Consultation For A Low Traffic Neighbourhood For Neepsend And Kelham Island

[Guest busdriver1]

On 11/02/2021 at 12:26, Planner1 said:

 

In any case the Council have traffic models which can simulate the effect of what they are doing, so they will know the likely effects. They also have a sophisticated urban traffic control system, via which they can alter traffic signal timings to cope with changes in traffic levels on the network. So, build ups can be managed.

Urban traffic control ? The best source of man made congestion there is. I once sat on a bus for 35 minutes without moving on Meadowhall Way because ETC had taken over the lights and were prioritising flow from Meadowhall Road towards the motorway.  There WAS traffic there but nowhere near as much as we were stuck in, so please dont tell us that they are the silver bullet. They are far from it.

[Planner1 428]

19 hours ago, busdriver1 said:

Urban traffic control ? The best source of man made congestion there is. I once sat on a bus for 35 minutes without moving on Meadowhall Way because ETC had taken over the lights and were prioritising flow from Meadowhall Road towards the motorway.  There WAS traffic there but nowhere near as much as we were stuck in, so please dont tell us that they are the silver bullet. They are far from it.

With due respect to yourself, if you are sitting in a vehicle at one location, you can't see the full extent of the network that the urban traffic control operators can (they have large numbers of cameras) and you won't know what problem they are trying to deal with. So, from your fixed location with  a  limited perspective, you're hardly in a position to come to a reasoned view that they aren't doing it right.  Sometimes when you are dealing with a problem, you have to stack traffic in locations where it doesn't cause a problem for the wider network and allow the routes to flow where the queues are having a wider impact. Your example was probably just such a case.

 

UTC isn't a silver bullet and I never implied it was. I said it allows you to manage traffic better. Manging queues isn't eliminating them. UTC systems allow prioritisation and better overall control of the road network. That's why most decent size towns and cities worldwide have systems like that.

[Guest busdriver1]

1 hour ago, Planner1 said:

With due respect to yourself, if you are sitting in a vehicle at one location, you can't see the full extent of the network that the urban traffic control operators can (they have large numbers of cameras) and you won't know what problem they are trying to deal with. So, from your fixed location with  a  limited perspective, you're hardly in a position to come to a reasoned view that they aren't doing it right.  Sometimes when you are dealing with a problem, you have to stack traffic in locations where it doesn't cause a problem for the wider network and allow the routes to flow where the queues are having a wider impact. Your example was probably just such a case.

 

UTC isn't a silver bullet and I never implied it was. I said it allows you to manage traffic better. Manging queues isn't eliminating them. UTC systems allow prioritisation and better overall control of the road network. That's why most decent size towns and cities worldwide have systems like that.

I was party to the outcome through my work and my comments were based on the informed facts made available to me .There was a major missreading of the situation by UTC and this was later acknowledged. I am not in the habit of making unfounded allegations or fighting the corner of a body in which I may or may not have a vested interest.

[Planner1 428]

19 minutes ago, busdriver1 said:

I was party to the outcome through my work and my comments were based on the informed facts made available to me .There was a major missreading of the situation by UTC and this was later acknowledged. I am not in the habit of making unfounded allegations or fighting the corner of a body in which I may or may not have a vested interest.

So on one occasion they apparently got it wrong. People do get things wrong occasionally, its in their nature.

 

What about all the other times they got it right?

 

These systems can be set up to automatically implement signal timing plan changes in response to real time situations, but that doesn't cover every situation or need. So, operators can override. Any time there's human input into something, there's a potential for error. 

 

The occasional error doesn't mean that a system isn't worth having .

[Guest busdriver1]

2 hours ago, Planner1 said:

So on one occasion they apparently got it wrong. People do get things wrong occasionally, its in their nature.

 

What about all the other times they got it right?

 

These systems can be set up to automatically implement signal timing plan changes in response to real time situations, but that doesn't cover every situation or need. So, operators can override. Any time there's human input into something, there's a potential for error. 

 

The occasional error doesn't mean that a system isn't worth having .

