CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » General Edinburgh
Edinburgh council will decide on budget cuts without knowing final funding deal
(16 posts)-
Posted 5 years ago #
-
Budget proposals all published ahead of the rammy tomorrow.
https://democracy.edinburgh.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=150&MId=413
As expected, the administration maintains the 10% cycle commitment. Will we see anything actually delivered this fiscal year?
Posted 5 years ago # -
I’ll go for yes.
But not very much!
Bigger questions are
Is the 10% being spent?
If not is it in a holding a/c somewhere?
How much/% is being spent on ‘consultants’?
How much could be saved if CEC had more staff?
Posted 5 years ago # -
Scot Gov claws back budgets if not spent if the budget is originally ring fenced to be spent on a specific area.
If the budget is not ring fenced on a specific area Scot Gov do not claw back.
Other than Sustrans what consultants are you thinking about @CHdot?
Posted 5 years ago # -
The usual list of companies that draw up the plans for transport schemes - for a price.
Maybe they are good value.
Posted 5 years ago # -
Interestingly the LibDem alternative Budget has this paragraph (my bold):
Specific Capital Proposals
Council:
1. Welcomes the planned funding in 2020-21 for new primary and secondary schools,
increased early years provision, the completion of the Energy Efficiency Street Lighting project, further investment in Active Travel and public transport and a substantial contribution towards the Millerhill Energy from Waste plant.Posted 5 years ago # -
Whereas the Tories have:
34) Agrees that a full business case on the active travel programme should be considered before any commitments are made to allocate resources or reprioritise existing plans
Posted 5 years ago # -
Also:
25)Rejects the Administration’s pledge to ring-fence 10% of the roads and transport budget for cycling. Agrees that these resources should be committed to roads and pavement repairs to improve safety for all road and pavement users.
32)Approves additional investment of £10m in a programme of schemes to relieve traffic congestion, including the extension of the Hermiston Park and Ride service; effective road repairs in heavily trafficked bus lanes and bus stops; and improvements in traffic management at key junctions and on major public transport routes. Further, approves £6m of additional capital investment in roads and pavements.
I’m not sure exactly how road repairs in bus lanes will relieve congestion. I’d also be very interested to know how they’ll improve traffic management at junctions without affecting pedestrians. As ever, no detail or explanation will be given.
Had a bit of fun on Twitter earlier with Cllr Doggart (who is a colleague of mine) about the relative levels of council tax increase between SNP/Labour and Tory proposals. Less than £2 per month for a Band D property; this has been described as “eye-watering”.
Posted 5 years ago # -
Are these budget motions meant to be costed? They sure do throw around a lot of extra spending with the only large reduction in costs appearing to be allowing compulsory redundancies and outsourcing security.
Always good to remember that despite the current progress, it could be a lot worse come the 2022 local elections.
19) Rejects the Administration’s proposals to introduce Sunday pay and display parking charges.
25) Rejects the Administration’s pledge to ring-fence 10% of the roads and transport budget for
cycling. Agrees that these resources should be committed to roads and pavement repairs to
improve safety for all road and pavement users.
26) Rejects plans to introduce a workplace parking levy.
34) Agrees that a full business case on the active travel programme should be considered before
any commitments are made to allocate resources or reprioritise existing plans.Posted 5 years ago # -
"...resources should be committed to roads and pavement repairs to improve safety for all road and pavement users."
Er, "pavement users" - by which I assume they mean pedestrians & wheelchair users are road users. For example, the "Road users requiring extra care" section of the Highway Code (Rules 204-225) includes a "Pedestrians" section (Rules 205-210). So they should have said simply "all road users," or if they really felt the need to differentiate in some way: "all users of both the footway and the carriageway".
Pedantic? I would disagree: I think it reflects the gammon mindset of "roads are for cars and everyone else should be on the pavement except of course those annoying cyclists but then we don't them on the road either, getting in our way".
Posted 5 years ago # -
@ejstubbs, I think you are probably assuming too much to put pedestrians into the gammon mindset. Pavement users are people abandoning their vehicles after illegally driving on the pavement.
Posted 5 years ago # -
Also in the Conservative plans:
Provision of additional resource to accelerate a strategic approach to health and wellbeing in partnership with the EIJB and Edinburgh Leisure with a particular focus on inclusion of vulnerable individuals and communities through development of opportunities for physical activity and sport.
So cut the active travel budget but increase funding to develop a strategic approach to develop opportunities for physical activity.
Joined. Up. Thinking.
Posted 5 years ago # -
Deeply conservative thinking to imagine that exercise (and everything else) takes place in a transactional commercial environment like a gym.
Posted 5 years ago # -
Yes - think Virgin Active (!). Active travel is the solution but no major company can monetise it enough. JustEat slightly maybe but no-one in car economy.
Finance sector involved in MySchemes BTW but small beer. Scot Gov does allow interest free e-bike loans here which undermines the noble profession of lending. Prefer theirs too as don't charge me 10% of margin.Posted 5 years ago # -
Posted 5 years ago #
-
Twitter responses to that story are depressing
Posted 5 years ago #
Reply
You must log in to post.
posts
