Conservative leader defends call to end Lendal Bridge traffic ban early

York Press: Coun Ian Gillies Coun Ian Gillies

A LEADING councillor has defended his party’s call for the Lendal Bridge traffic trial to be abandoned early after political opponents said he supported closing it three years ago.

City of York Council’s Conservative group has formally asked the authority to end the six-month experiment, which bans cars, motorbikes, vans and lorries from the bridge between 10.30am and 5pm, ahead of its scheduled conclusion in February.

The Tories claim it is harming city-centre businesses and York’s reputation.

The ruling Labour group claimed this was “opposition for opposition’s sake” after pointing to Conservative leader Coun Ian Gillies’ comments in a 2010 Press article, when he said he would like to see the bridge closed for a period and shutting Ouse Bridge should also be considered.

Westfield councillor Steve Burton said: “We’re now hearing him calling for a halt to the trial based on nothing more than his personal observations, rather than the full evidence of the final report. Labour’s position is to wait for the evidence on the trial which is being independently gathered, so where do the Tories stand?”

Coun Gillies said a report on the trial’s second month showed driver fines and congestion on some major roads had increased, no details of increased bus passenger numbers had been provided and city-centre traders believed the closure was contributing to declining footfall.

He said: “The report fails to show any successful outcomes.

“There is no criticism of trying the experiment but it is not working, so end it. That is the position of the Conservative group.”

Comments (51)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

10:06am Tue 3 Dec 13

pedalling paul says...

Faint hearts..........! Remins me of Labour's support in opposition , of the then ruling Libdem approval for the continuous Water End cycle route. As soon as JA got into power, he did a U turn.

A car user's paradise in any world City is an impossible dream.
Faint hearts..........! Remins me of Labour's support in opposition , of the then ruling Libdem approval for the continuous Water End cycle route. As soon as JA got into power, he did a U turn. A car user's paradise in any world City is an impossible dream. pedalling paul

10:12am Tue 3 Dec 13

smiler45 says...

It's hard to implement a partial closure of the bridge when taxis and buses are still able to pass over the bridge. It should have never been closed it's a main artirial road that joins one side of the City to the other. But obviously the idiots at the Council can't understand such a thing like that!
It's hard to implement a partial closure of the bridge when taxis and buses are still able to pass over the bridge. It should have never been closed it's a main artirial road that joins one side of the City to the other. But obviously the idiots at the Council can't understand such a thing like that! smiler45

10:14am Tue 3 Dec 13

eeoodares says...

So he thought it was a good idea a few years ago. He has seen its implementation and abject failure and has said enough is enough...yet Labour think that he should not be able to change his mind? At least he is being flexible.

Vote this lot out come the election!
So he thought it was a good idea a few years ago. He has seen its implementation and abject failure and has said enough is enough...yet Labour think that he should not be able to change his mind? At least he is being flexible. Vote this lot out come the election! eeoodares

10:18am Tue 3 Dec 13

smiler45 says...

It takes a report to tell the Council what they can see with their own eyes, and the talk coming from the Business community in York, surely what is happening in front of you people is better than any report that can be produced. It's like everything in this City and the Country, councillors and politicians NEVER listen.
It takes a report to tell the Council what they can see with their own eyes, and the talk coming from the Business community in York, surely what is happening in front of you people is better than any report that can be produced. It's like everything in this City and the Country, councillors and politicians NEVER listen. smiler45

10:25am Tue 3 Dec 13

bolero says...

Two faced or what? Politics stinks.
Two faced or what? Politics stinks. bolero

10:30am Tue 3 Dec 13

asd says...

Its not about improving city image,pollution, buses times etc its about one thing money. It is being used as a cash cow end off. traffic needs to move to reduce polution, not cut routes. I know certain people will say CYCLE or WALK but some people cant always do that so you have to accomodate. Im sure its all rigged and it will be a major surprise if the council say its failed. Take readings and studys too of the affected areas having to cope with the bridge closure to give a TRUE picture
Its not about improving city image,pollution, buses times etc its about one thing money. It is being used as a cash cow end off. traffic needs to move to reduce polution, not cut routes. I know certain people will say CYCLE or WALK but some people cant always do that so you have to accomodate. Im sure its all rigged and it will be a major surprise if the council say its failed. Take readings and studys too of the affected areas having to cope with the bridge closure to give a TRUE picture asd

10:34am Tue 3 Dec 13

Madasanibbotson says...

It isn't working so Mr Gillies is right to call for an end to it.

Has Jimmy Alexander been out talking to the traders about business ? Yes I know a part time job at Jessops doesn't give you much of a base to start a conversation about business.

The Labour "leaders" of this Council have an anti car agenda, and they won't admit they are wrong over the Lendal Bridge fiasco.

To anyone that has received a fine, maybe try a defence that as the bridge doesn't have a sign anywhere on it that states it is Lendal Bridge how can you be fined, as you didn't happen to have a copy of the land registry from 1723 handy at the time.
It isn't working so Mr Gillies is right to call for an end to it. Has Jimmy Alexander been out talking to the traders about business ? Yes I know a part time job at Jessops doesn't give you much of a base to start a conversation about business. The Labour "leaders" of this Council have an anti car agenda, and they won't admit they are wrong over the Lendal Bridge fiasco. To anyone that has received a fine, maybe try a defence that as the bridge doesn't have a sign anywhere on it that states it is Lendal Bridge how can you be fined, as you didn't happen to have a copy of the land registry from 1723 handy at the time. Madasanibbotson

10:54am Tue 3 Dec 13

JasBro says...

bolero wrote:
Two faced or what? Politics stinks.
Labour didn't even mention it in their 2011 manifesto.

Did they change their minds, or were they just dishonest?
[quote][p][bold]bolero[/bold] wrote: Two faced or what? Politics stinks.[/p][/quote]Labour didn't even mention it in their 2011 manifesto. Did they change their minds, or were they just dishonest? JasBro

10:56am Tue 3 Dec 13

chelk says...

Alexander, Merrett and the rest of The Muppet Show should realise it is alright to change your mind if things are not working, it is wrong to carry on regardless when something is not right just to prove a point. Also maybe he is doing what politicians should do listen to the people and that is something this Council will never understand.
Alexander, Merrett and the rest of The Muppet Show should realise it is alright to change your mind if things are not working, it is wrong to carry on regardless when something is not right just to prove a point. Also maybe he is doing what politicians should do listen to the people and that is something this Council will never understand. chelk

11:03am Tue 3 Dec 13

roskoboskovic says...

alexander and merrett will see this out no matter what cost to motorists and businesses because to do so would be an admission that they were wrong.they may be insignificant nonentities but in their own eyes they are political colossus who always know best.
alexander and merrett will see this out no matter what cost to motorists and businesses because to do so would be an admission that they were wrong.they may be insignificant nonentities but in their own eyes they are political colossus who always know best. roskoboskovic

11:06am Tue 3 Dec 13

The Great Buda says...

The Liebour lot are right, this is nothing but opposition for opposition’s sake.

No wonder nothing ever gets done in this City. Its time these fools started working together for us, not against each other for their own egos.
The Liebour lot are right, this is nothing but opposition for opposition’s sake. No wonder nothing ever gets done in this City. Its time these fools started working together for us, not against each other for their own egos. The Great Buda

11:09am Tue 3 Dec 13

again says...

In that picture, Cllr Gillies sure looks like he needs the exercise. I guess he doesn't do self-propelled movement if he can avoid it.
In that picture, Cllr Gillies sure looks like he needs the exercise. I guess he doesn't do self-propelled movement if he can avoid it. again

11:13am Tue 3 Dec 13

Madasanibbotson says...

again wrote:
In that picture, Cllr Gillies sure looks like he needs the exercise. I guess he doesn't do self-propelled movement if he can avoid it.
Not many of us can with the gridlock caused by your labour friends.
[quote][p][bold]again[/bold] wrote: In that picture, Cllr Gillies sure looks like he needs the exercise. I guess he doesn't do self-propelled movement if he can avoid it.[/p][/quote]Not many of us can with the gridlock caused by your labour friends. Madasanibbotson

11:13am Tue 3 Dec 13

YOUWILLDOASISAY says...

