£183m transport boost raises Outer Ring Road dualling hopes

First published in News
Last updated
York Press: Photograph of the Author by , mark.stead@thepress.co.uk

HOPES of dualling part of York’s Outer Ring Road have risen with the city set to get a share of £183 million in Government cash for transport projects.

The Department for Transport has announced a new Local Transport Body (LTB) covering West Yorkshire and York is expected to receive £60 million between 2015/16 and 2018/19 and £123 million more over a ten-year period under the “City Deal” scheme, which gives local councils more funding and decision-making powers.

City of York Council’s cabinet agreed in October that York wanted to be part of the West Yorkshire LTB, and city leaders hope York’s slice of funding can be used for schemes of “mutual benefit” to both areas, including long-awaited Outer Ring Road improvements.

Other potential projects include better transport links between York and Leeds Bradford Airport, upgrading the York-Harrogate railway line and developing a bus station in the city.

It is not yet clear how much York will specifically receive through the LTB link-up, as indicative funding figures have just been announced. From 2015 onwards, each LTB will be allocated funding according to population, whereas councils previously had to bid for a share of cash for specific schemes from a central pot.

The City Deal funding will run from 2015/16 to 2024/25, and Coun Dave Merrett, cabinet member for transport, planning and sustainability, said: “This will support investment in transport to support the Leeds City Region and York economies, maximising the collective benefit.

“We will also be collaborating between the wider Leeds and Manchester City Regions to drive improvements in rail transport.”

Council leader James Alexander said York had been a key player in LTB talks, saying: “We can now make local decisions which will determine how funding for major transport schemes in York will be spent.

“A key part of these new arrangements is the ten-year West Yorkshire Plus Transport Fund to inject a share of £1.5 billion nationally into the region. This will be vital in ensuring local authorities can make key local decisions on transport provision, promoting future job growth and economic investment.”

Comments (39)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

4:26pm Wed 23 Jan 13

dodgydavereturns says...

My My, Alexander is insistant in joining forces with West Yorkshire at every turn isn't he!
First the Royal Mail, then this....James, if you like it over there so much why not ***k off there and do us all a favour! ....(Awaits complaint and crying to The Press to see this post removed! Boo Hoo!)
My My, Alexander is insistant in joining forces with West Yorkshire at every turn isn't he! First the Royal Mail, then this....James, if you like it over there so much why not ***k off there and do us all a favour! ....(Awaits complaint and crying to The Press to see this post removed! Boo Hoo!) dodgydavereturns
  • Score: 0

4:37pm Wed 23 Jan 13

Garrowby Turnoff says...

Unless we employ Murphy and Paddy, who did my neighbour's 1 cm thick drive, there's nowhere near enough budget to build a tarmac road all the way round York. £50 million wouldn't even pay for the white lines being painted. The way CoYC throw money at feasibility studies, surveys and pre-planning there'll not be much left.

Though, M & P Construction (Cork) would do it for £49mill - but it would have to be cash in hand.
Unless we employ Murphy and Paddy, who did my neighbour's 1 cm thick drive, there's nowhere near enough budget to build a tarmac road all the way round York. £50 million wouldn't even pay for the white lines being painted. The way CoYC throw money at feasibility studies, surveys and pre-planning there'll not be much left. Though, M & P Construction (Cork) would do it for £49mill - but it would have to be cash in hand. Garrowby Turnoff
  • Score: 0

5:02pm Wed 23 Jan 13

Exiled1 says...

In reply to Dodgydavereturns - I'm not sure what Mr Alexander and council had to do with Royal Mail moving their sorting. And as for the money towards transport infrastructure, do you suggest we should have turned it down?
In reply to Dodgydavereturns - I'm not sure what Mr Alexander and council had to do with Royal Mail moving their sorting. And as for the money towards transport infrastructure, do you suggest we should have turned it down? Exiled1
  • Score: 0

5:07pm Wed 23 Jan 13

capt spaulding says...

Exiled1 wrote:
In reply to Dodgydavereturns - I'm not sure what Mr Alexander and council had to do with Royal Mail moving their sorting. And as for the money towards transport infrastructure, do you suggest we should have turned it down?
We should have turned it down ? sounds like a council officer !
[quote][p][bold]Exiled1[/bold] wrote: In reply to Dodgydavereturns - I'm not sure what Mr Alexander and council had to do with Royal Mail moving their sorting. And as for the money towards transport infrastructure, do you suggest we should have turned it down?[/p][/quote]We should have turned it down ? sounds like a council officer ! capt spaulding
  • Score: 0

5:08pm Wed 23 Jan 13

meme says...

Love these whimsical stories!
its not enough to build the bridge let alone dual it all but it makes a great headline for the politicians who know its bull but play to the crowd anyway!
Lets just waste it on cycleways/more traffic calming and 20 mph limits shall we
Anyone noticed how much better the traffic flowed on the Mount/Bootham on Saturday etc whilst the lights were broken. If there were even an experiment to show how much better the City flows without our highways engineers involvement this was it
Love these whimsical stories! its not enough to build the bridge let alone dual it all but it makes a great headline for the politicians who know its bull but play to the crowd anyway! Lets just waste it on cycleways/more traffic calming and 20 mph limits shall we Anyone noticed how much better the traffic flowed on the Mount/Bootham on Saturday etc whilst the lights were broken. If there were even an experiment to show how much better the City flows without our highways engineers involvement this was it meme
  • Score: 0

5:14pm Wed 23 Jan 13

Rosieposie says...

