New motorist forum to be created in York

Cllr Levene, pictured at Micklegate Bar traffic lights

Cllr Levene, pictured at Micklegate Bar traffic lights

Updated in News York Press: Photograph of the Author by , Chief reporter

YORK'S new transport boss is setting up a forum to give motorists a voice - and has confirmed that £300,000 will be spent on improving traffic flow.

Cllr David Levene, who has just taken over Cabinet responsibility for transport from Dave Merrett, says he has asked officers to set up a new Motorist User Forum to consult drivers, like the ones already in existence for other road users.

He said: “I want to make the service much more responsive to residents’ ideas and suggestions, working with them to design solutions to localised problems that can make a big difference to their everyday lives."

The announcement comes after a tumultuous time for the Labour-run authority over the controversial trial closure of Lendal Bridge, which was fiercely opposed by many motorists and ended with the snap decision to re-open the bridge last Saturday.

Cllr Levene said the last few weeks had demonstrated the need to engage more with residents. "I want to listen about how we can improve the experience for everyone getting around York: pedestrians, cyclists, public transport users and drivers."

He said it had been agreed in the council's capital programme to spend £300,000 on improving traffic light signalling, sequencing and timing to reduce queue lengths at several key junctions.

He could not reveal which junctions would be tackled, other than Water End at Clifton Green, where it was already felt that signal sequencing could be changed to improve traffic flow. But it also seems likely that the Micklegate Bar traffic lights, where Cllr Levene was photographed, will be investigated.

He said that as well as remote monitoring, there would be 'physical improvements' at junctions to improve flow of traffic for the benefit of all road users, but the changes were only a 'first step.'

He said: “This follows the recent announcement of a free parking initiative, as we know that this is a major issue for city centre businesses, and we’ll be taking forward the long-awaited Marygate pay-on-exit scheme.

“Finally, we will continue to work to reduce congestion. Encouraging residents to use more sustainable modes of transport has to be a priority, and I look forward to hearing ideas from the other political groups as part of the recently announced cross-party Congestion Commission on how we do this.”

Comments (90)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

10:51am Fri 18 Apr 14

Garrowby Turnoff says...

You gotta have some sympathy for poor old David Levene. He's been handed a hot potato the like of which has never been seen before!
You gotta have some sympathy for poor old David Levene. He's been handed a hot potato the like of which has never been seen before! Garrowby Turnoff
  • Score: 7183

10:54am Fri 18 Apr 14

eeoodares says...

Cllr Levene you appear to be a rational intelligent and reasonable man. Your colleagues will hate you.

Lets hope we can get the City flowing again.
Cllr Levene you appear to be a rational intelligent and reasonable man. Your colleagues will hate you. Lets hope we can get the City flowing again. eeoodares
  • Score: 7015

10:59am Fri 18 Apr 14

nearlyman says...

eeoodares wrote:
Cllr Levene you appear to be a rational intelligent and reasonable man. Your colleagues will hate you.

Lets hope we can get the City flowing again.
Maybe he's just worried about his seat !
[quote][p][bold]eeoodares[/bold] wrote: Cllr Levene you appear to be a rational intelligent and reasonable man. Your colleagues will hate you. Lets hope we can get the City flowing again.[/p][/quote]Maybe he's just worried about his seat ! nearlyman
  • Score: 8047

11:10am Fri 18 Apr 14

Ignatius Lumpopo says...

A voice? Why should we be given a voice? We don't appear to have had one before. And even if we have one, who's to say anyone will listen?
A voice? Why should we be given a voice? We don't appear to have had one before. And even if we have one, who's to say anyone will listen? Ignatius Lumpopo
  • Score: 9675

11:19am Fri 18 Apr 14

Woody G Mellor says...

Here's an idea. Abolish the blanket 20mph idiotic idea. It's a waste of money. It's totally ignored and it makes areas around schools less safe.

Simples.
Here's an idea. Abolish the blanket 20mph idiotic idea. It's a waste of money. It's totally ignored and it makes areas around schools less safe. Simples. Woody G Mellor
  • Score: 9021

11:37am Fri 18 Apr 14

SteveSCA says...

Why on earth will it cost £300,000 to improve traffic light sequencing?? Is it to employ some hugely expensive firm of consultants? There seems to be no limit to this council's capacity to fritter away our money like water.
Why on earth will it cost £300,000 to improve traffic light sequencing?? Is it to employ some hugely expensive firm of consultants? There seems to be no limit to this council's capacity to fritter away our money like water. SteveSCA
  • Score: 7670

11:45am Fri 18 Apr 14

Cheeky face says...

At this stage it all sounds good; and he ciould start a list with some of the following..

Traffic lights being for peak periods only makes sense.

Can they open up the roundabout so traffic from Clifford St going to Bishopthorpe rd etc can turn right without travelling via the one way triangle at the site of the old cattle market?

20mph warning at lights at schools is better than a blanket 20mph. They could be operated as and when required.

Better road signage will help visitors from being in the wrong lane will help.

Box junction at Scarcroft rd/The Mount needs re-painting.
At this stage it all sounds good; and he ciould start a list with some of the following.. Traffic lights being for peak periods only makes sense. Can they open up the roundabout so traffic from Clifford St going to Bishopthorpe rd etc can turn right without travelling via the one way triangle at the site of the old cattle market? 20mph warning at lights at schools is better than a blanket 20mph. They could be operated as and when required. Better road signage will help visitors from being in the wrong lane will help. Box junction at Scarcroft rd/The Mount needs re-painting. Cheeky face
  • Score: 7888

11:48am Fri 18 Apr 14

Just zis guy, you know? says...

This ought to be fun to watch ... where's me popcorn?
This ought to be fun to watch ... where's me popcorn? Just zis guy, you know?
  • Score: 7725

11:59am Fri 18 Apr 14

aac2689 says...

Cheeky face wrote:
At this stage it all sounds good; and he ciould start a list with some of the following..

Traffic lights being for peak periods only makes sense.

Can they open up the roundabout so traffic from Clifford St going to Bishopthorpe rd etc can turn right without travelling via the one way triangle at the site of the old cattle market?

20mph warning at lights at schools is better than a blanket 20mph. They could be operated as and when required.

Better road signage will help visitors from being in the wrong lane will help.

Box junction at Scarcroft rd/The Mount needs re-painting.
Also a filter light for left turn from nunnery lane onto blossom street
[quote][p][bold]Cheeky face[/bold] wrote: At this stage it all sounds good; and he ciould start a list with some of the following.. Traffic lights being for peak periods only makes sense. Can they open up the roundabout so traffic from Clifford St going to Bishopthorpe rd etc can turn right without travelling via the one way triangle at the site of the old cattle market? 20mph warning at lights at schools is better than a blanket 20mph. They could be operated as and when required. Better road signage will help visitors from being in the wrong lane will help. Box junction at Scarcroft rd/The Mount needs re-painting.[/p][/quote]Also a filter light for left turn from nunnery lane onto blossom street aac2689
  • Score: 7659

12:02pm Fri 18 Apr 14

inthesticks says...

Woody G Mellor wrote:
Here's an idea. Abolish the blanket 20mph idiotic idea. It's a waste of money. It's totally ignored and it makes areas around schools less safe.

Simples.
In August 2013 Cllr Levene said “Safety is part of the aspiration, but 20mph is also about making streets more usable and making considerate driving a social norm.”
So no chance then.
[quote][p][bold]Woody G Mellor[/bold] wrote: Here's an idea. Abolish the blanket 20mph idiotic idea. It's a waste of money. It's totally ignored and it makes areas around schools less safe. Simples.[/p][/quote]In August 2013 Cllr Levene said “Safety is part of the aspiration, but 20mph is also about making streets more usable and making considerate driving a social norm.” So no chance then. inthesticks
  • Score: 7540

12:15pm Fri 18 Apr 14

YOUWILLDOASISAY says...

Time to see how the commitment just made translates into actions and measured results.
Time to see how the commitment just made translates into actions and measured results. YOUWILLDOASISAY
  • Score: 6855

12:16pm Fri 18 Apr 14

Dave Ruddock says...

Good first unsteady steps, just one Point , the traffic at Micklegate was supposed to have been sorted in 2012/13... The Ouse Bridge traffic is the main problem, a city through way that end up going though one of the oldest streets that was never and will never cope with traffic, (A controversial) but an option in open High Ousegate and have one way traffic on each. on that point any Bus that Beaksdown on that stretch of road the company owning the bus be fined £100 per hour. Well thats my ideas, proposals
Good first unsteady steps, just one Point , the traffic at Micklegate was supposed to have been sorted in 2012/13... The Ouse Bridge traffic is the main problem, a city through way that end up going though one of the oldest streets that was never and will never cope with traffic, (A controversial) but an option in open High Ousegate and have one way traffic on each. on that point any Bus that Beaksdown on that stretch of road the company owning the bus be fined £100 per hour. Well thats my ideas, proposals Dave Ruddock
  • Score: 6254

12:24pm Fri 18 Apr 14

wallman says...

a lot of congestion in the town is caused by the open-topped buses travelling at 10/15 mph everywhere even down knavesmire road to look at the racecourse
a lot of congestion in the town is caused by the open-topped buses travelling at 10/15 mph everywhere even down knavesmire road to look at the racecourse wallman
  • Score: 3847

12:26pm Fri 18 Apr 14

sheps lad says...

Just keep PP away from the forum, please!
Just keep PP away from the forum, please! sheps lad
  • Score: 3087

12:33pm Fri 18 Apr 14

joewatt says...

It would be useful to have a grown up in charge of transport, who owned a car and had some experience of driving around busy cities. Also, since when has the labour cabinet listened to public opinion - such as on their proposed Local Plan.
It would be useful to have a grown up in charge of transport, who owned a car and had some experience of driving around busy cities. Also, since when has the labour cabinet listened to public opinion - such as on their proposed Local Plan. joewatt
  • Score: 2835

12:42pm Fri 18 Apr 14

Ousetunes says...

They're in panic mode now, desperate to do anything for your vote!

Do not be taken in by this charade!
They're in panic mode now, desperate to do anything for your vote! Do not be taken in by this charade! Ousetunes
  • Score: 2355

12:44pm Fri 18 Apr 14

Caecilius says...

Signal sequencing on Water End at Clifton Green "could be changed to improve traffic flow"? But you already did exactly that, Coun Levene - remember? The Labour Group's last attempt to buy cheap popularity through appeasing the car lobby over that junction included changing the phasing of the lights to placate the loudest whingers - motorists travelling towards Clifton Green up Water End. So we can take your soundbite today as an acknowledgement that this piece of tinkering round the edges of the problem has proved to be futile, just as you were told it would be at the time. Now you're making another attempt to buy popularity by reshuffling the congestion once again between the roads feeding the junction. That's all you'll ever achieve by changing the timing of the lights. The only way to reduce congestion is by reducing the number of cars - and your party rolls over for the car lobby every time.
Signal sequencing on Water End at Clifton Green "could be changed to improve traffic flow"? But you already did exactly that, Coun Levene - remember? The Labour Group's last attempt to buy cheap popularity through appeasing the car lobby over that junction included changing the phasing of the lights to placate the loudest whingers - motorists travelling towards Clifton Green up Water End. So we can take your soundbite today as an acknowledgement that this piece of tinkering round the edges of the problem has proved to be futile, just as you were told it would be at the time. Now you're making another attempt to buy popularity by reshuffling the congestion once again between the roads feeding the junction. That's all you'll ever achieve by changing the timing of the lights. The only way to reduce congestion is by reducing the number of cars - and your party rolls over for the car lobby every time. Caecilius
  • Score: 1880

12:58pm Fri 18 Apr 14

sheps lad says...

Don't let Caecilius near the forum either!
Don't let Caecilius near the forum either! sheps lad
  • Score: 1785

1:29pm Fri 18 Apr 14

marvell says...

Great - someone with zero experience or a relevant skillset has been given responsibility for this hugely important portfolio.

That's what you get when you have a scarcity of talent in one party, such as the current Labour Cabinet, but are determined to keep all the top jobs for your own party, rather than reaching across the political divide for the most qualified people for the greater good of this city.
Great - someone with zero experience or a relevant skillset has been given responsibility for this hugely important portfolio. That's what you get when you have a scarcity of talent in one party, such as the current Labour Cabinet, but are determined to keep all the top jobs for your own party, rather than reaching across the political divide for the most qualified people for the greater good of this city. marvell
  • Score: 1481

1:33pm Fri 18 Apr 14

Warren Z says...

SteveSCA wrote:
Why on earth will it cost £300,000 to improve traffic light sequencing?? Is it to employ some hugely expensive firm of consultants? There seems to be no limit to this council's capacity to fritter away our money like water.
I agree, maybe it will be a 5 traffic light sequencing officers and a director of sequencing, that should use up the 300K nicely.
[quote][p][bold]SteveSCA[/bold] wrote: Why on earth will it cost £300,000 to improve traffic light sequencing?? Is it to employ some hugely expensive firm of consultants? There seems to be no limit to this council's capacity to fritter away our money like water.[/p][/quote]I agree, maybe it will be a 5 traffic light sequencing officers and a director of sequencing, that should use up the 300K nicely. Warren Z
  • Score: 1402

1:50pm Fri 18 Apr 14

roskoboskovic says...

a good start would be to synchronise the lights,do away with unnecessary lights,carefully consider where you place pedestrian crossings,abolish the 20 mph zones and reinstate bus stop lay byes to get the things out of the way,especially on university road.does mr levene actually drive a car because if he doesn t then he shouldn t be in the job.
a good start would be to synchronise the lights,do away with unnecessary lights,carefully consider where you place pedestrian crossings,abolish the 20 mph zones and reinstate bus stop lay byes to get the things out of the way,especially on university road.does mr levene actually drive a car because if he doesn t then he shouldn t be in the job. roskoboskovic
  • Score: 1567

1:50pm Fri 18 Apr 14

strangebuttrue? says...

Here is a suggestion for traffic light sequencing. Turn them all off see what happens. Make sure it is well publicised and warn all to take extra care. Then only turn on the ones that are actually needed. We see random traffic light failures all over York and each has the same effect - all the traffic in the area disappears improving the environment for everybody. I also note I have not heard of any incidents during any of these traffic light failures.
Here is a suggestion for traffic light sequencing. Turn them all off see what happens. Make sure it is well publicised and warn all to take extra care. Then only turn on the ones that are actually needed. We see random traffic light failures all over York and each has the same effect - all the traffic in the area disappears improving the environment for everybody. I also note I have not heard of any incidents during any of these traffic light failures. strangebuttrue?
  • Score: 1136

1:56pm Fri 18 Apr 14

Can't all be wrong says...

