Lendal Bridge closure petition tops 900

A PETITION opposing plans to close a York bridge to cars and motorbikes has topped 900 signatures.

City of York Council is to hold a six-month trial which will prevent most traffic using Lendal Bridge between 10.30am and 5pm every day, starting in August, with the authority saying it will improve bus services and cut congestion and pollution.

The scheme has been opposed by motorists and Leeds, York and North Yorkshire Chamber of Commerce last month described it as “impractical”, saying it could damage businesses.

A petition set up on the council’s website calling for the closure plans to be scrapped now has been signed by 902 people, with a rival petition supporting the trial having 139 signatures.

Following the trial, a decision will be made on whether Lendal Bridge should be permanently closed to private vehicles during the day and, if so, whether the closure time should be extended.

Comments (56)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

10:19am Mon 10 Jun 13

Ignatius Lumpopo says...

I'm informed by the People in Charge that a journey from the station to Bootham Bar will have to be via either Foss Islands Road (?) or Water End and Leeman Road. It will "add 2 miles to the journey and take an extra 10 minutes".

Ten minutes, eh?

Just popping round to Ladbrokes to see what the odds are of the People in Charge being right...
I'm informed by the People in Charge that a journey from the station to Bootham Bar will have to be via either Foss Islands Road (?) or Water End and Leeman Road. It will "add 2 miles to the journey and take an extra 10 minutes". Ten minutes, eh? Just popping round to Ladbrokes to see what the odds are of the People in Charge being right... Ignatius Lumpopo
  • Score: 0

10:28am Mon 10 Jun 13

pedalling paul says...

Rather like inviting a vote on whether or not a brewery should be dynamited.........

We have an interesting chicken and egg situation at present. Some car owners would gladly swop to buses if the latter offered competitive journey times. Yet as long as buses must share road space with lots of private cars, they cannot compete.

It would be interesting to stand on the bridge in the peak and count the number of sole occupancy cars. The unused space between drivers seats represents a hugely inefficient waste of road capacity.

Perhaps high occupancy (2+) cars could be permitted over Lendal Bridge as at peak time on dedicated lanes in West Yorkshire
http://www.leeds.gov
.uk/residents/Pages/
HOV-Lanes.aspx

Presumably technology exists to detect real humans as opposed to stuffed or inflated dummies which some drivers have used to try and circumvent the regulations.
Rather like inviting a vote on whether or not a brewery should be dynamited......... We have an interesting chicken and egg situation at present. Some car owners would gladly swop to buses if the latter offered competitive journey times. Yet as long as buses must share road space with lots of private cars, they cannot compete. It would be interesting to stand on the bridge in the peak and count the number of sole occupancy cars. The unused space between drivers seats represents a hugely inefficient waste of road capacity. Perhaps high occupancy (2+) cars could be permitted over Lendal Bridge as at peak time on dedicated lanes in West Yorkshire http://www.leeds.gov .uk/residents/Pages/ HOV-Lanes.aspx Presumably technology exists to detect real humans as opposed to stuffed or inflated dummies which some drivers have used to try and circumvent the regulations. pedalling paul
  • Score: 0

11:13am Mon 10 Jun 13

strangebuttrue? says...

I am sure they would Paul but if they knew what the council do about pollution they would think again about using some of the most polluting transport methods in the City:-

YCC Low Emission Strategy Oct 2012
“Traffic levels in the city have been reduced 2002 to 2005
Peak period traffic levels have remained stable since 2006.
Concentrations of NO2 within the city centre Air Quality Management Area have continued to increase year on year since 2006.
NO2 ug/m2 increases 2005 to 2010
Inside AQMA 33 to 49” = 48% increase.
“Outside AQMA 27 to 36” = 33% increase.
“Buses, Coaches, HGV, NO2 contribution = 38%. Percentage of traffic = 5.54%
Cars, Taxis, Motorcycles, NO2 contribution = 27%. Percentage of traffic = 84.9%
This study indicates that NOx emissions from diesel vehicles, particularly buses and HGVs are probably one of the main reasons why York has so far failed to meet the air quality objective for NO2 despite steps taken in AQAP2”
I am sure they would Paul but if they knew what the council do about pollution they would think again about using some of the most polluting transport methods in the City:- YCC Low Emission Strategy Oct 2012 “Traffic levels in the city have been reduced 2002 to 2005 Peak period traffic levels have remained stable since 2006. Concentrations of NO2 within the city centre Air Quality Management Area have continued to increase year on year since 2006. NO2 ug/m2 increases 2005 to 2010 Inside AQMA 33 to 49” = 48% increase. “Outside AQMA 27 to 36” = 33% increase. “Buses, Coaches, HGV, NO2 contribution = 38%. Percentage of traffic = 5.54% Cars, Taxis, Motorcycles, NO2 contribution = 27%. Percentage of traffic = 84.9% This study indicates that NOx emissions from diesel vehicles, particularly buses and HGVs are probably one of the main reasons why York has so far failed to meet the air quality objective for NO2 despite steps taken in AQAP2” strangebuttrue?
  • Score: 0

11:26am Mon 10 Jun 13

3.8liter says...

pedalling paul wrote:
Rather like inviting a vote on whether or not a brewery should be dynamited.........

We have an interesting chicken and egg situation at present. Some car owners would gladly swop to buses if the latter offered competitive journey times. Yet as long as buses must share road space with lots of private cars, they cannot compete.

It would be interesting to stand on the bridge in the peak and count the number of sole occupancy cars. The unused space between drivers seats represents a hugely inefficient waste of road capacity.

Perhaps high occupancy (2+) cars could be permitted over Lendal Bridge as at peak time on dedicated lanes in West Yorkshire
http://www.leeds.gov

.uk/residents/Pages/

HOV-Lanes.aspx

Presumably technology exists to detect real humans as opposed to stuffed or inflated dummies which some drivers have used to try and circumvent the regulations.
I like the last paragraph.
Are the 'Stuffed or inflated dummies' mentioned the people who have devised this crackpot scheme?
[quote][p][bold]pedalling paul [/bold] wrote: Rather like inviting a vote on whether or not a brewery should be dynamited......... We have an interesting chicken and egg situation at present. Some car owners would gladly swop to buses if the latter offered competitive journey times. Yet as long as buses must share road space with lots of private cars, they cannot compete. It would be interesting to stand on the bridge in the peak and count the number of sole occupancy cars. The unused space between drivers seats represents a hugely inefficient waste of road capacity. Perhaps high occupancy (2+) cars could be permitted over Lendal Bridge as at peak time on dedicated lanes in West Yorkshire http://www.leeds.gov .uk/residents/Pages/ HOV-Lanes.aspx Presumably technology exists to detect real humans as opposed to stuffed or inflated dummies which some drivers have used to try and circumvent the regulations.[/p][/quote]I like the last paragraph. Are the 'Stuffed or inflated dummies' mentioned the people who have devised this crackpot scheme? 3.8liter
  • Score: 0

11:29am Mon 10 Jun 13

akuma says...

Like I said in the previous two iterations of this story, if done correctly this could work with a minimal impact to other drivers.

But if they think that simply closing the bridge and nothing else is the answer then they are wrong, and heading for some serious egg on face, much like the fuss that was caused by the Clifton Green cycle lane debacle which many attribute as one of the main reason the Lib Dems lost control of Council.
Like I said in the previous two iterations of this story, if done correctly this could work with a minimal impact to other drivers. But if they think that simply closing the bridge and nothing else is the answer then they are wrong, and heading for some serious egg on face, much like the fuss that was caused by the Clifton Green cycle lane debacle which many attribute as one of the main reason the Lib Dems lost control of Council. akuma
  • Score: 0

11:56am Mon 10 Jun 13

Pete the Brickie says...




pedalling paul says...
10:28am Mon 10 Jun 13


It would be interesting to stand on the bridge in the peak and count the number of sole occupancy cars. The unused space between drivers seats represents a hugely inefficient waste of road capacity.



Strange, sitting in my car, solely occupied by me I always find the most "inefficient use of road" is the miles of empty space in front of a bus parked next to a traffic island.
[quote] pedalling paul says... 10:28am Mon 10 Jun 13 It would be interesting to stand on the bridge in the peak and count the number of sole occupancy cars. The unused space between drivers seats represents a hugely inefficient waste of road capacity. [/quote] Strange, sitting in my car, solely occupied by me I always find the most "inefficient use of road" is the miles of empty space in front of a bus parked next to a traffic island. Pete the Brickie
  • Score: 0

12:13pm Mon 10 Jun 13

Fat Harry says...

A total of 1039 people signing rival petitions tells me that the huge majority of York's population is nowhere near as exercised by this issue as a very vocal minority would have us believe.

