Jump to content

New Road Needed To City Centre

Recommended Posts

Just now, ads36 said:

the image above is not an official 'plan', i think it's one individuals daydream of what it could look like, maybe.

 

(that's all it is, looks good though!)

 

every now and then, Sharrow gets closed off for a market, and it gets *rammed* with people. 

 

if i owned a buisness on Sharrow, i'd be screaming for more of that, not less.

If there was in a road in Sheffield needing pedestrianisation, Sharrowvale at the Hunters Bar end is it.  Allow access for deliveries but stop all other motorised traffic.

1 hour ago, nightrider said:

I don't agree with this. The road is public and residents should not get priority, and it causes a lot of problems for people commuting to e.g the uni (for whom public transport is not an option). If you want parking near your house pay you should pay for a house that contains off road parking.

Of course it would help if the uni would pay for enough parking spaces (or fund several park and ride to keep cars out of the city centre).

Conversely, don't work at the Uni if you need to park nearby.

 

I imagine the the Uni could fund all the park and rides in the world and a number of people would still choose to drive straight past them and clog up the surrounding roads, all the while proclaiming about their "right" to drive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, ads36 said:

the image above is not an official 'plan', i think it's one individuals daydream of what it could look like, maybe.

 

(that's all it is, looks good though!)

 

every now and then, Sharrow gets closed off for a market, and it gets *rammed* with people. 

 

if i owned a buisness on Sharrow, i'd be screaming for more of that, not less.

Hmmm... :huh:


So who is wasting everyone's time coming up with this rubbish these brilliant ideas?

 

I'm sure anyone on here could come up with a similar proposal...


... if you suspend reality and disregard any practicalities! :roll:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, ads36 said:

Sharrow ? a slog ? it's barely worth mentioning. honestly, it's fine.

 

i'm old and asthmatic, i've got permanent nerve damage and a dicky hip. I get off and walk/push up Conduit, but that's about it.

 

(bikes have gears, hills are as easy as you want them to be)

Congratulations please pass the traffic lights and make your way to  Psalter Lane,

Or back on subject up Woodseats Rd.

Enjoy the Cycling.

53 minutes ago, Mr Bloke said:

Hmmm... :huh:


So is Sharrow Lane going to be a one-way street...


... or am I missing something? :confused:

Thank you Mr Bloke.

Silly me! Still looks like a game of 🎳 :hihi:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, ads36 said:

the image above is not an official 'plan', i think it's one individuals daydream of what it could look like, maybe.

 

(that's all it is, looks good though!)

 

every now and then, Sharrow gets closed off for a market, and it gets *rammed* with people. 

 

if i owned a buisness on Sharrow, i'd be screaming for more of that, not less.

I could tell it was only an artists impression and not real.

No ones got a knife :suspect:   :nono: :suspect:

Edited by Rockers rule
additional info

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, HeHasRisen said:

🤣🤣

 

Oh come on now. Have you been down that road recently? Houses and shops on both sides along its entire length bar the small section where the cemetery is.  Where do you propose these extra two lanes go?

It would have been  handy if there were room.

Share this post


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

Hog wash, 'extensive consultation with residents'?

Wholesale Implementation. 

Could you op't out - NO.

 

Nope. I was there and worked on the permit schemes and the consultation. Locals were directly consulted and they also had opportunity to object to the traffic regulations when they were advertised.

 

In areas where the majority said they didn’t want a permit scheme, they didn’t get one. Several streets at Hunters Bar opted out after a ballot. There was even a re-ballot some time later after residents asked to opt back in.
 

The Hillsborough scheme was significantly reduced in scope so as not to impose it in areas where locals said they didn’t want it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lets face it, the council plan of one level junctions has killed the city with no ring road, no fly overs, no continuous flowing traffic just relentless traffic lights and bottle neck junctions.

We don't need any more roads, we need people to use them more efficiently and plan start times for large businesses so they don't clog up roads at peak times.

Share this post


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

I don't agree with this. The road is public and residents should not get priority, and it causes a lot of problems for people commuting to e.g the uni (for whom public transport is not an option). If you want parking near your house pay you should pay for a house that contains off road parking.

