Sheffield 15 Min Zone

[ads36]

Honestly, what kind of masochist wants to drive *through* Oxford? - especially when there's a lovely ring road right next to you - wherever you are!

 

A) The Oxford ring road is approximately 15miles around.

 

B) Dual carriageways cost at least £20milllion - per mile!

 

(A + B = ) That lovely ring road was built at a cost of £300million.

 

(in reality, much more than that - and one of the bridges needs rebuilding at a cost of £90million)

 

WE, the taxpayer, have built the good people of Oxford a high quality, high capacity ring road, at a cost approaching half a billion quid, and they're refusing to use it!

Edited January 5, 2023 by ads36

[Guest]

9 hours ago, Anna B said:

Of course we're not going to have all amenities locally. Never have, never will,  I mentioned hospitals, work, all sorts of large amenities before, that you have to travel to. That's not going to change is it? A lot of areas don't even have decent local shops, banks etc.  

And I want the freedom I have now to go where I want, when I want. I will be inhibited enough by the cost of petrol and the lack of public transport thankyou very much.

 

Why should I have to apply to go places I can freely travel to now, by getting a permit. That is a backward step. And as the guy in the video says if it's in the interests of climate change, we emit less than 1% of world wide emissions already and have happily accepted wind turbines, etc as part of our daily lives, (at the cost of thousands of miners jobs I might add.)

 

The way you fail to see past the mealy mouthed political Bull Sh and the way we are fobbed off with 'consultations' that always end with the Council / government getting what they want, I find very worrying. Surely you can see we are no longer living in a benevolent democracy for the benefit of the people, but are moving towards a right wing dictatorship. We are going to have to fight tooth and nail to keep our freedoms. 

  . 

Until I use up my 100 passes?

At  the moment there are 365 days in the year when I can freely go where I want.

Let's keep it that way.

I fully agree with you Anna.

If the authorities, either central government or local, had an ounce of sense, they would have started tackling the problem in a sensible way year ago.

I have never heard anything so daft and so full of unexpected (by them) consequences which are plain to everyone else.

Just ignore the infants on here who should be in school. They will learn as they grow up.

 

Edited January 5, 2023 by Organgrinder

[AndrewC]

9 minutes ago, Organgrinder said:

tackling the problem in a sensible way

 

What kind of policies would you enact in order to tackle ever-rising car use in this country, and the environmental, road-safety, and economic impacts that it has on cities like Sheffield?

[Planner1]

2 hours ago, Anna B said:

'

 

This taken from the above article in which both Sheffield and Dan Jarvis are both mentioned...

 

"But it's not about banning cars, You put in modal filters which make it possible to access the neighbourhood by car, but make it very difficult to transit by car. It's about making it less convenient to use a car in those neighbourhoods, and certainly slower than walking or using a bike for a short journey.'

 

So I can access an area as long as I'm prepared for a 15 minute walk to get where I want to go within it?

 

Sorry, but I don't find that acceptable, particularly as an elderly person who finds walking difficult.

No, you haven’t understood the concept.

 

What they are saying is that you will still be able to go by car to anywhere you want to go within any 15 minute zone. 
 

What they intend to do is make it difficult for motor vehicles to “transit” the area, ie drive right through it. They want to cut out through traffic. They do that by having measures like  point closures and one way systems to make driving right through the area slower and more circuitous and so not worth doing, so through traffic sticks to the main roads.

 

They often describe these measures like a point closure as “modal filters” because buses and cycles can be exempted, ie it filters out cars/vans etc.

 

They will also make the traffic accessing the area drive slower by putting in traffic calming. 
 

This is basically what you are now seeing in the low traffic neighbourhood schemes being tried in places like Crookes after successful schemes have been done in London in past couple of years.

 

You’ll still be able to drive to wherever you need to. Just might take you a minute or two longer that’s all.

 

The 15 minute zone part of it refers to having the local amenities, including schools, shops, medical facilities and places to work within 15 mins walk/cycle/public transport journey for the people who live in the zone. Essentially a return to having district centres rather than centralising a lot  of things in the city centre.

[HeHasRisen]

Just now, Planner1 said:

No, you haven’t understood the concept.

 

 

 

 

Understatement of the decade.

[Planner1]

1 hour ago, Anna B said:

Of course we're not going to have all amenities locally. Never have, never will,  I mentioned hospitals, work, all sorts of large amenities before, that you have to travel to. That's not going to change is it? A lot of areas don't even have decent local shops, banks etc.  

