Paradise for car owners is not on

New Conservative group leader Chris Steward

New Conservative group leader Chris Steward

First published in Letters by

I WAS interested to read the views of Coun Chris Steward, the new City of York Council Tory group leader, on transport matters (The Press, January 27).

Chris claims that the present Labour-led administration is “anti-car”. He does acknowledge that we have major congestion issues, but seems to think the carrot alone will encourage greater use of public transport.

The Tories have always presented themselves as the car users’ friend. Supporting the perceived right of car owners to drive everywhere for every journey, be it short or long, will only precipitate a gridlocked city for our descendants.

That is why successive governments have encouraged local authorities to prioritise alternative travel choices for many urban journeys. It is unfortunate that the present government has diluted these measures. Eric Pickles is telling councils to remove car access restrictions in city centres. Also, the Local Sustainable Transport Fund is being tinkered with so that bids which favour new roads now qualify. I wonder if Coun Steward will agree with me that no politician can ever deliver an urban car owners’ paradise.

Acknowledging this simple truth may lead in turn to greater local cross-party support for continuing measures to reduce car dependency.

Paul Hepworth, Windmill Rise, York.

 

• So Paul Hepworth (Letters, January 25) thinks people will just make more journeys on a dualled A1237.

Once again he is wrong, as as any extra traffic on this road would be accounted for by those drivers who at present rat-race to avoid the horrendous jams on this road. Dualling this road would be a win-win situation for everyone.

It is about time we had a sensible transport policy in this city that includes the car as much as any other form of transport. People need their cars as public transport does not run not for 24 hours, seven days a week, and we can’t always rely even on frequent bus services.

There is also the problem of service changes, which as in the case of 2012 changes in York were a complete disaster and took more than a year to put right. On top of this there are also frequent fare increases, the most recent one being a stealth increase due to the abolition of the return fare.

So let’s stop listening to the anti-car brigade trying to destroy business in our city.

Ian Foster, Hawthorne Avenue, Haxby, York.

Comments (33)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

10:59am Tue 28 Jan 14

The Great Buda says...

Wow, Paul really can't help himself can he.
Wow, Paul really can't help himself can he. The Great Buda
  • Score: -56

11:07am Tue 28 Jan 14

Zetkin says...

The Great Buda wrote:
Wow, Paul really can't help himself can he.
Maybe not, but on this occasion, his letter hits the nail on the head.
[quote][p][bold]The Great Buda[/bold] wrote: Wow, Paul really can't help himself can he.[/p][/quote]Maybe not, but on this occasion, his letter hits the nail on the head. Zetkin
  • Score: 70

11:17am Tue 28 Jan 14

Jonthan says...

Whilst the Tories are obsessed with the number of people living in the UK, they are never concerned about the number of cars or the pollution generated. For them it is not a problem of too many cars on the road, it is a problem of not enough roads to allow for growth in car usage.

It would have been impossible for a Tory administration to implement the London congestion charge, but it is interesting to note that Boris has no intention of repealing it, so gridlock is averted for a few more years.

Will reality kick in with the York Tories? No chance
Whilst the Tories are obsessed with the number of people living in the UK, they are never concerned about the number of cars or the pollution generated. For them it is not a problem of too many cars on the road, it is a problem of not enough roads to allow for growth in car usage. It would have been impossible for a Tory administration to implement the London congestion charge, but it is interesting to note that Boris has no intention of repealing it, so gridlock is averted for a few more years. Will reality kick in with the York Tories? No chance Jonthan
  • Score: 75

11:28am Tue 28 Jan 14

YOUWILLDOASISAY says...

"OH NO CARMAGEDDON!" (waited a while for that).

Pipe down Hepworth and let the sensible man from the tory party have a go, after all we have been served up with lashings of walk, cycle bus, and all with total disregard for the real the world. All you proffer are social activities, the real economy is mechanised.

Nice to see some reality dust rather than the fairy dust that has been all too prevalent recently.

Steward has my attention but yet to convince me to get my vote. There is more to the City than transport but a great start.

Let the evening and night time fairy sprinkle away, this has got to be worthy of -ve 500 at least but to make sure, "Alexander and Labour are a spent force".
"OH NO CARMAGEDDON!" (waited a while for that). Pipe down Hepworth and let the sensible man from the tory party have a go, after all we have been served up with lashings of walk, cycle bus, and all with total disregard for the real the world. All you proffer are social activities, the real economy is mechanised. Nice to see some reality dust rather than the fairy dust that has been all too prevalent recently. Steward has my attention but yet to convince me to get my vote. There is more to the City than transport but a great start. Let the evening and night time fairy sprinkle away, this has got to be worthy of -ve 500 at least but to make sure, "Alexander and Labour are a spent force". YOUWILLDOASISAY
  • Score: -69

11:29am Tue 28 Jan 14

strangebuttrue? says...

Gridlock Paul. Again. The council say that we have less volume of traffic now than in 2002. Just before the closure of Lendal Bridge, which is the main reason for all of the extra traffic on the ring road, the council admitted that there was even less traffic in the city centre. We did not need to be told this you can see it with your own eyes.

As for the congestion. Most of us know that this is being created by the council with their road closures, lane narrowing. bus gates and cleverly phased traffic lights in order to bully residents who choose to travel by car out of them.

Paul, you seem to fear the Tories getting into power as most of your posts where you comment on the political parties warn against voting for them. I cannot think of a better reason to vote for them than you saying not to.

