Clarence Street may be widened

York Press: A bus travels along Clarence Street A bus travels along Clarence Street

YORK’S Clarence Street could be widened to reduce congestion and improve conditions for buses – but plans for bus lanes may now be dropped, at least for the time being.

City of York Council officers have recommended that original proposals for bus lanes, a bus gate and signals should be deferred until a decision is made on the future of Lendal Bridge.

A report to be considered next week by Coun Dave Merrett, cabinet member for transport, said journey times for services using Clarence Street during the trial closure of the bridge to cars had been significantly reduced.

In a written report, Julian Ridge, a council transport programme manager, said: “While the bridge restriction is in place, there appears to be a weaker case for the bus lane, as much of the daytime benefit is being realised by other means.

“There is, however, a rationale for progressing the associated junction improvements as they improve the situation for other road users by making it easier for them to turn left into Lord Mayor’s Walk.”

The authority now looks set set to go out to public consultation on proposals to widen the street, particularly near the junction with Lord Mayor’s Walk.

A council spokeswoman said: “The scheme will be funded by £250,000, supported through part of the £3.5 million Better Bus Area Fund (BBAF) awarded to the council from the Department of Transport in 2012.”

“If approved, the improvements will help three of York’s five most frequent bus services (routes 1, 5 and 6) which all use Clarence Street and experience delays on Clarence Street, Gillygate and St Leonards Place/Lendal Bridge – but only when access to the bridge is not restricted.

“Data issued during the Lendal Bridge trial indicate that delays are now significantly reduced between 10.30am and 5pm.”

Coun Merrett, cabinet member for transport, said the authority’s aim was to encourage even more people to travel by bus and increase passenger numbers by 18 per cent by 2015, but the widening should benefit all users on the very tight Clarence Street approach to the Lord Mayor’s Walk junction.

Comments (87)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

11:44am Wed 8 Jan 14

Lunatic says...

Well, the fact that the closure has had a positive impact somewhere in York is really going to irk a lot of people, I imagine...
Well, the fact that the closure has had a positive impact somewhere in York is really going to irk a lot of people, I imagine... Lunatic
  • Score: 94

11:57am Wed 8 Jan 14

X5019c says...

Can we have the Council sectioned? They are clearly bonkers!
Can we have the Council sectioned? They are clearly bonkers! X5019c
  • Score: -76

11:58am Wed 8 Jan 14

AGuyFromStrensall says...

Lunatic wrote:
Well, the fact that the closure has had a positive impact somewhere in York is really going to irk a lot of people, I imagine...
And I'm guessing that the fact that it has a negative impact in places will be ignored completely by you?

As long as you and people that are living in the right areas that can cycle/walk/bus are ok, then who else care eh right? right?
[quote][p][bold]Lunatic[/bold] wrote: Well, the fact that the closure has had a positive impact somewhere in York is really going to irk a lot of people, I imagine...[/p][/quote]And I'm guessing that the fact that it has a negative impact in places will be ignored completely by you? As long as you and people that are living in the right areas that can cycle/walk/bus are ok, then who else care eh right? right? AGuyFromStrensall
  • Score: -78

12:06pm Wed 8 Jan 14

Ignatius Lumpopo says...

There has been a 'reserved' section on the west of Clarence Street for some years - wide pavements, planted borders etc. - but all that will happen if the carriageway is widened is that buses will be able to speed merrily on to... the next set of traffic lights. When will the council realise that the carriageways themselves (that is, those that they keep open or don't close off with bollards) aren't the problem: the junctions are.

However, using the closure of Lendal Bridge to justify saving money on a new bus lane in Clarence Street is totally disingenuous. Why not ban ALL road traffic from the centre of York? That'd save even more.

The council's job is to keep the infrastructure of the city up and running for the benefit of the people who pay the council tax. Are they ever going to grasp this?
There has been a 'reserved' section on the west of Clarence Street for some years - wide pavements, planted borders etc. - but all that will happen if the carriageway is widened is that buses will be able to speed merrily on to... the next set of traffic lights. When will the council realise that the carriageways themselves (that is, those that they keep open or don't close off with bollards) aren't the problem: the junctions are. However, using the closure of Lendal Bridge to justify saving money on a new bus lane in Clarence Street is totally disingenuous. Why not ban ALL road traffic from the centre of York? That'd save even more. The council's job is to keep the infrastructure of the city up and running for the benefit of the people who pay the council tax. Are they ever going to grasp this? Ignatius Lumpopo
  • Score: -78

12:06pm Wed 8 Jan 14

Knavesmire view says...

Looking forward to another 'public consultation' so that they can end up doing what they want to do anyway!
Looking forward to another 'public consultation' so that they can end up doing what they want to do anyway! Knavesmire view
  • Score: -58

12:07pm Wed 8 Jan 14

eeoodares says...

Lunatic wrote:
Well, the fact that the closure has had a positive impact somewhere in York is really going to irk a lot of people, I imagine...
What a silly statement!

Watch them chop trees down to widen a road to improve the environment, so busses can shave 2 minutes off their travel times! If the timings were sorted on the traffic lights, it would improve everyones life at a fraction of the cost!

Vote these people out!
[quote][p][bold]Lunatic[/bold] wrote: Well, the fact that the closure has had a positive impact somewhere in York is really going to irk a lot of people, I imagine...[/p][/quote]What a silly statement! Watch them chop trees down to widen a road to improve the environment, so busses can shave 2 minutes off their travel times! If the timings were sorted on the traffic lights, it would improve everyones life at a fraction of the cost! Vote these people out! eeoodares
  • Score: -60

12:11pm Wed 8 Jan 14

Lunatic says...

AGuyFromStrensall wrote:
Lunatic wrote:
Well, the fact that the closure has had a positive impact somewhere in York is really going to irk a lot of people, I imagine...
And I'm guessing that the fact that it has a negative impact in places will be ignored completely by you?

As long as you and people that are living in the right areas that can cycle/walk/bus are ok, then who else care eh right? right?
Not really, no. You're imposing a bit of a false dichotomy there and straw-manning. I made no comment regarding my own opinion. But, whilst we're on the topic...

I'm against the closure because I drive around York quite a bit. Having said that, I'm willing to admit that it hasn't been the huge disaster everybody said it would. Still takes me as long to get from Holgate to Layerthorpe now as it did before the closure.
[quote][p][bold]AGuyFromStrensall[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Lunatic[/bold] wrote: Well, the fact that the closure has had a positive impact somewhere in York is really going to irk a lot of people, I imagine...[/p][/quote]And I'm guessing that the fact that it has a negative impact in places will be ignored completely by you? As long as you and people that are living in the right areas that can cycle/walk/bus are ok, then who else care eh right? right?[/p][/quote]Not really, no. You're imposing a bit of a false dichotomy there and straw-manning. I made no comment regarding my own opinion. But, whilst we're on the topic... I'm against the closure because I drive around York quite a bit. Having said that, I'm willing to admit that it hasn't been the huge disaster everybody said it would. Still takes me as long to get from Holgate to Layerthorpe now as it did before the closure. Lunatic
  • Score: 21

12:15pm Wed 8 Jan 14

Lunatic says...

eeoodares wrote:
Lunatic wrote:
Well, the fact that the closure has had a positive impact somewhere in York is really going to irk a lot of people, I imagine...
What a silly statement!

Watch them chop trees down to widen a road to improve the environment, so busses can shave 2 minutes off their travel times! If the timings were sorted on the traffic lights, it would improve everyones life at a fraction of the cost!

Vote these people out!
Pointing out an improvement will displease some is silly, and then you say that? Intriguing.

You do realise that to schedule a bus that precisely you'd have to remove everything but busses from the road, right? There's no effective way to control traffic volume across every bus route in York.
[quote][p][bold]eeoodares[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Lunatic[/bold] wrote: Well, the fact that the closure has had a positive impact somewhere in York is really going to irk a lot of people, I imagine...[/p][/quote]What a silly statement! Watch them chop trees down to widen a road to improve the environment, so busses can shave 2 minutes off their travel times! If the timings were sorted on the traffic lights, it would improve everyones life at a fraction of the cost! Vote these people out![/p][/quote]Pointing out an improvement will displease some is silly, and then you say that? Intriguing. You do realise that to schedule a bus that precisely you'd have to remove everything but busses from the road, right? There's no effective way to control traffic volume across every bus route in York. Lunatic
  • Score: 91

12:27pm Wed 8 Jan 14

AGuyFromStrensall says...

Lunatic wrote:
AGuyFromStrensall wrote:
Lunatic wrote:
Well, the fact that the closure has had a positive impact somewhere in York is really going to irk a lot of people, I imagine...
And I'm guessing that the fact that it has a negative impact in places will be ignored completely by you?

As long as you and people that are living in the right areas that can cycle/walk/bus are ok, then who else care eh right? right?
Not really, no. You're imposing a bit of a false dichotomy there and straw-manning. I made no comment regarding my own opinion. But, whilst we're on the topic...

I'm against the closure because I drive around York quite a bit. Having said that, I'm willing to admit that it hasn't been the huge disaster everybody said it would. Still takes me as long to get from Holgate to Layerthorpe now as it did before the closure.
*rolls eyes* Just naming what I'm doing doesn't make it any less right, you're well aware that it was pushing the point home.

I'm happy that for some people it has positive effects. However just pointing out the positives and ignoring any negatives is just silly. Though obviously this will be exactly what happens in the report when it comes out.
[quote][p][bold]Lunatic[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]AGuyFromStrensall[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Lunatic[/bold] wrote: Well, the fact that the closure has had a positive impact somewhere in York is really going to irk a lot of people, I imagine...[/p][/quote]And I'm guessing that the fact that it has a negative impact in places will be ignored completely by you? As long as you and people that are living in the right areas that can cycle/walk/bus are ok, then who else care eh right? right?[/p][/quote]Not really, no. You're imposing a bit of a false dichotomy there and straw-manning. I made no comment regarding my own opinion. But, whilst we're on the topic... I'm against the closure because I drive around York quite a bit. Having said that, I'm willing to admit that it hasn't been the huge disaster everybody said it would. Still takes me as long to get from Holgate to Layerthorpe now as it did before the closure.[/p][/quote]*rolls eyes* Just naming what I'm doing doesn't make it any less right, you're well aware that it was pushing the point home. I'm happy that for some people it has positive effects. However just pointing out the positives and ignoring any negatives is just silly. Though obviously this will be exactly what happens in the report when it comes out. AGuyFromStrensall
  • Score: -73

12:35pm Wed 8 Jan 14

Lunatic says...

AGuyFromStrensall wrote:
Lunatic wrote:
AGuyFromStrensall wrote:
Lunatic wrote:
Well, the fact that the closure has had a positive impact somewhere in York is really going to irk a lot of people, I imagine...
And I'm guessing that the fact that it has a negative impact in places will be ignored completely by you?

As long as you and people that are living in the right areas that can cycle/walk/bus are ok, then who else care eh right? right?
Not really, no. You're imposing a bit of a false dichotomy there and straw-manning. I made no comment regarding my own opinion. But, whilst we're on the topic...

I'm against the closure because I drive around York quite a bit. Having said that, I'm willing to admit that it hasn't been the huge disaster everybody said it would. Still takes me as long to get from Holgate to Layerthorpe now as it did before the closure.
*rolls eyes* Just naming what I'm doing doesn't make it any less right, you're well aware that it was pushing the point home.

I'm happy that for some people it has positive effects. However just pointing out the positives and ignoring any negatives is just silly. Though obviously this will be exactly what happens in the report when it comes out.
You weren't pushing the point at all. You were misrepresenting what I said and then countering an argument I didn't make.

It's amusing. But it gets you nowhere.
[quote][p][bold]AGuyFromStrensall[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Lunatic[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]AGuyFromStrensall[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Lunatic[/bold] wrote: Well, the fact that the closure has had a positive impact somewhere in York is really going to irk a lot of people, I imagine...[/p][/quote]And I'm guessing that the fact that it has a negative impact in places will be ignored completely by you? As long as you and people that are living in the right areas that can cycle/walk/bus are ok, then who else care eh right? right?[/p][/quote]Not really, no. You're imposing a bit of a false dichotomy there and straw-manning. I made no comment regarding my own opinion. But, whilst we're on the topic... I'm against the closure because I drive around York quite a bit. Having said that, I'm willing to admit that it hasn't been the huge disaster everybody said it would. Still takes me as long to get from Holgate to Layerthorpe now as it did before the closure.[/p][/quote]*rolls eyes* Just naming what I'm doing doesn't make it any less right, you're well aware that it was pushing the point home. I'm happy that for some people it has positive effects. However just pointing out the positives and ignoring any negatives is just silly. Though obviously this will be exactly what happens in the report when it comes out.[/p][/quote]You weren't pushing the point at all. You were misrepresenting what I said and then countering an argument I didn't make. It's amusing. But it gets you nowhere. Lunatic
  • Score: 122

12:41pm Wed 8 Jan 14

AGuyFromStrensall says...

Lunatic wrote:
AGuyFromStrensall wrote:
Lunatic wrote:
AGuyFromStrensall wrote:
Lunatic wrote:
Well, the fact that the closure has had a positive impact somewhere in York is really going to irk a lot of people, I imagine...
And I'm guessing that the fact that it has a negative impact in places will be ignored completely by you?

As long as you and people that are living in the right areas that can cycle/walk/bus are ok, then who else care eh right? right?
Not really, no. You're imposing a bit of a false dichotomy there and straw-manning. I made no comment regarding my own opinion. But, whilst we're on the topic...

I'm against the closure because I drive around York quite a bit. Having said that, I'm willing to admit that it hasn't been the huge disaster everybody said it would. Still takes me as long to get from Holgate to Layerthorpe now as it did before the closure.
*rolls eyes* Just naming what I'm doing doesn't make it any less right, you're well aware that it was pushing the point home.

I'm happy that for some people it has positive effects. However just pointing out the positives and ignoring any negatives is just silly. Though obviously this will be exactly what happens in the report when it comes out.
You weren't pushing the point at all. You were misrepresenting what I said and then countering an argument I didn't make.

It's amusing. But it gets you nowhere.
No I was framing *exactly* the problem with your comment.
You can find it amusing all you want, but it doesn't make your comment any more balanced. All the attempts at being clever in the world don't make a statement with weasel words any more balanced.

But hey you're on the side that will win in the end so you get the last laugh..
[quote][p][bold]Lunatic[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]AGuyFromStrensall[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Lunatic[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]AGuyFromStrensall[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Lunatic[/bold] wrote: Well, the fact that the closure has had a positive impact somewhere in York is really going to irk a lot of people, I imagine...[/p][/quote]And I'm guessing that the fact that it has a negative impact in places will be ignored completely by you? As long as you and people that are living in the right areas that can cycle/walk/bus are ok, then who else care eh right? right?[/p][/quote]Not really, no. You're imposing a bit of a false dichotomy there and straw-manning. I made no comment regarding my own opinion. But, whilst we're on the topic... I'm against the closure because I drive around York quite a bit. Having said that, I'm willing to admit that it hasn't been the huge disaster everybody said it would. Still takes me as long to get from Holgate to Layerthorpe now as it did before the closure.[/p][/quote]*rolls eyes* Just naming what I'm doing doesn't make it any less right, you're well aware that it was pushing the point home. I'm happy that for some people it has positive effects. However just pointing out the positives and ignoring any negatives is just silly. Though obviously this will be exactly what happens in the report when it comes out.[/p][/quote]You weren't pushing the point at all. You were misrepresenting what I said and then countering an argument I didn't make. It's amusing. But it gets you nowhere.[/p][/quote]No I was framing *exactly* the problem with your comment. You can find it amusing all you want, but it doesn't make your comment any more balanced. All the attempts at being clever in the world don't make a statement with weasel words any more balanced. But hey you're on the side that will win in the end so you get the last laugh.. AGuyFromStrensall
  • Score: -14

12:58pm Wed 8 Jan 14

Lunatic says...

AGuyFromStrensall wrote:
Lunatic wrote:
AGuyFromStrensall wrote:
Lunatic wrote:
AGuyFromStrensall wrote:
Lunatic wrote:
Well, the fact that the closure has had a positive impact somewhere in York is really going to irk a lot of people, I imagine...
And I'm guessing that the fact that it has a negative impact in places will be ignored completely by you?

As long as you and people that are living in the right areas that can cycle/walk/bus are ok, then who else care eh right? right?
Not really, no. You're imposing a bit of a false dichotomy there and straw-manning. I made no comment regarding my own opinion. But, whilst we're on the topic...

I'm against the closure because I drive around York quite a bit. Having said that, I'm willing to admit that it hasn't been the huge disaster everybody said it would. Still takes me as long to get from Holgate to Layerthorpe now as it did before the closure.
*rolls eyes* Just naming what I'm doing doesn't make it any less right, you're well aware that it was pushing the point home.

I'm happy that for some people it has positive effects. However just pointing out the positives and ignoring any negatives is just silly. Though obviously this will be exactly what happens in the report when it comes out.
You weren't pushing the point at all. You were misrepresenting what I said and then countering an argument I didn't make.

It's amusing. But it gets you nowhere.
No I was framing *exactly* the problem with your comment.
You can find it amusing all you want, but it doesn't make your comment any more balanced. All the attempts at being clever in the world don't make a statement with weasel words any more balanced.

But hey you're on the side that will win in the end so you get the last laugh..
But you didn't. You straw manned it so badly that you're arguing against a point I didn't make.

You took my statement to mean I support the closure, which I don't, and then ran with it like you'd made a valid point. Just because I think the anti closure people will be upset doesn't mean I'm pro closure. It means precisely what it says - I think a lot of the anti closure brigade will be unhappy that there's been any positive effect. I'm sure you're capable of understanding that if you try.
[quote][p][bold]AGuyFromStrensall[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Lunatic[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]AGuyFromStrensall[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Lunatic[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]AGuyFromStrensall[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Lunatic[/bold] wrote: Well, the fact that the closure has had a positive impact somewhere in York is really going to irk a lot of people, I imagine...[/p][/quote]And I'm guessing that the fact that it has a negative impact in places will be ignored completely by you? As long as you and people that are living in the right areas that can cycle/walk/bus are ok, then who else care eh right? right?[/p][/quote]Not really, no. You're imposing a bit of a false dichotomy there and straw-manning. I made no comment regarding my own opinion. But, whilst we're on the topic... I'm against the closure because I drive around York quite a bit. Having said that, I'm willing to admit that it hasn't been the huge disaster everybody said it would. Still takes me as long to get from Holgate to Layerthorpe now as it did before the closure.[/p][/quote]*rolls eyes* Just naming what I'm doing doesn't make it any less right, you're well aware that it was pushing the point home. I'm happy that for some people it has positive effects. However just pointing out the positives and ignoring any negatives is just silly. Though obviously this will be exactly what happens in the report when it comes out.[/p][/quote]You weren't pushing the point at all. You were misrepresenting what I said and then countering an argument I didn't make. It's amusing. But it gets you nowhere.[/p][/quote]No I was framing *exactly* the problem with your comment. You can find it amusing all you want, but it doesn't make your comment any more balanced. All the attempts at being clever in the world don't make a statement with weasel words any more balanced. But hey you're on the side that will win in the end so you get the last laugh..[/p][/quote]But you didn't. You straw manned it so badly that you're arguing against a point I didn't make. You took my statement to mean I support the closure, which I don't, and then ran with it like you'd made a valid point. Just because I think the anti closure people will be upset doesn't mean I'm pro closure. It means precisely what it says - I think a lot of the anti closure brigade will be unhappy that there's been any positive effect. I'm sure you're capable of understanding that if you try. Lunatic
  • Score: 182

1:07pm Wed 8 Jan 14

pedalling paul says...

