Sharrowvale Parking Scheme - new thread

[HotPhil]

lol, saying "fact" doesn't make something true. Especially something that isn't - I could (and have previously) given half a dozen examples that show that statement to be nonsense.

For the record, I don't support all of the traffic decisions in Sheffield, but I'll happily listen to the views of someone who can explain possible reasons for decisions taken in a city he doesn't even work in anymore. There's no point entering into a discussion if all you're going to trot out is the same closed opinion every hour with no possibility of actually listening to, comprehending, and perhaps even absorbing why particular decisions are made.

Planner1 has a lot of patience and am surprised he bothers faced with the non-sensical, sometimes personal rubbish that gets directed to him on here.

[crookesey]

Planner1, must be a throw back to the 'good old' Socialist Republic Of South Yorkshire days when the likes of Blunkett, Betts and Bower thought that they ruled supreme. I daresay that had the technology been around to start an SF in those days, it would have been banned at worst or censored at best.

 

Anyone who has read this thread thoroughly will know that I am not in total dissagreement with the scheme. In Planner1's eyes my opinion makes me partially correct, had I disagreed with him I would have left myself open to accusations questioning my intelligence and sanity.

 

We have moved on from the dire days of the BBB's when free speech was actively discouraged. Younger forum members would not believe that the LEA sent out 'reminders' to head teachers instructing them to ensure that their teaching staff were 'Towing the party line'. Say what you wish without insulting anyone and you are fulfilling the true function of a forum.

[Captain_Scarlet]

I thought you'd prefer it being run by the private sector because according to you, the public sector is run by a load of numptys...

numpties indeed.

Public transport is operated by private companies It's still public transport.

It is not. Public service is provided by the government sometimes at a loss simply to provide what the electorate and taxpayer regards as a necessary service.

First does not provide public service, it runs buses for money.

Originally Posted by MR BENN

be a lot better without those large smelly,slow buses on the roads

Such insight, where does he get it from; Beano, News of the World, Top Gear Magazine?

Sadly Mr Benn is right, one cannot argue that buses are slow, it's in their nature to be slow; the stop at bus stops when some of their passengers are neither getting on nor off.

I'm told that the Government already subsidises all rail journeys to the tune of £3 per journey. Rail services are operated by private companies too if you haven't noticed.

But trains don't slow travel for private tax paying tran owners such as you or I also despite private operators over pricing rail tickets, because of the nature of railways, the infrastructure is (now) kept in working order at all times, roads are left to abandonment.

It isn't just 2, there are a a lot more bus operators than that. Haven't you also forgotten the taxis, private hire, NHS vehicles, cycles, motorcycles who use the bus lanes?

Emergency vehicles have every right to priority and al road users get out of their way when necessary, motorcycles, pushbikes and hire vehicles are special class of road users put forward by people like who to make ordinary people suffer.

Taxis and private hire aren't cars then?

They're special cars and you know it Planner1, stop being picky.

New Inner Relief Road - wasn't that for cars then?

The Inner RING road is not a benefit, it's a waste of money. It was not an idea when designed in the forties and it isn't now that we're forced to live with it.

You mean the traffic lights where side roads join the relief road or cross it.

 

You moan when the Council closes roads or makes them one way and then you moan again because there are traffic lights where they haven't. You can't have it both ways.

 

Most people reckon the IRR saves them 10 minutes or so on previous peak hour journey times, so a major benefit to all road users wouldn't you say?

"Most people" is in the eye of the beholder. The IRR is a side road that intersecs main roads, it is it that should have the lights preventing people from crossing not Wicker, Furnival Road, Nursery Street, Corporation Street. I believe you believe Mr Benn was moaning about traffic but I don't think anyone can indeed see him moan about traffic lights where there are none. The IRR has indeed diverted traffic from it's destination, more or less prevents people from reaching the areas it encircles, is plagued by previously inexistent light signals. It is nigh impossible to cross Cutlers Gate while on Furnival Road (clearly to avoid going on Cutlers Gate as far as Bridgehouses to come back onto Saville Street) to join Brightside Lane in Atlas due to a decision to discourage its use when people might work there! There is a business park on the quays, offices, people who, because public transport is no longer public or live far (Leeds, Nottingham) drive there but cannot cross Cutlers Gate, cannot even use it as there are no left, right turns at this junction making it utterly useless for anyone going in either direction.