The score fixers are going to have a busy day today.
Gridlock Paul. Again. The council say that we have less volume of traffic now than in 2002. Just before the closure of Lendal Bridge, which is the main reason for all of the extra traffic on the ring road, the council admitted that there was even less traffic in the city centre. We did not need to be told this you can see it with your own eyes. As for the congestion. Most of us know that this is being created by the council with their road closures, lane narrowing. bus gates and cleverly phased traffic lights in order to bully residents who choose to travel by car out of them. Paul, you seem to fear the Tories getting into power as most of your posts where you comment on the political parties warn against voting for them. I cannot think of a better reason to vote for them than you saying not to. The score fixers are going to have a busy day today. strangebuttrue?
  • Score: -72

12:52pm Tue 28 Jan 14

Chris Steward says...

The fact I believe things like we should not close one of the city's main bridges to cars does not mean I want people to be able to drive 'everywhere for every journey'. There is a balance and of course I agree we can never have an 'urban car owners' paradise', as that is certainly not the ability to drive anywhere.
The fact I believe things like we should not close one of the city's main bridges to cars does not mean I want people to be able to drive 'everywhere for every journey'. There is a balance and of course I agree we can never have an 'urban car owners' paradise', as that is certainly not the ability to drive anywhere. Chris Steward
  • Score: -81

12:54pm Tue 28 Jan 14

The Great Buda says...

Zetkin wrote:
The Great Buda wrote:
Wow, Paul really can't help himself can he.
Maybe not, but on this occasion, his letter hits the nail on the head.
I don't agree he does. He wheels out his tired old favorites "gridlocked city for our descendants" and "urban car owners’ paradise", putting words into people mouths.

No one wants a Gridlocked City, and no one wants a "car owners paradise"; what we want is an intergrated transport system, including Car, Bus, Rail, cycles and walking that works.

Paul is part of the problem, not the solution.
[quote][p][bold]Zetkin[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The Great Buda[/bold] wrote: Wow, Paul really can't help himself can he.[/p][/quote]Maybe not, but on this occasion, his letter hits the nail on the head.[/p][/quote]I don't agree he does. He wheels out his tired old favorites "gridlocked city for our descendants" and "urban car owners’ paradise", putting words into people mouths. No one wants a Gridlocked City, and no one wants a "car owners paradise"; what we want is an intergrated transport system, including Car, Bus, Rail, cycles and walking that works. Paul is part of the problem, not the solution. The Great Buda
  • Score: -10

1:04pm Tue 28 Jan 14

WhyEver says...

Paul Hepworth must know that he has no credibility when he resorts to claims of "GRIDLOCK!"
Paul Hepworth must know that he has no credibility when he resorts to claims of "GRIDLOCK!" WhyEver
  • Score: -12

1:15pm Tue 28 Jan 14

George Appleby says...

I will vote against the Tories, their allies and their Lords, the Money Gods. Have no particular preference for any of them.
I will vote for better care for the poor, sick, young and old, paid for by retrieving the pilfered costs by increasing the top tax to 50p, and relentlessly retrieving ALL the evaded tax from our national purse by top earning companies, politicians and individuals. And prosecuting, fining and imprisoning where ever it warrants. THEY HAVE NO LOYALTY TO THE NATION, ONLY THE TINY FEW WHO CONTROL THE MONEY WE EARN FOR IT. IT USED TO BELONG TO THEM. NOT NOW! THAT'S HISTORY. IT BELONGS TO US, THE WHOLE NATION IF WE CARE!
I will vote against the Tories, their allies and their Lords, the Money Gods. Have no particular preference for any of them. I will vote for better care for the poor, sick, young and old, paid for by retrieving the pilfered costs by increasing the top tax to 50p, and relentlessly retrieving ALL the evaded tax from our national purse by top earning companies, politicians and individuals. And prosecuting, fining and imprisoning where ever it warrants. THEY HAVE NO LOYALTY TO THE NATION, ONLY THE TINY FEW WHO CONTROL THE MONEY WE EARN FOR IT. IT USED TO BELONG TO THEM. NOT NOW! THAT'S HISTORY. IT BELONGS TO US, THE WHOLE NATION IF WE CARE! George Appleby
  • Score: -681

3:18pm Tue 28 Jan 14

Jazzper says...

Stop Shouting George, and you might get a thumbs up from me.
Stop Shouting George, and you might get a thumbs up from me. Jazzper
  • Score: -14

3:37pm Tue 28 Jan 14

Mulgrave says...

Jonthan wrote:
Whilst the Tories are obsessed with the number of people living in the UK, they are never concerned about the number of cars or the pollution generated. For them it is not a problem of too many cars on the road, it is a problem of not enough roads to allow for growth in car usage.

It would have been impossible for a Tory administration to implement the London congestion charge, but it is interesting to note that Boris has no intention of repealing it, so gridlock is averted for a few more years.

Will reality kick in with the York Tories? No chance
You say there is no concern for the pollurtion generated, an incredible statement considering the continual costly evolution from the banning of lead in petrol thru catalytic converters and the Euro Emissions standards for diesels which now require particulate filters for version 6 which give a 70% reduction over version 5. Then there is the electric car grants of £5000 with grants for councils too install charging points as York has actually done.