No one can dispute the fact that there are simply too many cars for this compact historic city. However what is also indisputable is the fact that cars, wether they are fossil fuelled or not are here to stay, so let's work around that premise.
At present traffic can only move as fast as the slowest cyclist in front of you.
Ancient polluting buses produce more toxins than a dozen modern cars ( I'm guessing ).
So open up cycle only routes, car only routes and modernise the bus fleet.
Sorted.
No one can dispute the fact that there are simply too many cars for this compact historic city. However what is also indisputable is the fact that cars, wether they are fossil fuelled or not are here to stay, so let's work around that premise. At present traffic can only move as fast as the slowest cyclist in front of you. Ancient polluting buses produce more toxins than a dozen modern cars ( I'm guessing ). So open up cycle only routes, car only routes and modernise the bus fleet. Sorted. Can't all be wrong
  • Score: 878

2:03pm Fri 18 Apr 14

Justin7 says...

The Green Party will win eventually. No petrol/diesel motor vehicles in York.

We have the Tour De France coming and that will inspire everyone go to use bike transport. It's faster, it's safer and it's good for the planet. All you tourists in massive carbon footprint 4x4s choking this city and the planet to death will soon be a distant nightmare.

Our planet is dying you selfish people!
The Green Party will win eventually. No petrol/diesel motor vehicles in York. We have the Tour De France coming and that will inspire everyone go to use bike transport. It's faster, it's safer and it's good for the planet. All you tourists in massive carbon footprint 4x4s choking this city and the planet to death will soon be a distant nightmare. Our planet is dying you selfish people! Justin7
  • Score: 782

2:09pm Fri 18 Apr 14

oi oi savaloy says...

eeoodares wrote:
Cllr Levene you appear to be a rational intelligent and reasonable man. Your colleagues will hate you. Lets hope we can get the City flowing again.
here's one already suckered in.....

Levene is desperate man who wants to keep his soft job on the council, wasting your money, he as already proven he is a failure by overspending on the winter budget by over 130k , this being the mildest winter ever! and he also cut back a further 30% of the streets that the council grit (did we even get 1 flake of snow??big questiond need asking about where that money went) he is the reason the students get away with treating the streets like a dumping ground at the end of every term, he is reason the potholes in the street are ignored ... dont be fooled by this man, he spends his days pestering students to join the labour party and sign petitions... along with alexander and the rest, they will pretend to listen to you ..... everything now is about there precious seat and the next election!

only one way now people of York , vote for an independant resident who as the residents interests at heart, because the York labour party certainly aint interested in you!!!
[quote][p][bold]eeoodares[/bold] wrote: Cllr Levene you appear to be a rational intelligent and reasonable man. Your colleagues will hate you. Lets hope we can get the City flowing again.[/p][/quote]here's one already suckered in..... Levene is desperate man who wants to keep his soft job on the council, wasting your money, he as already proven he is a failure by overspending on the winter budget by over 130k , this being the mildest winter ever! and he also cut back a further 30% of the streets that the council grit (did we even get 1 flake of snow??big questiond need asking about where that money went) he is the reason the students get away with treating the streets like a dumping ground at the end of every term, he is reason the potholes in the street are ignored ... dont be fooled by this man, he spends his days pestering students to join the labour party and sign petitions... along with alexander and the rest, they will pretend to listen to you ..... everything now is about there precious seat and the next election! only one way now people of York , vote for an independant resident who as the residents interests at heart, because the York labour party certainly aint interested in you!!! oi oi savaloy
  • Score: 759

2:12pm Fri 18 Apr 14

powerwatt says...

If he uses the same model as he did for waste. Then there will be road closures, some roads with reduced hours. Lots less repairs too. Then going over budget still.
If he uses the same model as he did for waste. Then there will be road closures, some roads with reduced hours. Lots less repairs too. Then going over budget still. powerwatt
  • Score: 726

2:33pm Fri 18 Apr 14

Cheeky face says...

Quite right the gritting overspend was a nonsense. I never saw more than gritter in the last winter and only noticed gritting had been done twice - both in Ryedale!

Whilst looking at the highways section of the council web site I notice Lendal Bridge trial closure is still listed.

Have we any details on this forum yet? It makes sense to have one; but it is many years late.

Lots of contributors to this comments area could provide David with starters for him to consider.
Quite right the gritting overspend was a nonsense. I never saw more than gritter in the last winter and only noticed gritting had been done twice - both in Ryedale! Whilst looking at the highways section of the council web site I notice Lendal Bridge trial closure is still listed. Have we any details on this forum yet? It makes sense to have one; but it is many years late. Lots of contributors to this comments area could provide David with starters for him to consider. Cheeky face
  • Score: 556

2:39pm Fri 18 Apr 14

acomblass says...

marvell wrote:
Great - someone with zero experience or a relevant skillset has been given responsibility for this hugely important portfolio. That's what you get when you have a scarcity of talent in one party, such as the current Labour Cabinet, but are determined to keep all the top jobs for your own party, rather than reaching across the political divide for the most qualified people for the greater good of this city.
I agree with you wholeheartedly. I regret to say that this situation was forecast in 2011. Levene is a bully. - do not be fooled. This is yet another "initiative" to get the Council off the hook or so they think but we have long memories. As for the money, where is it all coming from? Labour are squandering our money on new initiatives - just wait for the next one which is in Housing - you will be amazed at the rubbish they are wanting to foist on us - watch this space.
[quote][p][bold]marvell[/bold] wrote: Great - someone with zero experience or a relevant skillset has been given responsibility for this hugely important portfolio. That's what you get when you have a scarcity of talent in one party, such as the current Labour Cabinet, but are determined to keep all the top jobs for your own party, rather than reaching across the political divide for the most qualified people for the greater good of this city.[/p][/quote]I agree with you wholeheartedly. I regret to say that this situation was forecast in 2011. Levene is a bully. - do not be fooled. This is yet another "initiative" to get the Council off the hook or so they think but we have long memories. As for the money, where is it all coming from? Labour are squandering our money on new initiatives - just wait for the next one which is in Housing - you will be amazed at the rubbish they are wanting to foist on us - watch this space. acomblass
  • Score: 661

2:56pm Fri 18 Apr 14

eeoodares says...

Caecilius wrote:
Signal sequencing on Water End at Clifton Green "could be changed to improve traffic flow"? But you already did exactly that, Coun Levene - remember? The Labour Group's last attempt to buy cheap popularity through appeasing the car lobby over that junction included changing the phasing of the lights to placate the loudest whingers - motorists travelling towards Clifton Green up Water End. So we can take your soundbite today as an acknowledgement that this piece of tinkering round the edges of the problem has proved to be futile, just as you were told it would be at the time. Now you're making another attempt to buy popularity by reshuffling the congestion once again between the roads feeding the junction. That's all you'll ever achieve by changing the timing of the lights. The only way to reduce congestion is by reducing the number of cars - and your party rolls over for the car lobby every time.
If your statement is correct, and the only way to reduce congestion is to reduce the number of cars. Would you care to explain how the number of cars on the road has dropped over several years yet pollution and congestion has increased?
These figures were published by the car hating Labour lot.

There are numerous ways to solve numerous problems, real problems only occur when a group takes over that have a single goal and a single philosophy.

I suggest you learn some tolerance and consider what is actually happening rather than the singleminded rhetoric of Semlyn, Merret, Alexander, etc.
[quote][p][bold]Caecilius[/bold] wrote: Signal sequencing on Water End at Clifton Green "could be changed to improve traffic flow"? But you already did exactly that, Coun Levene - remember? The Labour Group's last attempt to buy cheap popularity through appeasing the car lobby over that junction included changing the phasing of the lights to placate the loudest whingers - motorists travelling towards Clifton Green up Water End. So we can take your soundbite today as an acknowledgement that this piece of tinkering round the edges of the problem has proved to be futile, just as you were told it would be at the time. Now you're making another attempt to buy popularity by reshuffling the congestion once again between the roads feeding the junction. That's all you'll ever achieve by changing the timing of the lights. The only way to reduce congestion is by reducing the number of cars - and your party rolls over for the car lobby every time.[/p][/quote]If your statement is correct, and the only way to reduce congestion is to reduce the number of cars. Would you care to explain how the number of cars on the road has dropped over several years yet pollution and congestion has increased? These figures were published by the car hating Labour lot. There are numerous ways to solve numerous problems, real problems only occur when a group takes over that have a single goal and a single philosophy. I suggest you learn some tolerance and consider what is actually happening rather than the singleminded rhetoric of Semlyn, Merret, Alexander, etc. eeoodares
  • Score: 532

2:59pm Fri 18 Apr 14

eeoodares says...

oi oi savaloy wrote:
eeoodares wrote:
Cllr Levene you appear to be a rational intelligent and reasonable man. Your colleagues will hate you. Lets hope we can get the City flowing again.
here's one already suckered in.....

Levene is desperate man who wants to keep his soft job on the council, wasting your money, he as already proven he is a failure by overspending on the winter budget by over 130k , this being the mildest winter ever! and he also cut back a further 30% of the streets that the council grit (did we even get 1 flake of snow??big questiond need asking about where that money went) he is the reason the students get away with treating the streets like a dumping ground at the end of every term, he is reason the potholes in the street are ignored ... dont be fooled by this man, he spends his days pestering students to join the labour party and sign petitions... along with alexander and the rest, they will pretend to listen to you ..... everything now is about there precious seat and the next election!

only one way now people of York , vote for an independant resident who as the residents interests at heart, because the York labour party certainly aint interested in you!!!
Not sucked in, I just believe in giving the man a chance to do the right thing (regardless of his reasons for doing it).
[quote][p][bold]oi oi savaloy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]eeoodares[/bold] wrote: Cllr Levene you appear to be a rational intelligent and reasonable man. Your colleagues will hate you. Lets hope we can get the City flowing again.[/p][/quote]here's one already suckered in..... Levene is desperate man who wants to keep his soft job on the council, wasting your money, he as already proven he is a failure by overspending on the winter budget by over 130k , this being the mildest winter ever! and he also cut back a further 30% of the streets that the council grit (did we even get 1 flake of snow??big questiond need asking about where that money went) he is the reason the students get away with treating the streets like a dumping ground at the end of every term, he is reason the potholes in the street are ignored ... dont be fooled by this man, he spends his days pestering students to join the labour party and sign petitions... along with alexander and the rest, they will pretend to listen to you ..... everything now is about there precious seat and the next election! only one way now people of York , vote for an independant resident who as the residents interests at heart, because the York labour party certainly aint interested in you!!![/p][/quote]Not sucked in, I just believe in giving the man a chance to do the right thing (regardless of his reasons for doing it). eeoodares
  • Score: 499

3:06pm Fri 18 Apr 14

finlay123 says...

Justin7 wrote:
The Green Party will win eventually. No petrol/diesel motor vehicles in York. We have the Tour De France coming and that will inspire everyone go to use bike transport. It's faster, it's safer and it's good for the planet. All you tourists in massive carbon footprint 4x4s choking this city and the planet to death will soon be a distant nightmare. Our planet is dying you selfish people!
Ha Ha the TDF will soon be a distant memory and it certainly will not inspire me and the vast majority to use a bike, except the one I have in the garage with a 1000cc engine parked alongside my 4x4.. Please get a grip of reality, its 2014.
[quote][p][bold]Justin7[/bold] wrote: The Green Party will win eventually. No petrol/diesel motor vehicles in York. We have the Tour De France coming and that will inspire everyone go to use bike transport. It's faster, it's safer and it's good for the planet. All you tourists in massive carbon footprint 4x4s choking this city and the planet to death will soon be a distant nightmare. Our planet is dying you selfish people![/p][/quote]Ha Ha the TDF will soon be a distant memory and it certainly will not inspire me and the vast majority to use a bike, except the one I have in the garage with a 1000cc engine parked alongside my 4x4.. Please get a grip of reality, its 2014. finlay123
  • Score: 394

5:00pm Fri 18 Apr 14

Dave Ruddock says...

rebuild york like minton keynes solves that problem, oh boty no citizens left .

Oh better still no council either

Problem solved all-round
rebuild york like minton keynes solves that problem, oh boty no citizens left . Oh better still no council either Problem solved all-round Dave Ruddock
  • Score: 406

5:38pm Fri 18 Apr 14

Badgers Drift says...

Cllr Levene said the last few weeks had demonstrated the need to engage more with residents. "I want to listen about how we can improve the experience for everyone getting around York: pedestrians, cyclists, public transport users and drivers."


Let me correct Cllr Levene, it's not the last few weeks that your party and colleagues and the council have ignored residents (citizens), It's since James Alexander became leader.

Cllr Levene may say that he wants to listen, but, if he chooses to just treat it as lip service, and does not respond to the requests of the majority of York people, then he will prove yet again that his party cannot be trusted.

He can start by stopping any further expenditure on the wasteful 20mph signage - York does not want this!

Lets see if the leopard can change it's spots before most of his colleagues are kicked out in 2015!
[quote] Cllr Levene said the last few weeks had demonstrated the need to engage more with residents. "I want to listen about how we can improve the experience for everyone getting around York: pedestrians, cyclists, public transport users and drivers." [/quote] Let me correct Cllr Levene, it's not the last few weeks that your party and colleagues and the council have ignored residents (citizens), It's since James Alexander became leader. Cllr Levene may say that he wants to listen, but, if he chooses to just treat it as lip service, and does not respond to the requests of the majority of York people, then he will prove yet again that his party cannot be trusted. He can start by stopping any further expenditure on the wasteful 20mph signage - York does not want this! Lets see if the leopard can change it's spots before most of his colleagues are kicked out in 2015! Badgers Drift
  • Score: 2070

5:38pm Fri 18 Apr 14

postie28 says...

total waste of time and money. york's motorists will never ever agree to anything which makes their crawl to work, shop or anywhere else take a single second longer than usual .
total waste of time and money. york's motorists will never ever agree to anything which makes their crawl to work, shop or anywhere else take a single second longer than usual . postie28
  • Score: 356

5:45pm Fri 18 Apr 14

Keepthewheelsturning says...

The only way you will improve traffic around the city is to make people pay for the pleasure for it. I'm not talking of fining or owt like that but a fee of around £5-10 and only from the inner ring road into the heart of the city. If you improve junctions then that's great but when people then see its not bad to get through. It will not be long before they too use their cars. Particularly on a wet day. Prevention sometimes is better than the cure.
The only way you will improve traffic around the city is to make people pay for the pleasure for it. I'm not talking of fining or owt like that but a fee of around £5-10 and only from the inner ring road into the heart of the city. If you improve junctions then that's great but when people then see its not bad to get through. It will not be long before they too use their cars. Particularly on a wet day. Prevention sometimes is better than the cure. Keepthewheelsturning
  • Score: 704

5:48pm Fri 18 Apr 14

Badgers Drift says...

