Lendal fiasco gets even worse now

Lendal fiasco gets even worse now

Lendal fiasco gets even worse now

Published in Letters by

JUST when you thought Labour’s Lendal Bridge fiasco couldn’t get any worse comes the news that the council should not even be fining motorists (The Press, April 2).

This has been a botched trial from the start. Labour failed to consult residents or local businesses before closing Lendal Bridge.

Signs put up at the start of the trial were – according to the ruling by the Government’s Traffic Adjudicator – “inadequate”.

During the trial more than 53,000 motorists have been fined, congestion in areas such as Foss Islands Road and Clifton Bridge has worsened, and most Park & Ride journey times in the city have increased.

Labour told residents the trial would end in February – last week they confirmed it will remain closed until at least May. Now we know that the council does not have the power to fine motorists using the cameras on Lendal Bridge or Coppergate.

Despite this, Labour still insists the closure restrictions will remain in place.

Labour should switch off the enforcement cameras now, reopen the bridge, repay those that have been fined, and the cabinet member responsible for the mess should resign.

Coun Ann Reid, Liberal Democrat spokesperson for transport.

Comments (22)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

11:00am Fri 4 Apr 14

Old_Man says...

Or at least open the bridge for whenever you or a member of your family wants to cross it Ann? I mean, we all know this kind of thing can be arranged don't we? ;)
Or at least open the bridge for whenever you or a member of your family wants to cross it Ann? I mean, we all know this kind of thing can be arranged don't we? ;) Old_Man
  • Score: -23

11:03am Fri 4 Apr 14

The Great Buda says...

A councillor who should of been made to resign years ago, calling for a councillor to resign. Oh the irony.
A councillor who should of been made to resign years ago, calling for a councillor to resign. Oh the irony. The Great Buda
  • Score: -36

12:11pm Fri 4 Apr 14

joewatt says...

I recall something about traffic lights and a wedding party!
I recall something about traffic lights and a wedding party! joewatt
  • Score: -14

12:21pm Fri 4 Apr 14

pedalling paul says...

LibDem colleague Steve Galloway signed off York's current Local Transport Plan in 2010. That strategy included daytime closure to private cars of one of the central bridges.
Would the LibDems have pursued this if they had remained in office. Yes.
Would they have received the same allegedly flawed legal guidance from the DVLC via CoYC Officers Yes.
Would they have fallen into the same legal trap as Labour. Yes.
Stop carping please and join a cross part scrutiny investigation. Get the Local Government Association to bash a few heads together at the DVLC and DfT, so that clear national guidelines are forthcoming.
LibDem colleague Steve Galloway signed off York's current Local Transport Plan in 2010. That strategy included daytime closure to private cars of one of the central bridges. Would the LibDems have pursued this if they had remained in office. Yes. Would they have received the same allegedly flawed legal guidance from the DVLC via CoYC Officers Yes. Would they have fallen into the same legal trap as Labour. Yes. Stop carping please and join a cross part scrutiny investigation. Get the Local Government Association to bash a few heads together at the DVLC and DfT, so that clear national guidelines are forthcoming. pedalling paul
  • Score: 26

12:37pm Fri 4 Apr 14

bolero says...

What's that saying about the kettle and the pot? Politicians-UGH!
What's that saying about the kettle and the pot? Politicians-UGH! bolero
  • Score: 14

1:04pm Fri 4 Apr 14

Buzzz Light-year says...

Agree with all the comments here.
Agree with all the comments here. Buzzz Light-year
  • Score: -61

1:42pm Fri 4 Apr 14

mel_drew says...

