Getting switched on

York Press: Getting switched on Getting switched on

HOW much is a life worth? York, like many other UK cities, has a significant air quality problem, with traffic related nitrogen dioxide concentrations exceeding safe limits.

Nationally, it is estimated that poor air quality accounts for between 29,000 and 50,000 premature deaths, as compared with approximately 26,000 to 33,000 premature deaths from obesity, alcohol-related diseases and road traffic accidents combined. Unlike Germany, the UK has largely failed to tackle the issue, despite an 18-year old EU requirement, which is why the Government now faces a potential £300 million fine.

Moving to electric-engine vehicles is themost effective way of addressing this issue, besides helping to reduce climate changing greenhouse gases.

It’s why we’ve worked with York’s bus operators to identify the case for switching at least 80 per cent of York’s bus fleet to electric engines, helped them to obtain Government funding for 15 new electric buses over the next few months, and are promoting the provision of electric charging points for cars (also with Government funding).

Providing a core electric charging point infrastructure for York residents, businesses and visitors will strengthen people’s confidence to invest in purchasing and using very cheap-to-run electric vehicles.

Coun Dave Merrett, Cabinet member for planning, transport & sustainability, Whitehouse Gardens, York.

 

• If they can find money for charging points for electric cars in the city what about mobility scooters? Could a similar facility be made available for them as time goes on?

There must be a need as these modes of transport become popular with the disabled community.

Keith Chapman, Custance Walk, York.

Comments (30)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

12:15pm Tue 4 Mar 14

Pinza-C55 says...

Regarding Dave Merret's letter, he says
" York, like many other UK cities, has a significant air quality problem"
Can you link us to a detailed study into air quality in York Dave? I want more than your unsubstantiated statements.
"Nationally, it is estimated that poor air quality accounts for between 29,000 and 50,000 premature deaths".
Again can you back that up and indeed explain the 21,000 difference between the two figures?
"Moving to electric-engine vehicles is the most effective way of addressing this issue, besides helping to reduce climate changing greenhouse gases."
Yet again you state this as fact but can you prove it?
"and are promoting the provision of electric charging points for cars (also with Government funding)."
A recent article in the Press showed that the existing car chargers are hardly ever used. How much taxpayer's money do you need to waste on these things until you are satisfied?
"Providing a core electric charging point infrastructure for York residents, businesses and visitors will strengthen people’s confidence to invest in purchasing and using very cheap-to-run electric vehicles."
Where's the evidence for this , and has it ever occurred to that you may be wrong?
Regarding Dave Merret's letter, he says " York, like many other UK cities, has a significant air quality problem" Can you link us to a detailed study into air quality in York Dave? I want more than your unsubstantiated statements. "Nationally, it is estimated that poor air quality accounts for between 29,000 and 50,000 premature deaths". Again can you back that up and indeed explain the 21,000 difference between the two figures? "Moving to electric-engine vehicles is the most effective way of addressing this issue, besides helping to reduce climate changing greenhouse gases." Yet again you state this as fact but can you prove it? "and are promoting the provision of electric charging points for cars (also with Government funding)." A recent article in the Press showed that the existing car chargers are hardly ever used. How much taxpayer's money do you need to waste on these things until you are satisfied? "Providing a core electric charging point infrastructure for York residents, businesses and visitors will strengthen people’s confidence to invest in purchasing and using very cheap-to-run electric vehicles." Where's the evidence for this , and has it ever occurred to that you may be wrong? Pinza-C55
  • Score: -11

12:19pm Tue 4 Mar 14

spiritofyork says...

York also has a problem with cyclists frightening and injuring pedestrians and children, but you pander to those lot dont you? cretinous.
York also has a problem with cyclists frightening and injuring pedestrians and children, but you pander to those lot dont you? cretinous. spiritofyork
  • Score: -22

1:26pm Tue 4 Mar 14

Temburong says...

It's true that there are a few inconsiderate, selfish cyclists about- I tend to be rather glad that they are in charge of a bike rather than a ton or so of metal travelling at speed- unfortunately I guess some of those selfish inconsiderate cyclists also drive.
It's true that there are a few inconsiderate, selfish cyclists about- I tend to be rather glad that they are in charge of a bike rather than a ton or so of metal travelling at speed- unfortunately I guess some of those selfish inconsiderate cyclists also drive. Temburong
  • Score: -5

1:35pm Tue 4 Mar 14

Mulgrave says...

If it were my budget, I would go for new Euro 6 standard diesel buses, a huge leap forward in reducing NO2 and particulates over the previous standards, and put the large amount of money saved into a scheme to lease new diesel Euro 6 standard cars to York's taxi trade at subsidised rates. It is ironic that the vehicles that are doing 30,000 miles a year across the city and Lendal Bridge etc are relatively old diesels (Euro 3 and 4 typically), as the cost of running new cars is out of reach for most drivers as the mileage and the black mark of taxi use kills residual values.
If it were my budget, I would go for new Euro 6 standard diesel buses, a huge leap forward in reducing NO2 and particulates over the previous standards, and put the large amount of money saved into a scheme to lease new diesel Euro 6 standard cars to York's taxi trade at subsidised rates. It is ironic that the vehicles that are doing 30,000 miles a year across the city and Lendal Bridge etc are relatively old diesels (Euro 3 and 4 typically), as the cost of running new cars is out of reach for most drivers as the mileage and the black mark of taxi use kills residual values. Mulgrave
  • Score: 9

2:17pm Tue 4 Mar 14

YOUWILLDOASISAY says...

Source, NHS (April 2012).
According to the model, pollution from overall UK combustion emissions causes approximately 13,000 premature deaths a year, with road transport being the biggest source.

The study was carried out by researchers from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and was funded by the UK Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council. The study was published in the journal Environmental Science and Technology.

http://www.nhs.uk/ne
ws/2012/04april/Page
s/air-pollution-exha
ust-death-estimates.
aspx

It's rather ironic that the current restrictive and punative taken action in York has the effect of making vehicles drive further for longer and spend more time stationary (some in residential areas) is causative in increasing pollution. Clearly residents of the City of York are low on the list of priorities when it comes to traffic management and exposure to the effects of pollution in their areas of residence.

Efficient traffic flow via the most direct routes will result in reductions in emissions. Unfortunately our leaders have taken the opposite view believing increasing distance and manufacturing congestion will produce favourable results, not so.

Using inflated numbers does nothing to further the cause (doubling/tripling traffic, not even London claim this), we need experts in traffic management to benefit all modes not single issue campaigners who want one thing at any cost.
Source, NHS (April 2012). According to the model, pollution from overall UK combustion emissions causes approximately 13,000 premature deaths a year, with road transport being the biggest source. The study was carried out by researchers from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and was funded by the UK Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council. The study was published in the journal Environmental Science and Technology. http://www.nhs.uk/ne ws/2012/04april/Page s/air-pollution-exha ust-death-estimates. aspx It's rather ironic that the current restrictive and punative taken action in York has the effect of making vehicles drive further for longer and spend more time stationary (some in residential areas) is causative in increasing pollution. Clearly residents of the City of York are low on the list of priorities when it comes to traffic management and exposure to the effects of pollution in their areas of residence. Efficient traffic flow via the most direct routes will result in reductions in emissions. Unfortunately our leaders have taken the opposite view believing increasing distance and manufacturing congestion will produce favourable results, not so. Using inflated numbers does nothing to further the cause (doubling/tripling traffic, not even London claim this), we need experts in traffic management to benefit all modes not single issue campaigners who want one thing at any cost. YOUWILLDOASISAY
  • Score: -15

2:31pm Tue 4 Mar 14

strangebuttrue? says...

So Mr Merrett is concerned about pollution well lets have a look at what his own reports say: -

According to York Council Low Emission Strategy Oct 2012 (signed of by Mr Merrett)
“Traffic levels in the city have been reduced” 2002 to 2005.
“Peak period traffic levels have remained stable since 2006.”
Concentrations of NO2 within the city centre Air Quality Management Area have continued to increase year on year since 2006.
NO2 ug/m2 increases 2005 to 2010
Inside AQMA 33 to 49 = 48% increase.
Outside AQMA 27 to 36 = 33% increase.
This study indicates that NOx emissions from diesel vehicles, particularly buses and HGVs are probably one of the main reasons why York has so far failed to meet the air quality objective for NO2.
To date incentives to reduce emissions have been targeted mainly at homes and private cars. Little has been done to incentivise the use of low emission HGVs, buses and taxis.
Buses, Coaches, HGV, NO2 contribution = 38%. Percentage of traffic = 5.54%
Cars, Taxis, Motorcycles, NO2 contribution = 27%. Percentage of traffic = 84.9%
Between 94 and 163 people die prematurely in York each year due to the impacts of poor air quality.”

So we should not accept that any improvement has taken place until Mr Merrett has reduced the amount of pollution beyond the levels achieved in 2006 which is, I believe, about the time the council started in earnest with it's anti car measures.
So Mr Merrett is concerned about pollution well lets have a look at what his own reports say: - According to York Council Low Emission Strategy Oct 2012 (signed of by Mr Merrett) “Traffic levels in the city have been reduced” 2002 to 2005. “Peak period traffic levels have remained stable since 2006.” Concentrations of NO2 within the city centre Air Quality Management Area have continued to increase year on year since 2006. NO2 ug/m2 increases 2005 to 2010 Inside AQMA 33 to 49 = 48% increase. Outside AQMA 27 to 36 = 33% increase. This study indicates that NOx emissions from diesel vehicles, particularly buses and HGVs are probably one of the main reasons why York has so far failed to meet the air quality objective for NO2. To date incentives to reduce emissions have been targeted mainly at homes and private cars. Little has been done to incentivise the use of low emission HGVs, buses and taxis. Buses, Coaches, HGV, NO2 contribution = 38%. Percentage of traffic = 5.54% Cars, Taxis, Motorcycles, NO2 contribution = 27%. Percentage of traffic = 84.9% Between 94 and 163 people die prematurely in York each year due to the impacts of poor air quality.” So we should not accept that any improvement has taken place until Mr Merrett has reduced the amount of pollution beyond the levels achieved in 2006 which is, I believe, about the time the council started in earnest with it's anti car measures. strangebuttrue?
  • Score: -19

2:35pm Tue 4 Mar 14

strangebuttrue? says...

Mr Merrett asks how much a life is worth.
Well considering the above record on creating pollution in the city not as much as the councils passion to rid the city of cars.
Mr Merrett asks how much a life is worth. Well considering the above record on creating pollution in the city not as much as the councils passion to rid the city of cars. strangebuttrue?
  • Score: -19

3:02pm Tue 4 Mar 14

strangebuttrue? says...

From the advert this page directs you to.

Standard Peugeot 308 from £13 895 - 82g Co2/km 91.1mpg

Hybrid Peugeot 3008 from £24 845 - 88g Co2/km 83.1mpg

Looks like the same size car but the 3008 appears a bit taller due to the room required for the batteries.

???????????
Now I am confused . You pay £10.950 more for your sometimes battery powered car and get less MPG?. I suppose lugging all those batteries around must have some negative impact?