I won't sign either petition - I'd rather wait and see what happens during the trial which, I suppose, is its purpose.
A total of 1039 people signing rival petitions tells me that the huge majority of York's population is nowhere near as exercised by this issue as a very vocal minority would have us believe. I won't sign either petition - I'd rather wait and see what happens during the trial which, I suppose, is its purpose. Fat Harry
  • Score: 0

12:46pm Mon 10 Jun 13

Jiffy says...

Depends who's giving the figures out Harry.
Weren't huge majorities in favour of other council led local calamities even though nobody could actually recollect having been asked about them in the first place!
As a resident of Leeman Road I worry for the increased volume of traffic & pollution that will hit that area when this is introduced - and let's be right, they will hail it a success anyway as it starts duting the summer holidays when the school runs will not be happening so perferct excuse to keep it closed for good.
We are a city that spans 2 rivers and access from one side to the other is needed for numerous things - be it to get to the station, get to the hospital or simply to go shopping.
Just think how much better it will be when Skeldergate bridge is gridlocked because we are one bridge down and fire engines need to get to an emergency on Bishopthorpe Road - traffic chaos ensues!!
Depends who's giving the figures out Harry. Weren't huge majorities in favour of other council led local calamities even though nobody could actually recollect having been asked about them in the first place! As a resident of Leeman Road I worry for the increased volume of traffic & pollution that will hit that area when this is introduced - and let's be right, they will hail it a success anyway as it starts duting the summer holidays when the school runs will not be happening so perferct excuse to keep it closed for good. We are a city that spans 2 rivers and access from one side to the other is needed for numerous things - be it to get to the station, get to the hospital or simply to go shopping. Just think how much better it will be when Skeldergate bridge is gridlocked because we are one bridge down and fire engines need to get to an emergency on Bishopthorpe Road - traffic chaos ensues!! Jiffy
  • Score: 0

12:46pm Mon 10 Jun 13

WhyEver says...

Fat Harry wrote:
A total of 1039 people signing rival petitions tells me that the huge majority of York's population is nowhere near as exercised by this issue as a very vocal minority would have us believe.

I won't sign either petition - I'd rather wait and see what happens during the trial which, I suppose, is its purpose.
The huge majority may be unaware of the online petition, or will realise that nobody will take any notice of it.
You can wait and see what happens, but the council does not plan to publish any figures for journey times, public transport use or pollution during the trial. No doubt they will publish a skewed report at the end saying how well it went, and pushing for extended restrictions.
Has the Project Manager job been advertised yet? Or the Network Operating staff?
[quote][p][bold]Fat Harry[/bold] wrote: A total of 1039 people signing rival petitions tells me that the huge majority of York's population is nowhere near as exercised by this issue as a very vocal minority would have us believe. I won't sign either petition - I'd rather wait and see what happens during the trial which, I suppose, is its purpose.[/p][/quote]The huge majority may be unaware of the online petition, or will realise that nobody will take any notice of it. You can wait and see what happens, but the council does not plan to publish any figures for journey times, public transport use or pollution during the trial. No doubt they will publish a skewed report at the end saying how well it went, and pushing for extended restrictions. Has the Project Manager job been advertised yet? Or the Network Operating staff? WhyEver
  • Score: 0

1:32pm Mon 10 Jun 13

Rocking Horse says...

So 86% have voted against the closure on the Council's E-petition, yet, the Labour Merrett'ocracy say nothing about this.

If it had been t'other way round, they would be shouting it from the rooftops, saying 'the majority of York residents want this'.

The truth is, Merrett wants it, so it WILL be done ! What Merrett want's Merrett gets - that's not democracy, it's Merrett'ocracy !
So 86% have voted against the closure on the Council's E-petition, yet, the Labour Merrett'ocracy say nothing about this. If it had been t'other way round, they would be shouting it from the rooftops, saying 'the majority of York residents want this'. The truth is, Merrett wants it, so it WILL be done ! What Merrett want's Merrett gets - that's not democracy, it's Merrett'ocracy ! Rocking Horse
  • Score: 0

1:35pm Mon 10 Jun 13

Oncebitten says...

Fat Harry wrote:
A total of 1039 people signing rival petitions tells me that the huge majority of York's population is nowhere near as exercised by this issue as a very vocal minority would have us believe.

I won't sign either petition - I'd rather wait and see what happens during the trial which, I suppose, is its purpose.
Totally agree.....why sign a petition when you have no idea what the outcome of the trial will be, at present it's all speculative.

After the trial would be a much better time to put this to the people of York, when points of view one way or the other will have valid arguement.
[quote][p][bold]Fat Harry[/bold] wrote: A total of 1039 people signing rival petitions tells me that the huge majority of York's population is nowhere near as exercised by this issue as a very vocal minority would have us believe. I won't sign either petition - I'd rather wait and see what happens during the trial which, I suppose, is its purpose.[/p][/quote]Totally agree.....why sign a petition when you have no idea what the outcome of the trial will be, at present it's all speculative. After the trial would be a much better time to put this to the people of York, when points of view one way or the other will have valid arguement. Oncebitten
  • Score: 0

1:35pm Mon 10 Jun 13

Oncebitten says...

Fat Harry wrote:
A total of 1039 people signing rival petitions tells me that the huge majority of York's population is nowhere near as exercised by this issue as a very vocal minority would have us believe.

I won't sign either petition - I'd rather wait and see what happens during the trial which, I suppose, is its purpose.
Totally agree.....why sign a petition when you have no idea what the outcome of the trial will be, at present it's all speculative.

After the trial would be a much better time to put this to the people of York, when points of view one way or the other will have valid arguement.
[quote][p][bold]Fat Harry[/bold] wrote: A total of 1039 people signing rival petitions tells me that the huge majority of York's population is nowhere near as exercised by this issue as a very vocal minority would have us believe. I won't sign either petition - I'd rather wait and see what happens during the trial which, I suppose, is its purpose.[/p][/quote]Totally agree.....why sign a petition when you have no idea what the outcome of the trial will be, at present it's all speculative. After the trial would be a much better time to put this to the people of York, when points of view one way or the other will have valid arguement. Oncebitten
  • Score: 0

1:41pm Mon 10 Jun 13

pedalling paul says...

Interestingly I was looking at the draft Local Plan's transport section today. Mention was made of two new river crossings for cyclists/pedestrians
. These will undoubtedly match the desire lines for some, but not all local journeys. Lendal Bridge will still be the most convenient crossing for some sustainable journeys
Interestingly I was looking at the draft Local Plan's transport section today. Mention was made of two new river crossings for cyclists/pedestrians . These will undoubtedly match the desire lines for some, but not all local journeys. Lendal Bridge will still be the most convenient crossing for some sustainable journeys pedalling paul
  • Score: 0

1:43pm Mon 10 Jun 13

pedalling paul says...

akuma wrote:
Like I said in the previous two iterations of this story, if done correctly this could work with a minimal impact to other drivers.

But if they think that simply closing the bridge and nothing else is the answer then they are wrong, and heading for some serious egg on face, much like the fuss that was caused by the Clifton Green cycle lane debacle which many attribute as one of the main reason the Lib Dems lost control of Council.
Interestingly if you travel at peak times today via Water End, the motor vehicle queues are just as long as ever....it didn't realy solve anything, did it!
[quote][p][bold]akuma[/bold] wrote: Like I said in the previous two iterations of this story, if done correctly this could work with a minimal impact to other drivers. But if they think that simply closing the bridge and nothing else is the answer then they are wrong, and heading for some serious egg on face, much like the fuss that was caused by the Clifton Green cycle lane debacle which many attribute as one of the main reason the Lib Dems lost control of Council.[/p][/quote]Interestingly if you travel at peak times today via Water End, the motor vehicle queues are just as long as ever....it didn't realy solve anything, did it! pedalling paul
  • Score: 0

1:55pm Mon 10 Jun 13

YorkPatrol says...

pedalling paul wrote:
akuma wrote: Like I said in the previous two iterations of this story, if done correctly this could work with a minimal impact to other drivers. But if they think that simply closing the bridge and nothing else is the answer then they are wrong, and heading for some serious egg on face, much like the fuss that was caused by the Clifton Green cycle lane debacle which many attribute as one of the main reason the Lib Dems lost control of Council.
Interestingly if you travel at peak times today via Water End, the motor vehicle queues are just as long as ever....it didn't realy solve anything, did it!
Yes it did you prune! As soon as the duel lane was re-introduced, the traffic low increased significantly and the queues reduced.