And off peak provides a smooth and quicker link to the Parkway and onto the M1 to travel south to where it really is rip off Britain

Why would I go on the Inner Ring Road when I live the other side of Sheffield? Why would I go on the Inner Ring Road when I want to intersect to go somewhere else than where the IRR serves? why would I want to drive on Castlegate, turn right onto Ladies Bridge (taking time to stop on the junction to prevent buses from passing and grinning at them), stop to make some purchases (I dunno, say a comic from either graphic novel shops) then not onto the M1 because I can't anymore and have to either go back where I came from (that's the polite version of effing off) or get lost trying to reach Corporation Street (of all places) to get to the M1?

Because, overall more people benefit. If you weren't so remarkably selfish you would understand the concept.

Me is all you get from the ranting drivers on this thread over last few days. Try considering other people for a change. A car is a privilege not a right.

One bus does not mean more than ... thirty cars. It is because we consider other people that we want other drivers to be just as free to park around Ecclesall Road as possible rather than suffer the arbitrary and unjustified decision to implement a no parking zone down the entire Porter Valley!

I was going to tackle the numerous errors, poor logic and faulty reasoning, but seeing as you simply misread or ignore anything that doesn't fit in with your poor persecuted world view, I decided to walk on thumbtacks instead as it would be less painful.

and your effort to prove a point is?

i think Captain_Scarlet's point was, why should we have to pay £36 a year to park outside our own house? if it was £5 then it would be ok, that would have covered the admin costs (cost of printing permits, postage, time spent issuing ect) so the rest is just pure profit to the council

Not even a fiver. The tax disk, MOT car insurance and MOT is what I pay to legally have a vehicle on the highway, anything such as this scheme to buy a parking space outside one's house is inexcusable.

Originally Posted by MR BENN

planner 1 says the council is not anti car but admits the council follows the government guidelines of giving priority to buses. so by doing this the council is obviously anti car. they cant have it both ways

I think they'd say they were pro-choice.

Giving priority to buses and removing it from cars, lorries and others is being anti car, anti lorry and others, not promoting choice. Promoting choice is objectively presenting either alternative, unhindered, and letting people chose.

I think they'd contend that they are levelling the playing field.

What you aren't recognising is that your choices have impacts. The Council is having to look at the long term development of the city and, if the expected numbers of new jobs are generated in the city centre, they are well aware that there will be significant problems on the road network if they all make the same choice as you.

The Council are doing the best they can to promote viable alternatives.

Levelling the playing field as you put it is putting a faster and more convenient form of transport less fast and convenient just because you would rather have us not have this possibility, this is being anti car. You are admitting that buses are less pratical and slower and your job is to counter the sheer nature of the bus and make less of a pain in the backside.

We used to have a semi decent road system serving the centre which would have better supported we hope, more jobs in Sheffield (better have job opportunities here than elsewhere am I right?) but with maintenance below requirement and the downgrading of roads you cannot claim that the Council is aware that if more people work here we'll all be in hell. We already are thank you. You just know that if a company employs 500 staff in town the same share of its employees as us lot will go for the car. Make the maths intelligently and provide a road network that permits however much people live or you hope will work here.