Nissan Leaf £23490 after being given £5000 subsidy from our taxes. So real cost £28490. I think I might buy 2 - bargain!
From the advert this page directs you to. Standard Peugeot 308 from £13 895 - 82g Co2/km 91.1mpg Hybrid Peugeot 3008 from £24 845 - 88g Co2/km 83.1mpg Looks like the same size car but the 3008 appears a bit taller due to the room required for the batteries. ??????????? Now I am confused . You pay £10.950 more for your sometimes battery powered car and get less MPG?. I suppose lugging all those batteries around must have some negative impact? Nissan Leaf £23490 after being given £5000 subsidy from our taxes. So real cost £28490. I think I might buy 2 - bargain! strangebuttrue?
  • Score: -25

3:39pm Tue 4 Mar 14

Dr Robert says...

How long has York labour Council been running York, Mr Merrett has really been diligent in his quest for electric charging points, is it six to date.? maybe his lack of action is down to the fact that he wants anything with four wheels , other than public transport off the road.
How long has York labour Council been running York, Mr Merrett has really been diligent in his quest for electric charging points, is it six to date.? maybe his lack of action is down to the fact that he wants anything with four wheels , other than public transport off the road. Dr Robert
  • Score: 8

6:15pm Tue 4 Mar 14

Pinza-C55 says...

Mulgrave wrote:
If it were my budget, I would go for new Euro 6 standard diesel buses, a huge leap forward in reducing NO2 and particulates over the previous standards, and put the large amount of money saved into a scheme to lease new diesel Euro 6 standard cars to York's taxi trade at subsidised rates. It is ironic that the vehicles that are doing 30,000 miles a year across the city and Lendal Bridge etc are relatively old diesels (Euro 3 and 4 typically), as the cost of running new cars is out of reach for most drivers as the mileage and the black mark of taxi use kills residual values.
"and put the large amount of money saved into a scheme to lease new diesel Euro 6 standard cars to York's taxi trade at subsidised rates."
So the taxpayer should subsidise taxi drivers?
Wow.
I am off for a couple of pints to clear my head.
[quote][p][bold]Mulgrave[/bold] wrote: If it were my budget, I would go for new Euro 6 standard diesel buses, a huge leap forward in reducing NO2 and particulates over the previous standards, and put the large amount of money saved into a scheme to lease new diesel Euro 6 standard cars to York's taxi trade at subsidised rates. It is ironic that the vehicles that are doing 30,000 miles a year across the city and Lendal Bridge etc are relatively old diesels (Euro 3 and 4 typically), as the cost of running new cars is out of reach for most drivers as the mileage and the black mark of taxi use kills residual values.[/p][/quote]"and put the large amount of money saved into a scheme to lease new diesel Euro 6 standard cars to York's taxi trade at subsidised rates." So the taxpayer should subsidise taxi drivers? Wow. I am off for a couple of pints to clear my head. Pinza-C55
  • Score: 5

6:25pm Tue 4 Mar 14

Mulgrave says...

Pinza-C55 wrote:
Mulgrave wrote:
If it were my budget, I would go for new Euro 6 standard diesel buses, a huge leap forward in reducing NO2 and particulates over the previous standards, and put the large amount of money saved into a scheme to lease new diesel Euro 6 standard cars to York's taxi trade at subsidised rates. It is ironic that the vehicles that are doing 30,000 miles a year across the city and Lendal Bridge etc are relatively old diesels (Euro 3 and 4 typically), as the cost of running new cars is out of reach for most drivers as the mileage and the black mark of taxi use kills residual values.
"and put the large amount of money saved into a scheme to lease new diesel Euro 6 standard cars to York's taxi trade at subsidised rates."
So the taxpayer should subsidise taxi drivers?
Wow.
I am off for a couple of pints to clear my head.
But you don't see any problem with a private multinational transport company receiving the subsidy? The whole point is it is not the driver who is standing next to the exhaust pipe of the 10 year old Mondeo with no particulate filter and 150k miles on the clock. Enjoy your pint......
[quote][p][bold]Pinza-C55[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mulgrave[/bold] wrote: If it were my budget, I would go for new Euro 6 standard diesel buses, a huge leap forward in reducing NO2 and particulates over the previous standards, and put the large amount of money saved into a scheme to lease new diesel Euro 6 standard cars to York's taxi trade at subsidised rates. It is ironic that the vehicles that are doing 30,000 miles a year across the city and Lendal Bridge etc are relatively old diesels (Euro 3 and 4 typically), as the cost of running new cars is out of reach for most drivers as the mileage and the black mark of taxi use kills residual values.[/p][/quote]"and put the large amount of money saved into a scheme to lease new diesel Euro 6 standard cars to York's taxi trade at subsidised rates." So the taxpayer should subsidise taxi drivers? Wow. I am off for a couple of pints to clear my head.[/p][/quote]But you don't see any problem with a private multinational transport company receiving the subsidy? The whole point is it is not the driver who is standing next to the exhaust pipe of the 10 year old Mondeo with no particulate filter and 150k miles on the clock. Enjoy your pint...... Mulgrave
  • Score: -1

8:43pm Tue 4 Mar 14

Pinza-C55 says...

Mulgrave wrote:
Pinza-C55 wrote:
Mulgrave wrote:
If it were my budget, I would go for new Euro 6 standard diesel buses, a huge leap forward in reducing NO2 and particulates over the previous standards, and put the large amount of money saved into a scheme to lease new diesel Euro 6 standard cars to York's taxi trade at subsidised rates. It is ironic that the vehicles that are doing 30,000 miles a year across the city and Lendal Bridge etc are relatively old diesels (Euro 3 and 4 typically), as the cost of running new cars is out of reach for most drivers as the mileage and the black mark of taxi use kills residual values.
"and put the large amount of money saved into a scheme to lease new diesel Euro 6 standard cars to York's taxi trade at subsidised rates."
So the taxpayer should subsidise taxi drivers?
Wow.
I am off for a couple of pints to clear my head.
But you don't see any problem with a private multinational transport company receiving the subsidy? The whole point is it is not the driver who is standing next to the exhaust pipe of the 10 year old Mondeo with no particulate filter and 150k miles on the clock. Enjoy your pint......
You're a good lad Mulgrave but you need to learn something about the rules of debate. There's an American term "Strawman" which refers to the idea of arguing against something your opponent never said, in effect constructing a "straw man" and attacking it.
When have I ever said private industries, let alone multinational ones, should be subsidised?
I have said on numerous occasions that I think all public utilities, namely gas, electricity, water, buses and railways should be nationalised and thus the concept of subsidising private utilities would not arise.
Since you didn't answer my question I will repeat it; do you really think taxi drivers should be subsidised by the taxpayer?
I await your reply with interest.
[quote][p][bold]Mulgrave[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Pinza-C55[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mulgrave[/bold] wrote: If it were my budget, I would go for new Euro 6 standard diesel buses, a huge leap forward in reducing NO2 and particulates over the previous standards, and put the large amount of money saved into a scheme to lease new diesel Euro 6 standard cars to York's taxi trade at subsidised rates. It is ironic that the vehicles that are doing 30,000 miles a year across the city and Lendal Bridge etc are relatively old diesels (Euro 3 and 4 typically), as the cost of running new cars is out of reach for most drivers as the mileage and the black mark of taxi use kills residual values.[/p][/quote]"and put the large amount of money saved into a scheme to lease new diesel Euro 6 standard cars to York's taxi trade at subsidised rates." So the taxpayer should subsidise taxi drivers? Wow. I am off for a couple of pints to clear my head.[/p][/quote]But you don't see any problem with a private multinational transport company receiving the subsidy? The whole point is it is not the driver who is standing next to the exhaust pipe of the 10 year old Mondeo with no particulate filter and 150k miles on the clock. Enjoy your pint......[/p][/quote]You're a good lad Mulgrave but you need to learn something about the rules of debate. There's an American term "Strawman" which refers to the idea of arguing against something your opponent never said, in effect constructing a "straw man" and attacking it. When have I ever said private industries, let alone multinational ones, should be subsidised? I have said on numerous occasions that I think all public utilities, namely gas, electricity, water, buses and railways should be nationalised and thus the concept of subsidising private utilities would not arise. Since you didn't answer my question I will repeat it; do you really think taxi drivers should be subsidised by the taxpayer? I await your reply with interest. Pinza-C55
  • Score: 2

9:08pm Tue 4 Mar 14

Igiveinthen says...

Well just to please Mr Merrett I have ordered my electric car, it's a Tesla Roadster Sport, 0 to 60mph in 3.7 seconds, top speed 125mph, 211 mile range, all that fun and zero emissions!!!!!
Well just to please Mr Merrett I have ordered my electric car, it's a Tesla Roadster Sport, 0 to 60mph in 3.7 seconds, top speed 125mph, 211 mile range, all that fun and zero emissions!!!!! Igiveinthen
  • Score: 6

9:50pm Tue 4 Mar 14

Mulgrave says...

Pinza-C55 wrote:
Mulgrave wrote:
Pinza-C55 wrote:
Mulgrave wrote:
If it were my budget, I would go for new Euro 6 standard diesel buses, a huge leap forward in reducing NO2 and particulates over the previous standards, and put the large amount of money saved into a scheme to lease new diesel Euro 6 standard cars to York's taxi trade at subsidised rates. It is ironic that the vehicles that are doing 30,000 miles a year across the city and Lendal Bridge etc are relatively old diesels (Euro 3 and 4 typically), as the cost of running new cars is out of reach for most drivers as the mileage and the black mark of taxi use kills residual values.
"and put the large amount of money saved into a scheme to lease new diesel Euro 6 standard cars to York's taxi trade at subsidised rates."
So the taxpayer should subsidise taxi drivers?
Wow.
I am off for a couple of pints to clear my head.
But you don't see any problem with a private multinational transport company receiving the subsidy? The whole point is it is not the driver who is standing next to the exhaust pipe of the 10 year old Mondeo with no particulate filter and 150k miles on the clock. Enjoy your pint......
You're a good lad Mulgrave but you need to learn something about the rules of debate. There's an American term "Strawman" which refers to the idea of arguing against something your opponent never said, in effect constructing a "straw man" and attacking it.
When have I ever said private industries, let alone multinational ones, should be subsidised?
I have said on numerous occasions that I think all public utilities, namely gas, electricity, water, buses and railways should be nationalised and thus the concept of subsidising private utilities would not arise.
Since you didn't answer my question I will repeat it; do you really think taxi drivers should be subsidised by the taxpayer?
I await your reply with interest.
I suggest that if taxpayers money is being spent to improve air quality in York, better results would be obtained by doing it as I stated. It is valid for me to ask why you only query a part of my suggested scheme when exactly the same principle applies to both bus and taxi services, each provide transport for the public for profit. That is not saying you support subsidies, nor do I have a back catalogue of your posts.