Ignatius Lumpopo wrote:
There has been a 'reserved' section on the west of Clarence Street for some years - wide pavements, planted borders etc. - but all that will happen if the carriageway is widened is that buses will be able to speed merrily on to... the next set of traffic lights. When will the council realise that the carriageways themselves (that is, those that they keep open or don't close off with bollards) aren't the problem: the junctions are.

However, using the closure of Lendal Bridge to justify saving money on a new bus lane in Clarence Street is totally disingenuous. Why not ban ALL road traffic from the centre of York? That'd save even more.

The council's job is to keep the infrastructure of the city up and running for the benefit of the people who pay the council tax. Are they ever going to grasp this?
Another job of the Council is for their Transport Planners to look ahead, far further than many residents and politicians are capable of doing, predict future gridlock risk and recommend action now to prevent it.
The instinctive desire of many urban car owners is for an open road to their destination. Unfortunately when they venture onto the City's highway Network, particularly at peak times, they begin to contribute to the lack of one.
Should CoYC try to accommodate their wishes ad infinitum? Or must we all accept that there are more efficient ways of getting around, for many local journeys.
Learn how Groningen solved this dilemma, at http://www.streetfil
ms.org/groningen-the
-worlds-cycling-city
/
[quote][p][bold]Ignatius Lumpopo[/bold] wrote: There has been a 'reserved' section on the west of Clarence Street for some years - wide pavements, planted borders etc. - but all that will happen if the carriageway is widened is that buses will be able to speed merrily on to... the next set of traffic lights. When will the council realise that the carriageways themselves (that is, those that they keep open or don't close off with bollards) aren't the problem: the junctions are. However, using the closure of Lendal Bridge to justify saving money on a new bus lane in Clarence Street is totally disingenuous. Why not ban ALL road traffic from the centre of York? That'd save even more. The council's job is to keep the infrastructure of the city up and running for the benefit of the people who pay the council tax. Are they ever going to grasp this?[/p][/quote]Another job of the Council is for their Transport Planners to look ahead, far further than many residents and politicians are capable of doing, predict future gridlock risk and recommend action now to prevent it. The instinctive desire of many urban car owners is for an open road to their destination. Unfortunately when they venture onto the City's highway Network, particularly at peak times, they begin to contribute to the lack of one. Should CoYC try to accommodate their wishes ad infinitum? Or must we all accept that there are more efficient ways of getting around, for many local journeys. Learn how Groningen solved this dilemma, at http://www.streetfil ms.org/groningen-the -worlds-cycling-city / pedalling paul
  • Score: -2016

1:11pm Wed 8 Jan 14

YOUWILLDOASISAY says...

It's reasonable to assume the scores will be tampered with on this subject today. A clear indication of the desperate efforts to influence opinion can only be the work of those with a deep seated vested interest in the outcomes, no one else would invest the time and effort.

What is clear is this:
The whole subject of traffic management in York is a one man campaign:

1. One mans vision.
2. One mans measures.
3. One mans analysis.
4. One mans conclusions.
5. One mans solutions.

You will never get a balanced and objective/beneficial outcome from such approaches. The balance of argument will always be in favour of the desired outcome, ignoring and talking down the negatives (minimising) whilst focusing wholly on the positives (maximising).

You will see many more press releases in the the coming weeks that are aimed at justifying the outcome that in my opinion was already decided before the so called trial started. There is no winning of public opinion and gaining support required, because they just don't care. They don't care about facts, truth, both can be manipulated and what you are told are the results of cherry picking.

Looking forward to the next red herring in support of your false conclusions.
It's reasonable to assume the scores will be tampered with on this subject today. A clear indication of the desperate efforts to influence opinion can only be the work of those with a deep seated vested interest in the outcomes, no one else would invest the time and effort. What is clear is this: The whole subject of traffic management in York is a one man campaign: 1. One mans vision. 2. One mans measures. 3. One mans analysis. 4. One mans conclusions. 5. One mans solutions. You will never get a balanced and objective/beneficial outcome from such approaches. The balance of argument will always be in favour of the desired outcome, ignoring and talking down the negatives (minimising) whilst focusing wholly on the positives (maximising). You will see many more press releases in the the coming weeks that are aimed at justifying the outcome that in my opinion was already decided before the so called trial started. There is no winning of public opinion and gaining support required, because they just don't care. They don't care about facts, truth, both can be manipulated and what you are told are the results of cherry picking. Looking forward to the next red herring in support of your false conclusions. YOUWILLDOASISAY
  • Score: -48

1:13pm Wed 8 Jan 14

AGuyFromStrensall says...

Lunatic wrote:
AGuyFromStrensall wrote:
Lunatic wrote:
AGuyFromStrensall wrote:
Lunatic wrote:
AGuyFromStrensall wrote:
Lunatic wrote:
Well, the fact that the closure has had a positive impact somewhere in York is really going to irk a lot of people, I imagine...
And I'm guessing that the fact that it has a negative impact in places will be ignored completely by you?

As long as you and people that are living in the right areas that can cycle/walk/bus are ok, then who else care eh right? right?
Not really, no. You're imposing a bit of a false dichotomy there and straw-manning. I made no comment regarding my own opinion. But, whilst we're on the topic...

I'm against the closure because I drive around York quite a bit. Having said that, I'm willing to admit that it hasn't been the huge disaster everybody said it would. Still takes me as long to get from Holgate to Layerthorpe now as it did before the closure.
*rolls eyes* Just naming what I'm doing doesn't make it any less right, you're well aware that it was pushing the point home.

I'm happy that for some people it has positive effects. However just pointing out the positives and ignoring any negatives is just silly. Though obviously this will be exactly what happens in the report when it comes out.
You weren't pushing the point at all. You were misrepresenting what I said and then countering an argument I didn't make.

It's amusing. But it gets you nowhere.
No I was framing *exactly* the problem with your comment.
You can find it amusing all you want, but it doesn't make your comment any more balanced. All the attempts at being clever in the world don't make a statement with weasel words any more balanced.

But hey you're on the side that will win in the end so you get the last laugh..
But you didn't. You straw manned it so badly that you're arguing against a point I didn't make.

You took my statement to mean I support the closure, which I don't, and then ran with it like you'd made a valid point. Just because I think the anti closure people will be upset doesn't mean I'm pro closure. It means precisely what it says - I think a lot of the anti closure brigade will be unhappy that there's been any positive effect. I'm sure you're capable of understanding that if you try.
Be condesending all you want, you're obviously an intelligent person, what you're assuming is that the audience that are reading are thick (and by extension so am I).
Here is a shocker however - even if I was, it wouldn't be hard to see through.
But I'm sure by the sounds of it no matter how hard you try you won't understand that.
[quote][p][bold]Lunatic[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]AGuyFromStrensall[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Lunatic[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]AGuyFromStrensall[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Lunatic[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]AGuyFromStrensall[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Lunatic[/bold] wrote: Well, the fact that the closure has had a positive impact somewhere in York is really going to irk a lot of people, I imagine...[/p][/quote]And I'm guessing that the fact that it has a negative impact in places will be ignored completely by you? As long as you and people that are living in the right areas that can cycle/walk/bus are ok, then who else care eh right? right?[/p][/quote]Not really, no. You're imposing a bit of a false dichotomy there and straw-manning. I made no comment regarding my own opinion. But, whilst we're on the topic... I'm against the closure because I drive around York quite a bit. Having said that, I'm willing to admit that it hasn't been the huge disaster everybody said it would. Still takes me as long to get from Holgate to Layerthorpe now as it did before the closure.[/p][/quote]*rolls eyes* Just naming what I'm doing doesn't make it any less right, you're well aware that it was pushing the point home. I'm happy that for some people it has positive effects. However just pointing out the positives and ignoring any negatives is just silly. Though obviously this will be exactly what happens in the report when it comes out.[/p][/quote]You weren't pushing the point at all. You were misrepresenting what I said and then countering an argument I didn't make. It's amusing. But it gets you nowhere.[/p][/quote]No I was framing *exactly* the problem with your comment. You can find it amusing all you want, but it doesn't make your comment any more balanced. All the attempts at being clever in the world don't make a statement with weasel words any more balanced. But hey you're on the side that will win in the end so you get the last laugh..[/p][/quote]But you didn't. You straw manned it so badly that you're arguing against a point I didn't make. You took my statement to mean I support the closure, which I don't, and then ran with it like you'd made a valid point. Just because I think the anti closure people will be upset doesn't mean I'm pro closure. It means precisely what it says - I think a lot of the anti closure brigade will be unhappy that there's been any positive effect. I'm sure you're capable of understanding that if you try.[/p][/quote]Be condesending all you want, you're obviously an intelligent person, what you're assuming is that the audience that are reading are thick (and by extension so am I). Here is a shocker however - even if I was, it wouldn't be hard to see through. But I'm sure by the sounds of it no matter how hard you try you won't understand that. AGuyFromStrensall
  • Score: -125

1:16pm Wed 8 Jan 14

AGuyFromStrensall says...

pedalling paul wrote:
Ignatius Lumpopo wrote:
There has been a 'reserved' section on the west of Clarence Street for some years - wide pavements, planted borders etc. - but all that will happen if the carriageway is widened is that buses will be able to speed merrily on to... the next set of traffic lights. When will the council realise that the carriageways themselves (that is, those that they keep open or don't close off with bollards) aren't the problem: the junctions are.

However, using the closure of Lendal Bridge to justify saving money on a new bus lane in Clarence Street is totally disingenuous. Why not ban ALL road traffic from the centre of York? That'd save even more.

The council's job is to keep the infrastructure of the city up and running for the benefit of the people who pay the council tax. Are they ever going to grasp this?
Another job of the Council is for their Transport Planners to look ahead, far further than many residents and politicians are capable of doing, predict future gridlock risk and recommend action now to prevent it.
The instinctive desire of many urban car owners is for an open road to their destination. Unfortunately when they venture onto the City's highway Network, particularly at peak times, they begin to contribute to the lack of one.
Should CoYC try to accommodate their wishes ad infinitum? Or must we all accept that there are more efficient ways of getting around, for many local journeys.
Learn how Groningen solved this dilemma, at http://www.streetfil

ms.org/groningen-the

-worlds-cycling-city

/
Sir, on behalf of many on these comments and I mean this with genuine concern - seek help. You genuinely seem to have issues, I don't know if people are too worried to talk about it with you, but it saddens me that it goes unchecked.
[quote][p][bold]pedalling paul [/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ignatius Lumpopo[/bold] wrote: There has been a 'reserved' section on the west of Clarence Street for some years - wide pavements, planted borders etc. - but all that will happen if the carriageway is widened is that buses will be able to speed merrily on to... the next set of traffic lights. When will the council realise that the carriageways themselves (that is, those that they keep open or don't close off with bollards) aren't the problem: the junctions are. However, using the closure of Lendal Bridge to justify saving money on a new bus lane in Clarence Street is totally disingenuous. Why not ban ALL road traffic from the centre of York? That'd save even more. The council's job is to keep the infrastructure of the city up and running for the benefit of the people who pay the council tax. Are they ever going to grasp this?[/p][/quote]Another job of the Council is for their Transport Planners to look ahead, far further than many residents and politicians are capable of doing, predict future gridlock risk and recommend action now to prevent it. The instinctive desire of many urban car owners is for an open road to their destination. Unfortunately when they venture onto the City's highway Network, particularly at peak times, they begin to contribute to the lack of one. Should CoYC try to accommodate their wishes ad infinitum? Or must we all accept that there are more efficient ways of getting around, for many local journeys. Learn how Groningen solved this dilemma, at http://www.streetfil ms.org/groningen-the -worlds-cycling-city /[/p][/quote]Sir, on behalf of many on these comments and I mean this with genuine concern - seek help. You genuinely seem to have issues, I don't know if people are too worried to talk about it with you, but it saddens me that it goes unchecked. AGuyFromStrensall
  • Score: -110

1:30pm Wed 8 Jan 14

Lunatic says...

AGuyFromStrensall wrote:
Lunatic wrote:
AGuyFromStrensall wrote:
Lunatic wrote:
AGuyFromStrensall wrote:
Lunatic wrote:
AGuyFromStrensall wrote:
Lunatic wrote:
Well, the fact that the closure has had a positive impact somewhere in York is really going to irk a lot of people, I imagine...
And I'm guessing that the fact that it has a negative impact in places will be ignored completely by you?

As long as you and people that are living in the right areas that can cycle/walk/bus are ok, then who else care eh right? right?
Not really, no. You're imposing a bit of a false dichotomy there and straw-manning. I made no comment regarding my own opinion. But, whilst we're on the topic...

I'm against the closure because I drive around York quite a bit. Having said that, I'm willing to admit that it hasn't been the huge disaster everybody said it would. Still takes me as long to get from Holgate to Layerthorpe now as it did before the closure.
*rolls eyes* Just naming what I'm doing doesn't make it any less right, you're well aware that it was pushing the point home.

I'm happy that for some people it has positive effects. However just pointing out the positives and ignoring any negatives is just silly. Though obviously this will be exactly what happens in the report when it comes out.
You weren't pushing the point at all. You were misrepresenting what I said and then countering an argument I didn't make.

It's amusing. But it gets you nowhere.
No I was framing *exactly* the problem with your comment.
You can find it amusing all you want, but it doesn't make your comment any more balanced. All the attempts at being clever in the world don't make a statement with weasel words any more balanced.

But hey you're on the side that will win in the end so you get the last laugh..
But you didn't. You straw manned it so badly that you're arguing against a point I didn't make.

You took my statement to mean I support the closure, which I don't, and then ran with it like you'd made a valid point. Just because I think the anti closure people will be upset doesn't mean I'm pro closure. It means precisely what it says - I think a lot of the anti closure brigade will be unhappy that there's been any positive effect. I'm sure you're capable of understanding that if you try.
Be condesending all you want, you're obviously an intelligent person, what you're assuming is that the audience that are reading are thick (and by extension so am I).
Here is a shocker however - even if I was, it wouldn't be hard to see through.
But I'm sure by the sounds of it no matter how hard you try you won't understand that.
I'm sure the average reader is actually astute enough to recognise a straw man when they see one.

Your fundamental issue here is that you've been arguing against a point I didn't make. not that we're both now trying to be as condescending as humanly possible to one another without engaging in actual ad hominem.
[quote][p][bold]AGuyFromStrensall[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Lunatic[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]AGuyFromStrensall[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Lunatic[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]AGuyFromStrensall[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Lunatic[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]AGuyFromStrensall[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Lunatic[/bold] wrote: Well, the fact that the closure has had a positive impact somewhere in York is really going to irk a lot of people, I imagine...[/p][/quote]And I'm guessing that the fact that it has a negative impact in places will be ignored completely by you? As long as you and people that are living in the right areas that can cycle/walk/bus are ok, then who else care eh right? right?[/p][/quote]Not really, no. You're imposing a bit of a false dichotomy there and straw-manning. I made no comment regarding my own opinion. But, whilst we're on the topic... I'm against the closure because I drive around York quite a bit. Having said that, I'm willing to admit that it hasn't been the huge disaster everybody said it would. Still takes me as long to get from Holgate to Layerthorpe now as it did before the closure.[/p][/quote]*rolls eyes* Just naming what I'm doing doesn't make it any less right, you're well aware that it was pushing the point home. I'm happy that for some people it has positive effects. However just pointing out the positives and ignoring any negatives is just silly. Though obviously this will be exactly what happens in the report when it comes out.[/p][/quote]You weren't pushing the point at all. You were misrepresenting what I said and then countering an argument I didn't make. It's amusing. But it gets you nowhere.[/p][/quote]No I was framing *exactly* the problem with your comment. You can find it amusing all you want, but it doesn't make your comment any more balanced. All the attempts at being clever in the world don't make a statement with weasel words any more balanced. But hey you're on the side that will win in the end so you get the last laugh..[/p][/quote]But you didn't. You straw manned it so badly that you're arguing against a point I didn't make. You took my statement to mean I support the closure, which I don't, and then ran with it like you'd made a valid point. Just because I think the anti closure people will be upset doesn't mean I'm pro closure. It means precisely what it says - I think a lot of the anti closure brigade will be unhappy that there's been any positive effect. I'm sure you're capable of understanding that if you try.[/p][/quote]Be condesending all you want, you're obviously an intelligent person, what you're assuming is that the audience that are reading are thick (and by extension so am I). Here is a shocker however - even if I was, it wouldn't be hard to see through. But I'm sure by the sounds of it no matter how hard you try you won't understand that.[/p][/quote]I'm sure the average reader is actually astute enough to recognise a straw man when they see one. Your fundamental issue here is that you've been arguing against a point I didn't make. not that we're both now trying to be as condescending as humanly possible to one another without engaging in actual ad hominem. Lunatic
  • Score: 105

1:36pm Wed 8 Jan 14

CRWPROJ says...

These pathetic ideas keep seeing the 'light of day'.
Is this an alternative method of reducing the size of Union Street Car Park or providing additional space for York SJ College.
Why do individuals at the council believe that they can just fritter their time away on pipe dreams. Their time is our money. Please spend our money on core services before dreaming.
And all council employees.. please do not complain when the general public support cuts in public sector employment. Your complaints are falling on deaf ears.
These pathetic ideas keep seeing the 'light of day'. Is this an alternative method of reducing the size of Union Street Car Park or providing additional space for York SJ College. Why do individuals at the council believe that they can just fritter their time away on pipe dreams. Their time is our money. Please spend our money on core services before dreaming. And all council employees.. please do not complain when the general public support cuts in public sector employment. Your complaints are falling on deaf ears. CRWPROJ
  • Score: 12

1:41pm Wed 8 Jan 14

AGuyFromStrensall says...

Lunatic wrote:
AGuyFromStrensall wrote:
Lunatic wrote:
AGuyFromStrensall wrote:
Lunatic wrote:
AGuyFromStrensall wrote:
Lunatic wrote:
AGuyFromStrensall wrote:
Lunatic wrote:
Well, the fact that the closure has had a positive impact somewhere in York is really going to irk a lot of people, I imagine...
And I'm guessing that the fact that it has a negative impact in places will be ignored completely by you?

As long as you and people that are living in the right areas that can cycle/walk/bus are ok, then who else care eh right? right?
Not really, no. You're imposing a bit of a false dichotomy there and straw-manning. I made no comment regarding my own opinion. But, whilst we're on the topic...