Last Friday Counc Merrett admitted that he was not fully aware of the impact the trial was having and needed the public to inform him.

If he does not know what is happening to his pet project then he cannot be considered competent and even less likely to know what is happening to the local economy, or the impact on residents going about their legal business.

There is a world of difference between having an idea, implementing an idea and recognising the effects caused.

We need access to our full road network to reduce emissions and congestion, theres an idea, full utilisation. If this failed poorly planned and managed fiasco continues it will only prove that we can be made victims of incompetent self-fulfilling prophecies.
Last Friday Counc Merrett admitted that he was not fully aware of the impact the trial was having and needed the public to inform him. If he does not know what is happening to his pet project then he cannot be considered competent and even less likely to know what is happening to the local economy, or the impact on residents going about their legal business. There is a world of difference between having an idea, implementing an idea and recognising the effects caused. We need access to our full road network to reduce emissions and congestion, theres an idea, full utilisation. If this failed poorly planned and managed fiasco continues it will only prove that we can be made victims of incompetent self-fulfilling prophecies. YOUWILLDOASISAY

11:14am Tue 3 Dec 13

acomblass says...

Yet again a stooge is wheeled out to defend the indefensible.
Yet again a stooge is wheeled out to defend the indefensible. acomblass

11:30am Tue 3 Dec 13

yorkshirelad says...

This is not a party political issue except that transport solutions are very often the first victim of political shenanigans. Every party knows that the transport solutions that are required in the UK are initially unpopular but the right thing to do.
Come election time, opposition parties have a field day as they fall over each other to undo progressive transport schemes to grab the votes of the 'poor beleaguered motorist'.
However, politicians will know very clearly and most intelligent motorists will know that radical solutions are required if small cities are not to end up gridlocked.
Sadly all the parties play this game...the only people that suffer are the cities themselves and the biggest losers...motorists stuck in traffic jams.
If they cared about York, they would put the politics to one side and support proper long term transport solutions.
Anyone that thinks that unrestricted traffic will make getting around York easier simply isn't being realistic.
This is not a party political issue except that transport solutions are very often the first victim of political shenanigans. Every party knows that the transport solutions that are required in the UK are initially unpopular but the right thing to do. Come election time, opposition parties have a field day as they fall over each other to undo progressive transport schemes to grab the votes of the 'poor beleaguered motorist'. However, politicians will know very clearly and most intelligent motorists will know that radical solutions are required if small cities are not to end up gridlocked. Sadly all the parties play this game...the only people that suffer are the cities themselves and the biggest losers...motorists stuck in traffic jams. If they cared about York, they would put the politics to one side and support proper long term transport solutions. Anyone that thinks that unrestricted traffic will make getting around York easier simply isn't being realistic. yorkshirelad

11:30am Tue 3 Dec 13

allijew says...

How to lose votes and alienate people!
How to lose votes and alienate people! allijew

11:57am Tue 3 Dec 13

JasBro says...

yorkshirelad wrote:
This is not a party political issue except that transport solutions are very often the first victim of political shenanigans. Every party knows that the transport solutions that are required in the UK are initially unpopular but the right thing to do.
Come election time, opposition parties have a field day as they fall over each other to undo progressive transport schemes to grab the votes of the 'poor beleaguered motorist'.
However, politicians will know very clearly and most intelligent motorists will know that radical solutions are required if small cities are not to end up gridlocked.
Sadly all the parties play this game...the only people that suffer are the cities themselves and the biggest losers...motorists stuck in traffic jams.
If they cared about York, they would put the politics to one side and support proper long term transport solutions.
Anyone that thinks that unrestricted traffic will make getting around York easier simply isn't being realistic.
If closing Lendal Bridge is a transport solution, then I'm a chinaman.

Look around at what's happening, it's a failure, and it's setting the cause of progressive transport policies back by many years.

York needs intelligent solutions, not this ill thought out nonsense.
[quote][p][bold]yorkshirelad[/bold] wrote: This is not a party political issue except that transport solutions are very often the first victim of political shenanigans. Every party knows that the transport solutions that are required in the UK are initially unpopular but the right thing to do. Come election time, opposition parties have a field day as they fall over each other to undo progressive transport schemes to grab the votes of the 'poor beleaguered motorist'. However, politicians will know very clearly and most intelligent motorists will know that radical solutions are required if small cities are not to end up gridlocked. Sadly all the parties play this game...the only people that suffer are the cities themselves and the biggest losers...motorists stuck in traffic jams. If they cared about York, they would put the politics to one side and support proper long term transport solutions. Anyone that thinks that unrestricted traffic will make getting around York easier simply isn't being realistic.[/p][/quote]If closing Lendal Bridge is a transport solution, then I'm a chinaman. Look around at what's happening, it's a failure, and it's setting the cause of progressive transport policies back by many years. York needs intelligent solutions, not this ill thought out nonsense. JasBro

12:02pm Tue 3 Dec 13

Happytoliveinyork says...

I've voted labour in every election since I was 18 (and that's a fair few!)

Can't believe I'm saying this.....but....*cou
gh*! I will vote for the Tories in the next election !!
I've voted labour in every election since I was 18 (and that's a fair few!) Can't believe I'm saying this.....but....*cou gh*! I will vote for the Tories in the next election !! Happytoliveinyork

12:18pm Tue 3 Dec 13

Madasanibbotson says...

Happytoliveinyork wrote:
I've voted labour in every election since I was 18 (and that's a fair few!)

Can't believe I'm saying this.....but....*cou

gh*! I will vote for the Tories in the next election !!
So you would like
a) End to gridlock
b) Potholes repaired
c) No more art barges
d) More say for the council tax payers
e) Leaders than have experience and common sense
f) Leaders that aren't on Ego trips
g) An end to the anti car policy
h) Sensible use of OUR money
[quote][p][bold]Happytoliveinyork[/bold] wrote: I've voted labour in every election since I was 18 (and that's a fair few!) Can't believe I'm saying this.....but....*cou gh*! I will vote for the Tories in the next election !![/p][/quote]So you would like a) End to gridlock b) Potholes repaired c) No more art barges d) More say for the council tax payers e) Leaders than have experience and common sense f) Leaders that aren't on Ego trips g) An end to the anti car policy h) Sensible use of OUR money Madasanibbotson

12:19pm Tue 3 Dec 13

CaroleBaines says...

I do not think the closure has been handled well but please, please can our councillors stop taking opposing views for the sake of political gain. It demeans not only them but also the public to think we do not notice when they about face on issues such as this. What is best for York please - not what is politically expedient.
I do not think the closure has been handled well but please, please can our councillors stop taking opposing views for the sake of political gain. It demeans not only them but also the public to think we do not notice when they about face on issues such as this. What is best for York please - not what is politically expedient. CaroleBaines

12:46pm Tue 3 Dec 13

Bryan of York says...

Not been into York since the closure.
If I needed anything I went elsewhere.
Not been into York since the closure. If I needed anything I went elsewhere. Bryan of York

12:46pm Tue 3 Dec 13

amike says...

Madasanibbotson wrote:
Happytoliveinyork wrote:
I've voted labour in every election since I was 18 (and that's a fair few!)

Can't believe I'm saying this.....but....*cou


gh*! I will vote for the Tories in the next election !!
So you would like
a) End to gridlock
b) Potholes repaired
c) No more art barges
d) More say for the council tax payers
e) Leaders than have experience and common sense
f) Leaders that aren't on Ego trips
g) An end to the anti car policy
h) Sensible use of OUR money
Sadly non of the party leaders in York seem to have experience and common sense. Bring back the hung councils of yesteryear when, mostly, only the sensible schemes that were best for citizens got through. The current system gives too much control to one party.
[quote][p][bold]Madasanibbotson[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Happytoliveinyork[/bold] wrote: I've voted labour in every election since I was 18 (and that's a fair few!) Can't believe I'm saying this.....but....*cou gh*! I will vote for the Tories in the next election !![/p][/quote]So you would like a) End to gridlock b) Potholes repaired c) No more art barges d) More say for the council tax payers e) Leaders than have experience and common sense f) Leaders that aren't on Ego trips g) An end to the anti car policy h) Sensible use of OUR money[/p][/quote]Sadly non of the party leaders in York seem to have experience and common sense. Bring back the hung councils of yesteryear when, mostly, only the sensible schemes that were best for citizens got through. The current system gives too much control to one party. amike

12:47pm Tue 3 Dec 13

Happytoliveinyork says...