pedalling paul wrote:
LibDem colleague Steve Galloway signed off York's current Local Transport Plan in 2010. That strategy included daytime closure to private cars of one of the central bridges.
Would the LibDems have pursued this if they had remained in office. Yes.
Would they have received the same allegedly flawed legal guidance from the DVLC via CoYC Officers Yes.
Would they have fallen into the same legal trap as Labour. Yes.
Stop carping please and join a cross part scrutiny investigation. Get the Local Government Association to bash a few heads together at the DVLC and DfT, so that clear national guidelines are forthcoming.
I have no axe to grind for the LibDems. I well remember the horrors of that administration, and am still irritated that the writer of this letter is still active in local political life, but you simply cannot say with such certainty that they would have approached the closure of the bridge in exactly the same way, and would have made the same mistakes. You seem to be suggesting that there was no possible way of getting accurate information on the legal definition of a bus lane, or on the correct and legal use of cameras. That just ain't so. In fact, I still find it hard to believe that no one ever wondered if a bus lane with twenty odd exemptions was still a bus lane. Any trap they fell into was entirely of their own digging.
[quote][p][bold]pedalling paul [/bold] wrote: LibDem colleague Steve Galloway signed off York's current Local Transport Plan in 2010. That strategy included daytime closure to private cars of one of the central bridges. Would the LibDems have pursued this if they had remained in office. Yes. Would they have received the same allegedly flawed legal guidance from the DVLC via CoYC Officers Yes. Would they have fallen into the same legal trap as Labour. Yes. Stop carping please and join a cross part scrutiny investigation. Get the Local Government Association to bash a few heads together at the DVLC and DfT, so that clear national guidelines are forthcoming.[/p][/quote]I have no axe to grind for the LibDems. I well remember the horrors of that administration, and am still irritated that the writer of this letter is still active in local political life, but you simply cannot say with such certainty that they would have approached the closure of the bridge in exactly the same way, and would have made the same mistakes. You seem to be suggesting that there was no possible way of getting accurate information on the legal definition of a bus lane, or on the correct and legal use of cameras. That just ain't so. In fact, I still find it hard to believe that no one ever wondered if a bus lane with twenty odd exemptions was still a bus lane. Any trap they fell into was entirely of their own digging. mel_drew
  • Score: -69

2:40pm Fri 4 Apr 14

strangebuttrue? says...

Let us not forget one constant in all of this even when the Liberals were the ruling party - Mr Merrett.

His record shows that despite the Liberals being the ruling party he has been on the various Planning Committees relating to travel in York since 2006 and has always had to declare his interest "in relation to any cycling issues, as an honorary member of the Cyclists’ Touring Club and a member of Cycling England". Which he says was "non-prejudicial"?

Lets also not forget that Mr Merrett gave up the leadership of the Labour Group in York as it would seem it was distracting him from his mission. Well we all know what that mission is now and we can see how far he will go to achieve it.

I hear the council are saying they have got the answer they wanted now on the legality of the fines. Still who do you believe? Wonder if the answer came in an email?. Have they asked the same people who told them it was lawful in the first place and if so would that not be the same people who they are trying to pin this farce on?
Let us not forget one constant in all of this even when the Liberals were the ruling party - Mr Merrett. His record shows that despite the Liberals being the ruling party he has been on the various Planning Committees relating to travel in York since 2006 and has always had to declare his interest "in relation to any cycling issues, as an honorary member of the Cyclists’ Touring Club and a member of Cycling England". Which he says was "non-prejudicial"? Lets also not forget that Mr Merrett gave up the leadership of the Labour Group in York as it would seem it was distracting him from his mission. Well we all know what that mission is now and we can see how far he will go to achieve it. I hear the council are saying they have got the answer they wanted now on the legality of the fines. Still who do you believe? Wonder if the answer came in an email?. Have they asked the same people who told them it was lawful in the first place and if so would that not be the same people who they are trying to pin this farce on? strangebuttrue?
  • Score: -22

3:09pm Fri 4 Apr 14

Jonothon says...

Pedalling Paul is right

The Lib-Dems choose to draw a veil over the fact that they wanted to close a bridge in the city. Wasn't it Ouse bridge they had their sights on? So it seems they were in favour of bridge closure when in power, but now they opportunistically try to pinch a few votes from Labour's by keeping schtum about their own intentions.
Pedalling Paul is right The Lib-Dems choose to draw a veil over the fact that they wanted to close a bridge in the city. Wasn't it Ouse bridge they had their sights on? So it seems they were in favour of bridge closure when in power, but now they opportunistically try to pinch a few votes from Labour's by keeping schtum about their own intentions. Jonothon
  • Score: -37

3:13pm Fri 4 Apr 14

ColdAsChristmas says...

I aree with you Ann but you are not in a position to question the free flow of traffic when you abused the traffic system for your own needs.
I aree with you Ann but you are not in a position to question the free flow of traffic when you abused the traffic system for your own needs. ColdAsChristmas
  • Score: -40

3:50pm Fri 4 Apr 14

Pinza-C55 says...