If you want to bring London intop it, consider the very wide Low emissions zone - it is not acceptable there to have older buses and commercials that are responsible for most NOx and particulate pollution.
[quote][p][bold]Jonthan[/bold] wrote: Whilst the Tories are obsessed with the number of people living in the UK, they are never concerned about the number of cars or the pollution generated. For them it is not a problem of too many cars on the road, it is a problem of not enough roads to allow for growth in car usage. It would have been impossible for a Tory administration to implement the London congestion charge, but it is interesting to note that Boris has no intention of repealing it, so gridlock is averted for a few more years. Will reality kick in with the York Tories? No chance[/p][/quote]You say there is no concern for the pollurtion generated, an incredible statement considering the continual costly evolution from the banning of lead in petrol thru catalytic converters and the Euro Emissions standards for diesels which now require particulate filters for version 6 which give a 70% reduction over version 5. Then there is the electric car grants of £5000 with grants for councils too install charging points as York has actually done. If you want to bring London intop it, consider the very wide Low emissions zone - it is not acceptable there to have older buses and commercials that are responsible for most NOx and particulate pollution. Mulgrave
  • Score: -48

4:21pm Tue 28 Jan 14

ColdAsChristmas says...

Jonthan, you can only drive one car at a time and so the number of people about are most important, I'm certain that even you can understand that.
More people = more potential drivers and people requiring energy.
I'm still waiting to see if anyone will use the elecric charging points? Never seen anyone charging a car on Union Terrace yet.
Jonthan, you can only drive one car at a time and so the number of people about are most important, I'm certain that even you can understand that. More people = more potential drivers and people requiring energy. I'm still waiting to see if anyone will use the elecric charging points? Never seen anyone charging a car on Union Terrace yet. ColdAsChristmas
  • Score: -41

6:12pm Tue 28 Jan 14

jackhigh says...

If I could travel anywhere by first class train for FREE like PP, I would possibly get rid of my car. He never states his advantages over the majority of the popluation
If I could travel anywhere by first class train for FREE like PP, I would possibly get rid of my car. He never states his advantages over the majority of the popluation jackhigh
  • Score: -21

6:29pm Tue 28 Jan 14

Bo Jolly says...

As of 6.15 on Tuesday evening, only one - very specific - visit from a/the vote-rigging sprite so far (not sure why they took such exception to George Appleby's ok but slightly shouty contribution, which is currently at -671!)

Otherwise:
1. 'Paul can't help himself' +26
2. 'But he's right' -15
3. 'Tories not bothered about pollution' -13
4. 'CARMAGEDDON!/pipe down Paul' +14
5. 'Fewer cars but more congestion due to council policy' +17
6. 'disagree with bridge closure: doesn't mean I'm Clarkson' +14
7. 'Paul part of problem, not solution' +23
8. 'Paul loses credibility with gridlock scaremongering' +24
9. 'TORIES ONLY REPRESENT BANKERS!' -671
10. 'I agree, but calm down dear' +2
11. 'Jonthan, you're wrong' +9
12. 'Jonthan, you're wrong' +6
As of 6.15 on Tuesday evening, only one - very specific - visit from a/the vote-rigging sprite so far (not sure why they took such exception to George Appleby's ok but slightly shouty contribution, which is currently at -671!) Otherwise: 1. 'Paul can't help himself' +26 2. 'But he's right' [surely not!] -15 3. 'Tories not bothered about pollution' -13 4. 'CARMAGEDDON!/pipe down Paul' +14 5. 'Fewer cars but more congestion due to council policy' +17 6. 'disagree with bridge closure: doesn't mean I'm Clarkson' +14 7. 'Paul part of problem, not solution' +23 8. 'Paul loses credibility with gridlock scaremongering' +24 9. 'TORIES ONLY REPRESENT BANKERS!' -671 10. 'I agree, but calm down dear' +2 11. 'Jonthan, you're wrong' +9 12. 'Jonthan, you're wrong' +6 Bo Jolly
  • Score: -33

6:51pm Tue 28 Jan 14

bolero says...

The Great Buda wrote:
Zetkin wrote:
The Great Buda wrote:
Wow, Paul really can't help himself can he.
Maybe not, but on this occasion, his letter hits the nail on the head.
I don't agree he does. He wheels out his tired old favorites "gridlocked city for our descendants" and "urban car owners’ paradise", putting words into people mouths.

No one wants a Gridlocked City, and no one wants a "car owners paradise"; what we want is an intergrated transport system, including Car, Bus, Rail, cycles and walking that works.

Paul is part of the problem, not the solution.
Paul is not a problem, he's just a gaseous old windbag to be ignored.
[quote][p][bold]The Great Buda[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Zetkin[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The Great Buda[/bold] wrote: Wow, Paul really can't help himself can he.[/p][/quote]Maybe not, but on this occasion, his letter hits the nail on the head.[/p][/quote]I don't agree he does. He wheels out his tired old favorites "gridlocked city for our descendants" and "urban car owners’ paradise", putting words into people mouths. No one wants a Gridlocked City, and no one wants a "car owners paradise"; what we want is an intergrated transport system, including Car, Bus, Rail, cycles and walking that works. Paul is part of the problem, not the solution.[/p][/quote]Paul is not a problem, he's just a gaseous old windbag to be ignored. bolero
  • Score: -51

7:33pm Tue 28 Jan 14

Mulgrave says...

Bo Jolly wrote:
As of 6.15 on Tuesday evening, only one - very specific - visit from a/the vote-rigging sprite so far (not sure why they took such exception to George Appleby's ok but slightly shouty contribution, which is currently at -671!)

