Lendal Bridge trial was a success, council says

Lendal Bridge trial was a success, council says

Lendal Bridge trial was a success, council says

First published in News
Last updated

THE controversial trial closure of York’s Lendal Bridge to private traffic was a success despite it being axed, city leaders have said.

City of York Council yesterday published data, which it said showed the trial met most of its objectives.

But it acknowledged the public response had been overwhelmingly negative.

Ruth Stephenson, the council’s major transport projects manager, said the experiment could demonstrate success in a number of areas including reducing air pollution and improving bus punctuality, but said the negative responses outweighed the benefits.

She warned that the abandonment of the trial meant buses would likely become slower again and delays would worsen in the long term.

The bridge experiment banned private traffic from Lendal Bridge between 10.30am and 5pm daily, but the council abandoned the move earlier this month after a storm of controversy. About 50,000 fines were issued and many businesses said the trial had damaged trade and York’s reputation among tourists.

Ms Stephenson said in a written report, to be presented to council cabinet on May 6: “In transport terms the trial achieved many of the original objectives to improve the environment for pedestrians and cyclists and reduce public transport journey times.

“However there was considerable concern from residents and businesses about the implementation of the trial.”

She said parking, footfall and hotel occupancy data suggested people did not avoid the city centre, and said it was “difficult to rationalise the data” with business claims that footfall and trade had been hit.

She said this was “not reflected in the data” but said there may be other causes, unrelated to the bridge.

Coun David Levene, council cabinet member for transport, said yesterday: “While the evidence shows that parking, footfall, bus reliability and patronage all remained static or showed increases during the trial, the council has an obligation to listen and respond to concerns from residents and businesses.”

He said there remained a need to tackle congestion.

The council has already announced plans for an independently-chaired, cross-party “congestion commission” to help tackle the issue in the long-term.

>>> View the council report and data in item 6 of this agenda

Comments (85)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

5:36pm Fri 25 Apr 14

againstthecuts says...

Of course it was a success look how much money they made in fines!
Of course it was a success look how much money they made in fines! againstthecuts
  • Score: 4440

5:39pm Fri 25 Apr 14

oi oi savaloy says...

Cllr David Levene, council cabinet member for transport, said today: “While the evidence shows that parking, footfall, bus reliability and patronage all remained static or showed increases during the trial"

???? they either remained static or showed an increase ?????

so what was it Cllr levene ? static or an increase?? its one or the other
Cllr David Levene, council cabinet member for transport, said today: “While the evidence shows that parking, footfall, bus reliability and patronage all remained static or showed increases during the trial" ???? they either remained static or showed an increase ????? so what was it Cllr levene ? static or an increase?? its one or the other oi oi savaloy
  • Score: 4777

5:41pm Fri 25 Apr 14

Dr Brian says...

Of course it was a success it rid us of Dave Merrett.
Of course it was a success it rid us of Dave Merrett. Dr Brian
  • Score: 4275

5:41pm Fri 25 Apr 14

livewithit says...

Please can we see the data for the 1237 ?..
Please can we see the data for the 1237 ?.. livewithit
  • Score: 4041

5:44pm Fri 25 Apr 14

non pedalling pete says...

Just when we thought it was safe along comes Merrett MK2.
A SUCCESS? BO■■■■■S.
Just when we thought it was safe along comes Merrett MK2. A SUCCESS? BO■■■■■S. non pedalling pete
  • Score: 4358

5:45pm Fri 25 Apr 14

oi oi savaloy says...

http://democracy.yor
k.gov.uk/documents/s
89205/FINAL%20Lendal
%20Bridge%20Evaluati
on%20Report.pdf

sorry BUT this doesn't give me any stats to prove it was a success?? where are the stats to back up what you say???
http://democracy.yor k.gov.uk/documents/s 89205/FINAL%20Lendal %20Bridge%20Evaluati on%20Report.pdf sorry BUT this doesn't give me any stats to prove it was a success?? where are the stats to back up what you say??? oi oi savaloy
  • Score: 3141

5:48pm Fri 25 Apr 14

Cheeky face says...

They still have not replied to my queries from July 2013!

Other info in the media is at difference with these findings.

Poor air quality merely moved to Clifton and Foss Islands., which is where the traffic re-routed itself.

I asked who Dave Merritt spoke to at DVLA re warning letter options. That was ages ago and still no response.
Has the report from the Leeds based independent consultants being received yet?
They still have not replied to my queries from July 2013! Other info in the media is at difference with these findings. Poor air quality merely moved to Clifton and Foss Islands., which is where the traffic re-routed itself. I asked who Dave Merritt spoke to at DVLA re warning letter options. That was ages ago and still no response. Has the report from the Leeds based independent consultants being received yet? Cheeky face
  • Score: 3559

5:49pm Fri 25 Apr 14

dudbertman says...

It will be a success if it results in this Labour lot getting kicked out when the election comes round. We won't forget how many stupid things you have done.
It will be a success if it results in this Labour lot getting kicked out when the election comes round. We won't forget how many stupid things you have done. dudbertman
  • Score: 2934

5:50pm Fri 25 Apr 14

Can't all be wrong says...

The council did not listen to business's or residents, they listened to their lawyers, and the advise they received left them with no choice but to cancel the trial.
I suspect this new episode of self congratulation by CYC is the prelude to another "trial" in the not too distant future.
The council did not listen to business's or residents, they listened to their lawyers, and the advise they received left them with no choice but to cancel the trial. I suspect this new episode of self congratulation by CYC is the prelude to another "trial" in the not too distant future. Can't all be wrong
  • Score: 2538

5:53pm Fri 25 Apr 14

bloodaxe says...

Staggering city centre congestion recently during the day. I wonder why.
Staggering city centre congestion recently during the day. I wonder why. bloodaxe
  • Score: 2703

5:53pm Fri 25 Apr 14

YOUWILLDOASISAY says...

From the Council Website Link:
Following a presentation of the preliminary findings of the trial on 8 April 2014 the Leader exercised his powers to make a decision of the Executive, in consultation with the Chair of the Corporate and Scrutiny Management Committee, to remove the restriction from the bridge in order to swiftly address any potential confusion as to the status of the restrictions.

SO NOTHING TO DO WITH RESIDENTS AND BUSINESS CONCERNS, EVERYTHING TO DO WITH THE STATUS OF THE TRIAL.
From the Council Website Link: Following a presentation of the preliminary findings of the trial on 8 April 2014 the Leader exercised his powers to make a decision of the Executive, in consultation with the Chair of the Corporate and Scrutiny Management Committee, to remove the restriction from the bridge in order to swiftly address any potential confusion as to the status of the restrictions. SO NOTHING TO DO WITH RESIDENTS AND BUSINESS CONCERNS, EVERYTHING TO DO WITH THE STATUS OF THE TRIAL. YOUWILLDOASISAY
  • Score: 3106

5:55pm Fri 25 Apr 14

Cheeky face says...

Quite agree. Stats are a way of fudging facts.

The adjudicator spotted lots of council failings apart from the legal issues. Have the council corrected the issues re Coppergate?

Politics!!

A promised reply to my long outstanding issues is always a week away!

The only responders to me are those from the feedback/complaints team!
Quite agree. Stats are a way of fudging facts. The adjudicator spotted lots of council failings apart from the legal issues. Have the council corrected the issues re Coppergate? Politics!! A promised reply to my long outstanding issues is always a week away! The only responders to me are those from the feedback/complaints team! Cheeky face
  • Score: 3292

5:55pm Fri 25 Apr 14

courier46 says...

Still in denial, dear me!!.
Still in denial, dear me!!. courier46
  • Score: 2306

5:58pm Fri 25 Apr 14

courier46 says...

Dr Brian wrote:
Of course it was a success it rid us of Dave Merrett.
But it didn`t, he`s in another post where he could do untold damage.
[quote][p][bold]Dr Brian[/bold] wrote: Of course it was a success it rid us of Dave Merrett.[/p][/quote]But it didn`t, he`s in another post where he could do untold damage. courier46
  • Score: 2567

5:59pm Fri 25 Apr 14

bloodaxe says...

Staggering city centre congestion recently during the day. I wonder why.
Still, nice to read the Daily Mail contingent wallowing in angst, sturm und drang and, er, weltschmerz.
Staggering city centre congestion recently during the day. I wonder why. Still, nice to read the Daily Mail contingent wallowing in angst, sturm und drang and, er, weltschmerz. bloodaxe
  • Score: 1589

6:27pm Fri 25 Apr 14

MrMr says...

****NEWS FLASH****
Our esteemed leader has pronounced The Lendal Bridge Trial a huge success.
In honour of this all York male citizens must have the same haircut as our wonderous leader!
Discount available at Plaggy Terry's place!
****NEWS FLASH**** Our esteemed leader has pronounced The Lendal Bridge Trial a huge success. In honour of this all York male citizens must have the same haircut as our wonderous leader! Discount available at Plaggy Terry's place! MrMr
  • Score: 1901

6:35pm Fri 25 Apr 14

stephen123 says...

The Council state

“The trial has helped to demonstrate that there is a fundamental need to tackle congestion in the city and build a consensus on how to address the city’s traffic problems, and we have announced an independently-chaire
d, cross party congestion commission to help tackle the issue in the long-term.”

How can you make the above statement and then encourage people to bring their cars into York by providing free parking in its car parks 3 days a week. Is this madness? They should practice what they preach and provide a free park and ride service on these 3 days instead.
The Council state “The trial has helped to demonstrate that there is a fundamental need to tackle congestion in the city and build a consensus on how to address the city’s traffic problems, and we have announced an independently-chaire d, cross party congestion commission to help tackle the issue in the long-term.” How can you make the above statement and then encourage people to bring their cars into York by providing free parking in its car parks 3 days a week. Is this madness? They should practice what they preach and provide a free park and ride service on these 3 days instead. stephen123
  • Score: 1626

6:50pm Fri 25 Apr 14

YOUWILLDOASISAY says...

Dave and Anna's mates have been allowed out of their cage to even things up. Jolly good Mark-Down Mongrels, I have to admire your pathetic efforts as unbelievable as they are.

Woof, Woof.
Dave and Anna's mates have been allowed out of their cage to even things up. Jolly good Mark-Down Mongrels, I have to admire your pathetic efforts as unbelievable as they are. Woof, Woof. YOUWILLDOASISAY
  • Score: 2009

6:57pm Fri 25 Apr 14

bolero says...

Of course it was a success. I didn't expect this council to say anything else. But, it didn't need the closure of a vital link in the city to prove that something needs to be done about the congestion. Anyway, here's another excuse for the vote rigger to exercise his/her fingers. The silly fool's still at it. You won't be able to rig the votes next May.
Of course it was a success. I didn't expect this council to say anything else. But, it didn't need the closure of a vital link in the city to prove that something needs to be done about the congestion. Anyway, here's another excuse for the vote rigger to exercise his/her fingers. The silly fool's still at it. You won't be able to rig the votes next May. bolero
  • Score: 2001

7:00pm Fri 25 Apr 14

YOUWILLDOASISAY says...

Question for Levene.

What have you done today to add value to the local economy by smoothing the traffic flow in York to benefit road users.

Remember this is now your objective and what you are being paid to do.

1. Nothing, hand in your notice.
2. Something, what is it and where will we see the results.
Question for Levene. What have you done today to add value to the local economy by smoothing the traffic flow in York to benefit road users. Remember this is now your objective and what you are being paid to do. 1. Nothing, hand in your notice. 2. Something, what is it and where will we see the results. YOUWILLDOASISAY
  • Score: 1015

7:16pm Fri 25 Apr 14

ouseswimmer says...

We all know it was a mess not a success.
We all know it was a mess not a success. ouseswimmer
  • Score: 2010

7:23pm Fri 25 Apr 14

buzzy_bee says...

I've just had a glance at some of the data. So far, I conclude that it was a failure and an utter shambles that WILL cost York taxpayers a lot of money when the CYC have to refund fines.

The data i have looked at showed that there was no improvements at all, infact quite the opposite in some of the areas. I must emphasise that I have only glanced at some of the data and not all of it.

I will only add that the presentation of the data is very vague i.e. doesn't really provide the data for before and during the scheme. I suspect this is because if the data was detailed, it would ultimately show that it was a failure preventing the Labour administration from their attempts of trying to make out that it was a success. Can't trust Labour; cannot trust the Tories and cannot trust the Lib Dems. They're all the same. Who can we trust?
I've just had a glance at some of the data. So far, I conclude that it was a failure and an utter shambles that WILL cost York taxpayers a lot of money when the CYC have to refund fines. The data i have looked at showed that there was no improvements at all, infact quite the opposite in some of the areas. I must emphasise that I have only glanced at some of the data and not all of it. I will only add that the presentation of the data is very vague i.e. doesn't really provide the data for before and during the scheme. I suspect this is because if the data was detailed, it would ultimately show that it was a failure preventing the Labour administration from their attempts of trying to make out that it was a success. Can't trust Labour; cannot trust the Tories and cannot trust the Lib Dems. They're all the same. Who can we trust? buzzy_bee
  • Score: 1584

7:31pm Fri 25 Apr 14

Oaklands Resident says...