Don't spout nonsense - I travel that route numerous times a day with business as I have done for the last 20 years!
[quote][p][bold]pedalling paul [/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]akuma[/bold] wrote: Like I said in the previous two iterations of this story, if done correctly this could work with a minimal impact to other drivers. But if they think that simply closing the bridge and nothing else is the answer then they are wrong, and heading for some serious egg on face, much like the fuss that was caused by the Clifton Green cycle lane debacle which many attribute as one of the main reason the Lib Dems lost control of Council.[/p][/quote]Interestingly if you travel at peak times today via Water End, the motor vehicle queues are just as long as ever....it didn't realy solve anything, did it![/p][/quote]Yes it did you prune! As soon as the duel lane was re-introduced, the traffic low increased significantly and the queues reduced. Don't spout nonsense - I travel that route numerous times a day with business as I have done for the last 20 years! YorkPatrol
  • Score: 0

2:09pm Mon 10 Jun 13

Madasanibbotson says...

pedalling paul wrote:
Rather like inviting a vote on whether or not a brewery should be dynamited.........

We have an interesting chicken and egg situation at present. Some car owners would gladly swop to buses if the latter offered competitive journey times. Yet as long as buses must share road space with lots of private cars, they cannot compete.

It would be interesting to stand on the bridge in the peak and count the number of sole occupancy cars. The unused space between drivers seats represents a hugely inefficient waste of road capacity.

Perhaps high occupancy (2+) cars could be permitted over Lendal Bridge as at peak time on dedicated lanes in West Yorkshire
http://www.leeds.gov

.uk/residents/Pages/

HOV-Lanes.aspx

Presumably technology exists to detect real humans as opposed to stuffed or inflated dummies which some drivers have used to try and circumvent the regulations.
Typical blinkered view of the Cycling Brigade.
Didn't mention buses being held up by Cyclists.
The Car drivers pay to be on the road, bikes don't.
Lets make all Cyclists take out insurance with Insurance Premium Tax.

And to save people typing don't bother with the RFL doesn't go directly to maintain roads etc, it still goes in the Government pot that is trying to get the Country out of the Mess that Labour got us into.
[quote][p][bold]pedalling paul [/bold] wrote: Rather like inviting a vote on whether or not a brewery should be dynamited......... We have an interesting chicken and egg situation at present. Some car owners would gladly swop to buses if the latter offered competitive journey times. Yet as long as buses must share road space with lots of private cars, they cannot compete. It would be interesting to stand on the bridge in the peak and count the number of sole occupancy cars. The unused space between drivers seats represents a hugely inefficient waste of road capacity. Perhaps high occupancy (2+) cars could be permitted over Lendal Bridge as at peak time on dedicated lanes in West Yorkshire http://www.leeds.gov .uk/residents/Pages/ HOV-Lanes.aspx Presumably technology exists to detect real humans as opposed to stuffed or inflated dummies which some drivers have used to try and circumvent the regulations.[/p][/quote]Typical blinkered view of the Cycling Brigade. Didn't mention buses being held up by Cyclists. The Car drivers pay to be on the road, bikes don't. Lets make all Cyclists take out insurance with Insurance Premium Tax. And to save people typing don't bother with the RFL doesn't go directly to maintain roads etc, it still goes in the Government pot that is trying to get the Country out of the Mess that Labour got us into. Madasanibbotson
  • Score: 0

2:47pm Mon 10 Jun 13

Buzz Light-year says...

 As soon as the duel lane was re-introduced, the traffic low increased significantly and the queues reduced.

...and instances of men taking twenty paces then turning and firing at each other went through the roof.
[quote] As soon as the duel lane was re-introduced, the traffic low increased significantly and the queues reduced.[/quote] ...and instances of men taking twenty paces then turning and firing at each other went through the roof. Buzz Light-year
  • Score: 0

2:48pm Mon 10 Jun 13

Buzz Light-year says...

The Car drivers pay to be on the road, bikes don't.

Fail.
[quote] The Car drivers pay to be on the road, bikes don't.[/quote] Fail. Buzz Light-year
  • Score: -1

3:50pm Mon 10 Jun 13

fezpop2 says...

Dey dont pay road tax innit.
Dey dont pay road tax innit. fezpop2
  • Score: -1

4:49pm Mon 10 Jun 13

mmarshal says...

pedalling paul wrote:
Rather like inviting a vote on whether or not a brewery should be dynamited.........

We have an interesting chicken and egg situation at present. Some car owners would gladly swop to buses if the latter offered competitive journey times. Yet as long as buses must share road space with lots of private cars, they cannot compete.

It would be interesting to stand on the bridge in the peak and count the number of sole occupancy cars. The unused space between drivers seats represents a hugely inefficient waste of road capacity.

Perhaps high occupancy (2+) cars could be permitted over Lendal Bridge as at peak time on dedicated lanes in West Yorkshire
http://www.leeds.gov

.uk/residents/Pages/

HOV-Lanes.aspx

Presumably technology exists to detect real humans as opposed to stuffed or inflated dummies which some drivers have used to try and circumvent the regulations.
Coming into the City centre from the North, the bulk of the congestion is the bottleneck effects of the Gillygate/Lord Mayor’s Walk junction and the Gillygate/Bootham Bar junction. I expect that those living on the south side of the city will make similar observations from their experiences of where they are affected by congestion around Blossom Street, Hull Road, Fishergate, Fulford Road, etc. The Lendal Bridge is merely a link between several points of congestion.
Unless the closure of Lendal Bridge is intended to discourage car use totally (and it probably is), some drivers will still need to get from one side of the city to the other (even using a bus). Closure of Lendal Bridge will do nothing to resolve the congestion unless drivers are forced to give up use of their cars. Drivers who continue to use their cars will be compelled to try a complete detour around the inner or outer ring roads, routes that already gridlocked at the best of times. Re-entering the city from the Outer Ring road will then present its own congestion issues.
Simply saying, ‘Don’t use cars’ defies logic. Most of those using their cars are discouraged from using public transport by either length of journey times, price of public transport, infrequency or absence of service or a combination of these factors.
Moving congestion points from one location to another is unlikely to reduce the overall journey timings and neither will it reduce air pollution, unless we believe that fuel emissions from one area don’t permeate into adjacent areas. I expect only Pedalling Paul, standing on Lendal Bridge counting the low occupancy cars, will feel any real air quality benefit from this fiasco (providing he doesn’t get too close to the York tour buses).
"Perhaps high occupancy (2+) cars could be permitted over Lendal Bridge as at peak time on dedicated lanes in West Yorkshire " Availability of dedicated spare lanes anywhere in York?????
[quote][p][bold]pedalling paul [/bold] wrote: Rather like inviting a vote on whether or not a brewery should be dynamited......... We have an interesting chicken and egg situation at present. Some car owners would gladly swop to buses if the latter offered competitive journey times. Yet as long as buses must share road space with lots of private cars, they cannot compete. It would be interesting to stand on the bridge in the peak and count the number of sole occupancy cars. The unused space between drivers seats represents a hugely inefficient waste of road capacity. Perhaps high occupancy (2+) cars could be permitted over Lendal Bridge as at peak time on dedicated lanes in West Yorkshire http://www.leeds.gov .uk/residents/Pages/ HOV-Lanes.aspx Presumably technology exists to detect real humans as opposed to stuffed or inflated dummies which some drivers have used to try and circumvent the regulations.[/p][/quote]Coming into the City centre from the North, the bulk of the congestion is the bottleneck effects of the Gillygate/Lord Mayor’s Walk junction and the Gillygate/Bootham Bar junction. I expect that those living on the south side of the city will make similar observations from their experiences of where they are affected by congestion around Blossom Street, Hull Road, Fishergate, Fulford Road, etc. The Lendal Bridge is merely a link between several points of congestion. Unless the closure of Lendal Bridge is intended to discourage car use totally (and it probably is), some drivers will still need to get from one side of the city to the other (even using a bus). Closure of Lendal Bridge will do nothing to resolve the congestion unless drivers are forced to give up use of their cars. Drivers who continue to use their cars will be compelled to try a complete detour around the inner or outer ring roads, routes that already gridlocked at the best of times. Re-entering the city from the Outer Ring road will then present its own congestion issues. Simply saying, ‘Don’t use cars’ defies logic. Most of those using their cars are discouraged from using public transport by either length of journey times, price of public transport, infrequency or absence of service or a combination of these factors. Moving congestion points from one location to another is unlikely to reduce the overall journey timings and neither will it reduce air pollution, unless we believe that fuel emissions from one area don’t permeate into adjacent areas. I expect only Pedalling Paul, standing on Lendal Bridge counting the low occupancy cars, will feel any real air quality benefit from this fiasco (providing he doesn’t get too close to the York tour buses). "Perhaps high occupancy (2+) cars could be permitted over Lendal Bridge as at peak time on dedicated lanes in West Yorkshire " Availability of dedicated spare lanes anywhere in York????? mmarshal
  • Score: 0

4:52pm Mon 10 Jun 13

pedalling paul says...