Madasanibbotson wrote:
Happytoliveinyork wrote: I've voted labour in every election since I was 18 (and that's a fair few!) Can't believe I'm saying this.....but....*cou gh*! I will vote for the Tories in the next election !!
So you would like a) End to gridlock b) Potholes repaired c) No more art barges d) More say for the council tax payers e) Leaders than have experience and common sense f) Leaders that aren't on Ego trips g) An end to the anti car policy h) Sensible use of OUR money
i) less vanity projects
j) stop desecrating our city centre and turning it into Milton Keynes
k) spend money on keeping york residents safe in the winter by gritting
l, m, n, o......etc etc etc
[quote][p][bold]Madasanibbotson[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Happytoliveinyork[/bold] wrote: I've voted labour in every election since I was 18 (and that's a fair few!) Can't believe I'm saying this.....but....*cou gh*! I will vote for the Tories in the next election !![/p][/quote]So you would like a) End to gridlock b) Potholes repaired c) No more art barges d) More say for the council tax payers e) Leaders than have experience and common sense f) Leaders that aren't on Ego trips g) An end to the anti car policy h) Sensible use of OUR money[/p][/quote]i) less vanity projects j) stop desecrating our city centre and turning it into Milton Keynes k) spend money on keeping york residents safe in the winter by gritting l, m, n, o......etc etc etc Happytoliveinyork

12:55pm Tue 3 Dec 13

Fair t' Middlin says...

How hard is it for them to actually look at our city really look at it instead of doodling on a notepad and seeing a pretty picture of the skyline on their wall. Taking bets now on the next road closures
How hard is it for them to actually look at our city really look at it instead of doodling on a notepad and seeing a pretty picture of the skyline on their wall. Taking bets now on the next road closures Fair t' Middlin

1:00pm Tue 3 Dec 13

yorkie71 says...

I still haven't seen a fully justifiable reason why this bridge was closed in the first place? but willing to see how it worked as a trial.

Now I still cant see a justifiable reason why it would be closed 3 months on, it's just made things worse not better for travel by Bus or Car.

Personally I haven't seen any benefit to anyone or any business except the Council revenue from fines
I still haven't seen a fully justifiable reason why this bridge was closed in the first place? but willing to see how it worked as a trial. Now I still cant see a justifiable reason why it would be closed 3 months on, it's just made things worse not better for travel by Bus or Car. Personally I haven't seen any benefit to anyone or any business except the Council revenue from fines yorkie71

1:18pm Tue 3 Dec 13

Micklegate says...

CaroleBaines wrote:
I do not think the closure has been handled well but please, please can our councillors stop taking opposing views for the sake of political gain. It demeans not only them but also the public to think we do not notice when they about face on issues such as this. What is best for York please - not what is politically expedient.
So should they not disagree at all on anything as you will claim they don't really disagree it's just 'for political gain'?

I don't see the article's point - Cllr Gillies thought a closure was worth considering and now he has seen that travel is not improved or patterns changed plus of course all the fines he says end the trial. That to me is very sensible - unlike Labour who are ploughing on and destroying the reputation of the city as people vow not to return.

Plus as someone said why was there nothing in the Labour manifesto about this?
[quote][p][bold]CaroleBaines[/bold] wrote: I do not think the closure has been handled well but please, please can our councillors stop taking opposing views for the sake of political gain. It demeans not only them but also the public to think we do not notice when they about face on issues such as this. What is best for York please - not what is politically expedient.[/p][/quote]So should they not disagree at all on anything as you will claim they don't really disagree it's just 'for political gain'? I don't see the article's point - Cllr Gillies thought a closure was worth considering and now he has seen that travel is not improved or patterns changed plus of course all the fines he says end the trial. That to me is very sensible - unlike Labour who are ploughing on and destroying the reputation of the city as people vow not to return. Plus as someone said why was there nothing in the Labour manifesto about this? Micklegate

1:47pm Tue 3 Dec 13

Can't all be wrong says...

CaroleBaines wrote:
I do not think the closure has been handled well but please, please can our councillors stop taking opposing views for the sake of political gain. It demeans not only them but also the public to think we do not notice when they about face on issues such as this. What is best for York please - not what is politically expedient.
The closure of Lendal Bridge, and the appalling arrogance by YCC in defending the closure has been wrong on so many levels. They have simply refused to listen to any objectors either locally or Nationally. It seems therefore that the only option the electorate has is to support opposition voices within the council chamber regardless of their political affiliation. All politicians are opportunistic and simply interested in advancing their own agendas, but if it helps to reverse the lunacy of the present YCC then so be it, I can't see what other options we have.
[quote][p][bold]CaroleBaines[/bold] wrote: I do not think the closure has been handled well but please, please can our councillors stop taking opposing views for the sake of political gain. It demeans not only them but also the public to think we do not notice when they about face on issues such as this. What is best for York please - not what is politically expedient.[/p][/quote]The closure of Lendal Bridge, and the appalling arrogance by YCC in defending the closure has been wrong on so many levels. They have simply refused to listen to any objectors either locally or Nationally. It seems therefore that the only option the electorate has is to support opposition voices within the council chamber regardless of their political affiliation. All politicians are opportunistic and simply interested in advancing their own agendas, but if it helps to reverse the lunacy of the present YCC then so be it, I can't see what other options we have. Can't all be wrong

2:01pm Tue 3 Dec 13

YorkPatrol says...

yorkshirelad wrote:
This is not a party political issue except that transport solutions are very often the first victim of political shenanigans. Every party knows that the transport solutions that are required in the UK are initially unpopular but the right thing to do. Come election time, opposition parties have a field day as they fall over each other to undo progressive transport schemes to grab the votes of the 'poor beleaguered motorist'. However, politicians will know very clearly and most intelligent motorists will know that radical solutions are required if small cities are not to end up gridlocked. Sadly all the parties play this game...the only people that suffer are the cities themselves and the biggest losers...motorists stuck in traffic jams. If they cared about York, they would put the politics to one side and support proper long term transport solutions. Anyone that thinks that unrestricted traffic will make getting around York easier simply isn't being realistic.
Yes, York does need a long term transport solution - the starting point would be to re-open Lendal Bridge followed by a plan to dual the ring road and other routes where appropriate, road capacity should also be planned and increased in other areas of the city – Another road bridge at the south side of Skeldergate Bridge should be taken into consideration and some of the congestion inducing bike lanes should be removed immediately as should many of the “traffic calming” solutions such as that nonsense down Huntington Road. The entire traffic light system needs full review and upgrading accordingly with more attention paid traffic light timings.

There are absolutely loads of ideas to improve transportation in York – Closing roads and silly bike schemes aren’t any of them!
[quote][p][bold]yorkshirelad[/bold] wrote: This is not a party political issue except that transport solutions are very often the first victim of political shenanigans. Every party knows that the transport solutions that are required in the UK are initially unpopular but the right thing to do. Come election time, opposition parties have a field day as they fall over each other to undo progressive transport schemes to grab the votes of the 'poor beleaguered motorist'. However, politicians will know very clearly and most intelligent motorists will know that radical solutions are required if small cities are not to end up gridlocked. Sadly all the parties play this game...the only people that suffer are the cities themselves and the biggest losers...motorists stuck in traffic jams. If they cared about York, they would put the politics to one side and support proper long term transport solutions. Anyone that thinks that unrestricted traffic will make getting around York easier simply isn't being realistic.[/p][/quote]Yes, York does need a long term transport solution - the starting point would be to re-open Lendal Bridge followed by a plan to dual the ring road and other routes where appropriate, road capacity should also be planned and increased in other areas of the city – Another road bridge at the south side of Skeldergate Bridge should be taken into consideration and some of the congestion inducing bike lanes should be removed immediately as should many of the “traffic calming” solutions such as that nonsense down Huntington Road. The entire traffic light system needs full review and upgrading accordingly with more attention paid traffic light timings. There are absolutely loads of ideas to improve transportation in York – Closing roads and silly bike schemes aren’t any of them! YorkPatrol

2:27pm Tue 3 Dec 13

CaroleBaines says...