A quick look at the papers suggests that the analysts have failed to isolate the factors which may have impacted on the success measures.

For example, an improving economy will increase footfall despite - rather than because of - the Lendal Bridge trial.

Good weather (which we enjoyed this winter) will increase bed occupancy in hotels. Successful events like the St Nicholas Fair will have underpinned that trend.

First's much vaunted changes - made in September - to fares and routes may have resulted in increased bus usage.

I hope that the work of the consultants will be scrutinised by the Council.

It looks pretty superficial too me.
A quick look at the papers suggests that the analysts have failed to isolate the factors which may have impacted on the success measures. For example, an improving economy will increase footfall despite - rather than because of - the Lendal Bridge trial. Good weather (which we enjoyed this winter) will increase bed occupancy in hotels. Successful events like the St Nicholas Fair will have underpinned that trend. First's much vaunted changes - made in September - to fares and routes may have resulted in increased bus usage. I hope that the work of the consultants will be scrutinised by the Council. It looks pretty superficial too me. Oaklands Resident
  • Score: 1519

7:46pm Fri 25 Apr 14

yorkandproud says...

This Labour Cabinet beggar belief. I can't believe what I have just read. Hang your head in shame Levene. Five minutes in the job and you are already incapable of carrying it out .
This Labour Cabinet beggar belief. I can't believe what I have just read. Hang your head in shame Levene. Five minutes in the job and you are already incapable of carrying it out . yorkandproud
  • Score: 952

8:08pm Fri 25 Apr 14

bolero says...

A first glance at the report seems to indicate that the findings are totally inconclusive and are influenced to a large extent by other factors such as the extensive road works, particlarly the A59 junction. Believe it or not, even the closure of the Parliament Street splash palace had some impact on the findings.
A first glance at the report seems to indicate that the findings are totally inconclusive and are influenced to a large extent by other factors such as the extensive road works, particlarly the A59 junction. Believe it or not, even the closure of the Parliament Street splash palace had some impact on the findings. bolero
  • Score: 1805

8:11pm Fri 25 Apr 14

Cheeky face says...

I questioned the free parking 10 days ago( 5 issues). No reply yet!

Park and Ride option is much better.
I questioned the free parking 10 days ago( 5 issues). No reply yet! Park and Ride option is much better. Cheeky face
  • Score: 1930

8:12pm Fri 25 Apr 14

Buzzz Light-year says...

Well I'm not surprised at all.

In this day and age of spin and hyperbole, corporate accountability and litigation, nobody but nobody likes to hold their hands up, not ever.
It's the biggest social ill to hit our planet and it's not just the keyboard warriors, shouty gits in the street or the big money companies, turns out it's those in power too.

"Look everyone! Our council report says the sky is pink. Yes we know what you can all see, but this is what we are telling you. It's pink. And we weren't aren't and won;t be wrong. Ok? No further questions.

And let's be very clear about this because it's important - it's not specific to this Labour council, it's not specific to the last LibDem council and it's not specific to a possible future Conservative council.

It doesn't matter what colour they are, they are self serving truth-twisters and they would all do the same. And no, it wouldn't be any different if the so-called "alternative" UKIP got in.
And anyone shouting their own politick over the other man is perpetuating the destructive dichotomy.


What I really struggle with, and I'd be grateful if anyone could help me, is this - even though I can see the truth, I can see the spin and lies and why they are peddled... How can they be so arrogant as to expect us all to just swallow it?
Is it because so many drones and fools do swallow it? And happily make enemies of each other in the name of dogma?
Well I'm not surprised at all. In this day and age of spin and hyperbole, corporate accountability and litigation, nobody but nobody likes to hold their hands up, not ever. It's the biggest social ill to hit our planet and it's not just the keyboard warriors, shouty gits in the street or the big money companies, turns out it's those in power too. "Look everyone! Our council report says the sky is pink. Yes we know what you can all see, but this is what we are telling you. It's pink. And we weren't aren't and won;t be wrong. Ok? No further questions. And let's be very clear about this because it's important - it's not specific to this Labour council, it's not specific to the last LibDem council and it's not specific to a possible future Conservative council. It doesn't matter what colour they are, they are self serving truth-twisters and they would all do the same. And no, it wouldn't be any different if the so-called "alternative" UKIP got in. And anyone shouting their own politick over the other man is perpetuating the destructive dichotomy. What I really struggle with, and I'd be grateful if anyone could help me, is this - even though I can see the truth, I can see the spin and lies and why they are peddled... How can they be so arrogant as to expect us all to just swallow it? Is it because so many drones and fools do swallow it? And happily make enemies of each other in the name of dogma? Buzzz Light-year
  • Score: 1371

8:29pm Fri 25 Apr 14

Jonothon says...

oi oi savaloy wrote:
Cllr David Levene, council cabinet member for transport, said today: “While the evidence shows that parking, footfall, bus reliability and patronage all remained static or showed increases during the trial"

???? they either remained static or showed an increase ?????

so what was it Cllr levene ? static or an increase?? its one or the other
Calm down.

It just means that the footfall was not down anyhere. In some streets it was up, in others it was static. Same with buses, some were busier, others were the same but none lost passenger numbers
Not rocket science is it?
[quote][p][bold]oi oi savaloy[/bold] wrote: Cllr David Levene, council cabinet member for transport, said today: “While the evidence shows that parking, footfall, bus reliability and patronage all remained static or showed increases during the trial" ???? they either remained static or showed an increase ????? so what was it Cllr levene ? static or an increase?? its one or the other[/p][/quote]Calm down. It just means that the footfall was not down anyhere. In some streets it was up, in others it was static. Same with buses, some were busier, others were the same but none lost passenger numbers Not rocket science is it? Jonothon
  • Score: 1193

8:41pm Fri 25 Apr 14

swh1963 says...

The report is written in jargon, and is barely recognisable as English at times, but where it is clear it is clear that success cannot be attributed to this scheme. For example: "Air quality has improved across the City, even at locations where traffic flows increased, although the improvements cannot be attributed to the Bridge restriction as the improvements fall within normal tolerances and are likely to be due to weather conditions". Only an idiot would try to spin that to say 'air quality has improved, the scheme was a success' but then it seems we really are dealing with idiots here, self serving and with no regard for public opinion until it threatens to remove them from office.
The report is written in jargon, and is barely recognisable as English at times, but where it is clear it is clear that success cannot be attributed to this scheme. For example: "Air quality has improved across the City, even at locations where traffic flows increased, although the improvements cannot be attributed to the Bridge restriction as the improvements fall within normal tolerances and are likely to be due to weather conditions". Only an idiot would try to spin that to say 'air quality has improved, the scheme was a success' but then it seems we really are dealing with idiots here, self serving and with no regard for public opinion until it threatens to remove them from office. swh1963
  • Score: 678

8:48pm Fri 25 Apr 14

pedalling paul says...

Visit http://www.york.gov.
uk/info/200230/ltp3/
319/ltp3 to fully understand and appreciate the driver behind our City's transport policy viz the Local Transport Plan. Every highway authority has to have one by the way..it's a government requirement. Here's the headline for York's LTP3 from the above website.
"All local authorities in England and Wales have a statutory duty to produce and keep under review a Local Transport Plan (LTP), which sets out their transport policies and plans.
The City of York's Third Local Transport Plan (LTP3), covering the period April 2011 to March 2015 and beyond to 2031, has now been published. It sets out the transport policies and measures that will contribute to the city's economic prosperity over the next 20 years, whilst meeting challenging national and local targets for reducing emissions."

This was signed off in 2010 by the then ruling LibDems, and every Councillor is now effectively signed up to it. The LTP becomes a yardstick against which individual transport proposals are weighed.

Instead of respondents instinctively telling me to peddle off, they should take time to read the detail on the above website. They will then understand what must be done to avoid a doubling of delays in York by 2030. The options do not include removing traffic lights, "letting traffic flow" or other similar suggestions.

The only way in which neccessary car journeys can be accommodated is by a reduction of optional ones. Otherwise congestion charging will inevitably rear its head.
Visit http://www.york.gov. uk/info/200230/ltp3/ 319/ltp3 to fully understand and appreciate the driver behind our City's transport policy viz the Local Transport Plan. Every highway authority has to have one by the way..it's a government requirement. Here's the headline for York's LTP3 from the above website. "All local authorities in England and Wales have a statutory duty to produce and keep under review a Local Transport Plan (LTP), which sets out their transport policies and plans. The City of York's Third Local Transport Plan (LTP3), covering the period April 2011 to March 2015 and beyond to 2031, has now been published. It sets out the transport policies and measures that will contribute to the city's economic prosperity over the next 20 years, whilst meeting challenging national and local targets for reducing emissions." This was signed off in 2010 by the then ruling LibDems, and every Councillor is now effectively signed up to it. The LTP becomes a yardstick against which individual transport proposals are weighed. Instead of respondents instinctively telling me to peddle off, they should take time to read the detail on the above website. They will then understand what must be done to avoid a doubling of delays in York by 2030. The options do not include removing traffic lights, "letting traffic flow" or other similar suggestions. The only way in which neccessary car journeys can be accommodated is by a reduction of optional ones. Otherwise congestion charging will inevitably rear its head. pedalling paul
  • Score: -4190

8:52pm Fri 25 Apr 14

swh1963 says...

Can you point us to an imaginative solution that works Paul rather than a draconian one that doesn't?
Can you point us to an imaginative solution that works Paul rather than a draconian one that doesn't? swh1963
  • Score: 374

9:21pm Fri 25 Apr 14

Can't all be wrong says...

Buzzz Light-year wrote:
Well I'm not surprised at all.

In this day and age of spin and hyperbole, corporate accountability and litigation, nobody but nobody likes to hold their hands up, not ever.
It's the biggest social ill to hit our planet and it's not just the keyboard warriors, shouty gits in the street or the big money companies, turns out it's those in power too.

"Look everyone! Our council report says the sky is pink. Yes we know what you can all see, but this is what we are telling you. It's pink. And we weren't aren't and won;t be wrong. Ok? No further questions.

And let's be very clear about this because it's important - it's not specific to this Labour council, it's not specific to the last LibDem council and it's not specific to a possible future Conservative council.

It doesn't matter what colour they are, they are self serving truth-twisters and they would all do the same. And no, it wouldn't be any different if the so-called "alternative" UKIP got in.
And anyone shouting their own politick over the other man is perpetuating the destructive dichotomy.


What I really struggle with, and I'd be grateful if anyone could help me, is this - even though I can see the truth, I can see the spin and lies and why they are peddled... How can they be so arrogant as to expect us all to just swallow it?
Is it because so many drones and fools do swallow it? And happily make enemies of each other in the name of dogma?
Tragically your assessment of the situation is spot on. For every contributor to this forum there will be scores of people who wouldn't even begin to understand your point, let alone care!
Don't know what the answer is, I despair.
[quote][p][bold]Buzzz Light-year[/bold] wrote: Well I'm not surprised at all. In this day and age of spin and hyperbole, corporate accountability and litigation, nobody but nobody likes to hold their hands up, not ever. It's the biggest social ill to hit our planet and it's not just the keyboard warriors, shouty gits in the street or the big money companies, turns out it's those in power too. "Look everyone! Our council report says the sky is pink. Yes we know what you can all see, but this is what we are telling you. It's pink. And we weren't aren't and won;t be wrong. Ok? No further questions. And let's be very clear about this because it's important - it's not specific to this Labour council, it's not specific to the last LibDem council and it's not specific to a possible future Conservative council. It doesn't matter what colour they are, they are self serving truth-twisters and they would all do the same. And no, it wouldn't be any different if the so-called "alternative" UKIP got in. And anyone shouting their own politick over the other man is perpetuating the destructive dichotomy. What I really struggle with, and I'd be grateful if anyone could help me, is this - even though I can see the truth, I can see the spin and lies and why they are peddled... How can they be so arrogant as to expect us all to just swallow it? Is it because so many drones and fools do swallow it? And happily make enemies of each other in the name of dogma?[/p][/quote]Tragically your assessment of the situation is spot on. For every contributor to this forum there will be scores of people who wouldn't even begin to understand your point, let alone care! Don't know what the answer is, I despair. Can't all be wrong
  • Score: 520

9:24pm Fri 25 Apr 14

calmdownyork says...

It's greatest success was to enrage the disenfranchised York public so much that they might just turn up at the polling stations next May. Democracy and common sense prevail.
It's greatest success was to enrage the disenfranchised York public so much that they might just turn up at the polling stations next May. Democracy and common sense prevail. calmdownyork
  • Score: 925

9:32pm Fri 25 Apr 14

only human says...