As someone who lives off the ring road I can only hope they do a better job than they did with the A19 roundabout scheme. I used to be able to sit in my garden despite the traffic, now with changes oh and less trees I can see the traffic.
This will not happen no money..it's a puff piece
As someone who lives off the ring road I can only hope they do a better job than they did with the A19 roundabout scheme. I used to be able to sit in my garden despite the traffic, now with changes oh and less trees I can see the traffic. This will not happen no money..it's a puff piece Rosieposie
  • Score: 0

5:44pm Wed 23 Jan 13

Harshbutfair says...

Can everyone start putting their political affiliation down before the comment?
You know, so I can get a heads up on whether it's an interesting unbiased observation, or a malicious points scoring one that will slate the named councillor no matter what.
For what it's worth I'm a floating voter and no fan of James
Can everyone start putting their political affiliation down before the comment? You know, so I can get a heads up on whether it's an interesting unbiased observation, or a malicious points scoring one that will slate the named councillor no matter what. For what it's worth I'm a floating voter and no fan of James Harshbutfair
  • Score: 0

6:00pm Wed 23 Jan 13

Scarlet Pimpernel says...

Harshbutfair wrote:
Can everyone start putting their political affiliation down before the comment? You know, so I can get a heads up on whether it's an interesting unbiased observation, or a malicious points scoring one that will slate the named councillor no matter what. For what it's worth I'm a floating voter and no fan of James
You are part of a growing club - a 'floating voter' and 'no fan of James Alexander'. Even previously loyal Labour voters don't care for the ego on legs from London. His only 'fans' are his Uni mates who attack any anti-Alexander posters on this website.

Changing the subject, it's good to see the coalition government allocating funding to the region/city, so a big thanks to them. If it had been a Labour government and a Tory-run COYC, you can bet that the funding would not have come here.
[quote][p][bold]Harshbutfair[/bold] wrote: Can everyone start putting their political affiliation down before the comment? You know, so I can get a heads up on whether it's an interesting unbiased observation, or a malicious points scoring one that will slate the named councillor no matter what. For what it's worth I'm a floating voter and no fan of James[/p][/quote]You are part of a growing club - a 'floating voter' and 'no fan of James Alexander'. Even previously loyal Labour voters don't care for the ego on legs from London. His only 'fans' are his Uni mates who attack any anti-Alexander posters on this website. Changing the subject, it's good to see the coalition government allocating funding to the region/city, so a big thanks to them. If it had been a Labour government and a Tory-run COYC, you can bet that the funding would not have come here. Scarlet Pimpernel
  • Score: 0

6:28pm Wed 23 Jan 13

ak7274 says...

Someone must have voted for him.

The way he manipulated the public because he knew he wasn't going to win the North York Parliamentary seat was nothing short of shameful and I condemn his Council colleagues for letting it happen.

But hey ho let's see what gems they can come up with this time.
Someone must have voted for him. The way he manipulated the public because he knew he wasn't going to win the North York Parliamentary seat was nothing short of shameful and I condemn his Council colleagues for letting it happen. But hey ho let's see what gems they can come up with this time. ak7274
  • Score: 0

6:34pm Wed 23 Jan 13

yorkborn66 says...

It would be a change to see the politicians of York to have their hands in their own pockets for a change. Shame on you all.
It would be a change to see the politicians of York to have their hands in their own pockets for a change. Shame on you all. yorkborn66
  • Score: 0

7:08pm Wed 23 Jan 13

Frodo Baggins says...

Scarlet Pimpernel wrote:
Harshbutfair wrote:
Can everyone start putting their political affiliation down before the comment? You know, so I can get a heads up on whether it's an interesting unbiased observation, or a malicious points scoring one that will slate the named councillor no matter what. For what it's worth I'm a floating voter and no fan of James
You are part of a growing club - a 'floating voter' and 'no fan of James Alexander'. Even previously loyal Labour voters don't care for the ego on legs from London. His only 'fans' are his Uni mates who attack any anti-Alexander posters on this website.

Changing the subject, it's good to see the coalition government allocating funding to the region/city, so a big thanks to them. If it had been a Labour government and a Tory-run COYC, you can bet that the funding would not have come here.
And the Tories are selling the money to the north for your vote.....very cynical
[quote][p][bold]Scarlet Pimpernel[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Harshbutfair[/bold] wrote: Can everyone start putting their political affiliation down before the comment? You know, so I can get a heads up on whether it's an interesting unbiased observation, or a malicious points scoring one that will slate the named councillor no matter what. For what it's worth I'm a floating voter and no fan of James[/p][/quote]You are part of a growing club - a 'floating voter' and 'no fan of James Alexander'. Even previously loyal Labour voters don't care for the ego on legs from London. His only 'fans' are his Uni mates who attack any anti-Alexander posters on this website. Changing the subject, it's good to see the coalition government allocating funding to the region/city, so a big thanks to them. If it had been a Labour government and a Tory-run COYC, you can bet that the funding would not have come here.[/p][/quote]And the Tories are selling the money to the north for your vote.....very cynical Frodo Baggins
  • Score: 0

7:33pm Wed 23 Jan 13

Rosieposie says...

No political affiliations for me....just like good sense too much
No political affiliations for me....just like good sense too much Rosieposie
  • Score: 0

7:41pm Wed 23 Jan 13

bolero says...