I'm against the closure because I drive around York quite a bit. Having said that, I'm willing to admit that it hasn't been the huge disaster everybody said it would. Still takes me as long to get from Holgate to Layerthorpe now as it did before the closure.
*rolls eyes* Just naming what I'm doing doesn't make it any less right, you're well aware that it was pushing the point home.

I'm happy that for some people it has positive effects. However just pointing out the positives and ignoring any negatives is just silly. Though obviously this will be exactly what happens in the report when it comes out.
You weren't pushing the point at all. You were misrepresenting what I said and then countering an argument I didn't make.

It's amusing. But it gets you nowhere.
No I was framing *exactly* the problem with your comment.
You can find it amusing all you want, but it doesn't make your comment any more balanced. All the attempts at being clever in the world don't make a statement with weasel words any more balanced.

But hey you're on the side that will win in the end so you get the last laugh..
But you didn't. You straw manned it so badly that you're arguing against a point I didn't make.

You took my statement to mean I support the closure, which I don't, and then ran with it like you'd made a valid point. Just because I think the anti closure people will be upset doesn't mean I'm pro closure. It means precisely what it says - I think a lot of the anti closure brigade will be unhappy that there's been any positive effect. I'm sure you're capable of understanding that if you try.
Be condesending all you want, you're obviously an intelligent person, what you're assuming is that the audience that are reading are thick (and by extension so am I).
Here is a shocker however - even if I was, it wouldn't be hard to see through.
But I'm sure by the sounds of it no matter how hard you try you won't understand that.
I'm sure the average reader is actually astute enough to recognise a straw man when they see one.

Your fundamental issue here is that you've been arguing against a point I didn't make. not that we're both now trying to be as condescending as humanly possible to one another without engaging in actual ad hominem.
I'm done...
It's nice when someone else basically does themselves in without any effort on my part I guess.

I really would suggest you looking carefully and realising that trying to look clever really doesn't equal being right.
"oooo look if I use clever and long words, people will hopefully not notice I'm talking rubbish in between"
[quote][p][bold]Lunatic[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]AGuyFromStrensall[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Lunatic[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]AGuyFromStrensall[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Lunatic[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]AGuyFromStrensall[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Lunatic[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]AGuyFromStrensall[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Lunatic[/bold] wrote: Well, the fact that the closure has had a positive impact somewhere in York is really going to irk a lot of people, I imagine...[/p][/quote]And I'm guessing that the fact that it has a negative impact in places will be ignored completely by you? As long as you and people that are living in the right areas that can cycle/walk/bus are ok, then who else care eh right? right?[/p][/quote]Not really, no. You're imposing a bit of a false dichotomy there and straw-manning. I made no comment regarding my own opinion. But, whilst we're on the topic... I'm against the closure because I drive around York quite a bit. Having said that, I'm willing to admit that it hasn't been the huge disaster everybody said it would. Still takes me as long to get from Holgate to Layerthorpe now as it did before the closure.[/p][/quote]*rolls eyes* Just naming what I'm doing doesn't make it any less right, you're well aware that it was pushing the point home. I'm happy that for some people it has positive effects. However just pointing out the positives and ignoring any negatives is just silly. Though obviously this will be exactly what happens in the report when it comes out.[/p][/quote]You weren't pushing the point at all. You were misrepresenting what I said and then countering an argument I didn't make. It's amusing. But it gets you nowhere.[/p][/quote]No I was framing *exactly* the problem with your comment. You can find it amusing all you want, but it doesn't make your comment any more balanced. All the attempts at being clever in the world don't make a statement with weasel words any more balanced. But hey you're on the side that will win in the end so you get the last laugh..[/p][/quote]But you didn't. You straw manned it so badly that you're arguing against a point I didn't make. You took my statement to mean I support the closure, which I don't, and then ran with it like you'd made a valid point. Just because I think the anti closure people will be upset doesn't mean I'm pro closure. It means precisely what it says - I think a lot of the anti closure brigade will be unhappy that there's been any positive effect. I'm sure you're capable of understanding that if you try.[/p][/quote]Be condesending all you want, you're obviously an intelligent person, what you're assuming is that the audience that are reading are thick (and by extension so am I). Here is a shocker however - even if I was, it wouldn't be hard to see through. But I'm sure by the sounds of it no matter how hard you try you won't understand that.[/p][/quote]I'm sure the average reader is actually astute enough to recognise a straw man when they see one. Your fundamental issue here is that you've been arguing against a point I didn't make. not that we're both now trying to be as condescending as humanly possible to one another without engaging in actual ad hominem.[/p][/quote]I'm done... It's nice when someone else basically does themselves in without any effort on my part I guess. I really would suggest you looking carefully and realising that trying to look clever really doesn't equal being right. "oooo look if I use clever and long words, people will hopefully not notice I'm talking rubbish in between" AGuyFromStrensall
  • Score: -18

1:55pm Wed 8 Jan 14

Fat Harry says...

Seems a sensible suggestion to me, and one that might (wait for it) benefit motorists, but from the comments above (and probably below), some of them are determined to play the victim, froth at the mouth, and go all bulgy-eyed every time the word "council" is mentioned.
Seems a sensible suggestion to me, and one that might (wait for it) benefit motorists, but from the comments above (and probably below), some of them are determined to play the victim, froth at the mouth, and go all bulgy-eyed every time the word "council" is mentioned. Fat Harry
  • Score: -11

2:05pm Wed 8 Jan 14

Platform9 says...

how does widening this area improve on the bottle-necks at Gillygate and Wiggington Road
how does widening this area improve on the bottle-necks at Gillygate and Wiggington Road Platform9
  • Score: 7

2:13pm Wed 8 Jan 14

AGuyFromStrensall says...

Fat Harry wrote:
Seems a sensible suggestion to me, and one that might (wait for it) benefit motorists, but from the comments above (and probably below), some of them are determined to play the victim, froth at the mouth, and go all bulgy-eyed every time the word "council" is mentioned.
I'm assume that's on me, but hey insult all you want.

But hey if you'd asked me instead of defaulting to muck flinging you'd have found out that I agree with you. But I guess that is not as fun as trying to be mean if you can.

Only proviso would be that it didn't cause people too much trouble that have houses down there.

Ok feel free to go back to trying to be insulting...
[quote][p][bold]Fat Harry[/bold] wrote: Seems a sensible suggestion to me, and one that might (wait for it) benefit motorists, but from the comments above (and probably below), some of them are determined to play the victim, froth at the mouth, and go all bulgy-eyed every time the word "council" is mentioned.[/p][/quote]I'm assume that's on me, but hey insult all you want. But hey if you'd asked me instead of defaulting to muck flinging you'd have found out that I agree with you. But I guess that is not as fun as trying to be mean if you can. Only proviso would be that it didn't cause people too much trouble that have houses down there. Ok feel free to go back to trying to be insulting... AGuyFromStrensall
  • Score: -133

2:19pm Wed 8 Jan 14

mjgyork says...

An excellent idea. Couple that with Gillygate being made one and it would be even better!
An excellent idea. Couple that with Gillygate being made one [into town] and it would be even better! mjgyork
  • Score: -141

2:36pm Wed 8 Jan 14

old_geezer says...

There are winners and losers with Lendal Bridge, and naturally losers will never accept that. The restriction suits me when I walk or cycle, and my bus gets across to Museum Street quicker. On the rare occasions when I drive, Bootham's not choked any more. And neither Foss Bank nor Leeman Road seems any worse. It's a choice of evils, and I prefer this one.
There are winners and losers with Lendal Bridge, and naturally losers will never accept that. The restriction suits me when I walk or cycle, and my bus gets across to Museum Street quicker. On the rare occasions when I drive, Bootham's not choked any more. And neither Foss Bank nor Leeman Road seems any worse. It's a choice of evils, and I prefer this one. old_geezer
  • Score: -134

2:53pm Wed 8 Jan 14

Rankled says...

old_geezer wrote:
There are winners and losers with Lendal Bridge, and naturally losers will never accept that. The restriction suits me when I walk or cycle, and my bus gets across to Museum Street quicker. On the rare occasions when I drive, Bootham's not choked any more. And neither Foss Bank nor Leeman Road seems any worse. It's a choice of evils, and I prefer this one.
Quite the opposite for me. I did not, and still do not, have any problems when walking and cycling. The bus takes just as long as it did before. When I drive it takes longer because the traffic is heavier on my routes. Overall, net loss :(
[quote][p][bold]old_geezer[/bold] wrote: There are winners and losers with Lendal Bridge, and naturally losers will never accept that. The restriction suits me when I walk or cycle, and my bus gets across to Museum Street quicker. On the rare occasions when I drive, Bootham's not choked any more. And neither Foss Bank nor Leeman Road seems any worse. It's a choice of evils, and I prefer this one.[/p][/quote]Quite the opposite for me. I did not, and still do not, have any problems when walking and cycling. The bus takes just as long as it did before. When I drive it takes longer because the traffic is heavier on my routes. Overall, net loss :( Rankled
  • Score: -65

3:12pm Wed 8 Jan 14

Fat Harry says...

AGuyFromStrensall wrote:
Fat Harry wrote: Seems a sensible suggestion to me, and one that might (wait for it) benefit motorists, but from the comments above (and probably below), some of them are determined to play the victim, froth at the mouth, and go all bulgy-eyed every time the word "council" is mentioned.
I'm assume that's on me, but hey insult all you want. But hey if you'd asked me instead of defaulting to muck flinging you'd have found out that I agree with you. But I guess that is not as fun as trying to be mean if you can. Only proviso would be that it didn't cause people too much trouble that have houses down there. Ok feel free to go back to trying to be insulting...
Half a dozen other people have made comments that are more about the authors' hatred of all things council than about the merits or otherwise of the proposal at hand.

Such posts insult the intelligence of other readers.
[quote][p][bold]AGuyFromStrensall[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Fat Harry[/bold] wrote: Seems a sensible suggestion to me, and one that might (wait for it) benefit motorists, but from the comments above (and probably below), some of them are determined to play the victim, froth at the mouth, and go all bulgy-eyed every time the word "council" is mentioned.[/p][/quote]I'm assume that's on me, but hey insult all you want. But hey if you'd asked me instead of defaulting to muck flinging you'd have found out that I agree with you. But I guess that is not as fun as trying to be mean if you can. Only proviso would be that it didn't cause people too much trouble that have houses down there. Ok feel free to go back to trying to be insulting...[/p][/quote]Half a dozen other people have made comments that are more about the authors' hatred of all things council than about the merits or otherwise of the proposal at hand. Such posts insult the intelligence of other readers. Fat Harry
  • Score: 128

3:16pm Wed 8 Jan 14

asd says...

Intersting that CoY council bend over backwards for a PRIVATE bus company to help there profits! Set the traffic light sequencing correctly that will help matters, better still switch them off. its amazing that when traffic light failute happened a few years back at clifton green there was no heavy traffic. Also why not promote river taxi's? direct from Poppleton into heart of York, like what happens at Fulford. Also make the Harrogate line a more frequent service to take traffic from roads , similary why not Haxby too.
Intersting that CoY council bend over backwards for a PRIVATE bus company to help there profits! Set the traffic light sequencing correctly that will help matters, better still switch them off. its amazing that when traffic light failute happened a few years back at clifton green there was no heavy traffic. Also why not promote river taxi's? direct from Poppleton into heart of York, like what happens at Fulford. Also make the Harrogate line a more frequent service to take traffic from roads , similary why not Haxby too. asd
  • Score: -51

3:36pm Wed 8 Jan 14

pedalling paul says...

AGuyFromStrensall wrote:
pedalling paul wrote:
Ignatius Lumpopo wrote:
There has been a 'reserved' section on the west of Clarence Street for some years - wide pavements, planted borders etc. - but all that will happen if the carriageway is widened is that buses will be able to speed merrily on to... the next set of traffic lights. When will the council realise that the carriageways themselves (that is, those that they keep open or don't close off with bollards) aren't the problem: the junctions are.

However, using the closure of Lendal Bridge to justify saving money on a new bus lane in Clarence Street is totally disingenuous. Why not ban ALL road traffic from the centre of York? That'd save even more.

The council's job is to keep the infrastructure of the city up and running for the benefit of the people who pay the council tax. Are they ever going to grasp this?
Another job of the Council is for their Transport Planners to look ahead, far further than many residents and politicians are capable of doing, predict future gridlock risk and recommend action now to prevent it.
The instinctive desire of many urban car owners is for an open road to their destination. Unfortunately when they venture onto the City's highway Network, particularly at peak times, they begin to contribute to the lack of one.
Should CoYC try to accommodate their wishes ad infinitum? Or must we all accept that there are more efficient ways of getting around, for many local journeys.
Learn how Groningen solved this dilemma, at http://www.streetfil


ms.org/groningen-the


-worlds-cycling-city


/
Sir, on behalf of many on these comments and I mean this with genuine concern - seek help. You genuinely seem to have issues, I don't know if people are too worried to talk about it with you, but it saddens me that it goes unchecked.
I've go no problems mon ami. I can look ahead by two or three decades, to the kind of City that I would like my descendants to inherit.
[quote][p][bold]AGuyFromStrensall[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]pedalling paul [/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ignatius Lumpopo[/bold] wrote: There has been a 'reserved' section on the west of Clarence Street for some years - wide pavements, planted borders etc. - but all that will happen if the carriageway is widened is that buses will be able to speed merrily on to... the next set of traffic lights. When will the council realise that the carriageways themselves (that is, those that they keep open or don't close off with bollards) aren't the problem: the junctions are. However, using the closure of Lendal Bridge to justify saving money on a new bus lane in Clarence Street is totally disingenuous. Why not ban ALL road traffic from the centre of York? That'd save even more. The council's job is to keep the infrastructure of the city up and running for the benefit of the people who pay the council tax. Are they ever going to grasp this?[/p][/quote]Another job of the Council is for their Transport Planners to look ahead, far further than many residents and politicians are capable of doing, predict future gridlock risk and recommend action now to prevent it. The instinctive desire of many urban car owners is for an open road to their destination. Unfortunately when they venture onto the City's highway Network, particularly at peak times, they begin to contribute to the lack of one. Should CoYC try to accommodate their wishes ad infinitum? Or must we all accept that there are more efficient ways of getting around, for many local journeys. Learn how Groningen solved this dilemma, at http://www.streetfil ms.org/groningen-the -worlds-cycling-city /[/p][/quote]Sir, on behalf of many on these comments and I mean this with genuine concern - seek help. You genuinely seem to have issues, I don't know if people are too worried to talk about it with you, but it saddens me that it goes unchecked.[/p][/quote]I've go no problems mon ami. I can look ahead by two or three decades, to the kind of City that I would like my descendants to inherit. pedalling paul
  • Score: -3530

4:14pm Wed 8 Jan 14

eeoodares says...

old_geezer wrote:
There are winners and losers with Lendal Bridge, and naturally losers will never accept that. The restriction suits me when I walk or cycle, and my bus gets across to Museum Street quicker. On the rare occasions when I drive, Bootham's not choked any more. And neither Foss Bank nor Leeman Road seems any worse. It's a choice of evils, and I prefer this one.
I must have to drive along a different Leeman Road to you. The one I drive along is much busier, the people that live there have also noted the increased volume of traffic.
[quote][p][bold]old_geezer[/bold] wrote: There are winners and losers with Lendal Bridge, and naturally losers will never accept that. The restriction suits me when I walk or cycle, and my bus gets across to Museum Street quicker. On the rare occasions when I drive, Bootham's not choked any more. And neither Foss Bank nor Leeman Road seems any worse. It's a choice of evils, and I prefer this one.[/p][/quote]I must have to drive along a different Leeman Road to you. The one I drive along is much busier, the people that live there have also noted the increased volume of traffic. eeoodares
  • Score: 1

4:24pm Wed 8 Jan 14

Bo Jolly says...

Talking of 'straw man' arguments, ladies and gentlemen, Pedalling Paul is the king of such specious rhetoric. Witness the nonsensical assertion in his post above, "The instinctive desire of many urban car owners is for an open road to their destination." What a blatant straw man! No-one expects an 'open road' in a city centre, but they do reject the idea of a council deliberately creating totally artificial extra congestion.
Talking of 'straw man' arguments, ladies and gentlemen, Pedalling Paul is the king of such specious rhetoric. Witness the nonsensical assertion in his post above, "The instinctive desire of many urban car owners is for an open road to their destination." What a blatant straw man! No-one expects an 'open road' in a city centre, but they do reject the idea of a council deliberately creating totally artificial extra congestion. Bo Jolly
  • Score: -72

4:24pm Wed 8 Jan 14

eeoodares says...

pedalling paul wrote:
AGuyFromStrensall wrote:
pedalling paul wrote:
Ignatius Lumpopo wrote:
There has been a 'reserved' section on the west of Clarence Street for some years - wide pavements, planted borders etc. - but all that will happen if the carriageway is widened is that buses will be able to speed merrily on to... the next set of traffic lights. When will the council realise that the carriageways themselves (that is, those that they keep open or don't close off with bollards) aren't the problem: the junctions are.

However, using the closure of Lendal Bridge to justify saving money on a new bus lane in Clarence Street is totally disingenuous. Why not ban ALL road traffic from the centre of York? That'd save even more.

The council's job is to keep the infrastructure of the city up and running for the benefit of the people who pay the council tax. Are they ever going to grasp this?
Another job of the Council is for their Transport Planners to look ahead, far further than many residents and politicians are capable of doing, predict future gridlock risk and recommend action now to prevent it.
The instinctive desire of many urban car owners is for an open road to their destination. Unfortunately when they venture onto the City's highway Network, particularly at peak times, they begin to contribute to the lack of one.
Should CoYC try to accommodate their wishes ad infinitum? Or must we all accept that there are more efficient ways of getting around, for many local journeys.
Learn how Groningen solved this dilemma, at http://www.streetfil



ms.org/groningen-the



-worlds-cycling-city



/
Sir, on behalf of many on these comments and I mean this with genuine concern - seek help. You genuinely seem to have issues, I don't know if people are too worried to talk about it with you, but it saddens me that it goes unchecked.
I've go no problems mon ami. I can look ahead by two or three decades, to the kind of City that I would like my descendants to inherit.
I can see the City you dream of removes peoples right to drive.

It does seem remarkable that you can see the future but can not grasp a fact that has been pointed out to you on this site dozens of times. The volume of traffic has gone down, the emissions have gone up as have journey times. WHY???

If you sort out the timings of the lights and you will reduce congestion and improve air quality.

