Sheffield City Council Collects up to £5Million from Bus Lane Fines

[NERVY-OWL]

13 hours ago, Baron99 said:

The Arundel Gate bus gate / lane is to be made permanent. 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cd1ew174l8po

 

Remember simpletons, there are plenty of signs informing you, you're approaching it & an opportunity to turn round to avoid going through it.

Let's hope these that are unable to read signs will be able to see a roundabout in front of them when that's put in now the scheme has been made permanent.

[Top4719]

6 hours ago, Planner1 said:

It isn’t maintenance. That only covers what is already there. Any improvements / additions have to be paid for from somewhere else.

 

Improvements are paid for from capital funding, which is mainly government grants, which now come via the MCA.

 

In terms of the infrastructure, the bus stop pole, flag, shelter and real time screens are owned and maintained by the MCA. The paving, kerbing, roads and signs / marking are owned and maintained by the council via the Amey contract.

 

The relatively modest amounts of surplus income which come from bus lane / gate fines are a drop in the ocean compared to the amounts of government grant funding that goes into improvements.

 

So are you going to comment further on your implication that the Labour / Green coalition prioritise more affluent areas, or are you admitting it’s a load of drivel?

 

 

 

Like I said before I'm not interested in your mumbo jumbo at where funding comes from, it has no relation to the point I'm making whatsoever, bus stops, shelters, signage, lighting etc etc needs repair and maintenance no matter where the money comes from so some monies must be allocated to this from whatever label you want to put on that particular pot, if the new money from fines is now usd for this instead then where does the original money now go or is it added to make a really big difference, if the latter is correct when will we actually see the benefits of this increase in spending, for the record before you start with your meaningless spiel I run a very succesul maintenance department that serves many local institutions so I know exactly what's required and how it works.

[Planner1]

33 minutes ago, Top4719 said:

 

Like I said before I'm not interested in your mumbo jumbo at where funding comes from, it has no relation to the point I'm making whatsoever, bus stops, shelters, signage, lighting etc etc needs repair and maintenance no matter where the money comes from so some monies must be allocated to this from whatever label you want to put on that particular pot, if the new money from fines is now usd for this instead then where does the original money now go or is it added to make a really big difference, if the latter is correct when will we actually see the benefits of this increase in spending, for the record before you start with your meaningless spiel I run a very succesul maintenance department that serves many local institutions so I know exactly what's required and how it works.

The council said that the surplus income from this bus gate would be going to highway maintenance and the public transport levy.

 

By that, they mean maintenance of the highway infrastructure that the council is responsible for. As I explained earlier, that does not include bus stop poles, flags, shelters or real time displays. Those are owned and maintained by the MCA.

 

If the money is funding highway maintenance, you won’t see any difference. The annual cost of the Amey highway maintenance contract is fixed. If more of that  cost is coming from surplus fine income, it just means that the council can put the money saved into something else.

 

The odd million or two is really a drop in the ocean when you look at the size of the council’s overall budget, which was £1.7 billion per annum last time I looked.

[Top4719]

5 minutes ago, Planner1 said:

The council said that the surplus income from this bus gate would be going to highway maintenance and the public transport levy.

 

By that, they mean maintenance of the highway infrastructure that the council is responsible for. As I explained earlier, that does not include bus stop poles, flags, shelters or real time displays. Those are owned and maintained by the MCA.

 

If the money is funding highway maintenance, you won’t see any difference. The annual cost of the Amey highway maintenance contract is fixed. If more of that  cost is coming from surplus fine income, it just means that the council can put the money saved into something else.

 

The odd million or two is really a drop in the ocean when you look at the size of the council’s overall budget, which was £1.7 billion per annum last time I looked.

 

Now you've changed yourtune, you said it was for public transport related improvements, now your saying it's highway improvements, so I'll again - highways need regular maintenance/repairs so is the money which is budgeted for this still being used with this additional money on top, if so when do these improvements come to fruition, the roads are the worst they've been in my lifetime.

[Planner1]

8 hours ago, Top4719 said:

 

Now you've changed yourtune, you said it was for public transport related improvements, now your saying it's highway improvements, so I'll again - highways need regular maintenance/repairs so is the money which is budgeted for this still being used with this additional money on top, if so when do these improvements come to fruition, the roads are the worst they've been in my lifetime.