So another no-debate, just the usual political posturing and childish name-calling. Pathetic.
So another no-debate, just the usual political posturing and childish name-calling. Pathetic. bolero
  • Score: 0

7:50pm Wed 23 Jan 13

the butler says...

I would suggest proper over passes at each juncture of the ring road, cheaper more sensible than dualling, the 183 million would hardly pay for the engineering needed.... Dualling is futile as it will compound the problem that exists...
I would suggest proper over passes at each juncture of the ring road, cheaper more sensible than dualling, the 183 million would hardly pay for the engineering needed.... Dualling is futile as it will compound the problem that exists... the butler
  • Score: 0

8:26pm Wed 23 Jan 13

Frodo Baggins says...

the butler wrote:
I would suggest proper over passes at each juncture of the ring road, cheaper more sensible than dualling, the 183 million would hardly pay for the engineering needed.... Dualling is futile as it will compound the problem that exists...
I would go for underpasses as it would not affect the skyline as much.
[quote][p][bold]the butler[/bold] wrote: I would suggest proper over passes at each juncture of the ring road, cheaper more sensible than dualling, the 183 million would hardly pay for the engineering needed.... Dualling is futile as it will compound the problem that exists...[/p][/quote]I would go for underpasses as it would not affect the skyline as much. Frodo Baggins
  • Score: 0

10:07pm Wed 23 Jan 13

Scarlet Pimpernel says...

bolero wrote:
So another no-debate, just the usual political posturing and childish name-calling. Pathetic.
Just York residents giving their honest opinions on Coun Alexander, more like !
[quote][p][bold]bolero[/bold] wrote: So another no-debate, just the usual political posturing and childish name-calling. Pathetic.[/p][/quote]Just York residents giving their honest opinions on Coun Alexander, more like ! Scarlet Pimpernel
  • Score: 0

11:45pm Wed 23 Jan 13

jgycfc says...

Scarlet Pimpernel > The one "Uni-Mate" of JA specifically said "Don't let him in" to me, even though they were desperate times after several shoddy years of Lib-Dems. So you shouldn't tar them all with the same brush, some had sense.

I suspect the Lib Dems, with their previous running of the city, (And the mess currently at National level, selling stuff off and being whipping boys) won't get back in. JA, the fascist-lefty has lost lost loads of support and hopefully he'll never see light of day again.

Hopefully the sell-it-and-scarper out-of-touch party will not have a say, and I doubt York will let the Greens get in.

so it seems that it's either another vote of attrition, OR...

York Dungeon, if you read this, next time, please resurrect the Dungeon, Death and Tax party. You seriously couldn't do any worse, and you'll easily pull in more than the 80-odd votes of last time round. Heck, you'd probably win by a landslide!
Scarlet Pimpernel > The one "Uni-Mate" of JA specifically said "Don't let him in" to me, even though they were desperate times after several shoddy years of Lib-Dems. So you shouldn't tar them all with the same brush, some had sense. I suspect the Lib Dems, with their previous running of the city, (And the mess currently at National level, selling stuff off and being whipping boys) won't get back in. JA, the fascist-lefty has lost lost loads of support and hopefully he'll never see light of day again. Hopefully the sell-it-and-scarper out-of-touch party will not have a say, and I doubt York will let the Greens get in. so it seems that it's either another vote of attrition, OR... York Dungeon, if you read this, next time, please resurrect the Dungeon, Death and Tax party. You seriously couldn't do any worse, and you'll easily pull in more than the 80-odd votes of last time round. Heck, you'd probably win by a landslide! jgycfc
  • Score: 0

12:34am Thu 24 Jan 13

Hoofarted says...

The Tory Troll pops up at every open discussion in here. It's sole objective is, to blame James Alexandra for every news issue unless it's positive.

This forums a joke and reading the same repetitive garbage proves, insane people can turn a PC on and type things. All be them, the same points over and over again.

Keep taking the tablets Laverack lol
The Tory Troll pops up at every open discussion in here. It's sole objective is, to blame James Alexandra for every news issue unless it's positive. This forums a joke and reading the same repetitive garbage proves, insane people can turn a PC on and type things. All be them, the same points over and over again. Keep taking the tablets Laverack lol Hoofarted
  • Score: 0

1:52am Thu 24 Jan 13

Magicman! says...

Frodo Baggins wrote:
the butler wrote:
I would suggest proper over passes at each juncture of the ring road, cheaper more sensible than dualling, the 183 million would hardly pay for the engineering needed.... Dualling is futile as it will compound the problem that exists...
I would go for underpasses as it would not affect the skyline as much.
That would need a bigger 'footprint' for each junction though in order to accommodate the subterrainian sections, something that simply is not available as there are too many houses right close to the road. Even with full dualling and overpasses, the ideal layout for the A19 would be a new junction with the centre about 80-100m north of the current roundabout centre, with a new bridge over the river and railway but no link to the buisness park (this would still be done by the old road which would remain connected at both the A59 and A19 junctions) and the new bridge being a bit north of the current one - this new alignment would allow the road to be dualled towards Clifton Moor without encroaching on the green space behind houses that stretch between clifton moor and the A19.

