Consultation For A Low Traffic Neighbourhood For Neepsend And Kelham Island

[Adeltrude28 0]

On 04/02/2021 at 17:20, Bargepole23 said:

Let's have both, shouldn't be either/or.

 

On 11/02/2021 at 13:26, Planner1 said:

I'd suspect it wont. 

 

Vehicles using that route are going towards the ring road and they have an alternative in that they could go up Broad Lane and join it at Brook Hill instead.

 

In any case the paris cdg car service 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.

 

General traffic levels are currently circa a third down on normal, so there isn't as much traffic congestion.

On 10/02/2021 at 18:13, scottf said:

I'll be honest, thats going to create a HUGE backlog of cars all the way from west bar upto university roundabout. I get that they want to make the city more cycle friendly and i totally support that, but this will make large sections of the city into total gridlock at rush hour. 

 

Unless thats the plan, make the city so car unfriendly that people decide not to come into the city centre for work.

Working from home is better than leaving home, personally and yes it reduces the number of traffic

 

[Resident 1,185]

1 hour ago, Adeltrude28 said:

 

Working from home is better than leaving home, personally and yes it reduces the number of traffic

Working from home ISN'T better. It should never be a full time option when a business would usually work from an office outside this pandemic. The odd day or two here and there is fine but full time, no. There is no separation between home and work life as it's all in the place you live. 

The only people benefitting from WFH as a full time option is the employer. You, the employee are paying for some of their operating overheads. You're the one paying your mortgage/rent & utilities. 

[Bargepole23 337]

15 minutes ago, Resident said:

Working from home ISN'T better. It should never be a full time option when a business would usually work from an office outside this pandemic. The odd day or two here and there is fine but full time, no. There is no separation between home and work life as it's all in the place you live. 

The only people benefitting from WFH as a full time option is the employer. You, the employee are paying for some of their operating overheads. You're the one paying your mortgage/rent & utilities. 

Plenty of people happily WFH prior to, and during, this pandemic. I wfh from home for a large part of 2020, and am wfh at least 3 days a week now. I would happily continue to do so, it has worked very well for me.

 

No issues with separation of work life and home life, but I have enough space at home to have a home study. I appreciate others have been working at the kitchen table, and that is more challenging. My kids are grown up and dont need my attention.

 

As for additional costs, mortgage and rent dont change, and its possible to claim an allowance for additional utility costs. What that means for my employers operating costs i dont really care. I don't see my relationship with my employer as me against them, or in any way adversarial. Time to look for a different contract if that was the case.

[Guest]

35 minutes ago, Resident said:

Working from home ISN'T better. It should never be a full time option when a business would usually work from an office outside this pandemic. The odd day or two here and there is fine but full time, no. There is no separation between home and work life as it's all in the place you live. 

The only people benefitting from WFH as a full time option is the employer. You, the employee are paying for some of their operating overheads. You're the one paying your mortgage/rent & utilities. 

That's down to the individual. If you can keep a workspace at home it's not a problem. I have a laptop that I bring home so I end up on it at home anyway but that's me. We've always had the option to be fully remote. Many people prefer it, just because you don't doesn't mean no employer should allow it.

 

People are in different situations and you're just looking at your own as the basis for everyone. We rented a small, one bed flat which pushed me to get our office open again, however since buying a house, I am happy to WFH. It's nice to pop in a day or two, there are only ever 4 of us in an office of over 100 people and it's been this way for a year. In fact one large team requested to be made fully remote even after lockdown.

 

Don't assume everyone hates WFH just because they used to work in an office. Good workplaces always offer flexible working, bad employers force you into the office even if it serves no purpose other than to watch the times your employees are in there. 

[nightrider 13]

46 minutes ago, Resident said:

Working from home ISN'T better. It should never be a full time option when a business would usually work from an office outside this pandemic. The odd day or two here and there is fine but full time, no. There is no separation between home and work life as it's all in the place you live. 

The only people benefitting from WFH as a full time option is the employer. You, the employee are paying for some of their operating overheads. You're the one paying your mortgage/rent & utilities. 

speak for yourself. I prefer working at home - I have a large office that is properly heated, not a pokey office that is freezing cold in winter even with the heating on. Some like WFH, some don't.

[edensor 10]

If the scheme is at all predicated upon 20mph zoning, then I hope that no positive  claims about improving road safety are being made by the council

I've never seen a car doing less than 20 on or around Crookesmoor Road - nobody seems to comply with such 'zoning'

[nightrider 13]

On 23/02/2021 at 14:30, edensor said:

If the scheme is at all predicated upon 20mph zoning, then I hope that no positive  claims about improving road safety are being made by the council

I've never seen a car doing less than 20 on or around Crookesmoor Road - nobody seems to comply with such 'zoning'

Needs enforcing then. A few high profile examples might help deter.

[Bargepole23 337]

On 23/02/2021 at 14:30, edensor said:

If the scheme is at all predicated upon 20mph zoning, then I hope that no positive  claims about improving road safety are being made by the council

I've never seen a car doing less than 20 on or around Crookesmoor Road - nobody seems to comply with such 'zoning'

So the fault lies entirely with those breaking the speed limit. Not with the council, or the police.

 

There's a definite lack of social responsibility in this country, amply illustrated by the amount of littering and pavement parking.

[Planner1 428]

On 25/02/2021 at 12:07, Bargepole23 said:

So the fault lies entirely with those breaking the speed limit. Not with the council, or the police.

 

There's a definite lack of social responsibility in this country, amply illustrated by the amount of littering and pavement parking.

Do you not think that there should be some responsibility on the part of the people who spend public money on signing / roadmarking only 20mph schemes, which they know will not reduce speeds or casualties and won't be enforced?

 

Also pavement parking is not in itself unlawful or in breach of any regulation (unless you are in London). 

[RollingJ 2,002]

1 minute ago, Planner1 said:

Do you not think that there should be some responsibility on the part of the people who spend public money on signing / roadmarking only 20mph schemes, which they know will not reduce speeds or casualties and won't be enforced?

 

Also pavement parking is not in itself unlawful or in breach of any regulation (unless you are in London). 

Well said, and for once, I am in total agreement with you.

[Bargepole23 337]

2 hours ago, Planner1 said:

Do you not think that there should be some responsibility on the part of the people who spend public money on signing / roadmarking only 20mph schemes, which they know will not reduce speeds or casualties and won't be enforced?

 

Also pavement parking is not in itself unlawful or in breach of any regulation (unless you are in London). 

I can't see where I've said pavement parking is unlawful. Are you suggesting that just because its unlawful then we should condone or accept it, despite the fact that it forces people off the footpath onto the road? I, and plenty of others,  have sense of moral responsibility that means we don't do certain things, not because they are illegal, but because of the effect it would have on others.

[Planner1 428]

20 hours ago, Bargepole23 said:

I can't see where I've said pavement parking is unlawful. Are you suggesting that just because its unlawful then we should condone or accept it, despite the fact that it forces people off the footpath onto the road? I, and plenty of others,  have sense of moral responsibility that means we don't do certain things, not because they are illegal, but because of the effect it would have on others.

Pavement parking can be unlawful if the driver doesn't leave sufficient space for pedestrians. The Police usually apply the double buggy test in such circumstances.

 

My view is that relying on people's sense of moral responsibility clearly doesn't work. If you don't want pavement parking, you need a law or regulation that can be enforced. They have one in London......