LENDAL BRIDGE – The big debate

York Press: Lendal Bridge Lendal Bridge

It is six months on Thursday since York’s controversial Lendal Bridge restrictions came into force.

Private traffic has been banned between 10.30am and 5pm daily, but tens of thousands of fines have been issued and the closure has been hugely controversial.

Today, eight people have their say on the closures.

Here’s a rapid-fire summary of the debate. To read any piece in full, click on the link for more.

Have your say below but please keep all comments relevant and civil, refraining from personal abuse.
 

Lionel Chatard of York Hoteliers Association says the closure is putting York’s reputation in jeopardy and says all the good tourist work is in risk of being annihilated. [Read more]

Nik Brown of the University of York says cars are an inefficient form of transport and are squeezing the life out of public spaces. He says York risks becoming a city rammed with cars. [Read more]

Kate McMullen of Visit York says we should imagine how York is for visitors, unfamiliar with the streets, and says many do not know they’ve made a mistake until it is too late. [Read more]

York resident John Gilham says many other traffic policies in York have been opposed before, but have ultimately proven to benefit everyone who enjoys the city. [Read more]

Susie Cawood of York Chamber of Commerce says businesses drive the economy but are suffering due to the closure. She says she has heard overwhelming condemnation of the restrictions. [Read more]

Prof Alan Simpson says York must enhance its public spaces and stem the unrelenting impact of cars. He says the attempts around Lendal Bridge and elsewhere are clearly the way ahead. [Read more]

Frank Wood of York Retail Forum says there has been a distinct downturn in city centre trade which dates back to the bridge’s closure. [Read more]

Mike Childs, of Friends of the Earth, says York must adapt to thrive and survive in a competitive world. He says the city’s air is too polluted and says it would send the wrong message to re-open the bridge. [Read more]

Comments (201)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

11:30am Tue 25 Feb 14

JasBro says...

The trial has failed.

Increased congestion, increased pollution, increased costs, increased journey times.

I generally support the pedestrianisation of the City Centre, but feel that the inner ring road should be kept open.
The trial has failed. Increased congestion, increased pollution, increased costs, increased journey times. I generally support the pedestrianisation of the City Centre, but feel that the inner ring road should be kept open. JasBro
  • Score: 1427

11:47am Tue 25 Feb 14

anti-rant says...

I would be interested to see the statistics linking the bridge closure to a downturn in city centre business. Moving the football team to the edge of town would probably have a more negative impact on trade than the allegations about the bridge.
I would be interested to see the statistics linking the bridge closure to a downturn in city centre business. Moving the football team to the edge of town would probably have a more negative impact on trade than the allegations about the bridge. anti-rant
  • Score: 958

11:48am Tue 25 Feb 14

strangebuttrue? says...

I agree with JasBro.

There is no comparison between the initial closure of roads in the centre to this latest closure. I recall the first closures being well supported myself included. I just could not wait to get into town and walk around without any cars. Mind you in those days cars were a lot nosier and more polluting. But this did not create the same level of issues elsewhere as the Lendal Bridge closure has. Just look at the ring road now people are forced to drive miles out of their way.
I agree with JasBro. There is no comparison between the initial closure of roads in the centre to this latest closure. I recall the first closures being well supported myself included. I just could not wait to get into town and walk around without any cars. Mind you in those days cars were a lot nosier and more polluting. But this did not create the same level of issues elsewhere as the Lendal Bridge closure has. Just look at the ring road now people are forced to drive miles out of their way. strangebuttrue?
  • Score: -231

11:50am Tue 25 Feb 14

pedalling paul says...

Nik Brown's contribution (link above) reveals that the pre-closure user survey clearly showed that the most efficient users of road space are those now permitted to cross the bridge during the day.

Private cars previously represented 70 per cent of the motorised vehicles crossing the bridge in daytime, but carried only 19 per cent of the people. What an inefficient use of road capacity! Buses, pedestrians taxis and cyclists carried far more, in much less space.

This trial begins to put York on a par with many a mainland European city that I've visited (some of those on my bike..)

I'm sure that tomorrow's printed feature will bring some interesting ripostes, that will try to equate private car access with economic and commercial success. But sadly the motoring paradise that some promise to deliver, will never be achieved.
Nik Brown's contribution (link above) reveals that the pre-closure user survey clearly showed that the most efficient users of road space are those now permitted to cross the bridge during the day. Private cars previously represented 70 per cent of the motorised vehicles crossing the bridge in daytime, but carried only 19 per cent of the people. What an inefficient use of road capacity! Buses, pedestrians taxis and cyclists carried far more, in much less space. This trial begins to put York on a par with many a mainland European city that I've visited (some of those on my bike..) I'm sure that tomorrow's printed feature will bring some interesting ripostes, that will try to equate private car access with economic and commercial success. But sadly the motoring paradise that some promise to deliver, will never be achieved. pedalling paul
  • Score: -2511

11:51am Tue 25 Feb 14

Jiffy says...

Interesting that the light sequence for cars exiting at the end of Salisbury Road has been recently altered too - now only allowing 4 or 5 cars at a time to access Clifton Bridge. The result, huge queues back through the highly populated Leeman Road area to the Junction pub & beyond at certain times adding yet more chaos to the traffic system.
Interesting that the light sequence for cars exiting at the end of Salisbury Road has been recently altered too - now only allowing 4 or 5 cars at a time to access Clifton Bridge. The result, huge queues back through the highly populated Leeman Road area to the Junction pub & beyond at certain times adding yet more chaos to the traffic system. Jiffy
  • Score: -190

12:01pm Tue 25 Feb 14

MrsHoney says...

It amazes me that people think that the closure of one bridge on the edge of the centre suddenly makes visiting York a far superior experience. I must admit, I don't often venture to that side of town but when I did, I didn't particularly find having to wait a few seconds longer to cross the road that much of an inconvenience. Especially in comparison to the inconvenience it's caused drivers, visitors and business owners. What is so great about there being less traffic along a small stretch of road?! Are people so incapable of walking on the pavement? I just don't get it.
It amazes me that people think that the closure of one bridge on the edge of the centre suddenly makes visiting York a far superior experience. I must admit, I don't often venture to that side of town but when I did, I didn't particularly find having to wait a few seconds longer to cross the road that much of an inconvenience. Especially in comparison to the inconvenience it's caused drivers, visitors and business owners. What is so great about there being less traffic along a small stretch of road?! Are people so incapable of walking on the pavement? I just don't get it. MrsHoney
  • Score: -500

12:17pm Tue 25 Feb 14

razor08 says...

The Lendal bridge closure was rushed through by cycling/pedestrian/p
ublic transport fundamentalists. More thought should have been given to the knock on effects in other areas which have suffered greater congestion. This council don't do joined up thinking.Better traffic management could have made the situation not as bad as it is now. For example why were the lights at the junction of Skeldergate Bridge/Tower Street not removed all these do is cause tailbacks all the way through Nunery Lane & Bishy Road. Have other motorists been stopped on the bridge and nothing is coming in from the right.
Please look at all options to keep the traffic moving it has to be joined up thinking!
The Lendal bridge closure was rushed through by cycling/pedestrian/p ublic transport fundamentalists. More thought should have been given to the knock on effects in other areas which have suffered greater congestion. This council don't do joined up thinking.Better traffic management could have made the situation not as bad as it is now. For example why were the lights at the junction of Skeldergate Bridge/Tower Street not removed all these do is cause tailbacks all the way through Nunery Lane & Bishy Road. Have other motorists been stopped on the bridge and nothing is coming in from the right. Please look at all options to keep the traffic moving it has to be joined up thinking! razor08
  • Score: 236

12:18pm Tue 25 Feb 14

Tootsiepuppy says...

When you are approaching Ledal Bridge from the station you are faced with a Bus Lane sign and an arrow pointing left on a flashing light board. As a resident of York I know my way round the back streets of Leeman Road area but it must be off putting for Visitors especially when the queues are backing up to the Railway Museum which often happens around 4pm on weekdays.

I work in a hotel and have had many complaints from visitors and delivery people about the bridge and the route they have to take to avoid it. It will be even worse when the closure is extended to 7am - 7pm then eventually permanent closure.
When you are approaching Ledal Bridge from the station you are faced with a Bus Lane sign and an arrow pointing left on a flashing light board. As a resident of York I know my way round the back streets of Leeman Road area but it must be off putting for Visitors especially when the queues are backing up to the Railway Museum which often happens around 4pm on weekdays. I work in a hotel and have had many complaints from visitors and delivery people about the bridge and the route they have to take to avoid it. It will be even worse when the closure is extended to 7am - 7pm then eventually permanent closure. Tootsiepuppy
  • Score: -242

12:18pm Tue 25 Feb 14

Tootsiepuppy says...

When you are approaching Ledal Bridge from the station you are faced with a Bus Lane sign and an arrow pointing left on a flashing light board. As a resident of York I know my way round the back streets of Leeman Road area but it must be off putting for Visitors especially when the queues are backing up to the Railway Museum which often happens around 4pm on weekdays.

I work in a hotel and have had many complaints from visitors and delivery people about the bridge and the route they have to take to avoid it. It will be even worse when the closure is extended to 7am - 7pm then eventually permanent closure.
When you are approaching Ledal Bridge from the station you are faced with a Bus Lane sign and an arrow pointing left on a flashing light board. As a resident of York I know my way round the back streets of Leeman Road area but it must be off putting for Visitors especially when the queues are backing up to the Railway Museum which often happens around 4pm on weekdays. I work in a hotel and have had many complaints from visitors and delivery people about the bridge and the route they have to take to avoid it. It will be even worse when the closure is extended to 7am - 7pm then eventually permanent closure. Tootsiepuppy
  • Score: -243

12:18pm Tue 25 Feb 14

Tootsiepuppy says...

When you are approaching Ledal Bridge from the station you are faced with a Bus Lane sign and an arrow pointing left on a flashing light board. As a resident of York I know my way round the back streets of Leeman Road area but it must be off putting for Visitors especially when the queues are backing up to the Railway Museum which often happens around 4pm on weekdays.

I work in a hotel and have had many complaints from visitors and delivery people about the bridge and the route they have to take to avoid it. It will be even worse when the closure is extended to 7am - 7pm then eventually permanent closure.
When you are approaching Ledal Bridge from the station you are faced with a Bus Lane sign and an arrow pointing left on a flashing light board. As a resident of York I know my way round the back streets of Leeman Road area but it must be off putting for Visitors especially when the queues are backing up to the Railway Museum which often happens around 4pm on weekdays. I work in a hotel and have had many complaints from visitors and delivery people about the bridge and the route they have to take to avoid it. It will be even worse when the closure is extended to 7am - 7pm then eventually permanent closure. Tootsiepuppy
  • Score: -111

12:18pm Tue 25 Feb 14

Tootsiepuppy says...

When you are approaching Lendal Bridge from the station you are faced with a Bus Lane sign and an arrow pointing left on a flashing light board. As a resident of York I know my way round the back streets of Leeman Road area but it must be off putting for Visitors especially when the queues are backing up to the Railway Museum which often happens around 4pm on weekdays.

I work in a hotel and have had many complaints from visitors and delivery people about the bridge and the route they have to take to avoid it. It will be even worse when the closure is extended to 7am - 7pm then eventually permanent closure.
When you are approaching Lendal Bridge from the station you are faced with a Bus Lane sign and an arrow pointing left on a flashing light board. As a resident of York I know my way round the back streets of Leeman Road area but it must be off putting for Visitors especially when the queues are backing up to the Railway Museum which often happens around 4pm on weekdays. I work in a hotel and have had many complaints from visitors and delivery people about the bridge and the route they have to take to avoid it. It will be even worse when the closure is extended to 7am - 7pm then eventually permanent closure. Tootsiepuppy
  • Score: -81

12:18pm Tue 25 Feb 14

Tootsiepuppy says...

When you are approaching Lendal Bridge from the station you are faced with a Bus Lane sign and an arrow pointing left on a flashing light board. As a resident of York I know my way round the back streets of Leeman Road area but it must be off putting for Visitors especially when the queues are backing up to the Railway Museum which often happens around 4pm on weekdays.

I work in a hotel and have had many complaints from visitors and delivery people about the bridge and the route they have to take to avoid it. It will be even worse when the closure is extended to 7am - 7pm then eventually permanent closure.
When you are approaching Lendal Bridge from the station you are faced with a Bus Lane sign and an arrow pointing left on a flashing light board. As a resident of York I know my way round the back streets of Leeman Road area but it must be off putting for Visitors especially when the queues are backing up to the Railway Museum which often happens around 4pm on weekdays. I work in a hotel and have had many complaints from visitors and delivery people about the bridge and the route they have to take to avoid it. It will be even worse when the closure is extended to 7am - 7pm then eventually permanent closure. Tootsiepuppy
  • Score: 42

12:19pm Tue 25 Feb 14

Tootsiepuppy says...

Sorry about the multiple posts - pure accident!
Sorry about the multiple posts - pure accident! Tootsiepuppy
  • Score: 28

12:26pm Tue 25 Feb 14

GooseTrackLane says...

I was a supporter of the trial when it began, because I believe that we need to find ways of reducing the number if cars in the city. I would support other trials and attempts to improve the traffic problem York clearly has.

However, at the end if the trial, I can't see how keeping it closed can really be justified. There hasn't been the chaos and gridlock which many predicted, but there haven't been any benefits either. The traffic has simply been shifted elsewhere, into residential streets and other parts of the city. No real gains for bus users either.

I can't think of any worthwhile benefits which could be used to justify keeping it closed. Maybe someone could tell me?
I was a supporter of the trial when it began, because I believe that we need to find ways of reducing the number if cars in the city. I would support other trials and attempts to improve the traffic problem York clearly has. However, at the end if the trial, I can't see how keeping it closed can really be justified. There hasn't been the chaos and gridlock which many predicted, but there haven't been any benefits either. The traffic has simply been shifted elsewhere, into residential streets and other parts of the city. No real gains for bus users either. I can't think of any worthwhile benefits which could be used to justify keeping it closed. Maybe someone could tell me? GooseTrackLane
  • Score: -183

12:26pm Tue 25 Feb 14

Platform9 says...

I live in Clifton and work in town and I often see the farcical situation of at least 3 No 6 buses all nose to tail driving to Clifton Moor or stood in traffic along Gillygate into town - all presumably approaching Lendal Bridge at different times but then stuck in traffic that has been diverted due to the closure time.

I've not checked but I'm confident that there will be no nose to tail of these buses between Osbaldwick and Rougier Street as most traffic will not be going over Lendal Bridge.

It's a main bridge over the Ouse and closing it has caused congestion around Bootham, Leeman Road and Clifton Bridge - all around the Lendal Bridge side of town!
I live in Clifton and work in town and I often see the farcical situation of at least 3 No 6 buses all nose to tail driving to Clifton Moor or stood in traffic along Gillygate into town - all presumably approaching Lendal Bridge at different times but then stuck in traffic that has been diverted due to the closure time. I've not checked but I'm confident that there will be no nose to tail of these buses between Osbaldwick and Rougier Street as most traffic will not be going over Lendal Bridge. It's a main bridge over the Ouse and closing it has caused congestion around Bootham, Leeman Road and Clifton Bridge - all around the Lendal Bridge side of town! Platform9
  • Score: 107

12:28pm Tue 25 Feb 14

YOUWILLDOASISAY says...

If you want to see an example of something done in haste, without regard for it's impact, poorly planned and executed then look no further than the Lendal Bridge trial.

It is a fine example of failure at every level. Increased congestion and air pollution on other routes, increased costs for residents and business and the negative messages sent to visitors.

The Lendal Bridge trial does not even attempt to pedestrianise and area so comparison with other areas of the city are nonsense.

Wrong bridge, wrong execution, wrong results. More often than not the dream is wrong and the reality is right. The Lendal trial has proved one thing, that it is an important part of the inner ring road when used correctly reduces congestion, pollution and adds value to the local economy.
If you want to see an example of something done in haste, without regard for it's impact, poorly planned and executed then look no further than the Lendal Bridge trial. It is a fine example of failure at every level. Increased congestion and air pollution on other routes, increased costs for residents and business and the negative messages sent to visitors. The Lendal Bridge trial does not even attempt to pedestrianise and area so comparison with other areas of the city are nonsense. Wrong bridge, wrong execution, wrong results. More often than not the dream is wrong and the reality is right. The Lendal trial has proved one thing, that it is an important part of the inner ring road when used correctly reduces congestion, pollution and adds value to the local economy. YOUWILLDOASISAY
  • Score: 349

12:29pm Tue 25 Feb 14

Knavesmire view says...

There is no debate - this was a done deal from the moment Alexander, No Merrett and the rest of the Labour cronies announced.

All we've had since is a series of pathetic excuses because the statistics don't back up their original claims for doing it, and we will get more of the same when they annouce it has become permanent.
There is no debate - this was a done deal from the moment Alexander, No Merrett and the rest of the Labour cronies announced. All we've had since is a series of pathetic excuses because the statistics don't back up their original claims for doing it, and we will get more of the same when they annouce it has become permanent. Knavesmire view
  • Score: 148

12:30pm Tue 25 Feb 14

nowthen says...

We all know that the traffic from Lendal bridge has been displaced to other parts of York's road network causing increased journey times , congestion and pollution . We all know it's not a trial . We all know that the Labour led council has disengaged and marginalised the electorate and will do exactly what it wants. This isn't a debate as Labour councillors think that consultation is unnecessary and a waste of time. The outcome has already been decided. Cue the council vote rigger..
We all know that the traffic from Lendal bridge has been displaced to other parts of York's road network causing increased journey times , congestion and pollution . We all know it's not a trial . We all know that the Labour led council has disengaged and marginalised the electorate and will do exactly what it wants. This isn't a debate as Labour councillors think that consultation is unnecessary and a waste of time. The outcome has already been decided. Cue the council vote rigger.. nowthen
  • Score: 2130

12:36pm Tue 25 Feb 14

AnotherPointofView says...

By any measure - apart from the Council no doubt- the closure has been an abject failure.

It has been bad for business, bad for York and bad for the citizens of York. It has been bad for the bus companies (overall).