But this article is a bit of a non-story - all it essentially is saying is that York, when combined with the greater bidding power of Leeds and Bradford, has got 'some money' coming its way - we don't know how much so no actual plans can be made.... but because the funds are only a part of £1.5billion (which in itself is quite a paltry sum when you consider expenses of civil engineering projects) to be allocated nationally, what York gets might only be a couple of million.... now considering Hopgrove roundabout cost £11million, all a couple of million will get is one junction with traffic lights.
[quote][p][bold]Frodo Baggins[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]the butler[/bold] wrote: I would suggest proper over passes at each juncture of the ring road, cheaper more sensible than dualling, the 183 million would hardly pay for the engineering needed.... Dualling is futile as it will compound the problem that exists...[/p][/quote]I would go for underpasses as it would not affect the skyline as much.[/p][/quote]That would need a bigger 'footprint' for each junction though in order to accommodate the subterrainian sections, something that simply is not available as there are too many houses right close to the road. Even with full dualling and overpasses, the ideal layout for the A19 would be a new junction with the centre about 80-100m north of the current roundabout centre, with a new bridge over the river and railway but no link to the buisness park (this would still be done by the old road which would remain connected at both the A59 and A19 junctions) and the new bridge being a bit north of the current one - this new alignment would allow the road to be dualled towards Clifton Moor without encroaching on the green space behind houses that stretch between clifton moor and the A19. But this article is a bit of a non-story - all it essentially is saying is that York, when combined with the greater bidding power of Leeds and Bradford, has got 'some money' coming its way - we don't know how much so no actual plans can be made.... but because the funds are only a part of £1.5billion (which in itself is quite a paltry sum when you consider expenses of civil engineering projects) to be allocated nationally, what York gets might only be a couple of million.... now considering Hopgrove roundabout cost £11million, all a couple of million will get is one junction with traffic lights. Magicman!
  • Score: 0

7:52am Thu 24 Jan 13

Kevin Turvey says...

Comment on Story:

It will not happen in the next ten years and the cost would be more like £200 Million.

Not one these people in so called power in the council have the skill or aptitude to secure this level of funding from the current cash strapped situation/ government.

Unless of course these ‘leaders’ start a further deliberate course of financial mismanagement and put the York Council taxpayer even further into debt.

Although I doubt their ineptitude could get us that far further in debt to pay for a capital project like the ring road! Ha Ha Ha Ha.


Comedy:
‘Harshbutfair says... 5:44pm Wed 23 Jan 13
Can everyone start putting their political affiliation down before the comment?’

Republican Anarchist and certainly not one of the sheeple that James Alexander purports to represent!



‘Hoofarted says... 12:34am Thu 24 Jan 13
This forums a joke and reading the same repetitive garbage proves, insane people can turn a PC on and type things. All be them, the same points over and over again.’

Your comments are explaining your own behavior and state of mind?
Comment on Story: It will not happen in the next ten years and the cost would be more like £200 Million. Not one these people in so called power in the council have the skill or aptitude to secure this level of funding from the current cash strapped situation/ government. Unless of course these ‘leaders’ start a further deliberate course of financial mismanagement and put the York Council taxpayer even further into debt. Although I doubt their ineptitude could get us that far further in debt to pay for a capital project like the ring road! Ha Ha Ha Ha. Comedy: ‘Harshbutfair says... 5:44pm Wed 23 Jan 13 Can everyone start putting their political affiliation down before the comment?’ Republican Anarchist and certainly not one of the sheeple that James Alexander purports to represent! ‘Hoofarted says... 12:34am Thu 24 Jan 13 This forums a joke and reading the same repetitive garbage proves, insane people can turn a PC on and type things. All be them, the same points over and over again.’ Your comments are explaining your own behavior and state of mind? Kevin Turvey
  • Score: 0

8:27am Thu 24 Jan 13

pedalling paul says...

We seem to have a lot of transport planning experts here. I wonder whether any of them are familiar with the phenomenon of induced demand, ie a widened road encouraging greater car use. The M25 is a typical example.
This potential traffic increase could be damped down by road pricing, massively increasing parking charges, high occupancy vehicle lanes, or by restricting building development along the route of a widened road.....except of course that we don't have an LDF in place at the moment, to resist such proposals. Widening the road without such accompanying measures would lead to it being bunged up with additional peak journeys in a very short timescale...simply a road to nowhere.
I think that Leeds has learned its lesson after going down the A58(M) inner ring road route, and is sensibly promoting wide scale public transport.
We seem to have a lot of transport planning experts here. I wonder whether any of them are familiar with the phenomenon of induced demand, ie a widened road encouraging greater car use. The M25 is a typical example. This potential traffic increase could be damped down by road pricing, massively increasing parking charges, high occupancy vehicle lanes, or by restricting building development along the route of a widened road.....except of course that we don't have an LDF in place at the moment, to resist such proposals. Widening the road without such accompanying measures would lead to it being bunged up with additional peak journeys in a very short timescale...simply a road to nowhere. I think that Leeds has learned its lesson after going down the A58(M) inner ring road route, and is sensibly promoting wide scale public transport. pedalling paul
  • Score: 0

9:00am Thu 24 Jan 13

DEKKA says...

bob the builder thinks York is in North Yorkshire and ak7274 thinks there is a North York constituency...keep up guys !!!
bob the builder thinks York is in North Yorkshire and ak7274 thinks there is a North York constituency...keep up guys !!! DEKKA
  • Score: 0

9:18am Thu 24 Jan 13

amike says...