I hope that Vehicle Excise Duty (wrongly called Road Tax) is soon sensibly renamed Pollution Tax.

All York's highways with the exception of the A64 are funded from Council Tax.

VED makes a very small contribution towards the upkeep of motorways and strategic trunks roads (the A64 included) Income tax, VAT and every other national tax that we all pay, also contributes much more significantly.
I hope that Vehicle Excise Duty (wrongly called Road Tax) is soon sensibly renamed Pollution Tax. All York's highways with the exception of the A64 are funded from Council Tax. VED makes a very small contribution towards the upkeep of motorways and strategic trunks roads (the A64 included) Income tax, VAT and every other national tax that we all pay, also contributes much more significantly. pedalling paul
  • Score: 0

4:54pm Mon 10 Jun 13

old_geezer says...

I pay road tax (misleading name) but use bike or bus as often as possible.

Closing the bridge to cars 7am - 7pm would make more sense, as that would speed rush-hour buses. This trial is the worst of both worlds, and its probable failure will be seized upon by car drivers.
I pay road tax (misleading name) but use bike or bus as often as possible. Closing the bridge to cars 7am - 7pm would make more sense, as that would speed rush-hour buses. This trial is the worst of both worlds, and its probable failure will be seized upon by car drivers. old_geezer
  • Score: 0

5:24pm Mon 10 Jun 13

Rankled says...

old_geezer wrote:
I pay road tax (misleading name) but use bike or bus as often as possible.

Closing the bridge to cars 7am - 7pm would make more sense, as that would speed rush-hour buses. This trial is the worst of both worlds, and its probable failure will be seized upon by car drivers.
It won't fail, CoYC will see to that.
[quote][p][bold]old_geezer[/bold] wrote: I pay road tax (misleading name) but use bike or bus as often as possible. Closing the bridge to cars 7am - 7pm would make more sense, as that would speed rush-hour buses. This trial is the worst of both worlds, and its probable failure will be seized upon by car drivers.[/p][/quote]It won't fail, CoYC will see to that. Rankled
  • Score: 0

5:26pm Mon 10 Jun 13

matroom says...

pedalling paul wrote:
I hope that Vehicle Excise Duty (wrongly called Road Tax) is soon sensibly renamed Pollution Tax.

All York's highways with the exception of the A64 are funded from Council Tax.

VED makes a very small contribution towards the upkeep of motorways and strategic trunks roads (the A64 included) Income tax, VAT and every other national tax that we all pay, also contributes much more significantly.
What an utter, utter bore you are. Go for a drink, find your self a man (or woman, but i think man) and let your ruddy hair down. Please stop going on and on and on with all your useless facts and statistics !!!
[quote][p][bold]pedalling paul [/bold] wrote: I hope that Vehicle Excise Duty (wrongly called Road Tax) is soon sensibly renamed Pollution Tax. All York's highways with the exception of the A64 are funded from Council Tax. VED makes a very small contribution towards the upkeep of motorways and strategic trunks roads (the A64 included) Income tax, VAT and every other national tax that we all pay, also contributes much more significantly.[/p][/quote]What an utter, utter bore you are. Go for a drink, find your self a man (or woman, but i think man) and let your ruddy hair down. Please stop going on and on and on with all your useless facts and statistics !!! matroom
  • Score: 0

5:45pm Mon 10 Jun 13

Caecilius says...

YorkPatrol wrote:
pedalling paul wrote:
akuma wrote: Like I said in the previous two iterations of this story, if done correctly this could work with a minimal impact to other drivers. But if they think that simply closing the bridge and nothing else is the answer then they are wrong, and heading for some serious egg on face, much like the fuss that was caused by the Clifton Green cycle lane debacle which many attribute as one of the main reason the Lib Dems lost control of Council.
Interestingly if you travel at peak times today via Water End, the motor vehicle queues are just as long as ever....it didn't realy solve anything, did it!
Yes it did you prune! As soon as the duel lane was re-introduced, the traffic low increased significantly and the queues reduced.

Don't spout nonsense - I travel that route numerous times a day with business as I have done for the last 20 years!
In your dreams. Messing about with the timing of the lights to favour vehicles exiting Water End, combined with ripping up the cycle lane, may have eased the flow of traffic on that side of the road to some extent - though probably only temporarily, in the opinion of the experts whom the Council chose to ignore. However, because it was always caused by the volume of traffic, the problem has simply been shifted round the corner. Go look at the peak hour tailbacks on Shipton Road, Water Lane, Rawcliffe Lane and Clifton Road, all due to the number of drivers wanting to pass through this junction and now queuing for even longer because priority has been given to the loudest moaners. And traffic still backs up all the way from Salisbury Road to Clifton Green. Drivers coming out of Water Lane are breaking the law by coming onto the box junction, even though they can see it's physically impossible to continue onto Water End, and blocking the way when the lights change.
[quote][p][bold]YorkPatrol[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]pedalling paul [/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]akuma[/bold] wrote: Like I said in the previous two iterations of this story, if done correctly this could work with a minimal impact to other drivers. But if they think that simply closing the bridge and nothing else is the answer then they are wrong, and heading for some serious egg on face, much like the fuss that was caused by the Clifton Green cycle lane debacle which many attribute as one of the main reason the Lib Dems lost control of Council.[/p][/quote]Interestingly if you travel at peak times today via Water End, the motor vehicle queues are just as long as ever....it didn't realy solve anything, did it![/p][/quote]Yes it did you prune! As soon as the duel lane was re-introduced, the traffic low increased significantly and the queues reduced. Don't spout nonsense - I travel that route numerous times a day with business as I have done for the last 20 years![/p][/quote]In your dreams. Messing about with the timing of the lights to favour vehicles exiting Water End, combined with ripping up the cycle lane, may have eased the flow of traffic on that side of the road to some extent - though probably only temporarily, in the opinion of the experts whom the Council chose to ignore. However, because it was always caused by the volume of traffic, the problem has simply been shifted round the corner. Go look at the peak hour tailbacks on Shipton Road, Water Lane, Rawcliffe Lane and Clifton Road, all due to the number of drivers wanting to pass through this junction and now queuing for even longer because priority has been given to the loudest moaners. And traffic still backs up all the way from Salisbury Road to Clifton Green. Drivers coming out of Water Lane are breaking the law by coming onto the box junction, even though they can see it's physically impossible to continue onto Water End, and blocking the way when the lights change. Caecilius
  • Score: 0

5:54pm Mon 10 Jun 13

RoseD says...

pedalling paul wrote:
Interestingly I was looking at the draft Local Plan's transport section today. Mention was made of two new river crossings for cyclists/pedestrians

. These will undoubtedly match the desire lines for some, but not all local journeys. Lendal Bridge will still be the most convenient crossing for some sustainable journeys
I don't cycle and I don't walk far, you idiot.
[quote][p][bold]pedalling paul [/bold] wrote: Interestingly I was looking at the draft Local Plan's transport section today. Mention was made of two new river crossings for cyclists/pedestrians . These will undoubtedly match the desire lines for some, but not all local journeys. Lendal Bridge will still be the most convenient crossing for some sustainable journeys[/p][/quote]I don't cycle and I don't walk far, you idiot. RoseD
  • Score: 0

6:09pm Mon 10 Jun 13

strangebuttrue? says...

Caecilius says -
"However, because it was always caused by the volume of traffic, the problem has simply been shifted round the corner. Go look at the peak hour tailbacks on Shipton Road, Water Lane, Rawcliffe Lane and Clifton Road, all due to the number of drivers wanting to pass through this junction and now queuing for even longer because priority has been given to the loudest moaners."