mel_drew wrote:
pedalling paul wrote:
LibDem colleague Steve Galloway signed off York's current Local Transport Plan in 2010. That strategy included daytime closure to private cars of one of the central bridges.
Would the LibDems have pursued this if they had remained in office. Yes.
Would they have received the same allegedly flawed legal guidance from the DVLC via CoYC Officers Yes.
Would they have fallen into the same legal trap as Labour. Yes.
Stop carping please and join a cross part scrutiny investigation. Get the Local Government Association to bash a few heads together at the DVLC and DfT, so that clear national guidelines are forthcoming.
I have no axe to grind for the LibDems. I well remember the horrors of that administration, and am still irritated that the writer of this letter is still active in local political life, but you simply cannot say with such certainty that they would have approached the closure of the bridge in exactly the same way, and would have made the same mistakes. You seem to be suggesting that there was no possible way of getting accurate information on the legal definition of a bus lane, or on the correct and legal use of cameras. That just ain't so. In fact, I still find it hard to believe that no one ever wondered if a bus lane with twenty odd exemptions was still a bus lane. Any trap they fell into was entirely of their own digging.
The Liberals sold the old council offices before finding out whether they could get planning permission for the new offices. Thus they had to lease the old offices back.
That shows an alarming lack of intelligence,
[quote][p][bold]mel_drew[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]pedalling paul [/bold] wrote: LibDem colleague Steve Galloway signed off York's current Local Transport Plan in 2010. That strategy included daytime closure to private cars of one of the central bridges. Would the LibDems have pursued this if they had remained in office. Yes. Would they have received the same allegedly flawed legal guidance from the DVLC via CoYC Officers Yes. Would they have fallen into the same legal trap as Labour. Yes. Stop carping please and join a cross part scrutiny investigation. Get the Local Government Association to bash a few heads together at the DVLC and DfT, so that clear national guidelines are forthcoming.[/p][/quote]I have no axe to grind for the LibDems. I well remember the horrors of that administration, and am still irritated that the writer of this letter is still active in local political life, but you simply cannot say with such certainty that they would have approached the closure of the bridge in exactly the same way, and would have made the same mistakes. You seem to be suggesting that there was no possible way of getting accurate information on the legal definition of a bus lane, or on the correct and legal use of cameras. That just ain't so. In fact, I still find it hard to believe that no one ever wondered if a bus lane with twenty odd exemptions was still a bus lane. Any trap they fell into was entirely of their own digging.[/p][/quote]The Liberals sold the old council offices before finding out whether they could get planning permission for the new offices. Thus they had to lease the old offices back. That shows an alarming lack of intelligence, Pinza-C55
  • Score: -46

6:57pm Fri 4 Apr 14

bolero says...

I repeat. Politicians-UGH! And what's that funny smell?
I repeat. Politicians-UGH! And what's that funny smell? bolero
  • Score: -34

8:22pm Fri 4 Apr 14

CaroleBaines says...

Feel slightly unwell. We have not forgotten Ann Reid
Feel slightly unwell. We have not forgotten Ann Reid CaroleBaines
  • Score: -35

8:28pm Fri 4 Apr 14

mutley12321 says...

Jonothon wrote:
Pedalling Paul is right

The Lib-Dems choose to draw a veil over the fact that they wanted to close a bridge in the city. Wasn't it Ouse bridge they had their sights on? So it seems they were in favour of bridge closure when in power, but now they opportunistically try to pinch a few votes from Labour's by keeping schtum about their own intentions.
Hello Jonothon,

Good to know you're back your absence from the fora the last week or so has been missed.

Have you been on holiday or a bit under the weather?

I've asked you this before, without reply; never mind. Have you a response to the letter and the content, or are you sticking with your standard stock reply of only taking umbrage and responding to the political view of the author?

Regards,whatever your response, it's nice to see you back.

Mutt.
[quote][p][bold]Jonothon[/bold] wrote: Pedalling Paul is right The Lib-Dems choose to draw a veil over the fact that they wanted to close a bridge in the city. Wasn't it Ouse bridge they had their sights on? So it seems they were in favour of bridge closure when in power, but now they opportunistically try to pinch a few votes from Labour's by keeping schtum about their own intentions.[/p][/quote]Hello Jonothon, Good to know you're back your absence from the fora the last week or so has been missed. Have you been on holiday or a bit under the weather? I've asked you this before, without reply; never mind. Have you a response to the letter and the content, or are you sticking with your standard stock reply of only taking umbrage and responding to the political view of the author? Regards,whatever your response, it's nice to see you back. Mutt. mutley12321
  • Score: -8

11:54pm Fri 4 Apr 14

pedalling paul says...

...and now it's egg on faces time again as it is seemingly a legal scheme. Better start using the "allegedly " word until a Court determine the ultimate truth.
...and now it's egg on faces time again as it is seemingly a legal scheme. Better start using the "allegedly " word until a Court determine the ultimate truth. pedalling paul
  • Score: -8

12:03am Sat 5 Apr 14

Paul Hepworth says...

strangebuttrue? wrote:
Let us not forget one constant in all of this even when the Liberals were the ruling party - Mr Merrett.