Re the specific taxi issue, we have a lot of older cars doing high mileages in sensitive areas of the city. The economics of fare levels and running costs (including capital cost and depreciation) and the options for owners acting individually, mean that there are a lot of older medium/large cars with pollution levels well above those of new models. Options:- A) spend all the money on electric buses and leave this alone. B) You could bring in a licensing requirement that stipulates taxis be under 3 years old, for example. Would reduce pollution, but would need an increase in fares to make it happen, ie the public pays, but the taxi proprietor makes no more money C) Bring in a scheme, using money not spent on the more expensive electric buses (yes taxpayer's money) to run a scheme that would lease a fleet of cars (obviously a good quantity deal could be had) at a rate that would reflect all the benefits to the taxi proprietors such as no car loan or depreciation and reduced repairs, fuel bills, VED, down time etc and would certainly not put money in their pockets, but would provide a benefit for others apart from the drivers in less pollution, and also better safety levels as happens as models are updated - but without an increase in fares which means in effect that it is the public who are gaining from the subsidy. (Just to clarify I mean operating leases where the car is simply hired for a monthly rental for two or three years and returned at the end of the period, no reward for the driver).

I am not putting this idea at the top of the public spending agenda, it was suggested on the basis that money is already being spent here and now, and like most problems, there is not just one way of approaching it as Coun Merrett suggests.
[quote][p][bold]Pinza-C55[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mulgrave[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Pinza-C55[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mulgrave[/bold] wrote: If it were my budget, I would go for new Euro 6 standard diesel buses, a huge leap forward in reducing NO2 and particulates over the previous standards, and put the large amount of money saved into a scheme to lease new diesel Euro 6 standard cars to York's taxi trade at subsidised rates. It is ironic that the vehicles that are doing 30,000 miles a year across the city and Lendal Bridge etc are relatively old diesels (Euro 3 and 4 typically), as the cost of running new cars is out of reach for most drivers as the mileage and the black mark of taxi use kills residual values.[/p][/quote]"and put the large amount of money saved into a scheme to lease new diesel Euro 6 standard cars to York's taxi trade at subsidised rates." So the taxpayer should subsidise taxi drivers? Wow. I am off for a couple of pints to clear my head.[/p][/quote]But you don't see any problem with a private multinational transport company receiving the subsidy? The whole point is it is not the driver who is standing next to the exhaust pipe of the 10 year old Mondeo with no particulate filter and 150k miles on the clock. Enjoy your pint......[/p][/quote]You're a good lad Mulgrave but you need to learn something about the rules of debate. There's an American term "Strawman" which refers to the idea of arguing against something your opponent never said, in effect constructing a "straw man" and attacking it. When have I ever said private industries, let alone multinational ones, should be subsidised? I have said on numerous occasions that I think all public utilities, namely gas, electricity, water, buses and railways should be nationalised and thus the concept of subsidising private utilities would not arise. Since you didn't answer my question I will repeat it; do you really think taxi drivers should be subsidised by the taxpayer? I await your reply with interest.[/p][/quote]I suggest that if taxpayers money is being spent to improve air quality in York, better results would be obtained by doing it as I stated. It is valid for me to ask why you only query a part of my suggested scheme when exactly the same principle applies to both bus and taxi services, each provide transport for the public for profit. That is not saying you support subsidies, nor do I have a back catalogue of your posts. Re the specific taxi issue, we have a lot of older cars doing high mileages in sensitive areas of the city. The economics of fare levels and running costs (including capital cost and depreciation) and the options for owners acting individually, mean that there are a lot of older medium/large cars with pollution levels well above those of new models. Options:- A) spend all the money on electric buses and leave this alone. B) You could bring in a licensing requirement that stipulates taxis be under 3 years old, for example. Would reduce pollution, but would need an increase in fares to make it happen, ie the public pays, but the taxi proprietor makes no more money C) Bring in a scheme, using money not spent on the more expensive electric buses (yes taxpayer's money) to run a scheme that would lease a fleet of cars (obviously a good quantity deal could be had) at a rate that would reflect all the benefits to the taxi proprietors such as no car loan or depreciation and reduced repairs, fuel bills, VED, down time etc and would certainly not put money in their pockets, but would provide a benefit for others apart from the drivers in less pollution, and also better safety levels as happens as models are updated - but without an increase in fares which means in effect that it is the public who are gaining from the subsidy. (Just to clarify I mean operating leases where the car is simply hired for a monthly rental for two or three years and returned at the end of the period, no reward for the driver). I am not putting this idea at the top of the public spending agenda, it was suggested on the basis that money is already being spent here and now, and like most problems, there is not just one way of approaching it as Coun Merrett suggests. Mulgrave
  • Score: 0

10:14pm Tue 4 Mar 14

Pinza-C55 says...

Mulgrave wrote:
Pinza-C55 wrote:
Mulgrave wrote:
Pinza-C55 wrote:
Mulgrave wrote:
If it were my budget, I would go for new Euro 6 standard diesel buses, a huge leap forward in reducing NO2 and particulates over the previous standards, and put the large amount of money saved into a scheme to lease new diesel Euro 6 standard cars to York's taxi trade at subsidised rates. It is ironic that the vehicles that are doing 30,000 miles a year across the city and Lendal Bridge etc are relatively old diesels (Euro 3 and 4 typically), as the cost of running new cars is out of reach for most drivers as the mileage and the black mark of taxi use kills residual values.
"and put the large amount of money saved into a scheme to lease new diesel Euro 6 standard cars to York's taxi trade at subsidised rates."
So the taxpayer should subsidise taxi drivers?
Wow.
I am off for a couple of pints to clear my head.
But you don't see any problem with a private multinational transport company receiving the subsidy? The whole point is it is not the driver who is standing next to the exhaust pipe of the 10 year old Mondeo with no particulate filter and 150k miles on the clock. Enjoy your pint......
You're a good lad Mulgrave but you need to learn something about the rules of debate. There's an American term "Strawman" which refers to the idea of arguing against something your opponent never said, in effect constructing a "straw man" and attacking it.
When have I ever said private industries, let alone multinational ones, should be subsidised?
I have said on numerous occasions that I think all public utilities, namely gas, electricity, water, buses and railways should be nationalised and thus the concept of subsidising private utilities would not arise.
Since you didn't answer my question I will repeat it; do you really think taxi drivers should be subsidised by the taxpayer?
I await your reply with interest.
I suggest that if taxpayers money is being spent to improve air quality in York, better results would be obtained by doing it as I stated. It is valid for me to ask why you only query a part of my suggested scheme when exactly the same principle applies to both bus and taxi services, each provide transport for the public for profit. That is not saying you support subsidies, nor do I have a back catalogue of your posts.

Re the specific taxi issue, we have a lot of older cars doing high mileages in sensitive areas of the city. The economics of fare levels and running costs (including capital cost and depreciation) and the options for owners acting individually, mean that there are a lot of older medium/large cars with pollution levels well above those of new models. Options:- A) spend all the money on electric buses and leave this alone. B) You could bring in a licensing requirement that stipulates taxis be under 3 years old, for example. Would reduce pollution, but would need an increase in fares to make it happen, ie the public pays, but the taxi proprietor makes no more money C) Bring in a scheme, using money not spent on the more expensive electric buses (yes taxpayer's money) to run a scheme that would lease a fleet of cars (obviously a good quantity deal could be had) at a rate that would reflect all the benefits to the taxi proprietors such as no car loan or depreciation and reduced repairs, fuel bills, VED, down time etc and would certainly not put money in their pockets, but would provide a benefit for others apart from the drivers in less pollution, and also better safety levels as happens as models are updated - but without an increase in fares which means in effect that it is the public who are gaining from the subsidy. (Just to clarify I mean operating leases where the car is simply hired for a monthly rental for two or three years and returned at the end of the period, no reward for the driver).

I am not putting this idea at the top of the public spending agenda, it was suggested on the basis that money is already being spent here and now, and like most problems, there is not just one way of approaching it as Coun Merrett suggests.
"I suggest that if taxpayers money is being spent to improve air quality in York, better results would be obtained by doing it as I stated."
Clearly you don't want to simply state that you think taxi drivers should be subsidised but I think that is the closest thing I will get to a simple "yes" which would have sufficed.
"It is valid for me to ask why you only query a part of my suggested scheme when exactly the same principle applies to both bus and taxi services, each provide transport for the public for profit."
You didn't ask me for my opinion, you stated my opinion thus strawmanning me
"But you don't see any problem with a private multinational transport company receiving the subsidy?"
"That is not saying you support subsidies, nor do I have a back catalogue of your posts."
It's really, really simple; if you click on my name you can read my previous posts, or you can simply ask my opinion, though I realise my opinion may not fit your preconceptions.
The rest of your post from "Re the specific taxi issue" to "as Coun Merrett suggests." is simply a wall of text. Look up the American debate term "Gish Gallop" otherwise known as "spreading".
[quote][p][bold]Mulgrave[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Pinza-C55[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mulgrave[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Pinza-C55[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mulgrave[/bold] wrote: If it were my budget, I would go for new Euro 6 standard diesel buses, a huge leap forward in reducing NO2 and particulates over the previous standards, and put the large amount of money saved into a scheme to lease new diesel Euro 6 standard cars to York's taxi trade at subsidised rates. It is ironic that the vehicles that are doing 30,000 miles a year across the city and Lendal Bridge etc are relatively old diesels (Euro 3 and 4 typically), as the cost of running new cars is out of reach for most drivers as the mileage and the black mark of taxi use kills residual values.[/p][/quote]"and put the large amount of money saved into a scheme to lease new diesel Euro 6 standard cars to York's taxi trade at subsidised rates." So the taxpayer should subsidise taxi drivers? Wow. I am off for a couple of pints to clear my head.[/p][/quote]But you don't see any problem with a private multinational transport company receiving the subsidy? The whole point is it is not the driver who is standing next to the exhaust pipe of the 10 year old Mondeo with no particulate filter and 150k miles on the clock. Enjoy your pint......[/p][/quote]You're a good lad Mulgrave but you need to learn something about the rules of debate. There's an American term "Strawman" which refers to the idea of arguing against something your opponent never said, in effect constructing a "straw man" and attacking it. When have I ever said private industries, let alone multinational ones, should be subsidised? I have said on numerous occasions that I think all public utilities, namely gas, electricity, water, buses and railways should be nationalised and thus the concept of subsidising private utilities would not arise. Since you didn't answer my question I will repeat it; do you really think taxi drivers should be subsidised by the taxpayer? I await your reply with interest.[/p][/quote]I suggest that if taxpayers money is being spent to improve air quality in York, better results would be obtained by doing it as I stated. It is valid for me to ask why you only query a part of my suggested scheme when exactly the same principle applies to both bus and taxi services, each provide transport for the public for profit. That is not saying you support subsidies, nor do I have a back catalogue of your posts. Re the specific taxi issue, we have a lot of older cars doing high mileages in sensitive areas of the city. The economics of fare levels and running costs (including capital cost and depreciation) and the options for owners acting individually, mean that there are a lot of older medium/large cars with pollution levels well above those of new models. Options:- A) spend all the money on electric buses and leave this alone. B) You could bring in a licensing requirement that stipulates taxis be under 3 years old, for example. Would reduce pollution, but would need an increase in fares to make it happen, ie the public pays, but the taxi proprietor makes no more money C) Bring in a scheme, using money not spent on the more expensive electric buses (yes taxpayer's money) to run a scheme that would lease a fleet of cars (obviously a good quantity deal could be had) at a rate that would reflect all the benefits to the taxi proprietors such as no car loan or depreciation and reduced repairs, fuel bills, VED, down time etc and would certainly not put money in their pockets, but would provide a benefit for others apart from the drivers in less pollution, and also better safety levels as happens as models are updated - but without an increase in fares which means in effect that it is the public who are gaining from the subsidy. (Just to clarify I mean operating leases where the car is simply hired for a monthly rental for two or three years and returned at the end of the period, no reward for the driver). I am not putting this idea at the top of the public spending agenda, it was suggested on the basis that money is already being spent here and now, and like most problems, there is not just one way of approaching it as Coun Merrett suggests.[/p][/quote]"I suggest that if taxpayers money is being spent to improve air quality in York, better results would be obtained by doing it as I stated." Clearly you don't want to simply state that you think taxi drivers should be subsidised but I think that is the closest thing I will get to a simple "yes" which would have sufficed. "It is valid for me to ask why you only query a part of my suggested scheme when exactly the same principle applies to both bus and taxi services, each provide transport for the public for profit." You didn't ask me for my opinion, you stated my opinion thus strawmanning me "But you don't see any problem with a private multinational transport company receiving the subsidy?" "That is not saying you support subsidies, nor do I have a back catalogue of your posts." It's really, really simple; if you click on my name you can read my previous posts, or you can simply ask my opinion, though I realise my opinion may not fit your preconceptions. The rest of your post from "Re the specific taxi issue" to "as Coun Merrett suggests." is simply a wall of text. Look up the American debate term "Gish Gallop" otherwise known as "spreading". Pinza-C55
  • Score: -2