Otherwise:
1. 'Paul can't help himself' +26
2. 'But he's right' -15
3. 'Tories not bothered about pollution' -13
4. 'CARMAGEDDON!/pipe down Paul' +14
5. 'Fewer cars but more congestion due to council policy' +17
6. 'disagree with bridge closure: doesn't mean I'm Clarkson' +14
7. 'Paul part of problem, not solution' +23
8. 'Paul loses credibility with gridlock scaremongering' +24
9. 'TORIES ONLY REPRESENT BANKERS!' -671
10. 'I agree, but calm down dear' +2
11. 'Jonthan, you're wrong' +9
12. 'Jonthan, you're wrong' +6
I see number 9 has been adjusted by fair means or foul to a rather amusing minus 666.
[quote][p][bold]Bo Jolly[/bold] wrote: As of 6.15 on Tuesday evening, only one - very specific - visit from a/the vote-rigging sprite so far (not sure why they took such exception to George Appleby's ok but slightly shouty contribution, which is currently at -671!) Otherwise: 1. 'Paul can't help himself' +26 2. 'But he's right' [surely not!] -15 3. 'Tories not bothered about pollution' -13 4. 'CARMAGEDDON!/pipe down Paul' +14 5. 'Fewer cars but more congestion due to council policy' +17 6. 'disagree with bridge closure: doesn't mean I'm Clarkson' +14 7. 'Paul part of problem, not solution' +23 8. 'Paul loses credibility with gridlock scaremongering' +24 9. 'TORIES ONLY REPRESENT BANKERS!' -671 10. 'I agree, but calm down dear' +2 11. 'Jonthan, you're wrong' +9 12. 'Jonthan, you're wrong' +6[/p][/quote]I see number 9 has been adjusted by fair means or foul to a rather amusing minus 666. Mulgrave
  • Score: 200

10:17pm Tue 28 Jan 14

YOUWILLDOASISAY says...

Well done, you have been busy marking down the posts.

Thanks they attract so much more attention after your visits.

Sleep well, I do.
Well done, you have been busy marking down the posts. Thanks they attract so much more attention after your visits. Sleep well, I do. YOUWILLDOASISAY
  • Score: 201

10:57pm Tue 28 Jan 14

AnotherPointofView says...

Jonthan wrote:
Whilst the Tories are obsessed with the number of people living in the UK, they are never concerned about the number of cars or the pollution generated. For them it is not a problem of too many cars on the road, it is a problem of not enough roads to allow for growth in car usage.

It would have been impossible for a Tory administration to implement the London congestion charge, but it is interesting to note that Boris has no intention of repealing it, so gridlock is averted for a few more years.

Will reality kick in with the York Tories? No chance
You talk about the lack of concern for pollution created. That's rich coming from you, whose beloved Labour council in York creates extra pollution through it's policy of traffic lights, chicanes and road closures.

It's a deliberate policy which results in increased pollution. You only have to look at the council's own figures to see fewer cars on our roads but more pollution.

Roll on the election in 2015.
[quote][p][bold]Jonthan[/bold] wrote: Whilst the Tories are obsessed with the number of people living in the UK, they are never concerned about the number of cars or the pollution generated. For them it is not a problem of too many cars on the road, it is a problem of not enough roads to allow for growth in car usage. It would have been impossible for a Tory administration to implement the London congestion charge, but it is interesting to note that Boris has no intention of repealing it, so gridlock is averted for a few more years. Will reality kick in with the York Tories? No chance[/p][/quote]You talk about the lack of concern for pollution created. That's rich coming from you, whose beloved Labour council in York creates extra pollution through it's policy of traffic lights, chicanes and road closures. It's a deliberate policy which results in increased pollution. You only have to look at the council's own figures to see fewer cars on our roads but more pollution. Roll on the election in 2015. AnotherPointofView
  • Score: -89

8:37am Wed 29 Jan 14

bolero says...

YOUWILLDOASISAY wrote:
Well done, you have been busy marking down the posts.

Thanks they attract so much more attention after your visits.

Sleep well, I do.
War on the motorist? I have noticed that apart from PPs original letter there have been no supplementary postings from him. One wonders.
[quote][p][bold]YOUWILLDOASISAY[/bold] wrote: Well done, you have been busy marking down the posts. Thanks they attract so much more attention after your visits. Sleep well, I do.[/p][/quote]War on the motorist? I have noticed that apart from PPs original letter there have been no supplementary postings from him. One wonders. bolero
  • Score: 11

9:23am Wed 29 Jan 14

Pottsy1 says...

ColdAsChristmas wrote:
Jonthan, you can only drive one car at a time and so the number of people about are most important, I'm certain that even you can understand that.
More people = more potential drivers and people requiring energy.
I'm still waiting to see if anyone will use the elecric charging points? Never seen anyone charging a car on Union Terrace yet.
I would suggest that multiple car ownership is very important. Cars do not just cause a problem when they are moving, they destroy verges, encourage people to dig up front gardens to park them on, make our streets into linear car parks and generally cause inconvenience. This is a national problem and I would love to see government taking some measures to reduce multiple car ownership - they won't of course as the motor trade is such big business.
[quote][p][bold]ColdAsChristmas[/bold] wrote: Jonthan, you can only drive one car at a time and so the number of people about are most important, I'm certain that even you can understand that. More people = more potential drivers and people requiring energy. I'm still waiting to see if anyone will use the elecric charging points? Never seen anyone charging a car on Union Terrace yet.[/p][/quote]I would suggest that multiple car ownership is very important. Cars do not just cause a problem when they are moving, they destroy verges, encourage people to dig up front gardens to park them on, make our streets into linear car parks and generally cause inconvenience. This is a national problem and I would love to see government taking some measures to reduce multiple car ownership - they won't of course as the motor trade is such big business. Pottsy1
  • Score: 9

9:25am Wed 29 Jan 14

sheps lad says...

bolero wrote:
YOUWILLDOASISAY wrote:
Well done, you have been busy marking down the posts.

