Planner1

Stocksbridge got £24 million for the town deal. That might buy you one km of tram track if you were lucky. Leeds are planning to build 2 lines which will cost them at least £2 or 3 billion.

The bike hire scheme in Sheffield was a Chinese company, Ofo. They tried the same type of thing in many cities and didn’t make money, so they folded. No public money was involved. The Leeds e-bike hire scheme did take into account the likely losses due to theft and vandalism when building their business case. They based their projections on the levels of attrition that were experienced in existing UK e-bike hire schemes, mainly in London and Brighton if I recall correctly ( Manchester’s hadn’t been running long). Perhaps it’s a Northern issue. Manchester seem to have had similar problems with their scheme, see this report. The amount that these schemes cost is fairly modest on the grand scale of things, £2.86 million of government grant ( via the MCA) for the Leeds one. That sort of money doesn’t buy you much in terms of infrastructure nowadays.

The (private sector) bike hire scheme failed because of the levels of theft of the bikes. The scheme owners underestimated the rate of loss / damage and withdrew the scheme. This happened in other uk cities too. Leeds have recently introduced an electric bike hire scheme and they have lost a lot of bikes to theft and vandalism. Clearly the culture is different here to other places in the world. Shared mobility solutions that seem to do ok in other countries don’t do as well here. Car clubs is one example. People who commute to work on a bike often use older ones that don’t attract theft. Some employers also provide secure storage. There are ways around problems. I’ve got several valuable bikes and have never had one stolen.

Utter nonsense and you know it. They would prefer you to walk or cycle for shorter journeys and are putting in place the infrastructure to allow that to happen safely. Look on it as redressing the balance a little after many decades of investment to make things easier and quicker for motorists. Didn’t turn out too well did it?

I’ve mentioned it on here often enough for you to understand this. Funding for all significant transport schemes comes from the government, via the MCA. There are sometimes contributions from developers, but these are usually comparatively minor. All schemes funded this way have to develop a business case, which involves calculation of the benefit cost ratio, which is used to assess value for money. Typically the government want a BCR of 2:1 ie the benefits are at least twice the costs. Schemes which involve promoting active travel typically don’t achieve that level because in the government’s methodology for calculating value for money, most of the monetised benefits arise from saving journey time for motorists. Therefore any scheme which delays motorists doesn’t produce a good value for money rating. Government guidance says that in such cases, other factors can be considered more important, such as strategic fit with policies and strategies.

The “sustainable” label in this context usually applies to the mode of travel, ie walking, cycling and public transport being “ sustainable”, but motorised transport not.

Electronic payment costs the council less and they would certainly prefer you to pay that way. It’s not just maintaining the machines. Emptying the machines and banking the money is costly and it’s a security / fraud risk. There have been criminal gangs who target pay and display machines, sometimes by drilling into them to release cash, sometimes by pulling the whole machine out of the ground, taking it away and smashing it to get the cash. These can be very costly for the owners of the machines. Much as they might want to migrate to electronic payment only, Councils have to consider equity in their decisions and so, they have to offer some cash based options for those who may not be able to or want to pay electronically. The council here are not pushing electronic payments as much as some others. Visit other places ( Leeds for one) and you will find that there are swathes of parking which are electronic payment only. Haven’t got the app? Park elsewhere, where there are machines.

The ones in the photo are for the central area, for which you can expect to pay a premium whichever town or city you visit. As others have said, there are cheaper council parking spots a little further out from the centre.

What exactly would you like the situation to be?

Maybe you should check what other similar councils in large cities and the private sector are charging, you might then see that SCC’s prices are cheaper. Leeds and Manchester both charge more and they have time limits on your stay, which Sheffield don’t have.

And bikes have lots of gears and electric assistance if you need it.

It seems to be a growing trend that younger people aren’t as interested in owning a car nowadays. Generally it will be younger people interested in living in flats. There are car clubs which can be ok for people who don’t have a car but need one occasionally. There’s one here. The lack of dedicated off street parking in apartment developments is leading to problems in areas like Kelham. When I was at the council I was regularly replying to complaints from folk who lived there who were moaning about how long it took them to find a parking space on street nowadays. There are no restrictions on the on street parking, so it gets clogged with residents vehicles and the local businesses are also complaining that customers can’t park to get to them. I believe the council did some consultation on having a parking scheme in Kelham and in the area around park hill flats and public reaction was negative, so they haven’t happened. Most of the newer apartment developments have a planning condition that residents won’t be eligible for parking permits in any local scheme.

My original post was at 09.26 on Tuesday. ( on page 6 of the thread) You responded, quoting it at12.42 same day. The original post is is exactly the same in your quote.

Yes, but if they are demolishing the building that may well go too. New apartment developments which are in “sustainable” locations in terms of public transport access and walkability to local facilities can get planning consent with very few on site parking spaces ( often only for visitors, service vehicles and disabled) as it is considered that they are suitable for folk who don’t own a car. There are quite a few examples of this around the city. Apartment developments usually have a condition attached to the planning consent that residents will not be eligible for any current or future permit parking schemes in the area.

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