There was at one time a saying: -  Buses all screwed up round Meadowhall? UTC are on the job again. Dont forget that First used to have a man in there advising and while he was there things generally went reasonably well but when he went home and they used their own initiative things went bad, quickly. So it would appear its down to who is on duty and how they respond. 

Holding traffic with about 20 buses included just short of a junction for upwards of 30 minutes during the rush hour caused absolute chaos for many road users and bus passengers. Sadly this was at one time the norm but after several representations from bus companies there seemed to be an improvement.(  maybe the offending controller got demoted to the planning department or similar).

The point I am making, you, Planner 1 stated that UTC would ensure that no  chaos would happen in the area of these works. My observation - based on fact and experience is that they can not be relied on and their performance depends on who is on duty so they can not be trusted to ensure that traffic does not grind to a halt as it surely will. 

[alarmingmark 32]

Just another barmy Sheffield car hate project ....god help the people that work around thar area ....

[ads36 213]

i'm sure the numbers are out there somewhere - do we know how many people work in the city centre? - and how many of them arrive by car?

 

and of course, it's got to be worth considering how many of those would happily drive less if the alternatives were improved...

 

(and of course, remember that this scheme won't prevent *anyone* from driving to work)

 

 

Edited February 15, 2021 by ads36

[Bargepole23 337]

14 hours ago, alarmingmark said:

Just another barmy Sheffield car hate project ....god help the people that work around thar area ....

Its some bus gates and one ways, which will create a much more pleasant place to live, eat, drink etc, all of which benefits the businesses in the area, and all of which will still have motorised access.

 

The purpose is to push traffic onto the main roads/ring road, rather than cutting through Kelham.

 

Other cities have done exactly the same, both in the UK and abroad, with great success.

 

If I'm sat outside a bar or cafe I want to be surrounding by trees and pedestrians, not parked and moving cars.

[Mr Bloke 1,445]

Hmmm...

... it does make me chuckle when the public are invited to take part in a 'consultation' of this kind.

 

Even the most myopically challenged of us can obviously see that this latest 'bright idea' is already done and dusted, so let's not insult people's intelligence further by calling it a consultation.

 

I'd be interested to know if anyone can come up with one major plan of this type that was significantly changed because the public disagreed with it.

 

There must be lots of examples...

 

... otherwise what's the point in having a 'consultation'? 

[nightrider 13]

1 hour ago, Bargepole23 said:

Its some bus gates and one ways, which will create a much more pleasant place to live, eat, drink etc, all of which benefits the businesses in the area, and all of which will still have motorised access.

 

The purpose is to push traffic onto the main roads/ring road, rather than cutting through Kelham.

 

Other cities have done exactly the same, both in the UK and abroad, with great success.

 

If I'm sat outside a bar or cafe I want to be surrounding by trees and pedestrians, not parked and moving cars.

All the same arguments Sheffielders make against this were the same arguments made in the Netherlands in the 70's against cycling infrastructure.

[RollingJ 1,986]

35 minutes ago, Mr Bloke said:

Hmmm...

... it does make me chuckle when the public are invited to take part in a 'consultation' of this kind.

 

Even the most myopically challenged of us can obviously see that this latest 'bright idea' is already done and dusted, so let's not insult people's intelligence further by calling it a consultation.

 

I'd be interested to know if anyone can come up with one major plan of this type that was significantly changed because the public disagreed with it.

 

There must be lots of examples...

 

... otherwise what's the point in having a 'consultation'? 

You and me both know 'consultation' is the totally wrong phrase @Mr Bloke - but the powers that be haven't cottoned on to the fact that we have seen through the smoke, and it gives them chance to waste a bit more money that they claim they haven't got

[Bargepole23 337]

37 minutes ago, nightrider said:

All the same arguments Sheffielders make against this were the same arguments made in the Netherlands in the 70's against cycling infrastructure.

Agreed. Never really took of that Netherlands cycling infrastructure....oh hang on, it was and remains a resounding success.