"He said it had been agreed in the council's capital programme to spend £300,000 on improving traffic light signalling, sequencing and timing to reduce queue lengths at several key junctions"


£300k to change the timings and sequencing of existing traffic lights? Who are they kidding? Just another excuse to waste money. Come on, Levene, fess up, where and on ewhat is this money being spent? Where is the detailed report with costings etc? Stop all this secrecy nonsense and show us the information.
[quote] "He said it had been agreed in the council's capital programme to spend £300,000 on improving traffic light signalling, sequencing and timing to reduce queue lengths at several key junctions" [/quote] £300k to change the timings and sequencing of existing traffic lights? Who are they kidding? Just another excuse to waste money. Come on, Levene, fess up, where and on ewhat is this money being spent? Where is the detailed report with costings etc? Stop all this secrecy nonsense and show us the information. Badgers Drift
  • Score: 1973

5:55pm Fri 18 Apr 14

Badgers Drift says...

He said that as well as remote monitoring, there would be 'physical improvements' at junctions to improve flow of traffic for the benefit of all road users, but the changes were only a 'first step.


This is a red herring.

The timings and sequencing of the traffic lights has been set to cause problems, everyone knows this.

They will waste money on meaningless 'physical improvements' and claim that this has improved traffic flows, to hide the fact that it is the timings and sequencing of the traffic lights that are causing the problems.

Do they think we are really that stupid?

They don't care about the money, it's not their's it's OURS!
[quote] He said that as well as remote monitoring, there would be 'physical improvements' at junctions to improve flow of traffic for the benefit of all road users, but the changes were only a 'first step. [/quote] This is a red herring. The timings and sequencing of the traffic lights has been set to cause problems, everyone knows this. They will waste money on meaningless 'physical improvements' and claim that this has improved traffic flows, to hide the fact that it is the timings and sequencing of the traffic lights that are causing the problems. Do they think we are really that stupid? They don't care about the money, it's not their's it's OURS! Badgers Drift
  • Score: 632

5:58pm Fri 18 Apr 14

Badgers Drift says...

Woody G Mellor wrote:
Here's an idea. Abolish the blanket 20mph idiotic idea. It's a waste of money. It's totally ignored and it makes areas around schools less safe. Simples.
Totally agree.

Only 7 out of 13,000 surveyed, wanted it - and all of them were Labour councillors!!!

Listen to what the majority of York people want!
[quote][p][bold]Woody G Mellor[/bold] wrote: Here's an idea. Abolish the blanket 20mph idiotic idea. It's a waste of money. It's totally ignored and it makes areas around schools less safe. Simples.[/p][/quote]Totally agree. Only 7 out of 13,000 surveyed, wanted it - and all of them were Labour councillors!!! Listen to what the majority of York people want! Badgers Drift
  • Score: 761

6:03pm Fri 18 Apr 14

roadwars says...

I think that the York Press comments section is enough to put any councillor off introducing a forum or letting the people of York have any say in anything...
I think that the York Press comments section is enough to put any councillor off introducing a forum or letting the people of York have any say in anything... roadwars
  • Score: 303

6:04pm Fri 18 Apr 14

Badgers Drift says...

joewatt wrote:
It would be useful to have a grown up in charge of transport, who owned a car and had some experience of driving around busy cities. Also, since when has the labour cabinet listened to public opinion - such as on their proposed Local Plan.
Absolutely dead right, Joe !
[quote][p][bold]joewatt[/bold] wrote: It would be useful to have a grown up in charge of transport, who owned a car and had some experience of driving around busy cities. Also, since when has the labour cabinet listened to public opinion - such as on their proposed Local Plan.[/p][/quote]Absolutely dead right, Joe ! Badgers Drift
  • Score: 1135

6:48pm Fri 18 Apr 14

ouseswimmer says...

Remove half the traffic lights and we shall all be much better off. Traffic flows much better when the lights fail and surprisingly no pedestrians are run over either.
Remove half the traffic lights and we shall all be much better off. Traffic flows much better when the lights fail and surprisingly no pedestrians are run over either. ouseswimmer
  • Score: 299

8:03pm Fri 18 Apr 14

level-headed says...

Caecilius wrote:
Signal sequencing on Water End at Clifton Green "could be changed to improve traffic flow"? But you already did exactly that, Coun Levene - remember? The Labour Group's last attempt to buy cheap popularity through appeasing the car lobby over that junction included changing the phasing of the lights to placate the loudest whingers - motorists travelling towards Clifton Green up Water End. So we can take your soundbite today as an acknowledgement that this piece of tinkering round the edges of the problem has proved to be futile, just as you were told it would be at the time. Now you're making another attempt to buy popularity by reshuffling the congestion once again between the roads feeding the junction. That's all you'll ever achieve by changing the timing of the lights. The only way to reduce congestion is by reducing the number of cars - and your party rolls over for the car lobby every time.
You repeatedly use the term 'car lobby' in your posts. Droning on obsessively about transport issues like some kind of OCD is reserved for the cycling / eco geeks. Generally speaking, motorists just want to get on with their lives without intrusion from others who think it's ok to decide how everyone else should get around. The less time talking about it the better, which doesn't really constitute a 'lobby', does it?
[quote][p][bold]Caecilius[/bold] wrote: Signal sequencing on Water End at Clifton Green "could be changed to improve traffic flow"? But you already did exactly that, Coun Levene - remember? The Labour Group's last attempt to buy cheap popularity through appeasing the car lobby over that junction included changing the phasing of the lights to placate the loudest whingers - motorists travelling towards Clifton Green up Water End. So we can take your soundbite today as an acknowledgement that this piece of tinkering round the edges of the problem has proved to be futile, just as you were told it would be at the time. Now you're making another attempt to buy popularity by reshuffling the congestion once again between the roads feeding the junction. That's all you'll ever achieve by changing the timing of the lights. The only way to reduce congestion is by reducing the number of cars - and your party rolls over for the car lobby every time.[/p][/quote]You repeatedly use the term 'car lobby' in your posts. Droning on obsessively about transport issues like some kind of OCD is reserved for the cycling / eco geeks. Generally speaking, motorists just want to get on with their lives without intrusion from others who think it's ok to decide how everyone else should get around. The less time talking about it the better, which doesn't really constitute a 'lobby', does it? level-headed
  • Score: 279

8:05pm Fri 18 Apr 14

Deety says...

The traffic lights at the junction of Cemetry Road and Walmgate Bar should be linked together to prevent the junction being blocked when Cemetry Rd lights are at GO and Walmgate Bar are at STOP. Also why not re open the road that leads from the bypass to the end of Beckfield Lane/ Borobridge Road , this would ease the traffic problems for people wanting to get to Acomb and Holgate.
The traffic lights at the junction of Cemetry Road and Walmgate Bar should be linked together to prevent the junction being blocked when Cemetry Rd lights are at GO and Walmgate Bar are at STOP. Also why not re open the road that leads from the bypass to the end of Beckfield Lane/ Borobridge Road , this would ease the traffic problems for people wanting to get to Acomb and Holgate. Deety
  • Score: 242

8:16pm Fri 18 Apr 14

level-headed says...

I'm constantly reading at the moment how 'something has to be done to reduce traffic in York'. Why's that then? Says who? People repeatedly predict things 'grinding to a halt' or 'complete gridlock' if we don't do something. Surely IF that happens, which I'm not convinced of, as those who waffle on about it are those you would expect to, then it would be self regulating. People would decide for themselves, based on traffic flow resistance, that another form of transport is more convenient to them, therefore less cars. Penalising people now and spending a fortune, to address something which might never happen is completely ludicrous. It is also a myth that building extra cycle lanes or knocking tuppence of a bus ticket will encourage people to use a different mode of transport. If it is most convenient for you to use a car, then you'll continue to do so, regardless of whatever money wasting scheme CYC decide to come up with.
I'm constantly reading at the moment how 'something has to be done to reduce traffic in York'. Why's that then? Says who? People repeatedly predict things 'grinding to a halt' or 'complete gridlock' if we don't do something. Surely IF that happens, which I'm not convinced of, as those who waffle on about it are those you would expect to, then it would be self regulating. People would decide for themselves, based on traffic flow resistance, that another form of transport is more convenient to them, therefore less cars. Penalising people now and spending a fortune, to address something which might never happen is completely ludicrous. It is also a myth that building extra cycle lanes or knocking tuppence of a bus ticket will encourage people to use a different mode of transport. If it is most convenient for you to use a car, then you'll continue to do so, regardless of whatever money wasting scheme CYC decide to come up with. level-headed
  • Score: 219

8:19pm Fri 18 Apr 14

piaggio1 says...

Now remind me...why was that road blocked??
The one at end of bekky lane..was it some jumped up councillor .who lived down there.
Now remind me...why was that road blocked?? The one at end of bekky lane..was it some jumped up councillor .who lived down there. piaggio1
  • Score: 202

8:25pm Fri 18 Apr 14

pedalling paul says...

York's LTP3 (2011-2031) will build on the successes of the first two Local Transport Plans. The priority for LTP3 is to provide a high quality, well planned, fully integrated and efficiently operated transport network in order to limit, as far as possible, any future delays and to enable the city to continue to function. This is expected to be achieved through.....
* providing quality alternatives to the car, to provide more choice and enable more trips to be undertaken by sustainable means.
*improving strategic links to enhance the wider connections with the key residential and employment areas in and around York, and beyond.
*encouraging behavioural change to maximise the use of walking, cycling and public transport and continue improving road safety
*tackling transport emissions to reduce the release of pollutants harmful to health and the environment.
*enhancing Public Streets and Spaces to improve the quality of life, *minimise the impact of motorised traffic and encourage economic, social and cultural activity.

LTP3 was signed off in 2010 by the then ruling LibDem group. It provides an overall framework for York's transport policy. All Councillors are effectively signed up to it regardless of their affiliation and role. It will still be there when some of us no longer are, but protecting our descendants from the consequences of those who today espouse a car users free for all. Lets work together to keep the car as a good servant, but to prevent it from ever becoming a bad master.

On the subject of traffic light sequencing York is supposed to be equipped with Scoot www.scoot-utc.com/ It may be useful if David can persuade Officers to tell us exactly how this system works for York , its benefits and whether there are any known holes in the system.

Needles to say, Scoot can also be tweaked to give more pedestrian green time at crossings, and priority to public transport and cycle users. But there's a limit to what it can achieve if the "traffic must flow" brigade ever gets its way.
York's LTP3 (2011-2031) will build on the successes of the first two Local Transport Plans. The priority for LTP3 is to provide a high quality, well planned, fully integrated and efficiently operated transport network in order to limit, as far as possible, any future delays and to enable the city to continue to function. This is expected to be achieved through..... * providing quality alternatives to the car, to provide more choice and enable more trips to be undertaken by sustainable means. *improving strategic links to enhance the wider connections with the key residential and employment areas in and around York, and beyond. *encouraging behavioural change to maximise the use of walking, cycling and public transport and continue improving road safety *tackling transport emissions to reduce the release of pollutants harmful to health and the environment. *enhancing Public Streets and Spaces to improve the quality of life, *minimise the impact of motorised traffic and encourage economic, social and cultural activity. LTP3 was signed off in 2010 by the then ruling LibDem group. It provides an overall framework for York's transport policy. All Councillors are effectively signed up to it regardless of their affiliation and role. It will still be there when some of us no longer are, but protecting our descendants from the consequences of those who today espouse a car users free for all. Lets work together to keep the car as a good servant, but to prevent it from ever becoming a bad master. On the subject of traffic light sequencing York is supposed to be equipped with Scoot www.scoot-utc.com/ It may be useful if David can persuade Officers to tell us exactly how this system works for York , its benefits and whether there are any known holes in the system. Needles to say, Scoot can also be tweaked to give more pedestrian green time at crossings, and priority to public transport and cycle users. But there's a limit to what it can achieve if the "traffic must flow" brigade ever gets its way. pedalling paul
  • Score: 2735

9:34pm Fri 18 Apr 14

JasBro says...

pedalling paul wrote:
York's LTP3 (2011-2031) will build on the successes of the first two Local Transport Plans. The priority for LTP3 is to provide a high quality, well planned, fully integrated and efficiently operated transport network in order to limit, as far as possible, any future delays and to enable the city to continue to function. This is expected to be achieved through.....
* providing quality alternatives to the car, to provide more choice and enable more trips to be undertaken by sustainable means.
*improving strategic links to enhance the wider connections with the key residential and employment areas in and around York, and beyond.
*encouraging behavioural change to maximise the use of walking, cycling and public transport and continue improving road safety
*tackling transport emissions to reduce the release of pollutants harmful to health and the environment.
*enhancing Public Streets and Spaces to improve the quality of life, *minimise the impact of motorised traffic and encourage economic, social and cultural activity.

LTP3 was signed off in 2010 by the then ruling LibDem group. It provides an overall framework for York's transport policy. All Councillors are effectively signed up to it regardless of their affiliation and role. It will still be there when some of us no longer are, but protecting our descendants from the consequences of those who today espouse a car users free for all. Lets work together to keep the car as a good servant, but to prevent it from ever becoming a bad master.

On the subject of traffic light sequencing York is supposed to be equipped with Scoot www.scoot-utc.com/ It may be useful if David can persuade Officers to tell us exactly how this system works for York , its benefits and whether there are any known holes in the system.

Needles to say, Scoot can also be tweaked to give more pedestrian green time at crossings, and priority to public transport and cycle users. But there's a limit to what it can achieve if the "traffic must flow" brigade ever gets its way.
Please, please, please shut up. You have done more harm to sustainable, progressive transport policies than anybody.

Your endless banal catch phrases are far too simplistic, and just repeating them ad nauseum only reinforces the polarisation of opinions.

Some of us want to see progressive policies, favouring cycling, buses, trains and walking, but we also accept that the majority use cars, and we've seen that deliberately causing congestion doesn't benefit anybody. We have to find intelligent solutions and I'm afraid your antagonistic approach might set that cause back by many years.

