Sheff Council - Shalesmoor Road Layout

[Weredoomed]

1 hour ago, Planner1 said:

The money the council have used for this project has been specifically given to them by the government for measures like this to help cycling and walking.  They could not spend it on other projects.

A lot of the money councils get for transport measures is like that, it must be spent on the specific things it's given for.

 

Penistone Rd speed limit would cost a lot to change because the detection equipment requirements at traffic signals are more onerous  (and costly) on 40mph roads than they are on 30 mph ones. Other things like safety barriers, street lighting, protection for street furniture all get more onerous and costly the higher the speed limit goes. There is far more to it than just changing a few signs

Nonsense and as someone involved in the highway industry you very well know that.  Or you ought to. On roads with a speed limit of 50mph and higher that is the case. It is a blatant falsehood to say this is the case at 40.

 

Define the extra equipment and thus costs for detection equipment on a 40 road as opposed to a 30. An extra set of loops? A detector with slightly more range? Peanuts over it's lifespan. You need to stop throwing the "It's too expensive, we can't afford it" excuse out there, it shows a complete lack of foresight if that is the attitude of council officers.

1 hour ago, Brooker11 said:

Are the government aware its been totally wasted?

Well said.

[Dggsheffield]

What a waste of time effort and money I have been on the road 6 times in last few days and seen one cyclist using it .

this is the final straw for me I won’t be queuing to spend my money in Sheffield city center shops  pubs restaurants or cafes.

 I would now rather go to Barnsley or Leeds 

you don’t need covid to kill off the city center retail and hospitality just leave it to scc planners

[tinfoilhat]

I love this thread.

[ECCOnoob]

37 minutes ago, Planner1 said:

Lets not get carried away. They've taken out a lane on one stretch of  a multi lane road as a temporary measure at a time when traffic is not at normal levels.

 

There's no suggestion of it happening more widely, or motorways being reduced in capacity.

 

The improvements that were made at Bridgehouses are permanent works which are still there and will be helping if traffic in the area is busy. On the grand scale of things, the recent improvements weren't that costly.  Remember this cycle lane is temporary, they are trying something out and it can all be taken away as easily as it was put out.

 

It isn't the end of the world as we know it and I genuinely doubt we are going to see the wider road network flooded with  diverting traffic as you suggest. More traffic might use alternative routes, but traffic levels are still lighter than normal, so is that a real problem?

 

What they are doing here is entirely in line with adopted transport policy at all levels. The general thrust of transport policy in this country is now towards encouraging and supporting active travel modes.  National and local government want to bring about a step change in the way people travel. That won't happen without some turbulence. You've heard the saying, you can't cook an omelette without cracking a few eggs. I'm sure the decision makers are expecting some kick back.

 

These things are political decisions, taken by your elected representatives. The relevant Cabinet Member's contact detail have been published on here. You're clearly upset by it, so I'd expect you'd be letting the elected Members (and the Government) know. 

 

 

You appear to be contradicting yourself.

 

In one sentence you are telling me not to get so wound up and that there is no risk of this temporary measure becoming permanent or that there is no risk of changes like this happening more widely etc.......    But in another sentence you are emphasising how this is the way the tide is turning and how this is national policy and how they are increasing actions to encouraging people to stop using cars....

 

All looks a bit suspicious too me.

 

If what you are saying is true then I have no confidence whatsoever in your assurances that these changes are 'temporary'.  In fact given SCCs attitude to car drivers generally I would have absolutely no surprise if it's discovered that there is some behind closed doors scheming to make car deterrents such as this permanent.   

Yes I'm sure the decision makers are expecting some kickback.  Hopefully they'll be kicked all the way until next week given the clear angry reactions to this moronic move. 

Edited July 8, 2020 by ECCOnoob

[Planner1]

10 minutes ago, Weredoomed said:

Nonsense and as someone involved in the highway industry you very well know that.  Or you ought to. On roads with a speed limit of 50mph and higher that is the case. It is a blatant falsehood to say this is the case at 40.