Micklegate wrote:
CaroleBaines wrote:
I do not think the closure has been handled well but please, please can our councillors stop taking opposing views for the sake of political gain. It demeans not only them but also the public to think we do not notice when they about face on issues such as this. What is best for York please - not what is politically expedient.
So should they not disagree at all on anything as you will claim they don't really disagree it's just 'for political gain'?

I don't see the article's point - Cllr Gillies thought a closure was worth considering and now he has seen that travel is not improved or patterns changed plus of course all the fines he says end the trial. That to me is very sensible - unlike Labour who are ploughing on and destroying the reputation of the city as people vow not to return.

Plus as someone said why was there nothing in the Labour manifesto about this?
As you well, well know - there is difference between sensible opposition ( questioning the validity of policy) and the firing off sound bites that are merely designed to make 'the other lot' look bad. One is democracy in action, the other is a waste of everyone's time.

Mr Alexander was certainly no stranger to this sort of behaviour before he came to power either - I used to despair that almost every quotation was anti-Tory or anti-Lib Dem.

Might just be me, Micklegate, perhaps you differ, but I like to hear what my elected members propose to DO, not just this constant squabble which achieves little in my view. Perhaps I am merely old fashioned?
[quote][p][bold]Micklegate[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]CaroleBaines[/bold] wrote: I do not think the closure has been handled well but please, please can our councillors stop taking opposing views for the sake of political gain. It demeans not only them but also the public to think we do not notice when they about face on issues such as this. What is best for York please - not what is politically expedient.[/p][/quote]So should they not disagree at all on anything as you will claim they don't really disagree it's just 'for political gain'? I don't see the article's point - Cllr Gillies thought a closure was worth considering and now he has seen that travel is not improved or patterns changed plus of course all the fines he says end the trial. That to me is very sensible - unlike Labour who are ploughing on and destroying the reputation of the city as people vow not to return. Plus as someone said why was there nothing in the Labour manifesto about this?[/p][/quote]As you well, well know - there is difference between sensible opposition ( questioning the validity of policy) and the firing off sound bites that are merely designed to make 'the other lot' look bad. One is democracy in action, the other is a waste of everyone's time. Mr Alexander was certainly no stranger to this sort of behaviour before he came to power either - I used to despair that almost every quotation was anti-Tory or anti-Lib Dem. Might just be me, Micklegate, perhaps you differ, but I like to hear what my elected members propose to DO, not just this constant squabble which achieves little in my view. Perhaps I am merely old fashioned? CaroleBaines

2:30pm Tue 3 Dec 13

CaroleBaines says...

amike wrote:
Madasanibbotson wrote:
Happytoliveinyork wrote:
I've voted labour in every election since I was 18 (and that's a fair few!)

Can't believe I'm saying this.....but....*cou



gh*! I will vote for the Tories in the next election !!
So you would like
a) End to gridlock
b) Potholes repaired
c) No more art barges
d) More say for the council tax payers
e) Leaders than have experience and common sense
f) Leaders that aren't on Ego trips
g) An end to the anti car policy
h) Sensible use of OUR money
Sadly non of the party leaders in York seem to have experience and common sense. Bring back the hung councils of yesteryear when, mostly, only the sensible schemes that were best for citizens got through. The current system gives too much control to one party.
Absolutely. Could not agree more.
[quote][p][bold]amike[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Madasanibbotson[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Happytoliveinyork[/bold] wrote: I've voted labour in every election since I was 18 (and that's a fair few!) Can't believe I'm saying this.....but....*cou gh*! I will vote for the Tories in the next election !![/p][/quote]So you would like a) End to gridlock b) Potholes repaired c) No more art barges d) More say for the council tax payers e) Leaders than have experience and common sense f) Leaders that aren't on Ego trips g) An end to the anti car policy h) Sensible use of OUR money[/p][/quote]Sadly non of the party leaders in York seem to have experience and common sense. Bring back the hung councils of yesteryear when, mostly, only the sensible schemes that were best for citizens got through. The current system gives too much control to one party.[/p][/quote]Absolutely. Could not agree more. CaroleBaines

2:41pm Tue 3 Dec 13

Micklegate says...

CaroleBaines wrote:
Micklegate wrote:
CaroleBaines wrote:
I do not think the closure has been handled well but please, please can our councillors stop taking opposing views for the sake of political gain. It demeans not only them but also the public to think we do not notice when they about face on issues such as this. What is best for York please - not what is politically expedient.
So should they not disagree at all on anything as you will claim they don't really disagree it's just 'for political gain'?

I don't see the article's point - Cllr Gillies thought a closure was worth considering and now he has seen that travel is not improved or patterns changed plus of course all the fines he says end the trial. That to me is very sensible - unlike Labour who are ploughing on and destroying the reputation of the city as people vow not to return.

Plus as someone said why was there nothing in the Labour manifesto about this?
As you well, well know - there is difference between sensible opposition ( questioning the validity of policy) and the firing off sound bites that are merely designed to make 'the other lot' look bad. One is democracy in action, the other is a waste of everyone's time.

Mr Alexander was certainly no stranger to this sort of behaviour before he came to power either - I used to despair that almost every quotation was anti-Tory or anti-Lib Dem.

Might just be me, Micklegate, perhaps you differ, but I like to hear what my elected members propose to DO, not just this constant squabble which achieves little in my view. Perhaps I am merely old fashioned?
I think Cllr Gillies is saying pretty clearly what he would do - he would reopen one of the city's most important bridges to cars!
[quote][p][bold]CaroleBaines[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Micklegate[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]CaroleBaines[/bold] wrote: I do not think the closure has been handled well but please, please can our councillors stop taking opposing views for the sake of political gain. It demeans not only them but also the public to think we do not notice when they about face on issues such as this. What is best for York please - not what is politically expedient.[/p][/quote]So should they not disagree at all on anything as you will claim they don't really disagree it's just 'for political gain'? I don't see the article's point - Cllr Gillies thought a closure was worth considering and now he has seen that travel is not improved or patterns changed plus of course all the fines he says end the trial. That to me is very sensible - unlike Labour who are ploughing on and destroying the reputation of the city as people vow not to return. Plus as someone said why was there nothing in the Labour manifesto about this?[/p][/quote]As you well, well know - there is difference between sensible opposition ( questioning the validity of policy) and the firing off sound bites that are merely designed to make 'the other lot' look bad. One is democracy in action, the other is a waste of everyone's time. Mr Alexander was certainly no stranger to this sort of behaviour before he came to power either - I used to despair that almost every quotation was anti-Tory or anti-Lib Dem. Might just be me, Micklegate, perhaps you differ, but I like to hear what my elected members propose to DO, not just this constant squabble which achieves little in my view. Perhaps I am merely old fashioned?[/p][/quote]I think Cllr Gillies is saying pretty clearly what he would do - he would reopen one of the city's most important bridges to cars! Micklegate

2:58pm Tue 3 Dec 13

Dave Ruddock says...