But the objective of this council is not to improve peoples life, it is to further the agenda of a group of people that have hijacked a council.
[quote][p][bold]pedalling paul [/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]AGuyFromStrensall[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]pedalling paul [/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ignatius Lumpopo[/bold] wrote: There has been a 'reserved' section on the west of Clarence Street for some years - wide pavements, planted borders etc. - but all that will happen if the carriageway is widened is that buses will be able to speed merrily on to... the next set of traffic lights. When will the council realise that the carriageways themselves (that is, those that they keep open or don't close off with bollards) aren't the problem: the junctions are. However, using the closure of Lendal Bridge to justify saving money on a new bus lane in Clarence Street is totally disingenuous. Why not ban ALL road traffic from the centre of York? That'd save even more. The council's job is to keep the infrastructure of the city up and running for the benefit of the people who pay the council tax. Are they ever going to grasp this?[/p][/quote]Another job of the Council is for their Transport Planners to look ahead, far further than many residents and politicians are capable of doing, predict future gridlock risk and recommend action now to prevent it. The instinctive desire of many urban car owners is for an open road to their destination. Unfortunately when they venture onto the City's highway Network, particularly at peak times, they begin to contribute to the lack of one. Should CoYC try to accommodate their wishes ad infinitum? Or must we all accept that there are more efficient ways of getting around, for many local journeys. Learn how Groningen solved this dilemma, at http://www.streetfil ms.org/groningen-the -worlds-cycling-city /[/p][/quote]Sir, on behalf of many on these comments and I mean this with genuine concern - seek help. You genuinely seem to have issues, I don't know if people are too worried to talk about it with you, but it saddens me that it goes unchecked.[/p][/quote]I've go no problems mon ami. I can look ahead by two or three decades, to the kind of City that I would like my descendants to inherit.[/p][/quote]I can see the City you dream of removes peoples right to drive. It does seem remarkable that you can see the future but can not grasp a fact that has been pointed out to you on this site dozens of times. The volume of traffic has gone down, the emissions have gone up as have journey times. WHY??? If you sort out the timings of the lights and you will reduce congestion and improve air quality. But the objective of this council is not to improve peoples life, it is to further the agenda of a group of people that have hijacked a council. eeoodares
  • Score: -71

5:01pm Wed 8 Jan 14

Igiveinthen says...

pedalling paul wrote:
Ignatius Lumpopo wrote:
There has been a 'reserved' section on the west of Clarence Street for some years - wide pavements, planted borders etc. - but all that will happen if the carriageway is widened is that buses will be able to speed merrily on to... the next set of traffic lights. When will the council realise that the carriageways themselves (that is, those that they keep open or don't close off with bollards) aren't the problem: the junctions are.

However, using the closure of Lendal Bridge to justify saving money on a new bus lane in Clarence Street is totally disingenuous. Why not ban ALL road traffic from the centre of York? That'd save even more.

The council's job is to keep the infrastructure of the city up and running for the benefit of the people who pay the council tax. Are they ever going to grasp this?
Another job of the Council is for their Transport Planners to look ahead, far further than many residents and politicians are capable of doing, predict future gridlock risk and recommend action now to prevent it.
The instinctive desire of many urban car owners is for an open road to their destination. Unfortunately when they venture onto the City's highway Network, particularly at peak times, they begin to contribute to the lack of one.
Should CoYC try to accommodate their wishes ad infinitum? Or must we all accept that there are more efficient ways of getting around, for many local journeys.
Learn how Groningen solved this dilemma, at http://www.streetfil

ms.org/groningen-the

-worlds-cycling-city

/
Het zou beter zijn dan als je ging in Groningen wonen, dan zou je in een omgeving zijn meer geschikt is voor uw droom.

If you can't speak Dutch the translation is as follows:

It would be better then if you went to live in Groningen, then you would be in an environment more suited to your dream.

When will you realise that not all residents of York want to or indeed can ride a cycle, either because of an illness or incapacitation, or if they are like me absolutly no interest whatever in riding a bike.
Some people need cars to get about the city, so why not try and accommodate them, as for this open road rethoric you keep banging on about, there are plenty of open roads outside the city to keep me happy.
As for widening Clarence Street, what difference will a few hundred metres make to a bus journey time, and as has been pointed out it will all be cancelled out at the next junction.
[quote][p][bold]pedalling paul [/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ignatius Lumpopo[/bold] wrote: There has been a 'reserved' section on the west of Clarence Street for some years - wide pavements, planted borders etc. - but all that will happen if the carriageway is widened is that buses will be able to speed merrily on to... the next set of traffic lights. When will the council realise that the carriageways themselves (that is, those that they keep open or don't close off with bollards) aren't the problem: the junctions are. However, using the closure of Lendal Bridge to justify saving money on a new bus lane in Clarence Street is totally disingenuous. Why not ban ALL road traffic from the centre of York? That'd save even more. The council's job is to keep the infrastructure of the city up and running for the benefit of the people who pay the council tax. Are they ever going to grasp this?[/p][/quote]Another job of the Council is for their Transport Planners to look ahead, far further than many residents and politicians are capable of doing, predict future gridlock risk and recommend action now to prevent it. The instinctive desire of many urban car owners is for an open road to their destination. Unfortunately when they venture onto the City's highway Network, particularly at peak times, they begin to contribute to the lack of one. Should CoYC try to accommodate their wishes ad infinitum? Or must we all accept that there are more efficient ways of getting around, for many local journeys. Learn how Groningen solved this dilemma, at http://www.streetfil ms.org/groningen-the -worlds-cycling-city /[/p][/quote]Het zou beter zijn dan als je ging in Groningen wonen, dan zou je in een omgeving zijn meer geschikt is voor uw droom. If you can't speak Dutch the translation is as follows: It would be better then if you went to live in Groningen, then you would be in an environment more suited to your dream. When will you realise that not all residents of York want to or indeed can ride a cycle, either because of an illness or incapacitation, or if they are like me absolutly no interest whatever in riding a bike. Some people need cars to get about the city, so why not try and accommodate them, as for this open road rethoric you keep banging on about, there are plenty of open roads outside the city to keep me happy. As for widening Clarence Street, what difference will a few hundred metres make to a bus journey time, and as has been pointed out it will all be cancelled out at the next junction. Igiveinthen
  • Score: -68

5:02pm Wed 8 Jan 14

wallman says...

congestion will get worse because of the councils wish to shut roads to get all the traffic onto certain roads, then they can fetch congestion charges in
congestion will get worse because of the councils wish to shut roads to get all the traffic onto certain roads, then they can fetch congestion charges in wallman
  • Score: -78

5:08pm Wed 8 Jan 14

roadwars says...

Until the council realises that, at the front of every traffic queue is a bus stopped at a traffic light we will continue to have these problems. Even if private cars were banned from the whole of York there would still be a battle between busses and taxis to see who could undertake at the highest speed or pick the best lane to get to the next set of traffic lights quickest.
A simplified road system with fewer junctions would be the answer but without radical thinking and investment this wont happen.
An approach to public transport that doesn't just involve oversized busses would be another answer but without radical thinking and investment this wont happen.
Until the council realises that, at the front of every traffic queue is a bus stopped at a traffic light we will continue to have these problems. Even if private cars were banned from the whole of York there would still be a battle between busses and taxis to see who could undertake at the highest speed or pick the best lane to get to the next set of traffic lights quickest. A simplified road system with fewer junctions would be the answer but without radical thinking and investment this wont happen. An approach to public transport that doesn't just involve oversized busses would be another answer but without radical thinking and investment this wont happen. roadwars
  • Score: -73

5:23pm Wed 8 Jan 14

Stroppiness says...

Platform9 wrote:
how does widening this area improve on the bottle-necks at Gillygate and Wiggington Road
Exactly - I was going to post the exact same thing! You can banish all but the important traffic from Clarence Street (by important, I mean private bus companies, council employees etc - no one else qualifies!) but then the traffic grinds to a halt on Gillygate - hey, I have an idea - let's demolish Gillygate - they wanted to do it a few years ago anyway!

As someone who lives in the Bootham area, I have noticed quite a difference with the Landel Bridge "experiment" - yes, less congestion during the day - that is until mid/late afternoon when it grinds to a halt outbound as everyone tries to get out of York, without the benefit of Lendal Bridge to cross. As I have posted before, because of where I live, I do have to drive into town because I live there and I need to get home on a night. I drive on a daily basis because there is no public transport to where I work. Those who know me in the real world will back me up when I say that I do use public transport when I can. There is no doubt in my mind that traffic is considerably heavier on Leeman Road but I do not expect any council survey to show this because they are all a bunch of "figure manipulators" and the figures will be manipulated to show support for the anti-car lobby. Speak to people in the vets on Salisbury Road - they echo the fact that traffic has increased considerably.

I am not a conspiracy theorist generally, but when you look at this proposed plan, the Lendal Bridge "experiment" and the plans to move the bus-stops from outside St Leonards, I cannot help but believe this is all a done deal to satisfy the business lobby who are to buy and create another luxury hotel in the old council offices. Let's face it, as there is very little way to stop the congestion on Gillygate, which is pretty constant, it is unlikely that a bus lane on Clarence Street will decrease journey times, unless of course there are plans afoot to close Gillygate too.................
.............
[quote][p][bold]Platform9[/bold] wrote: how does widening this area improve on the bottle-necks at Gillygate and Wiggington Road[/p][/quote]Exactly - I was going to post the exact same thing! You can banish all but the important traffic from Clarence Street (by important, I mean private bus companies, council employees etc - no one else qualifies!) but then the traffic grinds to a halt on Gillygate - hey, I have an idea - let's demolish Gillygate - they wanted to do it a few years ago anyway! As someone who lives in the Bootham area, I have noticed quite a difference with the Landel Bridge "experiment" - yes, less congestion during the day - that is until mid/late afternoon when it grinds to a halt outbound as everyone tries to get out of York, without the benefit of Lendal Bridge to cross. As I have posted before, because of where I live, I do have to drive into town because I live there and I need to get home on a night. I drive on a daily basis because there is no public transport to where I work. Those who know me in the real world will back me up when I say that I do use public transport when I can. There is no doubt in my mind that traffic is considerably heavier on Leeman Road but I do not expect any council survey to show this because they are all a bunch of "figure manipulators" and the figures will be manipulated to show support for the anti-car lobby. Speak to people in the vets on Salisbury Road - they echo the fact that traffic has increased considerably. I am not a conspiracy theorist generally, but when you look at this proposed plan, the Lendal Bridge "experiment" and the plans to move the bus-stops from outside St Leonards, I cannot help but believe this is all a done deal to satisfy the business lobby who are to buy and create another luxury hotel in the old council offices. Let's face it, as there is very little way to stop the congestion on Gillygate, which is pretty constant, it is unlikely that a bus lane on Clarence Street will decrease journey times, unless of course there are plans afoot to close Gillygate too................. ............. Stroppiness
  • Score: -56

5:26pm Wed 8 Jan 14

Caecilius says...

AGuyFromStrensall wrote:
Lunatic wrote:
Well, the fact that the closure has had a positive impact somewhere in York is really going to irk a lot of people, I imagine...
And I'm guessing that the fact that it has a negative impact in places will be ignored completely by you?

As long as you and people that are living in the right areas that can cycle/walk/bus are ok, then who else care eh right? right?
Which is, in fact, precisely the view of some of the motorists who post on here - "Me and my car have a divine right to absolute priority, to the complete exclusion of everybody else's needs". So we have the people who fantasise that the traffic would flow freely if only all traffic lights were removed, and demand that they're ripped out - any pedestrians needing to cross the road can go hang. The people who boast that they simply ignore 20 mph limits in residential areas, because they're far too cool, skilled and important to observe them, and to hell with the residents. The people whose daily behaviour behind the wheel advertises that they don't give a toss for anyone else, like the driver who deliberately accelerated out of Water Lane through a red light this afternoon. York's streets aren't exclusively for car drivers - other people pay for their upkeep as well and have to put up with the negative impact that the volume of traffic has on their lives. It's only fair that they should get a look in, and sometimes that's going to mean that it's motorists' turn to take a share of the negative impact.
[quote][p][bold]AGuyFromStrensall[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Lunatic[/bold] wrote: Well, the fact that the closure has had a positive impact somewhere in York is really going to irk a lot of people, I imagine...[/p][/quote]And I'm guessing that the fact that it has a negative impact in places will be ignored completely by you? As long as you and people that are living in the right areas that can cycle/walk/bus are ok, then who else care eh right? right?[/p][/quote]Which is, in fact, precisely the view of some of the motorists who post on here - "Me and my car have a divine right to absolute priority, to the complete exclusion of everybody else's needs". So we have the people who fantasise that the traffic would flow freely if only all traffic lights were removed, and demand that they're ripped out - any pedestrians needing to cross the road can go hang. The people who boast that they simply ignore 20 mph limits in residential areas, because they're far too cool, skilled and important to observe them, and to hell with the residents. The people whose daily behaviour behind the wheel advertises that they don't give a toss for anyone else, like the driver who deliberately accelerated out of Water Lane through a red light this afternoon. York's streets aren't exclusively for car drivers - other people pay for their upkeep as well and have to put up with the negative impact that the volume of traffic has on their lives. It's only fair that they should get a look in, and sometimes that's going to mean that it's motorists' turn to take a share of the negative impact. Caecilius
  • Score: 4

5:48pm Wed 8 Jan 14

courier46 says...

pedalling paul wrote:
Ignatius Lumpopo wrote:
There has been a 'reserved' section on the west of Clarence Street for some years - wide pavements, planted borders etc. - but all that will happen if the carriageway is widened is that buses will be able to speed merrily on to... the next set of traffic lights. When will the council realise that the carriageways themselves (that is, those that they keep open or don't close off with bollards) aren't the problem: the junctions are.

However, using the closure of Lendal Bridge to justify saving money on a new bus lane in Clarence Street is totally disingenuous. Why not ban ALL road traffic from the centre of York? That'd save even more.

The council's job is to keep the infrastructure of the city up and running for the benefit of the people who pay the council tax. Are they ever going to grasp this?
Another job of the Council is for their Transport Planners to look ahead, far further than many residents and politicians are capable of doing, predict future gridlock risk and recommend action now to prevent it.
The instinctive desire of many urban car owners is for an open road to their destination. Unfortunately when they venture onto the City's highway Network, particularly at peak times, they begin to contribute to the lack of one.
Should CoYC try to accommodate their wishes ad infinitum? Or must we all accept that there are more efficient ways of getting around, for many local journeys.
Learn how Groningen solved this dilemma, at http://www.streetfil

ms.org/groningen-the

-worlds-cycling-city

/
They didn`t look far ahead 20 years ago and nothings changed now.
[quote][p][bold]pedalling paul [/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ignatius Lumpopo[/bold] wrote: There has been a 'reserved' section on the west of Clarence Street for some years - wide pavements, planted borders etc. - but all that will happen if the carriageway is widened is that buses will be able to speed merrily on to... the next set of traffic lights. When will the council realise that the carriageways themselves (that is, those that they keep open or don't close off with bollards) aren't the problem: the junctions are. However, using the closure of Lendal Bridge to justify saving money on a new bus lane in Clarence Street is totally disingenuous. Why not ban ALL road traffic from the centre of York? That'd save even more. The council's job is to keep the infrastructure of the city up and running for the benefit of the people who pay the council tax. Are they ever going to grasp this?[/p][/quote]Another job of the Council is for their Transport Planners to look ahead, far further than many residents and politicians are capable of doing, predict future gridlock risk and recommend action now to prevent it. The instinctive desire of many urban car owners is for an open road to their destination. Unfortunately when they venture onto the City's highway Network, particularly at peak times, they begin to contribute to the lack of one. Should CoYC try to accommodate their wishes ad infinitum? Or must we all accept that there are more efficient ways of getting around, for many local journeys. Learn how Groningen solved this dilemma, at http://www.streetfil ms.org/groningen-the -worlds-cycling-city /[/p][/quote]They didn`t look far ahead 20 years ago and nothings changed now. courier46
  • Score: -68

5:59pm Wed 8 Jan 14

bolero says...

Good night, sleep tight. Yaw................a
w..............aw...
.........n.
Good night, sleep tight. Yaw................a w..............aw... .........n. bolero
  • Score: -96

7:05pm Wed 8 Jan 14

JasBro says...

old_geezer wrote:
There are winners and losers with Lendal Bridge, and naturally losers will never accept that. The restriction suits me when I walk or cycle, and my bus gets across to Museum Street quicker. On the rare occasions when I drive, Bootham's not choked any more. And neither Foss Bank nor Leeman Road seems any worse. It's a choice of evils, and I prefer this one.
Sorry, but the traffic on Leeman Road is much worse, particularly in the late afternoon.
[quote][p][bold]old_geezer[/bold] wrote: There are winners and losers with Lendal Bridge, and naturally losers will never accept that. The restriction suits me when I walk or cycle, and my bus gets across to Museum Street quicker. On the rare occasions when I drive, Bootham's not choked any more. And neither Foss Bank nor Leeman Road seems any worse. It's a choice of evils, and I prefer this one.[/p][/quote]Sorry, but the traffic on Leeman Road is much worse, particularly in the late afternoon. JasBro
  • Score: -108

7:17pm Wed 8 Jan 14

eeoodares says...

Caecilius wrote:
AGuyFromStrensall wrote:
Lunatic wrote:
Well, the fact that the closure has had a positive impact somewhere in York is really going to irk a lot of people, I imagine...
And I'm guessing that the fact that it has a negative impact in places will be ignored completely by you?

As long as you and people that are living in the right areas that can cycle/walk/bus are ok, then who else care eh right? right?
Which is, in fact, precisely the view of some of the motorists who post on here - "Me and my car have a divine right to absolute priority, to the complete exclusion of everybody else's needs". So we have the people who fantasise that the traffic would flow freely if only all traffic lights were removed, and demand that they're ripped out - any pedestrians needing to cross the road can go hang. The people who boast that they simply ignore 20 mph limits in residential areas, because they're far too cool, skilled and important to observe them, and to hell with the residents. The people whose daily behaviour behind the wheel advertises that they don't give a toss for anyone else, like the driver who deliberately accelerated out of Water Lane through a red light this afternoon. York's streets aren't exclusively for car drivers - other people pay for their upkeep as well and have to put up with the negative impact that the volume of traffic has on their lives. It's only fair that they should get a look in, and sometimes that's going to mean that it's motorists' turn to take a share of the negative impact.
The volume of traffic has gone down, the emissions have gone up as have journey times. WHY???
[quote][p][bold]Caecilius[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]AGuyFromStrensall[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Lunatic[/bold] wrote: Well, the fact that the closure has had a positive impact somewhere in York is really going to irk a lot of people, I imagine...[/p][/quote]And I'm guessing that the fact that it has a negative impact in places will be ignored completely by you? As long as you and people that are living in the right areas that can cycle/walk/bus are ok, then who else care eh right? right?[/p][/quote]Which is, in fact, precisely the view of some of the motorists who post on here - "Me and my car have a divine right to absolute priority, to the complete exclusion of everybody else's needs". So we have the people who fantasise that the traffic would flow freely if only all traffic lights were removed, and demand that they're ripped out - any pedestrians needing to cross the road can go hang. The people who boast that they simply ignore 20 mph limits in residential areas, because they're far too cool, skilled and important to observe them, and to hell with the residents. The people whose daily behaviour behind the wheel advertises that they don't give a toss for anyone else, like the driver who deliberately accelerated out of Water Lane through a red light this afternoon. York's streets aren't exclusively for car drivers - other people pay for their upkeep as well and have to put up with the negative impact that the volume of traffic has on their lives. It's only fair that they should get a look in, and sometimes that's going to mean that it's motorists' turn to take a share of the negative impact.[/p][/quote]The volume of traffic has gone down, the emissions have gone up as have journey times. WHY??? eeoodares
  • Score: -92

7:23pm Wed 8 Jan 14

RoseD says...