 

Define the extra equipment and thus costs for detection equipment on a 40 road as opposed to a 30. An extra set of loops? A detector with slightly more range? Peanuts over it's lifespan. You need to stop throwing the "It's too expensive, we can't afford it" excuse out there, it shows a complete lack of foresight if that is the attitude of council officers.

It isn’t nonsense at all, as you clearly know.

 

Traffic signals on 40mph roads need speed discrimination equipment, which, in each direction,  needs 20m of extra ducting, an additional inspection chamber and several additional detector loops. The cost is substantial when you apply it to the number of sets of signals on Penistone Road. And to what benefit? 
 

The same question is often asked about the Outer Ring Road having the limit substantially raised from the existing 40 and all the caveats I mentioned about infrastructure requirements being different at higher speeds would certainly apply. 
 

Changing the speed limit is not just a matter of changing a few signs as I said.
 

As I’ve also said, much of the funding for transport schemes is project specific. Funding for use on general transport interventions has been massively cut and levels  of demand are higher than ever. It would be very hard to justify spending large chunks of the limited budget available on something that has very few actual benefits and potentially could have serious downsides, like more severe outcomes from collisions.

[Planner1]

4 minutes ago, ECCOnoob said:

You appear to be contradicting yourself.

 

In one sentence you are telling me not to get so wound up and that there is no risk of this temporary measure becoming permanent or that there is no risk of changes like this happening more widely etc.......    But in another sentence you are emphasising how this is the way the tide is turning and how this is national policy and how they are increasing actions to encouraging people to stop using cars..... 

Where did I say there was no risk of temporary measures becoming permanent or measures being implemented more widely? 
 

I pointed out the limited and temporary nature of the works in question, that’s all.

 

Of course temporary could become permanent and things could be rolled out wider. Depends on what happens of course. 

[RJRB]

1 hour ago, Planner1 said:

The government will be well aware that any road space reallocation is an emotive subject and might not be universally welcomed. They are giving the money for temporary / pop-up measures to be introduced, which by nature might well be removed if / when they are not needed or cause unexpected issues.

There may well be unexpected issues,but what about the totally predictable and expected issues which someone has seen fit to ride roughshod over.

Government money may well have been made available for schemes,but that doesn’t mean that it must be taken to create someone’s pie in the sky scheme.

Its still our money that is being wasted.

I drove from Spital Hill to Hillsborough at around 2pm.

Traffic was nose to tail and cars switching lanes,or stationary trying to get back to the left to turn towards Brook Hill and Netherthorpe Road.

I saw one cyclist heading the other way,on the pavement and 2 guys in high viz chatting by the side of their works vehicle.

The improved road could and should have been fully opened by now as a higher capacity route for access to and from the Parkway and Attercliffe.

Instead we have ongoing disruption to create future obstruction,possibly to be followed by further disruption to remove this the obstruction.

You can continue to defend the experiment but it’s so ill conceived .However I fully expect it to be lauded by those responsible as a triumph.

[Weredoomed]

8 minutes ago, RJRB said:

There may well be unexpected issues,but what about the totally predictable and expected issues which someone has seen fit to ride roughshod over.

Government money may well have been made available for schemes,but that doesn’t mean that it must be taken to create someone’s pie in the sky scheme.

Its still our money that is being wasted.

I drove from Spital Hill to Hillsborough at around 2pm.

Traffic was nose to tail and cars switching lanes,or stationary trying to get back to the left to turn towards Brook Hill and Netherthorpe Road.

I saw one cyclist heading the other way,on the pavement and 2 guys in high viz chatting by the side of their works vehicle.

The improved road could and should have been fully opened by now as a higher capacity route for access to and from the Parkway and Attercliffe.

Instead we have ongoing disruption to create future obstruction,possibly to be followed by further disruption to remove this the obstruction.

You can continue to defend the experiment but it’s so ill conceived .However I fully expect it to be lauded by those responsible as a triumph.

