Jump to content

Taxpayers' Funds Proposed To Be Wasted On Unwanted & Ineffective Parking Scheme

Recommended Posts

25 minutes ago, Mr Bloke said:

:hihi:

Absolutely!


I don't discriminate and always give credit where it's due. :thumbsup:

 

EDIT: And I think I've spotted your favourite word... I wonder if anyone else has? :huh:

 

Here's a clue: 7 letters, begins with a 'd' and ends in 'n' . :hihi:

Clearly, disdain would be easy for you to recognise -  something you seem to pride yourself on.  Why?

Share this post


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

Do you think Arbourthorne has more problems than Nether Edge?  I already said “thank you for the correction”. Why do you keep going on and on about this red herring? Do you not have anything of substance to add, anything constructive?

 

“Scare-mongering”?  Really?

Many areas have parking issues of differing types. Some of them are basically caused by the residents themselves. Parking schemes aren’t great for locations like that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Planner1 said:

Many areas have parking issues of differing types. Some of them are basically caused by the residents themselves. Parking schemes aren’t great for locations like that.

This is my point!  This is the case for most of the streets proposed to be involved!

I don’t want to waste my time or energy on this negativity and will not be returning to this discussion.  I apologise for any way I have participated.  Goodbye and good luck.

I don’t want to waste my time or energy on this negativity and will not be returning to his discussion.  I apologise for any way I have participated.  Goodbye and good luck.

Share this post


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

Hmmm... :huh:


And this is where we see that SCC 'logic' is flawed.

 

Surely it's more important to 'protect junctions and accesses with yellow lines' even if that would mean there would be 'less space available'? :roll:

 

It’s the same issue for any council. Public acceptability.

 

Councillors make the decisions and aren’t likely to approve measures which will lose them votes in considerable numbers. 

1 minute ago, Allison R said:

This is my point!  This is the case for most of the streets proposed to be involved!

So you are trying to contend that there aren’t issues with commuter parking in Park Hill area?
 

I really don’t think that is the case. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
On 21/05/2022 at 23:50, Allison R said:

The Park Hill Parking scheme, which extends to most of the Norfolk Park neighbourhood as well as parts of Arbourthorne & Manor Castle, proposes to make our residential streets look like parking lots (with pay-and-display meters & yellow lines painted everywhere to delineate parking bays and to block people from parking across their own driveways). Residents will have to pay for permits to park in their own street, but will not be guaranteed a spot. Carers, visitors and tradespeople will have to do pay-and-display when they visit.  It says in the proposal, that they are planning to implement the same type of plan in other parts of Sheffield,
 

Most of our area’s residents have no problem whatsoever with parking and are strongly opposed to the scheme.  For the few residents who would like a parking scheme (concentrated in just a few of the 65 roads to be included), the proposed scheme won’t solve their parking problems - what might would be to simply have permit only parking.
 

Hello Alison. (I think some of the questions below you have just answered in your last post #73.

(but as I was 1/2 way through this i'm posting it anyway)

 

I did ask in an around about sort of way in post #19.

What are the perceived problems with parking in the areas you have mentioned that has prompted such a scheme being mooted? 

In your 1st post you simply asked people to sign your petition ad hock as if everyone on SF should know what problems are, or are not, having in those areas. (not being funny in anyway but did you research SF before deciding to post on here ? eclectic, rude, informative, mischievous are but a few of the qualities to be experienced)

I know all of the areas well albeit from years ago (moved out of Sheff in the 80's).

Mother lives on the Lansdown and one of the areas we lived in became a resident permit area (after we'd gone).

I can understand the areas around Lansdown & Broomhall had problems where the roads were clogged most of the time and residents couldn't park anywhere near their own house (ok it's not a given by law you have the 'right' but its nice if you can),  by office / shop workers & visitors / nurses as the case was up at Broomhall.

So again what problems are on going  in the areas you mentioned ?

Just how far do the council need to install 'resident parking schemes' away from town and do places as far as the Arbourthorne and Norfolk park really have such problems with commuters?

I wouldn't like to think i was leaving my car on either areas 8).

 

Seriously best of luck with your Council meetings Rocker 8) .

 

TOO LATE SHE'S GONE 🤣

 

Hope your all satisfied 🥴.

 

 

 

Edited by Rockers rule
-

Share this post


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

Clearly, disdain would be easy for you to recognise -  something you seem to pride yourself on.  Why?