Widening a tiny section of one road that is bracketed by lights is a further waste of our money.

The Lendal closure is just NIMBYism.
Widening a tiny section of one road that is bracketed by lights is a further waste of our money. The Lendal closure is just NIMBYism. RoseD
  • Score: -70

9:24pm Wed 8 Jan 14

YOUWILLDOASISAY says...

So desperate are they to feel they control opinion, they spend hours marking down the scores while I and many others enjoy our time.

You achieve nothing more than to draw attention to your desperation.

However this is your only way of feigning support, much like substantiating success criteria you have to falsify it.
So desperate are they to feel they control opinion, they spend hours marking down the scores while I and many others enjoy our time. You achieve nothing more than to draw attention to your desperation. However this is your only way of feigning support, much like substantiating success criteria you have to falsify it. YOUWILLDOASISAY
  • Score: -69

9:41pm Wed 8 Jan 14

Dave Ruddock says...

I ASK AGAIN < IS MERRETT A 1ST YORK MANAGER AND THEN A TRANSORRT MEMBER OF PARLIMENT, reason is Bus Bus Bus and they have boon told time and time again , Driver Rest period defeats the whole idea. secondly , pointless widening clarence stret as the problem in GILLTGATE that can not be widened, and delivery vehicles constantly break traffic laws by parking on double yellow lim=nes and in a number of casses right in front of traffic lights, Did Merrit have any input when york residents tiold Ist York to get rid a=of the Bendy Busses.. if Anything Clarence Street sould have an AMBULANCE LANE NOT A BUS LANE
I ASK AGAIN < IS MERRETT A 1ST YORK MANAGER AND THEN A TRANSORRT MEMBER OF PARLIMENT, reason is Bus Bus Bus and they have boon told time and time again , Driver Rest period defeats the whole idea. secondly , pointless widening clarence stret as the problem in GILLTGATE that can not be widened, and delivery vehicles constantly break traffic laws by parking on double yellow lim=nes and in a number of casses right in front of traffic lights, Did Merrit have any input when york residents tiold Ist York to get rid a=of the Bendy Busses.. if Anything Clarence Street sould have an AMBULANCE LANE NOT A BUS LANE Dave Ruddock
  • Score: -44

11:07pm Wed 8 Jan 14

jake777 says...

Ignatius Lumpopo wrote:
There has been a 'reserved' section on the west of Clarence Street for some years - wide pavements, planted borders etc. - but all that will happen if the carriageway is widened is that buses will be able to speed merrily on to... the next set of traffic lights. When will the council realise that the carriageways themselves (that is, those that they keep open or don't close off with bollards) aren't the problem: the junctions are.

However, using the closure of Lendal Bridge to justify saving money on a new bus lane in Clarence Street is totally disingenuous. Why not ban ALL road traffic from the centre of York? That'd save even more.

The council's job is to keep the infrastructure of the city up and running for the benefit of the people who pay the council tax. Are they ever going to grasp this?
"why not ban all road traffic from the centre of york" yes lets go for it best idea you have come up with.
[quote][p][bold]Ignatius Lumpopo[/bold] wrote: There has been a 'reserved' section on the west of Clarence Street for some years - wide pavements, planted borders etc. - but all that will happen if the carriageway is widened is that buses will be able to speed merrily on to... the next set of traffic lights. When will the council realise that the carriageways themselves (that is, those that they keep open or don't close off with bollards) aren't the problem: the junctions are. However, using the closure of Lendal Bridge to justify saving money on a new bus lane in Clarence Street is totally disingenuous. Why not ban ALL road traffic from the centre of York? That'd save even more. The council's job is to keep the infrastructure of the city up and running for the benefit of the people who pay the council tax. Are they ever going to grasp this?[/p][/quote]"why not ban all road traffic from the centre of york" yes lets go for it best idea you have come up with. jake777
  • Score: 115

11:23pm Wed 8 Jan 14

jake777 says...

old_geezer wrote:
There are winners and losers with Lendal Bridge, and naturally losers will never accept that. The restriction suits me when I walk or cycle, and my bus gets across to Museum Street quicker. On the rare occasions when I drive, Bootham's not choked any more. And neither Foss Bank nor Leeman Road seems any worse. It's a choice of evils, and I prefer this one.
Hear hear well said.
[quote][p][bold]old_geezer[/bold] wrote: There are winners and losers with Lendal Bridge, and naturally losers will never accept that. The restriction suits me when I walk or cycle, and my bus gets across to Museum Street quicker. On the rare occasions when I drive, Bootham's not choked any more. And neither Foss Bank nor Leeman Road seems any worse. It's a choice of evils, and I prefer this one.[/p][/quote]Hear hear well said. jake777
  • Score: 86

11:26pm Wed 8 Jan 14

jake777 says...

Rankled wrote:
old_geezer wrote:
There are winners and losers with Lendal Bridge, and naturally losers will never accept that. The restriction suits me when I walk or cycle, and my bus gets across to Museum Street quicker. On the rare occasions when I drive, Bootham's not choked any more. And neither Foss Bank nor Leeman Road seems any worse. It's a choice of evils, and I prefer this one.
Quite the opposite for me. I did not, and still do not, have any problems when walking and cycling. The bus takes just as long as it did before. When I drive it takes longer because the traffic is heavier on my routes. Overall, net loss :(
The bus does not take longer at all get your facts right. and if it takes you longer to drive then dont take the bus.
[quote][p][bold]Rankled[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]old_geezer[/bold] wrote: There are winners and losers with Lendal Bridge, and naturally losers will never accept that. The restriction suits me when I walk or cycle, and my bus gets across to Museum Street quicker. On the rare occasions when I drive, Bootham's not choked any more. And neither Foss Bank nor Leeman Road seems any worse. It's a choice of evils, and I prefer this one.[/p][/quote]Quite the opposite for me. I did not, and still do not, have any problems when walking and cycling. The bus takes just as long as it did before. When I drive it takes longer because the traffic is heavier on my routes. Overall, net loss :([/p][/quote]The bus does not take longer at all get your facts right. and if it takes you longer to drive then dont take the bus. jake777
  • Score: 96

11:32pm Wed 8 Jan 14

jake777 says...

asd wrote:
Intersting that CoY council bend over backwards for a PRIVATE bus company to help there profits! Set the traffic light sequencing correctly that will help matters, better still switch them off. its amazing that when traffic light failute happened a few years back at clifton green there was no heavy traffic. Also why not promote river taxi's? direct from Poppleton into heart of York, like what happens at Fulford. Also make the Harrogate line a more frequent service to take traffic from roads , similary why not Haxby too.
Lets go better than that and ban all cars from the city centre, as every bus on the road full would take 78 cars off the road thats 78 cars polluting the city.
[quote][p][bold]asd[/bold] wrote: Intersting that CoY council bend over backwards for a PRIVATE bus company to help there profits! Set the traffic light sequencing correctly that will help matters, better still switch them off. its amazing that when traffic light failute happened a few years back at clifton green there was no heavy traffic. Also why not promote river taxi's? direct from Poppleton into heart of York, like what happens at Fulford. Also make the Harrogate line a more frequent service to take traffic from roads , similary why not Haxby too.[/p][/quote]Lets go better than that and ban all cars from the city centre, as every bus on the road full would take 78 cars off the road thats 78 cars polluting the city. jake777
  • Score: 68

11:34pm Wed 8 Jan 14

jake777 says...

eeoodares wrote:
old_geezer wrote:
There are winners and losers with Lendal Bridge, and naturally losers will never accept that. The restriction suits me when I walk or cycle, and my bus gets across to Museum Street quicker. On the rare occasions when I drive, Bootham's not choked any more. And neither Foss Bank nor Leeman Road seems any worse. It's a choice of evils, and I prefer this one.
I must have to drive along a different Leeman Road to you. The one I drive along is much busier, the people that live there have also noted the increased volume of traffic.
RUBBISH.
[quote][p][bold]eeoodares[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]old_geezer[/bold] wrote: There are winners and losers with Lendal Bridge, and naturally losers will never accept that. The restriction suits me when I walk or cycle, and my bus gets across to Museum Street quicker. On the rare occasions when I drive, Bootham's not choked any more. And neither Foss Bank nor Leeman Road seems any worse. It's a choice of evils, and I prefer this one.[/p][/quote]I must have to drive along a different Leeman Road to you. The one I drive along is much busier, the people that live there have also noted the increased volume of traffic.[/p][/quote]RUBBISH. jake777
  • Score: 58

11:41pm Wed 8 Jan 14

jake777 says...

roadwars wrote:
Until the council realises that, at the front of every traffic queue is a bus stopped at a traffic light we will continue to have these problems. Even if private cars were banned from the whole of York there would still be a battle between busses and taxis to see who could undertake at the highest speed or pick the best lane to get to the next set of traffic lights quickest.
A simplified road system with fewer junctions would be the answer but without radical thinking and investment this wont happen.
An approach to public transport that doesn't just involve oversized busses would be another answer but without radical thinking and investment this wont happen.
Thats the reason you dont have a PSV licence, bus drivers are more qualified to drive than any car driver would love to see you try and drive a bus around York you wish.
[quote][p][bold]roadwars[/bold] wrote: Until the council realises that, at the front of every traffic queue is a bus stopped at a traffic light we will continue to have these problems. Even if private cars were banned from the whole of York there would still be a battle between busses and taxis to see who could undertake at the highest speed or pick the best lane to get to the next set of traffic lights quickest. A simplified road system with fewer junctions would be the answer but without radical thinking and investment this wont happen. An approach to public transport that doesn't just involve oversized busses would be another answer but without radical thinking and investment this wont happen.[/p][/quote]Thats the reason you dont have a PSV licence, bus drivers are more qualified to drive than any car driver would love to see you try and drive a bus around York you wish. jake777
  • Score: 108

12:04am Thu 9 Jan 14

arg says...

Yes, traffic has increased everywhere including Lowther street which now stinks worse than Gilligate ever did. I have long argued that Gilligate should be one way (South) with northbound traffic routed through the empty land in Bootham Park.
Seeing as the busses sit outside the Theatre Royal for extended time with their engines off, even before the bridge closure, because they are running ahead of schedule, suggests that the busses were never running late in the first place.
Yes, traffic has increased everywhere including Lowther street which now stinks worse than Gilligate ever did. I have long argued that Gilligate should be one way (South) with northbound traffic routed through the empty land in Bootham Park. Seeing as the busses sit outside the Theatre Royal for extended time with their engines off, even before the bridge closure, because they are running ahead of schedule, suggests that the busses were never running late in the first place. arg
  • Score: 142

7:17am Thu 9 Jan 14

JasBro says...

jake777 wrote:
eeoodares wrote:
old_geezer wrote:
There are winners and losers with Lendal Bridge, and naturally losers will never accept that. The restriction suits me when I walk or cycle, and my bus gets across to Museum Street quicker. On the rare occasions when I drive, Bootham's not choked any more. And neither Foss Bank nor Leeman Road seems any worse. It's a choice of evils, and I prefer this one.
I must have to drive along a different Leeman Road to you. The one I drive along is much busier, the people that live there have also noted the increased volume of traffic.
RUBBISH.
It's not rubbish, it's true.

Leeman Road is busier, Water Lane is even worse.

The council predicted both of these things and view the extra pollution and congestion as acceptable because they really couldn't care less.
[quote][p][bold]jake777[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]eeoodares[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]old_geezer[/bold] wrote: There are winners and losers with Lendal Bridge, and naturally losers will never accept that. The restriction suits me when I walk or cycle, and my bus gets across to Museum Street quicker. On the rare occasions when I drive, Bootham's not choked any more. And neither Foss Bank nor Leeman Road seems any worse. It's a choice of evils, and I prefer this one.[/p][/quote]I must have to drive along a different Leeman Road to you. The one I drive along is much busier, the people that live there have also noted the increased volume of traffic.[/p][/quote]RUBBISH.[/p][/quote]It's not rubbish, it's true. Leeman Road is busier, Water Lane is even worse. The council predicted both of these things and view the extra pollution and congestion as acceptable because they really couldn't care less. JasBro
  • Score: -192

7:22am Thu 9 Jan 14

JasBro says...

jake777 wrote:
asd wrote:
Intersting that CoY council bend over backwards for a PRIVATE bus company to help there profits! Set the traffic light sequencing correctly that will help matters, better still switch them off. its amazing that when traffic light failute happened a few years back at clifton green there was no heavy traffic. Also why not promote river taxi's? direct from Poppleton into heart of York, like what happens at Fulford. Also make the Harrogate line a more frequent service to take traffic from roads , similary why not Haxby too.
Lets go better than that and ban all cars from the city centre, as every bus on the road full would take 78 cars off the road thats 78 cars polluting the city.
But buses are rarely full and cars often have more than one occupant.
[quote][p][bold]jake777[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]asd[/bold] wrote: Intersting that CoY council bend over backwards for a PRIVATE bus company to help there profits! Set the traffic light sequencing correctly that will help matters, better still switch them off. its amazing that when traffic light failute happened a few years back at clifton green there was no heavy traffic. Also why not promote river taxi's? direct from Poppleton into heart of York, like what happens at Fulford. Also make the Harrogate line a more frequent service to take traffic from roads , similary why not Haxby too.[/p][/quote]Lets go better than that and ban all cars from the city centre, as every bus on the road full would take 78 cars off the road thats 78 cars polluting the city.[/p][/quote]But buses are rarely full and cars often have more than one occupant. JasBro
  • Score: 1682

8:20am Thu 9 Jan 14

AnotherPointofView says...

jake777 wrote:
eeoodares wrote:
old_geezer wrote:
There are winners and losers with Lendal Bridge, and naturally losers will never accept that. The restriction suits me when I walk or cycle, and my bus gets across to Museum Street quicker. On the rare occasions when I drive, Bootham's not choked any more. And neither Foss Bank nor Leeman Road seems any worse. It's a choice of evils, and I prefer this one.
I must have to drive along a different Leeman Road to you. The one I drive along is much busier, the people that live there have also noted the increased volume of traffic.
RUBBISH.
That's what really improves the level of argument on here. You are capable of one word "RUBBISH"?
[quote][p][bold]jake777[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]eeoodares[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]old_geezer[/bold] wrote: There are winners and losers with Lendal Bridge, and naturally losers will never accept that. The restriction suits me when I walk or cycle, and my bus gets across to Museum Street quicker. On the rare occasions when I drive, Bootham's not choked any more. And neither Foss Bank nor Leeman Road seems any worse. It's a choice of evils, and I prefer this one.[/p][/quote]I must have to drive along a different Leeman Road to you. The one I drive along is much busier, the people that live there have also noted the increased volume of traffic.[/p][/quote]RUBBISH.[/p][/quote]That's what really improves the level of argument on here. You are capable of one word "RUBBISH"? AnotherPointofView
  • Score: 7

9:14am Thu 9 Jan 14

Bo Jolly says...

Come on Press. If you can't prevent the comment ratings being falsified by one individual with time on his/her hands, then just get rid of the system.

So pathetic that someone feels the need to 'fake' support for the bridge closure! A non-regular visitor to this website would get a completely skewed view of public feeling on this issue, but as soon as you realise what's going on it just underlines the overall dishonesty of the pro-closure case... based on outright deception from the start, and likely to be sustained by lies and spin into the future.
Come on Press. If you can't prevent the comment ratings being falsified by one individual with time on his/her hands, then just get rid of the system. So pathetic that someone feels the need to 'fake' support for the bridge closure! A non-regular visitor to this website would get a completely skewed view of public feeling on this issue, but as soon as you realise what's going on it just underlines the overall dishonesty of the pro-closure case... based on outright deception from the start, and likely to be sustained by lies and spin into the future. Bo Jolly
  • Score: 15

9:39am Thu 9 Jan 14

Rankled says...

jake777 wrote:
Rankled wrote:
old_geezer wrote:
There are winners and losers with Lendal Bridge, and naturally losers will never accept that. The restriction suits me when I walk or cycle, and my bus gets across to Museum Street quicker. On the rare occasions when I drive, Bootham's not choked any more. And neither Foss Bank nor Leeman Road seems any worse. It's a choice of evils, and I prefer this one.
Quite the opposite for me. I did not, and still do not, have any problems when walking and cycling. The bus takes just as long as it did before. When I drive it takes longer because the traffic is heavier on my routes. Overall, net loss :(
The bus does not take longer at all get your facts right. and if it takes you longer to drive then dont take the bus.
I never said the bus takes longer. If the same journey took me longer to drive then I would take the bus, but that isn't what I was talking about (it's also curiously not what you're encouraging given what the last part of your sentence actually says).
[quote][p][bold]jake777[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Rankled[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]old_geezer[/bold] wrote: There are winners and losers with Lendal Bridge, and naturally losers will never accept that. The restriction suits me when I walk or cycle, and my bus gets across to Museum Street quicker. On the rare occasions when I drive, Bootham's not choked any more. And neither Foss Bank nor Leeman Road seems any worse. It's a choice of evils, and I prefer this one.[/p][/quote]Quite the opposite for me. I did not, and still do not, have any problems when walking and cycling. The bus takes just as long as it did before. When I drive it takes longer because the traffic is heavier on my routes. Overall, net loss :([/p][/quote]The bus does not take longer at all get your facts right. and if it takes you longer to drive then dont take the bus.[/p][/quote]I never said the bus takes longer. If the same journey took me longer to drive then I would take the bus, but that isn't what I was talking about (it's also curiously not what you're encouraging given what the last part of your sentence actually says). Rankled
  • Score: 10

9:51am Thu 9 Jan 14

dementia says...

Please please no more Transport initiatives. all they do is make things worse!
While we are on can we stop pillorying Mr Merrett as he is only firing the bullets the transport dept fashion. How about a clear out of all York Transport dept staff?
Money saved,no more initiatives...oooh bliss.
Please please no more Transport initiatives. all they do is make things worse! While we are on can we stop pillorying Mr Merrett as he is only firing the bullets the transport dept fashion. How about a clear out of all York Transport dept staff? Money saved,no more initiatives...oooh bliss. dementia
  • Score: 3

9:52am Thu 9 Jan 14

inthesticks says...

Here`s an idea. Widen the road at `The Fox`, Holgate, so that when a bus stops there cars can carry on with their journey and get past the bus.
No, wait, that`s what used to happen until they narrowed the road and made cars wait until all the passengers have paid and the bus pulls away.
Proof that congestion has been deliberately made worse.
Here`s an idea. Widen the road at `The Fox`, Holgate, so that when a bus stops there cars can carry on with their journey and get past the bus. No, wait, that`s what used to happen until they narrowed the road and made cars wait until all the passengers have paid and the bus pulls away. Proof that congestion has been deliberately made worse. inthesticks
  • Score: 16

9:53am Thu 9 Jan 14

pedalling paul says...

