Nowt Left In The Coffers Say Scc

[harvey19]

2 minutes ago, Planner1 said:

Yes. Schemes to promote walking and cycling. It’s a bit early to evaluate the Sheffield schemes, but ones elsewhere have been successful.

It isn’t a theoretical plan.
 

The government have huge funding programmes for exactly that type of scheme. If I recall correctly, South Yorkshire got circa  £160 million in the CRSTS funding award, which is essentially for active travel / public transport schemes.

 

No, you can’t put forward an active travel scheme then decide to spend the money on supporting bus services. Which bit of this don’t you understand? The government give the money for specific schemes and initiatives, you can’t change it once you’ve got the money.
 

The council and the combined authority spend millions on developing the funding bids to government. They have to state what outputs they are delivering and the funding can be clawed back if they don’t deliver what they say they will.

 

The schemes are monitored and evaluated and reporting is done on what they’ve achieved.

Maybe MPs should be questioning the viability of the scheme and the expenditure allocated for it.

It obviously is not working in regard to bus services and you say the money is for active travel/transport schemes.

If the council and combined authority are spending millions on developing funding bids to government I suggest they come up with realistic schemes on which to use the money.

I wonder if the evaluation after the Shalesmoor scheme was thought to have been money well spent.

I would point you to the points I made in my last post about car users becoming cyclists because of plant pots in the road and the other points I made.

 

[Planner1]

1 minute ago, harvey19 said:

Maybe MPs should be questioning the viability of the scheme and the expenditure allocated for it.

It obviously is not working in regard to bus services and you say the money is for active travel/transport schemes.

If the council and combined authority are spending millions on developing funding bids to government I suggest they come up with realistic schemes on which to use the money.

I wonder if the evaluation after the Shalesmoor scheme was thought to have been money well spent.

I would point you to the points I made in my last post about car users becoming cyclists because of plant pots in the road and the other points I made.

 

Research in London found that low traffic neighbourhood schemes led to reductions in car ownership (7%) and consequent increases in walking and cycling. Road casualty rates halved and crime reduced. 

[harvey19]

6 minutes ago, Planner1 said:

Research in London found that low traffic neighbourhood schemes led to reductions in car ownership (7%) and consequent increases in walking and cycling. Road casualty rates halved and crime reduced. 

London is not  hilly like Sheffield.

London has a tube system.

London has a good bus system.

What is the average age in the areas you refer to ?

You have not addressed the points I made about Shalesmoor  or other matters.

Edited November 15, 2022 by harvey19

[Planner1]

5 minutes ago, harvey19 said:

Maybe MPs should be questioning the viability of the scheme and the expenditure allocated for it.

It obviously is not working in regard to bus services and you say the money is for active travel/transport schemes.

If the council and combined authority are spending millions on developing funding bids to government I suggest they come up with realistic schemes on which to use the money.

What scheme? The low traffic neighbourhoods in Sheffield?

 

Low traffic neighbourhoods aren’t a public transport scheme, they aren’t designed to improve public transport.

 

The council come up with schemes, which generally go into South Yorkshire bids which are done through the combined authority. The combined authority will have evaluated the schemes put forward to see how well they fit with the requirements of the funding source and the Department for Transport evaluates all the bids and recommends to Ministers what funding should be allocated.

 

If a scheme has come through all that and been funded, it’s clearly realistic.

[harvey19]

1 minute ago, Planner1 said:

What scheme? The low traffic neighbourhoods in Sheffield?

 

Low traffic neighbourhoods aren’t a public transport scheme, they aren’t designed to improve public transport.

 

The council come up with schemes, which generally go into South Yorkshire bids which are done through the combined authority. The combined authority will have evaluated the schemes put forward to see how well they fit with the requirements of the funding source and the Department for Transport evaluates all the bids and recommends to Ministers what funding should be allocated.

 

If a scheme has come through all that and been funded, it’s clearly realistic.

Like Shalesmoor ?

 

1 minute ago, harvey19 said:

Like Shalesmoor ?

 

Surely public transport is an integral part of the scheme if the idea is to reduce car use.

It  must be obvious to the planners that not all car users are going to cycle or walk to their destinations.

[Planner1]

5 minutes ago, harvey19 said:

London is not  hilly like Sheffield.

London has a tube system.

London has a good bus system.

What is the average age in the areas you refer to ?

You have not addressed the points I made about Shalesmoor  or other matters.