Tell that to the people who live in Westminster Road, Salisbury Terrace, Lindsey Avenue, Poppleton Road, Boroughbridge Road, Carr Lane, Almsford Road, Cranbrook Road, Cranbrook Avenue, Plantation Drive, Ouseburn Avenue, Shirley Avenue, The Paddock, Wheatlands Grove, Newlands Drive & Beckfield Lane who, at peak times, all had to put up with either increased traffic flows, polluting queues or both whilst the farce at Water end was in place. Shame of it was that it was not the cycle lane that caused the issue it was the light phasing which was rectified some weeks before they took out the cycle lane proving the point.
Oh and by the way on volume of traffic the council say:-
“Traffic levels in the city have been reduced 2002 to 2005
Peak period traffic levels have remained stable since 2006"
And I don't remember there being an issue in 2002 when the council say there was more traffic.
Caecilius says - "However, because it was always caused by the volume of traffic, the problem has simply been shifted round the corner. Go look at the peak hour tailbacks on Shipton Road, Water Lane, Rawcliffe Lane and Clifton Road, all due to the number of drivers wanting to pass through this junction and now queuing for even longer because priority has been given to the loudest moaners." Tell that to the people who live in Westminster Road, Salisbury Terrace, Lindsey Avenue, Poppleton Road, Boroughbridge Road, Carr Lane, Almsford Road, Cranbrook Road, Cranbrook Avenue, Plantation Drive, Ouseburn Avenue, Shirley Avenue, The Paddock, Wheatlands Grove, Newlands Drive & Beckfield Lane who, at peak times, all had to put up with either increased traffic flows, polluting queues or both whilst the farce at Water end was in place. Shame of it was that it was not the cycle lane that caused the issue it was the light phasing which was rectified some weeks before they took out the cycle lane proving the point. Oh and by the way on volume of traffic the council say:- “Traffic levels in the city have been reduced 2002 to 2005 Peak period traffic levels have remained stable since 2006" And I don't remember there being an issue in 2002 when the council say there was more traffic. strangebuttrue?
  • Score: 0

6:29pm Mon 10 Jun 13

Back and Beyond says...

Made my day reading the story about two cyclists having a punch up in the same cycle lane.

I dont mind queueing anywhere if cyclists provide this sort of entertainment.
Made my day reading the story about two cyclists having a punch up in the same cycle lane. I dont mind queueing anywhere if cyclists provide this sort of entertainment. Back and Beyond
  • Score: 0

6:38pm Mon 10 Jun 13

Eric Johnstone says...

YorkPatrol wrote:
pedalling paul wrote:
akuma wrote: Like I said in the previous two iterations of this story, if done correctly this could work with a minimal impact to other drivers. But if they think that simply closing the bridge and nothing else is the answer then they are wrong, and heading for some serious egg on face, much like the fuss that was caused by the Clifton Green cycle lane debacle which many attribute as one of the main reason the Lib Dems lost control of Council.
Interestingly if you travel at peak times today via Water End, the motor vehicle queues are just as long as ever....it didn't realy solve anything, did it!
Yes it did you prune! As soon as the duel lane was re-introduced, the traffic low increased significantly and the queues reduced.

Don't spout nonsense - I travel that route numerous times a day with business as I have done for the last 20 years!
Nonsense. As soon as they introduced the duel lane it was full of Dandies brandishing pistols at 20 paces and the traffic has been even more delayed.
[quote][p][bold]YorkPatrol[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]pedalling paul [/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]akuma[/bold] wrote: Like I said in the previous two iterations of this story, if done correctly this could work with a minimal impact to other drivers. But if they think that simply closing the bridge and nothing else is the answer then they are wrong, and heading for some serious egg on face, much like the fuss that was caused by the Clifton Green cycle lane debacle which many attribute as one of the main reason the Lib Dems lost control of Council.[/p][/quote]Interestingly if you travel at peak times today via Water End, the motor vehicle queues are just as long as ever....it didn't realy solve anything, did it![/p][/quote]Yes it did you prune! As soon as the duel lane was re-introduced, the traffic low increased significantly and the queues reduced. Don't spout nonsense - I travel that route numerous times a day with business as I have done for the last 20 years![/p][/quote]Nonsense. As soon as they introduced the duel lane it was full of Dandies brandishing pistols at 20 paces and the traffic has been even more delayed. Eric Johnstone
  • Score: 0

6:51pm Mon 10 Jun 13

Eric Johnstone says...

Madasanibbotson wrote:
pedalling paul wrote:
Rather like inviting a vote on whether or not a brewery should be dynamited.........

We have an interesting chicken and egg situation at present. Some car owners would gladly swop to buses if the latter offered competitive journey times. Yet as long as buses must share road space with lots of private cars, they cannot compete.

It would be interesting to stand on the bridge in the peak and count the number of sole occupancy cars. The unused space between drivers seats represents a hugely inefficient waste of road capacity.

Perhaps high occupancy (2+) cars could be permitted over Lendal Bridge as at peak time on dedicated lanes in West Yorkshire
http://www.leeds.gov


.uk/residents/Pages/


HOV-Lanes.aspx

Presumably technology exists to detect real humans as opposed to stuffed or inflated dummies which some drivers have used to try and circumvent the regulations.
Typical blinkered view of the Cycling Brigade.
Didn't mention buses being held up by Cyclists.
The Car drivers pay to be on the road, bikes don't.
Lets make all Cyclists take out insurance with Insurance Premium Tax.

And to save people typing don't bother with the RFL doesn't go directly to maintain roads etc, it still goes in the Government pot that is trying to get the Country out of the Mess that Labour got us into.
Another idiot who does not realise that any cyclist who pays taxes pays for road upkeep. Still, anyone who thinks vehicle excise duty is anything to do with a non existent road fund licence is very confused anyway.
[quote][p][bold]Madasanibbotson[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]pedalling paul [/bold] wrote: Rather like inviting a vote on whether or not a brewery should be dynamited......... We have an interesting chicken and egg situation at present. Some car owners would gladly swop to buses if the latter offered competitive journey times. Yet as long as buses must share road space with lots of private cars, they cannot compete. It would be interesting to stand on the bridge in the peak and count the number of sole occupancy cars. The unused space between drivers seats represents a hugely inefficient waste of road capacity. Perhaps high occupancy (2+) cars could be permitted over Lendal Bridge as at peak time on dedicated lanes in West Yorkshire http://www.leeds.gov .uk/residents/Pages/ HOV-Lanes.aspx Presumably technology exists to detect real humans as opposed to stuffed or inflated dummies which some drivers have used to try and circumvent the regulations.[/p][/quote]Typical blinkered view of the Cycling Brigade. Didn't mention buses being held up by Cyclists. The Car drivers pay to be on the road, bikes don't. Lets make all Cyclists take out insurance with Insurance Premium Tax. And to save people typing don't bother with the RFL doesn't go directly to maintain roads etc, it still goes in the Government pot that is trying to get the Country out of the Mess that Labour got us into.[/p][/quote]Another idiot who does not realise that any cyclist who pays taxes pays for road upkeep. Still, anyone who thinks vehicle excise duty is anything to do with a non existent road fund licence is very confused anyway. Eric Johnstone
  • Score: 0

8:21pm Mon 10 Jun 13

CaroleBaines says...

Carried then. 180,000 of us agree and 900 or so reactionaries against. Gotta love democracy.
Carried then. 180,000 of us agree and 900 or so reactionaries against. Gotta love democracy. CaroleBaines
  • Score: 0

8:44pm Mon 10 Jun 13

velvetdixie says...

Majority know how to write and sign.

But does any coun know how to read?

Evidence so far suggests not.
Majority know how to write and sign. But does any coun know how to read? Evidence so far suggests not. velvetdixie
  • Score: 0

9:27pm Mon 10 Jun 13

WatfordAlex says...

velvetdixie wrote:
Majority know how to write and sign.

But does any coun know how to read?

Evidence so far suggests not.
Population of York: approx 200,000.
People signing this petition: 900ish.

Clearly the majority have 'spoken' and they don't have a problem with the planned improvements.
[quote][p][bold]velvetdixie[/bold] wrote: Majority know how to write and sign. But does any coun know how to read? Evidence so far suggests not.[/p][/quote]Population of York: approx 200,000. People signing this petition: 900ish. Clearly the majority have 'spoken' and they don't have a problem with the planned improvements. WatfordAlex
  • Score: 0

9:41pm Mon 10 Jun 13

Silver says...

WatfordAlex wrote:
velvetdixie wrote:
Majority know how to write and sign.

But does any coun know how to read?

Evidence so far suggests not.
Population of York: approx 200,000.
People signing this petition: 900ish.

Clearly the majority have 'spoken' and they don't have a problem with the planned improvements.
Also the fact we've had to protest petition after petition you could argue some of us are tired of having to let them know they're wrong.
Union Terrace Car park and all other examples
[quote][p][bold]WatfordAlex[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]velvetdixie[/bold] wrote: Majority know how to write and sign. But does any coun know how to read? Evidence so far suggests not.[/p][/quote]Population of York: approx 200,000. People signing this petition: 900ish. Clearly the majority have 'spoken' and they don't have a problem with the planned improvements.[/p][/quote]Also the fact we've had to protest petition after petition you could argue some of us are tired of having to let them know they're wrong. Union Terrace Car park and all other examples Silver
  • Score: 0

10:32pm Mon 10 Jun 13

AnotherPointofView says...