His record shows that despite the Liberals being the ruling party he has been on the various Planning Committees relating to travel in York since 2006 and has always had to declare his interest "in relation to any cycling issues, as an honorary member of the Cyclists’ Touring Club and a member of Cycling England". Which he says was "non-prejudicial"?

Lets also not forget that Mr Merrett gave up the leadership of the Labour Group in York as it would seem it was distracting him from his mission. Well we all know what that mission is now and we can see how far he will go to achieve it.

I hear the council are saying they have got the answer they wanted now on the legality of the fines. Still who do you believe? Wonder if the answer came in an email?. Have they asked the same people who told them it was lawful in the first place and if so would that not be the same people who they are trying to pin this farce on?
Cllr Merrett was offered honorary CTC membership many years ago. He strictly follows the correct protocol and declares it as a non predjudicial interest where relevant to CoYC business. Cycling England was abolished in the ConDem govt bonfire of the quangos, despite some splendid achieve te on a small budget. Cllr Merrett was one of its board members . Again there is no conflict with his Local Government role.
Councillors of all parties have external appointments and interests and are well aware of the need to declare these where necessary. Otherwise they end up in the doghouse (or even a duckhouse......!)
[quote][p][bold]strangebuttrue?[/bold] wrote: Let us not forget one constant in all of this even when the Liberals were the ruling party - Mr Merrett. His record shows that despite the Liberals being the ruling party he has been on the various Planning Committees relating to travel in York since 2006 and has always had to declare his interest "in relation to any cycling issues, as an honorary member of the Cyclists’ Touring Club and a member of Cycling England". Which he says was "non-prejudicial"? Lets also not forget that Mr Merrett gave up the leadership of the Labour Group in York as it would seem it was distracting him from his mission. Well we all know what that mission is now and we can see how far he will go to achieve it. I hear the council are saying they have got the answer they wanted now on the legality of the fines. Still who do you believe? Wonder if the answer came in an email?. Have they asked the same people who told them it was lawful in the first place and if so would that not be the same people who they are trying to pin this farce on?[/p][/quote]Cllr Merrett was offered honorary CTC membership many years ago. He strictly follows the correct protocol and declares it as a non predjudicial interest where relevant to CoYC business. Cycling England was abolished in the ConDem govt bonfire of the quangos, despite some splendid achieve te on a small budget. Cllr Merrett was one of its board members . Again there is no conflict with his Local Government role. Councillors of all parties have external appointments and interests and are well aware of the need to declare these where necessary. Otherwise they end up in the doghouse (or even a duckhouse......!) Paul Hepworth
  • Score: -9

12:23am Sat 5 Apr 14

Buzzz Light-year says...

...or a solar panel house.
...or a solar panel house. Buzzz Light-year
  • Score: -3

7:33am Sat 5 Apr 14

pedalling paul says...

Also it behaves us all to be aware that the current Local Transport Plan (no.3 of the series) was drafted by Officers in accordance with Whitehall guidance and reflecting local circumstances. It would have been endorsed after some tweaks by whichever Party had control at the time. Mind you Eric Pickles was not around at the time , trying to undermine the whole process with his silly pronouncements.
Also it behaves us all to be aware that the current Local Transport Plan (no.3 of the series) was drafted by Officers in accordance with Whitehall guidance and reflecting local circumstances. It would have been endorsed after some tweaks by whichever Party had control at the time. Mind you Eric Pickles was not around at the time , trying to undermine the whole process with his silly pronouncements. pedalling paul
  • Score: -11

6:55pm Sat 5 Apr 14

Igiveinthen says...

pedalling paul wrote:
LibDem colleague Steve Galloway signed off York's current Local Transport Plan in 2010. That strategy included daytime closure to private cars of one of the central bridges.
Would the LibDems have pursued this if they had remained in office. Yes.
Would they have received the same allegedly flawed legal guidance from the DVLC via CoYC Officers Yes.
Would they have fallen into the same legal trap as Labour. Yes.
Stop carping please and join a cross part scrutiny investigation. Get the Local Government Association to bash a few heads together at the DVLC and DfT, so that clear national guidelines are forthcoming.
Yawn!, yawn! yawn! You forgot to slip in gridlock and carmageddon somewhere pp.
[quote][p][bold]pedalling paul [/bold] wrote: LibDem colleague Steve Galloway signed off York's current Local Transport Plan in 2010. That strategy included daytime closure to private cars of one of the central bridges. Would the LibDems have pursued this if they had remained in office. Yes. Would they have received the same allegedly flawed legal guidance from the DVLC via CoYC Officers Yes. Would they have fallen into the same legal trap as Labour. Yes. Stop carping please and join a cross part scrutiny investigation. Get the Local Government Association to bash a few heads together at the DVLC and DfT, so that clear national guidelines are forthcoming.[/p][/quote]Yawn!, yawn! yawn! You forgot to slip in gridlock and carmageddon somewhere pp. Igiveinthen
  • Score: 3