Please, for the benefit of York and it's long term future, stop now, you're really not helping anybody.
[quote][p][bold]pedalling paul [/bold] wrote: York's LTP3 (2011-2031) will build on the successes of the first two Local Transport Plans. The priority for LTP3 is to provide a high quality, well planned, fully integrated and efficiently operated transport network in order to limit, as far as possible, any future delays and to enable the city to continue to function. This is expected to be achieved through..... * providing quality alternatives to the car, to provide more choice and enable more trips to be undertaken by sustainable means. *improving strategic links to enhance the wider connections with the key residential and employment areas in and around York, and beyond. *encouraging behavioural change to maximise the use of walking, cycling and public transport and continue improving road safety *tackling transport emissions to reduce the release of pollutants harmful to health and the environment. *enhancing Public Streets and Spaces to improve the quality of life, *minimise the impact of motorised traffic and encourage economic, social and cultural activity. LTP3 was signed off in 2010 by the then ruling LibDem group. It provides an overall framework for York's transport policy. All Councillors are effectively signed up to it regardless of their affiliation and role. It will still be there when some of us no longer are, but protecting our descendants from the consequences of those who today espouse a car users free for all. Lets work together to keep the car as a good servant, but to prevent it from ever becoming a bad master. On the subject of traffic light sequencing York is supposed to be equipped with Scoot www.scoot-utc.com/ It may be useful if David can persuade Officers to tell us exactly how this system works for York , its benefits and whether there are any known holes in the system. Needles to say, Scoot can also be tweaked to give more pedestrian green time at crossings, and priority to public transport and cycle users. But there's a limit to what it can achieve if the "traffic must flow" brigade ever gets its way.[/p][/quote]Please, please, please shut up. You have done more harm to sustainable, progressive transport policies than anybody. Your endless banal catch phrases are far too simplistic, and just repeating them ad nauseum only reinforces the polarisation of opinions. Some of us want to see progressive policies, favouring cycling, buses, trains and walking, but we also accept that the majority use cars, and we've seen that deliberately causing congestion doesn't benefit anybody. We have to find intelligent solutions and I'm afraid your antagonistic approach might set that cause back by many years. Please, for the benefit of York and it's long term future, stop now, you're really not helping anybody. JasBro
  • Score: 623

10:09pm Fri 18 Apr 14

pedalling paul says...

JasBro wrote:
pedalling paul wrote:
York's LTP3 (2011-2031) will build on the successes of the first two Local Transport Plans. The priority for LTP3 is to provide a high quality, well planned, fully integrated and efficiently operated transport network in order to limit, as far as possible, any future delays and to enable the city to continue to function. This is expected to be achieved through.....
* providing quality alternatives to the car, to provide more choice and enable more trips to be undertaken by sustainable means.
*improving strategic links to enhance the wider connections with the key residential and employment areas in and around York, and beyond.
*encouraging behavioural change to maximise the use of walking, cycling and public transport and continue improving road safety
*tackling transport emissions to reduce the release of pollutants harmful to health and the environment.
*enhancing Public Streets and Spaces to improve the quality of life, *minimise the impact of motorised traffic and encourage economic, social and cultural activity.

LTP3 was signed off in 2010 by the then ruling LibDem group. It provides an overall framework for York's transport policy. All Councillors are effectively signed up to it regardless of their affiliation and role. It will still be there when some of us no longer are, but protecting our descendants from the consequences of those who today espouse a car users free for all. Lets work together to keep the car as a good servant, but to prevent it from ever becoming a bad master.

On the subject of traffic light sequencing York is supposed to be equipped with Scoot www.scoot-utc.com/ It may be useful if David can persuade Officers to tell us exactly how this system works for York , its benefits and whether there are any known holes in the system.

Needles to say, Scoot can also be tweaked to give more pedestrian green time at crossings, and priority to public transport and cycle users. But there's a limit to what it can achieve if the "traffic must flow" brigade ever gets its way.
Please, please, please shut up. You have done more harm to sustainable, progressive transport policies than anybody.

Your endless banal catch phrases are far too simplistic, and just repeating them ad nauseum only reinforces the polarisation of opinions.

Some of us want to see progressive policies, favouring cycling, buses, trains and walking, but we also accept that the majority use cars, and we've seen that deliberately causing congestion doesn't benefit anybody. We have to find intelligent solutions and I'm afraid your antagonistic approach might set that cause back by many years.

Please, for the benefit of York and it's long term future, stop now, you're really not helping anybody.
Several commentators would like see traffic "flow" . Is that at the expense of pedestrian safety and ability to cross? Does that mean that the Local Authority must try to manage whatever level of demand exists now and in the future? Has or will the time come when demand will have to be managed yet further? Telling me to shut up won't make these issues go away. You should be seriously debating the future, against an background of an increasing population and a road network of static and finite capacity.
Building new roads won't solve anything. Witness the M25. Every time more lanes are added, they quickly fill up. Rather like the Neverending story.
[quote][p][bold]JasBro[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]pedalling paul [/bold] wrote: York's LTP3 (2011-2031) will build on the successes of the first two Local Transport Plans. The priority for LTP3 is to provide a high quality, well planned, fully integrated and efficiently operated transport network in order to limit, as far as possible, any future delays and to enable the city to continue to function. This is expected to be achieved through..... * providing quality alternatives to the car, to provide more choice and enable more trips to be undertaken by sustainable means. *improving strategic links to enhance the wider connections with the key residential and employment areas in and around York, and beyond. *encouraging behavioural change to maximise the use of walking, cycling and public transport and continue improving road safety *tackling transport emissions to reduce the release of pollutants harmful to health and the environment. *enhancing Public Streets and Spaces to improve the quality of life, *minimise the impact of motorised traffic and encourage economic, social and cultural activity. LTP3 was signed off in 2010 by the then ruling LibDem group. It provides an overall framework for York's transport policy. All Councillors are effectively signed up to it regardless of their affiliation and role. It will still be there when some of us no longer are, but protecting our descendants from the consequences of those who today espouse a car users free for all. Lets work together to keep the car as a good servant, but to prevent it from ever becoming a bad master. On the subject of traffic light sequencing York is supposed to be equipped with Scoot www.scoot-utc.com/ It may be useful if David can persuade Officers to tell us exactly how this system works for York , its benefits and whether there are any known holes in the system. Needles to say, Scoot can also be tweaked to give more pedestrian green time at crossings, and priority to public transport and cycle users. But there's a limit to what it can achieve if the "traffic must flow" brigade ever gets its way.[/p][/quote]Please, please, please shut up. You have done more harm to sustainable, progressive transport policies than anybody. Your endless banal catch phrases are far too simplistic, and just repeating them ad nauseum only reinforces the polarisation of opinions. Some of us want to see progressive policies, favouring cycling, buses, trains and walking, but we also accept that the majority use cars, and we've seen that deliberately causing congestion doesn't benefit anybody. We have to find intelligent solutions and I'm afraid your antagonistic approach might set that cause back by many years. Please, for the benefit of York and it's long term future, stop now, you're really not helping anybody.[/p][/quote]Several commentators would like see traffic "flow" . Is that at the expense of pedestrian safety and ability to cross? Does that mean that the Local Authority must try to manage whatever level of demand exists now and in the future? Has or will the time come when demand will have to be managed yet further? Telling me to shut up won't make these issues go away. You should be seriously debating the future, against an background of an increasing population and a road network of static and finite capacity. Building new roads won't solve anything. Witness the M25. Every time more lanes are added, they quickly fill up. Rather like the Neverending story. pedalling paul
  • Score: 87

10:19pm Fri 18 Apr 14

jay, york says...

Woody G Mellor wrote:
Here's an idea. Abolish the blanket 20mph idiotic idea. It's a waste of money. It's totally ignored and it makes areas around schools less safe. Simples.
Woody, I am more than sure that so many people share your view on the 20mph zones - yet another CoYC fiasco! Its just the council bending the rules again - official doumentation is quite clear in the fact that local councils can introduce lower speed limits - but the example quoted is "in built up redsidential areas near schools", not across huge swathes of York and the surrounding area. And why? Because there is more of a danger near shools in built up residential areas - why doesnt CoYC understand this simple concept? You make the speed limit for the whole of York the same as the high risk areas and the high risk areas become irrelevant - they have no meaning, they are just the same as anywhere else - they cease to exist.
I understand that Semlyen doesnt actually get paid directly for her 20s plenty operation in York, but I am sure that there will be some "indirect" benefit for her, seeing as she gets paid from all the other places. Bit like getting a payment from firms who have carried out improvements to your home, and when people you have invited to see it then place an order with said firm.
.
One interesting thing that I have heard before is that lower speeds means that Councils have to spend less on road repairs
.
Councillor Levene certainly does have a lot on his plate taking over this shambles. But lets see what he can do - I am not going to pre-judge. The most important thing for him is to listen to ALL transport users - and particularly those that have nothing to do with labour CoYC or bicycles!
One would sincerely hope that Councillor Levene will take this into serious consideration. By the way, can he drive?

Normally when people drive below the speed limit for a particular area, it is because they are not confident and would fail a driving test - yet here is CoYC insisting that we all do it. Maybe it is just certain concillors who are not confident - maybe a bit of calming relaxation and yoga may help?
By all means have 20mph zones/ limits where there is more of a danger - and the majority of people will totally respect that. But make it across the whole of York and sorrounding area is just taking the ...... whatever you want to call it.
Lets see if Councillor Levene can actually manage to reduce congestion in York - but at what cost? It is appparently already going to cost us £300,000 just to adjust the traffic light timing to allow the traffic to flow more freely. If this is the case, how much did it cost CoYC to alter the traffic light timing to make traffic flow slower, less eficiently and cause more congestion???,

And finally, my message to little jimmy, even if Councillor Levene does succeed in to turning the traffic situation around in York, it will not get you out of this massive hole that you have dug for yourself - we will remember you and what you have done..
[quote][p][bold]Woody G Mellor[/bold] wrote: Here's an idea. Abolish the blanket 20mph idiotic idea. It's a waste of money. It's totally ignored and it makes areas around schools less safe. Simples.[/p][/quote]Woody, I am more than sure that so many people share your view on the 20mph zones - yet another CoYC fiasco! Its just the council bending the rules again - official doumentation is quite clear in the fact that local councils can introduce lower speed limits - but the example quoted is "in built up redsidential areas near schools", not across huge swathes of York and the surrounding area. And why? Because there is more of a danger near shools in built up residential areas - why doesnt CoYC understand this simple concept? You make the speed limit for the whole of York the same as the high risk areas and the high risk areas become irrelevant - they have no meaning, they are just the same as anywhere else - they cease to exist. I understand that Semlyen doesnt actually get paid directly for her 20s plenty operation in York, but I am sure that there will be some "indirect" benefit for her, seeing as she gets paid from all the other places. Bit like getting a payment from firms who have carried out improvements to your home, and when people you have invited to see it then place an order with said firm. . One interesting thing that I have heard before is that lower speeds means that Councils have to spend less on road repairs . Councillor Levene certainly does have a lot on his plate taking over this shambles. But lets see what he can do - I am not going to pre-judge. The most important thing for him is to listen to ALL transport users - and particularly those that have nothing to do with labour CoYC or bicycles! One would sincerely hope that Councillor Levene will take this into serious consideration. By the way, can he drive? Normally when people drive below the speed limit for a particular area, it is because they are not confident and would fail a driving test - yet here is CoYC insisting that we all do it. Maybe it is just certain concillors who are not confident - maybe a bit of calming relaxation and yoga may help? By all means have 20mph zones/ limits where there is more of a danger - and the majority of people will totally respect that. But make it across the whole of York and sorrounding area is just taking the ...... whatever you want to call it. Lets see if Councillor Levene can actually manage to reduce congestion in York - but at what cost? It is appparently already going to cost us £300,000 just to adjust the traffic light timing to allow the traffic to flow more freely. If this is the case, how much did it cost CoYC to alter the traffic light timing to make traffic flow slower, less eficiently and cause more congestion???, And finally, my message to little jimmy, even if Councillor Levene does succeed in to turning the traffic situation around in York, it will not get you out of this massive hole that you have dug for yourself - we will remember you and what you have done.. jay, york
  • Score: 213

10:38pm Fri 18 Apr 14

courier46 says...

marvell wrote:
Great - someone with zero experience or a relevant skillset has been given responsibility for this hugely important portfolio.

That's what you get when you have a scarcity of talent in one party, such as the current Labour Cabinet, but are determined to keep all the top jobs for your own party, rather than reaching across the political divide for the most qualified people for the greater good of this city.
Relevant skill set,Merrett didn`t have any!
[quote][p][bold]marvell[/bold] wrote: Great - someone with zero experience or a relevant skillset has been given responsibility for this hugely important portfolio. That's what you get when you have a scarcity of talent in one party, such as the current Labour Cabinet, but are determined to keep all the top jobs for your own party, rather than reaching across the political divide for the most qualified people for the greater good of this city.[/p][/quote]Relevant skill set,Merrett didn`t have any! courier46
  • Score: 282

10:43pm Fri 18 Apr 14

JasBro says...

No. none of those things PP. I'm not a car driver, never have been.

When I was 11 years old, my 7 year old sister was knocked down and killed by a car. Because of that I've never driven a car.

I understand the issues you're trying to promote, but I think you're doing more harm than good. We have to find a way of co-operating. We have to find a consensus.

I used to be a keen cyclist, but that all stopped when I moved to York. The atmosphere here is toxic.

We have to accept that car drivers are the majority, like it or not.. We have to find sensible policies for everybody.
No. none of those things PP. I'm not a car driver, never have been. When I was 11 years old, my 7 year old sister was knocked down and killed by a car. Because of that I've never driven a car. I understand the issues you're trying to promote, but I think you're doing more harm than good. We have to find a way of co-operating. We have to find a consensus. I used to be a keen cyclist, but that all stopped when I moved to York. The atmosphere here is toxic. We have to accept that car drivers are the majority, like it or not.. We have to find sensible policies for everybody. JasBro
  • Score: 29

11:06pm Fri 18 Apr 14

jay, york says...

Cheeky face wrote:
Quite right the gritting overspend was a nonsense. I never saw more than gritter in the last winter and only noticed gritting had been done twice - both in Ryedale! Whilst looking at the highways section of the council web site I notice Lendal Bridge trial closure is still listed. Have we any details on this forum yet? It makes sense to have one; but it is many years late. Lots of contributors to this comments area could provide David with starters for him to consider.
Hi Cheeky Where I live, we frequently saw gritters down my road during this last winter - even though it was proibably the mildest on record with no real frosts or ice to speak of! So that is where the money goes - seemed to be pretty much on par with previous winters.

Firstly, yes, youy are absolutely correct - the Roads, Highways and Pavements section of CoYC website does still state that ANPR applies at Lendal Bridge - is this lawful??

