If we like cycle facilities it's time to say so;
http://www.edinburgh.gov.uk/budget
Ideal chance to gather the payback figures together I think, demonstrate that this spend gives back money spant many times over.
CityCyclingEdinburgh was launched on the 27th of October 2009 as "an experiment".
IT’S TRUE!
CCE is 14years old!
Well done to ALL posters
It soon became useful and entertaining. There are regular posters, people who add useful info occasionally and plenty more who drop by to watch. That's fine. If you want to add news/comments it's easy to register and become a member.
RULES No personal insults. No swearing.
If we like cycle facilities it's time to say so;
http://www.edinburgh.gov.uk/budget
Ideal chance to gather the payback figures together I think, demonstrate that this spend gives back money spant many times over.
"
NATIONAL spending watchdogs have questioned the viability of the Capital’s finances amid swingeing cuts to sports centres, community police and public toilets.
"
http://www.edinburghnews.scotsman.com/news/fears-as-council-must-cut-138m-to-balance-books-1-3624666
with crippling fee hikes for parking
Actually I think the fee hikes increases for parking were fairly marginal - tens of pences in the pound for hourly rates and tens of pounds in the hundred for annual permits. But I guess anything "attacking" the OLA motorist must be seen as crippling; unlike the cost of actually buying and running a car (or 2), which is not crippling but a necessity for all urbanites.
"with crippling fee hikes for parking"
Thought that was a 'don't use' word 'these days' (yeah and don't mention parking either).
Wonder if it is in the report or just the journalist's vocabulary?
See also other threads re closure of resource centre and toilets. more to follow.
“
CONTROVERSIAL plans to stop emergency repairs to tenements, extend parking zones and cut spending on road repairs and street cleaning are among measures under consideration for next year’s council budget in Edinburgh.
Other proposals being discussed include ending free lighting in tenement stairs, getting rid of one of the Lord Provost’s three official cars and trimming the civic hospitality budget.
The council needs to save a total of £28 million from the budget for 2019/20 as it struggles to cope with growing demand for services, an increasing number of pupils in schools, more old people needing care and a reduction in local government funding.
“
Why bump a barely used 3 year old thread when it'd be just as well to start a new one?
Good question.
Always a dilemma.
Thought there was a more recent thread, but couldn’t find it.
‘Previous’ can be useful for context.
Feel free to start new thread (anyone).
Cutting road repair budget is surely electoral suicide?
The stair lighting stuff is bad
Modern flats are usually factored so the management company can take on the job of handling a meter but tenements... it’s hard enough to get a cleaning rota going let alone collecting for a kitty
“The stair lighting stuff is bad”
Bad enough when they gave up responsibility for repairs.
Apart from ‘public safety’ these are the sort of services people expect to get from council tax.
They could easily cut the roads repair budget if only they were to first stop private motors from damaging everything.
Imagine a city centre with very few private vehicles. No need for any of the following to be maintained (or repaired when they get smashed into):
- traffic lights (most junctions could be give way lines)
- potholes (would still occur on bus routes, but repairs would be targeted)
- pavement damage
- line painting / red chips
- pedestrian islands / bollards (that are continually smashed into)
- massive direction signs
- traffic counters
- pollution monitors
- mandatory / informational signs (often complete with LED lighting)
- vastly expensive continual tinkering to whims of certain councillors trying to 'optimise' traffic 'flow'
Just think of how much crap could be got rid of when we don't pander to motors. The list is endless.
If I'm not wrong, the transport budget is around £20m, so plenty of scope to get savings.
"If I'm not wrong, the transport budget is around £20m, so plenty of scope to get savings."
You are aware that if the roads budget is cut, then the cycling budget will be cut proportionally too?
“then the cycling budget will be cut proportionally too”
Or even without the “too”.
Real danger of pressure to reduce % - or have councillors saying ‘doesn’t really need be a fixed %’.
The apparent difficulty that CEC has spending the ‘cycle budget’ doesn’t help.
The 10% is politically important - and at the last CEC election all parties agreed.
Might be worth asking Parties’ Transport Spokespeople if they still agree with it.
How long is an reasonable time to wait for a reply on a Party's budget proposals?
One party was all across my social media timelines with all the extra money they would spend from their 'fully costed' budget proposals, so I thought I'd ask where the money was coming from.
I got a brief reply from one Cllr linking me to their budget motion but without any direct response to my question.
I did a bit of analysis showed me that they were spending £40m more than the Coalition across the 5 years and this was funded by 'Best Value service reviews' and changing the redundancy policy.
I followed up with a question on whether such changes had been made in other Councils that gave them confidence that CEC could get the same benefits.
So far no response despite me asking for this on FB, Twitter & Email. Meanwhile my timeliness continue to be filled with posts by them and their 'fully costed' proposals.
How long should I wait before pushing again for this?
Straight away or never?
I notice no actual quantitative data so I estimate you have waited long enough and should get back to them so you can be ignored again
Depends on your boredom threshold!
You could try replying every time they post with ‘I’m still waiting for a reply to this question [link]’
Maybe tag in one or more of local and national Party leaders...
I wasn't planning on being a <rule 2> on this but without a response to a reasonable question, I don't know what option I have..
Partly depends how much you want to wind them up and how much you want answers to specific questions.
If the latter, try asking all councillors in the same Party.
Its more the latter but if I don't get a response from emailing their Finance spokesperson its hard not to get wound up by it.
Could start with their finance spokesperson?
Since it's impossible to guess which party you're referring to, I can't say exactly who that is, but they'll be a member of the Finance and Resources Committee (list of members here).
Edit: I now see you already did that.
I've had a response by email and I now understand the basis better.
But does it make sense??
It relies on the premise that public sector employment cost us higher than private sector and so benefits exist from working in partnership with outside organisations.
There was a CEC report from 10 years ago (covering only 1 area) that indicated potential benefits existed, apparently.
So I can see a bit of what they are resting their benefits on. Whether I believe or agree with them is a different matter.
“There was a CEC report from 10 years ago (covering only 1 area)“
Not the best sort of evidence to base a policy on.
So they are saying ‘private sector generally has worse conditions of employment, so public sector should outsource more’(?)
That was my reading of the email...
You must log in to post.
Video embedded using Easy Video Embed plugin