Thanks they attract so much more attention after your visits.

Sleep well, I do.
War on the motorist? I have noticed that apart from PPs original letter there have been no supplementary postings from him. One wonders.
He's probably gone fishing!
[quote][p][bold]bolero[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]YOUWILLDOASISAY[/bold] wrote: Well done, you have been busy marking down the posts. Thanks they attract so much more attention after your visits. Sleep well, I do.[/p][/quote]War on the motorist? I have noticed that apart from PPs original letter there have been no supplementary postings from him. One wonders.[/p][/quote]He's probably gone fishing! sheps lad
  • Score: 10

9:37am Wed 29 Jan 14

Lineker's Lad says...

George Appleby wrote:
I will vote against the Tories, their allies and their Lords, the Money Gods. Have no particular preference for any of them.
I will vote for better care for the poor, sick, young and old, paid for by retrieving the pilfered costs by increasing the top tax to 50p, and relentlessly retrieving ALL the evaded tax from our national purse by top earning companies, politicians and individuals. And prosecuting, fining and imprisoning where ever it warrants. THEY HAVE NO LOYALTY TO THE NATION, ONLY THE TINY FEW WHO CONTROL THE MONEY WE EARN FOR IT. IT USED TO BELONG TO THEM. NOT NOW! THAT'S HISTORY. IT BELONGS TO US, THE WHOLE NATION IF WE CARE!
What drugs are you on?
[quote][p][bold]George Appleby[/bold] wrote: I will vote against the Tories, their allies and their Lords, the Money Gods. Have no particular preference for any of them. I will vote for better care for the poor, sick, young and old, paid for by retrieving the pilfered costs by increasing the top tax to 50p, and relentlessly retrieving ALL the evaded tax from our national purse by top earning companies, politicians and individuals. And prosecuting, fining and imprisoning where ever it warrants. THEY HAVE NO LOYALTY TO THE NATION, ONLY THE TINY FEW WHO CONTROL THE MONEY WE EARN FOR IT. IT USED TO BELONG TO THEM. NOT NOW! THAT'S HISTORY. IT BELONGS TO US, THE WHOLE NATION IF WE CARE![/p][/quote]What drugs are you on? Lineker's Lad
  • Score: 45

10:06am Wed 29 Jan 14

Mulgrave says...

Pottsy1 wrote:
ColdAsChristmas wrote:
Jonthan, you can only drive one car at a time and so the number of people about are most important, I'm certain that even you can understand that.
More people = more potential drivers and people requiring energy.
I'm still waiting to see if anyone will use the elecric charging points? Never seen anyone charging a car on Union Terrace yet.
I would suggest that multiple car ownership is very important. Cars do not just cause a problem when they are moving, they destroy verges, encourage people to dig up front gardens to park them on, make our streets into linear car parks and generally cause inconvenience. This is a national problem and I would love to see government taking some measures to reduce multiple car ownership - they won't of course as the motor trade is such big business.
Not sure you are talking about multiple car ownership, rather high levels of ownership. A couple cohabiting may have a car each as they would if they have separate homes, multiple ownership is more having a second car as an alternative. It was surprising recently that a husband was responsible for his wifes tax affairs and would possibly have said he ran two cars - one for the wife, surely we don't want to go back there
[quote][p][bold]Pottsy1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ColdAsChristmas[/bold] wrote: Jonthan, you can only drive one car at a time and so the number of people about are most important, I'm certain that even you can understand that. More people = more potential drivers and people requiring energy. I'm still waiting to see if anyone will use the elecric charging points? Never seen anyone charging a car on Union Terrace yet.[/p][/quote]I would suggest that multiple car ownership is very important. Cars do not just cause a problem when they are moving, they destroy verges, encourage people to dig up front gardens to park them on, make our streets into linear car parks and generally cause inconvenience. This is a national problem and I would love to see government taking some measures to reduce multiple car ownership - they won't of course as the motor trade is such big business.[/p][/quote]Not sure you are talking about multiple car ownership, rather high levels of ownership. A couple cohabiting may have a car each as they would if they have separate homes, multiple ownership is more having a second car as an alternative. It was surprising recently that a husband was responsible for his wifes tax affairs and would possibly have said he ran two cars - one for the wife, surely we don't want to go back there Mulgrave
  • Score: 7

11:12am Wed 29 Jan 14

The Great Buda says...

Mulgrave wrote:
Bo Jolly wrote:
As of 6.15 on Tuesday evening, only one - very specific - visit from a/the vote-rigging sprite so far (not sure why they took such exception to George Appleby's ok but slightly shouty contribution, which is currently at -671!)