pedalling paul wrote:
We seem to have a lot of transport planning experts here. I wonder whether any of them are familiar with the phenomenon of induced demand, ie a widened road encouraging greater car use. The M25 is a typical example.
This potential traffic increase could be damped down by road pricing, massively increasing parking charges, high occupancy vehicle lanes, or by restricting building development along the route of a widened road.....except of course that we don't have an LDF in place at the moment, to resist such proposals. Widening the road without such accompanying measures would lead to it being bunged up with additional peak journeys in a very short timescale...simply a road to nowhere.
I think that Leeds has learned its lesson after going down the A58(M) inner ring road route, and is sensibly promoting wide scale public transport.
I hope that the road pricing includes cyclists!!!!
[quote][p][bold]pedalling paul [/bold] wrote: We seem to have a lot of transport planning experts here. I wonder whether any of them are familiar with the phenomenon of induced demand, ie a widened road encouraging greater car use. The M25 is a typical example. This potential traffic increase could be damped down by road pricing, massively increasing parking charges, high occupancy vehicle lanes, or by restricting building development along the route of a widened road.....except of course that we don't have an LDF in place at the moment, to resist such proposals. Widening the road without such accompanying measures would lead to it being bunged up with additional peak journeys in a very short timescale...simply a road to nowhere. I think that Leeds has learned its lesson after going down the A58(M) inner ring road route, and is sensibly promoting wide scale public transport.[/p][/quote]I hope that the road pricing includes cyclists!!!! amike
  • Score: 0

9:25am Thu 24 Jan 13

pedalling paul says...

Cyclists already contribute via their national taxes to motorways (which they can't use) and trunk roads like York's A65 (which most would not choose to use.). Also to all the other roads in York via their Council Tax....yes these are managed by CoYC.
And a lot of the cyclists that you see round York are also car users, who have made sensible travel choices for short journeys.
Cyclists already contribute via their national taxes to motorways (which they can't use) and trunk roads like York's A65 (which most would not choose to use.). Also to all the other roads in York via their Council Tax....yes these are managed by CoYC. And a lot of the cyclists that you see round York are also car users, who have made sensible travel choices for short journeys. pedalling paul
  • Score: 0

9:31am Thu 24 Jan 13

LibDem says...

It’s a good thing that the government have chosen to delegate part of their transport budget.

If there was a transparent and fair system in place to allocate the funding locally then the headlines might be justified.

In reality the quoted figures are modest in the context of the West Riding/York areas a whole.

Just like the old system the fund is likely to be over-subscribed by a factor of 10.

There is absolutely no guarantee that any of it will be spent directly to benefit York.

With full scale improvement to the northern by pass costed at £240 million why would the big conurbations to our west vote to spend the fund here rather than in Leeds or Bradford?

As for a bus station. Well there is scope for an improved interchange next to the station but is wouldn’t be a conventional “bus station” and why it would take budget precedence over similar public transport schemes in West Yorkshire?

The City region will employ consultants to recommend priorities. They’ll do the cost/benefit analysis then the Labour Leaders of the bigger authorities will cherry pick the projects most likely to get them re-elected.

All rather predictable.
It’s a good thing that the government have chosen to delegate part of their transport budget. If there was a transparent and fair system in place to allocate the funding locally then the headlines might be justified. In reality the quoted figures are modest in the context of the West Riding/York areas a whole. Just like the old system the fund is likely to be over-subscribed by a factor of 10. There is absolutely no guarantee that any of it will be spent directly to benefit York. With full scale improvement to the northern by pass costed at £240 million why would the big conurbations to our west vote to spend the fund here rather than in Leeds or Bradford? As for a bus station. Well there is scope for an improved interchange next to the station but is wouldn’t be a conventional “bus station” and why it would take budget precedence over similar public transport schemes in West Yorkshire? The City region will employ consultants to recommend priorities. They’ll do the cost/benefit analysis then the Labour Leaders of the bigger authorities will cherry pick the projects most likely to get them re-elected. All rather predictable. LibDem
  • Score: 0

9:34am Thu 24 Jan 13

The Great Buda says...

pedalling paul wrote:
We seem to have a lot of transport planning experts here. I wonder whether any of them are familiar with the phenomenon of induced demand, ie a widened road encouraging greater car use. The M25 is a typical example.
This potential traffic increase could be damped down by road pricing, massively increasing parking charges, high occupancy vehicle lanes, or by restricting building development along the route of a widened road.....except of course that we don't have an LDF in place at the moment, to resist such proposals. Widening the road without such accompanying measures would lead to it being bunged up with additional peak journeys in a very short timescale...simply a road to nowhere.
I think that Leeds has learned its lesson after going down the A58(M) inner ring road route, and is sensibly promoting wide scale public transport.
You know you're right, much better to sit back and do nothing.
[quote][p][bold]pedalling paul [/bold] wrote: We seem to have a lot of transport planning experts here. I wonder whether any of them are familiar with the phenomenon of induced demand, ie a widened road encouraging greater car use. The M25 is a typical example. This potential traffic increase could be damped down by road pricing, massively increasing parking charges, high occupancy vehicle lanes, or by restricting building development along the route of a widened road.....except of course that we don't have an LDF in place at the moment, to resist such proposals. Widening the road without such accompanying measures would lead to it being bunged up with additional peak journeys in a very short timescale...simply a road to nowhere. I think that Leeds has learned its lesson after going down the A58(M) inner ring road route, and is sensibly promoting wide scale public transport.[/p][/quote]You know you're right, much better to sit back and do nothing. The Great Buda
  • Score: 0