10:56pm Tue 4 Mar 14

Mulgrave says...

Pinza-C55 wrote:
Mulgrave wrote:
Pinza-C55 wrote:
Mulgrave wrote:
Pinza-C55 wrote:
Mulgrave wrote:
If it were my budget, I would go for new Euro 6 standard diesel buses, a huge leap forward in reducing NO2 and particulates over the previous standards, and put the large amount of money saved into a scheme to lease new diesel Euro 6 standard cars to York's taxi trade at subsidised rates. It is ironic that the vehicles that are doing 30,000 miles a year across the city and Lendal Bridge etc are relatively old diesels (Euro 3 and 4 typically), as the cost of running new cars is out of reach for most drivers as the mileage and the black mark of taxi use kills residual values.
"and put the large amount of money saved into a scheme to lease new diesel Euro 6 standard cars to York's taxi trade at subsidised rates."
So the taxpayer should subsidise taxi drivers?
Wow.
I am off for a couple of pints to clear my head.
But you don't see any problem with a private multinational transport company receiving the subsidy? The whole point is it is not the driver who is standing next to the exhaust pipe of the 10 year old Mondeo with no particulate filter and 150k miles on the clock. Enjoy your pint......
You're a good lad Mulgrave but you need to learn something about the rules of debate. There's an American term "Strawman" which refers to the idea of arguing against something your opponent never said, in effect constructing a "straw man" and attacking it.
When have I ever said private industries, let alone multinational ones, should be subsidised?
I have said on numerous occasions that I think all public utilities, namely gas, electricity, water, buses and railways should be nationalised and thus the concept of subsidising private utilities would not arise.
Since you didn't answer my question I will repeat it; do you really think taxi drivers should be subsidised by the taxpayer?
I await your reply with interest.
I suggest that if taxpayers money is being spent to improve air quality in York, better results would be obtained by doing it as I stated. It is valid for me to ask why you only query a part of my suggested scheme when exactly the same principle applies to both bus and taxi services, each provide transport for the public for profit. That is not saying you support subsidies, nor do I have a back catalogue of your posts.

Re the specific taxi issue, we have a lot of older cars doing high mileages in sensitive areas of the city. The economics of fare levels and running costs (including capital cost and depreciation) and the options for owners acting individually, mean that there are a lot of older medium/large cars with pollution levels well above those of new models. Options:- A) spend all the money on electric buses and leave this alone. B) You could bring in a licensing requirement that stipulates taxis be under 3 years old, for example. Would reduce pollution, but would need an increase in fares to make it happen, ie the public pays, but the taxi proprietor makes no more money C) Bring in a scheme, using money not spent on the more expensive electric buses (yes taxpayer's money) to run a scheme that would lease a fleet of cars (obviously a good quantity deal could be had) at a rate that would reflect all the benefits to the taxi proprietors such as no car loan or depreciation and reduced repairs, fuel bills, VED, down time etc and would certainly not put money in their pockets, but would provide a benefit for others apart from the drivers in less pollution, and also better safety levels as happens as models are updated - but without an increase in fares which means in effect that it is the public who are gaining from the subsidy. (Just to clarify I mean operating leases where the car is simply hired for a monthly rental for two or three years and returned at the end of the period, no reward for the driver).

I am not putting this idea at the top of the public spending agenda, it was suggested on the basis that money is already being spent here and now, and like most problems, there is not just one way of approaching it as Coun Merrett suggests.
"I suggest that if taxpayers money is being spent to improve air quality in York, better results would be obtained by doing it as I stated."
Clearly you don't want to simply state that you think taxi drivers should be subsidised but I think that is the closest thing I will get to a simple "yes" which would have sufficed.
"It is valid for me to ask why you only query a part of my suggested scheme when exactly the same principle applies to both bus and taxi services, each provide transport for the public for profit."
You didn't ask me for my opinion, you stated my opinion thus strawmanning me
"But you don't see any problem with a private multinational transport company receiving the subsidy?"
"That is not saying you support subsidies, nor do I have a back catalogue of your posts."
It's really, really simple; if you click on my name you can read my previous posts, or you can simply ask my opinion, though I realise my opinion may not fit your preconceptions.
The rest of your post from "Re the specific taxi issue" to "as Coun Merrett suggests." is simply a wall of text. Look up the American debate term "Gish Gallop" otherwise known as "spreading".
It would be cleaner air that is being subsidised in the case of both buses and taxis, as I explain. If the taxi drivers gained financially, then of course they would be being subsidised. I can neither answer yes or no to a question that I don't see as relevant to what I have posted, apologies to you Pinza if my attempts to explain are unacceptable waffle. Perhaps others will judge the merits of the posts. (Clicking on the names worked for a while last year, but not now, at least not on my computer).
[quote][p][bold]Pinza-C55[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mulgrave[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Pinza-C55[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mulgrave[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Pinza-C55[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mulgrave[/bold] wrote: If it were my budget, I would go for new Euro 6 standard diesel buses, a huge leap forward in reducing NO2 and particulates over the previous standards, and put the large amount of money saved into a scheme to lease new diesel Euro 6 standard cars to York's taxi trade at subsidised rates. It is ironic that the vehicles that are doing 30,000 miles a year across the city and Lendal Bridge etc are relatively old diesels (Euro 3 and 4 typically), as the cost of running new cars is out of reach for most drivers as the mileage and the black mark of taxi use kills residual values.[/p][/quote]"and put the large amount of money saved into a scheme to lease new diesel Euro 6 standard cars to York's taxi trade at subsidised rates." So the taxpayer should subsidise taxi drivers? Wow. I am off for a couple of pints to clear my head.[/p][/quote]But you don't see any problem with a private multinational transport company receiving the subsidy? The whole point is it is not the driver who is standing next to the exhaust pipe of the 10 year old Mondeo with no particulate filter and 150k miles on the clock. Enjoy your pint......[/p][/quote]You're a good lad Mulgrave but you need to learn something about the rules of debate. There's an American term "Strawman" which refers to the idea of arguing against something your opponent never said, in effect constructing a "straw man" and attacking it. When have I ever said private industries, let alone multinational ones, should be subsidised? I have said on numerous occasions that I think all public utilities, namely gas, electricity, water, buses and railways should be nationalised and thus the concept of subsidising private utilities would not arise. Since you didn't answer my question I will repeat it; do you really think taxi drivers should be subsidised by the taxpayer? I await your reply with interest.[/p][/quote]I suggest that if taxpayers money is being spent to improve air quality in York, better results would be obtained by doing it as I stated. It is valid for me to ask why you only query a part of my suggested scheme when exactly the same principle applies to both bus and taxi services, each provide transport for the public for profit. That is not saying you support subsidies, nor do I have a back catalogue of your posts. Re the specific taxi issue, we have a lot of older cars doing high mileages in sensitive areas of the city. The economics of fare levels and running costs (including capital cost and depreciation) and the options for owners acting individually, mean that there are a lot of older medium/large cars with pollution levels well above those of new models. Options:- A) spend all the money on electric buses and leave this alone. B) You could bring in a licensing requirement that stipulates taxis be under 3 years old, for example. Would reduce pollution, but would need an increase in fares to make it happen, ie the public pays, but the taxi proprietor makes no more money C) Bring in a scheme, using money not spent on the more expensive electric buses (yes taxpayer's money) to run a scheme that would lease a fleet of cars (obviously a good quantity deal could be had) at a rate that would reflect all the benefits to the taxi proprietors such as no car loan or depreciation and reduced repairs, fuel bills, VED, down time etc and would certainly not put money in their pockets, but would provide a benefit for others apart from the drivers in less pollution, and also better safety levels as happens as models are updated - but without an increase in fares which means in effect that it is the public who are gaining from the subsidy. (Just to clarify I mean operating leases where the car is simply hired for a monthly rental for two or three years and returned at the end of the period, no reward for the driver). I am not putting this idea at the top of the public spending agenda, it was suggested on the basis that money is already being spent here and now, and like most problems, there is not just one way of approaching it as Coun Merrett suggests.[/p][/quote]"I suggest that if taxpayers money is being spent to improve air quality in York, better results would be obtained by doing it as I stated." Clearly you don't want to simply state that you think taxi drivers should be subsidised but I think that is the closest thing I will get to a simple "yes" which would have sufficed. "It is valid for me to ask why you only query a part of my suggested scheme when exactly the same principle applies to both bus and taxi services, each provide transport for the public for profit." You didn't ask me for my opinion, you stated my opinion thus strawmanning me "But you don't see any problem with a private multinational transport company receiving the subsidy?" "That is not saying you support subsidies, nor do I have a back catalogue of your posts." It's really, really simple; if you click on my name you can read my previous posts, or you can simply ask my opinion, though I realise my opinion may not fit your preconceptions. The rest of your post from "Re the specific taxi issue" to "as Coun Merrett suggests." is simply a wall of text. Look up the American debate term "Gish Gallop" otherwise known as "spreading".[/p][/quote]It would be cleaner air that is being subsidised in the case of both buses and taxis, as I explain. If the taxi drivers gained financially, then of course they would be being subsidised. I can neither answer yes or no to a question that I don't see as relevant to what I have posted, apologies to you Pinza if my attempts to explain are unacceptable waffle. Perhaps others will judge the merits of the posts. (Clicking on the names worked for a while last year, but not now, at least not on my computer). Mulgrave
  • Score: 1

5:16am Wed 5 Mar 14

Magicman! says...

spiritofyork wrote:
York also has a problem with cyclists frightening and injuring pedestrians and children, but you pander to those lot dont you? cretinous.
Who unlocked the rock that is your front door and allowed you out?
[quote][p][bold]spiritofyork[/bold] wrote: York also has a problem with cyclists frightening and injuring pedestrians and children, but you pander to those lot dont you? cretinous.[/p][/quote]Who unlocked the rock that is your front door and allowed you out? Magicman!
  • Score: -2

5:18am Wed 5 Mar 14

Magicman! says...

