HeHasRisen Posted August 11, 2023 Share Posted August 11, 2023 2 minutes ago, RollingJ said: That in response to me, or Jack Grey? Was a general observation more than anything, I can't imagine this would create a huge new demand for an enhanced bus service. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RollingJ Posted August 11, 2023 Share Posted August 11, 2023 1 minute ago, HeHasRisen said: Was a general observation more than anything, I can't imagine this would create a huge new demand for an enhanced bus service. OK. Who knows what it would do, but in any case, travel choice/options/patterns change over time. I suspect RMBC are just feeling miffed that the current application favours Sheffield. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sheffbag Posted August 11, 2023 Share Posted August 11, 2023 to be honest there are onyl 2 buses that cover the Waverley estate X74 Meadowhall to Sheffield at 1 an hour Mon-Fri only 73 - Sheff - Roth half hourly in week. for an estate that big and the current AMRC there that isnt a lot and if the application went in with the A1 on it then someone didnt check it and RMBC were right to point it out Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RollingJ Posted August 11, 2023 Share Posted August 11, 2023 5 minutes ago, sheffbag said: to be honest there are onyl 2 buses that cover the Waverley estate X74 Meadowhall to Sheffield at 1 an hour Mon-Fri only 73 - Sheff - Roth half hourly in week. for an estate that big and the current AMRC there that isnt a lot and if the application went in with the A1 on it then someone didnt check it and RMBC were right to point it out I agree with your final comment - but to use that as an excuse to oppose the application? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeHasRisen Posted August 11, 2023 Share Posted August 11, 2023 So the area already has 3 buses an hour at peak times then essentially? Seems plenty enough tbf, if they correct the info don't see why it would be rejected. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sheffbag Posted August 11, 2023 Share Posted August 11, 2023 5 minutes ago, RollingJ said: I agree with your final comment - but to use that as an excuse to oppose the application? Given the sensitive nature of the local road network and the SRN [strategic road network] junction at M1 J33, the actions in the travel plan should be revisited to bring it up to date. Thats the reason given. I find it ironic that the council would mention the "sensitive nature of the local road network" considering they are building a M1 service statino at J33 which will increase traffic and at the same time refuse to alleviate the traffic in the area by keeping Wood Lane closed. If the plan is updated it will probably get approved Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RollingJ Posted August 11, 2023 Share Posted August 11, 2023 4 minutes ago, sheffbag said: Given the sensitive nature of the local road network and the SRN [strategic road network] junction at M1 J33, the actions in the travel plan should be revisited to bring it up to date. Thats the reason given. I find it ironic that the council would mention the "sensitive nature of the local road network" considering they are building a M1 service statino at J33 which will increase traffic and at the same time refuse to alleviate the traffic in the area by keeping Wood Lane closed. If the plan is updated it will probably get approved Can't argue with that, but I still fail to see why it is a valid grounds for 'opposing' the application. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeHasRisen Posted August 11, 2023 Share Posted August 11, 2023 Just now, RollingJ said: Can't argue with that, but I still fail to see why it is a valid grounds for 'opposing' the application. Its likely just sour grapes to try and drag things out, more than anything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RollingJ Posted August 11, 2023 Share Posted August 11, 2023 Just now, HeHasRisen said: Its likely just sour grapes to try and drag things out, more than anything. Exactly - political shenanigans. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sheffbag Posted August 11, 2023 Share Posted August 11, 2023 2 minutes ago, HeHasRisen said: So the area already has 3 buses an hour at peak times then essentially? Seems plenty enough tbf, if they correct the info don't see why it would be rejected. Not really and i stand corrected against my own post after looking again it has an hourly service from rotherham (73) and realistically 1 bus (7:30 from bus station arriving 8:06) for anyone who starts at 9 as the service is hourly to Waverley and goes to Treeton on the other time it runs. for people coming from sheffield on the 73 again its an hourly service and if you work 9-5 then you will be at Waverley before 8 or at 9:20 as, for some reason the bus has a 90min difference in time instead of an hour at the time workers would use it the most. go figure the other service X74 only goes Meadowhall to sheffield and doesnt touch rotherham. So if you are coming from Rotherham then you realistically have 1 bus you can catch to work if you work 9-5 or 8:30-4:30 and then you have to wait around for a while at work even at full service an estate the size of waverley needs a better network. it was promised a bus station in the orignial plans and to be part of the BRT scheme (which is why Wood lane is "buses only") but that never happened Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now