Just open the bridge and end the "trial" now.
By any measure - apart from the Council no doubt- the closure has been an abject failure. It has been bad for business, bad for York and bad for the citizens of York. It has been bad for the bus companies (overall). Just open the bridge and end the "trial" now. AnotherPointofView
  • Score: 1371

12:37pm Tue 25 Feb 14

pedalling paul says...

razor08 wrote:
The Lendal bridge closure was rushed through by cycling/pedestrian/p

ublic transport fundamentalists. More thought should have been given to the knock on effects in other areas which have suffered greater congestion. This council don't do joined up thinking.Better traffic management could have made the situation not as bad as it is now. For example why were the lights at the junction of Skeldergate Bridge/Tower Street not removed all these do is cause tailbacks all the way through Nunery Lane & Bishy Road. Have other motorists been stopped on the bridge and nothing is coming in from the right.
Please look at all options to keep the traffic moving it has to be joined up thinking!
One way to keep traffic moving is to continually try and increase road and parking capacity for whatever level of demand currently exists. But that's a long term road to nowhere. Experience shows that more road capacity encourages yet more car journeys. Eventually...gridloc
k.
The other way is to reduce the demand for private car travel, so that remaining road journeys are made more efficiently. Carrot or stick first, or a combination of both? Thoughts please.
And we still await public responses to PH's earlier challenge to leading public figures, on the issue of whether York will ever be a car user's paradise.
[quote][p][bold]razor08[/bold] wrote: The Lendal bridge closure was rushed through by cycling/pedestrian/p ublic transport fundamentalists. More thought should have been given to the knock on effects in other areas which have suffered greater congestion. This council don't do joined up thinking.Better traffic management could have made the situation not as bad as it is now. For example why were the lights at the junction of Skeldergate Bridge/Tower Street not removed all these do is cause tailbacks all the way through Nunery Lane & Bishy Road. Have other motorists been stopped on the bridge and nothing is coming in from the right. Please look at all options to keep the traffic moving it has to be joined up thinking![/p][/quote]One way to keep traffic moving is to continually try and increase road and parking capacity for whatever level of demand currently exists. But that's a long term road to nowhere. Experience shows that more road capacity encourages yet more car journeys. Eventually...gridloc k. The other way is to reduce the demand for private car travel, so that remaining road journeys are made more efficiently. Carrot or stick first, or a combination of both? Thoughts please. And we still await public responses to PH's earlier challenge to leading public figures, on the issue of whether York will ever be a car user's paradise. pedalling paul
  • Score: -459

12:40pm Tue 25 Feb 14

tw@ face says...

realy can't understand why people talk like its been made pedestrian. It still has loads of traffic on it and is not safe to sit in the road and eat your sandwiches, so i cant see what the big improvement is.
Yes other citys have adopted more pedestrian ideas for the centre but they have suitable alternative routes, we dont.
since the bridge has closed i use a lot more rat runs through housing estates to avoid sitting at red lights while no one crosses infront of me. so many of yorks Traffic lights have been changed for this trial and is creating hold ups not preventing them.
realy can't understand why people talk like its been made pedestrian. It still has loads of traffic on it and is not safe to sit in the road and eat your sandwiches, so i cant see what the big improvement is. Yes other citys have adopted more pedestrian ideas for the centre but they have suitable alternative routes, we dont. since the bridge has closed i use a lot more rat runs through housing estates to avoid sitting at red lights while no one crosses infront of me. so many of yorks Traffic lights have been changed for this trial and is creating hold ups not preventing them. tw@ face
  • Score: 2488

12:45pm Tue 25 Feb 14

whitehorse says...

Any attempt by York Press to offer a fair and unbiased evaluation of the Lenfal Bridge trial has been rendered useless by attempts throughout the last 6 months to tamper with the results of previous votes.

I would welcome a public debate on this topic (which would surely be well attended) and beyond that, a referendum of residents. This I am sure, will give a truer reflection of the success of the trial than any report the council will use to justify their continuation of the scheme.
Any attempt by York Press to offer a fair and unbiased evaluation of the Lenfal Bridge trial has been rendered useless by attempts throughout the last 6 months to tamper with the results of previous votes. I would welcome a public debate on this topic (which would surely be well attended) and beyond that, a referendum of residents. This I am sure, will give a truer reflection of the success of the trial than any report the council will use to justify their continuation of the scheme. whitehorse
  • Score: 398

12:48pm Tue 25 Feb 14

ouseswimmer says...

I see the people they chose for the editorial comments are completely unbiased and totally opposite to the vast majority of views. Hardly balanced journalism.
I see the people they chose for the editorial comments are completely unbiased and totally opposite to the vast majority of views. Hardly balanced journalism. ouseswimmer
  • Score: 212

12:48pm Tue 25 Feb 14

Batman Begins says...

strangebuttrue? wrote:
I agree with JasBro.

There is no comparison between the initial closure of roads in the centre to this latest closure. I recall the first closures being well supported myself included. I just could not wait to get into town and walk around without any cars. Mind you in those days cars were a lot nosier and more polluting. But this did not create the same level of issues elsewhere as the Lendal Bridge closure has. Just look at the ring road now people are forced to drive miles out of their way.
Before being accused of being a motoring bigot I run across York, I walk across York and I cycle across York, I am rarely so optimistic as to attempt to drive across York!
I have absolutely no idea if closing Lendal Bridge is a good thing or a bad thing, but I am intrigued to know in what sense we have had a trial of the closure!
As I understand it the final solution is to close the bridge from 7am to 7pm, not 10:30am to 5pm as in the “Trial”. Currently it is possible to arrange one’s work day to travel before the closure and defer the return until the Bridge re-opens, that will not be possible with 7am to 7pm closure.
I fear more chaos than has happened already.
[quote][p][bold]strangebuttrue?[/bold] wrote: I agree with JasBro. There is no comparison between the initial closure of roads in the centre to this latest closure. I recall the first closures being well supported myself included. I just could not wait to get into town and walk around without any cars. Mind you in those days cars were a lot nosier and more polluting. But this did not create the same level of issues elsewhere as the Lendal Bridge closure has. Just look at the ring road now people are forced to drive miles out of their way.[/p][/quote]Before being accused of being a motoring bigot I run across York, I walk across York and I cycle across York, I am rarely so optimistic as to attempt to drive across York! I have absolutely no idea if closing Lendal Bridge is a good thing or a bad thing, but I am intrigued to know in what sense we have had a trial of the closure! As I understand it the final solution is to close the bridge from 7am to 7pm, not 10:30am to 5pm as in the “Trial”. Currently it is possible to arrange one’s work day to travel before the closure and defer the return until the Bridge re-opens, that will not be possible with 7am to 7pm closure. I fear more chaos than has happened already. Batman Begins
  • Score: 215

12:49pm Tue 25 Feb 14

Alf Garnett says...

nowthen wrote:
We all know that the traffic from Lendal bridge has been displaced to other parts of York's road network causing increased journey times , congestion and pollution . We all know it's not a trial . We all know that the Labour led council has disengaged and marginalised the electorate and will do exactly what it wants. This isn't a debate as Labour councillors think that consultation is unnecessary and a waste of time. The outcome has already been decided. Cue the council vote rigger..
Do we all know this ? I suspect that most if the antis are not Labour voters anyway. My drives round the inner ring - Foss Bank, Foss Islands Road, Skeldergate Bridge, Nunnery Lane seem to be a lot easier than hitherto. The bridge us open to allow traffic at peak flow times.
[quote][p][bold]nowthen[/bold] wrote: We all know that the traffic from Lendal bridge has been displaced to other parts of York's road network causing increased journey times , congestion and pollution . We all know it's not a trial . We all know that the Labour led council has disengaged and marginalised the electorate and will do exactly what it wants. This isn't a debate as Labour councillors think that consultation is unnecessary and a waste of time. The outcome has already been decided. Cue the council vote rigger..[/p][/quote]Do we all know this ? I suspect that most if the antis are not Labour voters anyway. My drives round the inner ring - Foss Bank, Foss Islands Road, Skeldergate Bridge, Nunnery Lane seem to be a lot easier than hitherto. The bridge us open to allow traffic at peak flow times. Alf Garnett
  • Score: 64

12:51pm Tue 25 Feb 14

nearlyman says...

Vote Labour then ?.............
Vote Labour then ?............. nearlyman
  • Score: 27

12:52pm Tue 25 Feb 14

AnotherPointofView says...

whitehorse wrote:
Any attempt by York Press to offer a fair and unbiased evaluation of the Lenfal Bridge trial has been rendered useless by attempts throughout the last 6 months to tamper with the results of previous votes.

I would welcome a public debate on this topic (which would surely be well attended) and beyond that, a referendum of residents. This I am sure, will give a truer reflection of the success of the trial than any report the council will use to justify their continuation of the scheme.
Well put. The only problem with a referndum is that there would be a massive vote against the closure but this Council would always judge the result to be in their favour based on their previous logic.

They would (wrongly) assume that anyone who doesn't vote aginst the closure must back the closure.
[quote][p][bold]whitehorse[/bold] wrote: Any attempt by York Press to offer a fair and unbiased evaluation of the Lenfal Bridge trial has been rendered useless by attempts throughout the last 6 months to tamper with the results of previous votes. I would welcome a public debate on this topic (which would surely be well attended) and beyond that, a referendum of residents. This I am sure, will give a truer reflection of the success of the trial than any report the council will use to justify their continuation of the scheme.[/p][/quote]Well put. The only problem with a referndum is that there would be a massive vote against the closure but this Council would always judge the result to be in their favour based on their previous logic. They would (wrongly) assume that anyone who doesn't vote aginst the closure must back the closure. AnotherPointofView
  • Score: -69

12:55pm Tue 25 Feb 14

WhyEver says...

strangebuttrue? wrote:
I agree with JasBro.

There is no comparison between the initial closure of roads in the centre to this latest closure. I recall the first closures being well supported myself included. I just could not wait to get into town and walk around without any cars. Mind you in those days cars were a lot nosier and more polluting. But this did not create the same level of issues elsewhere as the Lendal Bridge closure has. Just look at the ring road now people are forced to drive miles out of their way.
Too true, the rest of the city is paying the price for any improvements to Lendal Bridge and Museum Street.
[quote][p][bold]strangebuttrue?[/bold] wrote: I agree with JasBro. There is no comparison between the initial closure of roads in the centre to this latest closure. I recall the first closures being well supported myself included. I just could not wait to get into town and walk around without any cars. Mind you in those days cars were a lot nosier and more polluting. But this did not create the same level of issues elsewhere as the Lendal Bridge closure has. Just look at the ring road now people are forced to drive miles out of their way.[/p][/quote]Too true, the rest of the city is paying the price for any improvements to Lendal Bridge and Museum Street. WhyEver
  • Score: -80

12:56pm Tue 25 Feb 14

Alf Garnett says...

Only two months ago traders were reported in this august journal as having had their best Advent for four years. I really don't see how one can have the argument both ways. Either business is down or it isn't. Walking round the city recently my impression has been that, given the awful weather and that it is January/February the place was pretty lively; cafés busy, shops busy and loads of people on the streets - mercifully a lot less dangerous with cars than hitherto.

-30 or -40
Only two months ago traders were reported in this august journal as having had their best Advent for four years. I really don't see how one can have the argument both ways. Either business is down or it isn't. Walking round the city recently my impression has been that, given the awful weather and that it is January/February the place was pretty lively; cafés busy, shops busy and loads of people on the streets - mercifully a lot less dangerous with cars than hitherto. -30 or -40 Alf Garnett
  • Score: 46

12:58pm Tue 25 Feb 14

Alf Garnett says...

nearlyman wrote:
Vote Labour then ?.............
No, vote Conservative and watch your services cut to the bone.
[quote][p][bold]nearlyman[/bold] wrote: Vote Labour then ?.............[/p][/quote]No, vote Conservative and watch your services cut to the bone. Alf Garnett
  • Score: 57

1:00pm Tue 25 Feb 14

Alf Garnett says...

Platform9 wrote:
I live in Clifton and work in town and I often see the farcical situation of at least 3 No 6 buses all nose to tail driving to Clifton Moor or stood in traffic along Gillygate into town - all presumably approaching Lendal Bridge at different times but then stuck in traffic that has been diverted due to the closure time.

I've not checked but I'm confident that there will be no nose to tail of these buses between Osbaldwick and Rougier Street as most traffic will not be going over Lendal Bridge.

It's a main bridge over the Ouse and closing it has caused congestion around Bootham, Leeman Road and Clifton Bridge - all around the Lendal Bridge side of town!
Come off it. Gillygate is a good deal less congested than it used to be. Use
your eyes.
[quote][p][bold]Platform9[/bold] wrote: I live in Clifton and work in town and I often see the farcical situation of at least 3 No 6 buses all nose to tail driving to Clifton Moor or stood in traffic along Gillygate into town - all presumably approaching Lendal Bridge at different times but then stuck in traffic that has been diverted due to the closure time. I've not checked but I'm confident that there will be no nose to tail of these buses between Osbaldwick and Rougier Street as most traffic will not be going over Lendal Bridge. It's a main bridge over the Ouse and closing it has caused congestion around Bootham, Leeman Road and Clifton Bridge - all around the Lendal Bridge side of town![/p][/quote]Come off it. Gillygate is a good deal less congested than it used to be. Use your eyes. Alf Garnett
  • Score: 34

1:09pm Tue 25 Feb 14

AnotherPointofView says...

Alf Garnett wrote:
Platform9 wrote:
I live in Clifton and work in town and I often see the farcical situation of at least 3 No 6 buses all nose to tail driving to Clifton Moor or stood in traffic along Gillygate into town - all presumably approaching Lendal Bridge at different times but then stuck in traffic that has been diverted due to the closure time.

I've not checked but I'm confident that there will be no nose to tail of these buses between Osbaldwick and Rougier Street as most traffic will not be going over Lendal Bridge.

It's a main bridge over the Ouse and closing it has caused congestion around Bootham, Leeman Road and Clifton Bridge - all around the Lendal Bridge side of town!
Come off it. Gillygate is a good deal less congested than it used to be. Use
your eyes.
Gillygate is frequently congested from one end to the other. You can't get more congested than when it's full!
[quote][p][bold]Alf Garnett[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Platform9[/bold] wrote: I live in Clifton and work in town and I often see the farcical situation of at least 3 No 6 buses all nose to tail driving to Clifton Moor or stood in traffic along Gillygate into town - all presumably approaching Lendal Bridge at different times but then stuck in traffic that has been diverted due to the closure time. I've not checked but I'm confident that there will be no nose to tail of these buses between Osbaldwick and Rougier Street as most traffic will not be going over Lendal Bridge. It's a main bridge over the Ouse and closing it has caused congestion around Bootham, Leeman Road and Clifton Bridge - all around the Lendal Bridge side of town![/p][/quote]Come off it. Gillygate is a good deal less congested than it used to be. Use your eyes.[/p][/quote]Gillygate is frequently congested from one end to the other. You can't get more congested than when it's full! AnotherPointofView
  • Score: -62

1:10pm Tue 25 Feb 14

Batman Begins says...

Alf Garnett wrote:
nowthen wrote:
We all know that the traffic from Lendal bridge has been displaced to other parts of York's road network causing increased journey times , congestion and pollution . We all know it's not a trial . We all know that the Labour led council has disengaged and marginalised the electorate and will do exactly what it wants. This isn't a debate as Labour councillors think that consultation is unnecessary and a waste of time. The outcome has already been decided. Cue the council vote rigger..
Do we all know this ? I suspect that most if the antis are not Labour voters anyway. My drives round the inner ring - Foss Bank, Foss Islands Road, Skeldergate Bridge, Nunnery Lane seem to be a lot easier than hitherto. The bridge us open to allow traffic at peak flow times.
and it won't be open at peak flow times when it's closed 7am to 7pm
[quote][p][bold]Alf Garnett[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]nowthen[/bold] wrote: We all know that the traffic from Lendal bridge has been displaced to other parts of York's road network causing increased journey times , congestion and pollution . We all know it's not a trial . We all know that the Labour led council has disengaged and marginalised the electorate and will do exactly what it wants. This isn't a debate as Labour councillors think that consultation is unnecessary and a waste of time. The outcome has already been decided. Cue the council vote rigger..[/p][/quote]Do we all know this ? I suspect that most if the antis are not Labour voters anyway. My drives round the inner ring - Foss Bank, Foss Islands Road, Skeldergate Bridge, Nunnery Lane seem to be a lot easier than hitherto. The bridge us open to allow traffic at peak flow times.[/p][/quote]and it won't be open at peak flow times when it's closed 7am to 7pm Batman Begins
  • Score: -76

1:11pm Tue 25 Feb 14

Archiebold the 1st says...

How do you measure success against this? If it was to reduce the amount of car journeys in York then it hasn’t succeeded. If it was to reduce bus times it has failed. If it was to boost the economy it has failed.

My point is I have not actually seen a mission statement which states the aims and targets of this closure. How can you see if something was a success without a measurable metrics? So anyone from either side of the argument can just use personal opinion to see if it was a success... And I’m sure they will. But when it comes down to reasons why the council will keep it they will just make numbers up (like usual) and say it was an amazing success. This isn’t the right thing to do. I can only speak for myself but if they had set some realistic targets of things it would improve that would better my life or my city, and it was a success I would be happy it was closed.

Lets face it businesses have suffered, visitors have suffered (fines), bus journeys take longer, traffic is simply on an alternative route (so no less pollution), there has been no increase in public transport users (because its terrible), its implementation was terrible.

Plus side- some people do like to walk on a road where there are just busses & taxis not cars (not sure why). And cyclists have a road to themselves in the main. All this b@llocks about York’s air pollution blah blah is nonsense. The same amount of cars are travelling the same amount of journeys but simple taking a longer route. i'd rather a car drove past me then a double Decker diesel (which is worse for pollution then anything!). If they want to reduce traffic around this area then they need to make it quicker for people to use alternative routes. (like the leman road lights to bridge near Clifton. Maybe if they increased the amount of time you could turn right people wouldn’t use a city centre route where chances are you will get caught in traffic.

People will use the quickest route to get from a to b…. so putting a obstacle in the way of a & b just makes the quickest route longer.
How do you measure success against this? If it was to reduce the amount of car journeys in York then it hasn’t succeeded. If it was to reduce bus times it has failed. If it was to boost the economy it has failed. My point is I have not actually seen a mission statement which states the aims and targets of this closure. How can you see if something was a success without a measurable metrics? So anyone from either side of the argument can just use personal opinion to see if it was a success... And I’m sure they will. But when it comes down to reasons why the council will keep it they will just make numbers up (like usual) and say it was an amazing success. This isn’t the right thing to do. I can only speak for myself but if they had set some realistic targets of things it would improve that would better my life or my city, and it was a success I would be happy it was closed. Lets face it businesses have suffered, visitors have suffered (fines), bus journeys take longer, traffic is simply on an alternative route (so no less pollution), there has been no increase in public transport users (because its terrible), its implementation was terrible. Plus side- some people do like to walk on a road where there are just busses & taxis not cars (not sure why). And cyclists have a road to themselves in the main. All this b@llocks about York’s air pollution blah blah is nonsense. The same amount of cars are travelling the same amount of journeys but simple taking a longer route. i'd rather a car drove past me then a double Decker diesel (which is worse for pollution then anything!). If they want to reduce traffic around this area then they need to make it quicker for people to use alternative routes. (like the leman road lights to bridge near Clifton. Maybe if they increased the amount of time you could turn right people wouldn’t use a city centre route where chances are you will get caught in traffic. People will use the quickest route to get from a to b…. so putting a obstacle in the way of a & b just makes the quickest route longer. Archiebold the 1st
  • Score: 261

1:17pm Tue 25 Feb 14

gurgles says...

small space + more cars = less space + more cars = less space + more cars = less space until eventually no space left for any cars or even space left for any space . . .
York is not designed for the combustion engine never has been never will be quite simple really do you want little space or do you want no space to drive your cars . . .
small space + more cars = less space + more cars = less space + more cars = less space until eventually no space left for any cars or even space left for any space . . . York is not designed for the combustion engine never has been never will be quite simple really do you want little space or do you want no space to drive your cars . . . gurgles
  • Score: 168

1:23pm Tue 25 Feb 14

Archiebold the 1st says...