Of course it would help if the uni would pay for enough parking spaces (or fund several park and ride to keep cars out of the city centre).

Unfortunately many properties don’t have any scope for off street parking and some areas like Broomhill were essentially blighted for many years because of the extensive commuter parking for the Uni, several Hospitals and numerous schools in the vicinity. Residents and businesses lobbied the council for many years to take action.

 

Unfortunately it’s not possible to accommodate all of the demands on parking in an area like that, so some prioritisation is needed. Businesses were struggling as all the nearby parking was jammed up with commuter parking and customers couldn’t park. Residents couldn’t park anywhere near their homes for large parts of the day.

 

The council tried hard to accommodate most needs. There’s permit bays as well as long and short stay visitor parking and some free spaces too. You can’t please everyone, but most people in the area I’ve spoken to think it’s better than it was.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Findlay said:

Lets face it, the council plan of one level junctions has killed the city with no ring road, no fly overs, no continuous flowing traffic just relentless traffic lights and bottle neck junctions.

We don't need any more roads, we need people to use them more efficiently and plan start times for large businesses so they don't clog up roads at peak times.

It’s not just this council, it’s the same everywhere. Flyovers and underpasses are largely seen as outdated, undesirable and generally a thing of the past for very obvious reasons. Roads can be major barriers to what makes thriving places - people!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Planner1 said:

It’s not just this council, it’s the same everywhere. Flyovers and underpasses are largely seen as outdated, undesirable and generally a thing of the past for very obvious reasons. Roads can be major barriers to what makes thriving places - people!

Hmmm... :huh:


Well I've read some rubbish on here but this one's got to be the most blinkered yet... :hihi:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Planner1 said:

It’s not just this council, it’s the same everywhere. Flyovers and underpasses are largely seen as outdated, undesirable and generally a thing of the past for very obvious reasons. Roads can be major barriers to what makes thriving places - people!

But people need to get around. Goods need to be transported. Services need to be maintained. Utilities have to be installed an upgraded. That ain't been done on the back of the bike.

 

Even some of the most progressive cities particularly in the Nordic areas  (even those offering totally free public transportation or heavy infrastructure involving cycling)  still have great investment in their road systems to support the same.

 

This is not one or the other and I think your comments are way off the mark.

 

Flyovers and underpasses are the way to keep transport out of the close-knit central area and get it moving in, out and around far more  efficiently.

 

If what you see as "outdated, undesirable and a thing of the past" is reflected in the rest of the council planning department it explains so much about why we have the incompetent mess of a road system we have now

Edited by ECCOnoob

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, ECCOnoob said:

But people need to get around. Goods need to be transported. Services need to be maintained. Utilities have to be installed an upgraded. That ain't been done on the back of the bike.

 

Even some of the most progressive cities particularly in the Nordic areas  (even those offering totally free public transportation or heavy infrastructure involving cycling)  still have great investment in their road systems to support the same.

 

This is not one or the other and I think your comments are way off the mark.

 

Flyovers and underpasses are the way to keep transport out of the close-knit central area and get it moving in, out and around far more  efficiently.

 

If what you see as "outdated, undesirable and a thing of the past" is reflected in the rest of the council planning department it explains so much about why we have the incompetent mess of a road system we have now

This vision should be dated  pre 1970s

The "flyovers and underpasses" era was an attempt to separate different types of users, instead it created an unlivable city and were became deeply unpopular.

 

In the 1970s new roads were driven through the City destroying open and potential open spaces and walls of impassable concrete dividing up the city. Isolating communities and businesses.

These new roads were of no benefit to those who lived or worked  in the city, they just generated more traffic and an exodus out of the centre of people and businesses into ever expanding suburbs.

 

City centres are very different now, far more populated, a far wider range of employment and associated services. People want to live there. Their money will help regenerate the City

No Nordic or other western European city centre in their right mind follow a "flyovers and underpasses" policy, indeed the removal of these is creating new opportunities.

.

 

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.