Secondly, it will be interesting to see how the forum pans out and who is invited to join it. will it be a random cross section of road users - or certain individuals invited by CoYC. I am trying to keep an open mind at the moment - but will not be fooled by any collaborations! Lets just hope there are no CoYC members (apart from the said councillor) - and no cyclists!

Finally I am sure lots of people will want Councillor Levene to be aware of their concerns - what is the best way to contact him direct?
[quote][p][bold]Cheeky face[/bold] wrote: Quite right the gritting overspend was a nonsense. I never saw more than gritter in the last winter and only noticed gritting had been done twice - both in Ryedale! Whilst looking at the highways section of the council web site I notice Lendal Bridge trial closure is still listed. Have we any details on this forum yet? It makes sense to have one; but it is many years late. Lots of contributors to this comments area could provide David with starters for him to consider.[/p][/quote]Hi Cheeky Where I live, we frequently saw gritters down my road during this last winter - even though it was proibably the mildest on record with no real frosts or ice to speak of! So that is where the money goes - seemed to be pretty much on par with previous winters. Firstly, yes, youy are absolutely correct - the Roads, Highways and Pavements section of CoYC website does still state that ANPR applies at Lendal Bridge - is this lawful?? Secondly, it will be interesting to see how the forum pans out and who is invited to join it. will it be a random cross section of road users - or certain individuals invited by CoYC. I am trying to keep an open mind at the moment - but will not be fooled by any collaborations! Lets just hope there are no CoYC members (apart from the said councillor) - and no cyclists! Finally I am sure lots of people will want Councillor Levene to be aware of their concerns - what is the best way to contact him direct? jay, york
  • Score: -18

11:26pm Fri 18 Apr 14

asd says...

pedalling paul wrote:
JasBro wrote:
pedalling paul wrote:
York's LTP3 (2011-2031) will build on the successes of the first two Local Transport Plans. The priority for LTP3 is to provide a high quality, well planned, fully integrated and efficiently operated transport network in order to limit, as far as possible, any future delays and to enable the city to continue to function. This is expected to be achieved through.....
* providing quality alternatives to the car, to provide more choice and enable more trips to be undertaken by sustainable means.
*improving strategic links to enhance the wider connections with the key residential and employment areas in and around York, and beyond.
*encouraging behavioural change to maximise the use of walking, cycling and public transport and continue improving road safety
*tackling transport emissions to reduce the release of pollutants harmful to health and the environment.
*enhancing Public Streets and Spaces to improve the quality of life, *minimise the impact of motorised traffic and encourage economic, social and cultural activity.

LTP3 was signed off in 2010 by the then ruling LibDem group. It provides an overall framework for York's transport policy. All Councillors are effectively signed up to it regardless of their affiliation and role. It will still be there when some of us no longer are, but protecting our descendants from the consequences of those who today espouse a car users free for all. Lets work together to keep the car as a good servant, but to prevent it from ever becoming a bad master.

On the subject of traffic light sequencing York is supposed to be equipped with Scoot www.scoot-utc.com/ It may be useful if David can persuade Officers to tell us exactly how this system works for York , its benefits and whether there are any known holes in the system.

Needles to say, Scoot can also be tweaked to give more pedestrian green time at crossings, and priority to public transport and cycle users. But there's a limit to what it can achieve if the "traffic must flow" brigade ever gets its way.
Please, please, please shut up. You have done more harm to sustainable, progressive transport policies than anybody.

Your endless banal catch phrases are far too simplistic, and just repeating them ad nauseum only reinforces the polarisation of opinions.

Some of us want to see progressive policies, favouring cycling, buses, trains and walking, but we also accept that the majority use cars, and we've seen that deliberately causing congestion doesn't benefit anybody. We have to find intelligent solutions and I'm afraid your antagonistic approach might set that cause back by many years.

Please, for the benefit of York and it's long term future, stop now, you're really not helping anybody.
Several commentators would like see traffic "flow" . Is that at the expense of pedestrian safety and ability to cross? Does that mean that the Local Authority must try to manage whatever level of demand exists now and in the future? Has or will the time come when demand will have to be managed yet further? Telling me to shut up won't make these issues go away. You should be seriously debating the future, against an background of an increasing population and a road network of static and finite capacity.
Building new roads won't solve anything. Witness the M25. Every time more lanes are added, they quickly fill up. Rather like the Neverending story.
p.p. your continual ramming down the throat to ban cars etc does not benefit. YO must relise that traffic flow is better tha traffic jam (pollution).
Also why dont you put as much effort to tell take cars of the road by building a Platform at Askem bar P&R that would have been a master stroke, along with opening Haxby, strensall station as well as putting trams on Poppleton route. Riverr Taxis but, all you do is continually wind everyone up by saying cars are wrong. Removing bus pull ins was wrong as well as removing a major artery lendall when Blooming A59 rounabout is being done. Sometimes you have right intentions but, your contual car bashing makes people not care what you say as you dont ever critise council when they get it wrong.
[quote][p][bold]pedalling paul [/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]JasBro[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]pedalling paul [/bold] wrote: York's LTP3 (2011-2031) will build on the successes of the first two Local Transport Plans. The priority for LTP3 is to provide a high quality, well planned, fully integrated and efficiently operated transport network in order to limit, as far as possible, any future delays and to enable the city to continue to function. This is expected to be achieved through..... * providing quality alternatives to the car, to provide more choice and enable more trips to be undertaken by sustainable means. *improving strategic links to enhance the wider connections with the key residential and employment areas in and around York, and beyond. *encouraging behavioural change to maximise the use of walking, cycling and public transport and continue improving road safety *tackling transport emissions to reduce the release of pollutants harmful to health and the environment. *enhancing Public Streets and Spaces to improve the quality of life, *minimise the impact of motorised traffic and encourage economic, social and cultural activity. LTP3 was signed off in 2010 by the then ruling LibDem group. It provides an overall framework for York's transport policy. All Councillors are effectively signed up to it regardless of their affiliation and role. It will still be there when some of us no longer are, but protecting our descendants from the consequences of those who today espouse a car users free for all. Lets work together to keep the car as a good servant, but to prevent it from ever becoming a bad master. On the subject of traffic light sequencing York is supposed to be equipped with Scoot www.scoot-utc.com/ It may be useful if David can persuade Officers to tell us exactly how this system works for York , its benefits and whether there are any known holes in the system. Needles to say, Scoot can also be tweaked to give more pedestrian green time at crossings, and priority to public transport and cycle users. But there's a limit to what it can achieve if the "traffic must flow" brigade ever gets its way.[/p][/quote]Please, please, please shut up. You have done more harm to sustainable, progressive transport policies than anybody. Your endless banal catch phrases are far too simplistic, and just repeating them ad nauseum only reinforces the polarisation of opinions. Some of us want to see progressive policies, favouring cycling, buses, trains and walking, but we also accept that the majority use cars, and we've seen that deliberately causing congestion doesn't benefit anybody. We have to find intelligent solutions and I'm afraid your antagonistic approach might set that cause back by many years. Please, for the benefit of York and it's long term future, stop now, you're really not helping anybody.[/p][/quote]Several commentators would like see traffic "flow" . Is that at the expense of pedestrian safety and ability to cross? Does that mean that the Local Authority must try to manage whatever level of demand exists now and in the future? Has or will the time come when demand will have to be managed yet further? Telling me to shut up won't make these issues go away. You should be seriously debating the future, against an background of an increasing population and a road network of static and finite capacity. Building new roads won't solve anything. Witness the M25. Every time more lanes are added, they quickly fill up. Rather like the Neverending story.[/p][/quote]p.p. your continual ramming down the throat to ban cars etc does not benefit. YO must relise that traffic flow is better tha traffic jam (pollution). Also why dont you put as much effort to tell take cars of the road by building a Platform at Askem bar P&R that would have been a master stroke, along with opening Haxby, strensall station as well as putting trams on Poppleton route. Riverr Taxis but, all you do is continually wind everyone up by saying cars are wrong. Removing bus pull ins was wrong as well as removing a major artery lendall when Blooming A59 rounabout is being done. Sometimes you have right intentions but, your contual car bashing makes people not care what you say as you dont ever critise council when they get it wrong. asd
  • Score: -57

11:42pm Fri 18 Apr 14

wallman says...

Justin7 wrote:
The Green Party will win eventually. No petrol/diesel motor vehicles in York.

We have the Tour De France coming and that will inspire everyone go to use bike transport. It's faster, it's safer and it's good for the planet. All you tourists in massive carbon footprint 4x4s choking this city and the planet to death will soon be a distant nightmare.

Our planet is dying you selfish people!
when you cant walk or ride a bike I hope you don't start driving a car selfish ****
[quote][p][bold]Justin7[/bold] wrote: The Green Party will win eventually. No petrol/diesel motor vehicles in York. We have the Tour De France coming and that will inspire everyone go to use bike transport. It's faster, it's safer and it's good for the planet. All you tourists in massive carbon footprint 4x4s choking this city and the planet to death will soon be a distant nightmare. Our planet is dying you selfish people![/p][/quote]when you cant walk or ride a bike I hope you don't start driving a car selfish **** wallman
  • Score: -79

12:13am Sat 19 Apr 14

jake777 says...

Dave Ruddock wrote:
Good first unsteady steps, just one Point , the traffic at Micklegate was supposed to have been sorted in 2012/13... The Ouse Bridge traffic is the main problem, a city through way that end up going though one of the oldest streets that was never and will never cope with traffic, (A controversial) but an option in open High Ousegate and have one way traffic on each. on that point any Bus that Beaksdown on that stretch of road the company owning the bus be fined £100 per hour. Well thats my ideas, proposals
you would do better if you had a brain.
[quote][p][bold]Dave Ruddock[/bold] wrote: Good first unsteady steps, just one Point , the traffic at Micklegate was supposed to have been sorted in 2012/13... The Ouse Bridge traffic is the main problem, a city through way that end up going though one of the oldest streets that was never and will never cope with traffic, (A controversial) but an option in open High Ousegate and have one way traffic on each. on that point any Bus that Beaksdown on that stretch of road the company owning the bus be fined £100 per hour. Well thats my ideas, proposals[/p][/quote]you would do better if you had a brain. jake777
  • Score: 23

12:19am Sat 19 Apr 14

jake777 says...

roskoboskovic wrote:
a good start would be to synchronise the lights,do away with unnecessary lights,carefully consider where you place pedestrian crossings,abolish the 20 mph zones and reinstate bus stop lay byes to get the things out of the way,especially on university road.does mr levene actually drive a car because if he doesn t then he shouldn t be in the job.
and how many years experience do you have in traffic management???
[quote][p][bold]roskoboskovic[/bold] wrote: a good start would be to synchronise the lights,do away with unnecessary lights,carefully consider where you place pedestrian crossings,abolish the 20 mph zones and reinstate bus stop lay byes to get the things out of the way,especially on university road.does mr levene actually drive a car because if he doesn t then he shouldn t be in the job.[/p][/quote]and how many years experience do you have in traffic management??? jake777
  • Score: 6

1:27am Sat 19 Apr 14

Abisman says...

Woody G Mellor wrote:
Here's an idea. Abolish the blanket 20mph idiotic idea. It's a waste of money. It's totally ignored and it makes areas around schools less safe.

Simples.
How? What evidence do you have for that? Not enforcing it or observing it makes the areas round schools less safe, but you have no evidence for your assertion
[quote][p][bold]Woody G Mellor[/bold] wrote: Here's an idea. Abolish the blanket 20mph idiotic idea. It's a waste of money. It's totally ignored and it makes areas around schools less safe. Simples.[/p][/quote]How? What evidence do you have for that? Not enforcing it or observing it makes the areas round schools less safe, but you have no evidence for your assertion Abisman
  • Score: 5

1:43am Sat 19 Apr 14

Abisman says...

I find it amusing that the aim is to improve traffic flow, because that's the one thing we just don't have. There is no flow, just a series of waiting, 100 yards of movement at best and then another stop. Too many traffic lights placed too closely together, pedestrian crossings being some of the worst examples. Foss Islands is a joke, about a quarter mile of road with 4 sets of lights from start to end. The lights at the end of Skeldergate bridge that cause a massive queue back through the Bishopthorpe Rd shops in the morning, while the queue from the Castle Mills bridge to the same spot is negligible. No wonder I decide to cycle; 15 min journey by bike to work, riding totally legally, or a 30 minute sit in a traffic queue to go the same 3 miles. Just wish it felt safer to do it
I find it amusing that the aim is to improve traffic flow, because that's the one thing we just don't have. There is no flow, just a series of waiting, 100 yards of movement at best and then another stop. Too many traffic lights placed too closely together, pedestrian crossings being some of the worst examples. Foss Islands is a joke, about a quarter mile of road with 4 sets of lights from start to end. The lights at the end of Skeldergate bridge that cause a massive queue back through the Bishopthorpe Rd shops in the morning, while the queue from the Castle Mills bridge to the same spot is negligible. No wonder I decide to cycle; 15 min journey by bike to work, riding totally legally, or a 30 minute sit in a traffic queue to go the same 3 miles. Just wish it felt safer to do it Abisman
  • Score: 6

2:05am Sat 19 Apr 14

sniper 9964 says...

Keep york city centre moving ? ?
Red routes. Enforcement on loading ban
congestion charge is the only option. Too many selfish arrogant drivers about
Keep york city centre moving ? ? Red routes. Enforcement on loading ban congestion charge is the only option. Too many selfish arrogant drivers about sniper 9964
  • Score: 104

7:04am Sat 19 Apr 14

kidology says...

About time they sorted lights at the mount buses and taxis have priority them lights change stupidly, you can be sat and they will change to green and then red if a bus or taxi appear,in the bus lane.
The council want to get there act together or let somebody else in who will, they have cocked up enough in york set of clowns even billy smart would not take them on. Best thing turn all lights off traffic always runs like clockwork no hold ups at all.
About time they sorted lights at the mount buses and taxis have priority them lights change stupidly, you can be sat and they will change to green and then red if a bus or taxi appear,in the bus lane. The council want to get there act together or let somebody else in who will, they have cocked up enough in york set of clowns even billy smart would not take them on. Best thing turn all lights off traffic always runs like clockwork no hold ups at all. kidology
  • Score: -23

8:48am Sat 19 Apr 14

Jonlogical says...

I would like to see all chicanes removed as on Huntington road. They are dangerous and cause traffic up speed up to get through without stopping.
I would like to see all chicanes removed as on Huntington road. They are dangerous and cause traffic up speed up to get through without stopping. Jonlogical
  • Score: 6

9:20am Sat 19 Apr 14

pedalling paul says...