QUITE A SET OF ARROGANT AND IGNORANT asxxxxxxxs arent they,
Wait for the fall out of having to repay the revenue they squeezed from hard pressed motorists.
t No doubt hey will be announcing yet more cuts to essential services to the most vulnerable across york very soon in a feeble attempt to cook the books and waste more money on pointless gimmicks aimed at tourists.
QUITE A SET OF ARROGANT AND IGNORANT asxxxxxxxs arent they, Wait for the fall out of having to repay the revenue they squeezed from hard pressed motorists. t No doubt hey will be announcing yet more cuts to essential services to the most vulnerable across york very soon in a feeble attempt to cook the books and waste more money on pointless gimmicks aimed at tourists. only human
  • Score: 1220

9:39pm Fri 25 Apr 14

calmdownyork says...

"Throughout the trial there was an overall increase in accommodation levels in the city". Ceteris paribus.

....caused by various factors that had absolutely nothing to do with Lendal Bridge. Very patronising to York's hard working tourism industry which has been experiencing consistently strong growth for over 2 years.

Anyway, during the trial more people bought Christmas presents than in the previous six months. Oh, and more people wore orange socks, consumed toast and discovered the joy of frogs.

York has one of the highest average IQs in the UK. Residents will not be swayed by poor quality PR and equally dire journalism.
"Throughout the trial there was an overall increase in accommodation levels in the city". Ceteris paribus. ....caused by various factors that had absolutely nothing to do with Lendal Bridge. Very patronising to York's hard working tourism industry which has been experiencing consistently strong growth for over 2 years. Anyway, during the trial more people bought Christmas presents than in the previous six months. Oh, and more people wore orange socks, consumed toast and discovered the joy of frogs. York has one of the highest average IQs in the UK. Residents will not be swayed by poor quality PR and equally dire journalism. calmdownyork
  • Score: 216

9:54pm Fri 25 Apr 14

Pinza-C55 says...

"City of York Council has today published data relating to the trial. The council says the trial met most of its objectives, but acknowledges that the public response was overwhelmingly negative. "
There you are you see, it was the PUBLIC who were wrong!
It reminds me of how someone said of Tony Blair "he would never vote for the British electorate".
"City of York Council has today published data relating to the trial. The council says the trial met most of its objectives, but acknowledges that the public response was overwhelmingly negative. " There you are you see, it was the PUBLIC who were wrong! It reminds me of how someone said of Tony Blair "he would never vote for the British electorate". Pinza-C55
  • Score: 409

10:38pm Fri 25 Apr 14

21stCenturyMalton says...

Flying pig trial success!

Genetically modified pigs to give them wings met all our hopes and reduced harmful emissions by letting them fly to the supermarket shelves. Public opinion however has forced to trial to be axed. Despite this we are proud to proclaim ourselves as great and will look to further ideas to waste public cash.
Flying pig trial success! Genetically modified pigs to give them wings met all our hopes and reduced harmful emissions by letting them fly to the supermarket shelves. Public opinion however has forced to trial to be axed. Despite this we are proud to proclaim ourselves as great and will look to further ideas to waste public cash. 21stCenturyMalton
  • Score: 489

10:54pm Fri 25 Apr 14

jay, york says...

Well no surprise there then – we knew they would always say it was a success, even though it clearly been a huge disaster!
A council spokeswoman says that
“Overall, data from the trial demonstrates that most of its aims were achieved…………
However, whilst the trial was able to demonstrate success in relation to a number of transport areas the council has listened to residents and businesses and responded to the public opposition to the trial."

What a load of tosh. When have the council ever listened to anyone????? They were forced into a corner and the trial stopped after the official Government advisor concluded that they were acting illegally in issuing pcns using ANPR cameras, when Lendal Bridge could not sensibly be called a bus lane.
Having read the report and the various annexes, there is nothing there to suggest that that the trial has been anything but a total waste of time and money and has made very little difference to York as a whole – other than to create bad publicity and to cause more congestion and pollution by forcing diverting traffic to travel longer distances. The stats are indeed vague and prove nothing and there is an extended use of jargon – which again is a tactic used to mislead.

It is however interesting to note that coyc have been advised to be “prudent” with the £1 million plus they have collected in fines - in other words, don’t spend it because you may well have to pay it back.

I totally agree with other comments here – coyc are so arrogant and bullying, they think that because they speak or issue a statement people will believe what they say. I think it more than fair to say that the majority of us no longer believe a single word they say.
Well no surprise there then – we knew they would always say it was a success, even though it clearly been a huge disaster! A council spokeswoman says that “Overall, data from the trial demonstrates that most of its aims were achieved………… However, whilst the trial was able to demonstrate success in relation to a number of transport areas the council has listened to residents and businesses and responded to the public opposition to the trial." What a load of tosh. When have the council ever listened to anyone????? They were forced into a corner and the trial stopped after the official Government advisor concluded that they were acting illegally in issuing pcns using ANPR cameras, when Lendal Bridge could not sensibly be called a bus lane. Having read the report and the various annexes, there is nothing there to suggest that that the trial has been anything but a total waste of time and money and has made very little difference to York as a whole – other than to create bad publicity and to cause more congestion and pollution by forcing diverting traffic to travel longer distances. The stats are indeed vague and prove nothing and there is an extended use of jargon – which again is a tactic used to mislead. It is however interesting to note that coyc have been advised to be “prudent” with the £1 million plus they have collected in fines - in other words, don’t spend it because you may well have to pay it back. I totally agree with other comments here – coyc are so arrogant and bullying, they think that because they speak or issue a statement people will believe what they say. I think it more than fair to say that the majority of us no longer believe a single word they say. jay, york
  • Score: 521

11:10pm Fri 25 Apr 14

pault42 says...

pedalling paul wrote:
Visit http://www.york.gov.

uk/info/200230/ltp3/

319/ltp3 to fully understand and appreciate the driver behind our City's transport policy viz the Local Transport Plan. Every highway authority has to have one by the way..it's a government requirement. Here's the headline for York's LTP3 from the above website.
"All local authorities in England and Wales have a statutory duty to produce and keep under review a Local Transport Plan (LTP), which sets out their transport policies and plans.
The City of York's Third Local Transport Plan (LTP3), covering the period April 2011 to March 2015 and beyond to 2031, has now been published. It sets out the transport policies and measures that will contribute to the city's economic prosperity over the next 20 years, whilst meeting challenging national and local targets for reducing emissions."

This was signed off in 2010 by the then ruling LibDems, and every Councillor is now effectively signed up to it. The LTP becomes a yardstick against which individual transport proposals are weighed.

Instead of respondents instinctively telling me to peddle off, they should take time to read the detail on the above website. They will then understand what must be done to avoid a doubling of delays in York by 2030. The options do not include removing traffic lights, "letting traffic flow" or other similar suggestions.

The only way in which neccessary car journeys can be accommodated is by a reduction of optional ones. Otherwise congestion charging will inevitably rear its head.
yawn
[quote][p][bold]pedalling paul [/bold] wrote: Visit http://www.york.gov. uk/info/200230/ltp3/ 319/ltp3 to fully understand and appreciate the driver behind our City's transport policy viz the Local Transport Plan. Every highway authority has to have one by the way..it's a government requirement. Here's the headline for York's LTP3 from the above website. "All local authorities in England and Wales have a statutory duty to produce and keep under review a Local Transport Plan (LTP), which sets out their transport policies and plans. The City of York's Third Local Transport Plan (LTP3), covering the period April 2011 to March 2015 and beyond to 2031, has now been published. It sets out the transport policies and measures that will contribute to the city's economic prosperity over the next 20 years, whilst meeting challenging national and local targets for reducing emissions." This was signed off in 2010 by the then ruling LibDems, and every Councillor is now effectively signed up to it. The LTP becomes a yardstick against which individual transport proposals are weighed. Instead of respondents instinctively telling me to peddle off, they should take time to read the detail on the above website. They will then understand what must be done to avoid a doubling of delays in York by 2030. The options do not include removing traffic lights, "letting traffic flow" or other similar suggestions. The only way in which neccessary car journeys can be accommodated is by a reduction of optional ones. Otherwise congestion charging will inevitably rear its head.[/p][/quote]yawn pault42
  • Score: 191

11:32pm Fri 25 Apr 14

pault42 says...

Curious about one thing.... Where is the Great Mr Alexader's input on these amazing statistics? Haven't heard much from him since this farce fell on its face. Could the General be sending cannon fodder out in the hope we'll forget his very enthusiastic support of this poorly conceived, badly executed and embarrassing joke of a trial. We WON'T.
Curious about one thing.... Where is the Great Mr Alexader's input on these amazing statistics? Haven't heard much from him since this farce fell on its face. Could the General be sending cannon fodder out in the hope we'll forget his very enthusiastic support of this poorly conceived, badly executed and embarrassing joke of a trial. We WON'T. pault42
  • Score: 935

1:39am Sat 26 Apr 14

strangebuttrue? says...

pault42 wrote:
pedalling paul wrote:
Visit http://www.york.gov.


uk/info/200230/ltp3/


319/ltp3 to fully understand and appreciate the driver behind our City's transport policy viz the Local Transport Plan. Every highway authority has to have one by the way..it's a government requirement. Here's the headline for York's LTP3 from the above website.
"All local authorities in England and Wales have a statutory duty to produce and keep under review a Local Transport Plan (LTP), which sets out their transport policies and plans.
The City of York's Third Local Transport Plan (LTP3), covering the period April 2011 to March 2015 and beyond to 2031, has now been published. It sets out the transport policies and measures that will contribute to the city's economic prosperity over the next 20 years, whilst meeting challenging national and local targets for reducing emissions."

This was signed off in 2010 by the then ruling LibDems, and every Councillor is now effectively signed up to it. The LTP becomes a yardstick against which individual transport proposals are weighed.

Instead of respondents instinctively telling me to peddle off, they should take time to read the detail on the above website. They will then understand what must be done to avoid a doubling of delays in York by 2030. The options do not include removing traffic lights, "letting traffic flow" or other similar suggestions.

The only way in which neccessary car journeys can be accommodated is by a reduction of optional ones. Otherwise congestion charging will inevitably rear its head.
yawn
I did read it Paul. It appears it was written by someone who believes everyone can and should cycle. Just one question - did Mr Merrett have anything to do with it?

By the way just been browsing through Google maps now they have included old street views. Apart from the massive queue on Boroughbridge Road caused by the changes at Water End, where is all the elusive traffic? Goodness knows they must have had to put some effort in in the last few years to create the congestion we have now with so little traffic around. Taking into account, of course that the council say we have no more now than in 2006!!
[quote][p][bold]pault42[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]pedalling paul [/bold] wrote: Visit http://www.york.gov. uk/info/200230/ltp3/ 319/ltp3 to fully understand and appreciate the driver behind our City's transport policy viz the Local Transport Plan. Every highway authority has to have one by the way..it's a government requirement. Here's the headline for York's LTP3 from the above website. "All local authorities in England and Wales have a statutory duty to produce and keep under review a Local Transport Plan (LTP), which sets out their transport policies and plans. The City of York's Third Local Transport Plan (LTP3), covering the period April 2011 to March 2015 and beyond to 2031, has now been published. It sets out the transport policies and measures that will contribute to the city's economic prosperity over the next 20 years, whilst meeting challenging national and local targets for reducing emissions." This was signed off in 2010 by the then ruling LibDems, and every Councillor is now effectively signed up to it. The LTP becomes a yardstick against which individual transport proposals are weighed. Instead of respondents instinctively telling me to peddle off, they should take time to read the detail on the above website. They will then understand what must be done to avoid a doubling of delays in York by 2030. The options do not include removing traffic lights, "letting traffic flow" or other similar suggestions. The only way in which neccessary car journeys can be accommodated is by a reduction of optional ones. Otherwise congestion charging will inevitably rear its head.[/p][/quote]yawn[/p][/quote]I did read it Paul. It appears it was written by someone who believes everyone can and should cycle. Just one question - did Mr Merrett have anything to do with it? By the way just been browsing through Google maps now they have included old street views. Apart from the massive queue on Boroughbridge Road caused by the changes at Water End, where is all the elusive traffic? Goodness knows they must have had to put some effort in in the last few years to create the congestion we have now with so little traffic around. Taking into account, of course that the council say we have no more now than in 2006!! strangebuttrue?
  • Score: 235

2:04am Sat 26 Apr 14

Badgers Drift says...

Ha, ha... like anyone actually believes the data that the council have measured, collected, and correlated?

I've seen how they 'measure' things and arrive at their conclusions. The Get York Building Survey being a prime example. They witheld the survey for 16 months after it was carried out saying it was 'confidential', but, after a complaint was made to the Police who referred it to the Ombudsman, the council were forced to publish a redacted version, which did not support the conclusions they arrived at.

I hope citizens with expert knowledge will dissect and analyse the available data, and lets see if it stacks up under scrutiny?
Ha, ha... like anyone actually believes the data that the council have measured, collected, and correlated? I've seen how they 'measure' things and arrive at their conclusions. The Get York Building Survey being a prime example. They witheld the survey for 16 months after it was carried out saying it was 'confidential', but, after a complaint was made to the Police who referred it to the Ombudsman, the council were forced to publish a redacted version, which did not support the conclusions they arrived at. I hope citizens with expert knowledge will dissect and analyse the available data, and lets see if it stacks up under scrutiny? Badgers Drift
  • Score: 553

2:07am Sat 26 Apr 14

Badgers Drift says...

oi oi savaloy wrote:
http://democracy.yor k.gov.uk/documents/s 89205/FINAL%20Lendal %20Bridge%20Evaluati on%20Report.pdf sorry BUT this doesn't give me any stats to prove it was a success?? where are the stats to back up what you say???
I bet they only give you the conclusions.... just like they did with the Gewt York Building survey!