I am inagree,emt with "York Patrol" but one thing stoips anything like inproving transport, roads, etc eith for motor vehiles and in some cases cycles, York was never upgraded when the motor vehicles were introduced to the UK.. This is whi (in my belief) that vehicles have 3 innrcity bridges. and at a later date the outer ringroad.. Oh and by the way we seemed to forget the only 30 yer=ars ago there were cyclists by the thousand (Rowntrees, Terrys, Railway works, Sugarbeet factory, all emptying out at the same times, that was cyclt gridlock, now if its 3 cycles thats a lot. as for busses, they are a nessesary evel, blocking roads, badly cared for (some are like smock discargers, and others a noise level far byond that for use in a city.. As for Merrett and he not knowing "Is he a Councilor" or a back seat driver. I have noticed he s on a number of pannels, so God Help us (citizens) and the (Visitors) ...
I am inagree,emt with "York Patrol" but one thing stoips anything like inproving transport, roads, etc eith for motor vehiles and in some cases cycles, York was never upgraded when the motor vehicles were introduced to the UK.. This is whi (in my belief) that vehicles have 3 innrcity bridges. and at a later date the outer ringroad.. Oh and by the way we seemed to forget the only 30 yer=ars ago there were cyclists by the thousand (Rowntrees, Terrys, Railway works, Sugarbeet factory, all emptying out at the same times, that was cyclt gridlock, now if its 3 cycles thats a lot. as for busses, they are a nessesary evel, blocking roads, badly cared for (some are like smock discargers, and others a noise level far byond that for use in a city.. As for Merrett and he not knowing "Is he a Councilor" or a back seat driver. I have noticed he s on a number of pannels, so God Help us (citizens) and the (Visitors) ... Dave Ruddock

3:08pm Tue 3 Dec 13

pedalling paul says...

Unfortunate that the majority of residents only think about the ease with which they can (or cannot) make car journeys today. But the professional transport planners who are employed by every UK Local Authority, have to look two or three decades ahead, forecast future gridlock and advise elected Councillors of what needs doing today, to avoid that scenario.
The majority of York's Councillors (with some honourable exceptions) seem only capable of looking as far as the next elections. Then we have the situation described so accurately above, by yorkshire lad viz.
"Come election time, opposition parties have a field day as they fall over each other to undo progressive transport schemes to grab the votes of the 'poor beleaguered motorist."
Unfortunate that the majority of residents only think about the ease with which they can (or cannot) make car journeys today. But the professional transport planners who are employed by every UK Local Authority, have to look two or three decades ahead, forecast future gridlock and advise elected Councillors of what needs doing today, to avoid that scenario. The majority of York's Councillors (with some honourable exceptions) seem only capable of looking as far as the next elections. Then we have the situation described so accurately above, by yorkshire lad viz. "Come election time, opposition parties have a field day as they fall over each other to undo progressive transport schemes to grab the votes of the 'poor beleaguered motorist." pedalling paul

4:25pm Tue 3 Dec 13

MorkofYork says...

We can't keep fining people. If these new signs don't work then the trial is a failure.
It needs to be workable before we can even consider pros and cons.

Reasonable people can't just go "Waaaah it's alright because i don't like cars."
We can't keep fining people. If these new signs don't work then the trial is a failure. It needs to be workable before we can even consider pros and cons. Reasonable people can't just go "Waaaah it's alright because i don't like cars." MorkofYork

4:32pm Tue 3 Dec 13

Fair t' Middlin says...

What would COYC do for money if everyone did what they want and only use cycles?
What would COYC do for money if everyone did what they want and only use cycles? Fair t' Middlin

4:42pm Tue 3 Dec 13

JasBro says...

pedalling paul wrote:
Unfortunate that the majority of residents only think about the ease with which they can (or cannot) make car journeys today. But the professional transport planners who are employed by every UK Local Authority, have to look two or three decades ahead, forecast future gridlock and advise elected Councillors of what needs doing today, to avoid that scenario.
The majority of York's Councillors (with some honourable exceptions) seem only capable of looking as far as the next elections. Then we have the situation described so accurately above, by yorkshire lad viz.
"Come election time, opposition parties have a field day as they fall over each other to undo progressive transport schemes to grab the votes of the 'poor beleaguered motorist."
Terrible thing democracy. How is a cycle nazi to get his way with all these inconvenient elections?
[quote][p][bold]pedalling paul [/bold] wrote: Unfortunate that the majority of residents only think about the ease with which they can (or cannot) make car journeys today. But the professional transport planners who are employed by every UK Local Authority, have to look two or three decades ahead, forecast future gridlock and advise elected Councillors of what needs doing today, to avoid that scenario. The majority of York's Councillors (with some honourable exceptions) seem only capable of looking as far as the next elections. Then we have the situation described so accurately above, by yorkshire lad viz. "Come election time, opposition parties have a field day as they fall over each other to undo progressive transport schemes to grab the votes of the 'poor beleaguered motorist."[/p][/quote]Terrible thing democracy. How is a cycle nazi to get his way with all these inconvenient elections? JasBro

4:44pm Tue 3 Dec 13

Madasanibbotson says...

pedalling paul wrote:
Unfortunate that the majority of residents only think about the ease with which they can (or cannot) make car journeys today. But the professional transport planners who are employed by every UK Local Authority, have to look two or three decades ahead, forecast future gridlock and advise elected Councillors of what needs doing today, to avoid that scenario.
The majority of York's Councillors (with some honourable exceptions) seem only capable of looking as far as the next elections. Then we have the situation described so accurately above, by yorkshire lad viz.
"Come election time, opposition parties have a field day as they fall over each other to undo progressive transport schemes to grab the votes of the 'poor beleaguered motorist."
The usual nonsense from you.

Councillor Gillies DIDN'T
Oppose it in the first few weeks to score points

Councillor Gillies DID
Wait for footfall figures
Wait for evidence buses hadn't improve
Wait for traders to be able to gauge how effective it wasn't
Wait for the numbers of fines issued to be produced-extracted form the Council would be a better word.
Wait to gauge public opinion
Wait for Visitors feedback

Choice is

a) Carry on with headline seeking Alexander, Simply-Lain and Merret with their back of a fag packet (oops may have to change to something else since the latest waste of our money so called campaign) ideas.
b) Choose level headed leaders that act in our best interest
[quote][p][bold]pedalling paul [/bold] wrote: Unfortunate that the majority of residents only think about the ease with which they can (or cannot) make car journeys today. But the professional transport planners who are employed by every UK Local Authority, have to look two or three decades ahead, forecast future gridlock and advise elected Councillors of what needs doing today, to avoid that scenario. The majority of York's Councillors (with some honourable exceptions) seem only capable of looking as far as the next elections. Then we have the situation described so accurately above, by yorkshire lad viz. "Come election time, opposition parties have a field day as they fall over each other to undo progressive transport schemes to grab the votes of the 'poor beleaguered motorist."[/p][/quote]The usual nonsense from you. Councillor Gillies DIDN'T Oppose it in the first few weeks to score points Councillor Gillies DID Wait for footfall figures Wait for evidence buses hadn't improve Wait for traders to be able to gauge how effective it wasn't Wait for the numbers of fines issued to be produced-extracted form the Council would be a better word. Wait to gauge public opinion Wait for Visitors feedback Choice is a) Carry on with headline seeking Alexander, Simply-Lain and Merret with their back of a fag packet (oops may have to change to something else since the latest waste of our money so called campaign) ideas. b) Choose level headed leaders that act in our best interest Madasanibbotson

4:48pm Tue 3 Dec 13

Rocking Horse says...

'Westfield councillor Steve Burton said: “We’re now hearing him calling for a halt to the trial based on nothing more than his personal observations, rather than the full evidence of the final report" '


Doesn't this comment by a Labour councillor highlight how ignorant they are of the views of most of York citizens ?

Doesn't he read the Press, or talk to York people ? Of course he does, but like his Labour peers, he choses to ignore what most of us want.

Burton is another who will join Alexander, Simpson-Laing, Merrett and Crisp, when they lose their seats in 2015.
[quote] 'Westfield councillor Steve Burton said: “We’re now hearing him calling for a halt to the trial based on nothing more than his personal observations, rather than the full evidence of the final report" ' [/quote] Doesn't this comment by a Labour councillor highlight how ignorant they are of the views of most of York citizens ? Doesn't he read the Press, or talk to York people ? Of course he does, but like his Labour peers, he choses to ignore what most of us want. Burton is another who will join Alexander, Simpson-Laing, Merrett and Crisp, when they lose their seats in 2015. Rocking Horse

5:47pm Tue 3 Dec 13

Caecilius says...