Very well said indeed. Sadly I predict SCC will leave the current congestion and pollution causing measures in place for at least a month, because to remove them now, (as should happen), would be an admission that they don't know what they are doing. An admission these clowns will never make, because they know better than us. Allegedly.

Oh and I see another one of my posts has been deleted VERY quickly after I posted it. 

 

The post questioned planner1's assertions that to raise the speed limit of Penistone Road would be costly. As my deleted post made clear, his assertion was utter nonsense and the speed limit could easily be raised but SCC would never do it as to do so would admit fault.

[Brooker11]

18 minutes ago, RJRB said:

There may well be unexpected issues,but what about the totally predictable and expected issues which someone has seen fit to ride roughshod over.

Government money may well have been made available for schemes,but that doesn’t mean that it must be taken to create someone’s pie in the sky scheme.

Its still our money that is being wasted.

I drove from Spital Hill to Hillsborough at around 2pm.

Traffic was nose to tail and cars switching lanes,or stationary trying to get back to the left to turn towards Brook Hill and Netherthorpe Road.

I saw one cyclist heading the other way,on the pavement and 2 guys in high viz chatting by the side of their works vehicle.

The improved road could and should have been fully opened by now as a higher capacity route for access to and from the Parkway and Attercliffe.

Instead we have ongoing disruption to create future obstruction,possibly to be followed by further disruption to remove this the obstruction.

You can continue to defend the experiment but it’s so ill conceived .However I fully expect it to be lauded by those responsible as a triumph.

Our company has a large delivery vehicle that really struggled through the road works in this area at times, the works seemed to go on for months and the fact that the result is even more congestion is laughable, if they did this on a comedy show you'd find it hilarious.

[Weredoomed]

40 minutes ago, Brooker11 said:

Our company has a large delivery vehicle that really struggled through the road works in this area at times, the works seemed to go on for months and the fact that the result is even more congestion is laughable, if they did this on a comedy show you'd find it hilarious.

Quite. Planner1 says we shouldn't get carried away as they've "only taken out a lane on one stretch of a multi-lane road".

 

Which at face value is true. A fine example of weasel words as I've seen in a long time but true nonetheless. Until you examine EXACTLY what it is SCC have done.

 

A single traffic lane in free-flowing conditions has a capacity of around 1500 vehicles per hour (vph). Throw traffic signals into the mix (and aren't SCC good at placing them absolutely everywhere?) and this figure drops to possibly as low as 600vph or so.

 

So at Shalesmoor, in each direction generally has 2 lanes, so an hourly capacity of 1200vph or thereabouts due to the presence of so many traffic signals. This is substantially less than the 3000 vph it would have if there weren't so many traffic signals but there you go.

 

What SCC, have done, in their infinite and NEVER wrong wisdom, is reduce the one way capacity of the IRR down from 1200vph to 600vph - a 50% reduction in it's normal capacity.

 

Now the interesting question is, what was the peak hourly flow on that section of Shalesmoor before this ill-conceived "temporary" scheme was introduced. If it was more than 600vph then SCC will have known it would produce congestion. So what, if any, measures did they take to reduce the resulting congestion and pollution caused by their scheme if they are, as planner1 claims, so concerned about pollution? And if they did know it would cause problems but took no steps to ameliorate them, why are heads not rolling as I type?

 

Oh and I suspect the normal peak flow around Shalesmoor may be more than 1200vph, due to the regular queueing that occurs, so why anyone would think that reducing the capacity to 600vph is a good idea is way beyond me.

 

Edit: I believe the one way peak hour flow may be as much as 2400vph, based on various traffic flow data I've recently found. So that would explain why the IRR is stuffed in normal times, let alone when SCC have yet another of their "good" ideas. Indeed, one could argue the road should be widened from a dual 2 lane carriageway to a dual 3 or even 4 lane one. As if SCC would ever do that!

 

Edited July 8, 2020 by Weredoomed
Additional info added.