10:25am Thu 24 Jan 13

amike says...

pedalling paul wrote:
Cyclists already contribute via their national taxes to motorways (which they can't use) and trunk roads like York's A65 (which most would not choose to use.). Also to all the other roads in York via their Council Tax....yes these are managed by CoYC.
And a lot of the cyclists that you see round York are also car users, who have made sensible travel choices for short journeys.
Pedestrians do too and get a lot less back for their money!!! (especially those who do not own bikes and cars)

Cyclists are even taking over the footpaths now!!!
[quote][p][bold]pedalling paul [/bold] wrote: Cyclists already contribute via their national taxes to motorways (which they can't use) and trunk roads like York's A65 (which most would not choose to use.). Also to all the other roads in York via their Council Tax....yes these are managed by CoYC. And a lot of the cyclists that you see round York are also car users, who have made sensible travel choices for short journeys.[/p][/quote]Pedestrians do too and get a lot less back for their money!!! (especially those who do not own bikes and cars) Cyclists are even taking over the footpaths now!!! amike
  • Score: 0

10:26am Thu 24 Jan 13

greggy83 says...

Can't we have a bit more money for an M64 starting a bit to the west of Copmanthorpe, taking a wider curve to encompass Rufforth (J1), Poppleton (J2), Skelton (J3), Wigginton/Haxby (J4), Strensall (J5) and ending on the A64 somewhere near Flaxton?

I will now remove my firmly-placed tongue from my cheek as it something that will never happen!!
Can't we have a bit more money for an M64 starting a bit to the west of Copmanthorpe, taking a wider curve to encompass Rufforth (J1), Poppleton (J2), Skelton (J3), Wigginton/Haxby (J4), Strensall (J5) and ending on the A64 somewhere near Flaxton? I will now remove my firmly-placed tongue from my cheek as it something that will never happen!! greggy83
  • Score: 0

10:28am Thu 24 Jan 13

Ignatius Lumpopo says...

pedalling paul wrote:
Cyclists already contribute via their national taxes to motorways (which they can't use) and trunk roads like York's A65 (which most would not choose to use.). Also to all the other roads in York via their Council Tax....yes these are managed by CoYC.
And a lot of the cyclists that you see round York are also car users, who have made sensible travel choices for short journeys.
The problem with York's A65 is that, although it's extremely attractive and provides a reasonably direct link between the city and the Lake District, you have to go all the way to Leeds before you can get onto it. It's a bit like York's A39 - an excellent route to Falmouth, but you've got to get to Bath first.

("Transport planning experts" eh? Who'd have 'em?)
[quote][p][bold]pedalling paul [/bold] wrote: Cyclists already contribute via their national taxes to motorways (which they can't use) and trunk roads like York's A65 (which most would not choose to use.). Also to all the other roads in York via their Council Tax....yes these are managed by CoYC. And a lot of the cyclists that you see round York are also car users, who have made sensible travel choices for short journeys.[/p][/quote]The problem with York's A65 is that, although it's extremely attractive and provides a reasonably direct link between the city and the Lake District, you have to go all the way to Leeds before you can get onto it. It's a bit like York's A39 - an excellent route to Falmouth, but you've got to get to Bath first. ("Transport planning experts" eh? Who'd have 'em?) Ignatius Lumpopo
  • Score: 0

12:35pm Thu 24 Jan 13

the original Homer says...

DEKKA wrote:
bob the builder thinks York is in North Yorkshire and ak7274 thinks there is a North York constituency...keep up guys !!!
Excuse my ignorance, but I also thought York was in North Yorkshire. A quick Google didn't bring anything up - so can you enlighten me please?
[quote][p][bold]DEKKA[/bold] wrote: bob the builder thinks York is in North Yorkshire and ak7274 thinks there is a North York constituency...keep up guys !!![/p][/quote]Excuse my ignorance, but I also thought York was in North Yorkshire. A quick Google didn't bring anything up - so can you enlighten me please? the original Homer
  • Score: 0

12:41pm Thu 24 Jan 13

Mr Udigawa says...

Ignatius Lumpopo wrote:
pedalling paul wrote: Cyclists already contribute via their national taxes to motorways (which they can't use) and trunk roads like York's A65 (which most would not choose to use.). Also to all the other roads in York via their Council Tax....yes these are managed by CoYC. And a lot of the cyclists that you see round York are also car users, who have made sensible travel choices for short journeys.
The problem with York's A65 is that, although it's extremely attractive and provides a reasonably direct link between the city and the Lake District, you have to go all the way to Leeds before you can get onto it. It's a bit like York's A39 - an excellent route to Falmouth, but you've got to get to Bath first. ("Transport planning experts" eh? Who'd have 'em?)
Aaaaaagghh, you beat me to it.
[quote][p][bold]Ignatius Lumpopo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]pedalling paul [/bold] wrote: Cyclists already contribute via their national taxes to motorways (which they can't use) and trunk roads like York's A65 (which most would not choose to use.). Also to all the other roads in York via their Council Tax....yes these are managed by CoYC. And a lot of the cyclists that you see round York are also car users, who have made sensible travel choices for short journeys.[/p][/quote]The problem with York's A65 is that, although it's extremely attractive and provides a reasonably direct link between the city and the Lake District, you have to go all the way to Leeds before you can get onto it. It's a bit like York's A39 - an excellent route to Falmouth, but you've got to get to Bath first. ("Transport planning experts" eh? Who'd have 'em?)[/p][/quote]Aaaaaagghh, you beat me to it. Mr Udigawa
  • Score: 0

12:52pm Thu 24 Jan 13

Setting it straight says...