Alf Garnett wrote:
Only two months ago traders were reported in this august journal as having had their best Advent for four years. I really don't see how one can have the argument both ways. Either business is down or it isn't. Walking round the city recently my impression has been that, given the awful weather and that it is January/February the place was pretty lively; cafés busy, shops busy and loads of people on the streets - mercifully a lot less dangerous with cars than hitherto. -30 or -40
yes its amazing that no one was hit in the city centre given you can get up to at least 10 mph even when the bridge was open... lives were saved...
[quote][p][bold]Alf Garnett[/bold] wrote: Only two months ago traders were reported in this august journal as having had their best Advent for four years. I really don't see how one can have the argument both ways. Either business is down or it isn't. Walking round the city recently my impression has been that, given the awful weather and that it is January/February the place was pretty lively; cafés busy, shops busy and loads of people on the streets - mercifully a lot less dangerous with cars than hitherto. -30 or -40[/p][/quote]yes its amazing that no one was hit in the city centre given you can get up to at least 10 mph even when the bridge was open... lives were saved... Archiebold the 1st
  • Score: -56

1:25pm Tue 25 Feb 14

Archiebold the 1st says...

Alf Garnett wrote:
Platform9 wrote: I live in Clifton and work in town and I often see the farcical situation of at least 3 No 6 buses all nose to tail driving to Clifton Moor or stood in traffic along Gillygate into town - all presumably approaching Lendal Bridge at different times but then stuck in traffic that has been diverted due to the closure time. I've not checked but I'm confident that there will be no nose to tail of these buses between Osbaldwick and Rougier Street as most traffic will not be going over Lendal Bridge. It's a main bridge over the Ouse and closing it has caused congestion around Bootham, Leeman Road and Clifton Bridge - all around the Lendal Bridge side of town!
Come off it. Gillygate is a good deal less congested than it used to be. Use your eyes.
suppose fishergate is too... open your mind. have people stopped using cars?
[quote][p][bold]Alf Garnett[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Platform9[/bold] wrote: I live in Clifton and work in town and I often see the farcical situation of at least 3 No 6 buses all nose to tail driving to Clifton Moor or stood in traffic along Gillygate into town - all presumably approaching Lendal Bridge at different times but then stuck in traffic that has been diverted due to the closure time. I've not checked but I'm confident that there will be no nose to tail of these buses between Osbaldwick and Rougier Street as most traffic will not be going over Lendal Bridge. It's a main bridge over the Ouse and closing it has caused congestion around Bootham, Leeman Road and Clifton Bridge - all around the Lendal Bridge side of town![/p][/quote]Come off it. Gillygate is a good deal less congested than it used to be. Use your eyes.[/p][/quote]suppose fishergate is too... open your mind. have people stopped using cars? Archiebold the 1st
  • Score: -9

1:28pm Tue 25 Feb 14

Archiebold the 1st says...

gurgles wrote:
small space + more cars = less space + more cars = less space + more cars = less space until eventually no space left for any cars or even space left for any space . . . York is not designed for the combustion engine never has been never will be quite simple really do you want little space or do you want no space to drive your cars . . .
do you know what that bridge was used for at first??? ha
[quote][p][bold]gurgles[/bold] wrote: small space + more cars = less space + more cars = less space + more cars = less space until eventually no space left for any cars or even space left for any space . . . York is not designed for the combustion engine never has been never will be quite simple really do you want little space or do you want no space to drive your cars . . .[/p][/quote]do you know what that bridge was used for at first??? ha Archiebold the 1st
  • Score: -12

1:32pm Tue 25 Feb 14

Plebyork says...

I generally support the pedestrianisation of York centre, but there appears a major flaw in the present arrangements and proposed extensions.
A motorist unfamiliar with York approaching the bridge via St Leonards is not given adequate warning, and if he/she does become aware, there is no legal route to avoid the bridge.
With the proposed extensions into Duncombe Place and Blake Street there will be no opportunity at all to avoid the bridge. The plan should be amended to provide such an opportunity, plus better warning signs.
York risks losing many future tourist. visitors if they are hit by a fine on their first visits.
A further improvement would be to give automatic cancellation of fines on the first offence, accompanied by a small map showing the route to avoid in future, plus details of park-and-ride facilities.
I generally support the pedestrianisation of York centre, but there appears a major flaw in the present arrangements and proposed extensions. A motorist unfamiliar with York approaching the bridge via St Leonards is not given adequate warning, and if he/she does become aware, there is no legal route to avoid the bridge. With the proposed extensions into Duncombe Place and Blake Street there will be no opportunity at all to avoid the bridge. The plan should be amended to provide such an opportunity, plus better warning signs. York risks losing many future tourist. visitors if they are hit by a fine on their first visits. A further improvement would be to give automatic cancellation of fines on the first offence, accompanied by a small map showing the route to avoid in future, plus details of park-and-ride facilities. Plebyork
  • Score: -21

1:40pm Tue 25 Feb 14

AnotherPointofView says...

Plebyork wrote:
I generally support the pedestrianisation of York centre, but there appears a major flaw in the present arrangements and proposed extensions.
A motorist unfamiliar with York approaching the bridge via St Leonards is not given adequate warning, and if he/she does become aware, there is no legal route to avoid the bridge.
With the proposed extensions into Duncombe Place and Blake Street there will be no opportunity at all to avoid the bridge. The plan should be amended to provide such an opportunity, plus better warning signs.
York risks losing many future tourist. visitors if they are hit by a fine on their first visits.
A further improvement would be to give automatic cancellation of fines on the first offence, accompanied by a small map showing the route to avoid in future, plus details of park-and-ride facilities.
Far too sensible for this council.

Most roads with bus lanes (which is what Lendal Bridge is between 10.30 and 17.00 have two lanes. This means that if you realise you are in the wrong lane, you just indicate and move out of the bus lane. Obviously you cannot do this over Lendal Bridge (unless you want to get very wet!)

The guidelines to bus lanes are that the issuer should first sent a warning letter then resort to a PCN. This money grabbing council has completely ignored these guidelines and headed straight for the fine option.
[quote][p][bold]Plebyork[/bold] wrote: I generally support the pedestrianisation of York centre, but there appears a major flaw in the present arrangements and proposed extensions. A motorist unfamiliar with York approaching the bridge via St Leonards is not given adequate warning, and if he/she does become aware, there is no legal route to avoid the bridge. With the proposed extensions into Duncombe Place and Blake Street there will be no opportunity at all to avoid the bridge. The plan should be amended to provide such an opportunity, plus better warning signs. York risks losing many future tourist. visitors if they are hit by a fine on their first visits. A further improvement would be to give automatic cancellation of fines on the first offence, accompanied by a small map showing the route to avoid in future, plus details of park-and-ride facilities.[/p][/quote]Far too sensible for this council. Most roads with bus lanes (which is what Lendal Bridge is between 10.30 and 17.00 have two lanes. This means that if you realise you are in the wrong lane, you just indicate and move out of the bus lane. Obviously you cannot do this over Lendal Bridge (unless you want to get very wet!) The guidelines to bus lanes are that the issuer should first sent a warning letter then resort to a PCN. This money grabbing council has completely ignored these guidelines and headed straight for the fine option. AnotherPointofView
  • Score: -16

1:43pm Tue 25 Feb 14

Archiebold the 1st says...

AnotherPointofView wrote:
Plebyork wrote: I generally support the pedestrianisation of York centre, but there appears a major flaw in the present arrangements and proposed extensions. A motorist unfamiliar with York approaching the bridge via St Leonards is not given adequate warning, and if he/she does become aware, there is no legal route to avoid the bridge. With the proposed extensions into Duncombe Place and Blake Street there will be no opportunity at all to avoid the bridge. The plan should be amended to provide such an opportunity, plus better warning signs. York risks losing many future tourist. visitors if they are hit by a fine on their first visits. A further improvement would be to give automatic cancellation of fines on the first offence, accompanied by a small map showing the route to avoid in future, plus details of park-and-ride facilities.
Far too sensible for this council. Most roads with bus lanes (which is what Lendal Bridge is between 10.30 and 17.00 have two lanes. This means that if you realise you are in the wrong lane, you just indicate and move out of the bus lane. Obviously you cannot do this over Lendal Bridge (unless you want to get very wet!) The guidelines to bus lanes are that the issuer should first sent a warning letter then resort to a PCN. This money grabbing council has completely ignored these guidelines and headed straight for the fine option.
And spent 600k doing so. If we did end up sending out a map and giving them a life line we (york folk) would be out of pocket.
[quote][p][bold]AnotherPointofView[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Plebyork[/bold] wrote: I generally support the pedestrianisation of York centre, but there appears a major flaw in the present arrangements and proposed extensions. A motorist unfamiliar with York approaching the bridge via St Leonards is not given adequate warning, and if he/she does become aware, there is no legal route to avoid the bridge. With the proposed extensions into Duncombe Place and Blake Street there will be no opportunity at all to avoid the bridge. The plan should be amended to provide such an opportunity, plus better warning signs. York risks losing many future tourist. visitors if they are hit by a fine on their first visits. A further improvement would be to give automatic cancellation of fines on the first offence, accompanied by a small map showing the route to avoid in future, plus details of park-and-ride facilities.[/p][/quote]Far too sensible for this council. Most roads with bus lanes (which is what Lendal Bridge is between 10.30 and 17.00 have two lanes. This means that if you realise you are in the wrong lane, you just indicate and move out of the bus lane. Obviously you cannot do this over Lendal Bridge (unless you want to get very wet!) The guidelines to bus lanes are that the issuer should first sent a warning letter then resort to a PCN. This money grabbing council has completely ignored these guidelines and headed straight for the fine option.[/p][/quote]And spent 600k doing so. If we did end up sending out a map and giving them a life line we (york folk) would be out of pocket. Archiebold the 1st
  • Score: 236

1:46pm Tue 25 Feb 14

gurgles says...

Archiebold the 1st wrote:
gurgles wrote:
small space + more cars = less space + more cars = less space + more cars = less space until eventually no space left for any cars or even space left for any space . . . York is not designed for the combustion engine never has been never will be quite simple really do you want little space or do you want no space to drive your cars . . .
do you know what that bridge was used for at first??? ha
prob to bridge the lack of immagination . . re the combustion engine which paradoxically if discovered today would be dismissed instantly as a completely inefficient method for motorising vehicles which still leaves the problem of space for the machines and space for the the human ego either way something has to give no room for both . . .
[quote][p][bold]Archiebold the 1st[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]gurgles[/bold] wrote: small space + more cars = less space + more cars = less space + more cars = less space until eventually no space left for any cars or even space left for any space . . . York is not designed for the combustion engine never has been never will be quite simple really do you want little space or do you want no space to drive your cars . . .[/p][/quote]do you know what that bridge was used for at first??? ha[/p][/quote]prob to bridge the lack of immagination . . re the combustion engine which paradoxically if discovered today would be dismissed instantly as a completely inefficient method for motorising vehicles which still leaves the problem of space for the machines and space for the the human ego either way something has to give no room for both . . . gurgles
  • Score: 56

1:46pm Tue 25 Feb 14

Can't all be wrong says...

I remain unconvinced that the closure of the bridge had anything to do with traffic management. The alternative routes are now more congested than ever, which by definition means greater air pollution on those routes and slower moving traffic which in itself impacts on air quality. Given all of these negatives there has to be an another reason why this bridge has been closed.
Could it be the developers of the old council offices have flexed their muscles, what about the new restaurant beneath the bridge? I also believe the arches beneath the bridge may be soon to be sold off! The large pizza restaurant sited on the northern end of the bridge is owned by YCC, all seems too much of a coincidence to remove all the traffic from this location, and make a cool £1.3mill in the process.
I remain unconvinced that the closure of the bridge had anything to do with traffic management. The alternative routes are now more congested than ever, which by definition means greater air pollution on those routes and slower moving traffic which in itself impacts on air quality. Given all of these negatives there has to be an another reason why this bridge has been closed. Could it be the developers of the old council offices have flexed their muscles, what about the new restaurant beneath the bridge? I also believe the arches beneath the bridge may be soon to be sold off! The large pizza restaurant sited on the northern end of the bridge is owned by YCC, all seems too much of a coincidence to remove all the traffic from this location, and make a cool £1.3mill in the process. Can't all be wrong
  • Score: 82

1:46pm Tue 25 Feb 14

mjgyork says...

JasBro wrote:
The trial has failed.

Increased congestion, increased pollution, increased costs, increased journey times.

I generally support the pedestrianisation of the City Centre, but feel that the inner ring road should be kept open.
Increased congestion - wrong! Increased pollution - wrong! increased costs - wrong! Increased journey times - wrong! Lower visitor numbers - wrong! Lower footfall -wrong! Where is your evidence? There IS an inner ring road and there is no reason why Lendal Bridge should be part of it.
[quote][p][bold]JasBro[/bold] wrote: The trial has failed. Increased congestion, increased pollution, increased costs, increased journey times. I generally support the pedestrianisation of the City Centre, but feel that the inner ring road should be kept open.[/p][/quote]Increased congestion - wrong! Increased pollution - wrong! increased costs - wrong! Increased journey times - wrong! Lower visitor numbers - wrong! Lower footfall -wrong! Where is your evidence? There IS an inner ring road and there is no reason why Lendal Bridge should be part of it. mjgyork
  • Score: 29

1:47pm Tue 25 Feb 14

taffywilliams says...

This bridge should never have been closed. Purely a political move by the council and revenue making exercise. I dare say the decision has already been made to keep the restricted access during certain hours. If the has asked the York residence prior to their decision I dare say the vast majority would have voted against the decision. This current York council are appalling.
This bridge should never have been closed. Purely a political move by the council and revenue making exercise. I dare say the decision has already been made to keep the restricted access during certain hours. If the has asked the York residence prior to their decision I dare say the vast majority would have voted against the decision. This current York council are appalling. taffywilliams
  • Score: 142

1:48pm Tue 25 Feb 14

taffywilliams says...

This bridge should never have been closed. Purely a political move by the council and revenue making exercise. I dare say the decision has already been made to keep the restricted access during certain hours. If the has asked the York residence prior to their decision I dare say the vast majority would have voted against the decision. This current York council are appalling. And don't start me on the waste of tax payers money where the 20mph speed limit is concerned. Total waste of money!
This bridge should never have been closed. Purely a political move by the council and revenue making exercise. I dare say the decision has already been made to keep the restricted access during certain hours. If the has asked the York residence prior to their decision I dare say the vast majority would have voted against the decision. This current York council are appalling. And don't start me on the waste of tax payers money where the 20mph speed limit is concerned. Total waste of money! taffywilliams
  • Score: 124

1:55pm Tue 25 Feb 14

AnotherPointofView says...

mjgyork wrote:
JasBro wrote:
The trial has failed.

Increased congestion, increased pollution, increased costs, increased journey times.

I generally support the pedestrianisation of the City Centre, but feel that the inner ring road should be kept open.
Increased congestion - wrong! Increased pollution - wrong! increased costs - wrong! Increased journey times - wrong! Lower visitor numbers - wrong! Lower footfall -wrong! Where is your evidence? There IS an inner ring road and there is no reason why Lendal Bridge should be part of it.
YOU are just wrong.

The inner ring road does and should include Lendal Bridge. With LB, the inner ring road just becomes a "c" shaped road. Rather daft that you can't go round a "ring road"!
[quote][p][bold]mjgyork[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]JasBro[/bold] wrote: The trial has failed. Increased congestion, increased pollution, increased costs, increased journey times. I generally support the pedestrianisation of the City Centre, but feel that the inner ring road should be kept open.[/p][/quote]Increased congestion - wrong! Increased pollution - wrong! increased costs - wrong! Increased journey times - wrong! Lower visitor numbers - wrong! Lower footfall -wrong! Where is your evidence? There IS an inner ring road and there is no reason why Lendal Bridge should be part of it.[/p][/quote]YOU are just wrong. The inner ring road does and should include Lendal Bridge. With LB, the inner ring road just becomes a "c" shaped road. Rather daft that you can't go round a "ring road"! AnotherPointofView
  • Score: -41

2:05pm Tue 25 Feb 14

inthesticks says...

Sack Merrett and the rest of the (hugely unpopular) cabinet James, say you`re sorry and you`ve made a big mistake and you will start listening and acting on what we the voters want and hope that Labour voters forgive you in time for us not to have a Tory run council next time. You`re welcome.
Sack Merrett and the rest of the (hugely unpopular) cabinet James, say you`re sorry and you`ve made a big mistake and you will start listening and acting on what we the voters want and hope that Labour voters forgive you in time for us not to have a Tory run council next time. You`re welcome. inthesticks
  • Score: -85

2:09pm Tue 25 Feb 14

Archiebold the 1st says...

gurgles wrote:
Archiebold the 1st wrote:
gurgles wrote: small space + more cars = less space + more cars = less space + more cars = less space until eventually no space left for any cars or even space left for any space . . . York is not designed for the combustion engine never has been never will be quite simple really do you want little space or do you want no space to drive your cars . . .
do you know what that bridge was used for at first??? ha
prob to bridge the lack of immagination . . re the combustion engine which paradoxically if discovered today would be dismissed instantly as a completely inefficient method for motorising vehicles which still leaves the problem of space for the machines and space for the the human ego either way something has to give no room for both . . .
Clever... someone’s been eating their brown rice. Not once has your argument come up. Not one comment regarding there is no space for my car. Believe it or not houses or flats are built with these "spaces" and to use a car for transport to a destination requires a "space" at the end. The problem is the diversion of all the traffic (previously shared between "spaces") into 1x "space". Which using my human ego and combustion like mind means that one area has more space then another causing traffic not an overall lack of "space"?
[quote][p][bold]gurgles[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Archiebold the 1st[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]gurgles[/bold] wrote: small space + more cars = less space + more cars = less space + more cars = less space until eventually no space left for any cars or even space left for any space . . . York is not designed for the combustion engine never has been never will be quite simple really do you want little space or do you want no space to drive your cars . . .[/p][/quote]do you know what that bridge was used for at first??? ha[/p][/quote]prob to bridge the lack of immagination . . re the combustion engine which paradoxically if discovered today would be dismissed instantly as a completely inefficient method for motorising vehicles which still leaves the problem of space for the machines and space for the the human ego either way something has to give no room for both . . .[/p][/quote]Clever... someone’s been eating their brown rice. Not once has your argument come up. Not one comment regarding there is no space for my car. Believe it or not houses or flats are built with these "spaces" and to use a car for transport to a destination requires a "space" at the end. The problem is the diversion of all the traffic (previously shared between "spaces") into 1x "space". Which using my human ego and combustion like mind means that one area has more space then another causing traffic not an overall lack of "space"? Archiebold the 1st
  • Score: 90

2:17pm Tue 25 Feb 14

Archiebold the 1st says...

mjgyork wrote:
JasBro wrote: The trial has failed. Increased congestion, increased pollution, increased costs, increased journey times. I generally support the pedestrianisation of the City Centre, but feel that the inner ring road should be kept open.
Increased congestion - wrong! Increased pollution - wrong! increased costs - wrong! Increased journey times - wrong! Lower visitor numbers - wrong! Lower footfall -wrong! Where is your evidence? There IS an inner ring road and there is no reason why Lendal Bridge should be part of it.
What was the purpose of the closure? longer journey = more pollution. Open your eyes there congestion has increased. Even the stats from the Muppets who implemented this back that up! There is not a inner ring road without this route. Last but not least lets see how many visit York next xmas after being fined. The £30 fine they spent could have taken them to Leeds, Manchester or Newcastle and maybe this will be taken into account when they next decide to visit. (After all 45,000 with 80% not being from York means that 36,000 visitors have been fined and im pretty sure they would feel hard done by).
[quote][p][bold]mjgyork[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]JasBro[/bold] wrote: The trial has failed. Increased congestion, increased pollution, increased costs, increased journey times. I generally support the pedestrianisation of the City Centre, but feel that the inner ring road should be kept open.[/p][/quote]Increased congestion - wrong! Increased pollution - wrong! increased costs - wrong! Increased journey times - wrong! Lower visitor numbers - wrong! Lower footfall -wrong! Where is your evidence? There IS an inner ring road and there is no reason why Lendal Bridge should be part of it.[/p][/quote]What was the purpose of the closure? longer journey = more pollution. Open your eyes there congestion has increased. Even the stats from the Muppets who implemented this back that up! There is not a inner ring road without this route. Last but not least lets see how many visit York next xmas after being fined. The £30 fine they spent could have taken them to Leeds, Manchester or Newcastle and maybe this will be taken into account when they next decide to visit. (After all 45,000 with 80% not being from York means that 36,000 visitors have been fined and im pretty sure they would feel hard done by). Archiebold the 1st
  • Score: 102

2:18pm Tue 25 Feb 14

YorkPatrol says...

pedalling paul wrote:
Nik Brown's contribution (link above) reveals that the pre-closure user survey clearly showed that the most efficient users of road space are those now permitted to cross the bridge during the day. Private cars previously represented 70 per cent of the motorised vehicles crossing the bridge in daytime, but carried only 19 per cent of the people. What an inefficient use of road capacity! Buses, pedestrians taxis and cyclists carried far more, in much less space. This trial begins to put York on a par with many a mainland European city that I've visited (some of those on my bike..) I'm sure that tomorrow's printed feature will bring some interesting ripostes, that will try to equate private car access with economic and commercial success. But sadly the motoring paradise that some promise to deliver, will never be achieved.
The traffic has just been diverted somewhere else you goon – try asking the people down Leeman Road how they feel about the “trial”

Are you one of the few imbeciles that think all the people who previously used Lendal Bridge have suddenly jumped on their bikes or on the bus???