Why don’t you do your own research instead of expecting me to do it for you.

 

The early low traffic neighbourhood schemes were in London ( they refer to them as “little Holland” schemes) so they are the only ones that have been in long enough for meaningful evaluation. The results will give an indication of what might be achieved elsewhere. The aim is generally to get people to walk and cycle for short local trips instead of using the car, so availability of public transport isn’t really a factor, neither is terrain. Bikes have gears. There are e-bikes. 

 

The Shalesmoor scheme was debated to death on here. It was done as part of the “emergency” covid measures and was always expected to be a temporary scheme. The Sheffield Cabinet Member  who decided to implement it clearly thought it was a useful thing to do.

8 minutes ago, harvey19 said:

Surely public transport is an integral part of the scheme if the idea is to reduce car use.

It  must be obvious to the planners that not all car users are going to cycle or walk to their destinations.

No, it isn’t. 
 

The idea is to get people to walk and cycle on short local journeys instead of using the car.

 

No one has ever said that they expect all car users to cycle or walk.

[ukdobby]

It’s made traffic worse in Walkley.

[harvey19]

10 minutes ago, Planner1 said:

Why don’t you do your own research instead of expecting me to do it for you.

 

The early low traffic neighbourhood schemes were in London ( they refer to them as “little Holland” schemes) so they are the only ones that have been in long enough for meaningful evaluation. The results will give an indication of what might be achieved elsewhere. The aim is generally to get people to walk and cycle for short local trips instead of using the car, so availability of public transport isn’t really a factor, neither is terrain. Bikes have gears. There are e-bikes. 

 

The Shalesmoor scheme was debated to death on here. It was done as part of the “emergency” covid measures and was always expected to be a temporary scheme. The Sheffield Cabinet Member  who decided to implement it clearly thought it was a useful thing to do.

Ref your final paragraph.

Seems strange it was implemented after it had gone through the planning meetings you referred to earlier.

You referred to schemes and quoted some statistics and that is why I asked you to elaborate on them and put them in a true perspective to Sheffield.

I think many people already walk for short local trips such as to the local shop, but this raises the very pertinent question is how far do you expect a person, maybe elderly, to walk without using their car and when there is no public transport available.

It seems as though these schemes are aimed at young fit people and little regard has been given to the elderly and less able.

Wait a bit I have come up with a solution, Taxis !! But this would be defeating the object of reducing car use.

 

Just noticed the London scheme is called the Holland scheme.  Isn't Holland a very flat country where cycle use has always been popular for this reason

Edited November 15, 2022 by harvey19

[harvey19]

18 minutes ago, Planner1 said:

Why don’t you do your own research instead of expecting me to do it for you.

 

The early low traffic neighbourhood schemes were in London ( they refer to them as “little Holland” schemes) so they are the only ones that have been in long enough for meaningful evaluation. The results will give an indication of what might be achieved elsewhere. The aim is generally to get people to walk and cycle for short local trips instead of using the car, so availability of public transport isn’t really a factor, neither is terrain. Bikes have gears. There are e-bikes. 

 

The Shalesmoor scheme was debated to death on here. It was done as part of the “emergency” covid measures and was always expected to be a temporary scheme. The Sheffield Cabinet Member  who decided to implement it clearly thought it was a useful thing to do.

No, it isn’t. 
 

The idea is to get people to walk and cycle on short local journeys instead of using the car.

 

No one has ever said that they expect all car users to cycle or walk.

What percentage of people are expected to walk or cycle instead of using their cars in Sheffield.

It must have been calculated at the many planning meetings.

Will the scheme be scrapped if there are not enough people converting ?

Edited November 15, 2022 by harvey19

[Meltman]

32 minutes ago, Planner1 said:

Research in London found that low traffic neighbourhood schemes led to reductions in car ownership (7%) and consequent increases in walking and cycling. Road casualty rates halved and crime reduced. 

Well that's a turn up! Amazing that in London (flatish compared to Sheffield) low neibourhood schemes led to 7 people in every 100 reducing car ownership (going down to only one car?), increase in walking and cycling (to get to local facilities maybe), road casualties halved (I think we all could have guessed that one) and crime reduced (criminals targeting other areas where a vehicle could be used to get away). And all this needed research....I'd have thought it was common sense. If these areas are that good we should see lots more of them...make it difficult for people to get about, particularly disabled, elderly and families with children and control lives....at least it will make the statistics look better.