Don't build your hopes up too much guys! The C92 works to re-instate 130 yds of road between Linton on Ouse and Newton on Ouse have been ongoing since September and swallowed up £0.5m so far. At that rate you aren't going to get much of the ring road built. Anybody got an idea how much was spent "improving" the roundabout at Rawcliffe Bar to give an idea of scale?
Don't build your hopes up too much guys! The C92 works to re-instate 130 yds of road between Linton on Ouse and Newton on Ouse have been ongoing since September and swallowed up £0.5m so far. At that rate you aren't going to get much of the ring road built. Anybody got an idea how much was spent "improving" the roundabout at Rawcliffe Bar to give an idea of scale? Setting it straight
  • Score: 0

1:03pm Thu 24 Jan 13

Stevie D says...

the original Homer wrote:
Excuse my ignorance, but I also thought York was in North Yorkshire. A quick Google didn't bring anything up - so can you enlighten me please?

York is in the historic/traditional county of North Yorkshire, but that doesn't mean anything any more.

Since 1996, York has been a unitary authority that sits alongside North Yorkshire, and is a completely separate entity. In 1996, lots of these unitary authorities were formed, many even more anomalous than York seeing 'city islands' entirely surrounded by their namesake county (York is partly bordered by East Riding, so isn't an island in the same sense) - meaning that Derby is no longer in Derbyshire, Leicester is no longer in Leicestershire, Nottingham is no longer in Nottinghamshire and various others.
[quote][bold]the original Homer[/bold] wrote: Excuse my ignorance, but I also thought York was in North Yorkshire. A quick Google didn't bring anything up - so can you enlighten me please?[/quote] York is in the historic/traditional county of North Yorkshire, but that doesn't mean anything any more. Since 1996, York has been a unitary authority that sits alongside North Yorkshire, and is a completely separate entity. In 1996, lots of these unitary authorities were formed, many even more anomalous than York seeing 'city islands' entirely surrounded by their namesake county (York is partly bordered by East Riding, so isn't an island in the same sense) - meaning that Derby is no longer in Derbyshire, Leicester is no longer in Leicestershire, Nottingham is no longer in Nottinghamshire and various others. Stevie D
  • Score: 0

1:10pm Thu 24 Jan 13

pedalling paul says...

Setting it straight wrote:
Don't build your hopes up too much guys! The C92 works to re-instate 130 yds of road between Linton on Ouse and Newton on Ouse have been ongoing since September and swallowed up £0.5m so far. At that rate you aren't going to get much of the ring road built. Anybody got an idea how much was spent "improving" the roundabout at Rawcliffe Bar to give an idea of scale?
About £2m of Government money. There was an underspend of Govt. dosh by the Yorks & Humber Regional Transport Board, and CoYC successfully bid for some of it.
[quote][p][bold]Setting it straight[/bold] wrote: Don't build your hopes up too much guys! The C92 works to re-instate 130 yds of road between Linton on Ouse and Newton on Ouse have been ongoing since September and swallowed up £0.5m so far. At that rate you aren't going to get much of the ring road built. Anybody got an idea how much was spent "improving" the roundabout at Rawcliffe Bar to give an idea of scale?[/p][/quote]About £2m of Government money. There was an underspend of Govt. dosh by the Yorks & Humber Regional Transport Board, and CoYC successfully bid for some of it. pedalling paul
  • Score: 0

1:58pm Thu 24 Jan 13

Von_Dutch says...

Setting it straight wrote:
Don't build your hopes up too much guys! The C92 works to re-instate 130 yds of road between Linton on Ouse and Newton on Ouse have been ongoing since September and swallowed up £0.5m so far. At that rate you aren't going to get much of the ring road built. Anybody got an idea how much was spent "improving" the roundabout at Rawcliffe Bar to give an idea of scale?
When you say "improving" sarcastically, please remember what it was like before (pretty much same as the current abysmal A59 one) - so yeh it's certainly not great, but definitely is better than it used to be!
[quote][p][bold]Setting it straight[/bold] wrote: Don't build your hopes up too much guys! The C92 works to re-instate 130 yds of road between Linton on Ouse and Newton on Ouse have been ongoing since September and swallowed up £0.5m so far. At that rate you aren't going to get much of the ring road built. Anybody got an idea how much was spent "improving" the roundabout at Rawcliffe Bar to give an idea of scale?[/p][/quote]When you say "improving" sarcastically, please remember what it was like before (pretty much same as the current abysmal A59 one) - so yeh it's certainly not great, but definitely is better than it used to be! Von_Dutch
  • Score: 0

2:13pm Thu 24 Jan 13

E=MC^2 says...

