Nowt Left In The Coffers Say Scc

[harvey19]

8 minutes ago, Planner1 said:

Check out the research here

Thank you for the link.

I am not trying to sound clever but as I posted earlier London and Sheffield are vastly different in hills, tubes, buses.

I may have missed it but did not see the average ages or abilities of those in the test areas.

The idea is commendable but I still question its viability especially when public transport is not included in the planning.

 

[Meltman]

8 minutes ago, Planner1 said:

Care to point out where I’ve said it’s “ brilliant”?

 

These schemes  don’t work for everyone and may cause some people some problems, but they work just fine for the vast majority. You are never ever going to please everyone. There’s always a trade off. You usually have to give something to get something. If you want the advantages of a better, quieter, safer and less polluted environment to live in, the trade off is that access by motor vehicle will be a bit longer.

 

It remains to be seen whether in the longer term, people think the trade off is worth it.

It's my interpretation of your words which makes me think that you think it's brilliant. You haven't said the word but that's my opinion. 

You are stating the obvious when you say that the schemes don't work for everyone and cause some people problems and work fine for most people. It seems that you think it's acceptable to ignore the people who will have problems so long as it fits in with some kind of master plan. We understand about trade offs and don't need telling about them, we have been doing that for long enough now. Do you not think 'I want ' all the advantages you mentioned, you don't know me to question me like that....of course most if not all want the advantages but also want to be able to live a useful and acceptable life. I'm not requiring motor vehicles to be able to go everywhere but also know that some people cannot walk/cycle to be able to get where they want to and to use your words...there needs to be a trade off....but not at any costs. 

[Planner1]

1 hour ago, Meltman said:

It's my interpretation of your words which makes me think that you think it's brilliant. You haven't said the word but that's my opinion. 

You are stating the obvious when you say that the schemes don't work for everyone and cause some people problems and work fine for most people. It seems that you think it's acceptable to ignore the people who will have problems so long as it fits in with some kind of master plan. We understand about trade offs and don't need telling about them, we have been doing that for long enough now. Do you not think 'I want ' all the advantages you mentioned, you don't know me to question me like that....of course most if not all want the advantages but also want to be able to live a useful and acceptable life. I'm not requiring motor vehicles to be able to go everywhere but also know that some people cannot walk/cycle to be able to get where they want to and to use your words...there needs to be a trade off....but not at any costs. 

I don’t ignore anyone. 
 

The disadvantages of low traffic neighbourhoods aren’t huge. You can still access everywhere by car, you just have to go a bit further  round that’s all.

[RollingJ]

2 minutes ago, Planner1 said:

I don’t ignore anyone. 
 

The disadvantages of low traffic neighbourhoods aren’t huge. You can still access everywhere by car, you just have to go a bit further  round that’s all.

Thus creating more pollution.

[fools]

and congestion

 

Sheffield - private cars ok

Oxford  - private cars not ok, anything else ok

 

it's about money and control and dogma

 

Edited November 15, 2022 by fools

[Mr Bloke]

8 minutes ago, Planner1 said:

I don’t ignore anyone. 
 

The disadvantages of low traffic neighbourhoods aren’t huge. You can still access everywhere by car, you just have to go a bit further  round that’s all.

Hmmm...

Now that's an interesting comment...

... nicked word for word from the same council handbook of excuses used by Central Oxfordshire!

Or it could be pure coincidence...

... you decide!

 

[Bargepole23]

3 hours ago, Meltman said:

It's my interpretation of your words which makes me think that you think it's brilliant. You haven't said the word but that's my opinion. 

You are stating the obvious when you say that the schemes don't work for everyone and cause some people problems and work fine for most people. It seems that you think it's acceptable to ignore the people who will have problems so long as it fits in with some kind of master plan. We understand about trade offs and don't need telling about them, we have been doing that for long enough now. Do you not think 'I want ' all the advantages you mentioned, you don't know me to question me like that....of course most if not all want the advantages but also want to be able to live a useful and acceptable life. I'm not requiring motor vehicles to be able to go everywhere but also know that some people cannot walk/cycle to be able to get where they want to and to use your words...there needs to be a trade off....but not at any costs. 

The entire city is chock full of cars and roads, and because a few roads have access limited by some plant pots to make areas a bit more liveable for the residents, motorists are up in arms.

 

Pedestrians have been on the wrong end of the trade off with motorists for years.

[Planner1]

1 hour ago, RollingJ said:

Thus creating more pollution.

You don’t get anything for nothing.

1 hour ago, fools said:

and congestion

 

Sheffield - private cars ok

Oxford  - private cars not ok, anything else ok

 

it's about money and control and dogma

 

It’s about achieving legal compliance with air quality standards. There’s more than one way to do that and the decision on what type of CAZ to

have is down to local councils. 

[fools]

15 minutes ago, Planner1 said:

You don’t get anything for nothing.

It’s about achieving legal compliance with air quality standards. There’s more than one way to do that and the decision on what type of CAZ to

have is down to local councils. 

so you say, one is the inverse of the other, and you've just admitted it creates more pollution, it's a nonsense

 

btw someone here told me that parking in sheffield is very reasonably priced when compared to similar cities, and the car parks are all easily accessed, so you don't have to park for free miles away and walk in anymore - you know that can annoy the residents don't you, thats why we have all these schemes, it's not about control or money

Edited November 15, 2022 by fools

[Planner1]

32 minutes ago, fools said:

so you say, one is the inverse of the other, and you've just admitted it creates more pollution, it's a nonsense

 

btw someone here told me that parking in sheffield is very reasonably priced when compared to similar cities, and the car parks are all easily accessed, so you don't have to park for free miles away and walk in anymore - you know that can annoy the residents don't you, thats why we have all these schemes, it's not about control or money

Yes, going a bit further burns a bit more fuel. It’s small beer compared to the advantages that these schemes bring. Also, if some people walk or cycle more or perhaps decide they don’t need a car at all, that all helps to offset any additional emissions caused by some people having to drive a bit further.

 

Sheffield’s parking prices do compare well with other similar places and the parking is easily accessed, that’s true. Being a true Yorkshire person I prefer not to pay if I can avoid it and the exercise is good for me.  I do try not to park outside anyones house though.