And I want the freedom I have now to go where I want, when I want. I will be inhibited enough by the cost of petrol and the lack of public transport thankyou very much.

The people writing the article you linked to recognise that there are problems with fully implementing 15 minute neighbourhoods. The employment aspect will be difficult because of how the national planning rules require areas to be zoned ( ie for residential, light industrial, offices etc). Fully implementing the concept would be difficult under the current rules.

 

The problem is that over the past 50 years or so people have been used to increasing levels of car ownership and use, which have been facilitated and encouraged by successive governments ( who essentially set the agenda for local councils).

 

Now, they are faced with a very big challenge in that to meet the carbon reduction targets that have been set by government and local councils, there needs to be a very substantial shift away from car use to walking, cycling and public transport.

 

They have been encouraging people to use more sustainable modes for some years now, with limited success. There needs to be a much more substantial shift to hit the targets.

 

Thats why you are seeing a lot more work being done to put in place the facilities to get people out of cars. 
 

The plain truth is that the targets won’t be met without restricting car use to some extent or at least making it more difficult / expensive, so walking and cycling are a more natural choice for shorter journeys for most people. You’ll be seeing more and more of this as time goes on.

[AndrewC]

2 hours ago, Anna B said:

Of course we're not going to have all amenities locally. Never have, never will,  I mentioned hospitals, work, all sorts of large amenities before, that you have to travel to. That's not going to change is it? A lot of areas don't even have decent local shops, banks etc.  

It's about making as much as possible attainable within a 15 minute travel time. Just because we may never reach the utopian 'end point' of that aim doesn't mean we shouldn't work towards achieving 80-90% of it, does it? 

 

At the moment we build endless suburbs where nothing is within a 15 minute walk, and every trip requires a car. We should be aiming to build places and neighbourhoods where local shops, healthcare centres, schools, public transport etc. are within walking/cycling distance for as many people as possible, and that helps drive down the overall car use. Of course, there will be some people who won't give up their car at all, and perhaps most people will still use their car every now again where absolutely necessary (for those things that aren't nearby).

 

You might want to ask yourself why so many areas don't have decent local shops, banks, public transport etc. In suburban areas it's often because population density has been spread so thin that it makes it difficult for those services to be viable.

 

 

2 hours ago, Anna B said:

And I want the freedom I have now to go where I want, when I want. I will be inhibited enough by the cost of petrol and the lack of public transport thankyou very much.

 

You don't have that freedom now and - to paraphrase you - you never have. You haven't always been able to drive to any spot in the country, have you? There is private land that has been off-limits for centuries. There are streets which have been pedestrianised for decades. There have been traffic filters and dedicated cycle lanes in this country since the 1930s. We've had culs-de-sac in suburban planning since the post war suburbs started being built -the very epitome of blocking through-traffic.

 

And that's the direct stuff - there are indirect infringements on your 'freedom' too; for example, you know that trying to head out in your car at 4pm-6pm would be foolhardy because everyone else is out there too, causing rush-hour traffic. Some 'freedom'.

 

I'd love for there to be much better public transport in this country. It's pretty dreadful. I'm sure we can agree on that.

 

[fools]

5 hours ago, HeHasRisen said:

or even driving instead, for the love of god. Its merely an inspirational achievement for local communities to have all amenities locally within a walk or a cycle, and nothing more.

There seems to be a lot of deluded people thinking they can turn modern Britain into Camberwick Green

 

the package of anti-car measures being foisted upon the public around the country clearly does stop people driving where they want how they want, and any diversion increases pollution, which makes the whole idea farcical.

 

The control freaks are using every measure at their disposal to make driving cars more difficult, and combine all these things together in their justification, as can be seen in the council meeting you will have watched if you are as informed as you suggest.

 

 

 

 

[ads36]

The number of vehicles on Britain's roads has increased to 40million, it's doubled in the last 40 years.

 

This trend is continuing, the graph is a simple straight line.

 

Unchecked, before too long, there will be 80million vehicles on the roads 

 

Clearly, there's no way that this can work (it already doesn't).

 

at what point do we try and do something about it?

Edited January 5, 2023 by ads36

[fools]

5 minutes ago, ads36 said:

The number of vehicles on Britain's roads has increased to 40million, it's doubled in the last 40 years.

 

This trend is continuing, the graph is a simple straight line.

 

Unchecked, before too long, there will be 80million vehicles on the roads 

 

Clearly, there's no way that this can work (it already doesn't).

 

at what point do we try and do something about it?

who cares, most of them are stationary

 

stop procreating, and allowing uncontrolled migration

Edited January 5, 2023 by fools