Nobody expects a motoring paradise but closing a major road through the centre of town was simply insanity

The closure has been a total failure and an embarrassment to York
[quote][p][bold]pedalling paul [/bold] wrote: Nik Brown's contribution (link above) reveals that the pre-closure user survey clearly showed that the most efficient users of road space are those now permitted to cross the bridge during the day. Private cars previously represented 70 per cent of the motorised vehicles crossing the bridge in daytime, but carried only 19 per cent of the people. What an inefficient use of road capacity! Buses, pedestrians taxis and cyclists carried far more, in much less space. This trial begins to put York on a par with many a mainland European city that I've visited (some of those on my bike..) I'm sure that tomorrow's printed feature will bring some interesting ripostes, that will try to equate private car access with economic and commercial success. But sadly the motoring paradise that some promise to deliver, will never be achieved.[/p][/quote]The traffic has just been diverted somewhere else you goon – try asking the people down Leeman Road how they feel about the “trial” Are you one of the few imbeciles that think all the people who previously used Lendal Bridge have suddenly jumped on their bikes or on the bus??? Nobody expects a motoring paradise but closing a major road through the centre of town was simply insanity The closure has been a total failure and an embarrassment to York YorkPatrol
  • Score: 103

2:20pm Tue 25 Feb 14

mjgyork says...

Record numbers for the recent festival. Perhaps the descendants of Vikings can navigate better than everyone else?
Record numbers for the recent festival. Perhaps the descendants of Vikings can navigate better than everyone else? mjgyork
  • Score: -71

2:37pm Tue 25 Feb 14

HoofHearteds says...

The bridge closure has been a resounding success. The figures are still being analysed and collated. So far, and I shouldn't be sharing this yet, the figures are revealing amazing results regarding traffic pollution levels and future decay/rebuilding forcasts falling.

7am to 7pm will bring about more happy dancing people in this beautiful historic and fragile city. Ouse Bridge next and eventually the dependents on vehicles will prize themselves away from the nipple of combustion suckling.
The bridge closure has been a resounding success. The figures are still being analysed and collated. So far, and I shouldn't be sharing this yet, the figures are revealing amazing results regarding traffic pollution levels and future decay/rebuilding forcasts falling. 7am to 7pm will bring about more happy dancing people in this beautiful historic and fragile city. Ouse Bridge next and eventually the dependents on vehicles will prize themselves away from the nipple of combustion suckling. HoofHearteds
  • Score: 69

2:40pm Tue 25 Feb 14

Hicarrumba says...

gurgles wrote:
small space + more cars = less space + more cars = less space + more cars = less space until eventually no space left for any cars or even space left for any space . . .
York is not designed for the combustion engine never has been never will be quite simple really do you want little space or do you want no space to drive your cars . . .
Not designed for combustion engines? Steam then? Horse and carts then? Vehicle is vehicle. People with disabilities don't have much of a choice, Either roll in, try and get on a bus full of prams or drive in a park.

I have lived in Huntington for 11 years now and have used Lendal bridge a handful of times at most, because guess what? Gillygate is always packed, so I go a different way.

Yes maybe the bridge closure is annoying to some (the ones that got caught out and dare not say they got a fine) but common sense situations like I know that town is going to be packed on Match/christmas/shco
ol holidays/weekends/ru
sh hour, means that taking the alternative further but less time consuming route is easier.
[quote][p][bold]gurgles[/bold] wrote: small space + more cars = less space + more cars = less space + more cars = less space until eventually no space left for any cars or even space left for any space . . . York is not designed for the combustion engine never has been never will be quite simple really do you want little space or do you want no space to drive your cars . . .[/p][/quote]Not designed for combustion engines? Steam then? Horse and carts then? Vehicle is vehicle. People with disabilities don't have much of a choice, Either roll in, try and get on a bus full of prams or drive in a park. I have lived in Huntington for 11 years now and have used Lendal bridge a handful of times at most, because guess what? Gillygate is always packed, so I go a different way. Yes maybe the bridge closure is annoying to some (the ones that got caught out and dare not say they got a fine) but common sense situations like I know that town is going to be packed on Match/christmas/shco ol holidays/weekends/ru sh hour, means that taking the alternative further but less time consuming route is easier. Hicarrumba
  • Score: -32

2:41pm Tue 25 Feb 14

Archiebold the 1st says...

mjgyork wrote:
Record numbers for the recent festival. Perhaps the descendants of Vikings can navigate better than everyone else?
maybe it was busier as this year it was the actual prediction date? and the increased numbers were not down to all the tourists having a nice walk over the clear pollution zone of lendal?

Just a thought.
[quote][p][bold]mjgyork[/bold] wrote: Record numbers for the recent festival. Perhaps the descendants of Vikings can navigate better than everyone else?[/p][/quote]maybe it was busier as this year it was the actual prediction date? and the increased numbers were not down to all the tourists having a nice walk over the clear pollution zone of lendal? Just a thought. Archiebold the 1st
  • Score: -4

2:42pm Tue 25 Feb 14

York Urban says...

YorkPatrol wrote:
pedalling paul wrote:
Nik Brown's contribution (link above) reveals that the pre-closure user survey clearly showed that the most efficient users of road space are those now permitted to cross the bridge during the day. Private cars previously represented 70 per cent of the motorised vehicles crossing the bridge in daytime, but carried only 19 per cent of the people. What an inefficient use of road capacity! Buses, pedestrians taxis and cyclists carried far more, in much less space. This trial begins to put York on a par with many a mainland European city that I've visited (some of those on my bike..) I'm sure that tomorrow's printed feature will bring some interesting ripostes, that will try to equate private car access with economic and commercial success. But sadly the motoring paradise that some promise to deliver, will never be achieved.
The traffic has just been diverted somewhere else you goon – try asking the people down Leeman Road how they feel about the “trial”

Are you one of the few imbeciles that think all the people who previously used Lendal Bridge have suddenly jumped on their bikes or on the bus???

Nobody expects a motoring paradise but closing a major road through the centre of town was simply insanity

The closure has been a total failure and an embarrassment to York
This is offensive - calling a commentator and "imbecile" and a "goon". There is absolutely no call for that.

FYI: Leeman Road has shown a reduction in traffic - though, to be fair, the the report qualifies this.

I think Nik Brown makes a very pertinent point - that cars only carry 19% of the people actually crossing the bridge but constitute by far the largest proportion of its traffic. In any city centre context cars are a very inefficient way of moving people around. It is right that thier use should be restricted.

If York city centre retailers are supposedly suffering so much as a result of the restrictions they need to look long and hard at their business model. If it is so dependent on that 19% perhaps they have bigger problems than some people not being able to drive their cars over a bridge.
[quote][p][bold]YorkPatrol[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]pedalling paul [/bold] wrote: Nik Brown's contribution (link above) reveals that the pre-closure user survey clearly showed that the most efficient users of road space are those now permitted to cross the bridge during the day. Private cars previously represented 70 per cent of the motorised vehicles crossing the bridge in daytime, but carried only 19 per cent of the people. What an inefficient use of road capacity! Buses, pedestrians taxis and cyclists carried far more, in much less space. This trial begins to put York on a par with many a mainland European city that I've visited (some of those on my bike..) I'm sure that tomorrow's printed feature will bring some interesting ripostes, that will try to equate private car access with economic and commercial success. But sadly the motoring paradise that some promise to deliver, will never be achieved.[/p][/quote]The traffic has just been diverted somewhere else you goon – try asking the people down Leeman Road how they feel about the “trial” Are you one of the few imbeciles that think all the people who previously used Lendal Bridge have suddenly jumped on their bikes or on the bus??? Nobody expects a motoring paradise but closing a major road through the centre of town was simply insanity The closure has been a total failure and an embarrassment to York[/p][/quote]This is offensive - calling a commentator and "imbecile" and a "goon". There is absolutely no call for that. FYI: Leeman Road has shown a reduction in traffic - though, to be fair, the the report qualifies this. I think Nik Brown makes a very pertinent point - that cars only carry 19% of the people actually crossing the bridge but constitute by far the largest proportion of its traffic. In any city centre context cars are a very inefficient way of moving people around. It is right that thier use should be restricted. If York city centre retailers are supposedly suffering so much as a result of the restrictions they need to look long and hard at their business model. If it is so dependent on that 19% perhaps they have bigger problems than some people not being able to drive their cars over a bridge. York Urban
  • Score: -44

2:45pm Tue 25 Feb 14

razor08 says...

pedalling paul wrote:
razor08 wrote:
The Lendal bridge closure was rushed through by cycling/pedestrian/p


ublic transport fundamentalists. More thought should have been given to the knock on effects in other areas which have suffered greater congestion. This council don't do joined up thinking.Better traffic management could have made the situation not as bad as it is now. For example why were the lights at the junction of Skeldergate Bridge/Tower Street not removed all these do is cause tailbacks all the way through Nunery Lane & Bishy Road. Have other motorists been stopped on the bridge and nothing is coming in from the right.
Please look at all options to keep the traffic moving it has to be joined up thinking!
One way to keep traffic moving is to continually try and increase road and parking capacity for whatever level of demand currently exists. But that's a long term road to nowhere. Experience shows that more road capacity encourages yet more car journeys. Eventually...gridloc

k.
The other way is to reduce the demand for private car travel, so that remaining road journeys are made more efficiently. Carrot or stick first, or a combination of both? Thoughts please.
And we still await public responses to PH's earlier challenge to leading public figures, on the issue of whether York will ever be a car user's paradise.
pedalling paul says...

razor08 wrote:
The Lendal bridge closure was rushed through by cycling/pedestrian/p
ublic transport fundamentalists. More thought should have been given to the knock on effects in other areas which have suffered greater congestion. This council don't do joined up thinking.Better traffic management could have made the situation not as bad as it is now. For example why were the lights at the junction of Skeldergate Bridge/Tower Street not removed all these do is cause tailbacks all the way through Nunery Lane & Bishy Road. Have other motorists been stopped on the bridge and nothing is coming in from the right.
Please look at all options to keep the traffic moving it has to be joined up thinking!
One way to keep traffic moving is to continually try and increase road and parking capacity for whatever level of demand currently exists. But that's a long term road to nowhere. Experience shows that more road capacity encourages yet more car journeys. Eventually...gridloc

k.
The other way is to reduce the demand for private car travel, so that remaining road journeys are made more efficiently. Carrot or stick first, or a combination of both? Thoughts please.
And we still await public responses to PH's earlier challenge to leading public figures, on the issue of whether York will ever be a car user's paradise.

Paul I live close to Bishy Road and I enjoy cycling but why should I have to suffer all the pollution and jams caused by a bridge closure at the other end of town. A few weeks ago I was working in Northallerton I had a lot of equipment with me so I had to use my car every afternoon I had to consider which way to come into York from 25 miles north of the city!! should I use A19 or A1+ A59 because Lendal Bridge didn't open before 5pm. Should I not be able to expect a reasonable journey to my home. We have to pay for Respark permits to keep errant commuters off our streets. yet another cash cow for the council. I read in the press that 180K are expected at the TDF in York now that will bring traffic chaos all to promote cycling its a strange world we live in !
[quote][p][bold]pedalling paul [/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]razor08[/bold] wrote: The Lendal bridge closure was rushed through by cycling/pedestrian/p ublic transport fundamentalists. More thought should have been given to the knock on effects in other areas which have suffered greater congestion. This council don't do joined up thinking.Better traffic management could have made the situation not as bad as it is now. For example why were the lights at the junction of Skeldergate Bridge/Tower Street not removed all these do is cause tailbacks all the way through Nunery Lane & Bishy Road. Have other motorists been stopped on the bridge and nothing is coming in from the right. Please look at all options to keep the traffic moving it has to be joined up thinking![/p][/quote]One way to keep traffic moving is to continually try and increase road and parking capacity for whatever level of demand currently exists. But that's a long term road to nowhere. Experience shows that more road capacity encourages yet more car journeys. Eventually...gridloc k. The other way is to reduce the demand for private car travel, so that remaining road journeys are made more efficiently. Carrot or stick first, or a combination of both? Thoughts please. And we still await public responses to PH's earlier challenge to leading public figures, on the issue of whether York will ever be a car user's paradise.[/p][/quote]pedalling paul says... razor08 wrote: The Lendal bridge closure was rushed through by cycling/pedestrian/p ublic transport fundamentalists. More thought should have been given to the knock on effects in other areas which have suffered greater congestion. This council don't do joined up thinking.Better traffic management could have made the situation not as bad as it is now. For example why were the lights at the junction of Skeldergate Bridge/Tower Street not removed all these do is cause tailbacks all the way through Nunery Lane & Bishy Road. Have other motorists been stopped on the bridge and nothing is coming in from the right. Please look at all options to keep the traffic moving it has to be joined up thinking! One way to keep traffic moving is to continually try and increase road and parking capacity for whatever level of demand currently exists. But that's a long term road to nowhere. Experience shows that more road capacity encourages yet more car journeys. Eventually...gridloc k. The other way is to reduce the demand for private car travel, so that remaining road journeys are made more efficiently. Carrot or stick first, or a combination of both? Thoughts please. And we still await public responses to PH's earlier challenge to leading public figures, on the issue of whether York will ever be a car user's paradise. Paul I live close to Bishy Road and I enjoy cycling but why should I have to suffer all the pollution and jams caused by a bridge closure at the other end of town. A few weeks ago I was working in Northallerton I had a lot of equipment with me so I had to use my car every afternoon I had to consider which way to come into York from 25 miles north of the city!! should I use A19 or A1+ A59 because Lendal Bridge didn't open before 5pm. Should I not be able to expect a reasonable journey to my home. We have to pay for Respark permits to keep errant commuters off our streets. yet another cash cow for the council. I read in the press that 180K are expected at the TDF in York now that will bring traffic chaos all to promote cycling its a strange world we live in ! razor08
  • Score: 0

2:45pm Tue 25 Feb 14

AnotherPointofView says...

HoofHearteds wrote:
The bridge closure has been a resounding success. The figures are still being analysed and collated. So far, and I shouldn't be sharing this yet, the figures are revealing amazing results regarding traffic pollution levels and future decay/rebuilding forcasts falling.

7am to 7pm will bring about more happy dancing people in this beautiful historic and fragile city. Ouse Bridge next and eventually the dependents on vehicles will prize themselves away from the nipple of combustion suckling.
I'm sure the figures you are inventing are amazing!

I'm sure they will say whatever you and calamity James and no Merritt want them to say.
[quote][p][bold]HoofHearteds[/bold] wrote: The bridge closure has been a resounding success. The figures are still being analysed and collated. So far, and I shouldn't be sharing this yet, the figures are revealing amazing results regarding traffic pollution levels and future decay/rebuilding forcasts falling. 7am to 7pm will bring about more happy dancing people in this beautiful historic and fragile city. Ouse Bridge next and eventually the dependents on vehicles will prize themselves away from the nipple of combustion suckling.[/p][/quote]I'm sure the figures you are inventing are amazing! I'm sure they will say whatever you and calamity James and no Merritt want them to say. AnotherPointofView
  • Score: 3

2:46pm Tue 25 Feb 14

AGuyFromStrensall says...

HoofHearteds wrote:
The bridge closure has been a resounding success. The figures are still being analysed and collated. So far, and I shouldn't be sharing this yet, the figures are revealing amazing results regarding traffic pollution levels and future decay/rebuilding forcasts falling.

7am to 7pm will bring about more happy dancing people in this beautiful historic and fragile city. Ouse Bridge next and eventually the dependents on vehicles will prize themselves away from the nipple of combustion suckling.
Roughly translated as "We've massaged the figures and now we'll tell you that your eye's decisive you and you must lump it".

I genuinely question how you people sleep night with the lies you tell.
Either:
a) You don't know you're lying which takes a special type of special
b) You do know you're lying and you're a pretty sad excuse for a person..

The end does not justify the means no matter what you may think!
[quote][p][bold]HoofHearteds[/bold] wrote: The bridge closure has been a resounding success. The figures are still being analysed and collated. So far, and I shouldn't be sharing this yet, the figures are revealing amazing results regarding traffic pollution levels and future decay/rebuilding forcasts falling. 7am to 7pm will bring about more happy dancing people in this beautiful historic and fragile city. Ouse Bridge next and eventually the dependents on vehicles will prize themselves away from the nipple of combustion suckling.[/p][/quote]Roughly translated as "We've massaged the figures and now we'll tell you that your eye's decisive you and you must lump it". I genuinely question how you people sleep night with the lies you tell. Either: a) You don't know you're lying which takes a special type of special b) You do know you're lying and you're a pretty sad excuse for a person.. The end does not justify the means no matter what you may think! AGuyFromStrensall
  • Score: -45

2:49pm Tue 25 Feb 14

Scented Soulmate says...