Hmmm... :huh:


Good question!


Maybe it's because I find that the people who post most on here are usually those with the least to say! :roll:


Anyway, nice to speak with you, but I've got to go now...
... I've got a bus to catch!


Hope to see you again... if you're planning on staying around for a bit! :hihi:


 

4 minutes ago, Planner1 said:

It’s the same issue for any council. Public acceptability.

 

Councillors make the decisions and aren’t likely to approve measures which will lose them votes in considerable numbers. 

:)

Exactly Mr Planner!


Popularity before public safety... :thumbsup:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Mr Bloke said:

 

 


Popularity before public safety... :thumbsup:

People are very territorial when it comes to their possessions and want to park their cars outside their houses, free of charge if possible. This will never change.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Mr Bloke said:

Exactly Mr Planner!


Popularity before public safety... :thumbsup:

Not really.

 

The motorists/residents themselves clearly view convenience as being more important than safety and aren’t usually happy with anyone who wants to change things to make it safer, but less convenient for them. That’s why the politicians are generally content to let them get on with it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
22 hours ago, Rockers rule said:

So you pay yer car tax or what ever you want to call it & get stuffed with paying for something your already paying for. 

 

Worlds gone daft :huh:.

Even if you've paid for the car, and the VED tax, and insurance, and MOT etc., why shouldn't you also have to pay to store the car on public property, if you haven't got anywhere else to put it? :huh: None of those other costs cover the parking, so why wouldn't you expect to also have to pay for that?

 

Free on-street parking is a privilege, not a right. 

Edited by AndrewC

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Planner1 said:

Yes, but the cars generally belong to the residents. A parking scheme won’t make that better, in fact it would make the situation worse, because they would protect junctions and accesses with yellow lines, so there would be less space available. That would be an issue for  the residents, who might not want a scheme as a result.

I don't understand this logic - surely junctions and accesses should be protected against parked cars, irrespective of the squeeze that then puts on the remaining parking spaces? Are you saying that if too many cars are owned/parked locally then it's ok for residents to say, "oh, go on then, just pop it on the junction/across the neighbours driveway. Never mind about visibility for people turning in/out"?? :huh:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, AndrewC said:

I don't understand this logic - surely junctions and accesses should be protected against parked cars, irrespective of the squeeze that then puts on the remaining parking spaces? Are you saying that if too many cars are owned/parked locally then it's ok for residents to say, "oh, go on then, just pop it on the junction/across the neighbours driveway. Never mind about visibility for people turning in/out"?? :huh:

The situation is that there are a lot of junctions and accesses out there that aren’t protected by waiting restrictions. 
 

There is simply not enough budget / political will to put restrictions in at every location which might need them. ( these things cost a lot more than most folk imagine as processing the legal orders needed costs thousands) 

 

In residential areas which have high levels of parking due to residents having too many cars for the road space, the people most affected by the problems this causes are the residents themselves. There are rarely any real road traffic accident / collision issues actually caused by the inappropriate parking, probably because the parking constrains speeds and drivers and pedestrians tend to take more care because of the perceived danger. 
 

The reality of the situation is that there’s never enough money to do everything that people want, so decision makers have to make very difficult decisions and prioritise spending. In a political environment, where the decision makers ( councillors) are accountable at the ballot box, politicians are not going to want to upset large numbers of voters in their ward if they can avoid it. That means they generally don’t want to introduce measures which will be unacceptable to most voters unless it is absolutely necessary.
 

In most cases, the current arrangements work sort of ok, and there aren’t great numbers of collisions ( and there are separate budgets to treat accident hotspots), so the spend is prioritised on other things.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, AndrewC said:

Even if you've paid for the car, and the VED tax, and insurance, and MOT etc., why shouldn't you also have to pay to store the car on public property, if you haven't got anywhere else to put it? :huh: None of those other costs cover the parking?

Because we're already paying to use the road, something that has never excluded those paying for the privilege ever being excluded from parking on it.

Until finding how easy it was to make a lucrative 'Cash Cow' it can be.

How boring does repeating the same nonsense time and time again have to be spouted?

Lets ban all cars from parking at the side of the ROAD. Bicyclist should rule the world and public transport should be the only transport available for the likes of the working man.

 

What a better place our towns would be.

 

See the source image

 

Excuse me while I trade the car in for a whip 'n' top.

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.