Igiveinthen wrote:
pedalling paul wrote:
Ignatius Lumpopo wrote:
There has been a 'reserved' section on the west of Clarence Street for some years - wide pavements, planted borders etc. - but all that will happen if the carriageway is widened is that buses will be able to speed merrily on to... the next set of traffic lights. When will the council realise that the carriageways themselves (that is, those that they keep open or don't close off with bollards) aren't the problem: the junctions are.

However, using the closure of Lendal Bridge to justify saving money on a new bus lane in Clarence Street is totally disingenuous. Why not ban ALL road traffic from the centre of York? That'd save even more.

The council's job is to keep the infrastructure of the city up and running for the benefit of the people who pay the council tax. Are they ever going to grasp this?
Another job of the Council is for their Transport Planners to look ahead, far further than many residents and politicians are capable of doing, predict future gridlock risk and recommend action now to prevent it.
The instinctive desire of many urban car owners is for an open road to their destination. Unfortunately when they venture onto the City's highway Network, particularly at peak times, they begin to contribute to the lack of one.
Should CoYC try to accommodate their wishes ad infinitum? Or must we all accept that there are more efficient ways of getting around, for many local journeys.
Learn how Groningen solved this dilemma, at http://www.streetfil


ms.org/groningen-the


-worlds-cycling-city


/
Het zou beter zijn dan als je ging in Groningen wonen, dan zou je in een omgeving zijn meer geschikt is voor uw droom.

If you can't speak Dutch the translation is as follows:

It would be better then if you went to live in Groningen, then you would be in an environment more suited to your dream.

When will you realise that not all residents of York want to or indeed can ride a cycle, either because of an illness or incapacitation, or if they are like me absolutly no interest whatever in riding a bike.
Some people need cars to get about the city, so why not try and accommodate them, as for this open road rethoric you keep banging on about, there are plenty of open roads outside the city to keep me happy.
As for widening Clarence Street, what difference will a few hundred metres make to a bus journey time, and as has been pointed out it will all be cancelled out at the next junction.
It may surprise you to learn that I am an occasional car and bus user, but the bike is my quickest way into and around the City centre. I have always acknowledged that some residents drive cars for need rather than by choice.
By encouraging other travel choices by eg the able bodied, for short local journeys, we will be improving matters for public transport and essential car users.
[quote][p][bold]Igiveinthen[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]pedalling paul [/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ignatius Lumpopo[/bold] wrote: There has been a 'reserved' section on the west of Clarence Street for some years - wide pavements, planted borders etc. - but all that will happen if the carriageway is widened is that buses will be able to speed merrily on to... the next set of traffic lights. When will the council realise that the carriageways themselves (that is, those that they keep open or don't close off with bollards) aren't the problem: the junctions are. However, using the closure of Lendal Bridge to justify saving money on a new bus lane in Clarence Street is totally disingenuous. Why not ban ALL road traffic from the centre of York? That'd save even more. The council's job is to keep the infrastructure of the city up and running for the benefit of the people who pay the council tax. Are they ever going to grasp this?[/p][/quote]Another job of the Council is for their Transport Planners to look ahead, far further than many residents and politicians are capable of doing, predict future gridlock risk and recommend action now to prevent it. The instinctive desire of many urban car owners is for an open road to their destination. Unfortunately when they venture onto the City's highway Network, particularly at peak times, they begin to contribute to the lack of one. Should CoYC try to accommodate their wishes ad infinitum? Or must we all accept that there are more efficient ways of getting around, for many local journeys. Learn how Groningen solved this dilemma, at http://www.streetfil ms.org/groningen-the -worlds-cycling-city /[/p][/quote]Het zou beter zijn dan als je ging in Groningen wonen, dan zou je in een omgeving zijn meer geschikt is voor uw droom. If you can't speak Dutch the translation is as follows: It would be better then if you went to live in Groningen, then you would be in an environment more suited to your dream. When will you realise that not all residents of York want to or indeed can ride a cycle, either because of an illness or incapacitation, or if they are like me absolutly no interest whatever in riding a bike. Some people need cars to get about the city, so why not try and accommodate them, as for this open road rethoric you keep banging on about, there are plenty of open roads outside the city to keep me happy. As for widening Clarence Street, what difference will a few hundred metres make to a bus journey time, and as has been pointed out it will all be cancelled out at the next junction.[/p][/quote]It may surprise you to learn that I am an occasional car and bus user, but the bike is my quickest way into and around the City centre. I have always acknowledged that some residents drive cars for need rather than by choice. By encouraging other travel choices by eg the able bodied, for short local journeys, we will be improving matters for public transport and essential car users. pedalling paul
  • Score: -4

10:05am Thu 9 Jan 14

Oyy you says...

pedalling paul wrote:
Igiveinthen wrote:
pedalling paul wrote:
Ignatius Lumpopo wrote:
There has been a 'reserved' section on the west of Clarence Street for some years - wide pavements, planted borders etc. - but all that will happen if the carriageway is widened is that buses will be able to speed merrily on to... the next set of traffic lights. When will the council realise that the carriageways themselves (that is, those that they keep open or don't close off with bollards) aren't the problem: the junctions are.

However, using the closure of Lendal Bridge to justify saving money on a new bus lane in Clarence Street is totally disingenuous. Why not ban ALL road traffic from the centre of York? That'd save even more.

The council's job is to keep the infrastructure of the city up and running for the benefit of the people who pay the council tax. Are they ever going to grasp this?
Another job of the Council is for their Transport Planners to look ahead, far further than many residents and politicians are capable of doing, predict future gridlock risk and recommend action now to prevent it.
The instinctive desire of many urban car owners is for an open road to their destination. Unfortunately when they venture onto the City's highway Network, particularly at peak times, they begin to contribute to the lack of one.
Should CoYC try to accommodate their wishes ad infinitum? Or must we all accept that there are more efficient ways of getting around, for many local journeys.
Learn how Groningen solved this dilemma, at http://www.streetfil



ms.org/groningen-the



-worlds-cycling-city



/
Het zou beter zijn dan als je ging in Groningen wonen, dan zou je in een omgeving zijn meer geschikt is voor uw droom.

If you can't speak Dutch the translation is as follows:

It would be better then if you went to live in Groningen, then you would be in an environment more suited to your dream.

When will you realise that not all residents of York want to or indeed can ride a cycle, either because of an illness or incapacitation, or if they are like me absolutly no interest whatever in riding a bike.
Some people need cars to get about the city, so why not try and accommodate them, as for this open road rethoric you keep banging on about, there are plenty of open roads outside the city to keep me happy.
As for widening Clarence Street, what difference will a few hundred metres make to a bus journey time, and as has been pointed out it will all be cancelled out at the next junction.
It may surprise you to learn that I am an occasional car and bus user, but the bike is my quickest way into and around the City centre. I have always acknowledged that some residents drive cars for need rather than by choice.
By encouraging other travel choices by eg the able bodied, for short local journeys, we will be improving matters for public transport and essential car users.
Pedaling Paul, you are nuts.
[quote][p][bold]pedalling paul [/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Igiveinthen[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]pedalling paul [/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ignatius Lumpopo[/bold] wrote: There has been a 'reserved' section on the west of Clarence Street for some years - wide pavements, planted borders etc. - but all that will happen if the carriageway is widened is that buses will be able to speed merrily on to... the next set of traffic lights. When will the council realise that the carriageways themselves (that is, those that they keep open or don't close off with bollards) aren't the problem: the junctions are. However, using the closure of Lendal Bridge to justify saving money on a new bus lane in Clarence Street is totally disingenuous. Why not ban ALL road traffic from the centre of York? That'd save even more. The council's job is to keep the infrastructure of the city up and running for the benefit of the people who pay the council tax. Are they ever going to grasp this?[/p][/quote]Another job of the Council is for their Transport Planners to look ahead, far further than many residents and politicians are capable of doing, predict future gridlock risk and recommend action now to prevent it. The instinctive desire of many urban car owners is for an open road to their destination. Unfortunately when they venture onto the City's highway Network, particularly at peak times, they begin to contribute to the lack of one. Should CoYC try to accommodate their wishes ad infinitum? Or must we all accept that there are more efficient ways of getting around, for many local journeys. Learn how Groningen solved this dilemma, at http://www.streetfil ms.org/groningen-the -worlds-cycling-city /[/p][/quote]Het zou beter zijn dan als je ging in Groningen wonen, dan zou je in een omgeving zijn meer geschikt is voor uw droom. If you can't speak Dutch the translation is as follows: It would be better then if you went to live in Groningen, then you would be in an environment more suited to your dream. When will you realise that not all residents of York want to or indeed can ride a cycle, either because of an illness or incapacitation, or if they are like me absolutly no interest whatever in riding a bike. Some people need cars to get about the city, so why not try and accommodate them, as for this open road rethoric you keep banging on about, there are plenty of open roads outside the city to keep me happy. As for widening Clarence Street, what difference will a few hundred metres make to a bus journey time, and as has been pointed out it will all be cancelled out at the next junction.[/p][/quote]It may surprise you to learn that I am an occasional car and bus user, but the bike is my quickest way into and around the City centre. I have always acknowledged that some residents drive cars for need rather than by choice. By encouraging other travel choices by eg the able bodied, for short local journeys, we will be improving matters for public transport and essential car users.[/p][/quote]Pedaling Paul, you are nuts. Oyy you
  • Score: 5

10:11am Thu 9 Jan 14

Ichabod76 says...

I see the press haven't managed to sort the voting fairy yet !
I see the press haven't managed to sort the voting fairy yet ! Ichabod76
  • Score: 17

10:23am Thu 9 Jan 14

far2bizzy says...

Bo Jolly wrote:
Talking of 'straw man' arguments, ladies and gentlemen, Pedalling Paul is the king of such specious rhetoric. Witness the nonsensical assertion in his post above, &quot;The instinctive desire of many urban car owners is for an open road to their destination." What a blatant straw man! No-one expects an 'open road' in a city centre, but they do reject the idea of a council deliberately creating totally artificial extra congestion.
Well I’ve looked up ‘straw man’ and the definition appears to be :
1. Person 1 has position X.
2. Person 2 disregards certain key points of X and instead presents the superficially similar position Y
So I guess an example would be :
Person 1 says that car drivers DESIRE an open road
Person 2 says that person A says that car drivers EXPECT an open road
[quote][p][bold]Bo Jolly[/bold] wrote: Talking of 'straw man' arguments, ladies and gentlemen, Pedalling Paul is the king of such specious rhetoric. Witness the nonsensical assertion in his post above, "The instinctive desire of many urban car owners is for an open road to their destination." What a blatant straw man! No-one expects an 'open road' in a city centre, but they do reject the idea of a council deliberately creating totally artificial extra congestion.[/p][/quote]Well I’ve looked up ‘straw man’ and the definition appears to be : 1. Person 1 has position X. 2. Person 2 disregards certain key points of X and instead presents the superficially similar position Y So I guess an example would be : Person 1 says that car drivers DESIRE an open road Person 2 says that person A says that car drivers EXPECT an open road far2bizzy
  • Score: 0

11:05am Thu 9 Jan 14

m dee says...

pedalling paul wrote:
Igiveinthen wrote:
pedalling paul wrote:
Ignatius Lumpopo wrote:
There has been a 'reserved' section on the west of Clarence Street for some years - wide pavements, planted borders etc. - but all that will happen if the carriageway is widened is that buses will be able to speed merrily on to... the next set of traffic lights. When will the council realise that the carriageways themselves (that is, those that they keep open or don't close off with bollards) aren't the problem: the junctions are.

However, using the closure of Lendal Bridge to justify saving money on a new bus lane in Clarence Street is totally disingenuous. Why not ban ALL road traffic from the centre of York? That'd save even more.

The council's job is to keep the infrastructure of the city up and running for the benefit of the people who pay the council tax. Are they ever going to grasp this?
Another job of the Council is for their Transport Planners to look ahead, far further than many residents and politicians are capable of doing, predict future gridlock risk and recommend action now to prevent it.
The instinctive desire of many urban car owners is for an open road to their destination. Unfortunately when they venture onto the City's highway Network, particularly at peak times, they begin to contribute to the lack of one.
Should CoYC try to accommodate their wishes ad infinitum? Or must we all accept that there are more efficient ways of getting around, for many local journeys.
Learn how Groningen solved this dilemma, at http://www.streetfil



ms.org/groningen-the



-worlds-cycling-city



/
Het zou beter zijn dan als je ging in Groningen wonen, dan zou je in een omgeving zijn meer geschikt is voor uw droom.

If you can't speak Dutch the translation is as follows:

It would be better then if you went to live in Groningen, then you would be in an environment more suited to your dream.

When will you realise that not all residents of York want to or indeed can ride a cycle, either because of an illness or incapacitation, or if they are like me absolutly no interest whatever in riding a bike.
Some people need cars to get about the city, so why not try and accommodate them, as for this open road rethoric you keep banging on about, there are plenty of open roads outside the city to keep me happy.
As for widening Clarence Street, what difference will a few hundred metres make to a bus journey time, and as has been pointed out it will all be cancelled out at the next junction.
It may surprise you to learn that I am an occasional car and bus user, but the bike is my quickest way into and around the City centre. I have always acknowledged that some residents drive cars for need rather than by choice.
By encouraging other travel choices by eg the able bodied, for short local journeys, we will be improving matters for public transport and essential car users.
It may surprise you when you keep bringing up the residents making single car journeys through town issue that the majority of fines on the Lendal Bridge are visitors driving to and through the City, point is there are other factors need exploring to lower traffic levels.
[quote][p][bold]pedalling paul [/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Igiveinthen[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]pedalling paul [/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ignatius Lumpopo[/bold] wrote: There has been a 'reserved' section on the west of Clarence Street for some years - wide pavements, planted borders etc. - but all that will happen if the carriageway is widened is that buses will be able to speed merrily on to... the next set of traffic lights. When will the council realise that the carriageways themselves (that is, those that they keep open or don't close off with bollards) aren't the problem: the junctions are. However, using the closure of Lendal Bridge to justify saving money on a new bus lane in Clarence Street is totally disingenuous. Why not ban ALL road traffic from the centre of York? That'd save even more. The council's job is to keep the infrastructure of the city up and running for the benefit of the people who pay the council tax. Are they ever going to grasp this?[/p][/quote]Another job of the Council is for their Transport Planners to look ahead, far further than many residents and politicians are capable of doing, predict future gridlock risk and recommend action now to prevent it. The instinctive desire of many urban car owners is for an open road to their destination. Unfortunately when they venture onto the City's highway Network, particularly at peak times, they begin to contribute to the lack of one. Should CoYC try to accommodate their wishes ad infinitum? Or must we all accept that there are more efficient ways of getting around, for many local journeys. Learn how Groningen solved this dilemma, at http://www.streetfil ms.org/groningen-the -worlds-cycling-city /[/p][/quote]Het zou beter zijn dan als je ging in Groningen wonen, dan zou je in een omgeving zijn meer geschikt is voor uw droom. If you can't speak Dutch the translation is as follows: It would be better then if you went to live in Groningen, then you would be in an environment more suited to your dream. When will you realise that not all residents of York want to or indeed can ride a cycle, either because of an illness or incapacitation, or if they are like me absolutly no interest whatever in riding a bike. Some people need cars to get about the city, so why not try and accommodate them, as for this open road rethoric you keep banging on about, there are plenty of open roads outside the city to keep me happy. As for widening Clarence Street, what difference will a few hundred metres make to a bus journey time, and as has been pointed out it will all be cancelled out at the next junction.[/p][/quote]It may surprise you to learn that I am an occasional car and bus user, but the bike is my quickest way into and around the City centre. I have always acknowledged that some residents drive cars for need rather than by choice. By encouraging other travel choices by eg the able bodied, for short local journeys, we will be improving matters for public transport and essential car users.[/p][/quote]It may surprise you when you keep bringing up the residents making single car journeys through town issue that the majority of fines on the Lendal Bridge are visitors driving to and through the City, point is there are other factors need exploring to lower traffic levels. m dee
  • Score: 13

11:11am Thu 9 Jan 14

pbrowne2009@live.co.uk says...

Make the inner ring road clockwise traffic only and use both lanes to keep traffic flowing, Get rid of all the traffic lights on the inner ring road and replace them with roundabouts. Opening lendal goes without saying, run a boat service from north to south. The ouse is a deserted river with lots of potential. put a train station at Haxby and Strensal. Or simply make a more affordable and reliable bus service.
Make the inner ring road clockwise traffic only and use both lanes to keep traffic flowing, Get rid of all the traffic lights on the inner ring road and replace them with roundabouts. Opening lendal goes without saying, run a boat service from north to south. The ouse is a deserted river with lots of potential. put a train station at Haxby and Strensal. Or simply make a more affordable and reliable bus service. pbrowne2009@live.co.uk
  • Score: 5

11:19am Thu 9 Jan 14

Ignatius Lumpopo says...

pbrowne2009@live.co.
uk
wrote:
Make the inner ring road clockwise traffic only and use both lanes to keep traffic flowing, Get rid of all the traffic lights on the inner ring road and replace them with roundabouts. Opening lendal goes without saying, run a boat service from north to south. The ouse is a deserted river with lots of potential. put a train station at Haxby and Strensal. Or simply make a more affordable and reliable bus service.
Oh yeah? And what about those of us who have to use a car (or a bike) and live in cul-de-sacs off the inner ring road?
[quote][p][bold]pbrowne2009@live.co. uk[/bold] wrote: Make the inner ring road clockwise traffic only and use both lanes to keep traffic flowing, Get rid of all the traffic lights on the inner ring road and replace them with roundabouts. Opening lendal goes without saying, run a boat service from north to south. The ouse is a deserted river with lots of potential. put a train station at Haxby and Strensal. Or simply make a more affordable and reliable bus service.[/p][/quote]Oh yeah? And what about those of us who have to use a car (or a bike) and live in cul-de-sacs off the inner ring road? Ignatius Lumpopo
  • Score: 1

11:28am Thu 9 Jan 14

The Great Buda says...

pbrowne2009@live.co.
uk
wrote:
Make the inner ring road clockwise traffic only and use both lanes to keep traffic flowing, Get rid of all the traffic lights on the inner ring road and replace them with roundabouts. Opening lendal goes without saying, run a boat service from north to south. The ouse is a deserted river with lots of potential. put a train station at Haxby and Strensal. Or simply make a more affordable and reliable bus service.
I like that idea, although (sadly) I don't think theres space for that many roundabouts to be put in. However, this is something that really needs looking at.
[quote][p][bold]pbrowne2009@live.co. uk[/bold] wrote: Make the inner ring road clockwise traffic only and use both lanes to keep traffic flowing, Get rid of all the traffic lights on the inner ring road and replace them with roundabouts. Opening lendal goes without saying, run a boat service from north to south. The ouse is a deserted river with lots of potential. put a train station at Haxby and Strensal. Or simply make a more affordable and reliable bus service.[/p][/quote]I like that idea, although (sadly) I don't think theres space for that many roundabouts to be put in. However, this is something that really needs looking at. The Great Buda
  • Score: 2

12:00pm Thu 9 Jan 14

Bo Jolly says...

pedalling paul wrote:
Igiveinthen wrote:
pedalling paul wrote:
Ignatius Lumpopo wrote:
There has been a 'reserved' section on the west of Clarence Street for some years - wide pavements, planted borders etc. - but all that will happen if the carriageway is widened is that buses will be able to speed merrily on to... the next set of traffic lights. When will the council realise that the carriageways themselves (that is, those that they keep open or don't close off with bollards) aren't the problem: the junctions are.