I've never advocated a car ban. I prefer to see a situation where those who need to use a motor vehicle get priority over those for whom it is an option.
That will make the most efficient use of our roads capacity, by allowing public transport to operate more effectively and competitively, and likewise essential deliveries and commerce.
Those who prefer to use a car can consider journey sharing via carshareyork, to halve fuel bills and stress levels. Short term car hire from within the City centre is possible via City Car Club. The company also has a spanking new van for short term hire.
For efficient and cost effective local deliveries in York and suburbs, consider using our local cycle courier firm.
http://green-link.co
.uk/home/york/
I've never advocated a car ban. I prefer to see a situation where those who need to use a motor vehicle get priority over those for whom it is an option. That will make the most efficient use of our roads capacity, by allowing public transport to operate more effectively and competitively, and likewise essential deliveries and commerce. Those who prefer to use a car can consider journey sharing via carshareyork, to halve fuel bills and stress levels. Short term car hire from within the City centre is possible via City Car Club. The company also has a spanking new van for short term hire. For efficient and cost effective local deliveries in York and suburbs, consider using our local cycle courier firm. http://green-link.co .uk/home/york/ pedalling paul
  • Score: -8

9:52am Sat 19 Apr 14

CharlieSmudge says...

Take a look at the 'Poynton Shared Surface Scheme' on YouTube and perhaps apply the same solution to the bottom of Bootham. It gives equal priority to all road users and eliminates traffic lights.
Take a look at the 'Poynton Shared Surface Scheme' on YouTube and perhaps apply the same solution to the bottom of Bootham. It gives equal priority to all road users and eliminates traffic lights. CharlieSmudge
  • Score: 5

10:26am Sat 19 Apr 14

Yorkshine1 says...

Pay to put a useless and dangerous cycle lane in, now pay again to get rid of it. Nothing changes, nobody is happy. Good luck.
Pay to put a useless and dangerous cycle lane in, now pay again to get rid of it. Nothing changes, nobody is happy. Good luck. Yorkshine1
  • Score: -63

10:36am Sat 19 Apr 14

JasBro says...

CharlieSmudge wrote:
Take a look at the 'Poynton Shared Surface Scheme' on YouTube and perhaps apply the same solution to the bottom of Bootham. It gives equal priority to all road users and eliminates traffic lights.
Brilliant.

Shared space is the way forward.
[quote][p][bold]CharlieSmudge[/bold] wrote: Take a look at the 'Poynton Shared Surface Scheme' on YouTube and perhaps apply the same solution to the bottom of Bootham. It gives equal priority to all road users and eliminates traffic lights.[/p][/quote]Brilliant. Shared space is the way forward. JasBro
  • Score: -41

12:27pm Sat 19 Apr 14

Sage9 says...

So a new forum to gets views will be created? Where do I apply?

Before any feedback, £300k will be spent on rescheduling traffic lights. Where is the paper showing how this cost has been calculated and which light will be affected?

If I were Cllr Levene I would supsend all work on 20mph and save that £300k until I had taken the time out to ensure that the policies being applied in my name were fully thought out and I was happy to put my name to them.

I would also pont out that to Cllr Levene that he in not as inexpendable as Cllr Merritt and if he fails he cannot expect to shuffled sideways to take responsibility for stationery orders or whatever.

You have inherited a mess. Take time out to develop a proper policy and then move forward. I would strongly suggest that review consider the extra cost of the ring road cycle track very carefully. There comes a time in government (local or national) where you stop throwing good money after bad.
So a new forum to gets views will be created? Where do I apply? Before any feedback, £300k will be spent on rescheduling traffic lights. Where is the paper showing how this cost has been calculated and which light will be affected? If I were Cllr Levene I would supsend all work on 20mph and save that £300k until I had taken the time out to ensure that the policies being applied in my name were fully thought out and I was happy to put my name to them. I would also pont out that to Cllr Levene that he in not as inexpendable as Cllr Merritt and if he fails he cannot expect to shuffled sideways to take responsibility for stationery orders or whatever. You have inherited a mess. Take time out to develop a proper policy and then move forward. I would strongly suggest that review consider the extra cost of the ring road cycle track very carefully. There comes a time in government (local or national) where you stop throwing good money after bad. Sage9
  • Score: -59

2:20pm Sat 19 Apr 14

Bad magic says...

pedalling paul wrote:
I've never advocated a car ban. I prefer to see a situation where those who need to use a motor vehicle get priority over those for whom it is an option.
That will make the most efficient use of our roads capacity, by allowing public transport to operate more effectively and competitively, and likewise essential deliveries and commerce.
Those who prefer to use a car can consider journey sharing via carshareyork, to halve fuel bills and stress levels. Short term car hire from within the City centre is possible via City Car Club. The company also has a spanking new van for short term hire.
For efficient and cost effective local deliveries in York and suburbs, consider using our local cycle courier firm.
http://green-link.co

.uk/home/york/
And as soon as someone genuinely engages you with a good point, you become your standard one trick pony. Paul, please shut up. You're a boring, irritating f@ckwit who is genuinely doing more harm than good.
[quote][p][bold]pedalling paul [/bold] wrote: I've never advocated a car ban. I prefer to see a situation where those who need to use a motor vehicle get priority over those for whom it is an option. That will make the most efficient use of our roads capacity, by allowing public transport to operate more effectively and competitively, and likewise essential deliveries and commerce. Those who prefer to use a car can consider journey sharing via carshareyork, to halve fuel bills and stress levels. Short term car hire from within the City centre is possible via City Car Club. The company also has a spanking new van for short term hire. For efficient and cost effective local deliveries in York and suburbs, consider using our local cycle courier firm. http://green-link.co .uk/home/york/[/p][/quote]And as soon as someone genuinely engages you with a good point, you become your standard one trick pony. Paul, please shut up. You're a boring, irritating f@ckwit who is genuinely doing more harm than good. Bad magic
  • Score: -74

7:08pm Sat 19 Apr 14

greenmonkey says...

CharlieSmudge wrote:
Take a look at the 'Poynton Shared Surface Scheme' on YouTube and perhaps apply the same solution to the bottom of Bootham. It gives equal priority to all road users and eliminates traffic lights.
Sounds like a good idea but would York motorists have the courtesy to let pedestrians cross the road in safety? I cant imagine the blind and partially sighted being happy with the idea of having no signal controlled pedestrian facility at this busy junction.
[quote][p][bold]CharlieSmudge[/bold] wrote: Take a look at the 'Poynton Shared Surface Scheme' on YouTube and perhaps apply the same solution to the bottom of Bootham. It gives equal priority to all road users and eliminates traffic lights.[/p][/quote]Sounds like a good idea but would York motorists have the courtesy to let pedestrians cross the road in safety? I cant imagine the blind and partially sighted being happy with the idea of having no signal controlled pedestrian facility at this busy junction. greenmonkey
  • Score: -60

7:28pm Sat 19 Apr 14

deckhanddave says...

Stop the twenty mph idiocy.
Take a look at the Mount / Scarcroft road lights. Traffic flows better when they are out of order!
Get the outer ring road dual carriage way.
Stop charging idiotic park and ride prices. Call it a pound there and back.
Stop damaging cars by neglecting roads and installing speed ramps of varying designs and dimensions.
I spend half my time driving watching for speed limits and another good proportion trying to avoid the speed bumps that cause so much wear and tear on my steering and suspension.
Stop the twenty mph idiocy. Take a look at the Mount / Scarcroft road lights. Traffic flows better when they are out of order! Get the outer ring road dual carriage way. Stop charging idiotic park and ride prices. Call it a pound there and back. Stop damaging cars by neglecting roads and installing speed ramps of varying designs and dimensions. I spend half my time driving watching for speed limits and another good proportion trying to avoid the speed bumps that cause so much wear and tear on my steering and suspension. deckhanddave
  • Score: -66

8:24pm Sat 19 Apr 14

JasBro says...

greenmonkey wrote:
CharlieSmudge wrote:
Take a look at the 'Poynton Shared Surface Scheme' on YouTube and perhaps apply the same solution to the bottom of Bootham. It gives equal priority to all road users and eliminates traffic lights.
Sounds like a good idea but would York motorists have the courtesy to let pedestrians cross the road in safety? I cant imagine the blind and partially sighted being happy with the idea of having no signal controlled pedestrian facility at this busy junction.
I'm surprised at such backward thinking.

I've been an advocate of shared space for many, many years and I've seen almost every argument against it disproved. First of all the argument was "well it might work in Holland but it will never work in this country". That was disproved by many successful examples. Then the doubters claimed it would never work for higher volumes of traffic, again disproved by the Poynton example.

The idea of shared space is brilliant, and it's been proven to work time and time again. It looks fantastic with streets decluttered of all the stupid signs , it's safe and it actually encourages people to be more polite and courteous on the roads.

York's current transport policies on the other hand have been proven not to work, with more pollution and congestion for the same amount of traffic, and no increase in cycling numbers despite all the extra cycle lanes.
[quote][p][bold]greenmonkey[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]CharlieSmudge[/bold] wrote: Take a look at the 'Poynton Shared Surface Scheme' on YouTube and perhaps apply the same solution to the bottom of Bootham. It gives equal priority to all road users and eliminates traffic lights.[/p][/quote]Sounds like a good idea but would York motorists have the courtesy to let pedestrians cross the road in safety? I cant imagine the blind and partially sighted being happy with the idea of having no signal controlled pedestrian facility at this busy junction.[/p][/quote]I'm surprised at such backward thinking. I've been an advocate of shared space for many, many years and I've seen almost every argument against it disproved. First of all the argument was "well it might work in Holland but it will never work in this country". That was disproved by many successful examples. Then the doubters claimed it would never work for higher volumes of traffic, again disproved by the Poynton example. The idea of shared space is brilliant, and it's been proven to work time and time again. It looks fantastic with streets decluttered of all the stupid signs , it's safe and it actually encourages people to be more polite and courteous on the roads. York's current transport policies on the other hand have been proven not to work, with more pollution and congestion for the same amount of traffic, and no increase in cycling numbers despite all the extra cycle lanes. JasBro
  • Score: -53

9:09pm Sat 19 Apr 14

oldgoat says...

Whenever traffic lights fail, the jams vanish. So switch the lights off.
Enforce the bus lanes - there are some spare ANPR cameras hanging about somewhere, so use them where they're actually useful!
Get the Police to control the bad cyclists.

Some serious work on potholes would help too.
Whenever traffic lights fail, the jams vanish. So switch the lights off. Enforce the bus lanes - there are some spare ANPR cameras hanging about somewhere, so use them where they're actually useful! Get the Police to control the bad cyclists. Some serious work on potholes would help too. oldgoat
  • Score: -56

9:26pm Sat 19 Apr 14

jay, york says...

JasBro wrote:
pedalling paul wrote: York's LTP3 (2011-2031) will build on the successes of the first two Local Transport Plans. The priority for LTP3 is to provide a high quality, well planned, fully integrated and efficiently operated transport network in order to limit, as far as possible, any future delays and to enable the city to continue to function. This is expected to be achieved through..... * providing quality alternatives to the car, to provide more choice and enable more trips to be undertaken by sustainable means. *improving strategic links to enhance the wider connections with the key residential and employment areas in and around York, and beyond. *encouraging behavioural change to maximise the use of walking, cycling and public transport and continue improving road safety *tackling transport emissions to reduce the release of pollutants harmful to health and the environment. *enhancing Public Streets and Spaces to improve the quality of life, *minimise the impact of motorised traffic and encourage economic, social and cultural activity. LTP3 was signed off in 2010 by the then ruling LibDem group. It provides an overall framework for York's transport policy. All Councillors are effectively signed up to it regardless of their affiliation and role. It will still be there when some of us no longer are, but protecting our descendants from the consequences of those who today espouse a car users free for all. Lets work together to keep the car as a good servant, but to prevent it from ever becoming a bad master. On the subject of traffic light sequencing York is supposed to be equipped with Scoot www.scoot-utc.com/ It may be useful if David can persuade Officers to tell us exactly how this system works for York , its benefits and whether there are any known holes in the system. Needles to say, Scoot can also be tweaked to give more pedestrian green time at crossings, and priority to public transport and cycle users. But there's a limit to what it can achieve if the "traffic must flow" brigade ever gets its way.
Please, please, please shut up. You have done more harm to sustainable, progressive transport policies than anybody. Your endless banal catch phrases are far too simplistic, and just repeating them ad nauseum only reinforces the polarisation of opinions. Some of us want to see progressive policies, favouring cycling, buses, trains and walking, but we also accept that the majority use cars, and we've seen that deliberately causing congestion doesn't benefit anybody. We have to find intelligent solutions and I'm afraid your antagonistic approach might set that cause back by many years. Please, for the benefit of York and it's long term future, stop now, you're really not helping anybody.
VERY WELL SAID1
[quote][p][bold]JasBro[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]pedalling paul [/bold] wrote: York's LTP3 (2011-2031) will build on the successes of the first two Local Transport Plans. The priority for LTP3 is to provide a high quality, well planned, fully integrated and efficiently operated transport network in order to limit, as far as possible, any future delays and to enable the city to continue to function. This is expected to be achieved through..... * providing quality alternatives to the car, to provide more choice and enable more trips to be undertaken by sustainable means. *improving strategic links to enhance the wider connections with the key residential and employment areas in and around York, and beyond. *encouraging behavioural change to maximise the use of walking, cycling and public transport and continue improving road safety *tackling transport emissions to reduce the release of pollutants harmful to health and the environment. *enhancing Public Streets and Spaces to improve the quality of life, *minimise the impact of motorised traffic and encourage economic, social and cultural activity. LTP3 was signed off in 2010 by the then ruling LibDem group. It provides an overall framework for York's transport policy. All Councillors are effectively signed up to it regardless of their affiliation and role. It will still be there when some of us no longer are, but protecting our descendants from the consequences of those who today espouse a car users free for all. Lets work together to keep the car as a good servant, but to prevent it from ever becoming a bad master. On the subject of traffic light sequencing York is supposed to be equipped with Scoot www.scoot-utc.com/ It may be useful if David can persuade Officers to tell us exactly how this system works for York , its benefits and whether there are any known holes in the system. Needles to say, Scoot can also be tweaked to give more pedestrian green time at crossings, and priority to public transport and cycle users. But there's a limit to what it can achieve if the "traffic must flow" brigade ever gets its way.[/p][/quote]Please, please, please shut up. You have done more harm to sustainable, progressive transport policies than anybody. Your endless banal catch phrases are far too simplistic, and just repeating them ad nauseum only reinforces the polarisation of opinions. Some of us want to see progressive policies, favouring cycling, buses, trains and walking, but we also accept that the majority use cars, and we've seen that deliberately causing congestion doesn't benefit anybody. We have to find intelligent solutions and I'm afraid your antagonistic approach might set that cause back by many years. Please, for the benefit of York and it's long term future, stop now, you're really not helping anybody.[/p][/quote]VERY WELL SAID1 jay, york
  • Score: -64