Mulgrave wrote:
If it were my budget, I would go for new Euro 6 standard diesel buses, a huge leap forward in reducing NO2 and particulates over the previous standards, and put the large amount of money saved into a scheme to lease new diesel Euro 6 standard cars to York's taxi trade at subsidised rates. It is ironic that the vehicles that are doing 30,000 miles a year across the city and Lendal Bridge etc are relatively old diesels (Euro 3 and 4 typically), as the cost of running new cars is out of reach for most drivers as the mileage and the black mark of taxi use kills residual values.
Arriva have 4 Euro-6 engined minibuses in use in York on the 24/26/27, and Connexions Buses have a bus of a similar efficiency on the 21 - all of which are only a few months old.
[quote][p][bold]Mulgrave[/bold] wrote: If it were my budget, I would go for new Euro 6 standard diesel buses, a huge leap forward in reducing NO2 and particulates over the previous standards, and put the large amount of money saved into a scheme to lease new diesel Euro 6 standard cars to York's taxi trade at subsidised rates. It is ironic that the vehicles that are doing 30,000 miles a year across the city and Lendal Bridge etc are relatively old diesels (Euro 3 and 4 typically), as the cost of running new cars is out of reach for most drivers as the mileage and the black mark of taxi use kills residual values.[/p][/quote]Arriva have 4 Euro-6 engined minibuses in use in York on the 24/26/27, and Connexions Buses have a bus of a similar efficiency on the 21 - all of which are only a few months old. Magicman!
  • Score: -1

5:25am Wed 5 Mar 14

Magicman! says...

As a breakdown of the electric buses, 12 are for First York, 2 are for the council, and 1 is already in operation with Transdev. In addition, Transdev has been granted funds to convert a diesel bus to fully electric (the first conversion of this type in the UK), and First York are bringing 5 hybrid double deckers into service soon (3 of which are already in the depot).

Fully electric traction only really works with buses because when a bus needs to be recharged midway through the day, another bus can come out and carry on its route until the first one is ready to go again. You can't do that with an electric car - and so until battery or super capacitor technology has advanced to the point where you plug in for 10 minutes and get a full 100% recharge without drastically reducing the life expectancy of the electricity storage medium, then electric cars will remain just a fancy novelty for those who have too much money and are way too obsessed with eco-credentials than they have of common sense.
As a breakdown of the electric buses, 12 are for First York, 2 are for the council, and 1 is already in operation with Transdev. In addition, Transdev has been granted funds to convert a diesel bus to fully electric (the first conversion of this type in the UK), and First York are bringing 5 hybrid double deckers into service soon (3 of which are already in the depot). Fully electric traction only really works with buses because when a bus needs to be recharged midway through the day, another bus can come out and carry on its route until the first one is ready to go again. You can't do that with an electric car - and so until battery or super capacitor technology has advanced to the point where you plug in for 10 minutes and get a full 100% recharge without drastically reducing the life expectancy of the electricity storage medium, then electric cars will remain just a fancy novelty for those who have too much money and are way too obsessed with eco-credentials than they have of common sense. Magicman!
  • Score: 0

8:03am Wed 5 Mar 14

Mulgrave says...

Magicman! wrote:
As a breakdown of the electric buses, 12 are for First York, 2 are for the council, and 1 is already in operation with Transdev. In addition, Transdev has been granted funds to convert a diesel bus to fully electric (the first conversion of this type in the UK), and First York are bringing 5 hybrid double deckers into service soon (3 of which are already in the depot).

Fully electric traction only really works with buses because when a bus needs to be recharged midway through the day, another bus can come out and carry on its route until the first one is ready to go again. You can't do that with an electric car - and so until battery or super capacitor technology has advanced to the point where you plug in for 10 minutes and get a full 100% recharge without drastically reducing the life expectancy of the electricity storage medium, then electric cars will remain just a fancy novelty for those who have too much money and are way too obsessed with eco-credentials than they have of common sense.
Good summing up of the electric car position Magicman, but the same basic flaw still exists regarding the buses. Whilst the logistics appear to work better in this application, if you need, say, 1 additional bus to cover 4 that need periods off the road to recharge during the day that has a cost implication. I believe electric buses are twice the price, so instead of getting 4 new Euro-6 diesels for a total of £500k you would need 5 electric at a cost of £1.25million - 2.5 times more expensive per bus.

As for charging in the day, not very green as you need to consider the dirtiest marginal generators that are on line to meet demand - not to mention the wafer thin supply margin predicted over the next few years as coal stations are switched off. The cost of the electricity is also higher, and it must be remembered that bus operators reclaim some of the fuel duty on diesel, making fuel savings less attractive compared to private vehicle users.

One day we may get the battery breakthrough...
[quote][p][bold]Magicman![/bold] wrote: As a breakdown of the electric buses, 12 are for First York, 2 are for the council, and 1 is already in operation with Transdev. In addition, Transdev has been granted funds to convert a diesel bus to fully electric (the first conversion of this type in the UK), and First York are bringing 5 hybrid double deckers into service soon (3 of which are already in the depot). Fully electric traction only really works with buses because when a bus needs to be recharged midway through the day, another bus can come out and carry on its route until the first one is ready to go again. You can't do that with an electric car - and so until battery or super capacitor technology has advanced to the point where you plug in for 10 minutes and get a full 100% recharge without drastically reducing the life expectancy of the electricity storage medium, then electric cars will remain just a fancy novelty for those who have too much money and are way too obsessed with eco-credentials than they have of common sense.[/p][/quote]Good summing up of the electric car position Magicman, but the same basic flaw still exists regarding the buses. Whilst the logistics appear to work better in this application, if you need, say, 1 additional bus to cover 4 that need periods off the road to recharge during the day that has a cost implication. I believe electric buses are twice the price, so instead of getting 4 new Euro-6 diesels for a total of £500k you would need 5 electric at a cost of £1.25million - 2.5 times more expensive per bus. As for charging in the day, not very green as you need to consider the dirtiest marginal generators that are on line to meet demand - not to mention the wafer thin supply margin predicted over the next few years as coal stations are switched off. The cost of the electricity is also higher, and it must be remembered that bus operators reclaim some of the fuel duty on diesel, making fuel savings less attractive compared to private vehicle users. One day we may get the battery breakthrough... Mulgrave
  • Score: 1

11:18am Wed 5 Mar 14

Pinza-C55 says...

The results so far; my initial reply has suddenly gone down from +18 to -15, presumably because I criticised a member of the council.
Note that Mr Merrett has not replied on this page. Will he ever? Probably not. You see he, along with Mr D'Agoyne and the 2 MEP's (can't remember their names and I doubt whether anybody in York can), simply post sound bites in the Press. They know that the majority of readers will not question their assertions and they aren't interested in replying to those who do.
The results so far; my initial reply has suddenly gone down from +18 to -15, presumably because I criticised a member of the council. Note that Mr Merrett has not replied on this page. Will he ever? Probably not. You see he, along with Mr D'Agoyne and the 2 MEP's (can't remember their names and I doubt whether anybody in York can), simply post sound bites in the Press. They know that the majority of readers will not question their assertions and they aren't interested in replying to those who do. Pinza-C55
  • Score: 2

12:00pm Wed 5 Mar 14

pedalling paul says...

Might be useful to get some electric bike charging points fitted as well...I might need one when I reach my dotage.
And as for speed-related car pollution, the true solution is simply fewer cars on the highway network.
Might be useful to get some electric bike charging points fitted as well...I might need one when I reach my dotage. And as for speed-related car pollution, the true solution is simply fewer cars on the highway network. pedalling paul
  • Score: -5

2:14pm Wed 5 Mar 14

Igiveinthen says...

pedalling paul wrote:
Might be useful to get some electric bike charging points fitted as well...I might need one when I reach my dotage. And as for speed-related car pollution, the true solution is simply fewer cars on the highway network.
Don’t hold your breath pp, unfortunately for you and others like you, you refuse to accept that there are people like me who will use our cars; I am not going to purchase a motor vehicle and have it standing in the garage.
You still ignore the fact that there needs to be more capacity on the outer ring road, all roads are not solely for the exclusive use of, or future use of for that matter the “cycle”, you also keep banging on about looking generations ahead, well the traffic planners didn’t look generations ahead and didn’t do a very good job when the planned the A1237 did they!
[quote][p][bold]pedalling paul [/bold] wrote: Might be useful to get some electric bike charging points fitted as well...I might need one when I reach my dotage. And as for speed-related car pollution, the true solution is simply fewer cars on the highway network.[/p][/quote]Don’t hold your breath pp, unfortunately for you and others like you, you refuse to accept that there are people like me who will use our cars; I am not going to purchase a motor vehicle and have it standing in the garage. You still ignore the fact that there needs to be more capacity on the outer ring road, all roads are not solely for the exclusive use of, or future use of for that matter the “cycle”, you also keep banging on about looking generations ahead, well the traffic planners didn’t look generations ahead and didn’t do a very good job when the planned the A1237 did they! Igiveinthen
  • Score: 1

4:14pm Wed 5 Mar 14

greenmonkey says...