Otherwise:
1. 'Paul can't help himself' +26
2. 'But he's right' -15
3. 'Tories not bothered about pollution' -13
4. 'CARMAGEDDON!/pipe down Paul' +14
5. 'Fewer cars but more congestion due to council policy' +17
6. 'disagree with bridge closure: doesn't mean I'm Clarkson' +14
7. 'Paul part of problem, not solution' +23
8. 'Paul loses credibility with gridlock scaremongering' +24
9. 'TORIES ONLY REPRESENT BANKERS!' -671
10. 'I agree, but calm down dear' +2
11. 'Jonthan, you're wrong' +9
12. 'Jonthan, you're wrong' +6
I see number 9 has been adjusted by fair means or foul to a rather amusing minus 666.
Someones been busy over-night by the looks of it.
[quote][p][bold]Mulgrave[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Bo Jolly[/bold] wrote: As of 6.15 on Tuesday evening, only one - very specific - visit from a/the vote-rigging sprite so far (not sure why they took such exception to George Appleby's ok but slightly shouty contribution, which is currently at -671!) Otherwise: 1. 'Paul can't help himself' +26 2. 'But he's right' [surely not!] -15 3. 'Tories not bothered about pollution' -13 4. 'CARMAGEDDON!/pipe down Paul' +14 5. 'Fewer cars but more congestion due to council policy' +17 6. 'disagree with bridge closure: doesn't mean I'm Clarkson' +14 7. 'Paul part of problem, not solution' +23 8. 'Paul loses credibility with gridlock scaremongering' +24 9. 'TORIES ONLY REPRESENT BANKERS!' -671 10. 'I agree, but calm down dear' +2 11. 'Jonthan, you're wrong' +9 12. 'Jonthan, you're wrong' +6[/p][/quote]I see number 9 has been adjusted by fair means or foul to a rather amusing minus 666.[/p][/quote]Someones been busy over-night by the looks of it. The Great Buda
  • Score: 4

12:21pm Wed 29 Jan 14

Bo Jolly says...

Mulgrave wrote:
Pottsy1 wrote:
ColdAsChristmas wrote:
Jonthan, you can only drive one car at a time and so the number of people about are most important, I'm certain that even you can understand that.
More people = more potential drivers and people requiring energy.
I'm still waiting to see if anyone will use the elecric charging points? Never seen anyone charging a car on Union Terrace yet.
I would suggest that multiple car ownership is very important. Cars do not just cause a problem when they are moving, they destroy verges, encourage people to dig up front gardens to park them on, make our streets into linear car parks and generally cause inconvenience. This is a national problem and I would love to see government taking some measures to reduce multiple car ownership - they won't of course as the motor trade is such big business.
Not sure you are talking about multiple car ownership, rather high levels of ownership. A couple cohabiting may have a car each as they would if they have separate homes, multiple ownership is more having a second car as an alternative. It was surprising recently that a husband was responsible for his wifes tax affairs and would possibly have said he ran two cars - one for the wife, surely we don't want to go back there
I agree with Pottsy1! The government must 'take some measures' over everything I don't like the look of and which sometimes causes me minor inconvenience! Now then... hang on... I've got my list of 'national problems' lying around somewhere here....
[quote][p][bold]Mulgrave[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Pottsy1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ColdAsChristmas[/bold] wrote: Jonthan, you can only drive one car at a time and so the number of people about are most important, I'm certain that even you can understand that. More people = more potential drivers and people requiring energy. I'm still waiting to see if anyone will use the elecric charging points? Never seen anyone charging a car on Union Terrace yet.[/p][/quote]I would suggest that multiple car ownership is very important. Cars do not just cause a problem when they are moving, they destroy verges, encourage people to dig up front gardens to park them on, make our streets into linear car parks and generally cause inconvenience. This is a national problem and I would love to see government taking some measures to reduce multiple car ownership - they won't of course as the motor trade is such big business.[/p][/quote]Not sure you are talking about multiple car ownership, rather high levels of ownership. A couple cohabiting may have a car each as they would if they have separate homes, multiple ownership is more having a second car as an alternative. It was surprising recently that a husband was responsible for his wifes tax affairs and would possibly have said he ran two cars - one for the wife, surely we don't want to go back there[/p][/quote]I agree with Pottsy1! The government must 'take some measures' over everything I don't like the look of and which sometimes causes me minor inconvenience! Now then... hang on... I've got my list of 'national problems' lying around somewhere here.... Bo Jolly
  • Score: 8

3:10pm Wed 29 Jan 14

greenmonkey says...

Chris Steward wrote:
The fact I believe things like we should not close one of the city's main bridges to cars does not mean I want people to be able to drive 'everywhere for every journey'. There is a balance and of course I agree we can never have an 'urban car owners' paradise', as that is certainly not the ability to drive anywhere.
So Chris doesnt agree with this solution to city centre congestion and poor quality public transport, but doesnt say what his solution would be. Lib Dems likewise jump on the bandwagon of opposing this measure, when, during the eight years they were in power, air quality in York went from an improving to worsening trend, in spite of traffic levels going down with the recession and higher fuel prices. In 2003 the Lib Dem administration decided not much needed to be done as improving vehicle engines would solve the problem. However the growth of diesel engined cars has reduced C02 but increased PM10s and NO2 emissions.
[quote][p][bold]Chris Steward[/bold] wrote: The fact I believe things like we should not close one of the city's main bridges to cars does not mean I want people to be able to drive 'everywhere for every journey'. There is a balance and of course I agree we can never have an 'urban car owners' paradise', as that is certainly not the ability to drive anywhere.[/p][/quote]So Chris doesnt agree with this solution to city centre congestion and poor quality public transport, but doesnt say what his solution would be. Lib Dems likewise jump on the bandwagon of opposing this measure, when, during the eight years they were in power, air quality in York went from an improving to worsening trend, in spite of traffic levels going down with the recession and higher fuel prices. In 2003 the Lib Dem administration decided not much needed to be done as improving vehicle engines would solve the problem. However the growth of diesel engined cars has reduced C02 but increased PM10s and NO2 emissions. greenmonkey
  • Score: 14

