Nowt Left In The Coffers Say Scc

[Planner1]

11 minutes ago, HeHasRisen said:

I am/was aware of two. One on Pinstone St (not even sure if its there now), and one within the NGH grounds, so presumably paid for by the NHS. He wont care about the latter though as its not in support of the gays.

I’ve looked on Google maps and you can see back to 2008 and there were no zebra crossings on Pinstone St even then.

[HeHasRisen]

Just now, Planner1 said:

I’ve looked on Google maps and you can see back to 2008 and there were no zebra crossings on Pinstone St even then.

I just posted a link to a picture of it.

[RollingJ]

4 minutes ago, HeHasRisen said:

https://www.thestar.co.uk/news/people/rainbow-crossing-installed-city-centre-sheffield-pride-2924049

 

Like I said, think its long gone.

Last time I walked down there - maybe five/six weeks ago, it was still there, but redundant as Pinstone Street is traffic-free.

[Planner1]

5 minutes ago, HeHasRisen said:

https://www.thestar.co.uk/news/people/rainbow-crossing-installed-city-centre-sheffield-pride-2924049

 

Like I said, think its long gone.

I see. It’s just a bit of publicity for a cause. Carries no significance as a pedestrian crossing point.

[harvey19]

22 minutes ago, Planner1 said:

It’s a chicken and egg situation.

 

You won’t get lower car use unless you facilitate that happening. Low traffic neighbourhoods are part of that.

 

The London  schemes showed statistically significant drops in car ownership which exceeded what was happening elsewhere. So, you can conclude that something similar could happen elsewhere.

 

If people walk and cycle more instead of using the car and some give up car ownership, of course there will be less car mileage overall. Do you not see that?

 

You have rose tinted spectacles about the old days.

 

Even in those days of subsidised fares, bus ridership was decreasing, as car ownership and use grew.

 

I’ve seen research where the majority of car drivers said they wouldn’t use public transport even if it were free. Free public transport been tried in several places abroad and it didn’t make the expected difference to car use.

 

The low bus fares here were subsidised at ratepayers expense and I remember people complaining about how high the rates were here compared to elsewhere. Nothing is free.

 

You may think more should be spent on improving public transport, but it’s the government that sets the agenda. They provide the funding. They set up the deregulated bus framework. No subsequent government has seen fit to change it.

 

Bus franchising may present some opportunities, but it also carries risks ( ie what if the bids that come in are much more expensive than expected. Services will need to be cut and suddenly it’s the local politicians fault, not the operators or government.) 

 

Although the government provide devolved funding to mayoral combined authorities, (MCA’s) it’s given very much within the frameworks set up and administered by government. That means money is given for specific purposes and you can’t use it for anything else, so flexibility is limited.

 

Local government has been asking for greater funding devolution and flexibility for many years. The MCA’s get a bit more money, but not much flexibility.

 

That’s the realty of it, so if you want it to change it’s your MP’s and central government you need to be lobbying.

 

Most councils are hard pressed to spend the amount of money the government is giving them now. They need extensive support from the private sector. No-one is going to be running around coming up with alternative spending proposals when the government announces the latest funding programmes. They’re too busy putting bids together for the government money. 
 

Money talks and the government have it and aren’t going to relinquish control, so local authorities have to dance to their tune. 

 

 

Thank you for a very  interesting post.

ps. Those complaining about the rates subsidising bus fares may have been surprised when bus fares went up and rates did not come down.

[HeHasRisen]

Just now, Planner1 said:

I see. It’s just a bit of publicity for a cause. Carries no significance as a pedestrian crossing point.

Yes but but but they have blown the whole council budget on it, or something. Grrrr the council!

[harvey19]

12 minutes ago, Planner1 said:

Whereabouts on Pinstone St? 

 

Anything on private land ( ie NGH) doesn’t have to comply with same standards as the stuff that goes on the public highway.

Outside the town hall.

18 minutes ago, HeHasRisen said:

I am/was aware of two. One on Pinstone St (not even sure if its there now), and one within the NGH grounds, so presumably paid for by the NHS. He wont care about the latter though as its not in support of the gays.

Another pathetic assumption and insult.

[Planner1]

1 minute ago, HeHasRisen said:

Yes but but but they have blown the whole council budget on it, or something. Grrrr the council!

Probably cost not much more than putting up a few banners and probably would have attracted more attention, so not a bad use of publicity / marketing funds in terms of being effective. 

[fools]

18 minutes ago, HeHasRisen said:

Yes but but but they have blown the whole council budget on it, or something. Grrrr the council!

Your stock trolling responses are getting a little repetitive lately.

 

any spaffing of public money is wrong.

17 minutes ago, Planner1 said:

Probably cost not much more than putting up a few banners and probably would have attracted more attention, so not a bad use of publicity / marketing funds in terms of being effective. 

likewise

[HeHasRisen]

20 minutes ago, Planner1 said:

Probably cost not much more than putting up a few banners and probably would have attracted more attention, so not a bad use of publicity / marketing funds in terms of being effective. 

Maybe you could argue in a time of austerity the publicity/marketing budget of any local authority should be £0.00 ?