Igiveinthen wrote:
pedalling paul wrote:
Might be useful to get some electric bike charging points fitted as well...I might need one when I reach my dotage. And as for speed-related car pollution, the true solution is simply fewer cars on the highway network.
Don’t hold your breath pp, unfortunately for you and others like you, you refuse to accept that there are people like me who will use our cars; I am not going to purchase a motor vehicle and have it standing in the garage.
You still ignore the fact that there needs to be more capacity on the outer ring road, all roads are not solely for the exclusive use of, or future use of for that matter the “cycle”, you also keep banging on about looking generations ahead, well the traffic planners didn’t look generations ahead and didn’t do a very good job when the planned the A1237 did they!
The 'outer ring road' was built as a distributor road for the out of town shops - if it had been built as a dual carriageway it would be chocker by now with more cars and more congestion than we currently have on the roads leading to it. Increasing capacity without dealing with the junctions would be a waste of money, to do the whole job would cost £350m - about the same as providing a tram system for the city - Think I know which would be better value for the local economy as well as the environment.
[quote][p][bold]Igiveinthen[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]pedalling paul [/bold] wrote: Might be useful to get some electric bike charging points fitted as well...I might need one when I reach my dotage. And as for speed-related car pollution, the true solution is simply fewer cars on the highway network.[/p][/quote]Don’t hold your breath pp, unfortunately for you and others like you, you refuse to accept that there are people like me who will use our cars; I am not going to purchase a motor vehicle and have it standing in the garage. You still ignore the fact that there needs to be more capacity on the outer ring road, all roads are not solely for the exclusive use of, or future use of for that matter the “cycle”, you also keep banging on about looking generations ahead, well the traffic planners didn’t look generations ahead and didn’t do a very good job when the planned the A1237 did they![/p][/quote]The 'outer ring road' was built as a distributor road for the out of town shops - if it had been built as a dual carriageway it would be chocker by now with more cars and more congestion than we currently have on the roads leading to it. Increasing capacity without dealing with the junctions would be a waste of money, to do the whole job would cost £350m - about the same as providing a tram system for the city - Think I know which would be better value for the local economy as well as the environment. greenmonkey
  • Score: -1

7:15pm Wed 5 Mar 14

Igiveinthen says...

greenmonkey wrote:
Igiveinthen wrote:
pedalling paul wrote:
Might be useful to get some electric bike charging points fitted as well...I might need one when I reach my dotage. And as for speed-related car pollution, the true solution is simply fewer cars on the highway network.
Don’t hold your breath pp, unfortunately for you and others like you, you refuse to accept that there are people like me who will use our cars; I am not going to purchase a motor vehicle and have it standing in the garage.
You still ignore the fact that there needs to be more capacity on the outer ring road, all roads are not solely for the exclusive use of, or future use of for that matter the “cycle”, you also keep banging on about looking generations ahead, well the traffic planners didn’t look generations ahead and didn’t do a very good job when the planned the A1237 did they!
The 'outer ring road' was built as a distributor road for the out of town shops - if it had been built as a dual carriageway it would be chocker by now with more cars and more congestion than we currently have on the roads leading to it. Increasing capacity without dealing with the junctions would be a waste of money, to do the whole job would cost £350m - about the same as providing a tram system for the city - Think I know which would be better value for the local economy as well as the environment.
Rubbish, the likes of you and pp typically refuse to accept that people use cars, the outer ring road A1237, was to my knowledge built to take traffic out of the city.
As cars ownership increases year on year the road system(s) need to keep pace, you and pp will not stop people buying cars no matter what you advocate as more sustainable transport options i.e. buses, cycles and now you want a tram system!, people like me don't want to ride a bike or travel on a bus, selfish? according to your thinking yes, but it's my choice.
I am lucky that I live within walking distance of the city centre - which I very rarely visit as I do my shopping at the out of town shopping centres - but there are a lot more who don't and choose to drive in to the city.
At the end of the day I'm not that bothered what label you put on me, it's water off a ducks back, I live in a democratic society and that means I have choices just like you have, whatever means of transport you use is ok with me.
[quote][p][bold]greenmonkey[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Igiveinthen[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]pedalling paul [/bold] wrote: Might be useful to get some electric bike charging points fitted as well...I might need one when I reach my dotage. And as for speed-related car pollution, the true solution is simply fewer cars on the highway network.[/p][/quote]Don’t hold your breath pp, unfortunately for you and others like you, you refuse to accept that there are people like me who will use our cars; I am not going to purchase a motor vehicle and have it standing in the garage. You still ignore the fact that there needs to be more capacity on the outer ring road, all roads are not solely for the exclusive use of, or future use of for that matter the “cycle”, you also keep banging on about looking generations ahead, well the traffic planners didn’t look generations ahead and didn’t do a very good job when the planned the A1237 did they![/p][/quote]The 'outer ring road' was built as a distributor road for the out of town shops - if it had been built as a dual carriageway it would be chocker by now with more cars and more congestion than we currently have on the roads leading to it. Increasing capacity without dealing with the junctions would be a waste of money, to do the whole job would cost £350m - about the same as providing a tram system for the city - Think I know which would be better value for the local economy as well as the environment.[/p][/quote]Rubbish, the likes of you and pp typically refuse to accept that people use cars, the outer ring road A1237, was to my knowledge built to take traffic out of the city. As cars ownership increases year on year the road system(s) need to keep pace, you and pp will not stop people buying cars no matter what you advocate as more sustainable transport options i.e. buses, cycles and now you want a tram system!, people like me don't want to ride a bike or travel on a bus, selfish? according to your thinking yes, but it's my choice. I am lucky that I live within walking distance of the city centre - which I very rarely visit as I do my shopping at the out of town shopping centres - but there are a lot more who don't and choose to drive in to the city. At the end of the day I'm not that bothered what label you put on me, it's water off a ducks back, I live in a democratic society and that means I have choices just like you have, whatever means of transport you use is ok with me. Igiveinthen
  • Score: 3

9:07pm Fri 7 Mar 14

CaroleBaines says...

Igiveinthen wrote:
greenmonkey wrote:
Igiveinthen wrote:
pedalling paul wrote:
Might be useful to get some electric bike charging points fitted as well...I might need one when I reach my dotage. And as for speed-related car pollution, the true solution is simply fewer cars on the highway network.
Don’t hold your breath pp, unfortunately for you and others like you, you refuse to accept that there are people like me who will use our cars; I am not going to purchase a motor vehicle and have it standing in the garage.
You still ignore the fact that there needs to be more capacity on the outer ring road, all roads are not solely for the exclusive use of, or future use of for that matter the “cycle”, you also keep banging on about looking generations ahead, well the traffic planners didn’t look generations ahead and didn’t do a very good job when the planned the A1237 did they!
The 'outer ring road' was built as a distributor road for the out of town shops - if it had been built as a dual carriageway it would be chocker by now with more cars and more congestion than we currently have on the roads leading to it. Increasing capacity without dealing with the junctions would be a waste of money, to do the whole job would cost £350m - about the same as providing a tram system for the city - Think I know which would be better value for the local economy as well as the environment.
Rubbish, the likes of you and pp typically refuse to accept that people use cars, the outer ring road A1237, was to my knowledge built to take traffic out of the city.
As cars ownership increases year on year the road system(s) need to keep pace, you and pp will not stop people buying cars no matter what you advocate as more sustainable transport options i.e. buses, cycles and now you want a tram system!, people like me don't want to ride a bike or travel on a bus, selfish? according to your thinking yes, but it's my choice.
I am lucky that I live within walking distance of the city centre - which I very rarely visit as I do my shopping at the out of town shopping centres - but there are a lot more who don't and choose to drive in to the city.
At the end of the day I'm not that bothered what label you put on me, it's water off a ducks back, I live in a democratic society and that means I have choices just like you have, whatever means of transport you use is ok with me.
Well worded and considered response, even though I do not necessarily agree. Just one thing - we have not lived in a democratic society for years, look at the main parties - all the same, the rest squeezed out. Whoever runs this country, it isn't democratic.
[quote][p][bold]Igiveinthen[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]greenmonkey[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Igiveinthen[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]pedalling paul [/bold] wrote: Might be useful to get some electric bike charging points fitted as well...I might need one when I reach my dotage. And as for speed-related car pollution, the true solution is simply fewer cars on the highway network.[/p][/quote]Don’t hold your breath pp, unfortunately for you and others like you, you refuse to accept that there are people like me who will use our cars; I am not going to purchase a motor vehicle and have it standing in the garage. You still ignore the fact that there needs to be more capacity on the outer ring road, all roads are not solely for the exclusive use of, or future use of for that matter the “cycle”, you also keep banging on about looking generations ahead, well the traffic planners didn’t look generations ahead and didn’t do a very good job when the planned the A1237 did they![/p][/quote]The 'outer ring road' was built as a distributor road for the out of town shops - if it had been built as a dual carriageway it would be chocker by now with more cars and more congestion than we currently have on the roads leading to it. Increasing capacity without dealing with the junctions would be a waste of money, to do the whole job would cost £350m - about the same as providing a tram system for the city - Think I know which would be better value for the local economy as well as the environment.[/p][/quote]Rubbish, the likes of you and pp typically refuse to accept that people use cars, the outer ring road A1237, was to my knowledge built to take traffic out of the city. As cars ownership increases year on year the road system(s) need to keep pace, you and pp will not stop people buying cars no matter what you advocate as more sustainable transport options i.e. buses, cycles and now you want a tram system!, people like me don't want to ride a bike or travel on a bus, selfish? according to your thinking yes, but it's my choice. I am lucky that I live within walking distance of the city centre - which I very rarely visit as I do my shopping at the out of town shopping centres - but there are a lot more who don't and choose to drive in to the city. At the end of the day I'm not that bothered what label you put on me, it's water off a ducks back, I live in a democratic society and that means I have choices just like you have, whatever means of transport you use is ok with me.[/p][/quote]Well worded and considered response, even though I do not necessarily agree. Just one thing - we have not lived in a democratic society for years, look at the main parties - all the same, the rest squeezed out. Whoever runs this country, it isn't democratic. CaroleBaines
  • Score: 0

8:47am Sat 8 Mar 14

Igiveinthen says...