7:00pm Sat 5 Apr 14

Igiveinthen says...

Jonothon wrote:
Pedalling Paul is right

The Lib-Dems choose to draw a veil over the fact that they wanted to close a bridge in the city. Wasn't it Ouse bridge they had their sights on? So it seems they were in favour of bridge closure when in power, but now they opportunistically try to pinch a few votes from Labour's by keeping schtum about their own intentions.
We all know the pp/Hepworth is a sycophant and holds this labour council in high esteem!
[quote][p][bold]Jonothon[/bold] wrote: Pedalling Paul is right The Lib-Dems choose to draw a veil over the fact that they wanted to close a bridge in the city. Wasn't it Ouse bridge they had their sights on? So it seems they were in favour of bridge closure when in power, but now they opportunistically try to pinch a few votes from Labour's by keeping schtum about their own intentions.[/p][/quote]We all know the pp/Hepworth is a sycophant and holds this labour council in high esteem! Igiveinthen
  • Score: 3

9:39am Sun 6 Apr 14

CaroleBaines says...

mutley12321 wrote:
Jonothon wrote:
Pedalling Paul is right

The Lib-Dems choose to draw a veil over the fact that they wanted to close a bridge in the city. Wasn't it Ouse bridge they had their sights on? So it seems they were in favour of bridge closure when in power, but now they opportunistically try to pinch a few votes from Labour's by keeping schtum about their own intentions.
Hello Jonothon,

Good to know you're back your absence from the fora the last week or so has been missed.

Have you been on holiday or a bit under the weather?

I've asked you this before, without reply; never mind. Have you a response to the letter and the content, or are you sticking with your standard stock reply of only taking umbrage and responding to the political view of the author?

Regards,whatever your response, it's nice to see you back.

Mutt.
Sinister poster alert!
[quote][p][bold]mutley12321[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Jonothon[/bold] wrote: Pedalling Paul is right The Lib-Dems choose to draw a veil over the fact that they wanted to close a bridge in the city. Wasn't it Ouse bridge they had their sights on? So it seems they were in favour of bridge closure when in power, but now they opportunistically try to pinch a few votes from Labour's by keeping schtum about their own intentions.[/p][/quote]Hello Jonothon, Good to know you're back your absence from the fora the last week or so has been missed. Have you been on holiday or a bit under the weather? I've asked you this before, without reply; never mind. Have you a response to the letter and the content, or are you sticking with your standard stock reply of only taking umbrage and responding to the political view of the author? Regards,whatever your response, it's nice to see you back. Mutt.[/p][/quote]Sinister poster alert! CaroleBaines
  • Score: 0

7:51pm Sun 6 Apr 14

Badgers Drift says...

Jonothon wrote:
Pedalling Paul is right

The Lib-Dems choose to draw a veil over the fact that they wanted to close a bridge in the city. Wasn't it Ouse bridge they had their sights on? So it seems they were in favour of bridge closure when in power, but now they opportunistically try to pinch a few votes from Labour's by keeping schtum about their own intentions.
The traffic plan written by officers under the Lib Dems included bridge closure proposals, with Ouse bridge being the one to close first. It was Merrett though, who pushed through the Lendal Bridge trial closure.
[quote][p][bold]Jonothon[/bold] wrote: Pedalling Paul is right The Lib-Dems choose to draw a veil over the fact that they wanted to close a bridge in the city. Wasn't it Ouse bridge they had their sights on? So it seems they were in favour of bridge closure when in power, but now they opportunistically try to pinch a few votes from Labour's by keeping schtum about their own intentions.[/p][/quote]The traffic plan written by officers under the Lib Dems included bridge closure proposals, with Ouse bridge being the one to close first. It was Merrett though, who pushed through the Lendal Bridge trial closure. Badgers Drift
  • Score: 2

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

About cookies

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

I agree