Sheff Council - Shalesmoor Road Layout

[onewheeldave]

3 minutes ago, RJRB said:

 

Bad road schemes lead to more congestion.

This one and Chesterfield Road are classics.

You'd have to define 'bad road scheme'.

This one is basically removing a lane of traffic, which if you look at the science, generally reduces congestion long term-

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Road_diet

 

[BoroB]

9 minutes ago, onewheeldave said:

One would be disregarding very well established science showing that increasing road capacity always leads to more congestion [Induced Demand]-

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Induced_demand

Oh, the queues at Shalesmoor that people are experiencing and all the news media are reporting must be imaginary then.

[creweblade]

Stupid idea by a stupid council - end of

[onewheeldave]

15 minutes ago, BoroB said:

Oh, the queues at Shalesmoor that people are experiencing and all the news media are reporting must be imaginary then.

Sorry, I missed a term out, Ill go back and edit my post.

29 minutes ago, onewheeldave said:

One would be disregarding very well established science showing that increasing road capacity always leads to more congestion long term [Induced Demand]-

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Induced_demand

 

[Resident]

9 hours ago, Planner1 said:

Why do people always come up with this conspiracy theory nonsense?

 

If you took the trouble to read this thread properly and understand what you are commenting on, you'd know that "pop-up" schemes like this, to encourage more walking and cycling are being put in because the government wants it and are giving councils funding to implement it.

 

Nothing whatsoever to do with introducing a congestion charge, which SCC have stated repeatedly that they are not planning to do.

What SCC say and do are usually opposite. 

 

Can you tell me, How would one go about raising a vote of no confidence in our civil leadership?

Edited July 8, 2020 by Resident

[Guest makapaka]

5 hours ago, Planner1 said:

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.

But they’ve completely changed it by closing a lane off.

 

so it’s not helping traffic it all is it.

 

this is my point - there must have been a detailed study as to why these improvements were required and why they were beneficial - they were then implemented at a significant cost.

 

any improvement gleaned has now been removed by way of the removal of a lane.

 

where is the study that demonstrates this change is needed and is effective for both cyclists and vehicles? 
 

 

[onewheeldave]

7 minutes ago, makapaka said:

But they’ve completely changed it by closing a lane off.

 

so it’s not helping traffic it all is it.

 

this is my point - there must have been a detailed study as to why these improvements were required and why they were beneficial - they were then implemented at a significant cost.

 

any improvement gleaned has now been removed by way of the removal of a lane.

 

where is the study that demonstrates this change is needed and is effective for both cyclists and vehicles? 
 

 

The 2 links I gave above show that it should benefit traffic long term.

 

It's certainly going to be effective for cyclists- I rode there today on both lanes, it's quite a surreal feeling as a cyclist to realise that, unlike the other road/'cycle paths' you are actually safe from being hit by a car, as there are no cars in the lane.

 

I would recommend all cyclists to get in there and use it- show that there is a need for this, hopefully get it extended.

 

The main factor discouraging more cycling is that the current road system clogged with way too many cars/vans/lorries is both highly unpleasant for, and dangerous to, cyclists.

Edited July 8, 2020 by onewheeldave

[RJRB]

33 minutes ago, onewheeldave said:

You'd have to define 'bad road scheme'.

This one is basically removing a lane of traffic, which if you look at the science, generally reduces congestion long term-

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Road_diet

 

Going to be fun on The Parkway then.

 

 

[Guest makapaka]

10 minutes ago, onewheeldave said:

The 2 links I gave above show that it should benefit traffic long term.

I meant a specific study on that section of road.

 

[RJRB]

12 minutes ago, onewheeldave said:

The 2 links I gave above show that it should benefit traffic long term.

 

It's certainly going to be effective for cyclists- I rode there today on both lanes, it's quite a surreal feeling as a cyclist to realise that, unlike the other road/'cycle paths' you are actually safe from being hit by a car, as there are no cars in the lane.

 

I would recommend all cyclists to get in there and use it- show that there is a need for this, hopefully get it extended.

 

The main factor discouraging more cycling is that the current road system clogged with way too many cars/vans/lorries is both highly unpleasant for, and dangerous to, cyclists.

Of course it’s going to be effective for cyclists.

Making half a pavement only available to blind people would be beneficial to the blind.

It would inconvenience the vast majority but so what

Pehaps it will form a stage for the next Tour de France which should boost numbers.

 

 

 

Edited July 8, 2020 by RJRB