Sounds like another stitch-up!
[quote][p][bold]oi oi savaloy[/bold] wrote: http://democracy.yor k.gov.uk/documents/s 89205/FINAL%20Lendal %20Bridge%20Evaluati on%20Report.pdf sorry BUT this doesn't give me any stats to prove it was a success?? where are the stats to back up what you say???[/p][/quote]I bet they only give you the conclusions.... just like they did with the Gewt York Building survey! Sounds like another stitch-up! Badgers Drift
  • Score: 251

6:23am Sat 26 Apr 14

Caecilius says...

bloodaxe wrote:
Staggering city centre congestion recently during the day. I wonder why.
The congestion's caused by that wretched cycle lane on Water End. Oh, hang on, though.... Then it must be because Lendal Bridge is closed to private cars during the day. Oh, it's been reopened - can't use that argument any more.Then the congestion must be down to.....traffic lights, buses, the bypass not being dualled ,foot streets, anything but the blindingly obvious explanation that it's caused by the sheer number of people choosing to get in a car and drive it into the city centre along roads with a finite amount of space.
[quote][p][bold]bloodaxe[/bold] wrote: Staggering city centre congestion recently during the day. I wonder why.[/p][/quote]The congestion's caused by that wretched cycle lane on Water End. Oh, hang on, though.... Then it must be because Lendal Bridge is closed to private cars during the day. Oh, it's been reopened - can't use that argument any more.Then the congestion must be down to.....traffic lights, buses, the bypass not being dualled ,foot streets, anything but the blindingly obvious explanation that it's caused by the sheer number of people choosing to get in a car and drive it into the city centre along roads with a finite amount of space. Caecilius
  • Score: -5266

6:40am Sat 26 Apr 14

Caecilius says...

Pinza-C55 wrote:
"City of York Council has today published data relating to the trial. The council says the trial met most of its objectives, but acknowledges that the public response was overwhelmingly negative. "
There you are you see, it was the PUBLIC who were wrong!
It reminds me of how someone said of Tony Blair "he would never vote for the British electorate".
The public WERE wrong. Or rather, that vociferous faction of the car-driving public that screamed blue murder because it wasn't getting its own way, and shouted down the many people in favour of the closure. And, pretty clearly, the minority of city centre traders who howled that their falling takings were caused by the trial were also wrong, because the fact is that footfall either remained static or actually increased.

I'm still waiting for my Labour councillor to respond to the e-mail I sent her two weeks ago, expressing my disgust at the Labour group for once again appeasing the motoring flat-earthers at the expense of other groups. Perhaps she's having trouble with her e-mail account again, as she told me she had been on the last occasion when I challenged Labour group policy and didn't get an answer.
[quote][p][bold]Pinza-C55[/bold] wrote: "City of York Council has today published data relating to the trial. The council says the trial met most of its objectives, but acknowledges that the public response was overwhelmingly negative. " There you are you see, it was the PUBLIC who were wrong! It reminds me of how someone said of Tony Blair "he would never vote for the British electorate".[/p][/quote]The public WERE wrong. Or rather, that vociferous faction of the car-driving public that screamed blue murder because it wasn't getting its own way, and shouted down the many people in favour of the closure. And, pretty clearly, the minority of city centre traders who howled that their falling takings were caused by the trial were also wrong, because the fact is that footfall either remained static or actually increased. I'm still waiting for my Labour councillor to respond to the e-mail I sent her two weeks ago, expressing my disgust at the Labour group for once again appeasing the motoring flat-earthers at the expense of other groups. Perhaps she's having trouble with her e-mail account again, as she told me she had been on the last occasion when I challenged Labour group policy and didn't get an answer. Caecilius
  • Score: -7640

8:30am Sat 26 Apr 14

CaroleBaines says...

livewithit wrote:
Please can we see the data for the 1237 ?..
Use it every day and the worst bit. Cannot say I noticed a difference.
[quote][p][bold]livewithit[/bold] wrote: Please can we see the data for the 1237 ?..[/p][/quote]Use it every day and the worst bit. Cannot say I noticed a difference. CaroleBaines
  • Score: 796

8:35am Sat 26 Apr 14

eeoodares says...

pedalling paul wrote:
Visit http://www.york.gov.

uk/info/200230/ltp3/

319/ltp3 to fully understand and appreciate the driver behind our City's transport policy viz the Local Transport Plan. Every highway authority has to have one by the way..it's a government requirement. Here's the headline for York's LTP3 from the above website.
"All local authorities in England and Wales have a statutory duty to produce and keep under review a Local Transport Plan (LTP), which sets out their transport policies and plans.
The City of York's Third Local Transport Plan (LTP3), covering the period April 2011 to March 2015 and beyond to 2031, has now been published. It sets out the transport policies and measures that will contribute to the city's economic prosperity over the next 20 years, whilst meeting challenging national and local targets for reducing emissions."

This was signed off in 2010 by the then ruling LibDems, and every Councillor is now effectively signed up to it. The LTP becomes a yardstick against which individual transport proposals are weighed.

Instead of respondents instinctively telling me to peddle off, they should take time to read the detail on the above website. They will then understand what must be done to avoid a doubling of delays in York by 2030. The options do not include removing traffic lights, "letting traffic flow" or other similar suggestions.

The only way in which neccessary car journeys can be accommodated is by a reduction of optional ones. Otherwise congestion charging will inevitably rear its head.
Paul nobody reads what you write anymore because it is always the same rhetoric. You are a one trick pony and people are bored of you. You have done more to harm motorists opinions of cyclists than anybody I have ever known!
[quote][p][bold]pedalling paul [/bold] wrote: Visit http://www.york.gov. uk/info/200230/ltp3/ 319/ltp3 to fully understand and appreciate the driver behind our City's transport policy viz the Local Transport Plan. Every highway authority has to have one by the way..it's a government requirement. Here's the headline for York's LTP3 from the above website. "All local authorities in England and Wales have a statutory duty to produce and keep under review a Local Transport Plan (LTP), which sets out their transport policies and plans. The City of York's Third Local Transport Plan (LTP3), covering the period April 2011 to March 2015 and beyond to 2031, has now been published. It sets out the transport policies and measures that will contribute to the city's economic prosperity over the next 20 years, whilst meeting challenging national and local targets for reducing emissions." This was signed off in 2010 by the then ruling LibDems, and every Councillor is now effectively signed up to it. The LTP becomes a yardstick against which individual transport proposals are weighed. Instead of respondents instinctively telling me to peddle off, they should take time to read the detail on the above website. They will then understand what must be done to avoid a doubling of delays in York by 2030. The options do not include removing traffic lights, "letting traffic flow" or other similar suggestions. The only way in which neccessary car journeys can be accommodated is by a reduction of optional ones. Otherwise congestion charging will inevitably rear its head.[/p][/quote]Paul nobody reads what you write anymore because it is always the same rhetoric. You are a one trick pony and people are bored of you. You have done more to harm motorists opinions of cyclists than anybody I have ever known! eeoodares
  • Score: 58

8:37am Sat 26 Apr 14

AnotherPointofView says...

Caecilius wrote:
Pinza-C55 wrote:
"City of York Council has today published data relating to the trial. The council says the trial met most of its objectives, but acknowledges that the public response was overwhelmingly negative. "
There you are you see, it was the PUBLIC who were wrong!
It reminds me of how someone said of Tony Blair "he would never vote for the British electorate".
The public WERE wrong. Or rather, that vociferous faction of the car-driving public that screamed blue murder because it wasn't getting its own way, and shouted down the many people in favour of the closure. And, pretty clearly, the minority of city centre traders who howled that their falling takings were caused by the trial were also wrong, because the fact is that footfall either remained static or actually increased.

I'm still waiting for my Labour councillor to respond to the e-mail I sent her two weeks ago, expressing my disgust at the Labour group for once again appeasing the motoring flat-earthers at the expense of other groups. Perhaps she's having trouble with her e-mail account again, as she told me she had been on the last occasion when I challenged Labour group policy and didn't get an answer.
No, it was the Council that was wrong both in what they did and how they did it.

They were wrong to close part of the inner ring road and they were wrong in it's implementation. Just read the traffic adjudicators report to see what was wrong.
[quote][p][bold]Caecilius[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Pinza-C55[/bold] wrote: "City of York Council has today published data relating to the trial. The council says the trial met most of its objectives, but acknowledges that the public response was overwhelmingly negative. " There you are you see, it was the PUBLIC who were wrong! It reminds me of how someone said of Tony Blair "he would never vote for the British electorate".[/p][/quote]The public WERE wrong. Or rather, that vociferous faction of the car-driving public that screamed blue murder because it wasn't getting its own way, and shouted down the many people in favour of the closure. And, pretty clearly, the minority of city centre traders who howled that their falling takings were caused by the trial were also wrong, because the fact is that footfall either remained static or actually increased. I'm still waiting for my Labour councillor to respond to the e-mail I sent her two weeks ago, expressing my disgust at the Labour group for once again appeasing the motoring flat-earthers at the expense of other groups. Perhaps she's having trouble with her e-mail account again, as she told me she had been on the last occasion when I challenged Labour group policy and didn't get an answer.[/p][/quote]No, it was the Council that was wrong both in what they did and how they did it. They were wrong to close part of the inner ring road and they were wrong in it's implementation. Just read the traffic adjudicators report to see what was wrong. AnotherPointofView
  • Score: 1742

8:40am Sat 26 Apr 14

eeoodares says...

Caecilius wrote:
Pinza-C55 wrote:
"City of York Council has today published data relating to the trial. The council says the trial met most of its objectives, but acknowledges that the public response was overwhelmingly negative. "
There you are you see, it was the PUBLIC who were wrong!
It reminds me of how someone said of Tony Blair "he would never vote for the British electorate".
The public WERE wrong. Or rather, that vociferous faction of the car-driving public that screamed blue murder because it wasn't getting its own way, and shouted down the many people in favour of the closure. And, pretty clearly, the minority of city centre traders who howled that their falling takings were caused by the trial were also wrong, because the fact is that footfall either remained static or actually increased.

I'm still waiting for my Labour councillor to respond to the e-mail I sent her two weeks ago, expressing my disgust at the Labour group for once again appeasing the motoring flat-earthers at the expense of other groups. Perhaps she's having trouble with her e-mail account again, as she told me she had been on the last occasion when I challenged Labour group policy and didn't get an answer.
Calm down dear, you are wrong.

The number of vehicles on the road has gone down in recent years, whilst congestion and pollution has gone up (Council stats). So my dear little flatearther, please explain why the current situation is the motorists fault?

No answer? exactly, now pipe down and watch Labour get kicked out at the next election!
[quote][p][bold]Caecilius[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Pinza-C55[/bold] wrote: "City of York Council has today published data relating to the trial. The council says the trial met most of its objectives, but acknowledges that the public response was overwhelmingly negative. " There you are you see, it was the PUBLIC who were wrong! It reminds me of how someone said of Tony Blair "he would never vote for the British electorate".[/p][/quote]The public WERE wrong. Or rather, that vociferous faction of the car-driving public that screamed blue murder because it wasn't getting its own way, and shouted down the many people in favour of the closure. And, pretty clearly, the minority of city centre traders who howled that their falling takings were caused by the trial were also wrong, because the fact is that footfall either remained static or actually increased. I'm still waiting for my Labour councillor to respond to the e-mail I sent her two weeks ago, expressing my disgust at the Labour group for once again appeasing the motoring flat-earthers at the expense of other groups. Perhaps she's having trouble with her e-mail account again, as she told me she had been on the last occasion when I challenged Labour group policy and didn't get an answer.[/p][/quote]Calm down dear, you are wrong. The number of vehicles on the road has gone down in recent years, whilst congestion and pollution has gone up (Council stats). So my dear little flatearther, please explain why the current situation is the motorists fault? No answer? exactly, now pipe down and watch Labour get kicked out at the next election! eeoodares
  • Score: 494

9:23am Sat 26 Apr 14

mjgyork says...

The mistake was to declare it a "Trial". Should have first got the signage correct and as idiot proof as possible, then declare the closure a POLICY!
The mistake was to declare it a "Trial". Should have first got the signage correct and as idiot proof as possible, then declare the closure a POLICY! mjgyork
  • Score: 612

9:37am Sat 26 Apr 14

far2bizzy says...