Coun Gillies actually has no evidence at all. He can only cite what (some) city centre traders claim to "believe" and point to an alleged increase in congestion on "some" major roads (I wonder if that includes Shipton Road, where there's now a regular logjam at the junction with Rawcliffe Lane - undoubtedly caused in part by the retiming of the lights at Clifton Green which Coun Gillies eagerly subscribed to when a faction of the motoring lobby was screaming for THAT).
Coun Gillies actually has no evidence at all. He can only cite what (some) city centre traders claim to "believe" and point to an alleged increase in congestion on "some" major roads (I wonder if that includes Shipton Road, where there's now a regular logjam at the junction with Rawcliffe Lane - undoubtedly caused in part by the retiming of the lights at Clifton Green which Coun Gillies eagerly subscribed to when a faction of the motoring lobby was screaming for THAT). Caecilius

6:01pm Tue 3 Dec 13

Caecilius says...

YorkPatrol wrote:
yorkshirelad wrote:
This is not a party political issue except that transport solutions are very often the first victim of political shenanigans. Every party knows that the transport solutions that are required in the UK are initially unpopular but the right thing to do. Come election time, opposition parties have a field day as they fall over each other to undo progressive transport schemes to grab the votes of the 'poor beleaguered motorist'. However, politicians will know very clearly and most intelligent motorists will know that radical solutions are required if small cities are not to end up gridlocked. Sadly all the parties play this game...the only people that suffer are the cities themselves and the biggest losers...motorists stuck in traffic jams. If they cared about York, they would put the politics to one side and support proper long term transport solutions. Anyone that thinks that unrestricted traffic will make getting around York easier simply isn't being realistic.
Yes, York does need a long term transport solution - the starting point would be to re-open Lendal Bridge followed by a plan to dual the ring road and other routes where appropriate, road capacity should also be planned and increased in other areas of the city – Another road bridge at the south side of Skeldergate Bridge should be taken into consideration and some of the congestion inducing bike lanes should be removed immediately as should many of the “traffic calming” solutions such as that nonsense down Huntington Road. The entire traffic light system needs full review and upgrading accordingly with more attention paid traffic light timings.

There are absolutely loads of ideas to improve transportation in York – Closing roads and silly bike schemes aren’t any of them!
Yet we had people whinging on here last night about the trivial cost of installing a few bike racks. There's absolutely no point in squandering tens of millions on dualling the outer ring road or in putting up another bridge just for both of them to be filled up in their turn by motorists generating more and more congestion. It's completely futile pander to people who simply refuse to admit that they're the cause of their own problem and who, like you, clamour for every other category of road user to take the hit instead of you. You create the congestion: you take the consequences. The only way to tackle the problem is to change behaviour and the time to do it is now, without wasting one more red cent on futile appeasement of car addicts.
[quote][p][bold]YorkPatrol[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]yorkshirelad[/bold] wrote: This is not a party political issue except that transport solutions are very often the first victim of political shenanigans. Every party knows that the transport solutions that are required in the UK are initially unpopular but the right thing to do. Come election time, opposition parties have a field day as they fall over each other to undo progressive transport schemes to grab the votes of the 'poor beleaguered motorist'. However, politicians will know very clearly and most intelligent motorists will know that radical solutions are required if small cities are not to end up gridlocked. Sadly all the parties play this game...the only people that suffer are the cities themselves and the biggest losers...motorists stuck in traffic jams. If they cared about York, they would put the politics to one side and support proper long term transport solutions. Anyone that thinks that unrestricted traffic will make getting around York easier simply isn't being realistic.[/p][/quote]Yes, York does need a long term transport solution - the starting point would be to re-open Lendal Bridge followed by a plan to dual the ring road and other routes where appropriate, road capacity should also be planned and increased in other areas of the city – Another road bridge at the south side of Skeldergate Bridge should be taken into consideration and some of the congestion inducing bike lanes should be removed immediately as should many of the “traffic calming” solutions such as that nonsense down Huntington Road. The entire traffic light system needs full review and upgrading accordingly with more attention paid traffic light timings. There are absolutely loads of ideas to improve transportation in York – Closing roads and silly bike schemes aren’t any of them![/p][/quote]Yet we had people whinging on here last night about the trivial cost of installing a few bike racks. There's absolutely no point in squandering tens of millions on dualling the outer ring road or in putting up another bridge just for both of them to be filled up in their turn by motorists generating more and more congestion. It's completely futile pander to people who simply refuse to admit that they're the cause of their own problem and who, like you, clamour for every other category of road user to take the hit instead of you. You create the congestion: you take the consequences. The only way to tackle the problem is to change behaviour and the time to do it is now, without wasting one more red cent on futile appeasement of car addicts. Caecilius

6:07pm Tue 3 Dec 13

chelk says...

pedalling paul wrote:
Unfortunate that the majority of residents only think about the ease with which they can (or cannot) make car journeys today. But the professional transport planners who are employed by every UK Local Authority, have to look two or three decades ahead, forecast future gridlock and advise elected Councillors of what needs doing today, to avoid that scenario.
The majority of York's Councillors (with some honourable exceptions) seem only capable of looking as far as the next elections. Then we have the situation described so accurately above, by yorkshire lad viz.
"Come election time, opposition parties have a field day as they fall over each other to undo progressive transport schemes to grab the votes of the 'poor beleaguered motorist."
If transport planners planned two or three decades ahead and knew what they were doing then the Ring Road would all have been dual carriage as was originally in the plans they had no idea then about looking ahead and still have no idea of building for the future. The Muppet Show continues
[quote][p][bold]pedalling paul [/bold] wrote: Unfortunate that the majority of residents only think about the ease with which they can (or cannot) make car journeys today. But the professional transport planners who are employed by every UK Local Authority, have to look two or three decades ahead, forecast future gridlock and advise elected Councillors of what needs doing today, to avoid that scenario. The majority of York's Councillors (with some honourable exceptions) seem only capable of looking as far as the next elections. Then we have the situation described so accurately above, by yorkshire lad viz. "Come election time, opposition parties have a field day as they fall over each other to undo progressive transport schemes to grab the votes of the 'poor beleaguered motorist."[/p][/quote]If transport planners planned two or three decades ahead and knew what they were doing then the Ring Road would all have been dual carriage as was originally in the plans they had no idea then about looking ahead and still have no idea of building for the future. The Muppet Show continues chelk

9:52pm Tue 3 Dec 13

pedalling paul says...

chelk wrote:
pedalling paul wrote:
Unfortunate that the majority of residents only think about the ease with which they can (or cannot) make car journeys today. But the professional transport planners who are employed by every UK Local Authority, have to look two or three decades ahead, forecast future gridlock and advise elected Councillors of what needs doing today, to avoid that scenario.
The majority of York's Councillors (with some honourable exceptions) seem only capable of looking as far as the next elections. Then we have the situation described so accurately above, by yorkshire lad viz.
"Come election time, opposition parties have a field day as they fall over each other to undo progressive transport schemes to grab the votes of the 'poor beleaguered motorist."
If transport planners planned two or three decades ahead and knew what they were doing then the Ring Road would all have been dual carriage as was originally in the plans they had no idea then about looking ahead and still have no idea of building for the future. The Muppet Show continues
The A1237 was capable of accommodating its forecasted demand, when it was built by NYCC, then the Highway Authority for York. Lo and behold, commercial ribbon development was permitted along its route (mostly then in the Ryedale DC area). York was not master of its own destiny then. That had to await conversion to a Unitary Authority with expanded boundaries which encompassed the A1237. The Highways Agency who by then had adopted the road, detrunked it and handed it to the new CoYC.
[quote][p][bold]chelk[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]pedalling paul [/bold] wrote: Unfortunate that the majority of residents only think about the ease with which they can (or cannot) make car journeys today. But the professional transport planners who are employed by every UK Local Authority, have to look two or three decades ahead, forecast future gridlock and advise elected Councillors of what needs doing today, to avoid that scenario. The majority of York's Councillors (with some honourable exceptions) seem only capable of looking as far as the next elections. Then we have the situation described so accurately above, by yorkshire lad viz. "Come election time, opposition parties have a field day as they fall over each other to undo progressive transport schemes to grab the votes of the 'poor beleaguered motorist."[/p][/quote]If transport planners planned two or three decades ahead and knew what they were doing then the Ring Road would all have been dual carriage as was originally in the plans they had no idea then about looking ahead and still have no idea of building for the future. The Muppet Show continues[/p][/quote]The A1237 was capable of accommodating its forecasted demand, when it was built by NYCC, then the Highway Authority for York. Lo and behold, commercial ribbon development was permitted along its route (mostly then in the Ryedale DC area). York was not master of its own destiny then. That had to await conversion to a Unitary Authority with expanded boundaries which encompassed the A1237. The Highways Agency who by then had adopted the road, detrunked it and handed it to the new CoYC. pedalling paul

9:48am Wed 4 Dec 13

YorkPatrol says...