CaroleBaines wrote:
Igiveinthen wrote:
greenmonkey wrote:
Igiveinthen wrote:
pedalling paul wrote:
Might be useful to get some electric bike charging points fitted as well...I might need one when I reach my dotage. And as for speed-related car pollution, the true solution is simply fewer cars on the highway network.
Don’t hold your breath pp, unfortunately for you and others like you, you refuse to accept that there are people like me who will use our cars; I am not going to purchase a motor vehicle and have it standing in the garage.
You still ignore the fact that there needs to be more capacity on the outer ring road, all roads are not solely for the exclusive use of, or future use of for that matter the “cycle”, you also keep banging on about looking generations ahead, well the traffic planners didn’t look generations ahead and didn’t do a very good job when the planned the A1237 did they!
The 'outer ring road' was built as a distributor road for the out of town shops - if it had been built as a dual carriageway it would be chocker by now with more cars and more congestion than we currently have on the roads leading to it. Increasing capacity without dealing with the junctions would be a waste of money, to do the whole job would cost £350m - about the same as providing a tram system for the city - Think I know which would be better value for the local economy as well as the environment.
Rubbish, the likes of you and pp typically refuse to accept that people use cars, the outer ring road A1237, was to my knowledge built to take traffic out of the city.
As cars ownership increases year on year the road system(s) need to keep pace, you and pp will not stop people buying cars no matter what you advocate as more sustainable transport options i.e. buses, cycles and now you want a tram system!, people like me don't want to ride a bike or travel on a bus, selfish? according to your thinking yes, but it's my choice.
I am lucky that I live within walking distance of the city centre - which I very rarely visit as I do my shopping at the out of town shopping centres - but there are a lot more who don't and choose to drive in to the city.
At the end of the day I'm not that bothered what label you put on me, it's water off a ducks back, I live in a democratic society and that means I have choices just like you have, whatever means of transport you use is ok with me.
Well worded and considered response, even though I do not necessarily agree. Just one thing - we have not lived in a democratic society for years, look at the main parties - all the same, the rest squeezed out. Whoever runs this country, it isn't democratic.
Yes on balance that's true, we call it a 'democratic' society, but I failed to point out that this council is very 'undemocratic' i.e. it does not listen to the voice of reason and goes ahead with schemes that it thinks will be good for the city and we as residents as a whole, but at the end of the day we only have ourselves to blame because we voted them in, or should I say the majority did, and as many have pointed out we have a choice in 2015, let us hope the next sitting council will be a listening council, but I won't hold my breath.
[quote][p][bold]CaroleBaines[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Igiveinthen[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]greenmonkey[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Igiveinthen[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]pedalling paul [/bold] wrote: Might be useful to get some electric bike charging points fitted as well...I might need one when I reach my dotage. And as for speed-related car pollution, the true solution is simply fewer cars on the highway network.[/p][/quote]Don’t hold your breath pp, unfortunately for you and others like you, you refuse to accept that there are people like me who will use our cars; I am not going to purchase a motor vehicle and have it standing in the garage. You still ignore the fact that there needs to be more capacity on the outer ring road, all roads are not solely for the exclusive use of, or future use of for that matter the “cycle”, you also keep banging on about looking generations ahead, well the traffic planners didn’t look generations ahead and didn’t do a very good job when the planned the A1237 did they![/p][/quote]The 'outer ring road' was built as a distributor road for the out of town shops - if it had been built as a dual carriageway it would be chocker by now with more cars and more congestion than we currently have on the roads leading to it. Increasing capacity without dealing with the junctions would be a waste of money, to do the whole job would cost £350m - about the same as providing a tram system for the city - Think I know which would be better value for the local economy as well as the environment.[/p][/quote]Rubbish, the likes of you and pp typically refuse to accept that people use cars, the outer ring road A1237, was to my knowledge built to take traffic out of the city. As cars ownership increases year on year the road system(s) need to keep pace, you and pp will not stop people buying cars no matter what you advocate as more sustainable transport options i.e. buses, cycles and now you want a tram system!, people like me don't want to ride a bike or travel on a bus, selfish? according to your thinking yes, but it's my choice. I am lucky that I live within walking distance of the city centre - which I very rarely visit as I do my shopping at the out of town shopping centres - but there are a lot more who don't and choose to drive in to the city. At the end of the day I'm not that bothered what label you put on me, it's water off a ducks back, I live in a democratic society and that means I have choices just like you have, whatever means of transport you use is ok with me.[/p][/quote]Well worded and considered response, even though I do not necessarily agree. Just one thing - we have not lived in a democratic society for years, look at the main parties - all the same, the rest squeezed out. Whoever runs this country, it isn't democratic.[/p][/quote]Yes on balance that's true, we call it a 'democratic' society, but I failed to point out that this council is very 'undemocratic' i.e. it does not listen to the voice of reason and goes ahead with schemes that it thinks will be good for the city and we as residents as a whole, but at the end of the day we only have ourselves to blame because we voted them in, or should I say the majority did, and as many have pointed out we have a choice in 2015, let us hope the next sitting council will be a listening council, but I won't hold my breath. Igiveinthen
  • Score: 0

10:00pm Sat 8 Mar 14

CaroleBaines says...

Igiveinthen wrote:
CaroleBaines wrote:
Igiveinthen wrote:
greenmonkey wrote:
Igiveinthen wrote:
pedalling paul wrote:
Might be useful to get some electric bike charging points fitted as well...I might need one when I reach my dotage. And as for speed-related car pollution, the true solution is simply fewer cars on the highway network.
Don’t hold your breath pp, unfortunately for you and others like you, you refuse to accept that there are people like me who will use our cars; I am not going to purchase a motor vehicle and have it standing in the garage.
You still ignore the fact that there needs to be more capacity on the outer ring road, all roads are not solely for the exclusive use of, or future use of for that matter the “cycle”, you also keep banging on about looking generations ahead, well the traffic planners didn’t look generations ahead and didn’t do a very good job when the planned the A1237 did they!
The 'outer ring road' was built as a distributor road for the out of town shops - if it had been built as a dual carriageway it would be chocker by now with more cars and more congestion than we currently have on the roads leading to it. Increasing capacity without dealing with the junctions would be a waste of money, to do the whole job would cost £350m - about the same as providing a tram system for the city - Think I know which would be better value for the local economy as well as the environment.
Rubbish, the likes of you and pp typically refuse to accept that people use cars, the outer ring road A1237, was to my knowledge built to take traffic out of the city.
As cars ownership increases year on year the road system(s) need to keep pace, you and pp will not stop people buying cars no matter what you advocate as more sustainable transport options i.e. buses, cycles and now you want a tram system!, people like me don't want to ride a bike or travel on a bus, selfish? according to your thinking yes, but it's my choice.
I am lucky that I live within walking distance of the city centre - which I very rarely visit as I do my shopping at the out of town shopping centres - but there are a lot more who don't and choose to drive in to the city.
At the end of the day I'm not that bothered what label you put on me, it's water off a ducks back, I live in a democratic society and that means I have choices just like you have, whatever means of transport you use is ok with me.
Well worded and considered response, even though I do not necessarily agree. Just one thing - we have not lived in a democratic society for years, look at the main parties - all the same, the rest squeezed out. Whoever runs this country, it isn't democratic.
Yes on balance that's true, we call it a 'democratic' society, but I failed to point out that this council is very 'undemocratic' i.e. it does not listen to the voice of reason and goes ahead with schemes that it thinks will be good for the city and we as residents as a whole, but at the end of the day we only have ourselves to blame because we voted them in, or should I say the majority did, and as many have pointed out we have a choice in 2015, let us hope the next sitting council will be a listening council, but I won't hold my breath.
So, and it is up to you here, do you think our nation is very democratic? Just since you ducked my point rather. If you think there are huge differences between the three main parties, you go right ahead and make a case for that. Or are we in the control of the money men no matter who we vote for?
[quote][p][bold]Igiveinthen[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]CaroleBaines[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Igiveinthen[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]greenmonkey[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Igiveinthen[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]pedalling paul [/bold] wrote: Might be useful to get some electric bike charging points fitted as well...I might need one when I reach my dotage. And as for speed-related car pollution, the true solution is simply fewer cars on the highway network.[/p][/quote]Don’t hold your breath pp, unfortunately for you and others like you, you refuse to accept that there are people like me who will use our cars; I am not going to purchase a motor vehicle and have it standing in the garage. You still ignore the fact that there needs to be more capacity on the outer ring road, all roads are not solely for the exclusive use of, or future use of for that matter the “cycle”, you also keep banging on about looking generations ahead, well the traffic planners didn’t look generations ahead and didn’t do a very good job when the planned the A1237 did they![/p][/quote]The 'outer ring road' was built as a distributor road for the out of town shops - if it had been built as a dual carriageway it would be chocker by now with more cars and more congestion than we currently have on the roads leading to it. Increasing capacity without dealing with the junctions would be a waste of money, to do the whole job would cost £350m - about the same as providing a tram system for the city - Think I know which would be better value for the local economy as well as the environment.[/p][/quote]Rubbish, the likes of you and pp typically refuse to accept that people use cars, the outer ring road A1237, was to my knowledge built to take traffic out of the city. As cars ownership increases year on year the road system(s) need to keep pace, you and pp will not stop people buying cars no matter what you advocate as more sustainable transport options i.e. buses, cycles and now you want a tram system!, people like me don't want to ride a bike or travel on a bus, selfish? according to your thinking yes, but it's my choice. I am lucky that I live within walking distance of the city centre - which I very rarely visit as I do my shopping at the out of town shopping centres - but there are a lot more who don't and choose to drive in to the city. At the end of the day I'm not that bothered what label you put on me, it's water off a ducks back, I live in a democratic society and that means I have choices just like you have, whatever means of transport you use is ok with me.[/p][/quote]Well worded and considered response, even though I do not necessarily agree. Just one thing - we have not lived in a democratic society for years, look at the main parties - all the same, the rest squeezed out. Whoever runs this country, it isn't democratic.[/p][/quote]Yes on balance that's true, we call it a 'democratic' society, but I failed to point out that this council is very 'undemocratic' i.e. it does not listen to the voice of reason and goes ahead with schemes that it thinks will be good for the city and we as residents as a whole, but at the end of the day we only have ourselves to blame because we voted them in, or should I say the majority did, and as many have pointed out we have a choice in 2015, let us hope the next sitting council will be a listening council, but I won't hold my breath.[/p][/quote]So, and it is up to you here, do you think our nation is very democratic? Just since you ducked my point rather. If you think there are huge differences between the three main parties, you go right ahead and make a case for that. Or are we in the control of the money men no matter who we vote for? CaroleBaines
  • Score: 0

12:02am Sun 9 Mar 14

Igiveinthen says...