WatfordAlex wrote:
velvetdixie wrote:
Majority know how to write and sign.

But does any coun know how to read?

Evidence so far suggests not.
Population of York: approx 200,000.
People signing this petition: 900ish.

Clearly the majority have 'spoken' and they don't have a problem with the planned improvements.
Yes, just the kind of logic used by dictators...
[quote][p][bold]WatfordAlex[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]velvetdixie[/bold] wrote: Majority know how to write and sign. But does any coun know how to read? Evidence so far suggests not.[/p][/quote]Population of York: approx 200,000. People signing this petition: 900ish. Clearly the majority have 'spoken' and they don't have a problem with the planned improvements.[/p][/quote]Yes, just the kind of logic used by dictators... AnotherPointofView
  • Score: 0

2:47am Tue 11 Jun 13

Magicman! says...

YorkPatrol wrote:
pedalling paul wrote:
akuma wrote: Like I said in the previous two iterations of this story, if done correctly this could work with a minimal impact to other drivers. But if they think that simply closing the bridge and nothing else is the answer then they are wrong, and heading for some serious egg on face, much like the fuss that was caused by the Clifton Green cycle lane debacle which many attribute as one of the main reason the Lib Dems lost control of Council.
Interestingly if you travel at peak times today via Water End, the motor vehicle queues are just as long as ever....it didn't realy solve anything, did it!
Yes it did you prune! As soon as the duel lane was re-introduced, the traffic low increased significantly and the queues reduced.

Don't spout nonsense - I travel that route numerous times a day with business as I have done for the last 20 years!
The reason queues went down is because the council tampered with the traffic light timings to extend the amount of green light time for Water End....

If only they had done that FIRST then they might have found out they didn't need to spend 12 THOUNSAND POUNDS to remove what was one of the best cycling provisions in that part of the city
[quote][p][bold]YorkPatrol[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]pedalling paul [/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]akuma[/bold] wrote: Like I said in the previous two iterations of this story, if done correctly this could work with a minimal impact to other drivers. But if they think that simply closing the bridge and nothing else is the answer then they are wrong, and heading for some serious egg on face, much like the fuss that was caused by the Clifton Green cycle lane debacle which many attribute as one of the main reason the Lib Dems lost control of Council.[/p][/quote]Interestingly if you travel at peak times today via Water End, the motor vehicle queues are just as long as ever....it didn't realy solve anything, did it![/p][/quote]Yes it did you prune! As soon as the duel lane was re-introduced, the traffic low increased significantly and the queues reduced. Don't spout nonsense - I travel that route numerous times a day with business as I have done for the last 20 years![/p][/quote]The reason queues went down is because the council tampered with the traffic light timings to extend the amount of green light time for Water End.... If only they had done that FIRST then they might have found out they didn't need to spend 12 THOUNSAND POUNDS to remove what was one of the best cycling provisions in that part of the city Magicman!
  • Score: 0

2:54am Tue 11 Jun 13

Magicman! says...

Caecilius wrote:
YorkPatrol wrote:
pedalling paul wrote:
akuma wrote: Like I said in the previous two iterations of this story, if done correctly this could work with a minimal impact to other drivers. But if they think that simply closing the bridge and nothing else is the answer then they are wrong, and heading for some serious egg on face, much like the fuss that was caused by the Clifton Green cycle lane debacle which many attribute as one of the main reason the Lib Dems lost control of Council.
Interestingly if you travel at peak times today via Water End, the motor vehicle queues are just as long as ever....it didn't realy solve anything, did it!
Yes it did you prune! As soon as the duel lane was re-introduced, the traffic low increased significantly and the queues reduced.

Don't spout nonsense - I travel that route numerous times a day with business as I have done for the last 20 years!
In your dreams. Messing about with the timing of the lights to favour vehicles exiting Water End, combined with ripping up the cycle lane, may have eased the flow of traffic on that side of the road to some extent - though probably only temporarily, in the opinion of the experts whom the Council chose to ignore. However, because it was always caused by the volume of traffic, the problem has simply been shifted round the corner. Go look at the peak hour tailbacks on Shipton Road, Water Lane, Rawcliffe Lane and Clifton Road, all due to the number of drivers wanting to pass through this junction and now queuing for even longer because priority has been given to the loudest moaners. And traffic still backs up all the way from Salisbury Road to Clifton Green. Drivers coming out of Water Lane are breaking the law by coming onto the box junction, even though they can see it's physically impossible to continue onto Water End, and blocking the way when the lights change.
In addition, because there is less time on green for them, there has been a notable increase in vehicles turning right from Shipton Road into Water End on a red light - including buses.... so by listening to a bunch of selfish moaners, the council has made the junction even more dangerous in more ways than one.

It would have been better to align Water End and Water Lane to face each other and then share the combined green light time.
[quote][p][bold]Caecilius[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]YorkPatrol[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]pedalling paul [/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]akuma[/bold] wrote: Like I said in the previous two iterations of this story, if done correctly this could work with a minimal impact to other drivers. But if they think that simply closing the bridge and nothing else is the answer then they are wrong, and heading for some serious egg on face, much like the fuss that was caused by the Clifton Green cycle lane debacle which many attribute as one of the main reason the Lib Dems lost control of Council.[/p][/quote]Interestingly if you travel at peak times today via Water End, the motor vehicle queues are just as long as ever....it didn't realy solve anything, did it![/p][/quote]Yes it did you prune! As soon as the duel lane was re-introduced, the traffic low increased significantly and the queues reduced. Don't spout nonsense - I travel that route numerous times a day with business as I have done for the last 20 years![/p][/quote]In your dreams. Messing about with the timing of the lights to favour vehicles exiting Water End, combined with ripping up the cycle lane, may have eased the flow of traffic on that side of the road to some extent - though probably only temporarily, in the opinion of the experts whom the Council chose to ignore. However, because it was always caused by the volume of traffic, the problem has simply been shifted round the corner. Go look at the peak hour tailbacks on Shipton Road, Water Lane, Rawcliffe Lane and Clifton Road, all due to the number of drivers wanting to pass through this junction and now queuing for even longer because priority has been given to the loudest moaners. And traffic still backs up all the way from Salisbury Road to Clifton Green. Drivers coming out of Water Lane are breaking the law by coming onto the box junction, even though they can see it's physically impossible to continue onto Water End, and blocking the way when the lights change.[/p][/quote]In addition, because there is less time on green for them, there has been a notable increase in vehicles turning right from Shipton Road into Water End on a red light - including buses.... so by listening to a bunch of selfish moaners, the council has made the junction even more dangerous in more ways than one. It would have been better to align Water End and Water Lane to face each other and then share the combined green light time. Magicman!
  • Score: 0

7:37am Tue 11 Jun 13

nowthen says...

pedalling paul wrote:
Rather like inviting a vote on whether or not a brewery should be dynamited.........

We have an interesting chicken and egg situation at present. Some car owners would gladly swop to buses if the latter offered competitive journey times. Yet as long as buses must share road space with lots of private cars, they cannot compete.

It would be interesting to stand on the bridge in the peak and count the number of sole occupancy cars. The unused space between drivers seats represents a hugely inefficient waste of road capacity.

Perhaps high occupancy (2+) cars could be permitted over Lendal Bridge as at peak time on dedicated lanes in West Yorkshire
http://www.leeds.gov

.uk/residents/Pages/

HOV-Lanes.aspx

Presumably technology exists to detect real humans as opposed to stuffed or inflated dummies which some drivers have used to try and circumvent the regulations.
pedalling paul says...
10:28am Mon 10 Jun 13

Perhaps high occupancy (2+) cars could be permitted over Lendal Bridge as at peak time on dedicated lanes in West Yorkshire
http://www.leeds.gov

.uk/residents/Pages/

HOV-Lanes.aspx

Presumably technology exists to detect real humans as opposed to stuffed or inflated dummies which some drivers have used to try and circumvent the regulations.”.....
....................
.......It'd be no use taking you as a passenger then !
[quote][p][bold]pedalling paul [/bold] wrote: Rather like inviting a vote on whether or not a brewery should be dynamited......... We have an interesting chicken and egg situation at present. Some car owners would gladly swop to buses if the latter offered competitive journey times. Yet as long as buses must share road space with lots of private cars, they cannot compete. It would be interesting to stand on the bridge in the peak and count the number of sole occupancy cars. The unused space between drivers seats represents a hugely inefficient waste of road capacity. Perhaps high occupancy (2+) cars could be permitted over Lendal Bridge as at peak time on dedicated lanes in West Yorkshire http://www.leeds.gov .uk/residents/Pages/ HOV-Lanes.aspx Presumably technology exists to detect real humans as opposed to stuffed or inflated dummies which some drivers have used to try and circumvent the regulations.[/p][/quote]pedalling paul says... 10:28am Mon 10 Jun 13 Perhaps high occupancy (2+) cars could be permitted over Lendal Bridge as at peak time on dedicated lanes in West Yorkshire http://www.leeds.gov .uk/residents/Pages/ HOV-Lanes.aspx Presumably technology exists to detect real humans as opposed to stuffed or inflated dummies which some drivers have used to try and circumvent the regulations.”..... .................... .......It'd be no use taking you as a passenger then ! nowthen
  • Score: 0

8:29am Tue 11 Jun 13

Woody G Mellor says...