However, using the closure of Lendal Bridge to justify saving money on a new bus lane in Clarence Street is totally disingenuous. Why not ban ALL road traffic from the centre of York? That'd save even more.

The council's job is to keep the infrastructure of the city up and running for the benefit of the people who pay the council tax. Are they ever going to grasp this?
Another job of the Council is for their Transport Planners to look ahead, far further than many residents and politicians are capable of doing, predict future gridlock risk and recommend action now to prevent it.
The instinctive desire of many urban car owners is for an open road to their destination. Unfortunately when they venture onto the City's highway Network, particularly at peak times, they begin to contribute to the lack of one.
Should CoYC try to accommodate their wishes ad infinitum? Or must we all accept that there are more efficient ways of getting around, for many local journeys.
Learn how Groningen solved this dilemma, at http://www.streetfil



ms.org/groningen-the



-worlds-cycling-city



/
Het zou beter zijn dan als je ging in Groningen wonen, dan zou je in een omgeving zijn meer geschikt is voor uw droom.

If you can't speak Dutch the translation is as follows:

It would be better then if you went to live in Groningen, then you would be in an environment more suited to your dream.

When will you realise that not all residents of York want to or indeed can ride a cycle, either because of an illness or incapacitation, or if they are like me absolutly no interest whatever in riding a bike.
Some people need cars to get about the city, so why not try and accommodate them, as for this open road rethoric you keep banging on about, there are plenty of open roads outside the city to keep me happy.
As for widening Clarence Street, what difference will a few hundred metres make to a bus journey time, and as has been pointed out it will all be cancelled out at the next junction.
It may surprise you to learn that I am an occasional car and bus user, but the bike is my quickest way into and around the City centre. I have always acknowledged that some residents drive cars for need rather than by choice.
By encouraging other travel choices by eg the able bodied, for short local journeys, we will be improving matters for public transport and essential car users.
I think *encouraging* other transport choices is sensible, in the way that the word is normally understood. I'm a cyclist myself and don't doubt that for some people it would be a sensible alternative. The problem is that to the council (and you) *encouraging* means artificially creating congestion to try to force modal shift. The problem with artificially creating congestion is that it adversely affects those who you acknowledge need to make car/van/truck journeys as, by definition, they have the least choice about making their journeys. So you aren't helping them at all, merely condemning them to suffer artificial extra congestion (with all the knock on effects of more expense and more pollution).
[quote][p][bold]pedalling paul [/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Igiveinthen[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]pedalling paul [/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ignatius Lumpopo[/bold] wrote: There has been a 'reserved' section on the west of Clarence Street for some years - wide pavements, planted borders etc. - but all that will happen if the carriageway is widened is that buses will be able to speed merrily on to... the next set of traffic lights. When will the council realise that the carriageways themselves (that is, those that they keep open or don't close off with bollards) aren't the problem: the junctions are. However, using the closure of Lendal Bridge to justify saving money on a new bus lane in Clarence Street is totally disingenuous. Why not ban ALL road traffic from the centre of York? That'd save even more. The council's job is to keep the infrastructure of the city up and running for the benefit of the people who pay the council tax. Are they ever going to grasp this?[/p][/quote]Another job of the Council is for their Transport Planners to look ahead, far further than many residents and politicians are capable of doing, predict future gridlock risk and recommend action now to prevent it. The instinctive desire of many urban car owners is for an open road to their destination. Unfortunately when they venture onto the City's highway Network, particularly at peak times, they begin to contribute to the lack of one. Should CoYC try to accommodate their wishes ad infinitum? Or must we all accept that there are more efficient ways of getting around, for many local journeys. Learn how Groningen solved this dilemma, at http://www.streetfil ms.org/groningen-the -worlds-cycling-city /[/p][/quote]Het zou beter zijn dan als je ging in Groningen wonen, dan zou je in een omgeving zijn meer geschikt is voor uw droom. If you can't speak Dutch the translation is as follows: It would be better then if you went to live in Groningen, then you would be in an environment more suited to your dream. When will you realise that not all residents of York want to or indeed can ride a cycle, either because of an illness or incapacitation, or if they are like me absolutly no interest whatever in riding a bike. Some people need cars to get about the city, so why not try and accommodate them, as for this open road rethoric you keep banging on about, there are plenty of open roads outside the city to keep me happy. As for widening Clarence Street, what difference will a few hundred metres make to a bus journey time, and as has been pointed out it will all be cancelled out at the next junction.[/p][/quote]It may surprise you to learn that I am an occasional car and bus user, but the bike is my quickest way into and around the City centre. I have always acknowledged that some residents drive cars for need rather than by choice. By encouraging other travel choices by eg the able bodied, for short local journeys, we will be improving matters for public transport and essential car users.[/p][/quote]I think *encouraging* other transport choices is sensible, in the way that the word is normally understood. I'm a cyclist myself and don't doubt that for some people it would be a sensible alternative. The problem is that to the council (and you) *encouraging* means artificially creating congestion to try to force modal shift. The problem with artificially creating congestion is that it adversely affects those who you acknowledge need to make car/van/truck journeys as, by definition, they have the least choice about making their journeys. So you aren't helping them at all, merely condemning them to suffer artificial extra congestion (with all the knock on effects of more expense and more pollution). Bo Jolly
  • Score: -98

1:46pm Thu 9 Jan 14

Jiffy says...

JasBro wrote:
jake777 wrote:
eeoodares wrote:
old_geezer wrote: There are winners and losers with Lendal Bridge, and naturally losers will never accept that. The restriction suits me when I walk or cycle, and my bus gets across to Museum Street quicker. On the rare occasions when I drive, Bootham's not choked any more. And neither Foss Bank nor Leeman Road seems any worse. It's a choice of evils, and I prefer this one.
I must have to drive along a different Leeman Road to you. The one I drive along is much busier, the people that live there have also noted the increased volume of traffic.
RUBBISH.
It's not rubbish, it's true. Leeman Road is busier, Water Lane is even worse. The council predicted both of these things and view the extra pollution and congestion as acceptable because they really couldn't care less.
As a Leeman Road resident I can confirm that has been & is a noted increase in volume and nobody who lives on the Leeman Rd one way system will tell you any different
[quote][p][bold]JasBro[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]jake777[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]eeoodares[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]old_geezer[/bold] wrote: There are winners and losers with Lendal Bridge, and naturally losers will never accept that. The restriction suits me when I walk or cycle, and my bus gets across to Museum Street quicker. On the rare occasions when I drive, Bootham's not choked any more. And neither Foss Bank nor Leeman Road seems any worse. It's a choice of evils, and I prefer this one.[/p][/quote]I must have to drive along a different Leeman Road to you. The one I drive along is much busier, the people that live there have also noted the increased volume of traffic.[/p][/quote]RUBBISH.[/p][/quote]It's not rubbish, it's true. Leeman Road is busier, Water Lane is even worse. The council predicted both of these things and view the extra pollution and congestion as acceptable because they really couldn't care less.[/p][/quote]As a Leeman Road resident I can confirm that has been & is a noted increase in volume and nobody who lives on the Leeman Rd one way system will tell you any different Jiffy
  • Score: 596

3:39pm Thu 9 Jan 14

MorkofYork says...

I just went out for a nice ride around town, not even a short journey, a completely unnecessary trip. It's great exercising my hard earned privileges while not discriminating against other road users. Discrimination is a terrible thing.
I just went out for a nice ride around town, not even a short journey, a completely unnecessary trip. It's great exercising my hard earned privileges while not discriminating against other road users. Discrimination is a terrible thing. MorkofYork
  • Score: -118

6:22pm Thu 9 Jan 14

wallman says...

Lord Esher wanted to widen this road in the 1960's bad idea then as now
Lord Esher wanted to widen this road in the 1960's bad idea then as now wallman
  • Score: -127

8:29pm Thu 9 Jan 14

jake777 says...

JasBro wrote:
jake777 wrote:
eeoodares wrote:
old_geezer wrote:
There are winners and losers with Lendal Bridge, and naturally losers will never accept that. The restriction suits me when I walk or cycle, and my bus gets across to Museum Street quicker. On the rare occasions when I drive, Bootham's not choked any more. And neither Foss Bank nor Leeman Road seems any worse. It's a choice of evils, and I prefer this one.
I must have to drive along a different Leeman Road to you. The one I drive along is much busier, the people that live there have also noted the increased volume of traffic.
RUBBISH.
It's not rubbish, it's true.

Leeman Road is busier, Water Lane is even worse.

The council predicted both of these things and view the extra pollution and congestion as acceptable because they really couldn't care less.
its rubbish I drive up and down there all day long everyday, and it has not increased any more than before.
[quote][p][bold]JasBro[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]jake777[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]eeoodares[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]old_geezer[/bold] wrote: There are winners and losers with Lendal Bridge, and naturally losers will never accept that. The restriction suits me when I walk or cycle, and my bus gets across to Museum Street quicker. On the rare occasions when I drive, Bootham's not choked any more. And neither Foss Bank nor Leeman Road seems any worse. It's a choice of evils, and I prefer this one.[/p][/quote]I must have to drive along a different Leeman Road to you. The one I drive along is much busier, the people that live there have also noted the increased volume of traffic.[/p][/quote]RUBBISH.[/p][/quote]It's not rubbish, it's true. Leeman Road is busier, Water Lane is even worse. The council predicted both of these things and view the extra pollution and congestion as acceptable because they really couldn't care less.[/p][/quote]its rubbish I drive up and down there all day long everyday, and it has not increased any more than before. jake777
  • Score: -508

8:34pm Thu 9 Jan 14

jake777 says...

arg wrote:
Yes, traffic has increased everywhere including Lowther street which now stinks worse than Gilligate ever did. I have long argued that Gilligate should be one way (South) with northbound traffic routed through the empty land in Bootham Park.
Seeing as the busses sit outside the Theatre Royal for extended time with their engines off, even before the bridge closure, because they are running ahead of schedule, suggests that the busses were never running late in the first place.
You have no Idea about how the buses run, so stick to moaning ,thats what you do best.
[quote][p][bold]arg[/bold] wrote: Yes, traffic has increased everywhere including Lowther street which now stinks worse than Gilligate ever did. I have long argued that Gilligate should be one way (South) with northbound traffic routed through the empty land in Bootham Park. Seeing as the busses sit outside the Theatre Royal for extended time with their engines off, even before the bridge closure, because they are running ahead of schedule, suggests that the busses were never running late in the first place.[/p][/quote]You have no Idea about how the buses run, so stick to moaning ,thats what you do best. jake777
  • Score: -234

8:38pm Thu 9 Jan 14

jake777 says...

JasBro wrote:
jake777 wrote:
asd wrote:
Intersting that CoY council bend over backwards for a PRIVATE bus company to help there profits! Set the traffic light sequencing correctly that will help matters, better still switch them off. its amazing that when traffic light failute happened a few years back at clifton green there was no heavy traffic. Also why not promote river taxi's? direct from Poppleton into heart of York, like what happens at Fulford. Also make the Harrogate line a more frequent service to take traffic from roads , similary why not Haxby too.
Lets go better than that and ban all cars from the city centre, as every bus on the road full would take 78 cars off the road thats 78 cars polluting the city.
But buses are rarely full and cars often have more than one occupant.
rubbish 90% of cars have one occupant open your eyes or remove your blinkers.
[quote][p][bold]JasBro[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]jake777[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]asd[/bold] wrote: Intersting that CoY council bend over backwards for a PRIVATE bus company to help there profits! Set the traffic light sequencing correctly that will help matters, better still switch them off. its amazing that when traffic light failute happened a few years back at clifton green there was no heavy traffic. Also why not promote river taxi's? direct from Poppleton into heart of York, like what happens at Fulford. Also make the Harrogate line a more frequent service to take traffic from roads , similary why not Haxby too.[/p][/quote]Lets go better than that and ban all cars from the city centre, as every bus on the road full would take 78 cars off the road thats 78 cars polluting the city.[/p][/quote]But buses are rarely full and cars often have more than one occupant.[/p][/quote]rubbish 90% of cars have one occupant open your eyes or remove your blinkers. jake777
  • Score: -199

8:46pm Thu 9 Jan 14

jake777 says...

inthesticks wrote:
Here`s an idea. Widen the road at `The Fox`, Holgate, so that when a bus stops there cars can carry on with their journey and get past the bus.
No, wait, that`s what used to happen until they narrowed the road and made cars wait until all the passengers have paid and the bus pulls away.
Proof that congestion has been deliberately made worse.
remove the cars no hold ups, and next time you are sat open your eyes and see how many cars you can see then see how many buses you can see, answer more cars than buses ( SIMPLE )
[quote][p][bold]inthesticks[/bold] wrote: Here`s an idea. Widen the road at `The Fox`, Holgate, so that when a bus stops there cars can carry on with their journey and get past the bus. No, wait, that`s what used to happen until they narrowed the road and made cars wait until all the passengers have paid and the bus pulls away. Proof that congestion has been deliberately made worse.[/p][/quote]remove the cars no hold ups, and next time you are sat open your eyes and see how many cars you can see then see how many buses you can see, answer more cars than buses ( SIMPLE ) jake777
  • Score: -574

8:46pm Thu 9 Jan 14

JasBro says...

jake777 wrote:
JasBro wrote:
jake777 wrote:
eeoodares wrote:
old_geezer wrote:
There are winners and losers with Lendal Bridge, and naturally losers will never accept that. The restriction suits me when I walk or cycle, and my bus gets across to Museum Street quicker. On the rare occasions when I drive, Bootham's not choked any more. And neither Foss Bank nor Leeman Road seems any worse. It's a choice of evils, and I prefer this one.
I must have to drive along a different Leeman Road to you. The one I drive along is much busier, the people that live there have also noted the increased volume of traffic.
RUBBISH.
It's not rubbish, it's true.

Leeman Road is busier, Water Lane is even worse.

The council predicted both of these things and view the extra pollution and congestion as acceptable because they really couldn't care less.
its rubbish I drive up and down there all day long everyday, and it has not increased any more than before.
I live on Leeman Road so I know you're talking nonsense.

You've also over egged the cake a bit with your ridiculous claim to "drive up and down there all day long everyday"

Sad!!!
[quote][p][bold]jake777[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]JasBro[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]jake777[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]eeoodares[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]old_geezer[/bold] wrote: There are winners and losers with Lendal Bridge, and naturally losers will never accept that. The restriction suits me when I walk or cycle, and my bus gets across to Museum Street quicker. On the rare occasions when I drive, Bootham's not choked any more. And neither Foss Bank nor Leeman Road seems any worse. It's a choice of evils, and I prefer this one.[/p][/quote]I must have to drive along a different Leeman Road to you. The one I drive along is much busier, the people that live there have also noted the increased volume of traffic.[/p][/quote]RUBBISH.[/p][/quote]It's not rubbish, it's true. Leeman Road is busier, Water Lane is even worse. The council predicted both of these things and view the extra pollution and congestion as acceptable because they really couldn't care less.[/p][/quote]its rubbish I drive up and down there all day long everyday, and it has not increased any more than before.[/p][/quote]I live on Leeman Road so I know you're talking nonsense. You've also over egged the cake a bit with your ridiculous claim to "drive up and down there all day long everyday" Sad!!! JasBro
  • Score: -235

8:49pm Thu 9 Jan 14

JasBro says...

jake777 wrote:
JasBro wrote:
jake777 wrote:
asd wrote:
Intersting that CoY council bend over backwards for a PRIVATE bus company to help there profits! Set the traffic light sequencing correctly that will help matters, better still switch them off. its amazing that when traffic light failute happened a few years back at clifton green there was no heavy traffic. Also why not promote river taxi's? direct from Poppleton into heart of York, like what happens at Fulford. Also make the Harrogate line a more frequent service to take traffic from roads , similary why not Haxby too.
Lets go better than that and ban all cars from the city centre, as every bus on the road full would take 78 cars off the road thats 78 cars polluting the city.
But buses are rarely full and cars often have more than one occupant.
rubbish 90% of cars have one occupant open your eyes or remove your blinkers.
But buses are rarely full and cars often have more than one occupant.
[quote][p][bold]jake777[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]JasBro[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]jake777[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]asd[/bold] wrote: Intersting that CoY council bend over backwards for a PRIVATE bus company to help there profits! Set the traffic light sequencing correctly that will help matters, better still switch them off. its amazing that when traffic light failute happened a few years back at clifton green there was no heavy traffic. Also why not promote river taxi's? direct from Poppleton into heart of York, like what happens at Fulford. Also make the Harrogate line a more frequent service to take traffic from roads , similary why not Haxby too.[/p][/quote]Lets go better than that and ban all cars from the city centre, as every bus on the road full would take 78 cars off the road thats 78 cars polluting the city.[/p][/quote]But buses are rarely full and cars often have more than one occupant.[/p][/quote]rubbish 90% of cars have one occupant open your eyes or remove your blinkers.[/p][/quote]But buses are rarely full and cars often have more than one occupant. JasBro
  • Score: -4

8:54pm Thu 9 Jan 14

jake777 says...

AnotherPointofView wrote:
jake777 wrote:
eeoodares wrote:
old_geezer wrote:
There are winners and losers with Lendal Bridge, and naturally losers will never accept that. The restriction suits me when I walk or cycle, and my bus gets across to Museum Street quicker. On the rare occasions when I drive, Bootham's not choked any more. And neither Foss Bank nor Leeman Road seems any worse. It's a choice of evils, and I prefer this one.
I must have to drive along a different Leeman Road to you. The one I drive along is much busier, the people that live there have also noted the increased volume of traffic.
RUBBISH.
That's what really improves the level of argument on here. You are capable of one word &quot;RUBBISH"?
can use more words but rubbish sums up what you are talking about over the bridge.
[quote][p][bold]AnotherPointofView[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]jake777[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]eeoodares[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]old_geezer[/bold] wrote: There are winners and losers with Lendal Bridge, and naturally losers will never accept that. The restriction suits me when I walk or cycle, and my bus gets across to Museum Street quicker. On the rare occasions when I drive, Bootham's not choked any more. And neither Foss Bank nor Leeman Road seems any worse. It's a choice of evils, and I prefer this one.[/p][/quote]I must have to drive along a different Leeman Road to you. The one I drive along is much busier, the people that live there have also noted the increased volume of traffic.[/p][/quote]RUBBISH.[/p][/quote]That's what really improves the level of argument on here. You are capable of one word "RUBBISH"?[/p][/quote]can use more words but rubbish sums up what you are talking about over the bridge. jake777
  • Score: -237

8:57pm Thu 9 Jan 14

JasBro says...

jake777 wrote:
inthesticks wrote:
Here`s an idea. Widen the road at `The Fox`, Holgate, so that when a bus stops there cars can carry on with their journey and get past the bus.
No, wait, that`s what used to happen until they narrowed the road and made cars wait until all the passengers have paid and the bus pulls away.
Proof that congestion has been deliberately made worse.
remove the cars no hold ups, and next time you are sat open your eyes and see how many cars you can see then see how many buses you can see, answer more cars than buses ( SIMPLE )
YES. Most people prefer to travel by car, buses are rubbish. Free country. Personal choice.