9:34pm Sat 19 Apr 14

jay, york says...

asd wrote:
pedalling paul wrote:
JasBro wrote:
pedalling paul wrote: York's LTP3 (2011-2031) will build on the successes of the first two Local Transport Plans. The priority for LTP3 is to provide a high quality, well planned, fully integrated and efficiently operated transport network in order to limit, as far as possible, any future delays and to enable the city to continue to function. This is expected to be achieved through..... * providing quality alternatives to the car, to provide more choice and enable more trips to be undertaken by sustainable means. *improving strategic links to enhance the wider connections with the key residential and employment areas in and around York, and beyond. *encouraging behavioural change to maximise the use of walking, cycling and public transport and continue improving road safety *tackling transport emissions to reduce the release of pollutants harmful to health and the environment. *enhancing Public Streets and Spaces to improve the quality of life, *minimise the impact of motorised traffic and encourage economic, social and cultural activity. LTP3 was signed off in 2010 by the then ruling LibDem group. It provides an overall framework for York's transport policy. All Councillors are effectively signed up to it regardless of their affiliation and role. It will still be there when some of us no longer are, but protecting our descendants from the consequences of those who today espouse a car users free for all. Lets work together to keep the car as a good servant, but to prevent it from ever becoming a bad master. On the subject of traffic light sequencing York is supposed to be equipped with Scoot www.scoot-utc.com/ It may be useful if David can persuade Officers to tell us exactly how this system works for York , its benefits and whether there are any known holes in the system. Needles to say, Scoot can also be tweaked to give more pedestrian green time at crossings, and priority to public transport and cycle users. But there's a limit to what it can achieve if the "traffic must flow" brigade ever gets its way.
Please, please, please shut up. You have done more harm to sustainable, progressive transport policies than anybody. Your endless banal catch phrases are far too simplistic, and just repeating them ad nauseum only reinforces the polarisation of opinions. Some of us want to see progressive policies, favouring cycling, buses, trains and walking, but we also accept that the majority use cars, and we've seen that deliberately causing congestion doesn't benefit anybody. We have to find intelligent solutions and I'm afraid your antagonistic approach might set that cause back by many years. Please, for the benefit of York and it's long term future, stop now, you're really not helping anybody.
Several commentators would like see traffic "flow" . Is that at the expense of pedestrian safety and ability to cross? Does that mean that the Local Authority must try to manage whatever level of demand exists now and in the future? Has or will the time come when demand will have to be managed yet further? Telling me to shut up won't make these issues go away. You should be seriously debating the future, against an background of an increasing population and a road network of static and finite capacity. Building new roads won't solve anything. Witness the M25. Every time more lanes are added, they quickly fill up. Rather like the Neverending story.
p.p. your continual ramming down the throat to ban cars etc does not benefit. YO must relise that traffic flow is better tha traffic jam (pollution). Also why dont you put as much effort to tell take cars of the road by building a Platform at Askem bar P&R that would have been a master stroke, along with opening Haxby, strensall station as well as putting trams on Poppleton route. Riverr Taxis but, all you do is continually wind everyone up by saying cars are wrong. Removing bus pull ins was wrong as well as removing a major artery lendall when Blooming A59 rounabout is being done. Sometimes you have right intentions but, your contual car bashing makes people not care what you say as you dont ever critise council when they get it wrong.
VERY WELL SAID - pp/ hepworth is living in the dark ages.
[quote][p][bold]asd[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]pedalling paul [/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]JasBro[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]pedalling paul [/bold] wrote: York's LTP3 (2011-2031) will build on the successes of the first two Local Transport Plans. The priority for LTP3 is to provide a high quality, well planned, fully integrated and efficiently operated transport network in order to limit, as far as possible, any future delays and to enable the city to continue to function. This is expected to be achieved through..... * providing quality alternatives to the car, to provide more choice and enable more trips to be undertaken by sustainable means. *improving strategic links to enhance the wider connections with the key residential and employment areas in and around York, and beyond. *encouraging behavioural change to maximise the use of walking, cycling and public transport and continue improving road safety *tackling transport emissions to reduce the release of pollutants harmful to health and the environment. *enhancing Public Streets and Spaces to improve the quality of life, *minimise the impact of motorised traffic and encourage economic, social and cultural activity. LTP3 was signed off in 2010 by the then ruling LibDem group. It provides an overall framework for York's transport policy. All Councillors are effectively signed up to it regardless of their affiliation and role. It will still be there when some of us no longer are, but protecting our descendants from the consequences of those who today espouse a car users free for all. Lets work together to keep the car as a good servant, but to prevent it from ever becoming a bad master. On the subject of traffic light sequencing York is supposed to be equipped with Scoot www.scoot-utc.com/ It may be useful if David can persuade Officers to tell us exactly how this system works for York , its benefits and whether there are any known holes in the system. Needles to say, Scoot can also be tweaked to give more pedestrian green time at crossings, and priority to public transport and cycle users. But there's a limit to what it can achieve if the "traffic must flow" brigade ever gets its way.[/p][/quote]Please, please, please shut up. You have done more harm to sustainable, progressive transport policies than anybody. Your endless banal catch phrases are far too simplistic, and just repeating them ad nauseum only reinforces the polarisation of opinions. Some of us want to see progressive policies, favouring cycling, buses, trains and walking, but we also accept that the majority use cars, and we've seen that deliberately causing congestion doesn't benefit anybody. We have to find intelligent solutions and I'm afraid your antagonistic approach might set that cause back by many years. Please, for the benefit of York and it's long term future, stop now, you're really not helping anybody.[/p][/quote]Several commentators would like see traffic "flow" . Is that at the expense of pedestrian safety and ability to cross? Does that mean that the Local Authority must try to manage whatever level of demand exists now and in the future? Has or will the time come when demand will have to be managed yet further? Telling me to shut up won't make these issues go away. You should be seriously debating the future, against an background of an increasing population and a road network of static and finite capacity. Building new roads won't solve anything. Witness the M25. Every time more lanes are added, they quickly fill up. Rather like the Neverending story.[/p][/quote]p.p. your continual ramming down the throat to ban cars etc does not benefit. YO must relise that traffic flow is better tha traffic jam (pollution). Also why dont you put as much effort to tell take cars of the road by building a Platform at Askem bar P&R that would have been a master stroke, along with opening Haxby, strensall station as well as putting trams on Poppleton route. Riverr Taxis but, all you do is continually wind everyone up by saying cars are wrong. Removing bus pull ins was wrong as well as removing a major artery lendall when Blooming A59 rounabout is being done. Sometimes you have right intentions but, your contual car bashing makes people not care what you say as you dont ever critise council when they get it wrong.[/p][/quote]VERY WELL SAID - pp/ hepworth is living in the dark ages. jay, york
  • Score: -48

9:45pm Sat 19 Apr 14

jay, york says...

jake777 wrote:
roskoboskovic wrote: a good start would be to synchronise the lights,do away with unnecessary lights,carefully consider where you place pedestrian crossings,abolish the 20 mph zones and reinstate bus stop lay byes to get the things out of the way,especially on university road.does mr levene actually drive a car because if he doesn t then he shouldn t be in the job.
and how many years experience do you have in traffic management???
Aw little jakey, you must you have been having really bad dreams in the early hours of saturday to have upset you so much - just like little justy, Not nice when you've got a new little friend for a sleeppover - have you known abismal long?
Why dont you all put your dummies back in your mouths while I go and try to find all the toys and rattles you have thrown out of your prams.
[quote][p][bold]jake777[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]roskoboskovic[/bold] wrote: a good start would be to synchronise the lights,do away with unnecessary lights,carefully consider where you place pedestrian crossings,abolish the 20 mph zones and reinstate bus stop lay byes to get the things out of the way,especially on university road.does mr levene actually drive a car because if he doesn t then he shouldn t be in the job.[/p][/quote]and how many years experience do you have in traffic management???[/p][/quote]Aw little jakey, you must you have been having really bad dreams in the early hours of saturday to have upset you so much - just like little justy, Not nice when you've got a new little friend for a sleeppover - have you known abismal long? Why dont you all put your dummies back in your mouths while I go and try to find all the toys and rattles you have thrown out of your prams. jay, york
  • Score: -75

9:51pm Sat 19 Apr 14

Sage9 says...

Poynton Shared Surface Scheme. Let's look at this ....

"Poynton was completed in March 2012, following five years of local discussion, consultation …"

Wow spot the diffrence - consultation. And five years that would have to cover a local election!!

"Poynton, has removed traffic lights and highway clutter at a major crossroads carrying 26,000 vehicles a day."

No, no, no, no. The way to do it is lots more clutter. Fishergate for example.
Poynton Shared Surface Scheme. Let's look at this .... "Poynton was completed in March 2012, following five years of local discussion, consultation …" Wow spot the diffrence - consultation. And five years that would have to cover a local election!! "Poynton, has removed traffic lights and highway clutter at a major crossroads carrying 26,000 vehicles a day." No, no, no, no. The way to do it is lots more clutter. Fishergate for example. Sage9
  • Score: -59

9:53pm Sat 19 Apr 14

jay, york says...

pedalling paul wrote:
I've never advocated a car ban. I prefer to see a situation where those who need to use a motor vehicle get priority over those for whom it is an option. That will make the most efficient use of our roads capacity, by allowing public transport to operate more effectively and competitively, and likewise essential deliveries and commerce. Those who prefer to use a car can consider journey sharing via carshareyork, to halve fuel bills and stress levels. Short term car hire from within the City centre is possible via City Car Club. The company also has a spanking new van for short term hire. For efficient and cost effective local deliveries in York and suburbs, consider using our local cycle courier firm. http://green-link.co .uk/home/york/
With respect pp/ hepworth, your whole raison d'etre is to get cars off the roads of York and surrounding area. Encouraging people to cycle and car share is outdated. We are in the modern age now - why not use trains, boats trams in addition to the roads???
[quote][p][bold]pedalling paul [/bold] wrote: I've never advocated a car ban. I prefer to see a situation where those who need to use a motor vehicle get priority over those for whom it is an option. That will make the most efficient use of our roads capacity, by allowing public transport to operate more effectively and competitively, and likewise essential deliveries and commerce. Those who prefer to use a car can consider journey sharing via carshareyork, to halve fuel bills and stress levels. Short term car hire from within the City centre is possible via City Car Club. The company also has a spanking new van for short term hire. For efficient and cost effective local deliveries in York and suburbs, consider using our local cycle courier firm. http://green-link.co .uk/home/york/[/p][/quote]With respect pp/ hepworth, your whole raison d'etre is to get cars off the roads of York and surrounding area. Encouraging people to cycle and car share is outdated. We are in the modern age now - why not use trains, boats trams in addition to the roads??? jay, york
  • Score: -23

10:14pm Sat 19 Apr 14

JasBro says...

Sage9 wrote:
Poynton Shared Surface Scheme. Let's look at this ....

"Poynton was completed in March 2012, following five years of local discussion, consultation …"

Wow spot the diffrence - consultation. And five years that would have to cover a local election!!

"Poynton, has removed traffic lights and highway clutter at a major crossroads carrying 26,000 vehicles a day."

No, no, no, no. The way to do it is lots more clutter. Fishergate for example.
The contrast is striking.

Massive success, loads of consultation, road users being considerate.

Makes York's traffic planning look distinctly third rate.
[quote][p][bold]Sage9[/bold] wrote: Poynton Shared Surface Scheme. Let's look at this .... "Poynton was completed in March 2012, following five years of local discussion, consultation …" Wow spot the diffrence - consultation. And five years that would have to cover a local election!! "Poynton, has removed traffic lights and highway clutter at a major crossroads carrying 26,000 vehicles a day." No, no, no, no. The way to do it is lots more clutter. Fishergate for example.[/p][/quote]The contrast is striking. Massive success, loads of consultation, road users being considerate. Makes York's traffic planning look distinctly third rate. JasBro
  • Score: -18

11:36pm Sat 19 Apr 14

Stevie D says...

Two junctions that I regularly see unnecessary queues at are Hospital Fields and Osbaldwick Link Road.

At Hospital Fields, it seems crazy that the minor road HFR gets a green light, and then the army base/cycle lane opposite gets a green light ... why can't they both have green at the same time? Would massively improve the traffic flow on the main road, which is chronic and mostly caused by that junction.