Caecilius wrote:
YorkPatrol wrote:
yorkshirelad wrote: This is not a party political issue except that transport solutions are very often the first victim of political shenanigans. Every party knows that the transport solutions that are required in the UK are initially unpopular but the right thing to do. Come election time, opposition parties have a field day as they fall over each other to undo progressive transport schemes to grab the votes of the 'poor beleaguered motorist'. However, politicians will know very clearly and most intelligent motorists will know that radical solutions are required if small cities are not to end up gridlocked. Sadly all the parties play this game...the only people that suffer are the cities themselves and the biggest losers...motorists stuck in traffic jams. If they cared about York, they would put the politics to one side and support proper long term transport solutions. Anyone that thinks that unrestricted traffic will make getting around York easier simply isn't being realistic.
Yes, York does need a long term transport solution - the starting point would be to re-open Lendal Bridge followed by a plan to dual the ring road and other routes where appropriate, road capacity should also be planned and increased in other areas of the city – Another road bridge at the south side of Skeldergate Bridge should be taken into consideration and some of the congestion inducing bike lanes should be removed immediately as should many of the “traffic calming” solutions such as that nonsense down Huntington Road. The entire traffic light system needs full review and upgrading accordingly with more attention paid traffic light timings. There are absolutely loads of ideas to improve transportation in York – Closing roads and silly bike schemes aren’t any of them!
Yet we had people whinging on here last night about the trivial cost of installing a few bike racks. There's absolutely no point in squandering tens of millions on dualling the outer ring road or in putting up another bridge just for both of them to be filled up in their turn by motorists generating more and more congestion. It's completely futile pander to people who simply refuse to admit that they're the cause of their own problem and who, like you, clamour for every other category of road user to take the hit instead of you. You create the congestion: you take the consequences. The only way to tackle the problem is to change behaviour and the time to do it is now, without wasting one more red cent on futile appeasement of car addicts.
I see…. you are one of these people who are predicting “grid lock” in the not too distant future but unwilling to admit the road systems need to be factored in to future plans in support of the domestic and business motorist – Simply saying any new road systems would just “fill up” so in-turn do nothing is moronic. This country would be on its knees if motorway systems hadn’t been expanded in-line with increased capacity over the years.

Or are you one of these imbeciles who think everyone can simply jump on a bike and the problem is solved…. Now that would be silly
[quote][p][bold]Caecilius[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]YorkPatrol[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]yorkshirelad[/bold] wrote: This is not a party political issue except that transport solutions are very often the first victim of political shenanigans. Every party knows that the transport solutions that are required in the UK are initially unpopular but the right thing to do. Come election time, opposition parties have a field day as they fall over each other to undo progressive transport schemes to grab the votes of the 'poor beleaguered motorist'. However, politicians will know very clearly and most intelligent motorists will know that radical solutions are required if small cities are not to end up gridlocked. Sadly all the parties play this game...the only people that suffer are the cities themselves and the biggest losers...motorists stuck in traffic jams. If they cared about York, they would put the politics to one side and support proper long term transport solutions. Anyone that thinks that unrestricted traffic will make getting around York easier simply isn't being realistic.[/p][/quote]Yes, York does need a long term transport solution - the starting point would be to re-open Lendal Bridge followed by a plan to dual the ring road and other routes where appropriate, road capacity should also be planned and increased in other areas of the city – Another road bridge at the south side of Skeldergate Bridge should be taken into consideration and some of the congestion inducing bike lanes should be removed immediately as should many of the “traffic calming” solutions such as that nonsense down Huntington Road. The entire traffic light system needs full review and upgrading accordingly with more attention paid traffic light timings. There are absolutely loads of ideas to improve transportation in York – Closing roads and silly bike schemes aren’t any of them![/p][/quote]Yet we had people whinging on here last night about the trivial cost of installing a few bike racks. There's absolutely no point in squandering tens of millions on dualling the outer ring road or in putting up another bridge just for both of them to be filled up in their turn by motorists generating more and more congestion. It's completely futile pander to people who simply refuse to admit that they're the cause of their own problem and who, like you, clamour for every other category of road user to take the hit instead of you. You create the congestion: you take the consequences. The only way to tackle the problem is to change behaviour and the time to do it is now, without wasting one more red cent on futile appeasement of car addicts.[/p][/quote]I see…. you are one of these people who are predicting “grid lock” in the not too distant future but unwilling to admit the road systems need to be factored in to future plans in support of the domestic and business motorist – Simply saying any new road systems would just “fill up” so in-turn do nothing is moronic. This country would be on its knees if motorway systems hadn’t been expanded in-line with increased capacity over the years. Or are you one of these imbeciles who think everyone can simply jump on a bike and the problem is solved…. Now that would be silly YorkPatrol

10:19am Wed 4 Dec 13

Bo Jolly says...

YorkPatrol wrote:
Caecilius wrote:
YorkPatrol wrote:
yorkshirelad wrote: This is not a party political issue except that transport solutions are very often the first victim of political shenanigans. Every party knows that the transport solutions that are required in the UK are initially unpopular but the right thing to do. Come election time, opposition parties have a field day as they fall over each other to undo progressive transport schemes to grab the votes of the 'poor beleaguered motorist'. However, politicians will know very clearly and most intelligent motorists will know that radical solutions are required if small cities are not to end up gridlocked. Sadly all the parties play this game...the only people that suffer are the cities themselves and the biggest losers...motorists stuck in traffic jams. If they cared about York, they would put the politics to one side and support proper long term transport solutions. Anyone that thinks that unrestricted traffic will make getting around York easier simply isn't being realistic.
Yes, York does need a long term transport solution - the starting point would be to re-open Lendal Bridge followed by a plan to dual the ring road and other routes where appropriate, road capacity should also be planned and increased in other areas of the city – Another road bridge at the south side of Skeldergate Bridge should be taken into consideration and some of the congestion inducing bike lanes should be removed immediately as should many of the “traffic calming” solutions such as that nonsense down Huntington Road. The entire traffic light system needs full review and upgrading accordingly with more attention paid traffic light timings. There are absolutely loads of ideas to improve transportation in York – Closing roads and silly bike schemes aren’t any of them!
Yet we had people whinging on here last night about the trivial cost of installing a few bike racks. There's absolutely no point in squandering tens of millions on dualling the outer ring road or in putting up another bridge just for both of them to be filled up in their turn by motorists generating more and more congestion. It's completely futile pander to people who simply refuse to admit that they're the cause of their own problem and who, like you, clamour for every other category of road user to take the hit instead of you. You create the congestion: you take the consequences. The only way to tackle the problem is to change behaviour and the time to do it is now, without wasting one more red cent on futile appeasement of car addicts.
I see…. you are one of these people who are predicting “grid lock” in the not too distant future but unwilling to admit the road systems need to be factored in to future plans in support of the domestic and business motorist – Simply saying any new road systems would just “fill up” so in-turn do nothing is moronic. This country would be on its knees if motorway systems hadn’t been expanded in-line with increased capacity over the years.