3:32pm Wed 29 Jan 14

Mulgrave says...

greenmonkey wrote:
Chris Steward wrote:
The fact I believe things like we should not close one of the city's main bridges to cars does not mean I want people to be able to drive 'everywhere for every journey'. There is a balance and of course I agree we can never have an 'urban car owners' paradise', as that is certainly not the ability to drive anywhere.
So Chris doesnt agree with this solution to city centre congestion and poor quality public transport, but doesnt say what his solution would be. Lib Dems likewise jump on the bandwagon of opposing this measure, when, during the eight years they were in power, air quality in York went from an improving to worsening trend, in spite of traffic levels going down with the recession and higher fuel prices. In 2003 the Lib Dem administration decided not much needed to be done as improving vehicle engines would solve the problem. However the growth of diesel engined cars has reduced C02 but increased PM10s and NO2 emissions.
That is now being addressed with Euro 6 and many diesels have had particulate filters fitted for several years now, There has been a lot of progress considering Euro 1 was only introduced just over 20 years ago.
[quote][p][bold]greenmonkey[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Chris Steward[/bold] wrote: The fact I believe things like we should not close one of the city's main bridges to cars does not mean I want people to be able to drive 'everywhere for every journey'. There is a balance and of course I agree we can never have an 'urban car owners' paradise', as that is certainly not the ability to drive anywhere.[/p][/quote]So Chris doesnt agree with this solution to city centre congestion and poor quality public transport, but doesnt say what his solution would be. Lib Dems likewise jump on the bandwagon of opposing this measure, when, during the eight years they were in power, air quality in York went from an improving to worsening trend, in spite of traffic levels going down with the recession and higher fuel prices. In 2003 the Lib Dem administration decided not much needed to be done as improving vehicle engines would solve the problem. However the growth of diesel engined cars has reduced C02 but increased PM10s and NO2 emissions.[/p][/quote]That is now being addressed with Euro 6 and many diesels have had particulate filters fitted for several years now, There has been a lot of progress considering Euro 1 was only introduced just over 20 years ago. Mulgrave
  • Score: 11

3:40pm Wed 29 Jan 14

Bo Jolly says...

greenmonkey wrote:
Chris Steward wrote:
The fact I believe things like we should not close one of the city's main bridges to cars does not mean I want people to be able to drive 'everywhere for every journey'. There is a balance and of course I agree we can never have an 'urban car owners' paradise', as that is certainly not the ability to drive anywhere.
So Chris doesnt agree with this solution to city centre congestion and poor quality public transport, but doesnt say what his solution would be. Lib Dems likewise jump on the bandwagon of opposing this measure, when, during the eight years they were in power, air quality in York went from an improving to worsening trend, in spite of traffic levels going down with the recession and higher fuel prices. In 2003 the Lib Dem administration decided not much needed to be done as improving vehicle engines would solve the problem. However the growth of diesel engined cars has reduced C02 but increased PM10s and NO2 emissions.
GreenMonkey - The statistics tell us that traffic levels are falling, yet congestion and air pollution are up. How does closing Lendal Bridge therefore creating greater congestion elsewhere help (unless you only count congestion and air pollution around the bridge itself!)? And how does closing Lendal Bridge make public transport cheaper (surely the main reason that more people don't use it) or better (unless you only count bus journey times across the bridge!)?
[quote][p][bold]greenmonkey[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Chris Steward[/bold] wrote: The fact I believe things like we should not close one of the city's main bridges to cars does not mean I want people to be able to drive 'everywhere for every journey'. There is a balance and of course I agree we can never have an 'urban car owners' paradise', as that is certainly not the ability to drive anywhere.[/p][/quote]So Chris doesnt agree with this solution to city centre congestion and poor quality public transport, but doesnt say what his solution would be. Lib Dems likewise jump on the bandwagon of opposing this measure, when, during the eight years they were in power, air quality in York went from an improving to worsening trend, in spite of traffic levels going down with the recession and higher fuel prices. In 2003 the Lib Dem administration decided not much needed to be done as improving vehicle engines would solve the problem. However the growth of diesel engined cars has reduced C02 but increased PM10s and NO2 emissions.[/p][/quote]GreenMonkey - The statistics tell us that traffic levels are falling, yet congestion and air pollution are up. How does closing Lendal Bridge therefore creating greater congestion elsewhere help (unless you only count congestion and air pollution around the bridge itself!)? And how does closing Lendal Bridge make public transport cheaper (surely the main reason that more people don't use it) or better (unless you only count bus journey times across the bridge!)? Bo Jolly
  • Score: -9

6:50pm Wed 29 Jan 14

bolero says...

Interesting scores now. Has someone been rumbled?
Interesting scores now. Has someone been rumbled? bolero
  • Score: 146

8:20pm Wed 29 Jan 14

CaroleBaines says...

The Great Buda wrote:
Zetkin wrote:
The Great Buda wrote:
Wow, Paul really can't help himself can he.
Maybe not, but on this occasion, his letter hits the nail on the head.
I don't agree he does. He wheels out his tired old favorites "gridlocked city for our descendants" and "urban car owners’ paradise", putting words into people mouths.