Stevie D wrote:
the original Homer wrote: Excuse my ignorance, but I also thought York was in North Yorkshire. A quick Google didn't bring anything up - so can you enlighten me please?
York is in the historic/traditional county of North Yorkshire, but that doesn't mean anything any more. Since 1996, York has been a unitary authority that sits alongside North Yorkshire, and is a completely separate entity. In 1996, lots of these unitary authorities were formed, many even more anomalous than York seeing 'city islands' entirely surrounded by their namesake county (York is partly bordered by East Riding, so isn't an island in the same sense) - meaning that Derby is no longer in Derbyshire, Leicester is no longer in Leicestershire, Nottingham is no longer in Nottinghamshire and various others.
It is a commonly held misconception that the local government changes of the 1960s and 1970s actually altered the historic Counties of Britain. In fact they did no such thing. The local government reorganisations of the 1960s and 1970s abolished all the "administrative counties" and "county boroughs" and created a whole new set of local government areas. However, it did not alter or abolish the Counties themselves, which still exist as legal entities.
For more on this see Association of British Counties http://www.abcountie
s.co.uk
[quote][p][bold]Stevie D[/bold] wrote: [quote][bold]the original Homer[/bold] wrote: Excuse my ignorance, but I also thought York was in North Yorkshire. A quick Google didn't bring anything up - so can you enlighten me please?[/quote] York is in the historic/traditional county of North Yorkshire, but that doesn't mean anything any more. Since 1996, York has been a unitary authority that sits alongside North Yorkshire, and is a completely separate entity. In 1996, lots of these unitary authorities were formed, many even more anomalous than York seeing 'city islands' entirely surrounded by their namesake county (York is partly bordered by East Riding, so isn't an island in the same sense) - meaning that Derby is no longer in Derbyshire, Leicester is no longer in Leicestershire, Nottingham is no longer in Nottinghamshire and various others.[/p][/quote]It is a commonly held misconception that the local government changes of the 1960s and 1970s actually altered the historic Counties of Britain. In fact they did no such thing. The local government reorganisations of the 1960s and 1970s abolished all the "administrative counties" and "county boroughs" and created a whole new set of local government areas. However, it did not alter or abolish the Counties themselves, which still exist as legal entities. For more on this see Association of British Counties http://www.abcountie s.co.uk E=MC^2
  • Score: 0

6:02pm Thu 24 Jan 13

Steve, says...

meme wrote:
Love these whimsical stories!
its not enough to build the bridge let alone dual it all but it makes a great headline for the politicians who know its bull but play to the crowd anyway!
Lets just waste it on cycleways/more traffic calming and 20 mph limits shall we
Anyone noticed how much better the traffic flowed on the Mount/Bootham on Saturday etc whilst the lights were broken. If there were even an experiment to show how much better the City flows without our highways engineers involvement this was it
Back on-topic, it flowed really well.
[quote][p][bold]meme[/bold] wrote: Love these whimsical stories! its not enough to build the bridge let alone dual it all but it makes a great headline for the politicians who know its bull but play to the crowd anyway! Lets just waste it on cycleways/more traffic calming and 20 mph limits shall we Anyone noticed how much better the traffic flowed on the Mount/Bootham on Saturday etc whilst the lights were broken. If there were even an experiment to show how much better the City flows without our highways engineers involvement this was it[/p][/quote]Back on-topic, it flowed really well. Steve,
  • Score: 0

4:13am Fri 25 Jan 13

Magicman! says...

amike wrote:
pedalling paul wrote:
We seem to have a lot of transport planning experts here. I wonder whether any of them are familiar with the phenomenon of induced demand, ie a widened road encouraging greater car use. The M25 is a typical example.
This potential traffic increase could be damped down by road pricing, massively increasing parking charges, high occupancy vehicle lanes, or by restricting building development along the route of a widened road.....except of course that we don't have an LDF in place at the moment, to resist such proposals. Widening the road without such accompanying measures would lead to it being bunged up with additional peak journeys in a very short timescale...simply a road to nowhere.
I think that Leeds has learned its lesson after going down the A58(M) inner ring road route, and is sensibly promoting wide scale public transport.
I hope that the road pricing includes cyclists!!!!
Oh sure, because we create lots of potholes with our 5kg bikes, whilst the 2ton cars don't cause any damage to the roads do they??

Moron.
[quote][p][bold]amike[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]pedalling paul [/bold] wrote: We seem to have a lot of transport planning experts here. I wonder whether any of them are familiar with the phenomenon of induced demand, ie a widened road encouraging greater car use. The M25 is a typical example. This potential traffic increase could be damped down by road pricing, massively increasing parking charges, high occupancy vehicle lanes, or by restricting building development along the route of a widened road.....except of course that we don't have an LDF in place at the moment, to resist such proposals. Widening the road without such accompanying measures would lead to it being bunged up with additional peak journeys in a very short timescale...simply a road to nowhere. I think that Leeds has learned its lesson after going down the A58(M) inner ring road route, and is sensibly promoting wide scale public transport.[/p][/quote]I hope that the road pricing includes cyclists!!!![/p][/quote]Oh sure, because we create lots of potholes with our 5kg bikes, whilst the 2ton cars don't cause any damage to the roads do they?? Moron. Magicman!
  • Score: 0

11:56am Fri 25 Jan 13

Hoofarted says...

I can't see this occurring now. We are now in a triple dip recession. Let's hope the Europhobic referendum distracts the voters from the utter incompetent failings of these Tory light weights.
I can't see this occurring now. We are now in a triple dip recession. Let's hope the Europhobic referendum distracts the voters from the utter incompetent failings of these Tory light weights. Hoofarted
  • Score: 0

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

About cookies

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

I agree