(SIMPLE)
[quote][p][bold]jake777[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]inthesticks[/bold] wrote: Here`s an idea. Widen the road at `The Fox`, Holgate, so that when a bus stops there cars can carry on with their journey and get past the bus. No, wait, that`s what used to happen until they narrowed the road and made cars wait until all the passengers have paid and the bus pulls away. Proof that congestion has been deliberately made worse.[/p][/quote]remove the cars no hold ups, and next time you are sat open your eyes and see how many cars you can see then see how many buses you can see, answer more cars than buses ( SIMPLE )[/p][/quote]YES. Most people prefer to travel by car, buses are rubbish. Free country. Personal choice. (SIMPLE) JasBro
  • Score: 96

9:17pm Thu 9 Jan 14

Silver says...

What is JA's obsession with that area? I know he went to uni but the last time he tried to touch the car park all hell went off why try to mess around with it again?
What is JA's obsession with that area? I know he went to uni but the last time he tried to touch the car park all hell went off why try to mess around with it again? Silver
  • Score: -2

11:27pm Thu 9 Jan 14

strangebuttrue? says...

Is it not a fact that the council have said they have changed the traffic light timings at certain junctions and this is helping with the flow of traffic? For certain they have changed the timings at the Lendal end of Bootham which has had a massive effect on reducing congestion on Bootham thereby improving bus journey times on that route. Why would they not have done this to reduce congestion and pollution and speed up bus journey times before the bridge closure?
Is it not a fact that the council have said they have changed the traffic light timings at certain junctions and this is helping with the flow of traffic? For certain they have changed the timings at the Lendal end of Bootham which has had a massive effect on reducing congestion on Bootham thereby improving bus journey times on that route. Why would they not have done this to reduce congestion and pollution and speed up bus journey times before the bridge closure? strangebuttrue?
  • Score: -4

1:37am Fri 10 Jan 14

Magicman! says...

I used the 1 or 5 (depending what came first at Nestlé, though ironically both used to come at the same time despite the 1 being "every 10 mins" and the 5 being "every 12 mins"... try and work that out) to go to college at Tadcaster Road for 2 years - this was a few years ago, but back then it took 10-20 minutes to go along Clarence Street (sometimes more). The main reason was the traffic light sequencing:- Gillygate would get a green light, but by time the gap for traffic to enter had filtered right the way down Gillygate it was just after Clarence Street had gone to red (at the most 1 car had got through) and Lord Mayors Walk was given a left-turn green filter arrow, LMW traffic then filled the gap on Gillygate, and a new gap didn't form until Clarence Street had gone red again. Two years I went to college, and I think there were 30 days when I was on time - you'd have thought allowing 40 minutes to get from Nestlé to Askham Bar would be enough.

Since Lendal Bridge has closed to unauthorised traffic, a lot of drivers have either decided their car journeys are not necessary (hence the uptake in bus patronage), or have decided to reroute their journeys to avoid the city centre roads - which I believe was the aim of the bridge closure. Before the closure, Gillygate was end to end with traffic inbound even at midday - now you get 15-20 cars at most; a bus comes from Gillygate and can get to beyond Wackers before waiting in the traffic queue (Wackers being the cutoff point: if you're before wackers in the traffic queue, you'll get through the next green light (providing there's not some numpty waiting for a purple light to be shown at the front of the queue), but if you're at or after wackers then it'll be 2 green lights for you). Previously once the bus got into Gillygate, it was 2 or 3 sequences of the lights before it got to St Lenoards Place, now it's usuaully just 1.
I used the 1 or 5 (depending what came first at Nestlé, though ironically both used to come at the same time despite the 1 being "every 10 mins" and the 5 being "every 12 mins"... try and work that out) to go to college at Tadcaster Road for 2 years - this was a few years ago, but back then it took 10-20 minutes to go along Clarence Street (sometimes more). The main reason was the traffic light sequencing:- Gillygate would get a green light, but by time the gap for traffic to enter had filtered right the way down Gillygate it was just after Clarence Street had gone to red (at the most 1 car had got through) and Lord Mayors Walk was given a left-turn green filter arrow, LMW traffic then filled the gap on Gillygate, and a new gap didn't form until Clarence Street had gone red again. Two years I went to college, and I think there were 30 days when I was on time - you'd have thought allowing 40 minutes to get from Nestlé to Askham Bar would be enough. Since Lendal Bridge has closed to unauthorised traffic, a lot of drivers have either decided their car journeys are not necessary (hence the uptake in bus patronage), or have decided to reroute their journeys to avoid the city centre roads - which I believe was the aim of the bridge closure. Before the closure, Gillygate was end to end with traffic inbound even at midday - now you get 15-20 cars at most; a bus comes from Gillygate and can get to beyond Wackers before waiting in the traffic queue (Wackers being the cutoff point: if you're before wackers in the traffic queue, you'll get through the next green light (providing there's not some numpty waiting for a purple light to be shown at the front of the queue), but if you're at or after wackers then it'll be 2 green lights for you). Previously once the bus got into Gillygate, it was 2 or 3 sequences of the lights before it got to St Lenoards Place, now it's usuaully just 1. Magicman!
  • Score: 1

7:14am Fri 10 Jan 14

Igiveinthen says...

JasBro wrote:
jake777 wrote:
inthesticks wrote:
Here`s an idea. Widen the road at `The Fox`, Holgate, so that when a bus stops there cars can carry on with their journey and get past the bus.
No, wait, that`s what used to happen until they narrowed the road and made cars wait until all the passengers have paid and the bus pulls away.
Proof that congestion has been deliberately made worse.
remove the cars no hold ups, and next time you are sat open your eyes and see how many cars you can see then see how many buses you can see, answer more cars than buses ( SIMPLE )
YES. Most people prefer to travel by car, buses are rubbish. Free country. Personal choice.

(SIMPLE)
Well said, I used the No. 4 and No. 6 buses to travel from Fishergate to Clifton Moor to collect my car from a main dealer, never again thank you very much, smelly, dirty and tedious sticks in my memory, me a snob? Bet your life I am!
As for widening Clarence Streeet then as long as it gives more room for cars then that's ok with me!
[quote][p][bold]JasBro[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]jake777[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]inthesticks[/bold] wrote: Here`s an idea. Widen the road at `The Fox`, Holgate, so that when a bus stops there cars can carry on with their journey and get past the bus. No, wait, that`s what used to happen until they narrowed the road and made cars wait until all the passengers have paid and the bus pulls away. Proof that congestion has been deliberately made worse.[/p][/quote]remove the cars no hold ups, and next time you are sat open your eyes and see how many cars you can see then see how many buses you can see, answer more cars than buses ( SIMPLE )[/p][/quote]YES. Most people prefer to travel by car, buses are rubbish. Free country. Personal choice. (SIMPLE)[/p][/quote]Well said, I used the No. 4 and No. 6 buses to travel from Fishergate to Clifton Moor to collect my car from a main dealer, never again thank you very much, smelly, dirty and tedious sticks in my memory, me a snob? Bet your life I am! As for widening Clarence Streeet then as long as it gives more room for cars then that's ok with me! Igiveinthen
  • Score: -45

12:04pm Fri 10 Jan 14

MorkofYork says...

The traffic wasn't bad at all yesterday, but then it never was that early in the afternoon. I avoid town at work leaving time, it's people commuting that clogs up the roads. I don't see this changing any time soon.

Don't let the luddites make you feel guilty about using your car.
The traffic wasn't bad at all yesterday, but then it never was that early in the afternoon. I avoid town at work leaving time, it's people commuting that clogs up the roads. I don't see this changing any time soon. Don't let the luddites make you feel guilty about using your car. MorkofYork
  • Score: 8

12:08pm Fri 10 Jan 14

HPSauce says...

The wider issue of this article about reducing congestion and encouraging more people to use buses is one that we need to take seriously and make hard decisions on now, rather than this constant rumbling on of a topic that has been around for ages now.

Yesterday it took me 45 minutes to make a 3 mile journey to the train station. The time before that it took 35 minutes to make the same journey. Even allowing for the flooding disruption yesterday, this is unacceptable if York is to remain credible for city centre businesses and commuters.

The time has come to build a new rail station outside of the ring road, probably near Copmanthorpe a la the Parkway stations of Bristol and other major cities. The current station remains as a subsidiary station with a subsidised shuttle train from the new York Parkway to the existing York (Central) Station. This would instantly remove a significant amount of traffic from the city centre and at the same time give rail commuters a modern, fit for purpose train station in a sensible out of town location.

Marry this up with the expansion of the existing Park & Ride sites to create 4 satellite bus stations from which the various routes start and end their journey's. Add into that a city centre bus station on the site of the long term car park at the front of the rail station and we're beginning to implement a sustainable and modern public transport system that is taking traffic away from the congested city centre and dispersing it around the city ring road.

Other improvements would need to be made also to the A1237 outer ring road and the raising of the road on the A19 where it traditionally floods at Fulford causing city wide chaos but the solutions are all there and all possible.

It just takes strong leadership, vision and proper public consultation to realise the potential of the city. If there isn't action taken to ease the congestion and pressure on the city centre then vital businesses and commuters will up and leave in the way they have done in other cities facing similar issues.

Funding these changes will obviously be a major hurdle, which is why a well thought out implementation plan could see all of the above actioned over the next 20 years, leaving York in the unique position of a historic, culture rich city centre served by a modern, fit for purpose public transport system.
The wider issue of this article about reducing congestion and encouraging more people to use buses is one that we need to take seriously and make hard decisions on now, rather than this constant rumbling on of a topic that has been around for ages now. Yesterday it took me 45 minutes to make a 3 mile journey to the train station. The time before that it took 35 minutes to make the same journey. Even allowing for the flooding disruption yesterday, this is unacceptable if York is to remain credible for city centre businesses and commuters. The time has come to build a new rail station outside of the ring road, probably near Copmanthorpe a la the Parkway stations of Bristol and other major cities. The current station remains as a subsidiary station with a subsidised shuttle train from the new York Parkway to the existing York (Central) Station. This would instantly remove a significant amount of traffic from the city centre and at the same time give rail commuters a modern, fit for purpose train station in a sensible out of town location. Marry this up with the expansion of the existing Park & Ride sites to create 4 satellite bus stations from which the various routes start and end their journey's. Add into that a city centre bus station on the site of the long term car park at the front of the rail station and we're beginning to implement a sustainable and modern public transport system that is taking traffic away from the congested city centre and dispersing it around the city ring road. Other improvements would need to be made also to the A1237 outer ring road and the raising of the road on the A19 where it traditionally floods at Fulford causing city wide chaos but the solutions are all there and all possible. It just takes strong leadership, vision and proper public consultation to realise the potential of the city. If there isn't action taken to ease the congestion and pressure on the city centre then vital businesses and commuters will up and leave in the way they have done in other cities facing similar issues. Funding these changes will obviously be a major hurdle, which is why a well thought out implementation plan could see all of the above actioned over the next 20 years, leaving York in the unique position of a historic, culture rich city centre served by a modern, fit for purpose public transport system. HPSauce
  • Score: 4

10:08am Mon 13 Jan 14

Fulfordian says...

'...and proper public consultation to realise the potential of the city.'

There's the flaw in the plan.
'...and proper public consultation to realise the potential of the city.' There's the flaw in the plan. Fulfordian
  • Score: 1

3:53pm Tue 14 Jan 14

jake777 says...

JasBro wrote:
jake777 wrote:
JasBro wrote:
jake777 wrote:
eeoodares wrote:
old_geezer wrote:
There are winners and losers with Lendal Bridge, and naturally losers will never accept that. The restriction suits me when I walk or cycle, and my bus gets across to Museum Street quicker. On the rare occasions when I drive, Bootham's not choked any more. And neither Foss Bank nor Leeman Road seems any worse. It's a choice of evils, and I prefer this one.
I must have to drive along a different Leeman Road to you. The one I drive along is much busier, the people that live there have also noted the increased volume of traffic.
RUBBISH.
It's not rubbish, it's true.

Leeman Road is busier, Water Lane is even worse.

The council predicted both of these things and view the extra pollution and congestion as acceptable because they really couldn't care less.
its rubbish I drive up and down there all day long everyday, and it has not increased any more than before.
I live on Leeman Road so I know you're talking nonsense.

You've also over egged the cake a bit with your ridiculous claim to &quot;drive up and down there all day long everyday"

Sad!!!
rubbish
[quote][p][bold]JasBro[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]jake777[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]JasBro[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]jake777[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]eeoodares[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]old_geezer[/bold] wrote: There are winners and losers with Lendal Bridge, and naturally losers will never accept that. The restriction suits me when I walk or cycle, and my bus gets across to Museum Street quicker. On the rare occasions when I drive, Bootham's not choked any more. And neither Foss Bank nor Leeman Road seems any worse. It's a choice of evils, and I prefer this one.[/p][/quote]I must have to drive along a different Leeman Road to you. The one I drive along is much busier, the people that live there have also noted the increased volume of traffic.[/p][/quote]RUBBISH.[/p][/quote]It's not rubbish, it's true. Leeman Road is busier, Water Lane is even worse. The council predicted both of these things and view the extra pollution and congestion as acceptable because they really couldn't care less.[/p][/quote]its rubbish I drive up and down there all day long everyday, and it has not increased any more than before.[/p][/quote]I live on Leeman Road so I know you're talking nonsense. You've also over egged the cake a bit with your ridiculous claim to "drive up and down there all day long everyday" Sad!!![/p][/quote]rubbish jake777
  • Score: -1

4:04pm Tue 14 Jan 14

jake777 says...

Igiveinthen wrote:
JasBro wrote:
jake777 wrote:
inthesticks wrote:
Here`s an idea. Widen the road at `The Fox`, Holgate, so that when a bus stops there cars can carry on with their journey and get past the bus.
No, wait, that`s what used to happen until they narrowed the road and made cars wait until all the passengers have paid and the bus pulls away.
Proof that congestion has been deliberately made worse.
remove the cars no hold ups, and next time you are sat open your eyes and see how many cars you can see then see how many buses you can see, answer more cars than buses ( SIMPLE )
YES. Most people prefer to travel by car, buses are rubbish. Free country. Personal choice.

(SIMPLE)
Well said, I used the No. 4 and No. 6 buses to travel from Fishergate to Clifton Moor to collect my car from a main dealer, never again thank you very much, smelly, dirty and tedious sticks in my memory, me a snob? Bet your life I am!
As for widening Clarence Streeet then as long as it gives more room for cars then that's ok with me!
snob no you would not match that criteria, selfish inconsiderate that s you.
[quote][p][bold]Igiveinthen[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]JasBro[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]jake777[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]inthesticks[/bold] wrote: Here`s an idea. Widen the road at `The Fox`, Holgate, so that when a bus stops there cars can carry on with their journey and get past the bus. No, wait, that`s what used to happen until they narrowed the road and made cars wait until all the passengers have paid and the bus pulls away. Proof that congestion has been deliberately made worse.[/p][/quote]remove the cars no hold ups, and next time you are sat open your eyes and see how many cars you can see then see how many buses you can see, answer more cars than buses ( SIMPLE )[/p][/quote]YES. Most people prefer to travel by car, buses are rubbish. Free country. Personal choice. (SIMPLE)[/p][/quote]Well said, I used the No. 4 and No. 6 buses to travel from Fishergate to Clifton Moor to collect my car from a main dealer, never again thank you very much, smelly, dirty and tedious sticks in my memory, me a snob? Bet your life I am! As for widening Clarence Streeet then as long as it gives more room for cars then that's ok with me![/p][/quote]snob no you would not match that criteria, selfish inconsiderate that s you. jake777
  • Score: -2

12:19pm Thu 16 Jan 14

Gramayre says...

CoYC have fined 40,000 vehicles so far over Lendle bridge - at a minimum of £30 each (£60 after so many day) so I don't think they're going to open it up again during daytime as it's probably the biggest earner since they introduced zone parking (which incidentally is iirc illegal under some EU law but would be costly to take legal action against).

There are bus lanes on Fulford Road which are useless and AFAIK were going to be removed due to accidents. They are empty whilst traffic is gridlocked.

Gillygate is narrower as a result of a bike lane - this was made worse this morning when vans decided to park on both sides with hazard lights on thus blocking the flow of traffic completely.
due to the bus company complaining, all bus stops where buses could pull in were widened and as such cause buses to obstruct the highway when parked. Buses running early park up and obstruct the highway for e.g. Nunnery Lane at the junction of Price's Lane.

Also it's James Alexander's ultimate plan to sell Union Street car park to York St John's university even though there has been an outcry against it.
Dave Merritt wants York to be traffic free as he can't/doesn't drive and hates cars (he's also made promises elsewhere and hasn't honoured them - I wouldn't call him a liar but you can draw your own conclusions)

figures for the closing of Lendle bridge showed a minor % for disruption over the course of the day but failed to highlight the fact that disruptions only really occur in a short time during school leaving times and people leaving work which works out at a far higher % at it's most needed time.
Bus disruptions were minimal after compared to before.

it's also true that this council is the worst in York's history and I find it a joke that they refer to themselves as a 'cabinet' - inflated egos all round methinks.
CoYC have fined 40,000 vehicles so far over Lendle bridge - at a minimum of £30 each (£60 after so many day) so I don't think they're going to open it up again during daytime as it's probably the biggest earner since they introduced zone parking (which incidentally is iirc illegal under some EU law but would be costly to take legal action against). There are bus lanes on Fulford Road which are useless and AFAIK were going to be removed due to accidents. They are empty whilst traffic is gridlocked. Gillygate is narrower as a result of a bike lane - this was made worse this morning when vans decided to park on both sides with hazard lights on thus blocking the flow of traffic completely. due to the bus company complaining, all bus stops where buses could pull in were widened and as such cause buses to obstruct the highway when parked. Buses running early park up and obstruct the highway for e.g. Nunnery Lane at the junction of Price's Lane. Also it's James Alexander's ultimate plan to sell Union Street car park to York St John's university even though there has been an outcry against it. Dave Merritt wants York to be traffic free as he can't/doesn't drive and hates cars (he's also made promises elsewhere and hasn't honoured them - I wouldn't call him a liar but you can draw your own conclusions) figures for the closing of Lendle bridge showed a minor % for disruption over the course of the day but failed to highlight the fact that disruptions only really occur in a short time during school leaving times and people leaving work which works out at a far higher % at it's most needed time. Bus disruptions were minimal after compared to before. it's also true that this council is the worst in York's history and I find it a joke that they refer to themselves as a 'cabinet' - inflated egos all round methinks. Gramayre
  • 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