WatfordAlex wrote:
velvetdixie wrote:
Majority know how to write and sign.

But does any coun know how to read?

Evidence so far suggests not.
Population of York: approx 200,000.
People signing this petition: 900ish.

Clearly the majority have 'spoken' and they don't have a problem with the planned improvements.
Clearly the majority are not even aware of the bridge closure. "Most" people I have spoken to about it were shocked that they'd never even heard about it. And not shocked in a good way I can tell you. Unless you read The Press website/paper regularly, which "most" residents do not, then you probably don't know about it.
[quote][p][bold]WatfordAlex[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]velvetdixie[/bold] wrote: Majority know how to write and sign. But does any coun know how to read? Evidence so far suggests not.[/p][/quote]Population of York: approx 200,000. People signing this petition: 900ish. Clearly the majority have 'spoken' and they don't have a problem with the planned improvements.[/p][/quote]Clearly the majority are not even aware of the bridge closure. "Most" people I have spoken to about it were shocked that they'd never even heard about it. And not shocked in a good way I can tell you. Unless you read The Press website/paper regularly, which "most" residents do not, then you probably don't know about it. Woody G Mellor
  • Score: 0

8:30am Tue 11 Jun 13

pedalling paul says...

At last.........most of you are very slow on the uptake today....!
At last.........most of you are very slow on the uptake today....! pedalling paul
  • Score: 0

9:30am Tue 11 Jun 13

Bo Jolly says...

Do your bit to stop the madness and sign the petition:

http://democracy.yor
k.gov.uk/mgePetition
ListDisplay.aspx?bcr
=1

Don't be put off by the need to register - it's quick and easy.

If you oppose the closure, this is the only chance you'll have to express your frustration since there is no consultation process, certainly no referendum, and both main parties are in favour of it.
Do your bit to stop the madness and sign the petition: http://democracy.yor k.gov.uk/mgePetition ListDisplay.aspx?bcr =1 Don't be put off by the need to register - it's quick and easy. If you oppose the closure, this is the only chance you'll have to express your frustration since there is no consultation process, certainly no referendum, and both main parties are in favour of it. Bo Jolly
  • Score: 0

10:23am Tue 11 Jun 13

Woody G Mellor says...

If this council really care what the residents think then they should put large signs up at either end of the three bridges announcing their plan to close Lendal Bridge. Also have 'stalls' at the bridges with people handing out leaflets and giving information as to reasons for the closure and where people can have their say, at www. Etc.

I know. I'll dream on.
If this council really care what the residents think then they should put large signs up at either end of the three bridges announcing their plan to close Lendal Bridge. Also have 'stalls' at the bridges with people handing out leaflets and giving information as to reasons for the closure and where people can have their say, at www. Etc. I know. I'll dream on. Woody G Mellor
  • Score: 0

1:30pm Tue 11 Jun 13

Rocking Horse says...

CaroleBaines wrote:
Carried then. 180,000 of us agree and 900 or so reactionaries against. Gotta love democracy.
You have used 2001 figures.

York's population was 202,400 in 2011 (Source: Vision for Britain).

86% of York residents are against this,
that's 174,000 AGIANST
and only 28,400 for it.

Gotta love facts !
[quote][p][bold]CaroleBaines[/bold] wrote: Carried then. 180,000 of us agree and 900 or so reactionaries against. Gotta love democracy.[/p][/quote]You have used 2001 figures. York's population was 202,400 in 2011 (Source: Vision for Britain). 86% of York residents are against this, that's 174,000 AGIANST and only 28,400 for it. Gotta love facts ! Rocking Horse
  • Score: 0

1:34pm Tue 11 Jun 13

Rocking Horse says...

Current position on Lendal Bridge Closure, (Council's E-petitions) :-

Against : 983 (87%)
For : 143 (13%)
Current position on Lendal Bridge Closure, (Council's E-petitions) :- Against : 983 (87%) For : 143 (13%) Rocking Horse
  • Score: 0

6:26pm Tue 11 Jun 13

WatfordAlex says...

Rocking Horse wrote:
CaroleBaines wrote:
Carried then. 180,000 of us agree and 900 or so reactionaries against. Gotta love democracy.
You have used 2001 figures.

York's population was 202,400 in 2011 (Source: Vision for Britain).

86% of York residents are against this,
that's 174,000 AGIANST
and only 28,400 for it.

Gotta love facts !
Facts are good.

Population of York: 202,400.
Number of people who have signed the petition: 988.
Percentage of York residents who have signed the petition: 0.48%

Percentage of York residents who support scheme or are not bothered enough by it to object: 99.52%.
[quote][p][bold]Rocking Horse[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]CaroleBaines[/bold] wrote: Carried then. 180,000 of us agree and 900 or so reactionaries against. Gotta love democracy.[/p][/quote]You have used 2001 figures. York's population was 202,400 in 2011 (Source: Vision for Britain). 86% of York residents are against this, that's 174,000 AGIANST and only 28,400 for it. Gotta love facts ![/p][/quote]Facts are good. Population of York: 202,400. Number of people who have signed the petition: 988. Percentage of York residents who have signed the petition: 0.48% Percentage of York residents who support scheme or are not bothered enough by it to object: 99.52%. WatfordAlex
  • Score: 0

6:34pm Tue 11 Jun 13

Woody G Mellor says...

WatfordAlex wrote:
Rocking Horse wrote:
CaroleBaines wrote:
Carried then. 180,000 of us agree and 900 or so reactionaries against. Gotta love democracy.
You have used 2001 figures.

York's population was 202,400 in 2011 (Source: Vision for Britain).

86% of York residents are against this,
that's 174,000 AGIANST
and only 28,400 for it.

Gotta love facts !
Facts are good.

Population of York: 202,400.
Number of people who have signed the petition: 988.
Percentage of York residents who have signed the petition: 0.48%

Percentage of York residents who support scheme or are not bothered enough by it to object: 99.52%.
And the percentage of York residents who are unaware of the impending bridge closure are.............?

Well?

Believe me, it'll be more than actually are aware of it.
[quote][p][bold]WatfordAlex[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Rocking Horse[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]CaroleBaines[/bold] wrote: Carried then. 180,000 of us agree and 900 or so reactionaries against. Gotta love democracy.[/p][/quote]You have used 2001 figures. York's population was 202,400 in 2011 (Source: Vision for Britain). 86% of York residents are against this, that's 174,000 AGIANST and only 28,400 for it. Gotta love facts ![/p][/quote]Facts are good. Population of York: 202,400. Number of people who have signed the petition: 988. Percentage of York residents who have signed the petition: 0.48% Percentage of York residents who support scheme or are not bothered enough by it to object: 99.52%.[/p][/quote]And the percentage of York residents who are unaware of the impending bridge closure are.............? Well? Believe me, it'll be more than actually are aware of it. Woody G Mellor
  • Score: 0

12:35am Wed 12 Jun 13

Rocking Horse says...

Rocking Horse wrote:
Current position on Lendal Bridge Closure, (Council's E-petitions) :- Against : 983 (87%) For : 143 (13%)
Current position on Lendal Bridge Closure, (Council's E-petitions) :-

Against : 1,001
For : 143
[quote][p][bold]Rocking Horse[/bold] wrote: Current position on Lendal Bridge Closure, (Council's E-petitions) :- Against : 983 (87%) For : 143 (13%)[/p][/quote]Current position on Lendal Bridge Closure, (Council's E-petitions) :- Against : 1,001 For : 143 Rocking Horse
  • Score: 0

9:43am Wed 12 Jun 13

Just_My_Twopenneth says...

Signatures or not (either side), it doesn't really matter...

as the council aren't listening anayway!

I mean if this has been stated: (as per in the article):

"York and North Yorkshire Chamber of Commerce last month described it as “impractical”, saying it could damage businesses. "

What indeed is the coucils response to this?

