profession I would have thought that you would have been dismayed by the lack of forethought displayed by those concerned.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, RJRB said:

That’s pretty lame.

He spoke for many that recognised the scheme as a complete farce from the get go.

If the Government,represented in this case by Grant Shapps provides anything other than eye catching gestures I will be pleased and surprised.

As a representative of the Planning profession I would have thought that you would have been dismayed by the lack of forethought displayed by those concerned.

 

It’s just politics, that’s what they do.

The Councillor described the context to the scheme, which has already been debated at length on here ( the article dated from mid-July), he didn’t refer to it as a “complete farce” or anything like that. He alluded to a view that it could have been done better with some consultation and I’m sure the people in charge would agree, but the governments timescales dictated otherwise.

 

I don’t think there was a lack of forethought. We don’t know the full reasons why the decision maker selected that scheme in that location. They said it was to link the Penistone Rd cycle tracks to the Grey to Green project, which doesn’t sound unreasonable. Were  there other reasons? We don’t know. They certainly understood the likely outcomes ( manageable queues and disgruntled motorists) and had planned contingencies in case the impacts were worse than expected. All as you’d expect.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Planner1 said:

Traffic levels reaching 80% of pre-Covid figures.

So am I understanding you correctly? You appear to be saying that before installing the lanes, SCC had decided that if at any point the traffic returned to 80%or above of pre-covid levels then the cycle lanes would be removed.

 

Could you therefore please provide the research/scientific/advisory sources they were working from that led them to think there was any possibility traffic wouldn't return to at least 80% of pre-covid levels at some stage, particularly given the fairly predictable reluctance of people to use public transport during a pandemic. Thanks

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, NewBiz said:

So am I understanding you correctly? You appear to be saying that before installing the lanes, SCC had decided that if at any point the traffic returned to 80%or above of pre-covid levels then the cycle lanes would be removed.

 

Could you therefore please provide the research/scientific/advisory sources they were working from that led them to think there was any possibility traffic wouldn't return to at least 80% of pre-covid levels at some stage, particularly given the fairly predictable reluctance of people to use public transport during a pandemic. Thanks

Yes, that’s what I said.


No one has said they didn’t think that traffic would get back to that level.
 

Remember, this facility appears to have always been thought of by the council as being temporary. They clearly worked out that they could manage any resultant queuing so that it didn’t spread all around the city centre, while the traffic levels were reduced. Their modelling will have given them a traffic flow level  at which the queues become unmanageable. Hence having a traffic level which triggers removal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am sure that their modelling must have highlighted the very basic flaws in the scheme,but somehow it was sanctioned or pushed through .

I hope the restitution is rapid and permanent 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
8 hours ago, Planner1 said:

The student games was a bid to host a major event, hardly an experimental scheme. The legacy facilities have been a great asset for the city, gained it the reputation for being the city of sport and resulted in even more sporting facilities coming to the city. 
 

Tram-train trial is a national trial to see how trams can operate on heavy rail tracks. It’s got us more new trams and opened up a new route towards Rotherham. I’m not sure what’s not to like about that one. It doesn’t actually directly involve SCC. It’s SYPTE who own the tram system. But hey, lets not let a few  inconvenient facts get in the way of an anti SCC rant...... It got handed to SYPTE very late in the day and the lengthy delays in the project were basically down to Network Rail, who’d been running it before.

 

Clean Air Zones are national policy and have been forced on all the major cities by the government with the threat of huge court fines for non compliance being possported to local authorities. SCC have been compelled to do a CAZ. Nothing to do with volunteering for an experiment. 

But the council then took the decision to knock Don Valley Stadium down !

Sheffield Arena is making huge losses due to not having a major promoter bringing acts to town (pre-covid) and has been bailed out numerous times to the value of millions of pounds.
Funds which would no doubt have been better used on other more worthy services in the  city.

As for the tram-train trial the majority of money spent was over the  border into Rotherham and it benefits that town rather more than Sheffield.

Does the removal of the Shalesmoor scheme come from the council budget or the central government funding for putting the scheme into place ?
 

 

Edited by darylslinn
Additional content

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, RJRB said:

I am sure that their modelling must have highlighted the very basic flaws in the scheme,but somehow it was sanctioned or pushed through .

I hope the restitution is rapid and permanent 

 

Restitution against whom for what?

 

I’m told the modelling indicated manageable queues, which was by and large what happened.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, darylslinn said:

But the council then took the decision to knock Don Valley Stadium down !

Sheffield Arena is making huge losses due to not having a major promoter bringing acts to town (pre-covid) and has been bailed out numerous times to the value of millions of pounds.
Funds which would no doubt have been better used on other more worthy services in the  city.

As for the tram-train trial the majority of money spent was over the  border into Rotherham and it benefits that town rather more than Sheffield.

Does the removal of the Shalesmoor scheme come from the council budget or the central government funding for putting the scheme into place ?
 

 

The student games were 30 years ago. The stadium had aged and needed money spending on it and wasn’t attracting major events like it used to do. Simple investment decision.

 

Similarly, other nearby cities have built bigger arenas which are more attractive to big acts, so ours isn’t getting the tours it used to. 
 

The student games facilities gave Sheffield an identity it was previously lacking and were a catalyst for regeneration. They’ve given us 30 years of good use, but times change.

 

The trams that serve Rotherham also run in Sheffield and the project included several new trams for Sheffield. Don’t forget, it’s a South Yorkshire Supertram.
 

My guess is that the central government funding will be used to take out the cycle lane, but I’ve seen no details to confirm this. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, darylslinn said:

As for the tram-train trial the majority of money spent was over the  border into Rotherham and it benefits that town rather more than Sheffield.

 

 

Saying it benefits Rotherham is somewhat spurious.  The only benefit i could see apart from the massive unnecessary remodelling of the Station is that its marginally quicker to get out of Sheffield.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Planner1 said:

Restitution against whom for what?

 

I’m told the modelling indicated manageable queues, which was by and large what happened.

 

 

Restitution of the road.i.e.planing ,moving the barriers,repainting and signing.

What on earth did you think I meant?

 

 

“The queues were manageable”

Creating a queue to make it manageable.Whats the point in that.

Edited by RJRB

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Planner1 said:

Yes, that’s what I said.


No one has said they didn’t think that traffic would get back to that level.
 

Remember, this facility appears to have always been thought of by the council as being temporary. They clearly worked out that they could manage any resultant queuing so that it didn’t spread all around the city centre, while the traffic levels were reduced. Their modelling will have given them a traffic flow level  at which the queues become unmanageable. Hence having a traffic level which triggers removal.

That's interesting Planner1, but is completely at odds with what you stated in your post of 7th July cut and pasted below. Perhaps you could explain the dichotomy  between your statement above, and the one below please

 

Motorists are not the only highway users. This improvement is for non-motorised modes.

 

In a constrained network, you can't promote a step change in travel mode choice without inconveniencing some types of highway user.

 

It's fairly obvious that many car drivers will not change mode unless they are made to. Making car drivers trips slower, more difficult and more costly are all tools of demand management and that is what you are seeing here. It is policy at national government and local government levels to get huge increases in the numbers of people walking and cycling over coming years. That won't be achieved by just letting car drivers continue as normal.

 

The government and local councils have seen big increases in cycling and walking in lockdown and they want to  keep those people travelling sustainably as we come out of lockdown. The government are telling local councils to introduce measures to facilitate this and are giving them the money to do it. Thats why you are seeing measures like this emerging in all towns and cities. If the policy aims are to be delivered, its just the start and you are going to see a lot more.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.