No one wants a Gridlocked City, and no one wants a "car owners paradise"; what we want is an intergrated transport system, including Car, Bus, Rail, cycles and walking that works.

Paul is part of the problem, not the solution.
I would agree. Both extremes are wrong and the answer lies somewhere new, not it the old well trodden arguments.
[quote][p][bold]The Great Buda[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Zetkin[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The Great Buda[/bold] wrote: Wow, Paul really can't help himself can he.[/p][/quote]Maybe not, but on this occasion, his letter hits the nail on the head.[/p][/quote]I don't agree he does. He wheels out his tired old favorites "gridlocked city for our descendants" and "urban car owners’ paradise", putting words into people mouths. No one wants a Gridlocked City, and no one wants a "car owners paradise"; what we want is an intergrated transport system, including Car, Bus, Rail, cycles and walking that works. Paul is part of the problem, not the solution.[/p][/quote]I would agree. Both extremes are wrong and the answer lies somewhere new, not it the old well trodden arguments. CaroleBaines
  • Score: 0

3:21am Thu 30 Jan 14

Magicman! says...

Ian Foster, to say your line of thinking is right up my street is not enough - it's practically right on my doorstep.

Public Transport is good as a means of getting several people at once to a certain area, but you can't buy a fridge from Currys and take it on the bus! So cars are sometimes needed for certain necessary journeys... and making the A1237 a dual carriageway with grade seperated junctions (flyovers) and ideally freeflow junctions onto the A64 at both ends (so no roundabouts directly affecting the A1237 at all) will take a significant amount of traffic outside the city centre where it currently goes through. That in turn will make journeys through the city centre quicker for buses, which then encourages more people to use the bus, then a bus route makes more profit and so more investment goes into it (be it through cheaper tickets, newer buses, more frequent services, services later into the night...).

At the moment there is notable investment in buses in York... Transdev are currently testing a fully electric bus for their shuttle service around the university (and the official figures about the Green Bus Fund state that a second electric bus is coming too), First have shown off one of their 6 fully electric single deck buses that will go on the Poppleton park and ride route (with another 6 electric buses on order), First are also reducing the average fleet age by getting in some 2005/2006 registered buses to replace the 2001 registered ones, and just today (weds) Arriva have launched four brand new minibuses onto services 24/26/27 through Fulford and Acomb. All in all the Optare company at Sherburn in Elmet has done quite well from York of late, with no less than 11 buses in York currently with more on the way.
Such investment wouldn't be happening if here was no reason - First in Northampton was getting very low bus useage, and they basically dumped all the old cascaded buses from everywhere else in the group to Northampton simply because investing there was seen as wasting money. But if you stand in Coppergate and see a First bus with an '05' or '06' registration, or any bus with 'YD63' in the reg, that there is physical evidence of investment in York's bus network.
Ian Foster, to say your line of thinking is right up my street is not enough - it's practically right on my doorstep. Public Transport is good as a means of getting several people at once to a certain area, but you can't buy a fridge from Currys and take it on the bus! So cars are sometimes needed for certain necessary journeys... and making the A1237 a dual carriageway with grade seperated junctions (flyovers) and ideally freeflow junctions onto the A64 at both ends (so no roundabouts directly affecting the A1237 at all) will take a significant amount of traffic outside the city centre where it currently goes through. That in turn will make journeys through the city centre quicker for buses, which then encourages more people to use the bus, then a bus route makes more profit and so more investment goes into it (be it through cheaper tickets, newer buses, more frequent services, services later into the night...). At the moment there is notable investment in buses in York... Transdev are currently testing a fully electric bus for their shuttle service around the university (and the official figures about the Green Bus Fund state that a second electric bus is coming too), First have shown off one of their 6 fully electric single deck buses that will go on the Poppleton park and ride route (with another 6 electric buses on order), First are also reducing the average fleet age by getting in some 2005/2006 registered buses to replace the 2001 registered ones, and just today (weds) Arriva have launched four brand new minibuses onto services 24/26/27 through Fulford and Acomb. All in all the Optare company at Sherburn in Elmet has done quite well from York of late, with no less than 11 buses in York currently with more on the way. Such investment wouldn't be happening if here was no reason - First in Northampton was getting very low bus useage, and they basically dumped all the old cascaded buses from everywhere else in the group to Northampton simply because investing there was seen as wasting money. But if you stand in Coppergate and see a First bus with an '05' or '06' registration, or any bus with 'YD63' in the reg, that there is physical evidence of investment in York's bus network. Magicman!
  • Score: 4

10:48am Thu 30 Jan 14

George Appleby says...

It pleases me that 684 read my comment! Hope some of it got through. There must be some who will help bring this lot down and the tax dodgers to justice.
It pleases me that 684 read my comment! Hope some of it got through. There must be some who will help bring this lot down and the tax dodgers to justice. George Appleby
  • Score: -1

2:43pm Mon 3 Feb 14

Temburong says...

Not meaning to be cheeky or anything but perhaps Mr Steward ( and Mr Pickles) might get a bit of benefit from donning some lycra and getting on the old push-rod now and then :-)
Not meaning to be cheeky or anything but perhaps Mr Steward ( and Mr Pickles) might get a bit of benefit from donning some lycra and getting on the old push-rod now and then :-) Temburong
  • 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