I’m sorry everyone the battle may be lost but as more and more visitors come to the city and that bridge becomes more and more congested the time will come when it will have to close to traffic. Perhaps not tomorrow or the day after but at some point the council, of whatever colour, will decide it’s time. And they won’t run another trial, after the debacle of this one, they’ll use these results as justification, because the bottom line is that the closure did not bring the city to its knees. So it might be an idea for you to think ahead to when that time comes and work out your contingency plan.
I’m sorry everyone the battle may be lost but as more and more visitors come to the city and that bridge becomes more and more congested the time will come when it will have to close to traffic. Perhaps not tomorrow or the day after but at some point the council, of whatever colour, will decide it’s time. And they won’t run another trial, after the debacle of this one, they’ll use these results as justification, because the bottom line is that the closure did not bring the city to its knees. So it might be an idea for you to think ahead to when that time comes and work out your contingency plan. far2bizzy
  • Score: 372

10:26am Sat 26 Apr 14

Happytoliveinyork says...

Caecilius wrote:
Pinza-C55 wrote:
"City of York Council has today published data relating to the trial. The council says the trial met most of its objectives, but acknowledges that the public response was overwhelmingly negative. "
There you are you see, it was the PUBLIC who were wrong!
It reminds me of how someone said of Tony Blair "he would never vote for the British electorate".
The public WERE wrong. Or rather, that vociferous faction of the car-driving public that screamed blue murder because it wasn't getting its own way, and shouted down the many people in favour of the closure. And, pretty clearly, the minority of city centre traders who howled that their falling takings were caused by the trial were also wrong, because the fact is that footfall either remained static or actually increased.

I'm still waiting for my Labour councillor to respond to the e-mail I sent her two weeks ago, expressing my disgust at the Labour group for once again appeasing the motoring flat-earthers at the expense of other groups. Perhaps she's having trouble with her e-mail account again, as she told me she had been on the last occasion when I challenged Labour group policy and didn't get an answer.
I do like your posts - every time I read them they bring a little smile to my face :-)

Those dam pesky car drivers eh.....what have they ever done for this country? Oh, hang on - just the £32 bn per year in fuel duty & car tax. (Not to mention countless millions in fines from car hating councils such as ours).
[quote][p][bold]Caecilius[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Pinza-C55[/bold] wrote: "City of York Council has today published data relating to the trial. The council says the trial met most of its objectives, but acknowledges that the public response was overwhelmingly negative. " There you are you see, it was the PUBLIC who were wrong! It reminds me of how someone said of Tony Blair "he would never vote for the British electorate".[/p][/quote]The public WERE wrong. Or rather, that vociferous faction of the car-driving public that screamed blue murder because it wasn't getting its own way, and shouted down the many people in favour of the closure. And, pretty clearly, the minority of city centre traders who howled that their falling takings were caused by the trial were also wrong, because the fact is that footfall either remained static or actually increased. I'm still waiting for my Labour councillor to respond to the e-mail I sent her two weeks ago, expressing my disgust at the Labour group for once again appeasing the motoring flat-earthers at the expense of other groups. Perhaps she's having trouble with her e-mail account again, as she told me she had been on the last occasion when I challenged Labour group policy and didn't get an answer.[/p][/quote]I do like your posts - every time I read them they bring a little smile to my face :-) Those dam pesky car drivers eh.....what have they ever done for this country? Oh, hang on - just the £32 bn per year in fuel duty & car tax. (Not to mention countless millions in fines from car hating councils such as ours). Happytoliveinyork
  • Score: 1151

10:27am Sat 26 Apr 14

Cheeky face says...

The trial was NOT a real trial, because they had not followed all the regulations and acted properly from the start. It now means future suggestions etc will be harder to have accepted.

Up to Wed the trial was still on the council web-site home page!
The trial was NOT a real trial, because they had not followed all the regulations and acted properly from the start. It now means future suggestions etc will be harder to have accepted. Up to Wed the trial was still on the council web-site home page! Cheeky face
  • Score: 985

12:02pm Sat 26 Apr 14

Yorkborneinbse says...

And David Moyes reckoned Manchester United played well at Everton last week. A survival instinct of failures thats all it is. Whats most sad, is the abstract lack honesty with this lot. No matter how much crap they fling around this City, it appears its only them who can smell roses.
We have to trial alternatives where there are problems, but when they have been ill considered, poorly excecuted, respectful of the opinions of a minority, and illegal, good people would come out and say sorry.

Fundamental requirement of any improvement project, look similiar to this.

Identify what exactly is the problem is.?
Ask the opinions of the Customers and their issues. ( us)
Quantify and evaluate the problem and root causes
Analyse the captured data, and the Voice of the Customer
Develop a pilot solution
Evaluate the pilot solution with the customers
Agree the improvements of the pilot if any were found
Impliment the agreed solution
Control and monitor the effectiveness of the agreed solution

This shower did none of it, so it was doomed to fail. Now it has YCC, just be honest. We all admire a trier, but not infused with deceipt , dishonesty arrogance, and complete disrespect of the concerns and opinions of the Customers whom elected you to serve us.
And David Moyes reckoned Manchester United played well at Everton last week. A survival instinct of failures thats all it is. Whats most sad, is the abstract lack honesty with this lot. No matter how much crap they fling around this City, it appears its only them who can smell roses. We have to trial alternatives where there are problems, but when they have been ill considered, poorly excecuted, respectful of the opinions of a minority, and illegal, good people would come out and say sorry. Fundamental requirement of any improvement project, look similiar to this. Identify what exactly is the problem is.? Ask the opinions of the Customers and their issues. ( us) Quantify and evaluate the problem and root causes Analyse the captured data, and the Voice of the Customer Develop a pilot solution Evaluate the pilot solution with the customers Agree the improvements of the pilot if any were found Impliment the agreed solution Control and monitor the effectiveness of the agreed solution This shower did none of it, so it was doomed to fail. Now it has YCC, just be honest. We all admire a trier, but not infused with deceipt , dishonesty arrogance, and complete disrespect of the concerns and opinions of the Customers whom elected you to serve us. Yorkborneinbse
  • Score: 937

12:35pm Sat 26 Apr 14

Happytoliveinyork says...

Yorkborneinbse wrote:
And David Moyes reckoned Manchester United played well at Everton last week. A survival instinct of failures thats all it is. Whats most sad, is the abstract lack honesty with this lot. No matter how much crap they fling around this City, it appears its only them who can smell roses.
We have to trial alternatives where there are problems, but when they have been ill considered, poorly excecuted, respectful of the opinions of a minority, and illegal, good people would come out and say sorry.

Fundamental requirement of any improvement project, look similiar to this.

Identify what exactly is the problem is.?
Ask the opinions of the Customers and their issues. ( us)
Quantify and evaluate the problem and root causes
Analyse the captured data, and the Voice of the Customer
Develop a pilot solution
Evaluate the pilot solution with the customers
Agree the improvements of the pilot if any were found
Impliment the agreed solution
Control and monitor the effectiveness of the agreed solution

This shower did none of it, so it was doomed to fail. Now it has YCC, just be honest. We all admire a trier, but not infused with deceipt , dishonesty arrogance, and complete disrespect of the concerns and opinions of the Customers whom elected you to serve us.
Good point - there's nothing wrong with trialling new things - however it's the way the current labour council go about things. Arrogance and no seeming ability to hold your their hands up, say you've made a mistake - learn from it and move on.

As many have said previously, I have voted labour in every election since I was 18. There's no way that I will be voting Labour in the COYC elections next year.

Wonder which seat Jimmy will be running for in the national elections - hope it's not anywhere near York.
[quote][p][bold]Yorkborneinbse[/bold] wrote: And David Moyes reckoned Manchester United played well at Everton last week. A survival instinct of failures thats all it is. Whats most sad, is the abstract lack honesty with this lot. No matter how much crap they fling around this City, it appears its only them who can smell roses. We have to trial alternatives where there are problems, but when they have been ill considered, poorly excecuted, respectful of the opinions of a minority, and illegal, good people would come out and say sorry. Fundamental requirement of any improvement project, look similiar to this. Identify what exactly is the problem is.? Ask the opinions of the Customers and their issues. ( us) Quantify and evaluate the problem and root causes Analyse the captured data, and the Voice of the Customer Develop a pilot solution Evaluate the pilot solution with the customers Agree the improvements of the pilot if any were found Impliment the agreed solution Control and monitor the effectiveness of the agreed solution This shower did none of it, so it was doomed to fail. Now it has YCC, just be honest. We all admire a trier, but not infused with deceipt , dishonesty arrogance, and complete disrespect of the concerns and opinions of the Customers whom elected you to serve us.[/p][/quote]Good point - there's nothing wrong with trialling new things - however it's the way the current labour council go about things. Arrogance and no seeming ability to hold your their hands up, say you've made a mistake - learn from it and move on. As many have said previously, I have voted labour in every election since I was 18. There's no way that I will be voting Labour in the COYC elections next year. Wonder which seat Jimmy will be running for in the national elections - hope it's not anywhere near York. Happytoliveinyork
  • Score: 1385

12:37pm Sat 26 Apr 14

WhyEver says...

Caecilius wrote:
Pinza-C55 wrote:
"City of York Council has today published data relating to the trial. The council says the trial met most of its objectives, but acknowledges that the public response was overwhelmingly negative. "
There you are you see, it was the PUBLIC who were wrong!
It reminds me of how someone said of Tony Blair "he would never vote for the British electorate".
The public WERE wrong. Or rather, that vociferous faction of the car-driving public that screamed blue murder because it wasn't getting its own way, and shouted down the many people in favour of the closure. And, pretty clearly, the minority of city centre traders who howled that their falling takings were caused by the trial were also wrong, because the fact is that footfall either remained static or actually increased.

I'm still waiting for my Labour councillor to respond to the e-mail I sent her two weeks ago, expressing my disgust at the Labour group for once again appeasing the motoring flat-earthers at the expense of other groups. Perhaps she's having trouble with her e-mail account again, as she told me she had been on the last occasion when I challenged Labour group policy and didn't get an answer.
More people against the closure than in favour of it, according to all the surveys. Pretending it's only a few car drivers is wrong, there are plenty of residents who objected to the cynical redirection of traffic from Lendal into our parts of the City.
[quote][p][bold]Caecilius[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Pinza-C55[/bold] wrote: "City of York Council has today published data relating to the trial. The council says the trial met most of its objectives, but acknowledges that the public response was overwhelmingly negative. " There you are you see, it was the PUBLIC who were wrong! It reminds me of how someone said of Tony Blair "he would never vote for the British electorate".[/p][/quote]The public WERE wrong. Or rather, that vociferous faction of the car-driving public that screamed blue murder because it wasn't getting its own way, and shouted down the many people in favour of the closure. And, pretty clearly, the minority of city centre traders who howled that their falling takings were caused by the trial were also wrong, because the fact is that footfall either remained static or actually increased. I'm still waiting for my Labour councillor to respond to the e-mail I sent her two weeks ago, expressing my disgust at the Labour group for once again appeasing the motoring flat-earthers at the expense of other groups. Perhaps she's having trouble with her e-mail account again, as she told me she had been on the last occasion when I challenged Labour group policy and didn't get an answer.[/p][/quote]More people against the closure than in favour of it, according to all the surveys. Pretending it's only a few car drivers is wrong, there are plenty of residents who objected to the cynical redirection of traffic from Lendal into our parts of the City. WhyEver
  • Score: 1061

1:57pm Sat 26 Apr 14

Happytoliveinyork says...

Happytoliveinyork wrote:
Yorkborneinbse wrote:
And David Moyes reckoned Manchester United played well at Everton last week. A survival instinct of failures thats all it is. Whats most sad, is the abstract lack honesty with this lot. No matter how much crap they fling around this City, it appears its only them who can smell roses.
We have to trial alternatives where there are problems, but when they have been ill considered, poorly excecuted, respectful of the opinions of a minority, and illegal, good people would come out and say sorry.

Fundamental requirement of any improvement project, look similiar to this.

Identify what exactly is the problem is.?
Ask the opinions of the Customers and their issues. ( us)
Quantify and evaluate the problem and root causes
Analyse the captured data, and the Voice of the Customer
Develop a pilot solution
Evaluate the pilot solution with the customers
Agree the improvements of the pilot if any were found
Impliment the agreed solution
Control and monitor the effectiveness of the agreed solution

This shower did none of it, so it was doomed to fail. Now it has YCC, just be honest. We all admire a trier, but not infused with deceipt , dishonesty arrogance, and complete disrespect of the concerns and opinions of the Customers whom elected you to serve us.
Good point - there's nothing wrong with trialling new things - however it's the way the current labour council go about things. Arrogance and no seeming ability to hold your their hands up, say you've made a mistake - learn from it and move on.

As many have said previously, I have voted labour in every election since I was 18. There's no way that I will be voting Labour in the COYC elections next year.