The lights outside B&Q really need ripping out and a roundabout put in to replace them, but at the very least the timings could be improved, and U-turns don't need the same amount of time they get now. The amount of time when there is no traffic at all moving through the junction because there are long green phases for a single approach/flow but no vehicles using it is appalling.
Two junctions that I regularly see unnecessary queues at are Hospital Fields and Osbaldwick Link Road. At Hospital Fields, it seems crazy that the minor road HFR gets a green light, and then the army base/cycle lane opposite gets a green light ... why can't they both have green at the same time? Would massively improve the traffic flow on the main road, which is chronic and mostly caused by that junction. The lights outside B&Q really need ripping out and a roundabout put in to replace them, but at the very least the timings could be improved, and U-turns don't need the same amount of time they get now. The amount of time when there is [bold]no traffic at all[/bold] moving through the junction because there are long green phases for a single approach/flow but no vehicles using it is appalling. Stevie D
  • Score: -22

12:16am Sun 20 Apr 14

jake777 says...

jay, york wrote:
jake777 wrote:
roskoboskovic wrote: a good start would be to synchronise the lights,do away with unnecessary lights,carefully consider where you place pedestrian crossings,abolish the 20 mph zones and reinstate bus stop lay byes to get the things out of the way,especially on university road.does mr levene actually drive a car because if he doesn t then he shouldn t be in the job.
and how many years experience do you have in traffic management???
Aw little jakey, you must you have been having really bad dreams in the early hours of saturday to have upset you so much - just like little justy, Not nice when you've got a new little friend for a sleeppover - have you known abismal long?
Why dont you all put your dummies back in your mouths while I go and try to find all the toys and rattles you have thrown out of your prams.
no brains, time you grew up,, stop hiding behind your silly name and come and bring it on stupid little boy.
[quote][p][bold]jay, york[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]jake777[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]roskoboskovic[/bold] wrote: a good start would be to synchronise the lights,do away with unnecessary lights,carefully consider where you place pedestrian crossings,abolish the 20 mph zones and reinstate bus stop lay byes to get the things out of the way,especially on university road.does mr levene actually drive a car because if he doesn t then he shouldn t be in the job.[/p][/quote]and how many years experience do you have in traffic management???[/p][/quote]Aw little jakey, you must you have been having really bad dreams in the early hours of saturday to have upset you so much - just like little justy, Not nice when you've got a new little friend for a sleeppover - have you known abismal long? Why dont you all put your dummies back in your mouths while I go and try to find all the toys and rattles you have thrown out of your prams.[/p][/quote]no brains, time you grew up,, stop hiding behind your silly name and come and bring it on stupid little boy. jake777
  • Score: 24

12:22am Sun 20 Apr 14

jake777 says...

jay, york wrote:
pedalling paul wrote:
I've never advocated a car ban. I prefer to see a situation where those who need to use a motor vehicle get priority over those for whom it is an option. That will make the most efficient use of our roads capacity, by allowing public transport to operate more effectively and competitively, and likewise essential deliveries and commerce. Those who prefer to use a car can consider journey sharing via carshareyork, to halve fuel bills and stress levels. Short term car hire from within the City centre is possible via City Car Club. The company also has a spanking new van for short term hire. For efficient and cost effective local deliveries in York and suburbs, consider using our local cycle courier firm. http://green-link.co .uk/home/york/
With respect pp/ hepworth, your whole raison d'etre is to get cars off the roads of York and surrounding area. Encouraging people to cycle and car share is outdated. We are in the modern age now - why not use trains, boats trams in addition to the roads???
No brains Jay Ha Ha.
[quote][p][bold]jay, york[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]pedalling paul [/bold] wrote: I've never advocated a car ban. I prefer to see a situation where those who need to use a motor vehicle get priority over those for whom it is an option. That will make the most efficient use of our roads capacity, by allowing public transport to operate more effectively and competitively, and likewise essential deliveries and commerce. Those who prefer to use a car can consider journey sharing via carshareyork, to halve fuel bills and stress levels. Short term car hire from within the City centre is possible via City Car Club. The company also has a spanking new van for short term hire. For efficient and cost effective local deliveries in York and suburbs, consider using our local cycle courier firm. http://green-link.co .uk/home/york/[/p][/quote]With respect pp/ hepworth, your whole raison d'etre is to get cars off the roads of York and surrounding area. Encouraging people to cycle and car share is outdated. We are in the modern age now - why not use trains, boats trams in addition to the roads???[/p][/quote]No brains Jay Ha Ha. jake777
  • Score: 47

2:29pm Sun 20 Apr 14

Cheeky face says...

All councils (and us)need to read yesterday's Telegraph page 7 where the High streets minister ( Brandon Lewis)expresses concern on the doubtful use of CCTV for parking offences. I still doubt the PCNs by York council at both sites! The council appealing, with our money, at the PCN adjudicator will very like be costly

Worth a read by all of us, because in reality it is council tax payers who basically fund ANPR/PCN/CCTV. The regulations are complex but not so difficult that intelligent employees can "marry" them together.

Jay, I am planning e-mailing David Levene. It did not work with Dave Merritt nor did he answer the calls; but I can only hope.
I plan using David.Levene@york.go
v.uk.for e-mails If he does not reply then we can "read" that in a way that suggests he may be all talk. Let,s hope not.
All councils (and us)need to read yesterday's Telegraph page 7 where the High streets minister ( Brandon Lewis)expresses concern on the doubtful use of CCTV for parking offences. I still doubt the PCNs by York council at both sites! The council appealing, with our money, at the PCN adjudicator will very like be costly Worth a read by all of us, because in reality it is council tax payers who basically fund ANPR/PCN/CCTV. The regulations are complex but not so difficult that intelligent employees can "marry" them together. Jay, I am planning e-mailing David Levene. It did not work with Dave Merritt nor did he answer the calls; but I can only hope. I plan using David.Levene@york.go v.uk.for e-mails If he does not reply then we can "read" that in a way that suggests he may be all talk. Let,s hope not. Cheeky face
  • Score: 0

10:41pm Sun 20 Apr 14

jay, york says...

Cheeky face wrote:
All councils (and us)need to read yesterday's Telegraph page 7 where the High streets minister ( Brandon Lewis)expresses concern on the doubtful use of CCTV for parking offences. I still doubt the PCNs by York council at both sites! The council appealing, with our money, at the PCN adjudicator will very like be costly Worth a read by all of us, because in reality it is council tax payers who basically fund ANPR/PCN/CCTV. The regulations are complex but not so difficult that intelligent employees can "marry" them together. Jay, I am planning e-mailing David Levene. It did not work with Dave Merritt nor did he answer the calls; but I can only hope. I plan using David.Levene@york.go v.uk.for e-mails If he does not reply then we can "read" that in a way that suggests he may be all talk. Let,s hope not.
Cheers cheeky - lets hope that more people do the same thing. Wait with interest to see what response - and when.
[quote][p][bold]Cheeky face[/bold] wrote: All councils (and us)need to read yesterday's Telegraph page 7 where the High streets minister ( Brandon Lewis)expresses concern on the doubtful use of CCTV for parking offences. I still doubt the PCNs by York council at both sites! The council appealing, with our money, at the PCN adjudicator will very like be costly Worth a read by all of us, because in reality it is council tax payers who basically fund ANPR/PCN/CCTV. The regulations are complex but not so difficult that intelligent employees can "marry" them together. Jay, I am planning e-mailing David Levene. It did not work with Dave Merritt nor did he answer the calls; but I can only hope. I plan using David.Levene@york.go v.uk.for e-mails If he does not reply then we can "read" that in a way that suggests he may be all talk. Let,s hope not.[/p][/quote]Cheers cheeky - lets hope that more people do the same thing. Wait with interest to see what response - and when. jay, york
  • Score: 0

10:43am Mon 21 Apr 14

roy_batty says...

So £300,000 is going to spent on improving traffic flow, already £600,000 spent on 20 is plenty, with did i read another £200,00 to be spent on it in north York?
I read about £1.3 million on cycle tracks. I read that the council is going to give free car parking (funded by money from the developers money from the vanguard project)

Yesterday i read an article on twitter about Middlesborough's 20mph zones, they did 1365 streets at a cost of £140,000 , what exactly are the council doing with the money? , where is it going? and i don't believe for one minute that a cycle track on Clifton Moor can cost £1.3 million. And back to the "free car parking" how is it free if its being paid for out of developers money? surely thats just a loss in revenue and how exactly do the council know what they are losing and the bigger question, where will that developers money go?
So £300,000 is going to spent on improving traffic flow, already £600,000 spent on 20 is plenty, with did i read another £200,00 to be spent on it in north York? I read about £1.3 million on cycle tracks. I read that the council is going to give free car parking (funded by money from the developers money from the vanguard project) Yesterday i read an article on twitter about Middlesborough's 20mph zones, they did 1365 streets at a cost of £140,000 , what exactly are the council doing with the money? , where is it going? and i don't believe for one minute that a cycle track on Clifton Moor can cost £1.3 million. And back to the "free car parking" how is it free if its being paid for out of developers money? surely thats just a loss in revenue and how exactly do the council know what they are losing and the bigger question, where will that developers money go? roy_batty
  • Score: 3

12:35pm Tue 22 Apr 14

Cheeky face says...

Jay,



My E-mail failed (to David Levene.) so I tried asking switchboard to put me through. Before I got a person I had 9 automatic voice responses, all failed. I did eventually get Children's services. That employee did NOT recognise the name David Levene; but I did after 12 minutes eventually obtain a direct line. I rang 01904 551026 and, guess what, straight onto an answering machine, but no evidernce that I was on the right number!

I went from Hopgrove to Nunnery Lane to-day by car the quickest time for ages. 9.30am time. Layertyhorpe, Foss Islands route.

Gillygate and Bootham I suspect were much busier. Council need to understand why they all have 2 ears. One to hear, and the other to listen!

John
Jay, My E-mail failed (to David Levene.) so I tried asking switchboard to put me through. Before I got a person I had 9 automatic voice responses, all failed. I did eventually get Children's services. That employee did NOT recognise the name David Levene; but I did after 12 minutes eventually obtain a direct line. I rang 01904 551026 and, guess what, straight onto an answering machine, but no evidernce that I was on the right number! I went from Hopgrove to Nunnery Lane to-day by car the quickest time for ages. 9.30am time. Layertyhorpe, Foss Islands route. Gillygate and Bootham I suspect were much busier. Council need to understand why they all have 2 ears. One to hear, and the other to listen! John Cheeky face
  • Score: 1

12:37pm Tue 22 Apr 14

Cheeky face says...

Roy_Batty, I know a colleague in Middlesbrough who owns lots of rental properties. I will ask him some questions.
Roy_Batty, I know a colleague in Middlesbrough who owns lots of rental properties. I will ask him some questions. Cheeky face
  • Score: 0

10:31pm Tue 22 Apr 14

jay, york says...

Cheeky face wrote:
Jay, My E-mail failed (to David Levene.) so I tried asking switchboard to put me through. Before I got a person I had 9 automatic voice responses, all failed. I did eventually get Children's services. That employee did NOT recognise the name David Levene; but I did after 12 minutes eventually obtain a direct line. I rang 01904 551026 and, guess what, straight onto an answering machine, but no evidernce that I was on the right number! I went from Hopgrove to Nunnery Lane to-day by car the quickest time for ages. 9.30am time. Layertyhorpe, Foss Islands route. Gillygate and Bootham I suspect were much busier. Council need to understand why they all have 2 ears. One to hear, and the other to listen! John
Hi cheeky,
So now even their telephone system appears to be another xxxxup - or is that intentional too. Is it just another way for them to avoid talking to people who may wish to ask questions???
Yes traffic elsewhere in York does appear to be much improved since the Lendal Bridge restrictions have been lifted. The fact that some people are now complaining how much busier the traffic is now in the Lendal/ Bootham/ Gillygate area just goes to prove how much traffic was actually being diverted to through other parts of York. It solved nothing.
Like your comment about their ears - but I also think they need to understand why they have a brain - and how to use it!
[quote][p][bold]Cheeky face[/bold] wrote: Jay, My E-mail failed (to David Levene.) so I tried asking switchboard to put me through. Before I got a person I had 9 automatic voice responses, all failed. I did eventually get Children's services. That employee did NOT recognise the name David Levene; but I did after 12 minutes eventually obtain a direct line. I rang 01904 551026 and, guess what, straight onto an answering machine, but no evidernce that I was on the right number! I went from Hopgrove to Nunnery Lane to-day by car the quickest time for ages. 9.30am time. Layertyhorpe, Foss Islands route. Gillygate and Bootham I suspect were much busier. Council need to understand why they all have 2 ears. One to hear, and the other to listen! John[/p][/quote]Hi cheeky, So now even their telephone system appears to be another xxxxup - or is that intentional too. Is it just another way for them to avoid talking to people who may wish to ask questions??? Yes traffic elsewhere in York does appear to be much improved since the Lendal Bridge restrictions have been lifted. The fact that some people are now complaining how much busier the traffic is now in the Lendal/ Bootham/ Gillygate area just goes to prove how much traffic was actually being diverted to through other parts of York. It solved nothing. Like your comment about their ears - but I also think they need to understand why they have a brain - and how to use it! jay, york
  • Score: 1

9:18pm Wed 23 Apr 14

Rowntree Baby says...

Do away with traffic lights and introduce mini roundabouts to keep the traffic flowing - it would have made my 5 mile journey across York much easier than the 60 minutes it took tonight - absolutely ridiculous !!!
Do away with traffic lights and introduce mini roundabouts to keep the traffic flowing - it would have made my 5 mile journey across York much easier than the 60 minutes it took tonight - absolutely ridiculous !!! Rowntree Baby
  • Score: 3

12:18pm Thu 24 Apr 14

Cheeky face says...

Rowntree Baby, Yes where possible the council should consider taking away traffic lights. Lots of councils have done so. traffic should flow as much as possible; otherwise pedestrians./ cyclists take chances; and humidity worsens.

20mph limits/zones. Middlesbrough leave enforcement to police. I spoke to a private landlord in Middlesbrough who has no knowledge of any fines! He does feel speed activated signs are a good thing, with local people contiolling them with devolved powers.It is assumed that a marginal drop in speeds in residential .streets has occurred.

After 3 attempts I now have another contact detail foe Cllr Levene.
Rowntree Baby, Yes where possible the council should consider taking away traffic lights. Lots of councils have done so. traffic should flow as much as possible; otherwise pedestrians./ cyclists take chances; and humidity worsens. 20mph limits/zones. Middlesbrough leave enforcement to police. I spoke to a private landlord in Middlesbrough who has no knowledge of any fines! He does feel speed activated signs are a good thing, with local people contiolling them with devolved powers.It is assumed that a marginal drop in speeds in residential .streets has occurred. After 3 attempts I now have another contact detail foe Cllr Levene. Cheeky face
  • Score: 1

4:25pm Thu 24 Apr 14

meme says...

why not experiment with an area of York by switching off the traffic lights and see if the traffic flows better
I suspect it will improve things but we will never know till we try
Why not try a private 'dolmush' style bus system on one road where it stops and lets off on demand but is only a mini bus as an experiment
What is clear is we need radical changes not tinkering to make things work
The 20 mph system is a joke and just wasting money but would work if enforced outside of schools. put it everywhere and its meaningless
why not experiment with an area of York by switching off the traffic lights and see if the traffic flows better I suspect it will improve things but we will never know till we try Why not try a private 'dolmush' style bus system on one road where it stops and lets off on demand but is only a mini bus [gas powered of course] as an experiment What is clear is we need radical changes not tinkering to make things work The 20 mph system is a joke and just wasting money but would work if enforced outside of schools. put it everywhere and its meaningless meme
  • Score: 2

10:24am Fri 25 Apr 14

kidology says...

Seems strange all comments on turning traffic lights off are receiving bad comments council at work i think, you ask for comments but dont like what we the motorists are saying.
So we are P****** in the wind yet again has any one counted the amount of buses that travel through our little city in one day, job for merret i think give him a stool on blossom street he will look right at home.
Seems strange all comments on turning traffic lights off are receiving bad comments council at work i think, you ask for comments but dont like what we the motorists are saying. So we are P****** in the wind yet again has any one counted the amount of buses that travel through our little city in one day, job for merret i think give him a stool on blossom street he will look right at home. kidology
  • Score: 0

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree