How would you make York and the world a better place?

IDEAS on how to make “York and the world a better place” will be invited from the public at the latest event announced as part of the Residents Festival.

The newest addition to the annual event is called Towards A Sustainable York 2013, and will feature local groups and organisations and is being billed as a “cross between a green festival and a conference”.

Event organiser John Cossham said: “Networking is really important for people who are working to improve their environment. This event will give local people a chance to see what else is going on in York and meet others who share their vision of a more sustainable York.”

Ivana Jakubkova, of Friends of St Nicholas Fields, said: “We have a lot of exciting plans for this year which I look forward to sharing at this event.

“I hope to meet a lot of people who might be interested in using our green services or in our diverse programme of community events, training courses and volunteering opportunities.”

The event is at Priory Street Community Centre on Saturday, January 26, from 10am to 3pm.

Meanwhile, York Theatre Royal is opening up its backstage areas to give residents a rare glimpse of what goes on behind the scenes.

The theatre said people would be able to delve backstage and explore parts of the theatre which aren’t usually open to the public.

In each 30-minute tour participants will be given an insight into the workings of the theatre and learn about its 800 year history, with stories from its past including the resident ghost.

Participants will also be able to stand on the Main House stage and have an exclusive look of the set and costumes for this year’s pantomime, Robin Hood And His Merry Mam, which runs until February 3.

Tours will be held every half hour, between noon and 4pm, on Sunday, January 27. For details, phone 01904 623 568.

York Residents Festival, organised by Visit York, is being held on the weekend of January 26 and 27 as a thank-you to York residents for the warm welcome they give to the city’s seven million annual visitors.

It offers residents free and discounted entry to a number of the city’s attractions and exhibitions as well as enjoying special rates at restaurants and shops.

Comments (20)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

8:37am Thu 17 Jan 13

YorkyBoy says...

Dual carriageway the northern ringroad with over or under roundabouts for a start off, also get rid of half the traffic lights in York and put roundabouts in their place, traffic would move a lot freer then!
Dual carriageway the northern ringroad with over or under roundabouts for a start off, also get rid of half the traffic lights in York and put roundabouts in their place, traffic would move a lot freer then! YorkyBoy
  • Score: 0

9:01am Thu 17 Jan 13

Peasoupage says...

Godwin's Law of York
Godwin's Law of York Peasoupage
  • Score: 0

9:18am Thu 17 Jan 13

pedalling paul says...

YorkyBoy wrote:
Dual carriageway the northern ringroad with over or under roundabouts for a start off, also get rid of half the traffic lights in York and put roundabouts in their place, traffic would move a lot freer then!
However we all become pedestrians at some point on our journeys. So how would you be able to safely cross a road on which traffic is "flowing" especially if you have mobility or sensory restrictions?
And would you like to predict how few years it would be before your proposals if enacted, would encourage sufficient additional car journeys to bring congestion back to current levels. You may choose to bury your head in the sand on that one, but York's Transport Planners can not.
That's why York's Local Transport Plan seeks further reductions in car dependancy. Then those who need rather than wish to travel round by car will be able to more easily do so. Simple!
[quote][p][bold]YorkyBoy[/bold] wrote: Dual carriageway the northern ringroad with over or under roundabouts for a start off, also get rid of half the traffic lights in York and put roundabouts in their place, traffic would move a lot freer then![/p][/quote]However we all become pedestrians at some point on our journeys. So how would you be able to safely cross a road on which traffic is "flowing" especially if you have mobility or sensory restrictions? And would you like to predict how few years it would be before your proposals if enacted, would encourage sufficient additional car journeys to bring congestion back to current levels. You may choose to bury your head in the sand on that one, but York's Transport Planners can not. That's why York's Local Transport Plan seeks further reductions in car dependancy. Then those who need rather than wish to travel round by car will be able to more easily do so. Simple! pedalling paul
  • Score: 0

9:37am Thu 17 Jan 13

Kevin Turvey says...

The list is huge and therefore able to be debated over for many years so therefore no progress, most of the issues are certainly well beyond the remit of this!

However some of the below are quite pressing:

1. The huge over population of this country and indeed the rest of the planet addressed by a controlled reduction through mandatory robust family planning/budgeting education.

2. A reduction in the size of the UK government and the civil service, therefore cost to the taxpayer.

3. The benefit system overhauled to ensure that there is a financial incentive to go to work by there being lower benefits for the out of work rather than the disabled/ill etc. so therefore working is a better option for those that can work but choose not to.

4. The representation of the people i.e. British Democracy updated to reflect that the present system favours corporate interests (eg corporate wars in Iraq & Afganistan) rather than the electorate that it should.

5. Peddling Paul banned from commenting on any issue that tenuously contents cycling related issues.
The list is huge and therefore able to be debated over for many years so therefore no progress, most of the issues are certainly well beyond the remit of this! However some of the below are quite pressing: 1. The huge over population of this country and indeed the rest of the planet addressed by a controlled reduction through mandatory robust family planning/budgeting education. 2. A reduction in the size of the UK government and the civil service, therefore cost to the taxpayer. 3. The benefit system overhauled to ensure that there is a financial incentive to go to work by there being lower benefits for the out of work rather than the disabled/ill etc. so therefore working is a better option for those that can work but choose not to. 4. The representation of the people i.e. British Democracy updated to reflect that the present system favours corporate interests (eg corporate wars in Iraq & Afganistan) rather than the electorate that it should. 5. Peddling Paul banned from commenting on any issue that tenuously contents cycling related issues. Kevin Turvey
  • Score: 0

9:38am Thu 17 Jan 13

Paul Meoff says...

YorkyBoy wrote:
Dual carriageway the northern ringroad with over or under roundabouts for a start off, also get rid of half the traffic lights in York and put roundabouts in their place, traffic would move a lot freer then!
Wider roads = more cars
More cars = more pollution
More cars have to park somewhere
More car parks in the city?
How to get to them - dual Tadcaster Road etc?

Doesn't sound like a way to improve York. Could do better.
[quote][p][bold]YorkyBoy[/bold] wrote: Dual carriageway the northern ringroad with over or under roundabouts for a start off, also get rid of half the traffic lights in York and put roundabouts in their place, traffic would move a lot freer then![/p][/quote]Wider roads = more cars More cars = more pollution More cars have to park somewhere More car parks in the city? How to get to them - dual Tadcaster Road etc? Doesn't sound like a way to improve York. Could do better. Paul Meoff
  • Score: 0

10:00am Thu 17 Jan 13

xtc says...

World peace,and a council that can would be nice!
World peace,and a council that can would be nice! xtc
  • Score: 0

10:01am Thu 17 Jan 13

xtc says...

Kevin Turvey wrote:
The list is huge and therefore able to be debated over for many years so therefore no progress, most of the issues are certainly well beyond the remit of this!

However some of the below are quite pressing:

1. The huge over population of this country and indeed the rest of the planet addressed by a controlled reduction through mandatory robust family planning/budgeting education.

2. A reduction in the size of the UK government and the civil service, therefore cost to the taxpayer.

3. The benefit system overhauled to ensure that there is a financial incentive to go to work by there being lower benefits for the out of work rather than the disabled/ill etc. so therefore working is a better option for those that can work but choose not to.

4. The representation of the people i.e. British Democracy updated to reflect that the present system favours corporate interests (eg corporate wars in Iraq & Afganistan) rather than the electorate that it should.

5. Peddling Paul banned from commenting on any issue that tenuously contents cycling related issues.
Yaaaaaaaaaaawn!
[quote][p][bold]Kevin Turvey[/bold] wrote: The list is huge and therefore able to be debated over for many years so therefore no progress, most of the issues are certainly well beyond the remit of this! However some of the below are quite pressing: 1. The huge over population of this country and indeed the rest of the planet addressed by a controlled reduction through mandatory robust family planning/budgeting education. 2. A reduction in the size of the UK government and the civil service, therefore cost to the taxpayer. 3. The benefit system overhauled to ensure that there is a financial incentive to go to work by there being lower benefits for the out of work rather than the disabled/ill etc. so therefore working is a better option for those that can work but choose not to. 4. The representation of the people i.e. British Democracy updated to reflect that the present system favours corporate interests (eg corporate wars in Iraq & Afganistan) rather than the electorate that it should. 5. Peddling Paul banned from commenting on any issue that tenuously contents cycling related issues.[/p][/quote]Yaaaaaaaaaaawn! xtc
  • Score: 0

10:04am Thu 17 Jan 13

Mulgrave says...

pedalling paul wrote:
YorkyBoy wrote:
Dual carriageway the northern ringroad with over or under roundabouts for a start off, also get rid of half the traffic lights in York and put roundabouts in their place, traffic would move a lot freer then!
However we all become pedestrians at some point on our journeys. So how would you be able to safely cross a road on which traffic is "flowing" especially if you have mobility or sensory restrictions?
And would you like to predict how few years it would be before your proposals if enacted, would encourage sufficient additional car journeys to bring congestion back to current levels. You may choose to bury your head in the sand on that one, but York's Transport Planners can not.
That's why York's Local Transport Plan seeks further reductions in car dependancy. Then those who need rather than wish to travel round by car will be able to more easily do so. Simple!
I am very much against blanket 20mph in York, but I know pedallingpaul supports it. I have also done a bit of resarch and have read that the principle works best when it removes the 'confrontation' between road users ( including pedestrians) that occurs at higher speeds where the traffic is controlled, and replaces it with co-operation that is said to occur when speeds are limited to 20mph. This can be seen when traffic is always moving, albeit slowly, at a junction where the trafffic lights have failed. It would therefore cost many times the quoted £600,000 to install it properly in York, and that is why I am against it.

In dismissing YorkieBoy's suggestion to get rid of half the traffic lights in York, pedallingpaul seems to be arguing against himself, and this typifies the weak logic behind the total 20 campaign in York.
[quote][p][bold]pedalling paul [/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]YorkyBoy[/bold] wrote: Dual carriageway the northern ringroad with over or under roundabouts for a start off, also get rid of half the traffic lights in York and put roundabouts in their place, traffic would move a lot freer then![/p][/quote]However we all become pedestrians at some point on our journeys. So how would you be able to safely cross a road on which traffic is "flowing" especially if you have mobility or sensory restrictions? And would you like to predict how few years it would be before your proposals if enacted, would encourage sufficient additional car journeys to bring congestion back to current levels. You may choose to bury your head in the sand on that one, but York's Transport Planners can not. That's why York's Local Transport Plan seeks further reductions in car dependancy. Then those who need rather than wish to travel round by car will be able to more easily do so. Simple![/p][/quote]I am very much against blanket 20mph in York, but I know pedallingpaul supports it. I have also done a bit of resarch and have read that the principle works best when it removes the 'confrontation' between road users ( including pedestrians) that occurs at higher speeds where the traffic is controlled, and replaces it with co-operation that is said to occur when speeds are limited to 20mph. This can be seen when traffic is always moving, albeit slowly, at a junction where the trafffic lights have failed. It would therefore cost many times the quoted £600,000 to install it properly in York, and that is why I am against it. In dismissing YorkieBoy's suggestion to get rid of half the traffic lights in York, pedallingpaul seems to be arguing against himself, and this typifies the weak logic behind the total 20 campaign in York. Mulgrave
  • Score: 0

10:21am Thu 17 Jan 13

Ignatius Lumpopo says...

Remove the distinction between roadway and pavement in the pedestrianised areas. This would make movement by any form of wheeled vehicle intrusive into the area, placing the driver or rider in the position of having to take more care and pay greater attention.

Pay for all improvements by installing junction infringement cameras.

And, yes, sort out the roundabouts on the ring road.
Remove the distinction between roadway and pavement in the pedestrianised areas. This would make movement by any form of wheeled vehicle intrusive into the area, placing the driver or rider in the position of having to take more care and pay greater attention. Pay for all improvements by installing junction infringement cameras. And, yes, sort out the roundabouts on the ring road. Ignatius Lumpopo
  • Score: 0

10:29am Thu 17 Jan 13

bloodaxe says...

Remove this site.
Remove this site. bloodaxe
  • Score: 0

10:34am Thu 17 Jan 13

YorkyBoy says...

Paul Meoff wrote:
YorkyBoy wrote: Dual carriageway the northern ringroad with over or under roundabouts for a start off, also get rid of half the traffic lights in York and put roundabouts in their place, traffic would move a lot freer then!
Wider roads = more cars More cars = more pollution More cars have to park somewhere More car parks in the city? How to get to them - dual Tadcaster Road etc? Doesn't sound like a way to improve York. Could do better.
BOLL*CKS
[quote][p][bold]Paul Meoff[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]YorkyBoy[/bold] wrote: Dual carriageway the northern ringroad with over or under roundabouts for a start off, also get rid of half the traffic lights in York and put roundabouts in their place, traffic would move a lot freer then![/p][/quote]Wider roads = more cars More cars = more pollution More cars have to park somewhere More car parks in the city? How to get to them - dual Tadcaster Road etc? Doesn't sound like a way to improve York. Could do better.[/p][/quote]BOLL*CKS YorkyBoy
  • Score: 0

11:21am Thu 17 Jan 13

BL2 says...

Wider roads does not equal more cars - what rubbish!
Wider roads does not equal more cars - what rubbish! BL2
  • Score: 0

12:43pm Thu 17 Jan 13

Buzz Light-year says...

There is more to life than traffic.
There is more to life than traffic. Buzz Light-year
  • Score: 0

1:36pm Thu 17 Jan 13

Podlet says...

What's the going price on ex USSR nuclear weapons?
What's the going price on ex USSR nuclear weapons? Podlet
  • Score: 0

3:22pm Thu 17 Jan 13

R'Marcus says...

Paul Meoff wrote:
YorkyBoy wrote:
Dual carriageway the northern ringroad with over or under roundabouts for a start off, also get rid of half the traffic lights in York and put roundabouts in their place, traffic would move a lot freer then!
Wider roads = more cars
More cars = more pollution
More cars have to park somewhere
More car parks in the city?
How to get to them - dual Tadcaster Road etc?

Doesn't sound like a way to improve York. Could do better.
Yaaawn!
Traffic are the life blood of any town or cityy, as we all know.
No traffis:no food or drink, no safety (police or ambulances ets).
[quote][p][bold]Paul Meoff[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]YorkyBoy[/bold] wrote: Dual carriageway the northern ringroad with over or under roundabouts for a start off, also get rid of half the traffic lights in York and put roundabouts in their place, traffic would move a lot freer then![/p][/quote]Wider roads = more cars More cars = more pollution More cars have to park somewhere More car parks in the city? How to get to them - dual Tadcaster Road etc? Doesn't sound like a way to improve York. Could do better.[/p][/quote]Yaaawn! Traffic are the life blood of any town or cityy, as we all know. No traffis:no food or drink, no safety (police or ambulances ets). R'Marcus
  • Score: 0

5:42pm Thu 17 Jan 13

far2bizzy says...

R'Marcus wrote:
Paul Meoff wrote:
YorkyBoy wrote:
Dual carriageway the northern ringroad with over or under roundabouts for a start off, also get rid of half the traffic lights in York and put roundabouts in their place, traffic would move a lot freer then!
Wider roads = more cars
More cars = more pollution
More cars have to park somewhere
More car parks in the city?
How to get to them - dual Tadcaster Road etc?

Doesn't sound like a way to improve York. Could do better.
Yaaawn!
Traffic are the life blood of any town or cityy, as we all know.
No traffis:no food or drink, no safety (police or ambulances ets).
Where does he mention traffic? Yes there are essential components to traffic – but cars aren’t one of them.
[quote][p][bold]R'Marcus[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Paul Meoff[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]YorkyBoy[/bold] wrote: Dual carriageway the northern ringroad with over or under roundabouts for a start off, also get rid of half the traffic lights in York and put roundabouts in their place, traffic would move a lot freer then![/p][/quote]Wider roads = more cars More cars = more pollution More cars have to park somewhere More car parks in the city? How to get to them - dual Tadcaster Road etc? Doesn't sound like a way to improve York. Could do better.[/p][/quote]Yaaawn! Traffic are the life blood of any town or cityy, as we all know. No traffis:no food or drink, no safety (police or ambulances ets).[/p][/quote]Where does he mention traffic? Yes there are essential components to traffic – but cars aren’t one of them. far2bizzy
  • Score: 0

5:51pm Thu 17 Jan 13

Even AndyD says...

Buzz Light-year wrote:
There is more to life than traffic.
^this^ Ditto bins.
[quote][p][bold]Buzz Light-year[/bold] wrote: There is more to life than traffic.[/p][/quote]^this^ Ditto bins. Even AndyD
  • Score: 0

6:04pm Thu 17 Jan 13

far2bizzy says...

BL2 wrote:
Wider roads does not equal more cars - what rubbish!
So you think there’s no correlation between the vast improvement in road infrastructure over the last 50 years and the equivalent increase in car ownership?
[quote][p][bold]BL2[/bold] wrote: Wider roads does not equal more cars - what rubbish![/p][/quote]So you think there’s no correlation between the vast improvement in road infrastructure over the last 50 years and the equivalent increase in car ownership? far2bizzy
  • Score: 0

6:42pm Thu 17 Jan 13

Pedro says...

far2bizzy wrote:
BL2 wrote:
Wider roads does not equal more cars - what rubbish!
So you think there’s no correlation between the vast improvement in road infrastructure over the last 50 years and the equivalent increase in car ownership?
You are right. Also real cost of motoring has gone down. The point the motorist of tomorrow has to understand is that the government won't want to stop you having a car (they love all that lovely tax!) but they can tell you where to drive it and park it. York wasn't built for the motor car and we all suffer for it.
[quote][p][bold]far2bizzy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]BL2[/bold] wrote: Wider roads does not equal more cars - what rubbish![/p][/quote]So you think there’s no correlation between the vast improvement in road infrastructure over the last 50 years and the equivalent increase in car ownership?[/p][/quote]You are right. Also real cost of motoring has gone down. The point the motorist of tomorrow has to understand is that the government won't want to stop you having a car (they love all that lovely tax!) but they can tell you where to drive it and park it. York wasn't built for the motor car and we all suffer for it. Pedro
  • Score: 0

6:43pm Thu 17 Jan 13

Mulgrave says...

far2bizzy wrote:
BL2 wrote:
Wider roads does not equal more cars - what rubbish!
So you think there’s no correlation between the vast improvement in road infrastructure over the last 50 years and the equivalent increase in car ownership?
Surely the decision to axe large parts of the rail network 50 years ago reflected the fact that there was a half decent road network to use as an alternative, and rising real incomes since have fuelled the growth in car ownership, which requires ever greater road capacity.

Sure, you could stifle car ownership by not providing more and better roads, but it doesn't rake the taxes in or win votes at election time.
[quote][p][bold]far2bizzy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]BL2[/bold] wrote: Wider roads does not equal more cars - what rubbish![/p][/quote]So you think there’s no correlation between the vast improvement in road infrastructure over the last 50 years and the equivalent increase in car ownership?[/p][/quote]Surely the decision to axe large parts of the rail network 50 years ago reflected the fact that there was a half decent road network to use as an alternative, and rising real incomes since have fuelled the growth in car ownership, which requires ever greater road capacity. Sure, you could stifle car ownership by not providing more and better roads, but it doesn't rake the taxes in or win votes at election time. Mulgrave
  • 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