As one of the businesses in York city centre, I have first-hand experience as to what the closure has done for my business. A year ago in the depths of the recession, I was weeks away from closure. Thanks to an upturn in business due to tourism, an easing of the economic crisis and assistance from my landlord, I managed to survive.
Since the bridge closed I have gone into steep decline and my business is now trading at 50% below that of last year in the. Why? You only need to look at the increase in footfall at Monks Cross with the offer of free parking to see where local people are now shopping. To prove the decline is a local issue and not a national economic one, Saturdays are busier than last year because this is the day when visitors come to York from far-afield. Whereas a year ago York residents shopped throughout the week, Mondays to Fridays in York city centre are now deserted.
To all those who yearn for a car-free more environmentally friendly York, just remember why people come to York in the first place. It is to savour the unique shopping experience of our small independent shops. When these have gone, as they will be if the bridge remains closed, the life and soul of York will be lost forever.
As one of the businesses in York city centre, I have first-hand experience as to what the closure has done for my business. A year ago in the depths of the recession, I was weeks away from closure. Thanks to an upturn in business due to tourism, an easing of the economic crisis and assistance from my landlord, I managed to survive. Since the bridge closed I have gone into steep decline and my business is now trading at 50% below that of last year in the. Why? You only need to look at the increase in footfall at Monks Cross with the offer of free parking to see where local people are now shopping. To prove the decline is a local issue and not a national economic one, Saturdays are busier than last year because this is the day when visitors come to York from far-afield. Whereas a year ago York residents shopped throughout the week, Mondays to Fridays in York city centre are now deserted. To all those who yearn for a car-free more environmentally friendly York, just remember why people come to York in the first place. It is to savour the unique shopping experience of our small independent shops. When these have gone, as they will be if the bridge remains closed, the life and soul of York will be lost forever. Scented Soulmate
  • Score: 0

2:51pm Tue 25 Feb 14

AGuyFromStrensall says...

Basically what it comes down to is that the average resident (and nb to cyclist, the average person has to drive sometimes...) is being stitched up whether we like it or not.
We can complain here till we are blue in the face but I'm afraid common sense has already lost.

The irony of it all is that something really does need to be done long term, this is clear. But removing infrastructure without putting solutions in (you must bike is not a solution) is just mind bogglingly stupid. But then again it's already done and dusted...
Basically what it comes down to is that the average resident (and nb to cyclist, the average person has to drive sometimes...) is being stitched up whether we like it or not. We can complain here till we are blue in the face but I'm afraid common sense has already lost. The irony of it all is that something really does need to be done long term, this is clear. But removing infrastructure without putting solutions in (you must bike is not a solution) is just mind bogglingly stupid. But then again it's already done and dusted... AGuyFromStrensall
  • Score: 6

2:56pm Tue 25 Feb 14

AGuyFromStrensall says...

Interesting that there are no vote riggers on here yet and magically the votes are exactly the direction that you would expect. Funny that...
Interesting that there are no vote riggers on here yet and magically the votes are exactly the direction that you would expect. Funny that... AGuyFromStrensall
  • Score: 220

3:00pm Tue 25 Feb 14

JasBro says...

York Urban wrote:
YorkPatrol wrote:
pedalling paul wrote:
Nik Brown's contribution (link above) reveals that the pre-closure user survey clearly showed that the most efficient users of road space are those now permitted to cross the bridge during the day. Private cars previously represented 70 per cent of the motorised vehicles crossing the bridge in daytime, but carried only 19 per cent of the people. What an inefficient use of road capacity! Buses, pedestrians taxis and cyclists carried far more, in much less space. This trial begins to put York on a par with many a mainland European city that I've visited (some of those on my bike..) I'm sure that tomorrow's printed feature will bring some interesting ripostes, that will try to equate private car access with economic and commercial success. But sadly the motoring paradise that some promise to deliver, will never be achieved.
The traffic has just been diverted somewhere else you goon – try asking the people down Leeman Road how they feel about the “trial”

Are you one of the few imbeciles that think all the people who previously used Lendal Bridge have suddenly jumped on their bikes or on the bus???

Nobody expects a motoring paradise but closing a major road through the centre of town was simply insanity

The closure has been a total failure and an embarrassment to York
This is offensive - calling a commentator and "imbecile" and a "goon". There is absolutely no call for that.

FYI: Leeman Road has shown a reduction in traffic - though, to be fair, the the report qualifies this.

I think Nik Brown makes a very pertinent point - that cars only carry 19% of the people actually crossing the bridge but constitute by far the largest proportion of its traffic. In any city centre context cars are a very inefficient way of moving people around. It is right that thier use should be restricted.

If York city centre retailers are supposedly suffering so much as a result of the restrictions they need to look long and hard at their business model. If it is so dependent on that 19% perhaps they have bigger problems than some people not being able to drive their cars over a bridge.
FYI Leeman Road now has much, much more traffic. Everybody can see it, massive queues most afternoons.

The traffic counter supplying the data was not installed early enough to collect any meaningful baseline figures. July was the only month counted before the trial, and that month was absolute chaos because of the endless road works.

The council have been quite disingenuous with their claims in this respect, and it's sad to see that people are being fooled.
[quote][p][bold]York Urban[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]YorkPatrol[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]pedalling paul [/bold] wrote: Nik Brown's contribution (link above) reveals that the pre-closure user survey clearly showed that the most efficient users of road space are those now permitted to cross the bridge during the day. Private cars previously represented 70 per cent of the motorised vehicles crossing the bridge in daytime, but carried only 19 per cent of the people. What an inefficient use of road capacity! Buses, pedestrians taxis and cyclists carried far more, in much less space. This trial begins to put York on a par with many a mainland European city that I've visited (some of those on my bike..) I'm sure that tomorrow's printed feature will bring some interesting ripostes, that will try to equate private car access with economic and commercial success. But sadly the motoring paradise that some promise to deliver, will never be achieved.[/p][/quote]The traffic has just been diverted somewhere else you goon – try asking the people down Leeman Road how they feel about the “trial” Are you one of the few imbeciles that think all the people who previously used Lendal Bridge have suddenly jumped on their bikes or on the bus??? Nobody expects a motoring paradise but closing a major road through the centre of town was simply insanity The closure has been a total failure and an embarrassment to York[/p][/quote]This is offensive - calling a commentator and "imbecile" and a "goon". There is absolutely no call for that. FYI: Leeman Road has shown a reduction in traffic - though, to be fair, the the report qualifies this. I think Nik Brown makes a very pertinent point - that cars only carry 19% of the people actually crossing the bridge but constitute by far the largest proportion of its traffic. In any city centre context cars are a very inefficient way of moving people around. It is right that thier use should be restricted. If York city centre retailers are supposedly suffering so much as a result of the restrictions they need to look long and hard at their business model. If it is so dependent on that 19% perhaps they have bigger problems than some people not being able to drive their cars over a bridge.[/p][/quote]FYI Leeman Road now has much, much more traffic. Everybody can see it, massive queues most afternoons. The traffic counter supplying the data was not installed early enough to collect any meaningful baseline figures. July was the only month counted before the trial, and that month was absolute chaos because of the endless road works. The council have been quite disingenuous with their claims in this respect, and it's sad to see that people are being fooled. JasBro
  • Score: 79

3:01pm Tue 25 Feb 14

m dee says...

HoofHearteds wrote:
The bridge closure has been a resounding success. The figures are still being analysed and collated. So far, and I shouldn't be sharing this yet, the figures are revealing amazing results regarding traffic pollution levels and future decay/rebuilding forcasts falling.

7am to 7pm will bring about more happy dancing people in this beautiful historic and fragile city. Ouse Bridge next and eventually the dependents on vehicles will prize themselves away from the nipple of combustion suckling.
The figures can be distorted like a few months back free temporary bus travel was given out then we was told bus usage was up,and to P.P please note the fines for bridge usage are going to day trippers/visitors carrots and sticks will not work.
[quote][p][bold]HoofHearteds[/bold] wrote: The bridge closure has been a resounding success. The figures are still being analysed and collated. So far, and I shouldn't be sharing this yet, the figures are revealing amazing results regarding traffic pollution levels and future decay/rebuilding forcasts falling. 7am to 7pm will bring about more happy dancing people in this beautiful historic and fragile city. Ouse Bridge next and eventually the dependents on vehicles will prize themselves away from the nipple of combustion suckling.[/p][/quote]The figures can be distorted like a few months back free temporary bus travel was given out then we was told bus usage was up,and to P.P please note the fines for bridge usage are going to day trippers/visitors carrots and sticks will not work. m dee
  • Score: 546

3:02pm Tue 25 Feb 14

Archiebold the 1st says...

York Urban wrote:
YorkPatrol wrote:
pedalling paul wrote: Nik Brown's contribution (link above) reveals that the pre-closure user survey clearly showed that the most efficient users of road space are those now permitted to cross the bridge during the day. Private cars previously represented 70 per cent of the motorised vehicles crossing the bridge in daytime, but carried only 19 per cent of the people. What an inefficient use of road capacity! Buses, pedestrians taxis and cyclists carried far more, in much less space. This trial begins to put York on a par with many a mainland European city that I've visited (some of those on my bike..) I'm sure that tomorrow's printed feature will bring some interesting ripostes, that will try to equate private car access with economic and commercial success. But sadly the motoring paradise that some promise to deliver, will never be achieved.
The traffic has just been diverted somewhere else you goon – try asking the people down Leeman Road how they feel about the “trial” Are you one of the few imbeciles that think all the people who previously used Lendal Bridge have suddenly jumped on their bikes or on the bus??? Nobody expects a motoring paradise but closing a major road through the centre of town was simply insanity The closure has been a total failure and an embarrassment to York
This is offensive - calling a commentator and "imbecile" and a "goon". There is absolutely no call for that. FYI: Leeman Road has shown a reduction in traffic - though, to be fair, the the report qualifies this. I think Nik Brown makes a very pertinent point - that cars only carry 19% of the people actually crossing the bridge but constitute by far the largest proportion of its traffic. In any city centre context cars are a very inefficient way of moving people around. It is right that thier use should be restricted. If York city centre retailers are supposedly suffering so much as a result of the restrictions they need to look long and hard at their business model. If it is so dependent on that 19% perhaps they have bigger problems than some people not being able to drive their cars over a bridge.
70% of motorised traffic accounting for 19% of people crossing the bridge... ok... so given that this is indeed a city centre bridge only meters from a station would you expect it to be higher then 19% .The 19% does include pedestrians so not really a fair comparison but anyway. With tens of thousands walking over it per hour how could a car ever get higher? The bridge doesn’t have the capacity to allow for any higher then 19%, think about it? If you do the same comparison with busses and taxi’s it would be exactly the same representation? i.e busses 20% and responsible for only 2% of the bridges use….

I just really don’t get what this static actually is trying to get at? 70% of people use their car on this road… but yet thousands of people walk which means this only accounts for 19% of is use?

It is meaningless?
[quote][p][bold]York Urban[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]YorkPatrol[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]pedalling paul [/bold] wrote: Nik Brown's contribution (link above) reveals that the pre-closure user survey clearly showed that the most efficient users of road space are those now permitted to cross the bridge during the day. Private cars previously represented 70 per cent of the motorised vehicles crossing the bridge in daytime, but carried only 19 per cent of the people. What an inefficient use of road capacity! Buses, pedestrians taxis and cyclists carried far more, in much less space. This trial begins to put York on a par with many a mainland European city that I've visited (some of those on my bike..) I'm sure that tomorrow's printed feature will bring some interesting ripostes, that will try to equate private car access with economic and commercial success. But sadly the motoring paradise that some promise to deliver, will never be achieved.[/p][/quote]The traffic has just been diverted somewhere else you goon – try asking the people down Leeman Road how they feel about the “trial” Are you one of the few imbeciles that think all the people who previously used Lendal Bridge have suddenly jumped on their bikes or on the bus??? Nobody expects a motoring paradise but closing a major road through the centre of town was simply insanity The closure has been a total failure and an embarrassment to York[/p][/quote]This is offensive - calling a commentator and "imbecile" and a "goon". There is absolutely no call for that. FYI: Leeman Road has shown a reduction in traffic - though, to be fair, the the report qualifies this. I think Nik Brown makes a very pertinent point - that cars only carry 19% of the people actually crossing the bridge but constitute by far the largest proportion of its traffic. In any city centre context cars are a very inefficient way of moving people around. It is right that thier use should be restricted. If York city centre retailers are supposedly suffering so much as a result of the restrictions they need to look long and hard at their business model. If it is so dependent on that 19% perhaps they have bigger problems than some people not being able to drive their cars over a bridge.[/p][/quote]70% of motorised traffic accounting for 19% of people crossing the bridge... ok... so given that this is indeed a city centre bridge only meters from a station would you expect it to be higher then 19% .The 19% does include pedestrians so not really a fair comparison but anyway. With tens of thousands walking over it per hour how could a car ever get higher? The bridge doesn’t have the capacity to allow for any higher then 19%, think about it? If you do the same comparison with busses and taxi’s it would be exactly the same representation? i.e busses 20% and responsible for only 2% of the bridges use…. I just really don’t get what this static actually is trying to get at? 70% of people use their car on this road… but yet thousands of people walk which means this only accounts for 19% of is use? It is meaningless? Archiebold the 1st
  • Score: 1544

3:03pm Tue 25 Feb 14

AGuyFromStrensall says...

To be fair I don't think anyone is fooled, but then again the council don't care what the majority (as we know, about 82%) think about the topic.
We've already been told last week the public can't be allowed a say about transport ;)
To be fair I don't think anyone is fooled, but then again the council don't care what the majority (as we know, about 82%) think about the topic. We've already been told last week the public can't be allowed a say about transport ;) AGuyFromStrensall
  • Score: -66

3:11pm Tue 25 Feb 14

eeoodares says...

anti-rant wrote:
I would be interested to see the statistics linking the bridge closure to a downturn in city centre business. Moving the football team to the edge of town would probably have a more negative impact on trade than the allegations about the bridge.
I would like to see the statistics for the improving of air quality and congestion across the entire City by the closure of the bridge.
[quote][p][bold]anti-rant[/bold] wrote: I would be interested to see the statistics linking the bridge closure to a downturn in city centre business. Moving the football team to the edge of town would probably have a more negative impact on trade than the allegations about the bridge.[/p][/quote]I would like to see the statistics for the improving of air quality and congestion across the entire City by the closure of the bridge. eeoodares
  • Score: -63

3:15pm Tue 25 Feb 14

eeoodares says...

pedalling paul wrote:
Nik Brown's contribution (link above) reveals that the pre-closure user survey clearly showed that the most efficient users of road space are those now permitted to cross the bridge during the day.

Private cars previously represented 70 per cent of the motorised vehicles crossing the bridge in daytime, but carried only 19 per cent of the people. What an inefficient use of road capacity! Buses, pedestrians taxis and cyclists carried far more, in much less space.

This trial begins to put York on a par with many a mainland European city that I've visited (some of those on my bike..)

I'm sure that tomorrow's printed feature will bring some interesting ripostes, that will try to equate private car access with economic and commercial success. But sadly the motoring paradise that some promise to deliver, will never be achieved.
Well done Paul, you and Nik must be the most pointless people on the planet. You are preventing those people in cars from driving across a stretch of 100yds of road, you are forcing them to drive miles out of their way through residential areas. Yet you believe that this is a more efficient use of our road network! You should change your name to pointless paul!
[quote][p][bold]pedalling paul [/bold] wrote: Nik Brown's contribution (link above) reveals that the pre-closure user survey clearly showed that the most efficient users of road space are those now permitted to cross the bridge during the day. Private cars previously represented 70 per cent of the motorised vehicles crossing the bridge in daytime, but carried only 19 per cent of the people. What an inefficient use of road capacity! Buses, pedestrians taxis and cyclists carried far more, in much less space. This trial begins to put York on a par with many a mainland European city that I've visited (some of those on my bike..) I'm sure that tomorrow's printed feature will bring some interesting ripostes, that will try to equate private car access with economic and commercial success. But sadly the motoring paradise that some promise to deliver, will never be achieved.[/p][/quote]Well done Paul, you and Nik must be the most pointless people on the planet. You are preventing those people in cars from driving across a stretch of 100yds of road, you are forcing them to drive miles out of their way through residential areas. Yet you believe that this is a more efficient use of our road network! You should change your name to pointless paul! eeoodares
  • Score: -35

3:15pm Tue 25 Feb 14

BL2 says...

There is no debate - the "trial" is a farce! The only thing that has improved is that there is less traffic on Lendal Bridge. Traffic elsewhere has increased. Travel times are far worse on many roads. The council will not be happy until you cannot drive anywhere in York.
There is no debate - the "trial" is a farce! The only thing that has improved is that there is less traffic on Lendal Bridge. Traffic elsewhere has increased. Travel times are far worse on many roads. The council will not be happy until you cannot drive anywhere in York. BL2
  • Score: -42

3:20pm Tue 25 Feb 14

Archiebold the 1st says...

Scented Soulmate wrote:
As one of the businesses in York city centre, I have first-hand experience as to what the closure has done for my business. A year ago in the depths of the recession, I was weeks away from closure. Thanks to an upturn in business due to tourism, an easing of the economic crisis and assistance from my landlord, I managed to survive. Since the bridge closed I have gone into steep decline and my business is now trading at 50% below that of last year in the. Why? You only need to look at the increase in footfall at Monks Cross with the offer of free parking to see where local people are now shopping. To prove the decline is a local issue and not a national economic one, Saturdays are busier than last year because this is the day when visitors come to York from far-afield. Whereas a year ago York residents shopped throughout the week, Mondays to Fridays in York city centre are now deserted. To all those who yearn for a car-free more environmentally friendly York, just remember why people come to York in the first place. It is to savour the unique shopping experience of our small independent shops. When these have gone, as they will be if the bridge remains closed, the life and soul of York will be lost forever.
Very well put and 100% correct.
[quote][p][bold]Scented Soulmate[/bold] wrote: As one of the businesses in York city centre, I have first-hand experience as to what the closure has done for my business. A year ago in the depths of the recession, I was weeks away from closure. Thanks to an upturn in business due to tourism, an easing of the economic crisis and assistance from my landlord, I managed to survive. Since the bridge closed I have gone into steep decline and my business is now trading at 50% below that of last year in the. Why? You only need to look at the increase in footfall at Monks Cross with the offer of free parking to see where local people are now shopping. To prove the decline is a local issue and not a national economic one, Saturdays are busier than last year because this is the day when visitors come to York from far-afield. Whereas a year ago York residents shopped throughout the week, Mondays to Fridays in York city centre are now deserted. To all those who yearn for a car-free more environmentally friendly York, just remember why people come to York in the first place. It is to savour the unique shopping experience of our small independent shops. When these have gone, as they will be if the bridge remains closed, the life and soul of York will be lost forever.[/p][/quote]Very well put and 100% correct. Archiebold the 1st
  • Score: 414

3:20pm Tue 25 Feb 14

imassey says...

Even if congestion has been moved to other parts of the city (and I have no evidence to say either way) it isn't solely due to Lendal Bridge being closed but also down to the fact that, as a society, we are too reliant on cars.

I know some people have to use their car/van/etc but too many others could make journeys by other methods. And not just into and through the city centre. How many of us just "pop to the shops" and come back five minutes later with something we could easily have walked to get? How many drop their kids off at school, taking so much time to get them strapped into the car that they could have walked quicker? I have friends who have posted on social media with incredulity that they are using a bus (and often vowing never to again).