CaroleBaines wrote:
Igiveinthen wrote:
CaroleBaines wrote:
Igiveinthen wrote:
greenmonkey wrote:
Igiveinthen wrote:
pedalling paul wrote:
Might be useful to get some electric bike charging points fitted as well...I might need one when I reach my dotage. And as for speed-related car pollution, the true solution is simply fewer cars on the highway network.
Don’t hold your breath pp, unfortunately for you and others like you, you refuse to accept that there are people like me who will use our cars; I am not going to purchase a motor vehicle and have it standing in the garage.
You still ignore the fact that there needs to be more capacity on the outer ring road, all roads are not solely for the exclusive use of, or future use of for that matter the “cycle”, you also keep banging on about looking generations ahead, well the traffic planners didn’t look generations ahead and didn’t do a very good job when the planned the A1237 did they!
The 'outer ring road' was built as a distributor road for the out of town shops - if it had been built as a dual carriageway it would be chocker by now with more cars and more congestion than we currently have on the roads leading to it. Increasing capacity without dealing with the junctions would be a waste of money, to do the whole job would cost £350m - about the same as providing a tram system for the city - Think I know which would be better value for the local economy as well as the environment.
Rubbish, the likes of you and pp typically refuse to accept that people use cars, the outer ring road A1237, was to my knowledge built to take traffic out of the city.
As cars ownership increases year on year the road system(s) need to keep pace, you and pp will not stop people buying cars no matter what you advocate as more sustainable transport options i.e. buses, cycles and now you want a tram system!, people like me don't want to ride a bike or travel on a bus, selfish? according to your thinking yes, but it's my choice.
I am lucky that I live within walking distance of the city centre - which I very rarely visit as I do my shopping at the out of town shopping centres - but there are a lot more who don't and choose to drive in to the city.
At the end of the day I'm not that bothered what label you put on me, it's water off a ducks back, I live in a democratic society and that means I have choices just like you have, whatever means of transport you use is ok with me.
Well worded and considered response, even though I do not necessarily agree. Just one thing - we have not lived in a democratic society for years, look at the main parties - all the same, the rest squeezed out. Whoever runs this country, it isn't democratic.
Yes on balance that's true, we call it a 'democratic' society, but I failed to point out that this council is very 'undemocratic' i.e. it does not listen to the voice of reason and goes ahead with schemes that it thinks will be good for the city and we as residents as a whole, but at the end of the day we only have ourselves to blame because we voted them in, or should I say the majority did, and as many have pointed out we have a choice in 2015, let us hope the next sitting council will be a listening council, but I won't hold my breath.
So, and it is up to you here, do you think our nation is very democratic? Just since you ducked my point rather. If you think there are huge differences between the three main parties, you go right ahead and make a case for that. Or are we in the control of the money men no matter who we vote for?
Well then how do I answer this one?
I didn't think that I had ducked your point, but on the whole I do think we have a democratic society, after all, we vote to choose what party will govern, isn't that being democratic? As for us being controlled by the money men, do you mean the Bankers or those who bank roll a political party? either way we don't have any control on that, so your point is in all probability correct.
When I vote, I vote for a party that will look after my interests, but no I don't believe that there is a vast difference between the main parties, if you could cherry pick the best bits out of each party then that would be great, but then again what I would choose is probably not what you would choose, so can we agree to disagree and accept that it's good to have different points of view.
[quote][p][bold]CaroleBaines[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Igiveinthen[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]CaroleBaines[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Igiveinthen[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]greenmonkey[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Igiveinthen[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]pedalling paul [/bold] wrote: Might be useful to get some electric bike charging points fitted as well...I might need one when I reach my dotage. And as for speed-related car pollution, the true solution is simply fewer cars on the highway network.[/p][/quote]Don’t hold your breath pp, unfortunately for you and others like you, you refuse to accept that there are people like me who will use our cars; I am not going to purchase a motor vehicle and have it standing in the garage. You still ignore the fact that there needs to be more capacity on the outer ring road, all roads are not solely for the exclusive use of, or future use of for that matter the “cycle”, you also keep banging on about looking generations ahead, well the traffic planners didn’t look generations ahead and didn’t do a very good job when the planned the A1237 did they![/p][/quote]The 'outer ring road' was built as a distributor road for the out of town shops - if it had been built as a dual carriageway it would be chocker by now with more cars and more congestion than we currently have on the roads leading to it. Increasing capacity without dealing with the junctions would be a waste of money, to do the whole job would cost £350m - about the same as providing a tram system for the city - Think I know which would be better value for the local economy as well as the environment.[/p][/quote]Rubbish, the likes of you and pp typically refuse to accept that people use cars, the outer ring road A1237, was to my knowledge built to take traffic out of the city. As cars ownership increases year on year the road system(s) need to keep pace, you and pp will not stop people buying cars no matter what you advocate as more sustainable transport options i.e. buses, cycles and now you want a tram system!, people like me don't want to ride a bike or travel on a bus, selfish? according to your thinking yes, but it's my choice. I am lucky that I live within walking distance of the city centre - which I very rarely visit as I do my shopping at the out of town shopping centres - but there are a lot more who don't and choose to drive in to the city. At the end of the day I'm not that bothered what label you put on me, it's water off a ducks back, I live in a democratic society and that means I have choices just like you have, whatever means of transport you use is ok with me.[/p][/quote]Well worded and considered response, even though I do not necessarily agree. Just one thing - we have not lived in a democratic society for years, look at the main parties - all the same, the rest squeezed out. Whoever runs this country, it isn't democratic.[/p][/quote]Yes on balance that's true, we call it a 'democratic' society, but I failed to point out that this council is very 'undemocratic' i.e. it does not listen to the voice of reason and goes ahead with schemes that it thinks will be good for the city and we as residents as a whole, but at the end of the day we only have ourselves to blame because we voted them in, or should I say the majority did, and as many have pointed out we have a choice in 2015, let us hope the next sitting council will be a listening council, but I won't hold my breath.[/p][/quote]So, and it is up to you here, do you think our nation is very democratic? Just since you ducked my point rather. If you think there are huge differences between the three main parties, you go right ahead and make a case for that. Or are we in the control of the money men no matter who we vote for?[/p][/quote]Well then how do I answer this one? I didn't think that I had ducked your point, but on the whole I do think we have a democratic society, after all, we vote to choose what party will govern, isn't that being democratic? As for us being controlled by the money men, do you mean the Bankers or those who bank roll a political party? either way we don't have any control on that, so your point is in all probability correct. When I vote, I vote for a party that will look after my interests, but no I don't believe that there is a vast difference between the main parties, if you could cherry pick the best bits out of each party then that would be great, but then again what I would choose is probably not what you would choose, so can we agree to disagree and accept that it's good to have different points of view. Igiveinthen
  • Score: 1

8:49am Sun 9 Mar 14

CaroleBaines says...

Igiveinthen wrote:
CaroleBaines wrote:
Igiveinthen wrote:
CaroleBaines wrote:
Igiveinthen wrote:
greenmonkey wrote:
Igiveinthen wrote:
pedalling paul wrote:
Might be useful to get some electric bike charging points fitted as well...I might need one when I reach my dotage. And as for speed-related car pollution, the true solution is simply fewer cars on the highway network.
Don’t hold your breath pp, unfortunately for you and others like you, you refuse to accept that there are people like me who will use our cars; I am not going to purchase a motor vehicle and have it standing in the garage.
You still ignore the fact that there needs to be more capacity on the outer ring road, all roads are not solely for the exclusive use of, or future use of for that matter the “cycle”, you also keep banging on about looking generations ahead, well the traffic planners didn’t look generations ahead and didn’t do a very good job when the planned the A1237 did they!
The 'outer ring road' was built as a distributor road for the out of town shops - if it had been built as a dual carriageway it would be chocker by now with more cars and more congestion than we currently have on the roads leading to it. Increasing capacity without dealing with the junctions would be a waste of money, to do the whole job would cost £350m - about the same as providing a tram system for the city - Think I know which would be better value for the local economy as well as the environment.
Rubbish, the likes of you and pp typically refuse to accept that people use cars, the outer ring road A1237, was to my knowledge built to take traffic out of the city.
As cars ownership increases year on year the road system(s) need to keep pace, you and pp will not stop people buying cars no matter what you advocate as more sustainable transport options i.e. buses, cycles and now you want a tram system!, people like me don't want to ride a bike or travel on a bus, selfish? according to your thinking yes, but it's my choice.
I am lucky that I live within walking distance of the city centre - which I very rarely visit as I do my shopping at the out of town shopping centres - but there are a lot more who don't and choose to drive in to the city.
At the end of the day I'm not that bothered what label you put on me, it's water off a ducks back, I live in a democratic society and that means I have choices just like you have, whatever means of transport you use is ok with me.
Well worded and considered response, even though I do not necessarily agree. Just one thing - we have not lived in a democratic society for years, look at the main parties - all the same, the rest squeezed out. Whoever runs this country, it isn't democratic.
Yes on balance that's true, we call it a 'democratic' society, but I failed to point out that this council is very 'undemocratic' i.e. it does not listen to the voice of reason and goes ahead with schemes that it thinks will be good for the city and we as residents as a whole, but at the end of the day we only have ourselves to blame because we voted them in, or should I say the majority did, and as many have pointed out we have a choice in 2015, let us hope the next sitting council will be a listening council, but I won't hold my breath.
So, and it is up to you here, do you think our nation is very democratic? Just since you ducked my point rather. If you think there are huge differences between the three main parties, you go right ahead and make a case for that. Or are we in the control of the money men no matter who we vote for?
Well then how do I answer this one?
I didn't think that I had ducked your point, but on the whole I do think we have a democratic society, after all, we vote to choose what party will govern, isn't that being democratic? As for us being controlled by the money men, do you mean the Bankers or those who bank roll a political party? either way we don't have any control on that, so your point is in all probability correct.
When I vote, I vote for a party that will look after my interests, but no I don't believe that there is a vast difference between the main parties, if you could cherry pick the best bits out of each party then that would be great, but then again what I would choose is probably not what you would choose, so can we agree to disagree and accept that it's good to have different points of view.
Fair enough - good answer. Thanks for replying.
[quote][p][bold]Igiveinthen[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]CaroleBaines[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Igiveinthen[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]CaroleBaines[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Igiveinthen[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]greenmonkey[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Igiveinthen[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]pedalling paul [/bold] wrote: Might be useful to get some electric bike charging points fitted as well...I might need one when I reach my dotage. And as for speed-related car pollution, the true solution is simply fewer cars on the highway network.[/p][/quote]Don’t hold your breath pp, unfortunately for you and others like you, you refuse to accept that there are people like me who will use our cars; I am not going to purchase a motor vehicle and have it standing in the garage. You still ignore the fact that there needs to be more capacity on the outer ring road, all roads are not solely for the exclusive use of, or future use of for that matter the “cycle”, you also keep banging on about looking generations ahead, well the traffic planners didn’t look generations ahead and didn’t do a very good job when the planned the A1237 did they![/p][/quote]The 'outer ring road' was built as a distributor road for the out of town shops - if it had been built as a dual carriageway it would be chocker by now with more cars and more congestion than we currently have on the roads leading to it. Increasing capacity without dealing with the junctions would be a waste of money, to do the whole job would cost £350m - about the same as providing a tram system for the city - Think I know which would be better value for the local economy as well as the environment.[/p][/quote]Rubbish, the likes of you and pp typically refuse to accept that people use cars, the outer ring road A1237, was to my knowledge built to take traffic out of the city. As cars ownership increases year on year the road system(s) need to keep pace, you and pp will not stop people buying cars no matter what you advocate as more sustainable transport options i.e. buses, cycles and now you want a tram system!, people like me don't want to ride a bike or travel on a bus, selfish? according to your thinking yes, but it's my choice. I am lucky that I live within walking distance of the city centre - which I very rarely visit as I do my shopping at the out of town shopping centres - but there are a lot more who don't and choose to drive in to the city. At the end of the day I'm not that bothered what label you put on me, it's water off a ducks back, I live in a democratic society and that means I have choices just like you have, whatever means of transport you use is ok with me.[/p][/quote]Well worded and considered response, even though I do not necessarily agree. Just one thing - we have not lived in a democratic society for years, look at the main parties - all the same, the rest squeezed out. Whoever runs this country, it isn't democratic.[/p][/quote]Yes on balance that's true, we call it a 'democratic' society, but I failed to point out that this council is very 'undemocratic' i.e. it does not listen to the voice of reason and goes ahead with schemes that it thinks will be good for the city and we as residents as a whole, but at the end of the day we only have ourselves to blame because we voted them in, or should I say the majority did, and as many have pointed out we have a choice in 2015, let us hope the next sitting council will be a listening council, but I won't hold my breath.[/p][/quote]So, and it is up to you here, do you think our nation is very democratic? Just since you ducked my point rather. If you think there are huge differences between the three main parties, you go right ahead and make a case for that. Or are we in the control of the money men no matter who we vote for?[/p][/quote]Well then how do I answer this one? I didn't think that I had ducked your point, but on the whole I do think we have a democratic society, after all, we vote to choose what party will govern, isn't that being democratic? As for us being controlled by the money men, do you mean the Bankers or those who bank roll a political party? either way we don't have any control on that, so your point is in all probability correct. When I vote, I vote for a party that will look after my interests, but no I don't believe that there is a vast difference between the main parties, if you could cherry pick the best bits out of each party then that would be great, but then again what I would choose is probably not what you would choose, so can we agree to disagree and accept that it's good to have different points of view.[/p][/quote]Fair enough - good answer. Thanks for replying. CaroleBaines
  • Score: 0

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

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