Once we have Lendal Bridge closed, and also Colliergate closed (simultaneously). Colliergate will be closed due to ongoing work in Kings square throughout the summer; the City of York will be a carpark; for those of us who have no option but to drive into work, and pay extortionate parking prices, it isn't going to get any better. The gridlock around Foss Island is going to an absolute disaster during the evening traffic, and Ousgate Bridge isn't going to improve, as most of the traffic in/out of York is going to be trying to get over that bridge.

After a couple of days of the so called 'trial'; the council will be forced to re-****, once their emergency vehicles and waste vehicles get caught up in amongst the grid-lock.

It is going to be abject stupidity... they (the council) couldn't have come up with a more concise plan to cause traffic chaos; as I'm sure that they (the one who made the decision) are well versed in 'traffic theory'. (not!)

Well done.
Signatures or not (either side), it doesn't really matter... as the council aren't listening anayway! I mean if this has been stated: (as per in the article): "York and North Yorkshire Chamber of Commerce last month described it as “impractical”, saying it could damage businesses. " What indeed is the coucils response to this? Once we have Lendal Bridge closed, and also Colliergate closed (simultaneously). Colliergate will be closed due to ongoing work in Kings square throughout the summer; the City of York will be a carpark; for those of us who have no option but to drive into work, and pay extortionate parking prices, it isn't going to get any better. The gridlock around Foss Island is going to an absolute disaster during the evening traffic, and Ousgate Bridge isn't going to improve, as most of the traffic in/out of York is going to be trying to get over that bridge. After a couple of days of the so called 'trial'; the council will be forced to re-****, once their emergency vehicles and waste vehicles get caught up in amongst the grid-lock. It is going to be abject stupidity... they (the council) couldn't have come up with a more concise plan to cause traffic chaos; as I'm sure that they (the one who made the decision) are well versed in 'traffic theory'. (not!) Well done. Just_My_Twopenneth
  • Score: 0

9:51am Wed 12 Jun 13

Just_My_Twopenneth says...

forced to re-****,

was 'bleeped' out, as it was supposed to state

forced to re-@sses

Great filters you've got there ;-)
forced to re-****, was 'bleeped' out, as it was supposed to state forced to re-@sses Great filters you've got there ;-) Just_My_Twopenneth
  • Score: 0

10:42am Wed 12 Jun 13

Hoofarted says...

Lendal Bridge is closing soon.
Closing soon
Closing soon
Lendal Bridge is closing soon
Hark them whinging tories :-0
Lendal Bridge is closing soon. Closing soon Closing soon Lendal Bridge is closing soon Hark them whinging tories :-0 Hoofarted
  • Score: 0

3:03pm Wed 12 Jun 13

Woody G Mellor says...

Hoofarted wrote:
Lendal Bridge is closing soon.
Closing soon
Closing soon
Lendal Bridge is closing soon
Hark them whinging tories :-0
How wrong you are. I've been a Labour voter since I could vote. Local elections wise, things are going to change.
[quote][p][bold]Hoofarted[/bold] wrote: Lendal Bridge is closing soon. Closing soon Closing soon Lendal Bridge is closing soon Hark them whinging tories :-0[/p][/quote]How wrong you are. I've been a Labour voter since I could vote. Local elections wise, things are going to change. Woody G Mellor
  • Score: 0

5:33pm Wed 12 Jun 13

AlanAtClifton says...

I wonder what The Lord Mayor thinks of the scheme to close Lendal Bridge ?

Just imagine its 11am and the Lord Mayor (who lives at the Mansion House) needs to get to a meeting at the new CYC West Offices, Station Rise - on the other side of the river and the “closed to traffic” Lendal Bridge. Does he walk, does he ignore the ban and cross the bridge in his limo, or does his chauffeur take him on a two-mile detour around York to get to the other side of the river ¼ mile away. His options are - going either clockwise via Gillygate, Lord Mayors Walk, Foss Island Road, etc., to cross Ouse Bridge or Skeldergate Bridge; or go via Bootham, Clifton Green, Water End, Clifton Bridge, Salisbury Road, Leeman Road, etc., to Station Rise?

I bet he doesn’t walk – but if he did perhaps we should rename Lendal Bridge as “New Lord Mayors Walk” !
I wonder what The Lord Mayor thinks of the scheme to close Lendal Bridge ? Just imagine its 11am and the Lord Mayor (who lives at the Mansion House) needs to get to a meeting at the new CYC West Offices, Station Rise - on the other side of the river and the “closed to traffic” Lendal Bridge. Does he walk, does he ignore the ban and cross the bridge in his limo, or does his chauffeur take him on a two-mile detour around York to get to the other side of the river ¼ mile away. His options are - going either clockwise via Gillygate, Lord Mayors Walk, Foss Island Road, etc., to cross Ouse Bridge or Skeldergate Bridge; or go via Bootham, Clifton Green, Water End, Clifton Bridge, Salisbury Road, Leeman Road, etc., to Station Rise? I bet he doesn’t walk – but if he did perhaps we should rename Lendal Bridge as “New Lord Mayors Walk” ! AlanAtClifton
  • Score: 0

6:57pm Wed 12 Jun 13

roy_batty says...

Woody G Mellor wrote:
Hoofarted wrote:
Lendal Bridge is closing soon.
Closing soon
Closing soon
Lendal Bridge is closing soon
Hark them whinging tories :-0
How wrong you are. I've been a Labour voter since I could vote. Local elections wise, things are going to change.
hark them whinging tories??

could someone point out me where it states what party you support on the petition website?

I voted against the closure of the bridge and have never voted anything other than labour .
[quote][p][bold]Woody G Mellor[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Hoofarted[/bold] wrote: Lendal Bridge is closing soon. Closing soon Closing soon Lendal Bridge is closing soon Hark them whinging tories :-0[/p][/quote]How wrong you are. I've been a Labour voter since I could vote. Local elections wise, things are going to change.[/p][/quote]hark them whinging tories?? could someone point out me where it states what party you support on the petition website? I voted against the closure of the bridge and have never voted anything other than labour . roy_batty
  • Score: 0

7:06pm Wed 12 Jun 13

Woody G Mellor says...

AlanAtClifton wrote:
I wonder what The Lord Mayor thinks of the scheme to close Lendal Bridge ?

Just imagine its 11am and the Lord Mayor (who lives at the Mansion House) needs to get to a meeting at the new CYC West Offices, Station Rise - on the other side of the river and the “closed to traffic” Lendal Bridge. Does he walk, does he ignore the ban and cross the bridge in his limo, or does his chauffeur take him on a two-mile detour around York to get to the other side of the river ¼ mile away. His options are - going either clockwise via Gillygate, Lord Mayors Walk, Foss Island Road, etc., to cross Ouse Bridge or Skeldergate Bridge; or go via Bootham, Clifton Green, Water End, Clifton Bridge, Salisbury Road, Leeman Road, etc., to Station Rise?

I bet he doesn’t walk – but if he did perhaps we should rename Lendal Bridge as “New Lord Mayors Walk” !
He's a woman and mostly gets around York on a bike.

I'm against the closure by the way.
[quote][p][bold]AlanAtClifton[/bold] wrote: I wonder what The Lord Mayor thinks of the scheme to close Lendal Bridge ? Just imagine its 11am and the Lord Mayor (who lives at the Mansion House) needs to get to a meeting at the new CYC West Offices, Station Rise - on the other side of the river and the “closed to traffic” Lendal Bridge. Does he walk, does he ignore the ban and cross the bridge in his limo, or does his chauffeur take him on a two-mile detour around York to get to the other side of the river ¼ mile away. His options are - going either clockwise via Gillygate, Lord Mayors Walk, Foss Island Road, etc., to cross Ouse Bridge or Skeldergate Bridge; or go via Bootham, Clifton Green, Water End, Clifton Bridge, Salisbury Road, Leeman Road, etc., to Station Rise? I bet he doesn’t walk – but if he did perhaps we should rename Lendal Bridge as “New Lord Mayors Walk” ![/p][/quote]He's a woman and mostly gets around York on a bike. I'm against the closure by the way. Woody G Mellor
  • Score: 0

10:22am Thu 13 Jun 13

sniper 9964 says...

It will never be enforced. How can they. They are incompetent buffoons
It will never be enforced. How can they. They are incompetent buffoons sniper 9964
  • Score: 0

11:45am Fri 14 Jun 13

TruthHunter says...

Rumour has it that James Alexander is off to the South of France for the start of the Tour De France (Yes France not York).
Surely you aren't wasting more of the Council Tax Payers money are you ?
Rumour has it that James Alexander is off to the South of France for the start of the Tour De France (Yes France not York). Surely you aren't wasting more of the Council Tax Payers money are you ? TruthHunter
  • 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