Congestion is caused by traffic, too much traffic. The car is here to stay but perhaps if people used them a bit less, or a bit more appropriately, we wouldn't have the problems it brings.
Even if congestion has been moved to other parts of the city (and I have no evidence to say either way) it isn't solely due to Lendal Bridge being closed but also down to the fact that, as a society, we are too reliant on cars. I know some people have to use their car/van/etc but too many others could make journeys by other methods. And not just into and through the city centre. How many of us just "pop to the shops" and come back five minutes later with something we could easily have walked to get? How many drop their kids off at school, taking so much time to get them strapped into the car that they could have walked quicker? I have friends who have posted on social media with incredulity that they are using a bus (and often vowing never to again). Congestion is caused by traffic, too much traffic. The car is here to stay but perhaps if people used them a bit less, or a bit more appropriately, we wouldn't have the problems it brings. imassey
  • Score: -140

3:22pm Tue 25 Feb 14

AGuyFromStrensall says...

eeoodares wrote:
pedalling paul wrote:
Nik Brown's contribution (link above) reveals that the pre-closure user survey clearly showed that the most efficient users of road space are those now permitted to cross the bridge during the day.

Private cars previously represented 70 per cent of the motorised vehicles crossing the bridge in daytime, but carried only 19 per cent of the people. What an inefficient use of road capacity! Buses, pedestrians taxis and cyclists carried far more, in much less space.

This trial begins to put York on a par with many a mainland European city that I've visited (some of those on my bike..)

I'm sure that tomorrow's printed feature will bring some interesting ripostes, that will try to equate private car access with economic and commercial success. But sadly the motoring paradise that some promise to deliver, will never be achieved.
Well done Paul, you and Nik must be the most pointless people on the planet. You are preventing those people in cars from driving across a stretch of 100yds of road, you are forcing them to drive miles out of their way through residential areas. Yet you believe that this is a more efficient use of our road network! You should change your name to pointless paul!
That's exactly it isn't it. It ignores the fact that in the vast majority of the time that people have a good reason for going from a to b. Neither of which may have a bus stop near them or be a reasonable distance to cycle.

We're still all waiting for a solution for that. But no, all we'll get is abuse for just wanting to get somewhere...
[quote][p][bold]eeoodares[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]pedalling paul [/bold] wrote: Nik Brown's contribution (link above) reveals that the pre-closure user survey clearly showed that the most efficient users of road space are those now permitted to cross the bridge during the day. Private cars previously represented 70 per cent of the motorised vehicles crossing the bridge in daytime, but carried only 19 per cent of the people. What an inefficient use of road capacity! Buses, pedestrians taxis and cyclists carried far more, in much less space. This trial begins to put York on a par with many a mainland European city that I've visited (some of those on my bike..) I'm sure that tomorrow's printed feature will bring some interesting ripostes, that will try to equate private car access with economic and commercial success. But sadly the motoring paradise that some promise to deliver, will never be achieved.[/p][/quote]Well done Paul, you and Nik must be the most pointless people on the planet. You are preventing those people in cars from driving across a stretch of 100yds of road, you are forcing them to drive miles out of their way through residential areas. Yet you believe that this is a more efficient use of our road network! You should change your name to pointless paul![/p][/quote]That's exactly it isn't it. It ignores the fact that in the vast majority of the time that people have a good reason for going from a to b. Neither of which may have a bus stop near them or be a reasonable distance to cycle. We're still all waiting for a solution for that. But no, all we'll get is abuse for just wanting to get somewhere... AGuyFromStrensall
  • Score: 48

3:23pm Tue 25 Feb 14

AGuyFromStrensall says...

imassey wrote:
Even if congestion has been moved to other parts of the city (and I have no evidence to say either way) it isn't solely due to Lendal Bridge being closed but also down to the fact that, as a society, we are too reliant on cars.

I know some people have to use their car/van/etc but too many others could make journeys by other methods. And not just into and through the city centre. How many of us just "pop to the shops" and come back five minutes later with something we could easily have walked to get? How many drop their kids off at school, taking so much time to get them strapped into the car that they could have walked quicker? I have friends who have posted on social media with incredulity that they are using a bus (and often vowing never to again).

Congestion is caused by traffic, too much traffic. The car is here to stay but perhaps if people used them a bit less, or a bit more appropriately, we wouldn't have the problems it brings.
This is all more than true. But seriously, who would go through the hassle of Lendal bridge for a journey that didn't have a reasonable point. Have a word with yourself...
[quote][p][bold]imassey[/bold] wrote: Even if congestion has been moved to other parts of the city (and I have no evidence to say either way) it isn't solely due to Lendal Bridge being closed but also down to the fact that, as a society, we are too reliant on cars. I know some people have to use their car/van/etc but too many others could make journeys by other methods. And not just into and through the city centre. How many of us just "pop to the shops" and come back five minutes later with something we could easily have walked to get? How many drop their kids off at school, taking so much time to get them strapped into the car that they could have walked quicker? I have friends who have posted on social media with incredulity that they are using a bus (and often vowing never to again). Congestion is caused by traffic, too much traffic. The car is here to stay but perhaps if people used them a bit less, or a bit more appropriately, we wouldn't have the problems it brings.[/p][/quote]This is all more than true. But seriously, who would go through the hassle of Lendal bridge for a journey that didn't have a reasonable point. Have a word with yourself... AGuyFromStrensall
  • Score: 260

3:27pm Tue 25 Feb 14

Badgers Drift says...

I notice that the scores so far have not been tampered with, and before Rocking Horse does his/her? usual progress report, I'm going to do it instead...

First eight comments are currently scored as follows:-

+56, +1, +21, -52 (Pedalling Paul), +36, +45, +21 & +24

The score hacker usually starts after they have got home from work after 5.30pm.
I notice that the scores so far have not been tampered with, and before Rocking Horse does his/her? usual progress report, I'm going to do it instead... First eight comments are currently scored as follows:- +56, +1, +21, -52 (Pedalling Paul), +36, +45, +21 & +24 The score hacker usually starts after they have got home from work after 5.30pm. Badgers Drift
  • Score: 237

3:39pm Tue 25 Feb 14

Badgers Drift says...

ouseswimmer wrote:
I see the people they chose for the editorial comments are completely unbiased and totally opposite to the vast majority of views. Hardly balanced journalism.
Quite right !

The whole Lendal Bridge trial is a sham and a fiasco.
[quote][p][bold]ouseswimmer[/bold] wrote: I see the people they chose for the editorial comments are completely unbiased and totally opposite to the vast majority of views. Hardly balanced journalism.[/p][/quote]Quite right ! The whole Lendal Bridge trial is a sham and a fiasco. Badgers Drift
  • Score: 111

3:43pm Tue 25 Feb 14

gibarch says...

Although sceptical before the closure I have found my car journey times have improved from Fulford Road area across York ( including travel to Monks Cross twice a week at 5pm, De Grey Rooms on a Saturday morning). Even a trip to the Leeman Road sorting office was faster.
Although sceptical before the closure I have found my car journey times have improved from Fulford Road area across York ( including travel to Monks Cross twice a week at 5pm, De Grey Rooms on a Saturday morning). Even a trip to the Leeman Road sorting office was faster. gibarch
  • Score: -118

4:01pm Tue 25 Feb 14

acomblass says...

HoofHearteds wrote:
The bridge closure has been a resounding success. The figures are still being analysed and collated. So far, and I shouldn't be sharing this yet, the figures are revealing amazing results regarding traffic pollution levels and future decay/rebuilding forcasts falling. 7am to 7pm will bring about more happy dancing people in this beautiful historic and fragile city. Ouse Bridge next and eventually the dependents on vehicles will prize themselves away from the nipple of combustion suckling.
Nice to see Clr Crisp back on these columns. Always worth a chuckle at her deluded rants.
[quote][p][bold]HoofHearteds[/bold] wrote: The bridge closure has been a resounding success. The figures are still being analysed and collated. So far, and I shouldn't be sharing this yet, the figures are revealing amazing results regarding traffic pollution levels and future decay/rebuilding forcasts falling. 7am to 7pm will bring about more happy dancing people in this beautiful historic and fragile city. Ouse Bridge next and eventually the dependents on vehicles will prize themselves away from the nipple of combustion suckling.[/p][/quote]Nice to see Clr Crisp back on these columns. Always worth a chuckle at her deluded rants. acomblass
  • Score: 35

4:06pm Tue 25 Feb 14

nowthen says...

HoofHearteds wrote:
The bridge closure has been a resounding success. The figures are still being analysed and collated. So far, and I shouldn't be sharing this yet, the figures are revealing amazing results regarding traffic pollution levels and future decay/rebuilding forcasts falling.

7am to 7pm will bring about more happy dancing people in this beautiful historic and fragile city. Ouse Bridge next and eventually the dependents on vehicles will prize themselves away from the nipple of combustion suckling.
I hope the press don't close down this thread for comments just because one bad apple is being abusive and calling private motorists nipple suckers.
[quote][p][bold]HoofHearteds[/bold] wrote: The bridge closure has been a resounding success. The figures are still being analysed and collated. So far, and I shouldn't be sharing this yet, the figures are revealing amazing results regarding traffic pollution levels and future decay/rebuilding forcasts falling. 7am to 7pm will bring about more happy dancing people in this beautiful historic and fragile city. Ouse Bridge next and eventually the dependents on vehicles will prize themselves away from the nipple of combustion suckling.[/p][/quote]I hope the press don't close down this thread for comments just because one bad apple is being abusive and calling private motorists nipple suckers. nowthen
  • Score: -24

4:13pm Tue 25 Feb 14

AGuyFromStrensall says...

nowthen wrote:
HoofHearteds wrote:
The bridge closure has been a resounding success. The figures are still being analysed and collated. So far, and I shouldn't be sharing this yet, the figures are revealing amazing results regarding traffic pollution levels and future decay/rebuilding forcasts falling.

7am to 7pm will bring about more happy dancing people in this beautiful historic and fragile city. Ouse Bridge next and eventually the dependents on vehicles will prize themselves away from the nipple of combustion suckling.
I hope the press don't close down this thread for comments just because one bad apple is being abusive and calling private motorists nipple suckers.
We can't deny it. All motorists are obsessed with their cars, think of nothing else and are obsessed just with driving around getting in people's way.

Oh hang on wait a minute, that might actually not be true...
[quote][p][bold]nowthen[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]HoofHearteds[/bold] wrote: The bridge closure has been a resounding success. The figures are still being analysed and collated. So far, and I shouldn't be sharing this yet, the figures are revealing amazing results regarding traffic pollution levels and future decay/rebuilding forcasts falling. 7am to 7pm will bring about more happy dancing people in this beautiful historic and fragile city. Ouse Bridge next and eventually the dependents on vehicles will prize themselves away from the nipple of combustion suckling.[/p][/quote]I hope the press don't close down this thread for comments just because one bad apple is being abusive and calling private motorists nipple suckers.[/p][/quote]We can't deny it. All motorists are obsessed with their cars, think of nothing else and are obsessed just with driving around getting in people's way. Oh hang on wait a minute, that might actually not be true... AGuyFromStrensall
  • Score: -28

4:13pm Tue 25 Feb 14

HoofHearteds says...

acomblass wrote:
HoofHearteds wrote:
The bridge closure has been a resounding success. The figures are still being analysed and collated. So far, and I shouldn't be sharing this yet, the figures are revealing amazing results regarding traffic pollution levels and future decay/rebuilding forcasts falling. 7am to 7pm will bring about more happy dancing people in this beautiful historic and fragile city. Ouse Bridge next and eventually the dependents on vehicles will prize themselves away from the nipple of combustion suckling.
Nice to see Clr Crisp back on these columns. Always worth a chuckle at her deluded rants.
Deluded rant verses Deluded accusations. Positivity doesn't bode well with those suffering from negative angst. I'm sure Cllr Crisp has better things to do than feed and poke fun at the terminally morbid fonts on here.

Remember! Being dependent on the combustion engine is a weakness and a costly experience. This city is historic and fantastic. Preservation costs far less than rebuilding. Stay focused! Stay Happy :-)
[quote][p][bold]acomblass[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]HoofHearteds[/bold] wrote: The bridge closure has been a resounding success. The figures are still being analysed and collated. So far, and I shouldn't be sharing this yet, the figures are revealing amazing results regarding traffic pollution levels and future decay/rebuilding forcasts falling. 7am to 7pm will bring about more happy dancing people in this beautiful historic and fragile city. Ouse Bridge next and eventually the dependents on vehicles will prize themselves away from the nipple of combustion suckling.[/p][/quote]Nice to see Clr Crisp back on these columns. Always worth a chuckle at her deluded rants.[/p][/quote]Deluded rant verses Deluded accusations. Positivity doesn't bode well with those suffering from negative angst. I'm sure Cllr Crisp has better things to do than feed and poke fun at the terminally morbid fonts on here. Remember! Being dependent on the combustion engine is a weakness and a costly experience. This city is historic and fantastic. Preservation costs far less than rebuilding. Stay focused! Stay Happy :-) HoofHearteds
  • Score: -23

4:16pm Tue 25 Feb 14

nearlyman says...

Think some of you are mis judging hoofhearted, who appears to be a spoof and not the slimey hoofarted, whose name amply describes her (or his !) puerility.
Think some of you are mis judging hoofhearted, who appears to be a spoof and not the slimey hoofarted, whose name amply describes her (or his !) puerility. nearlyman
  • Score: 41

4:29pm Tue 25 Feb 14

Archiebold the 1st says...

HoofHearteds wrote:
acomblass wrote:
HoofHearteds wrote: The bridge closure has been a resounding success. The figures are still being analysed and collated. So far, and I shouldn't be sharing this yet, the figures are revealing amazing results regarding traffic pollution levels and future decay/rebuilding forcasts falling. 7am to 7pm will bring about more happy dancing people in this beautiful historic and fragile city. Ouse Bridge next and eventually the dependents on vehicles will prize themselves away from the nipple of combustion suckling.
Nice to see Clr Crisp back on these columns. Always worth a chuckle at her deluded rants.
Deluded rant verses Deluded accusations. Positivity doesn't bode well with those suffering from negative angst. I'm sure Cllr Crisp has better things to do than feed and poke fun at the terminally morbid fonts on here. Remember! Being dependent on the combustion engine is a weakness and a costly experience. This city is historic and fantastic. Preservation costs far less than rebuilding. Stay focused! Stay Happy :-)
Yes the emissions from the cars is rotting all the buildings and they will fall down..(right after god comes and strikes down everyone but Mormons). So let’s ban them and still let the heavier busses whose weight and vibration will damage buildings and roads far more then cars and whose emissions are 10x worse then cars... 8 miles to the gallon... ummm i love the site of black smoke on lendal... What the above doesn’t take into account is why are hybrid drivers banned still? these are good for the environment (well locally... not so good in the manufacturing capacity)… don’t dare play the environmental and pollution damage card!!! You don’t have a leg to stand on.
[quote][p][bold]HoofHearteds[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]acomblass[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]HoofHearteds[/bold] wrote: The bridge closure has been a resounding success. The figures are still being analysed and collated. So far, and I shouldn't be sharing this yet, the figures are revealing amazing results regarding traffic pollution levels and future decay/rebuilding forcasts falling. 7am to 7pm will bring about more happy dancing people in this beautiful historic and fragile city. Ouse Bridge next and eventually the dependents on vehicles will prize themselves away from the nipple of combustion suckling.[/p][/quote]Nice to see Clr Crisp back on these columns. Always worth a chuckle at her deluded rants.[/p][/quote]Deluded rant verses Deluded accusations. Positivity doesn't bode well with those suffering from negative angst. I'm sure Cllr Crisp has better things to do than feed and poke fun at the terminally morbid fonts on here. Remember! Being dependent on the combustion engine is a weakness and a costly experience. This city is historic and fantastic. Preservation costs far less than rebuilding. Stay focused! Stay Happy :-)[/p][/quote]Yes the emissions from the cars is rotting all the buildings and they will fall down..(right after god comes and strikes down everyone but Mormons). So let’s ban them and still let the heavier busses whose weight and vibration will damage buildings and roads far more then cars and whose emissions are 10x worse then cars... 8 miles to the gallon... ummm i love the site of black smoke on lendal... What the above doesn’t take into account is why are hybrid drivers banned still? these are good for the environment (well locally... not so good in the manufacturing capacity)… don’t dare play the environmental and pollution damage card!!! You don’t have a leg to stand on. Archiebold the 1st
  • Score: 107

4:48pm Tue 25 Feb 14

m dee says...

HoofHearteds wrote:
Remember! Being dependent on the combustion engine is a weakness and a costly experience.

Sorry for pointing out the obvious but how exactly do you think all the businesses / shops/hotels that make York a tourist destination depend on for supplies/goods/maint
enance ect the more York expands so does this dependence.

HoofHearteds wrote
This city is historic and fantastic. Preservation costs far less than rebuilding.

Wish you had said so to the group who ripped up Kings square and replaced it with a shopping centre style floor.
HoofHearteds wrote: Remember! Being dependent on the combustion engine is a weakness and a costly experience. Sorry for pointing out the obvious but how exactly do you think all the businesses / shops/hotels that make York a tourist destination depend on for supplies/goods/maint enance ect the more York expands so does this dependence. HoofHearteds wrote This city is historic and fantastic. Preservation costs far less than rebuilding. Wish you had said so to the group who ripped up Kings square and replaced it with a shopping centre style floor. m dee
  • Score: 147

5:23pm Tue 25 Feb 14

Badgers Drift says...

Before score hacker starts his/her perversion of the truth, here are the latest for the first eight comments:-

+73, -5, +34, -77 (Pedalling P), +52, +66, +32 & +37

The truth is, most of York residents are against the closure of Lendal Bridge (to cars).
Before score hacker starts his/her perversion of the truth, here are the latest for the first eight comments:- +73, -5, +34, -77 (Pedalling P), +52, +66, +32 & +37 The truth is, most of York residents are against the closure of Lendal Bridge (to cars). Badgers Drift
  • Score: 178

5:26pm Tue 25 Feb 14

Caecilius says...