Ok, lets break this one down a bit shall we

 

Operational Enforcement £133,448---we already have this, so that cost is already there, therefor irrelivent

Permit Administration £35,244 agreed

PCN Processing £40,360, already in place before parking schemes in place

Supervision & Management £60,774, already in place

Maintenance* £51,088 already in place

Premises* £9,610 already in place

Transport* £10,250already in place

Supplies & Services* £35,545 already in place

Central & Departmental Support* £31,947 already in place

 

Total Expenditure £35,244

 

Pay & Display Income (On Street) £251,550

Pay & Display Income (Off Street) £4,751

Permit Income £100,293

Penalty Charge Income £231,169

 

Total Income £587,763

 

Net PROFIT then of £552,519

Care to tell us how 1/2 million quid being spend on any improvements to the transoprt infrastructure that shows a clear benifit to either car or bus users??

I have to disagree with a few points, you have to maintain the new signs, meters and lines so you do have to take into account the 50 thousand quid. A solution is to remove these signs, marking and meters to avoid having to maintain them then save on all the red tape needed to operate this, operational issues. Put a couple of Ka drivers on the dole (that's 65 quid a week to be paid by the taxpayer if they have provided enough class 1 earnings) All good.

I think that if you asked anyone who I've dealt with in Local Government service, they'd tell you that I actualy do take the trouble to listen to them and explain the issues to them. Why else would I be bothered discussing anything with you two?

So if all of us from this thread send a polite letter to the Council, they'll read, understand the error of their ways and u-turn? Or by listening do you mean accepting comments but disregarding them is they wouldn't fuel their agenda?

 

Reload!

[sccsux]

The Council didn't promote the installation of Supertram, that was SYPTE. There was a company called South Yorkshire Supertram Ltd which ran it.

 

How many councillors were on the board of these companies or involved in any capacity with them. I mean, Kerslake still has his fingers in the transport pie...

 

i suppose your going to tell us the traffic lights every 50 yards are for our benifit as well. anyway it was better driving on past the bottom of the markets to get to park square

 

The lights were out on the Parkway roundabout this afternoon.

 

Strangely enough, there were now abandoned wrecke littering the read. All was free flowing.

 

By your sinage they are taxi's and private hire vehicles, so either they are cars' or they are not, you cannot have it both ways

 

I just love it when peoples' words come back to haunt them:hihi:

 

Council Officers have a fairly low opinion of SF, they don't think that it reflects most people's views and feel that it is dominated by a few ill informed people

 

Don't worry. We feel the same about councillors/officials:D

[sccsux]

Total Expenditure £418,266

Total Income £587,763

 

 

Which equates to a £169,497 profit.

 

Which means the permits (£100,293) could have been issued free of charge, and a profit would have still been possible.

 

Yet you try and say it's not about making money for the council?

 

What a load of trash!

[HotPhil]

I'm not in favour of these schemes. But neither have I come up with a formula to accurately predict how much will be generated by the fines issued to those who ignore the restrictions. Would you have got it spot on? How much would people moan if the scheme had cost money from the central budget I wonder.

Earlier it's mentioned that the fee for the permits was set to match that in the neighbouring PPZ rather than to hit any particular budget. Might be worth seeing the figures for Broomhill - if that also made a profit then there's a case for lowering the fee. If it made a loss it might balance out I guess.

[MR BENN]

by having tese parkingf permits in the first place is just a way of demanding money with menaces to park outside your own home,but i dont expect any better from sheffield council

[HotPhil]

Yes that's right. There's a whole department on huge salaries dreaming policies up specifically to target you.

Had you thought what the reason for the fee is? If it wasn't being funded by those living in the area who are perceived to be benefitting from the scheme, *you'd* be subsidising it. They'd be a whole mini-rant on "waste of my taxes" or similar then I'd wager.

[MR BENN]

Yes that's right. There's a whole department on huge salaries dreaming policies up specifically to target you.

Had you thought what the reason for the fee is? If it wasn't being funded by those living in the area who are perceived to be benefitting from the scheme, *you'd* be subsidising it. They'd be a whole mini-rant on "waste of my taxes" or similar then I'd wager.

 

if they didnt implement the scheme in the first place ,no one would have to pay for it . how can anyone benifit from having to pay to park outside their own home ?

[HotPhil]

According to the surveys etc, the vast majority of the people that live there benefit as they *can* now park outside their home.