Wonder which seat Jimmy will be running for in the national elections - hope it's not anywhere near York.
Whooooo hooooo - I've reached -57 already :-)
[quote][p][bold]Happytoliveinyork[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Yorkborneinbse[/bold] wrote: And David Moyes reckoned Manchester United played well at Everton last week. A survival instinct of failures thats all it is. Whats most sad, is the abstract lack honesty with this lot. No matter how much crap they fling around this City, it appears its only them who can smell roses. We have to trial alternatives where there are problems, but when they have been ill considered, poorly excecuted, respectful of the opinions of a minority, and illegal, good people would come out and say sorry. Fundamental requirement of any improvement project, look similiar to this. Identify what exactly is the problem is.? Ask the opinions of the Customers and their issues. ( us) Quantify and evaluate the problem and root causes Analyse the captured data, and the Voice of the Customer Develop a pilot solution Evaluate the pilot solution with the customers Agree the improvements of the pilot if any were found Impliment the agreed solution Control and monitor the effectiveness of the agreed solution This shower did none of it, so it was doomed to fail. Now it has YCC, just be honest. We all admire a trier, but not infused with deceipt , dishonesty arrogance, and complete disrespect of the concerns and opinions of the Customers whom elected you to serve us.[/p][/quote]Good point - there's nothing wrong with trialling new things - however it's the way the current labour council go about things. Arrogance and no seeming ability to hold your their hands up, say you've made a mistake - learn from it and move on. As many have said previously, I have voted labour in every election since I was 18. There's no way that I will be voting Labour in the COYC elections next year. Wonder which seat Jimmy will be running for in the national elections - hope it's not anywhere near York.[/p][/quote]Whooooo hooooo - I've reached -57 already :-) Happytoliveinyork
  • Score: 998

2:25pm Sat 26 Apr 14

pedalling paul says...

I'm running out of blue touch paper........
I'm running out of blue touch paper........ pedalling paul
  • Score: -5261

2:30pm Sat 26 Apr 14

swh1963 says...

No solutions and no blue touch paper? Might be hearing the last from you then?
No solutions and no blue touch paper? Might be hearing the last from you then? swh1963
  • Score: 1561

5:57pm Sat 26 Apr 14

jake777 says...

eeoodares wrote:
Caecilius wrote:
Pinza-C55 wrote:
"City of York Council has today published data relating to the trial. The council says the trial met most of its objectives, but acknowledges that the public response was overwhelmingly negative. "
There you are you see, it was the PUBLIC who were wrong!
It reminds me of how someone said of Tony Blair "he would never vote for the British electorate".
The public WERE wrong. Or rather, that vociferous faction of the car-driving public that screamed blue murder because it wasn't getting its own way, and shouted down the many people in favour of the closure. And, pretty clearly, the minority of city centre traders who howled that their falling takings were caused by the trial were also wrong, because the fact is that footfall either remained static or actually increased.

I'm still waiting for my Labour councillor to respond to the e-mail I sent her two weeks ago, expressing my disgust at the Labour group for once again appeasing the motoring flat-earthers at the expense of other groups. Perhaps she's having trouble with her e-mail account again, as she told me she had been on the last occasion when I challenged Labour group policy and didn't get an answer.
Calm down dear, you are wrong.

The number of vehicles on the road has gone down in recent years, whilst congestion and pollution has gone up (Council stats). So my dear little flatearther, please explain why the current situation is the motorists fault?

No answer? exactly, now pipe down and watch Labour get kicked out at the next election!
In your dreams go sell more insurance.
[quote][p][bold]eeoodares[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Caecilius[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Pinza-C55[/bold] wrote: "City of York Council has today published data relating to the trial. The council says the trial met most of its objectives, but acknowledges that the public response was overwhelmingly negative. " There you are you see, it was the PUBLIC who were wrong! It reminds me of how someone said of Tony Blair "he would never vote for the British electorate".[/p][/quote]The public WERE wrong. Or rather, that vociferous faction of the car-driving public that screamed blue murder because it wasn't getting its own way, and shouted down the many people in favour of the closure. And, pretty clearly, the minority of city centre traders who howled that their falling takings were caused by the trial were also wrong, because the fact is that footfall either remained static or actually increased. I'm still waiting for my Labour councillor to respond to the e-mail I sent her two weeks ago, expressing my disgust at the Labour group for once again appeasing the motoring flat-earthers at the expense of other groups. Perhaps she's having trouble with her e-mail account again, as she told me she had been on the last occasion when I challenged Labour group policy and didn't get an answer.[/p][/quote]Calm down dear, you are wrong. The number of vehicles on the road has gone down in recent years, whilst congestion and pollution has gone up (Council stats). So my dear little flatearther, please explain why the current situation is the motorists fault? No answer? exactly, now pipe down and watch Labour get kicked out at the next election![/p][/quote]In your dreams go sell more insurance. jake777
  • Score: -2491

6:00pm Sat 26 Apr 14

jake777 says...

Happytoliveinyork wrote:
Caecilius wrote:
Pinza-C55 wrote:
"City of York Council has today published data relating to the trial. The council says the trial met most of its objectives, but acknowledges that the public response was overwhelmingly negative. "
There you are you see, it was the PUBLIC who were wrong!
It reminds me of how someone said of Tony Blair "he would never vote for the British electorate".
The public WERE wrong. Or rather, that vociferous faction of the car-driving public that screamed blue murder because it wasn't getting its own way, and shouted down the many people in favour of the closure. And, pretty clearly, the minority of city centre traders who howled that their falling takings were caused by the trial were also wrong, because the fact is that footfall either remained static or actually increased.

I'm still waiting for my Labour councillor to respond to the e-mail I sent her two weeks ago, expressing my disgust at the Labour group for once again appeasing the motoring flat-earthers at the expense of other groups. Perhaps she's having trouble with her e-mail account again, as she told me she had been on the last occasion when I challenged Labour group policy and didn't get an answer.
I do like your posts - every time I read them they bring a little smile to my face :-)

Those dam pesky car drivers eh.....what have they ever done for this country? Oh, hang on - just the £32 bn per year in fuel duty & car tax. (Not to mention countless millions in fines from car hating councils such as ours).
You are so badly done to.
[quote][p][bold]Happytoliveinyork[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Caecilius[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Pinza-C55[/bold] wrote: "City of York Council has today published data relating to the trial. The council says the trial met most of its objectives, but acknowledges that the public response was overwhelmingly negative. " There you are you see, it was the PUBLIC who were wrong! It reminds me of how someone said of Tony Blair "he would never vote for the British electorate".[/p][/quote]The public WERE wrong. Or rather, that vociferous faction of the car-driving public that screamed blue murder because it wasn't getting its own way, and shouted down the many people in favour of the closure. And, pretty clearly, the minority of city centre traders who howled that their falling takings were caused by the trial were also wrong, because the fact is that footfall either remained static or actually increased. I'm still waiting for my Labour councillor to respond to the e-mail I sent her two weeks ago, expressing my disgust at the Labour group for once again appeasing the motoring flat-earthers at the expense of other groups. Perhaps she's having trouble with her e-mail account again, as she told me she had been on the last occasion when I challenged Labour group policy and didn't get an answer.[/p][/quote]I do like your posts - every time I read them they bring a little smile to my face :-) Those dam pesky car drivers eh.....what have they ever done for this country? Oh, hang on - just the £32 bn per year in fuel duty & car tax. (Not to mention countless millions in fines from car hating councils such as ours).[/p][/quote]You are so badly done to. jake777
  • Score: -1008

6:02pm Sat 26 Apr 14

jake777 says...

Cheeky face wrote:
The trial was NOT a real trial, because they had not followed all the regulations and acted properly from the start. It now means future suggestions etc will be harder to have accepted.

Up to Wed the trial was still on the council web-site home page!
So What get over it.
[quote][p][bold]Cheeky face[/bold] wrote: The trial was NOT a real trial, because they had not followed all the regulations and acted properly from the start. It now means future suggestions etc will be harder to have accepted. Up to Wed the trial was still on the council web-site home page![/p][/quote]So What get over it. jake777
  • Score: -855

6:21pm Sat 26 Apr 14

Happytoliveinyork says...

jake777 wrote:
Happytoliveinyork wrote:
Caecilius wrote:
Pinza-C55 wrote:
"City of York Council has today published data relating to the trial. The council says the trial met most of its objectives, but acknowledges that the public response was overwhelmingly negative. "
There you are you see, it was the PUBLIC who were wrong!
It reminds me of how someone said of Tony Blair "he would never vote for the British electorate".
The public WERE wrong. Or rather, that vociferous faction of the car-driving public that screamed blue murder because it wasn't getting its own way, and shouted down the many people in favour of the closure. And, pretty clearly, the minority of city centre traders who howled that their falling takings were caused by the trial were also wrong, because the fact is that footfall either remained static or actually increased.

I'm still waiting for my Labour councillor to respond to the e-mail I sent her two weeks ago, expressing my disgust at the Labour group for once again appeasing the motoring flat-earthers at the expense of other groups. Perhaps she's having trouble with her e-mail account again, as she told me she had been on the last occasion when I challenged Labour group policy and didn't get an answer.
I do like your posts - every time I read them they bring a little smile to my face :-)

Those dam pesky car drivers eh.....what have they ever done for this country? Oh, hang on - just the £32 bn per year in fuel duty & car tax. (Not to mention countless millions in fines from car hating councils such as ours).
You are so badly done to.
Brilliant - well done !
[quote][p][bold]jake777[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Happytoliveinyork[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Caecilius[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Pinza-C55[/bold] wrote: "City of York Council has today published data relating to the trial. The council says the trial met most of its objectives, but acknowledges that the public response was overwhelmingly negative. " There you are you see, it was the PUBLIC who were wrong! It reminds me of how someone said of Tony Blair "he would never vote for the British electorate".[/p][/quote]The public WERE wrong. Or rather, that vociferous faction of the car-driving public that screamed blue murder because it wasn't getting its own way, and shouted down the many people in favour of the closure. And, pretty clearly, the minority of city centre traders who howled that their falling takings were caused by the trial were also wrong, because the fact is that footfall either remained static or actually increased. I'm still waiting for my Labour councillor to respond to the e-mail I sent her two weeks ago, expressing my disgust at the Labour group for once again appeasing the motoring flat-earthers at the expense of other groups. Perhaps she's having trouble with her e-mail account again, as she told me she had been on the last occasion when I challenged Labour group policy and didn't get an answer.[/p][/quote]I do like your posts - every time I read them they bring a little smile to my face :-) Those dam pesky car drivers eh.....what have they ever done for this country? Oh, hang on - just the £32 bn per year in fuel duty & car tax. (Not to mention countless millions in fines from car hating councils such as ours).[/p][/quote]You are so badly done to.[/p][/quote]Brilliant - well done ! Happytoliveinyork
  • Score: 1177

6:22pm Sat 26 Apr 14

Happytoliveinyork says...

jake777 wrote:
Cheeky face wrote:
The trial was NOT a real trial, because they had not followed all the regulations and acted properly from the start. It now means future suggestions etc will be harder to have accepted.

Up to Wed the trial was still on the council web-site home page!
So What get over it.
:-)
[quote][p][bold]jake777[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Cheeky face[/bold] wrote: The trial was NOT a real trial, because they had not followed all the regulations and acted properly from the start. It now means future suggestions etc will be harder to have accepted. Up to Wed the trial was still on the council web-site home page![/p][/quote]So What get over it.[/p][/quote]:-) Happytoliveinyork
  • Score: 1073

6:34pm Sat 26 Apr 14

Pinza-C55 says...

jake777 wrote:
Happytoliveinyork wrote:
Caecilius wrote:
Pinza-C55 wrote:
"City of York Council has today published data relating to the trial. The council says the trial met most of its objectives, but acknowledges that the public response was overwhelmingly negative. "
There you are you see, it was the PUBLIC who were wrong!
It reminds me of how someone said of Tony Blair "he would never vote for the British electorate".
The public WERE wrong. Or rather, that vociferous faction of the car-driving public that screamed blue murder because it wasn't getting its own way, and shouted down the many people in favour of the closure. And, pretty clearly, the minority of city centre traders who howled that their falling takings were caused by the trial were also wrong, because the fact is that footfall either remained static or actually increased.

I'm still waiting for my Labour councillor to respond to the e-mail I sent her two weeks ago, expressing my disgust at the Labour group for once again appeasing the motoring flat-earthers at the expense of other groups. Perhaps she's having trouble with her e-mail account again, as she told me she had been on the last occasion when I challenged Labour group policy and didn't get an answer.
I do like your posts - every time I read them they bring a little smile to my face :-)

Those dam pesky car drivers eh.....what have they ever done for this country? Oh, hang on - just the £32 bn per year in fuel duty & car tax. (Not to mention countless millions in fines from car hating councils such as ours).
You are so badly done to.
- 1500
[quote][p][bold]jake777[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Happytoliveinyork[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Caecilius[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Pinza-C55[/bold] wrote: "City of York Council has today published data relating to the trial. The council says the trial met most of its objectives, but acknowledges that the public response was overwhelmingly negative. " There you are you see, it was the PUBLIC who were wrong! It reminds me of how someone said of Tony Blair "he would never vote for the British electorate".[/p][/quote]The public WERE wrong. Or rather, that vociferous faction of the car-driving public that screamed blue murder because it wasn't getting its own way, and shouted down the many people in favour of the closure. And, pretty clearly, the minority of city centre traders who howled that their falling takings were caused by the trial were also wrong, because the fact is that footfall either remained static or actually increased. I'm still waiting for my Labour councillor to respond to the e-mail I sent her two weeks ago, expressing my disgust at the Labour group for once again appeasing the motoring flat-earthers at the expense of other groups. Perhaps she's having trouble with her e-mail account again, as she told me she had been on the last occasion when I challenged Labour group policy and didn't get an answer.[/p][/quote]I do like your posts - every time I read them they bring a little smile to my face :-) Those dam pesky car drivers eh.....what have they ever done for this country? Oh, hang on - just the £32 bn per year in fuel duty & car tax. (Not to mention countless millions in fines from car hating councils such as ours).[/p][/quote]You are so badly done to.[/p][/quote]- 1500 Pinza-C55
  • Score: 926

6:35pm Sat 26 Apr 14

RoseD says...