Jiffy wrote:
Interesting that the light sequence for cars exiting at the end of Salisbury Road has been recently altered too - now only allowing 4 or 5 cars at a time to access Clifton Bridge. The result, huge queues back through the highly populated Leeman Road area to the Junction pub & beyond at certain times adding yet more chaos to the traffic system.
Since long before the closure of Lendal Bridge and the pointless removal of the Water End cycle lane, there has regularly been a log jam of traffic tailing back all the way from Salisbury Road to Clifton Green. The bug-eyed motorists and frustrated residents clamouring that the cycle lane was the root of all evil didn't want to hear this, nor did James Alexander and his stooges, who chose to play the cheap popularity card despite professional advice to the contrary. The tailbacks are still there, and no doubt the retiming of the lights is an attempt to try and reduce them. As you so rightly point out, this was doomed to futility from the start, as all it achieves is to move the congestion round the corner - in this case, onto Leeman Road. The same thing has happened at Clifton Green, where retiming the lights simply shifted the queuing traffic from Water End onto the other roads feeding the junction. It's like trying to stop a boat from sinking by baling it out with a teacup and pouring the water straight back in again. It's dead simple: the problem with the traffic system is that there are too many cars using it. If you want to get rid of the huge queues, you have to accept that something radical has to be done to change that. Lendal Bridge is a start.
[quote][p][bold]Jiffy[/bold] wrote: Interesting that the light sequence for cars exiting at the end of Salisbury Road has been recently altered too - now only allowing 4 or 5 cars at a time to access Clifton Bridge. The result, huge queues back through the highly populated Leeman Road area to the Junction pub & beyond at certain times adding yet more chaos to the traffic system.[/p][/quote]Since long before the closure of Lendal Bridge and the pointless removal of the Water End cycle lane, there has regularly been a log jam of traffic tailing back all the way from Salisbury Road to Clifton Green. The bug-eyed motorists and frustrated residents clamouring that the cycle lane was the root of all evil didn't want to hear this, nor did James Alexander and his stooges, who chose to play the cheap popularity card despite professional advice to the contrary. The tailbacks are still there, and no doubt the retiming of the lights is an attempt to try and reduce them. As you so rightly point out, this was doomed to futility from the start, as all it achieves is to move the congestion round the corner - in this case, onto Leeman Road. The same thing has happened at Clifton Green, where retiming the lights simply shifted the queuing traffic from Water End onto the other roads feeding the junction. It's like trying to stop a boat from sinking by baling it out with a teacup and pouring the water straight back in again. It's dead simple: the problem with the traffic system is that there are too many cars using it. If you want to get rid of the huge queues, you have to accept that something radical has to be done to change that. Lendal Bridge is a start. Caecilius
  • Score: -97

5:28pm Tue 25 Feb 14

Badgers Drift says...

AGuyFromStrensall wrote:
Interesting that there are no vote riggers on here yet and magically the votes are exactly the direction that you would expect. Funny that...
Wait for it......
[quote][p][bold]AGuyFromStrensall[/bold] wrote: Interesting that there are no vote riggers on here yet and magically the votes are exactly the direction that you would expect. Funny that...[/p][/quote]Wait for it...... Badgers Drift
  • Score: 52

5:33pm Tue 25 Feb 14

NoNewsIsGoodNews says...

You reap what you sow people.

Somebody must have voted these bafoons into office.

Now we see people commenting that they will vote for anyone as long as it is not Labour.

Voting is what got us into this mess in the first place.
You reap what you sow people. Somebody must have voted these bafoons into office. Now we see people commenting that they will vote for anyone as long as it is not Labour. Voting is what got us into this mess in the first place. NoNewsIsGoodNews
  • Score: 179

6:00pm Tue 25 Feb 14

24.2.1969bestcitygoalever... says...

"One bridge does not a summer make..."
"One bridge does not a summer make..." 24.2.1969bestcitygoalever...
  • Score: -46

6:03pm Tue 25 Feb 14

Platform3 says...

Although the "Keep the Bridge" closed lobby may be correct the credibility of its argument is severely weakened by the way the whole trial has been managed by the City Council. Lendal Bridge is an integral part of the ring road and ring roads are designed to take traffic around the edge of the city centre (not through it). Whilst it is regrettable that at Lendal Bridge the inner ring road comes perilously close to the city centre it is still a vital link on that route. However, the council has clearly shown it is incapable of consequential thinking and how to manage the outcomes from such a closure. It is a little bit like the political numpties charged with flood management who think that blocking water at one point will solve the problem. Traffic, like water, will find an alternative. It is quite clear the council has not learned any lessons following the Clifton Green cycle lane fiasco. Indeed they have only exacerbated the problem by moving the traffic elsewhere.

Those, like Pedaling Paul (or perhaps he should be called King Canute given the water analogy), who point to other European towns and cities conveniently miss the point that the successful schemes are those that have taken a town / city wide view and not try to handle it in a soundbite "we'll close this 'cos it looks good" fashion.

The overall arrogant attitude of the council is made worse by the way it is condoning the spending of public money on creating 20MPH roads - often on short streets where it would be impossible to reach that speed even if you were driving an F1 car flat out!!

Further controls on vehicles driving THROUGH the centre may be desirable (why not, for example, close Ouse Bridge and re-open Lendal Bridge? Why not ban buses from Rougier Street and Clifford Street? why not ban the riding of bicycles in all streets within the Bar Walls?) - but not all the options have been canvassed (I suspect not all the options have even been considered). Purely for the amateurish way our elected Councillors have gone about their responsibilities I cannot support the continued closure of Lendal Bridge.
Although the "Keep the Bridge" closed lobby may be correct the credibility of its argument is severely weakened by the way the whole trial has been managed by the City Council. Lendal Bridge is an integral part of the ring road and ring roads are designed to take traffic around the edge of the city centre (not through it). Whilst it is regrettable that at Lendal Bridge the inner ring road comes perilously close to the city centre it is still a vital link on that route. However, the council has clearly shown it is incapable of consequential thinking and how to manage the outcomes from such a closure. It is a little bit like the political numpties charged with flood management who think that blocking water at one point will solve the problem. Traffic, like water, will find an alternative. It is quite clear the council has not learned any lessons following the Clifton Green cycle lane fiasco. Indeed they have only exacerbated the problem by moving the traffic elsewhere. Those, like Pedaling Paul (or perhaps he should be called King Canute given the water analogy), who point to other European towns and cities conveniently miss the point that the successful schemes are those that have taken a town / city wide view and not try to handle it in a soundbite "we'll close this 'cos it looks good" fashion. The overall arrogant attitude of the council is made worse by the way it is condoning the spending of public money on creating 20MPH roads - often on short streets where it would be impossible to reach that speed even if you were driving an F1 car flat out!! Further controls on vehicles driving THROUGH the centre may be desirable (why not, for example, close Ouse Bridge and re-open Lendal Bridge? Why not ban buses from Rougier Street and Clifford Street? why not ban the riding of bicycles in all streets within the Bar Walls?) - but not all the options have been canvassed (I suspect not all the options have even been considered). Purely for the amateurish way our elected Councillors have gone about their responsibilities I cannot support the continued closure of Lendal Bridge. Platform3
  • Score: 97

6:22pm Tue 25 Feb 14

jake777 says...

Alf Garnett wrote:
Platform9 wrote:
I live in Clifton and work in town and I often see the farcical situation of at least 3 No 6 buses all nose to tail driving to Clifton Moor or stood in traffic along Gillygate into town - all presumably approaching Lendal Bridge at different times but then stuck in traffic that has been diverted due to the closure time.

I've not checked but I'm confident that there will be no nose to tail of these buses between Osbaldwick and Rougier Street as most traffic will not be going over Lendal Bridge.

It's a main bridge over the Ouse and closing it has caused congestion around Bootham, Leeman Road and Clifton Bridge - all around the Lendal Bridge side of town!
Come off it. Gillygate is a good deal less congested than it used to be. Use
your eyes.
Very true well said.
[quote][p][bold]Alf Garnett[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Platform9[/bold] wrote: I live in Clifton and work in town and I often see the farcical situation of at least 3 No 6 buses all nose to tail driving to Clifton Moor or stood in traffic along Gillygate into town - all presumably approaching Lendal Bridge at different times but then stuck in traffic that has been diverted due to the closure time. I've not checked but I'm confident that there will be no nose to tail of these buses between Osbaldwick and Rougier Street as most traffic will not be going over Lendal Bridge. It's a main bridge over the Ouse and closing it has caused congestion around Bootham, Leeman Road and Clifton Bridge - all around the Lendal Bridge side of town![/p][/quote]Come off it. Gillygate is a good deal less congested than it used to be. Use your eyes.[/p][/quote]Very true well said. jake777
  • Score: -9

6:25pm Tue 25 Feb 14

jake777 says...

AnotherPointofView wrote:
Alf Garnett wrote:
Platform9 wrote:
I live in Clifton and work in town and I often see the farcical situation of at least 3 No 6 buses all nose to tail driving to Clifton Moor or stood in traffic along Gillygate into town - all presumably approaching Lendal Bridge at different times but then stuck in traffic that has been diverted due to the closure time.

I've not checked but I'm confident that there will be no nose to tail of these buses between Osbaldwick and Rougier Street as most traffic will not be going over Lendal Bridge.

It's a main bridge over the Ouse and closing it has caused congestion around Bootham, Leeman Road and Clifton Bridge - all around the Lendal Bridge side of town!
Come off it. Gillygate is a good deal less congested than it used to be. Use
your eyes.
Gillygate is frequently congested from one end to the other. You can't get more congested than when it's full!
It is only congested when the bridge is open, unlike you with your eyes closed.
[quote][p][bold]AnotherPointofView[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Alf Garnett[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Platform9[/bold] wrote: I live in Clifton and work in town and I often see the farcical situation of at least 3 No 6 buses all nose to tail driving to Clifton Moor or stood in traffic along Gillygate into town - all presumably approaching Lendal Bridge at different times but then stuck in traffic that has been diverted due to the closure time. I've not checked but I'm confident that there will be no nose to tail of these buses between Osbaldwick and Rougier Street as most traffic will not be going over Lendal Bridge. It's a main bridge over the Ouse and closing it has caused congestion around Bootham, Leeman Road and Clifton Bridge - all around the Lendal Bridge side of town![/p][/quote]Come off it. Gillygate is a good deal less congested than it used to be. Use your eyes.[/p][/quote]Gillygate is frequently congested from one end to the other. You can't get more congested than when it's full![/p][/quote]It is only congested when the bridge is open, unlike you with your eyes closed. jake777
  • Score: 66

6:30pm Tue 25 Feb 14

jake777 says...

Archiebold the 1st wrote:
How do you measure success against this? If it was to reduce the amount of car journeys in York then it hasn’t succeeded. If it was to reduce bus times it has failed. If it was to boost the economy it has failed.

My point is I have not actually seen a mission statement which states the aims and targets of this closure. How can you see if something was a success without a measurable metrics? So anyone from either side of the argument can just use personal opinion to see if it was a success... And I’m sure they will. But when it comes down to reasons why the council will keep it they will just make numbers up (like usual) and say it was an amazing success. This isn’t the right thing to do. I can only speak for myself but if they had set some realistic targets of things it would improve that would better my life or my city, and it was a success I would be happy it was closed.

Lets face it businesses have suffered, visitors have suffered (fines), bus journeys take longer, traffic is simply on an alternative route (so no less pollution), there has been no increase in public transport users (because its terrible), its implementation was terrible.

Plus side- some people do like to walk on a road where there are just busses & taxis not cars (not sure why). And cyclists have a road to themselves in the main. All this b@llocks about York’s air pollution blah blah is nonsense. The same amount of cars are travelling the same amount of journeys but simple taking a longer route. i'd rather a car drove past me then a double Decker diesel (which is worse for pollution then anything!). If they want to reduce traffic around this area then they need to make it quicker for people to use alternative routes. (like the leman road lights to bridge near Clifton. Maybe if they increased the amount of time you could turn right people wouldn’t use a city centre route where chances are you will get caught in traffic.

People will use the quickest route to get from a to b…. so putting a obstacle in the way of a & b just makes the quickest route longer.
every bit of your comments are rubbish,
[quote][p][bold]Archiebold the 1st[/bold] wrote: How do you measure success against this? If it was to reduce the amount of car journeys in York then it hasn’t succeeded. If it was to reduce bus times it has failed. If it was to boost the economy it has failed. My point is I have not actually seen a mission statement which states the aims and targets of this closure. How can you see if something was a success without a measurable metrics? So anyone from either side of the argument can just use personal opinion to see if it was a success... And I’m sure they will. But when it comes down to reasons why the council will keep it they will just make numbers up (like usual) and say it was an amazing success. This isn’t the right thing to do. I can only speak for myself but if they had set some realistic targets of things it would improve that would better my life or my city, and it was a success I would be happy it was closed. Lets face it businesses have suffered, visitors have suffered (fines), bus journeys take longer, traffic is simply on an alternative route (so no less pollution), there has been no increase in public transport users (because its terrible), its implementation was terrible. Plus side- some people do like to walk on a road where there are just busses & taxis not cars (not sure why). And cyclists have a road to themselves in the main. All this b@llocks about York’s air pollution blah blah is nonsense. The same amount of cars are travelling the same amount of journeys but simple taking a longer route. i'd rather a car drove past me then a double Decker diesel (which is worse for pollution then anything!). If they want to reduce traffic around this area then they need to make it quicker for people to use alternative routes. (like the leman road lights to bridge near Clifton. Maybe if they increased the amount of time you could turn right people wouldn’t use a city centre route where chances are you will get caught in traffic. People will use the quickest route to get from a to b…. so putting a obstacle in the way of a & b just makes the quickest route longer.[/p][/quote]every bit of your comments are rubbish, jake777
  • Score: 63

6:31pm Tue 25 Feb 14

Visitor to York says...

Ok so I'm not a local so can't comment on should there be a closure debate but I sure have strong feelings about the shambles of a way the intermittent closure is organised. After a fabulous couple of days in York as a tourist this has been totally marred by a very unexpected £60 fine arriving in the post. I am not a novice driver and spent last week touring UK cities never seen before with friends visiting from Europe. Yes I am used to navigating and roadsigns! but York really you need to rethink this one. Signage & road markings are totally inadequate. I have paid my fine and can now see on Google along with 2000 people per week! do you really think we are all flouting the rules.......... Or are the Council now too attached to the revenue the fines bring? I too live in a tourist town on the coast and know the value of tourism to our economy as well as customer relations.
Ok so I'm not a local so can't comment on should there be a closure debate but I sure have strong feelings about the shambles of a way the intermittent closure is organised. After a fabulous couple of days in York as a tourist this has been totally marred by a very unexpected £60 fine arriving in the post. I am not a novice driver and spent last week touring UK cities never seen before with friends visiting from Europe. Yes I am used to navigating and roadsigns! but York really you need to rethink this one. Signage & road markings are totally inadequate. I have paid my fine and can now see on Google along with 2000 people per week! do you really think we are all flouting the rules.......... Or are the Council now too attached to the revenue the fines bring? I too live in a tourist town on the coast and know the value of tourism to our economy as well as customer relations. Visitor to York
  • Score: -58

6:56pm Tue 25 Feb 14

jake777 says...

Archiebold the 1st wrote:
gurgles wrote:
small space + more cars = less space + more cars = less space + more cars = less space until eventually no space left for any cars or even space left for any space . . . York is not designed for the combustion engine never has been never will be quite simple really do you want little space or do you want no space to drive your cars . . .
do you know what that bridge was used for at first??? ha
It was used as a ferry crossing, lets bring that back then you can queue for days to get across.
[quote][p][bold]Archiebold the 1st[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]gurgles[/bold] wrote: small space + more cars = less space + more cars = less space + more cars = less space until eventually no space left for any cars or even space left for any space . . . York is not designed for the combustion engine never has been never will be quite simple really do you want little space or do you want no space to drive your cars . . .[/p][/quote]do you know what that bridge was used for at first??? ha[/p][/quote]It was used as a ferry crossing, lets bring that back then you can queue for days to get across. jake777
  • Score: 10

7:04pm Tue 25 Feb 14

WhyEver says...

I've found that travelling around Foss Islands Road has become slower / more congested during the bridge closure times, compared to before. The council admit the same ("5-10 minutes added to journeys") but dismiss it as "acceptable".

Even the pro-closure commentators in the article spend more time bad-mouthing cars than they do explaining how the closure will improve public transport.
I've found that travelling around Foss Islands Road has become slower / more congested during the bridge closure times, compared to before. The council admit the same ("5-10 minutes added to journeys") but dismiss it as "acceptable". Even the pro-closure commentators in the article spend more time bad-mouthing cars than they do explaining how the closure will improve public transport. WhyEver
  • Score: -36

7:06pm Tue 25 Feb 14

jake777 says...

YorkPatrol wrote:
pedalling paul wrote:
Nik Brown's contribution (link above) reveals that the pre-closure user survey clearly showed that the most efficient users of road space are those now permitted to cross the bridge during the day. Private cars previously represented 70 per cent of the motorised vehicles crossing the bridge in daytime, but carried only 19 per cent of the people. What an inefficient use of road capacity! Buses, pedestrians taxis and cyclists carried far more, in much less space. This trial begins to put York on a par with many a mainland European city that I've visited (some of those on my bike..) I'm sure that tomorrow's printed feature will bring some interesting ripostes, that will try to equate private car access with economic and commercial success. But sadly the motoring paradise that some promise to deliver, will never be achieved.
The traffic has just been diverted somewhere else you goon – try asking the people down Leeman Road how they feel about the “trial”

Are you one of the few imbeciles that think all the people who previously used Lendal Bridge have suddenly jumped on their bikes or on the bus???

Nobody expects a motoring paradise but closing a major road through the centre of town was simply insanity

The closure has been a total failure and an embarrassment to York
Yawn Yawn Yawn get over it and find another route.
[quote][p][bold]YorkPatrol[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]pedalling paul [/bold] wrote: Nik Brown's contribution (link above) reveals that the pre-closure user survey clearly showed that the most efficient users of road space are those now permitted to cross the bridge during the day. Private cars previously represented 70 per cent of the motorised vehicles crossing the bridge in daytime, but carried only 19 per cent of the people. What an inefficient use of road capacity! Buses, pedestrians taxis and cyclists carried far more, in much less space. This trial begins to put York on a par with many a mainland European city that I've visited (some of those on my bike..) I'm sure that tomorrow's printed feature will bring some interesting ripostes, that will try to equate private car access with economic and commercial success. But sadly the motoring paradise that some promise to deliver, will never be achieved.[/p][/quote]The traffic has just been diverted somewhere else you goon – try asking the people down Leeman Road how they feel about the “trial” Are you one of the few imbeciles that think all the people who previously used Lendal Bridge have suddenly jumped on their bikes or on the bus??? Nobody expects a motoring paradise but closing a major road through the centre of town was simply insanity The closure has been a total failure and an embarrassment to York[/p][/quote]Yawn Yawn Yawn get over it and find another route. jake777
  • Score: -39

7:19pm Tue 25 Feb 14

Silver says...

Just imagine had the council got it's way on every single decision they wanted. From trying to sell off Gillygate which should now have paid off 3/4 of what they planned to sell it off for, noq to Lendal Bridge. I think it's a bad idea, yes I'm a car owner but I don't do many single journeys to get to work I give 2 colleagues a lift and see the congestion as I pass along the rest of the outer ring road. It is far more congested around Morrisons then it used to be and before people say Lendal Bridge helped our economy by being closed. Perhaps the fact that we left the recession and those areas that started earning enough perhaps came to York for a holiday. Then they got fined and would you go back somewhere if you had a good time but then got home to see you'd been fined? I refuse to goto London in my car and drive around there because I'm sure I'd get fined by entering the congestion zone. I can take the train or get a lift from friends with better knowledge then myself for that. I'm a Labour voter and any independant standing candidate in my area will get my vote instead come the next election
Just imagine had the council got it's way on every single decision they wanted. From trying to sell off Gillygate which should now have paid off 3/4 of what they planned to sell it off for, noq to Lendal Bridge. I think it's a bad idea, yes I'm a car owner but I don't do many single journeys to get to work I give 2 colleagues a lift and see the congestion as I pass along the rest of the outer ring road. It is far more congested around Morrisons then it used to be and before people say Lendal Bridge helped our economy by being closed. Perhaps the fact that we left the recession and those areas that started earning enough perhaps came to York for a holiday. Then they got fined and would you go back somewhere if you had a good time but then got home to see you'd been fined? I refuse to goto London in my car and drive around there because I'm sure I'd get fined by entering the congestion zone. I can take the train or get a lift from friends with better knowledge then myself for that. I'm a Labour voter and any independant standing candidate in my area will get my vote instead come the next election Silver
  • Score: 11

7:24pm Tue 25 Feb 14

jake777 says...