Or are you one of these imbeciles who think everyone can simply jump on a bike and the problem is solved…. Now that would be silly
YorkPatrol, you've hit the nail on the head. Some people simple-mindedly use the argument 'induced traffic therefore no point building roads.' Often these are otherwise bright people and - since induced demand does not happen in the simplistic fashion that they suggest - I can only guess that they hope anyone disagreeing will just be scared off by their apparent argument from authority.

However, the concept of induced demand has been understood for decades (at least since the 1970s) and transport planners design with it in mind. Roads don't just automatically and instantly 'fill up' (by some magic process) and many external factors affect demand. Its a false argument used by people so wedded to their anti-car prejudices that they truly believe that people sit in traffic jams because they are 'car addicts'.
[quote][p][bold]YorkPatrol[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Caecilius[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]YorkPatrol[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]yorkshirelad[/bold] wrote: This is not a party political issue except that transport solutions are very often the first victim of political shenanigans. Every party knows that the transport solutions that are required in the UK are initially unpopular but the right thing to do. Come election time, opposition parties have a field day as they fall over each other to undo progressive transport schemes to grab the votes of the 'poor beleaguered motorist'. However, politicians will know very clearly and most intelligent motorists will know that radical solutions are required if small cities are not to end up gridlocked. Sadly all the parties play this game...the only people that suffer are the cities themselves and the biggest losers...motorists stuck in traffic jams. If they cared about York, they would put the politics to one side and support proper long term transport solutions. Anyone that thinks that unrestricted traffic will make getting around York easier simply isn't being realistic.[/p][/quote]Yes, York does need a long term transport solution - the starting point would be to re-open Lendal Bridge followed by a plan to dual the ring road and other routes where appropriate, road capacity should also be planned and increased in other areas of the city – Another road bridge at the south side of Skeldergate Bridge should be taken into consideration and some of the congestion inducing bike lanes should be removed immediately as should many of the “traffic calming” solutions such as that nonsense down Huntington Road. The entire traffic light system needs full review and upgrading accordingly with more attention paid traffic light timings. There are absolutely loads of ideas to improve transportation in York – Closing roads and silly bike schemes aren’t any of them![/p][/quote]Yet we had people whinging on here last night about the trivial cost of installing a few bike racks. There's absolutely no point in squandering tens of millions on dualling the outer ring road or in putting up another bridge just for both of them to be filled up in their turn by motorists generating more and more congestion. It's completely futile pander to people who simply refuse to admit that they're the cause of their own problem and who, like you, clamour for every other category of road user to take the hit instead of you. You create the congestion: you take the consequences. The only way to tackle the problem is to change behaviour and the time to do it is now, without wasting one more red cent on futile appeasement of car addicts.[/p][/quote]I see…. you are one of these people who are predicting “grid lock” in the not too distant future but unwilling to admit the road systems need to be factored in to future plans in support of the domestic and business motorist – Simply saying any new road systems would just “fill up” so in-turn do nothing is moronic. This country would be on its knees if motorway systems hadn’t been expanded in-line with increased capacity over the years. Or are you one of these imbeciles who think everyone can simply jump on a bike and the problem is solved…. Now that would be silly[/p][/quote]YorkPatrol, you've hit the nail on the head. Some people simple-mindedly use the argument 'induced traffic therefore no point building roads.' Often these are otherwise bright people and - since induced demand does not happen in the simplistic fashion that they suggest - I can only guess that they hope anyone disagreeing will just be scared off by their apparent argument from authority. However, the concept of induced demand has been understood for decades (at least since the 1970s) and transport planners design with it in mind. Roads don't just automatically and instantly 'fill up' (by some magic process) and many external factors affect demand. Its a false argument used by people so wedded to their anti-car prejudices that they truly believe that people sit in traffic jams because they are 'car addicts'. Bo Jolly

11:35am Wed 4 Dec 13

Jonthan says...

Bryan of York wrote:
Not been into York since the closure.
If I needed anything I went elsewhere.
You are almost on your own there Bryan

Figures elsewhere in the Press show that the St Nicholas Fayre vistor numbers are up 74%. That is an extra 106,000 people spending their money here and generating jobs and income for the City.

If the numbers were down, the moaners would blame it on the bridge (and the Council)
[quote][p][bold]Bryan of York[/bold] wrote: Not been into York since the closure. If I needed anything I went elsewhere.[/p][/quote]You are almost on your own there Bryan Figures elsewhere in the Press show that the St Nicholas Fayre vistor numbers are up 74%. That is an extra 106,000 people spending their money here and generating jobs and income for the City. If the numbers were down, the moaners would blame it on the bridge (and the Council) Jonthan

1:22pm Wed 4 Dec 13

JasBro says...

Jonthan wrote:
Bryan of York wrote:
Not been into York since the closure.
If I needed anything I went elsewhere.
You are almost on your own there Bryan

Figures elsewhere in the Press show that the St Nicholas Fayre vistor numbers are up 74%. That is an extra 106,000 people spending their money here and generating jobs and income for the City.

If the numbers were down, the moaners would blame it on the bridge (and the Council)
He is certainly not on his own, that's just wishful thinking. Visitor numbers for the St Nicholas Fayre are contentious, some would say fixed.
[quote][p][bold]Jonthan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Bryan of York[/bold] wrote: Not been into York since the closure. If I needed anything I went elsewhere.[/p][/quote]You are almost on your own there Bryan Figures elsewhere in the Press show that the St Nicholas Fayre vistor numbers are up 74%. That is an extra 106,000 people spending their money here and generating jobs and income for the City. If the numbers were down, the moaners would blame it on the bridge (and the Council)[/p][/quote]He is certainly not on his own, that's just wishful thinking. Visitor numbers for the St Nicholas Fayre are contentious, some would say fixed. JasBro

5:04pm Wed 4 Dec 13

Alf Garnett says...

"The ruling Labour group claimed this was “opposition for opposition’s sake” after pointing to Conservative leader Coun Ian Gillies’ comments in a 2010 Press article, when he said he would like to see the bridge closed for a period and shutting Ouse Bridge should also be considered."
Isn't this the same guy who was demanding that something be done about tightening the regulations on controlling city centre traffic ?

Time some of the anti brigade got about a bit more and had a look at what's going on in the world instead of moaning about their personal discomfiture, most of which is fabricated I suspect. Rating ? About minus ten.
"The ruling Labour group claimed this was “opposition for opposition’s sake” after pointing to Conservative leader Coun Ian Gillies’ comments in a 2010 Press article, when he said he would like to see the bridge closed for a period and shutting Ouse Bridge should also be considered." Isn't this the same guy who was demanding that something be done about tightening the regulations on controlling city centre traffic ? Time some of the anti brigade got about a bit more and had a look at what's going on in the world instead of moaning about their personal discomfiture, most of which is fabricated I suspect. Rating ? About minus ten. Alf Garnett

8:26pm Wed 4 Dec 13

nearlyman says...

The last time the bufoon in charge spoke to a city trader was probably when he was looking for a saturday job.................
...........
The last time the bufoon in charge spoke to a city trader was probably when he was looking for a saturday job................. ........... nearlyman

9:48pm Thu 5 Dec 13

wallman says...

nearlyman wrote:
The last time the bufoon in charge spoke to a city trader was probably when he was looking for a saturday job.................

...........
was it last week? getting his cv in before the rest of his 'gang' have to look for proper jobs and not jobs for the boys
[quote][p][bold]nearlyman[/bold] wrote: The last time the bufoon in charge spoke to a city trader was probably when he was looking for a saturday job................. ...........[/p][/quote]was it last week? getting his cv in before the rest of his 'gang' have to look for proper jobs and not jobs for the boys wallman

10:59am Tue 10 Dec 13

Ignatius Lumpopo says...

There's the ethical dilemma of not fining people in July 2013, fining them £60 in October 2013 and then not fining them from March 2014 - all on a political whim.

Discuss.
There's the ethical dilemma of not fining people in July 2013, fining them £60 in October 2013 and then not fining them from March 2014 - all on a political whim. Discuss. Ignatius Lumpopo

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