If increased traffic and fumes throughout residential areas; gridlock; hours of productivity lost; is a SUCCESS, I shudder to imagine what COYM consider a FAILURE.
If increased traffic and fumes throughout residential areas; gridlock; hours of productivity lost; is a SUCCESS, I shudder to imagine what COYM consider a FAILURE. RoseD
  • Score: 1368

6:42pm Sat 26 Apr 14

Pinza-C55 says...

Caecilius wrote:
Pinza-C55 wrote:
"City of York Council has today published data relating to the trial. The council says the trial met most of its objectives, but acknowledges that the public response was overwhelmingly negative. "
There you are you see, it was the PUBLIC who were wrong!
It reminds me of how someone said of Tony Blair "he would never vote for the British electorate".
The public WERE wrong. Or rather, that vociferous faction of the car-driving public that screamed blue murder because it wasn't getting its own way, and shouted down the many people in favour of the closure. And, pretty clearly, the minority of city centre traders who howled that their falling takings were caused by the trial were also wrong, because the fact is that footfall either remained static or actually increased.

I'm still waiting for my Labour councillor to respond to the e-mail I sent her two weeks ago, expressing my disgust at the Labour group for once again appeasing the motoring flat-earthers at the expense of other groups. Perhaps she's having trouble with her e-mail account again, as she told me she had been on the last occasion when I challenged Labour group policy and didn't get an answer.
"The public WERE wrong."
Translated.
"I was right."
"Or rather, that vociferous faction of the car-driving public that screamed blue murder because it wasn't getting its own way, and shouted down the many people in favour of the closure."
Translated.
"I was right."
" And, pretty clearly, the minority of city centre traders who howled that their falling takings were caused by the trial were also wrong, because the fact is that footfall either remained static or actually increased."
Translated.
"I was right."
" I'm still waiting for my Labour councillor to respond to the e-mail I sent her two weeks ago, expressing my disgust at the Labour group for once again appeasing the motoring flat-earthers at the expense of other groups."
Translated.
"I was right."
"I challenged Labour group policy and didn't get an answer."
Translated.
"I was right."
All you have to do now is convince other people that you were right.
Good luck.
[quote][p][bold]Caecilius[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Pinza-C55[/bold] wrote: "City of York Council has today published data relating to the trial. The council says the trial met most of its objectives, but acknowledges that the public response was overwhelmingly negative. " There you are you see, it was the PUBLIC who were wrong! It reminds me of how someone said of Tony Blair "he would never vote for the British electorate".[/p][/quote]The public WERE wrong. Or rather, that vociferous faction of the car-driving public that screamed blue murder because it wasn't getting its own way, and shouted down the many people in favour of the closure. And, pretty clearly, the minority of city centre traders who howled that their falling takings were caused by the trial were also wrong, because the fact is that footfall either remained static or actually increased. I'm still waiting for my Labour councillor to respond to the e-mail I sent her two weeks ago, expressing my disgust at the Labour group for once again appeasing the motoring flat-earthers at the expense of other groups. Perhaps she's having trouble with her e-mail account again, as she told me she had been on the last occasion when I challenged Labour group policy and didn't get an answer.[/p][/quote]"The public WERE wrong." Translated. "I was right." "Or rather, that vociferous faction of the car-driving public that screamed blue murder because it wasn't getting its own way, and shouted down the many people in favour of the closure." Translated. "I was right." " And, pretty clearly, the minority of city centre traders who howled that their falling takings were caused by the trial were also wrong, because the fact is that footfall either remained static or actually increased." Translated. "I was right." " I'm still waiting for my Labour councillor to respond to the e-mail I sent her two weeks ago, expressing my disgust at the Labour group for once again appeasing the motoring flat-earthers at the expense of other groups." Translated. "I was right." "I challenged Labour group policy and didn't get an answer." Translated. "I was right." All you have to do now is convince other people that you were right. Good luck. Pinza-C55
  • Score: 729

7:07pm Sat 26 Apr 14

JasBro says...

pedalling paul wrote:
Visit http://www.york.gov.

uk/info/200230/ltp3/

319/ltp3 to fully understand and appreciate the driver behind our City's transport policy viz the Local Transport Plan. Every highway authority has to have one by the way..it's a government requirement. Here's the headline for York's LTP3 from the above website.
"All local authorities in England and Wales have a statutory duty to produce and keep under review a Local Transport Plan (LTP), which sets out their transport policies and plans.
The City of York's Third Local Transport Plan (LTP3), covering the period April 2011 to March 2015 and beyond to 2031, has now been published. It sets out the transport policies and measures that will contribute to the city's economic prosperity over the next 20 years, whilst meeting challenging national and local targets for reducing emissions."

This was signed off in 2010 by the then ruling LibDems, and every Councillor is now effectively signed up to it. The LTP becomes a yardstick against which individual transport proposals are weighed.

Instead of respondents instinctively telling me to peddle off, they should take time to read the detail on the above website. They will then understand what must be done to avoid a doubling of delays in York by 2030. The options do not include removing traffic lights, "letting traffic flow" or other similar suggestions.

The only way in which neccessary car journeys can be accommodated is by a reduction of optional ones. Otherwise congestion charging will inevitably rear its head.
LTP3 was written by idiots who cannot see the clear evidence that their policies have failed, and failed miserably. They should be sacked for their absolute incompetence.

In the last decade, pollution and congestion have increased whilst traffic levels have remained static. Cycling levels have not increased in spite of all efforts. Please try to explain this epic failure.

York needs intelligent, progressive transport policies, and the only option which should be ruled out, is dogmatically sticking to failed policies.
[quote][p][bold]pedalling paul [/bold] wrote: Visit http://www.york.gov. uk/info/200230/ltp3/ 319/ltp3 to fully understand and appreciate the driver behind our City's transport policy viz the Local Transport Plan. Every highway authority has to have one by the way..it's a government requirement. Here's the headline for York's LTP3 from the above website. "All local authorities in England and Wales have a statutory duty to produce and keep under review a Local Transport Plan (LTP), which sets out their transport policies and plans. The City of York's Third Local Transport Plan (LTP3), covering the period April 2011 to March 2015 and beyond to 2031, has now been published. It sets out the transport policies and measures that will contribute to the city's economic prosperity over the next 20 years, whilst meeting challenging national and local targets for reducing emissions." This was signed off in 2010 by the then ruling LibDems, and every Councillor is now effectively signed up to it. The LTP becomes a yardstick against which individual transport proposals are weighed. Instead of respondents instinctively telling me to peddle off, they should take time to read the detail on the above website. They will then understand what must be done to avoid a doubling of delays in York by 2030. The options do not include removing traffic lights, "letting traffic flow" or other similar suggestions. The only way in which neccessary car journeys can be accommodated is by a reduction of optional ones. Otherwise congestion charging will inevitably rear its head.[/p][/quote]LTP3 was written by idiots who cannot see the clear evidence that their policies have failed, and failed miserably. They should be sacked for their absolute incompetence. In the last decade, pollution and congestion have increased whilst traffic levels have remained static. Cycling levels have not increased in spite of all efforts. Please try to explain this epic failure. York needs intelligent, progressive transport policies, and the only option which should be ruled out, is dogmatically sticking to failed policies. JasBro
  • Score: 761

7:25pm Sat 26 Apr 14

David York says...

Having read the full evaluation report, the only conclusion to which I can come us that it us impossible to determine the success or failure of the experiment.

That is largely because there were so many other factors affecting the traffic flows during the trial period. Although one of the criteria to be evaluated was the effect on bus punctuality / reliability, the bus services themselves were rescheduled very soon after the trial started. So if there were improvements to bus timings was that due to the Bridge Closure or to the change in the routes and timetabling?

It hardly required the intellect of a University department to work out that traffic on Lendal Bridge was reduced and that on other Bridges increased.!
Having read the full evaluation report, the only conclusion to which I can come us that it us impossible to determine the success or failure of the experiment. That is largely because there were so many other factors affecting the traffic flows during the trial period. Although one of the criteria to be evaluated was the effect on bus punctuality / reliability, the bus services themselves were rescheduled very soon after the trial started. So if there were improvements to bus timings was that due to the Bridge Closure or to the change in the routes and timetabling? It hardly required the intellect of a University department to work out that traffic on Lendal Bridge was reduced and that on other Bridges increased.! David York
  • Score: 902

8:16pm Sat 26 Apr 14

bolero says...

Lendal Bridge is a through town part of what is accepted as a main route;namely the A19, south to north and vice versa across the country . What would happen; bearing in mind that congestion is not unique to York; if all other towns on this route decided to sever a part of this artery and arbiterally impose diversions thereby disrupting the flow of a mainly important transport route? I cannot understand how York council managed to get away with this and wonder whether perhaps a further investigation should have been undertaken by the DoT. Bear in mind the increased fuel costs and increased pollution overall as a result.
Lendal Bridge is a through town part of what is accepted as a main route;namely the A19, south to north and vice versa across the country . What would happen; bearing in mind that congestion is not unique to York; if all other towns on this route decided to sever a part of this artery and arbiterally impose diversions thereby disrupting the flow of a mainly important transport route? I cannot understand how York council managed to get away with this and wonder whether perhaps a further investigation should have been undertaken by the DoT. Bear in mind the increased fuel costs and increased pollution overall as a result. bolero
  • Score: 448

9:51pm Sat 26 Apr 14

York2000 says...

Haha. I see you lot still doing your nut about Lendal. Whatever will you all do when this is finally dead and buried?
Haha. I see you lot still doing your nut about Lendal. Whatever will you all do when this is finally dead and buried? York2000
  • Score: 709

10:37pm Sat 26 Apr 14

courier46 says...

York2000 wrote:
Haha. I see you lot still doing your nut about Lendal. Whatever will you all do when this is finally dead and buried?
Dont worry York2000 these idiots will keep everyone occupied with there crazy schemes until 2015 elections
[quote][p][bold]York2000[/bold] wrote: Haha. I see you lot still doing your nut about Lendal. Whatever will you all do when this is finally dead and buried?[/p][/quote]Dont worry York2000 these idiots will keep everyone occupied with there crazy schemes until 2015 elections courier46
  • Score: 1180

12:03am Sun 27 Apr 14

MorkofYork says...

They're trying to deceive their way into being reelected. They must think people are stupid.

Maybe if they had some policies people liked they wouldn't have to lie in everything they do.

Obviously they're going to get the boot next year. This leopard is incapable of changing it's spots.
They're trying to deceive their way into being reelected. They must think people are stupid. Maybe if they had some policies people liked they wouldn't have to lie in everything they do. Obviously they're going to get the boot next year. This leopard is incapable of changing it's spots. MorkofYork
  • Score: 126

8:54am Sun 27 Apr 14

bolero says...

That should have read `arbitrarily` Of Course.
That should have read `arbitrarily` Of Course. bolero
  • Score: -77

9:18am Sun 27 Apr 14

oi oi savaloy says...

Jonothon wrote:
oi oi savaloy wrote:
Cllr David Levene, council cabinet member for transport, said today: “While the evidence shows that parking, footfall, bus reliability and patronage all remained static or showed increases during the trial"

???? they either remained static or showed an increase ?????

so what was it Cllr levene ? static or an increase?? its one or the other
Calm down.