Nope, you just haven’t read what I’ve said properly.

 

I said that historically, the surplus income from bus lane / gate fines was used for public transport related improvements. I know this because it was in my area of responsibility.

 

For the current financial year, the council have said it’s going to be used for highway maintenance and the public transport levy and I linked to the article where this was quoted.

 

You also haven’t read what I said about highway the maintenance contract and the overall impact of a million or two of additional income from bus lane fines on the council’s budget. 
 

The council’s contract with Amey for highway maintenance is that for a fixed fee every year, Amey maintain the highways to the agreed specification. 
 

So, the council will just pay ( a small) part of the Amey fee with the additional bus gate income and will probably spend the money saved elsewhere. Where, I don’t know. As I said, the impact of an additional million or two from bus gate income on an overall council budget of circa £1.7 billion is minimal, so I doubt you are going to see any noticeable improvement, particularly against the wider picture of year on year cuts in local government budgets which has been going on for as long as I can remember.

 

You might not also have read that I’ve now asked you several times to expand on your contention that the council favours more affluent areas. Are you going to provide anything to back that up, or will you admit you were spouting unevidenced nonsense?

[Top4719]

13 hours ago, Planner1 said:

Nope, you just haven’t read what I’ve said properly.

 

I said that historically, the surplus income from bus lane / gate fines was used for public transport related improvements. I know this because it was in my area of responsibility.

 

For the current financial year, the council have said it’s going to be used for highway maintenance and the public transport levy and I linked to the article where this was quoted.

 

You also haven’t read what I said about highway the maintenance contract and the overall impact of a million or two of additional income from bus lane fines on the council’s budget. 
 

The council’s contract with Amey for highway maintenance is that for a fixed fee every year, Amey maintain the highways to the agreed specification. 
 

So, the council will just pay ( a small) part of the Amey fee with the additional bus gate income and will probably spend the money saved elsewhere. Where, I don’t know. As I said, the impact of an additional million or two from bus gate income on an overall council budget of circa £1.7 billion is minimal, so I doubt you are going to see any noticeable improvement, particularly against the wider picture of year on year cuts in local government budgets which has been going on for as long as I can remember.

 

You might not also have read that I’ve now asked you several times to expand on your contention that the council favours more affluent areas. Are you going to provide anything to back that up, or will you admit you were spouting unevidenced nonsense?

 

Saying someone is spouting nonsense when you've gone back and edited your post, don't worry the original when you said it went towards public transport improvements is still highly visible in the post where I quoted you 🤣 on that basis and the amount of flip flops you've done since I'll assume you're making it up as you go along.

 

It was me who mentioned affluent areas btw, perhaps address your question to the person who did and you might get an answer 👍😂

[HeHasRisen]

2 minutes ago, Top4719 said:

It was me who mentioned affluent areas btw, perhaps address your question to the person who did

So you, then? 

[Planner1]

11 hours ago, Top4719 said:

 

Saying someone is spouting nonsense when you've gone back and edited your post, don't worry the original when you said it went towards public transport improvements is still highly visible in the post where I quoted you 🤣 on that basis and the amount of flip flops you've done since I'll assume you're making it up as you go along.

 

It was me who mentioned affluent areas btw, perhaps address your question to the person who did and you might get an answer 👍😂

No, I haven’t edited anything. As far as I’m aware you can only edit for about a minute after posting, so you can’t edit later.

 

I haven’t done any flip flops as you put it. I’ve just tried to help you understand the situation.

[Planner1]

11 hours ago, Top4719 said:

 

It was me who mentioned affluent areas btw, perhaps address your question to the person who did and you might get an answer 👍😂

Looking back, it was Gaz786 who said it initially. You quoted them and I responded. Apologies for badgering the wrong poster!

[Top4719]

9 minutes ago, Planner1 said:

No, I haven’t edited anything. As far as I’m aware you can only edit for about a minute after posting, so you can’t edit later.

 

I haven’t done any flip flops as you put it. I’ve just tried to help you understand the situation.

 

You have edited your post, you can see the original in my quoted post, you've replaced "public transport improvements" with something mentioning Amey's budget which fitted in with what you were saying later - I see you 🤣