It just means that the footfall was not down anyhere. In some streets it was up, in others it was static. Same with buses, some were busier, others were the same but none lost passenger numbers
Not rocket science is it?
Dear Jonny boy, i know it's not rocket science, we all know that every day is different to the next, we also know that certain days of the week are busier than others,we also know that the weather as an adverse affect on footfall, we also know that the footfall figures are unreliable, due to the fact that it could count the same person going past certain footfall monitors numerous times, the point is, was footfall up or was it down as a whole over the trial period? were buses busier or emptier as a whole over the trial period? were sales in shops up or down as a whole over the trial period? and also the whole Clifton bridge 4 or 5 minutes extra on top of rush hour traffic is utter rubbish!( more like 20 or 30 minutes)I know lots of people who i work with who use that route in cars monday to friday who will disagree with that (as would Harry Grayson "rubbish mr merritt")

As a regular visitor into town, i got the feeling that on the occasions i was there, Coney street and Parliament street area's were less busy, i also know due to my wife working in retail in a well known department store down Davygate that footfall and sales over the period were down! so come on as a whole what are the figures for the trial period? up? down? or static? AND yes it's not quite rocket science is it??
[quote][p][bold]Jonothon[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]oi oi savaloy[/bold] wrote: Cllr David Levene, council cabinet member for transport, said today: “While the evidence shows that parking, footfall, bus reliability and patronage all remained static or showed increases during the trial" ???? they either remained static or showed an increase ????? so what was it Cllr levene ? static or an increase?? its one or the other[/p][/quote]Calm down. It just means that the footfall was not down anyhere. In some streets it was up, in others it was static. Same with buses, some were busier, others were the same but none lost passenger numbers Not rocket science is it?[/p][/quote]Dear Jonny boy, i know it's not rocket science, we all know that every day is different to the next, we also know that certain days of the week are busier than others,we also know that the weather as an adverse affect on footfall, we also know that the footfall figures are unreliable, due to the fact that it could count the same person going past certain footfall monitors numerous times, the point is, was footfall up or was it down as a whole over the trial period? were buses busier or emptier as a whole over the trial period? were sales in shops up or down as a whole over the trial period? and also the whole Clifton bridge 4 or 5 minutes extra on top of rush hour traffic is utter rubbish!( more like 20 or 30 minutes)I know lots of people who i work with who use that route in cars monday to friday who will disagree with that (as would Harry Grayson "rubbish mr merritt") As a regular visitor into town, i got the feeling that on the occasions i was there, Coney street and Parliament street area's were less busy, i also know due to my wife working in retail in a well known department store down Davygate that footfall and sales over the period were down! so come on as a whole what are the figures for the trial period? up? down? or static? AND yes it's not quite rocket science is it?? oi oi savaloy
  • Score: -59

9:41am Sun 27 Apr 14

m dee says...

Jonothon wrote:
oi oi savaloy wrote:
Cllr David Levene, council cabinet member for transport, said today: “While the evidence shows that parking, footfall, bus reliability and patronage all remained static or showed increases during the trial"

???? they either remained static or showed an increase ?????

so what was it Cllr levene ? static or an increase?? its one or the other
Calm down.

It just means that the footfall was not down anyhere. In some streets it was up, in others it was static. Same with buses, some were busier, others were the same but none lost passenger numbers
Not rocket science is it?
You would never know how buses did passenger wise as they decided part way through the trial to give out thousands of free trial bus journeys.
[quote][p][bold]Jonothon[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]oi oi savaloy[/bold] wrote: Cllr David Levene, council cabinet member for transport, said today: “While the evidence shows that parking, footfall, bus reliability and patronage all remained static or showed increases during the trial" ???? they either remained static or showed an increase ????? so what was it Cllr levene ? static or an increase?? its one or the other[/p][/quote]Calm down. It just means that the footfall was not down anyhere. In some streets it was up, in others it was static. Same with buses, some were busier, others were the same but none lost passenger numbers Not rocket science is it?[/p][/quote]You would never know how buses did passenger wise as they decided part way through the trial to give out thousands of free trial bus journeys. m dee
  • Score: -25

9:46am Sun 27 Apr 14

m dee says...

pedalling paul wrote:
Visit http://www.york.gov.

uk/info/200230/ltp3/

319/ltp3 to fully understand and appreciate the driver behind our City's transport policy viz the Local Transport Plan. Every highway authority has to have one by the way..it's a government requirement. Here's the headline for York's LTP3 from the above website.
"All local authorities in England and Wales have a statutory duty to produce and keep under review a Local Transport Plan (LTP), which sets out their transport policies and plans.
The City of York's Third Local Transport Plan (LTP3), covering the period April 2011 to March 2015 and beyond to 2031, has now been published. It sets out the transport policies and measures that will contribute to the city's economic prosperity over the next 20 years, whilst meeting challenging national and local targets for reducing emissions."

This was signed off in 2010 by the then ruling LibDems, and every Councillor is now effectively signed up to it. The LTP becomes a yardstick against which individual transport proposals are weighed.

Instead of respondents instinctively telling me to peddle off, they should take time to read the detail on the above website. They will then understand what must be done to avoid a doubling of delays in York by 2030. The options do not include removing traffic lights, "letting traffic flow" or other similar suggestions.

The only way in which neccessary car journeys can be accommodated is by a reduction of optional ones. Otherwise congestion charging will inevitably rear its head.
Yes Paul I noticed the Councils new idea to tackle congestion and lower traffic levels it is free parking for 3 hours that should do the trick although I was unable to find it in your precious LTP.
[quote][p][bold]pedalling paul [/bold] wrote: Visit http://www.york.gov. uk/info/200230/ltp3/ 319/ltp3 to fully understand and appreciate the driver behind our City's transport policy viz the Local Transport Plan. Every highway authority has to have one by the way..it's a government requirement. Here's the headline for York's LTP3 from the above website. "All local authorities in England and Wales have a statutory duty to produce and keep under review a Local Transport Plan (LTP), which sets out their transport policies and plans. The City of York's Third Local Transport Plan (LTP3), covering the period April 2011 to March 2015 and beyond to 2031, has now been published. It sets out the transport policies and measures that will contribute to the city's economic prosperity over the next 20 years, whilst meeting challenging national and local targets for reducing emissions." This was signed off in 2010 by the then ruling LibDems, and every Councillor is now effectively signed up to it. The LTP becomes a yardstick against which individual transport proposals are weighed. Instead of respondents instinctively telling me to peddle off, they should take time to read the detail on the above website. They will then understand what must be done to avoid a doubling of delays in York by 2030. The options do not include removing traffic lights, "letting traffic flow" or other similar suggestions. The only way in which neccessary car journeys can be accommodated is by a reduction of optional ones. Otherwise congestion charging will inevitably rear its head.[/p][/quote]Yes Paul I noticed the Councils new idea to tackle congestion and lower traffic levels it is free parking for 3 hours that should do the trick although I was unable to find it in your precious LTP. m dee
  • Score: -12

3:53am Mon 28 Apr 14

Magicman! says...

The feedback was "overwhelmingly negative" for three reasons:
(1) The Press only seemed to print letters from people complaining, including clone letters comparing York to Chester and people saying they wouldn't return to York.
(2) The people who were complaining were 80-85% in the group of private car drivers who didn't like the fact they had to take a lengthy diversion whilst cyclists "who don't pay road tax" (note the quote marks) could still go over it
(3) The council failed to improve road capacity anywhere else before closing off the bridge, and so failed to prepare areas for any extra traffic that might flow through.
The feedback was "overwhelmingly negative" for three reasons: (1) The Press only seemed to print letters from people complaining, including clone letters comparing York to Chester and people saying they wouldn't return to York. (2) The people who were complaining were 80-85% in the group of private car drivers who didn't like the fact they had to take a lengthy diversion whilst cyclists "who don't pay road tax" (note the quote marks) could still go over it (3) The council failed to improve road capacity anywhere else before closing off the bridge, and so failed to prepare areas for any extra traffic that might flow through. Magicman!
  • Score: -1

9:20am Mon 28 Apr 14

greenmonkey says...

stephen123 wrote:
The Council state

“The trial has helped to demonstrate that there is a fundamental need to tackle congestion in the city and build a consensus on how to address the city’s traffic problems, and we have announced an independently-chaire

d, cross party congestion commission to help tackle the issue in the long-term.”

How can you make the above statement and then encourage people to bring their cars into York by providing free parking in its car parks 3 days a week. Is this madness? They should practice what they preach and provide a free park and ride service on these 3 days instead.
Precisely! What is even worse this money is being half- inched from money earmarked to tackle the extra traffic generated at Monks Cross by the opening of John Lewis and M+S. Highways bosses asked for £4m including funding for a new bus route to promote local use of buses to the new centre but this was cut to £2.6m which they said was not enough. Most of that has been spent already, before the stadium opens and now £300k of what is left is being used to promote driving to the city centre on a Thur - Sat morning!! Even if offering free parking in the city centre was a good idea, surely Mon - Wed or in association with 'promoting the evening economy' in the late afternoon and evening would make more sense!
[quote][p][bold]stephen123[/bold] wrote: The Council state “The trial has helped to demonstrate that there is a fundamental need to tackle congestion in the city and build a consensus on how to address the city’s traffic problems, and we have announced an independently-chaire d, cross party congestion commission to help tackle the issue in the long-term.” How can you make the above statement and then encourage people to bring their cars into York by providing free parking in its car parks 3 days a week. Is this madness? They should practice what they preach and provide a free park and ride service on these 3 days instead.[/p][/quote]Precisely! What is even worse this money is being half- inched from money earmarked to tackle the extra traffic generated at Monks Cross by the opening of John Lewis and M+S. Highways bosses asked for £4m including funding for a new bus route to promote local use of buses to the new centre but this was cut to £2.6m which they said was not enough. Most of that has been spent already, before the stadium opens and now £300k of what is left is being used to promote driving to the city centre on a Thur - Sat morning!! Even if offering free parking in the city centre was a good idea, surely Mon - Wed or in association with 'promoting the evening economy' in the late afternoon and evening would make more sense! greenmonkey
  • Score: 2

9:24am Mon 28 Apr 14

Kevin Turvey says...

‘Lendal Bridge trial was a success, council says’

Well they would say that wouldn’t they!

However if the council had a bout of guilt and wanted to admit that it was a huge waste of public money based upon unsound principles of statistical measurement, unsound traffic management and was an exercise in political conflicts of interest than they can be my guest!

The big worry for me is what further damage can Dave Merret the Ferret do in the name of improvements in his new role to the good name of York and costs to its council tax payers?
‘Lendal Bridge trial was a success, council says’ Well they would say that wouldn’t they! However if the council had a bout of guilt and wanted to admit that it was a huge waste of public money based upon unsound principles of statistical measurement, unsound traffic management and was an exercise in political conflicts of interest than they can be my guest! The big worry for me is what further damage can Dave Merret the Ferret do in the name of improvements in his new role to the good name of York and costs to its council tax payers? Kevin Turvey
  • Score: 2

10:57am Mon 28 Apr 14

bolero says...

bolero wrote:
That should have read `arbitrarily` Of Course.
That didn't require any votes you plonker.
[quote][p][bold]bolero[/bold] wrote: That should have read `arbitrarily` Of Course.[/p][/quote]That didn't require any votes you plonker. bolero
  • Score: 0

6:26pm Mon 28 Apr 14

jake777 says...

m dee wrote:
Jonothon wrote:
oi oi savaloy wrote:
Cllr David Levene, council cabinet member for transport, said today: “While the evidence shows that parking, footfall, bus reliability and patronage all remained static or showed increases during the trial"

???? they either remained static or showed an increase ?????

so what was it Cllr levene ? static or an increase?? its one or the other
Calm down.

It just means that the footfall was not down anyhere. In some streets it was up, in others it was static. Same with buses, some were busier, others were the same but none lost passenger numbers
Not rocket science is it?
You would never know how buses did passenger wise as they decided part way through the trial to give out thousands of free trial bus journeys.
No free trial bus journeys given out on the routes that crossed lendal.
[quote][p][bold]m dee[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Jonothon[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]oi oi savaloy[/bold] wrote: Cllr David Levene, council cabinet member for transport, said today: “While the evidence shows that parking, footfall, bus reliability and patronage all remained static or showed increases during the trial" ???? they either remained static or showed an increase ????? so what was it Cllr levene ? static or an increase?? its one or the other[/p][/quote]Calm down. It just means that the footfall was not down anyhere. In some streets it was up, in others it was static. Same with buses, some were busier, others were the same but none lost passenger numbers Not rocket science is it?[/p][/quote]You would never know how buses did passenger wise as they decided part way through the trial to give out thousands of free trial bus journeys.[/p][/quote]No free trial bus journeys given out on the routes that crossed lendal. jake777
  • Score: -3

10:05am Thu 1 May 14

Cheeky face says...

Quite right Phil etc.

We have not had sight of the independent report on Lendal Bridge; a Leeds based firm was contracted to complete it. Or have the council hidden it from the media/ taxpaying public?
Quite right Phil etc. We have not had sight of the independent report on Lendal Bridge; a Leeds based firm was contracted to complete it. Or have the council hidden it from the media/ taxpaying public? Cheeky face
  • Score: 2

12:11pm Fri 2 May 14

Cheeky face says...

I have asked the Press to chase the independent report on Lendal Bridge. The analysis/stats from the council are vague; did they use equivocate practices on purpose. Politics is separate to the congestion/air quality/bus reliability issues. But, will this change!
I have asked the Press to chase the independent report on Lendal Bridge. The analysis/stats from the council are vague; did they use equivocate practices on purpose. Politics is separate to the congestion/air quality/bus reliability issues. But, will this change! Cheeky face
  • Score: 0

1:11pm Fri 2 May 14

long distance depressive says...

It wasn't a retreat, it was a tactical withdrawal eh!?
It wasn't a retreat, it was a tactical withdrawal eh!? long distance depressive
  • 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