Scented Soulmate wrote:
As one of the businesses in York city centre, I have first-hand experience as to what the closure has done for my business. A year ago in the depths of the recession, I was weeks away from closure. Thanks to an upturn in business due to tourism, an easing of the economic crisis and assistance from my landlord, I managed to survive.
Since the bridge closed I have gone into steep decline and my business is now trading at 50% below that of last year in the. Why? You only need to look at the increase in footfall at Monks Cross with the offer of free parking to see where local people are now shopping. To prove the decline is a local issue and not a national economic one, Saturdays are busier than last year because this is the day when visitors come to York from far-afield. Whereas a year ago York residents shopped throughout the week, Mondays to Fridays in York city centre are now deserted.
To all those who yearn for a car-free more environmentally friendly York, just remember why people come to York in the first place. It is to savour the unique shopping experience of our small independent shops. When these have gone, as they will be if the bridge remains closed, the life and soul of York will be lost forever.
Don't blame the bridge, look further affield at the out of town shopping centres, that is your answer. Since these opened shopping in the city declined, not one bridge for 6 months.
[quote][p][bold]Scented Soulmate[/bold] wrote: As one of the businesses in York city centre, I have first-hand experience as to what the closure has done for my business. A year ago in the depths of the recession, I was weeks away from closure. Thanks to an upturn in business due to tourism, an easing of the economic crisis and assistance from my landlord, I managed to survive. Since the bridge closed I have gone into steep decline and my business is now trading at 50% below that of last year in the. Why? You only need to look at the increase in footfall at Monks Cross with the offer of free parking to see where local people are now shopping. To prove the decline is a local issue and not a national economic one, Saturdays are busier than last year because this is the day when visitors come to York from far-afield. Whereas a year ago York residents shopped throughout the week, Mondays to Fridays in York city centre are now deserted. To all those who yearn for a car-free more environmentally friendly York, just remember why people come to York in the first place. It is to savour the unique shopping experience of our small independent shops. When these have gone, as they will be if the bridge remains closed, the life and soul of York will be lost forever.[/p][/quote]Don't blame the bridge, look further affield at the out of town shopping centres, that is your answer. Since these opened shopping in the city declined, not one bridge for 6 months. jake777
  • Score: -21

7:29pm Tue 25 Feb 14

Cheeky face says...

I asked the traffic penalty charge adjudicator team to look at the Lendal Bridge signage as well as the Coppergate approach signs. Unfortunately his report on Coppergate fines will not be known for another 2 weeks.

My queries with the City of York Council, mainly from August 2013,are still not answered!

No further feedback is being given by me to them as a result.
I asked the traffic penalty charge adjudicator team to look at the Lendal Bridge signage as well as the Coppergate approach signs. Unfortunately his report on Coppergate fines will not be known for another 2 weeks. My queries with the City of York Council, mainly from August 2013,are still not answered! No further feedback is being given by me to them as a result. Cheeky face
  • Score: -8

7:33pm Tue 25 Feb 14

Jiffy says...

Caecilius wrote:
Jiffy wrote:
Interesting that the light sequence for cars exiting at the end of Salisbury Road has been recently altered too - now only allowing 4 or 5 cars at a time to access Clifton Bridge. The result, huge queues back through the highly populated Leeman Road area to the Junction pub & beyond at certain times adding yet more chaos to the traffic system.
Since long before the closure of Lendal Bridge and the pointless removal of the Water End cycle lane, there has regularly been a log jam of traffic tailing back all the way from Salisbury Road to Clifton Green. The bug-eyed motorists and frustrated residents clamouring that the cycle lane was the root of all evil didn't want to hear this, nor did James Alexander and his stooges, who chose to play the cheap popularity card despite professional advice to the contrary. The tailbacks are still there, and no doubt the retiming of the lights is an attempt to try and reduce them. As you so rightly point out, this was doomed to futility from the start, as all it achieves is to move the congestion round the corner - in this case, onto Leeman Road. The same thing has happened at Clifton Green, where retiming the lights simply shifted the queuing traffic from Water End onto the other roads feeding the junction. It's like trying to stop a boat from sinking by baling it out with a teacup and pouring the water straight back in again. It's dead simple: the problem with the traffic system is that there are too many cars using it. If you want to get rid of the huge queues, you have to accept that something radical has to be done to change that. Lendal Bridge is a start.
My point was that traffic is now - as stated if you read my post properly - queuing through the residential area and down Leeman Rd to the NRM because of the change in sequence leaving Salisbury Rd. Cllr Simpson Laing got out of Salisbury Rd just before all this started - strange that!
[quote][p][bold]Caecilius[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Jiffy[/bold] wrote: Interesting that the light sequence for cars exiting at the end of Salisbury Road has been recently altered too - now only allowing 4 or 5 cars at a time to access Clifton Bridge. The result, huge queues back through the highly populated Leeman Road area to the Junction pub & beyond at certain times adding yet more chaos to the traffic system.[/p][/quote]Since long before the closure of Lendal Bridge and the pointless removal of the Water End cycle lane, there has regularly been a log jam of traffic tailing back all the way from Salisbury Road to Clifton Green. The bug-eyed motorists and frustrated residents clamouring that the cycle lane was the root of all evil didn't want to hear this, nor did James Alexander and his stooges, who chose to play the cheap popularity card despite professional advice to the contrary. The tailbacks are still there, and no doubt the retiming of the lights is an attempt to try and reduce them. As you so rightly point out, this was doomed to futility from the start, as all it achieves is to move the congestion round the corner - in this case, onto Leeman Road. The same thing has happened at Clifton Green, where retiming the lights simply shifted the queuing traffic from Water End onto the other roads feeding the junction. It's like trying to stop a boat from sinking by baling it out with a teacup and pouring the water straight back in again. It's dead simple: the problem with the traffic system is that there are too many cars using it. If you want to get rid of the huge queues, you have to accept that something radical has to be done to change that. Lendal Bridge is a start.[/p][/quote]My point was that traffic is now - as stated if you read my post properly - queuing through the residential area and down Leeman Rd to the NRM because of the change in sequence leaving Salisbury Rd. Cllr Simpson Laing got out of Salisbury Rd just before all this started - strange that! Jiffy
  • Score: -24

7:33pm Tue 25 Feb 14

inthesticks says...

Archiebold the 1st wrote:
jake777 wrote:
Archiebold the 1st wrote:
How do you measure success against this? If it was to reduce the amount of car journeys in York then it hasn’t succeeded. If it was to reduce bus times it has failed. If it was to boost the economy it has failed.

My point is I have not actually seen a mission statement which states the aims and targets of this closure. How can you see if something was a success without a measurable metrics? So anyone from either side of the argument can just use personal opinion to see if it was a success... And I’m sure they will. But when it comes down to reasons why the council will keep it they will just make numbers up (like usual) and say it was an amazing success. This isn’t the right thing to do. I can only speak for myself but if they had set some realistic targets of things it would improve that would better my life or my city, and it was a success I would be happy it was closed.

Lets face it businesses have suffered, visitors have suffered (fines), bus journeys take longer, traffic is simply on an alternative route (so no less pollution), there has been no increase in public transport users (because its terrible), its implementation was terrible.

Plus side- some people do like to walk on a road where there are just busses & taxis not cars (not sure why). And cyclists have a road to themselves in the main. All this b@llocks about York’s air pollution blah blah is nonsense. The same amount of cars are travelling the same amount of journeys but simple taking a longer route. i'd rather a car drove past me then a double Decker diesel (which is worse for pollution then anything!). If they want to reduce traffic around this area then they need to make it quicker for people to use alternative routes. (like the leman road lights to bridge near Clifton. Maybe if they increased the amount of time you could turn right people wouldn’t use a city centre route where chances are you will get caught in traffic.

People will use the quickest route to get from a to b…. so putting a obstacle in the way of a & b just makes the quickest route longer.
every bit of your comments are rubbish,
You get more and more pathetic with every comment. People
Supporting the closer will even be ashamed to have such a tard on their side making a fool out of himself.
Just ignore him, i`m convinced he`s the b***** child of HoofHearteds.
[quote][p][bold]Archiebold the 1st[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]jake777[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Archiebold the 1st[/bold] wrote: How do you measure success against this? If it was to reduce the amount of car journeys in York then it hasn’t succeeded. If it was to reduce bus times it has failed. If it was to boost the economy it has failed. My point is I have not actually seen a mission statement which states the aims and targets of this closure. How can you see if something was a success without a measurable metrics? So anyone from either side of the argument can just use personal opinion to see if it was a success... And I’m sure they will. But when it comes down to reasons why the council will keep it they will just make numbers up (like usual) and say it was an amazing success. This isn’t the right thing to do. I can only speak for myself but if they had set some realistic targets of things it would improve that would better my life or my city, and it was a success I would be happy it was closed. Lets face it businesses have suffered, visitors have suffered (fines), bus journeys take longer, traffic is simply on an alternative route (so no less pollution), there has been no increase in public transport users (because its terrible), its implementation was terrible. Plus side- some people do like to walk on a road where there are just busses & taxis not cars (not sure why). And cyclists have a road to themselves in the main. All this b@llocks about York’s air pollution blah blah is nonsense. The same amount of cars are travelling the same amount of journeys but simple taking a longer route. i'd rather a car drove past me then a double Decker diesel (which is worse for pollution then anything!). If they want to reduce traffic around this area then they need to make it quicker for people to use alternative routes. (like the leman road lights to bridge near Clifton. Maybe if they increased the amount of time you could turn right people wouldn’t use a city centre route where chances are you will get caught in traffic. People will use the quickest route to get from a to b…. so putting a obstacle in the way of a & b just makes the quickest route longer.[/p][/quote]every bit of your comments are rubbish,[/p][/quote]You get more and more pathetic with every comment. People Supporting the closer will even be ashamed to have such a tard on their side making a fool out of himself.[/p][/quote]Just ignore him, i`m convinced he`s the b***** child of HoofHearteds. inthesticks
  • Score: -18

7:49pm Tue 25 Feb 14

inthesticks says...

nearlyman wrote:
Think some of you are mis judging hoofhearted, who appears to be a spoof and not the slimey hoofarted, whose name amply describes her (or his !) puerility.
I think it`s the same slimey patronising tone.
[quote][p][bold]nearlyman[/bold] wrote: Think some of you are mis judging hoofhearted, who appears to be a spoof and not the slimey hoofarted, whose name amply describes her (or his !) puerility.[/p][/quote]I think it`s the same slimey patronising tone. inthesticks
  • Score: 287

7:51pm Tue 25 Feb 14

CaroleBaines says...

Fines have been something of a shambles but this does not mean the idea is not sound. Area is greatly improved without traffic and the consequences of closure have been very modest. Lets keep it shut - just my opinion, but its without prejudice or vested interest - just as a car driving resident of a fair few decades standing!
Fines have been something of a shambles but this does not mean the idea is not sound. Area is greatly improved without traffic and the consequences of closure have been very modest. Lets keep it shut - just my opinion, but its without prejudice or vested interest - just as a car driving resident of a fair few decades standing! CaroleBaines
  • Score: 66

7:57pm Tue 25 Feb 14

24.2.1969bestcitygoalever... says...

Everything flows from a proper bypass or it would if it could.....
Everything flows from a proper bypass or it would if it could..... 24.2.1969bestcitygoalever...
  • Score: 384

8:15pm Tue 25 Feb 14

Archiebold the 1st says...

jake777's_Mum wrote:
jake777 wrote:
Archiebold the 1st wrote:
How do you measure success against this? If it was to reduce the amount of car journeys in York then it hasn’t succeeded. If it was to reduce bus times it has failed. If it was to boost the economy it has failed.

My point is I have not actually seen a mission statement which states the aims and targets of this closure. How can you see if something was a success without a measurable metrics? So anyone from either side of the argument can just use personal opinion to see if it was a success... And I’m sure they will. But when it comes down to reasons why the council will keep it they will just make numbers up (like usual) and say it was an amazing success. This isn’t the right thing to do. I can only speak for myself but if they had set some realistic targets of things it would improve that would better my life or my city, and it was a success I would be happy it was closed.

Lets face it businesses have suffered, visitors have suffered (fines), bus journeys take longer, traffic is simply on an alternative route (so no less pollution), there has been no increase in public transport users (because its terrible), its implementation was terrible.

Plus side- some people do like to walk on a road where there are just busses & taxis not cars (not sure why). And cyclists have a road to themselves in the main. All this b@llocks about York’s air pollution blah blah is nonsense. The same amount of cars are travelling the same amount of journeys but simple taking a longer route. i'd rather a car drove past me then a double Decker diesel (which is worse for pollution then anything!). If they want to reduce traffic around this area then they need to make it quicker for people to use alternative routes. (like the leman road lights to bridge near Clifton. Maybe if they increased the amount of time you could turn right people wouldn’t use a city centre route where chances are you will get caught in traffic.

People will use the quickest route to get from a to b…. so putting a obstacle in the way of a & b just makes the quickest route longer.
every bit of your comments are rubbish,
Jakey, is that you? What have I told you about using the computer at bedtime? Now come on. Drink your milk and go to bed. Mum x

Sorry everyone, but once Ceebeebies finishes at 7, he just needs to express himself. I think he's had too many sweets today. A bit of a sugar rush, you might say. Hope he's not been saying too many daft things. He does sort of get a little carried away. Sorry.
Class... Especially as all my comments got removed.
[quote][p][bold]jake777's_Mum[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]jake777[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Archiebold the 1st[/bold] wrote: How do you measure success against this? If it was to reduce the amount of car journeys in York then it hasn’t succeeded. If it was to reduce bus times it has failed. If it was to boost the economy it has failed. My point is I have not actually seen a mission statement which states the aims and targets of this closure. How can you see if something was a success without a measurable metrics? So anyone from either side of the argument can just use personal opinion to see if it was a success... And I’m sure they will. But when it comes down to reasons why the council will keep it they will just make numbers up (like usual) and say it was an amazing success. This isn’t the right thing to do. I can only speak for myself but if they had set some realistic targets of things it would improve that would better my life or my city, and it was a success I would be happy it was closed. Lets face it businesses have suffered, visitors have suffered (fines), bus journeys take longer, traffic is simply on an alternative route (so no less pollution), there has been no increase in public transport users (because its terrible), its implementation was terrible. Plus side- some people do like to walk on a road where there are just busses & taxis not cars (not sure why). And cyclists have a road to themselves in the main. All this b@llocks about York’s air pollution blah blah is nonsense. The same amount of cars are travelling the same amount of journeys but simple taking a longer route. i'd rather a car drove past me then a double Decker diesel (which is worse for pollution then anything!). If they want to reduce traffic around this area then they need to make it quicker for people to use alternative routes. (like the leman road lights to bridge near Clifton. Maybe if they increased the amount of time you could turn right people wouldn’t use a city centre route where chances are you will get caught in traffic. People will use the quickest route to get from a to b…. so putting a obstacle in the way of a & b just makes the quickest route longer.[/p][/quote]every bit of your comments are rubbish,[/p][/quote]Jakey, is that you? What have I told you about using the computer at bedtime? Now come on. Drink your milk and go to bed. Mum x Sorry everyone, but once Ceebeebies finishes at 7, he just needs to express himself. I think he's had too many sweets today. A bit of a sugar rush, you might say. Hope he's not been saying too many daft things. He does sort of get a little carried away. Sorry.[/p][/quote]Class... Especially as all my comments got removed. Archiebold the 1st
  • Score: 127

8:16pm Tue 25 Feb 14

CaroleBaines says...

Where is Rocking Horse? Been quiet these last few days. Uncharacteristically
!
Where is Rocking Horse? Been quiet these last few days. Uncharacteristically ! CaroleBaines
  • Score: 69

8:36pm Tue 25 Feb 14

Igiveinthen says...

pedalling paul wrote:
Nik Brown's contribution (link above) reveals that the pre-closure user survey clearly showed that the most efficient users of road space are those now permitted to cross the bridge during the day.

Private cars previously represented 70 per cent of the motorised vehicles crossing the bridge in daytime, but carried only 19 per cent of the people. What an inefficient use of road capacity! Buses, pedestrians taxis and cyclists carried far more, in much less space.

This trial begins to put York on a par with many a mainland European city that I've visited (some of those on my bike..)

I'm sure that tomorrow's printed feature will bring some interesting ripostes, that will try to equate private car access with economic and commercial success. But sadly the motoring paradise that some promise to deliver, will never be achieved.
You say you have visited many mainland European cities, but you fail to inform those that haven't that they adopt a different attitude, they are not anti-car to the extent that we in the City of York have to suffer, they have a sensible approach to transport requirements that takes into account all modes of transport, I worked in Holland during the 70's and even then they had better integrated transport systems than we had, and now it's even better because they have dedicated cycle roads running along side the main roads, this system could have been adopted here every time they built new sections of road.
But unfortunately all that we can do in this country is shoe horn a cycle lane into the existing road system that hasn't increased in width during the time I have held a license, so no we are not on par with many of the mainland European cities.
[quote][p][bold]pedalling paul [/bold] wrote: Nik Brown's contribution (link above) reveals that the pre-closure user survey clearly showed that the most efficient users of road space are those now permitted to cross the bridge during the day. Private cars previously represented 70 per cent of the motorised vehicles crossing the bridge in daytime, but carried only 19 per cent of the people. What an inefficient use of road capacity! Buses, pedestrians taxis and cyclists carried far more, in much less space. This trial begins to put York on a par with many a mainland European city that I've visited (some of those on my bike..) I'm sure that tomorrow's printed feature will bring some interesting ripostes, that will try to equate private car access with economic and commercial success. But sadly the motoring paradise that some promise to deliver, will never be achieved.[/p][/quote]You say you have visited many mainland European cities, but you fail to inform those that haven't that they adopt a different attitude, they are not anti-car to the extent that we in the City of York have to suffer, they have a sensible approach to transport requirements that takes into account all modes of transport, I worked in Holland during the 70's and even then they had better integrated transport systems than we had, and now it's even better because they have dedicated cycle roads running along side the main roads, this system could have been adopted here every time they built new sections of road. But unfortunately all that we can do in this country is shoe horn a cycle lane into the existing road system that hasn't increased in width during the time I have held a license, so no we are not on par with many of the mainland European cities. Igiveinthen
  • Score: 109

8:58pm Tue 25 Feb 14

Buzzz Light-year says...

CaroleBaines wrote:
Where is Rocking Horse? Been quiet these last few days. Uncharacteristically

!
My guess is...
Banned yet again.

And just like when the disruptive teenagers go back to college or the grandma with alzheimers goes back to care or the schizophrenic friend starts taking his meds again, it's quite a relief.
[quote][p][bold]CaroleBaines[/bold] wrote: Where is Rocking Horse? Been quiet these last few days. Uncharacteristically ![/p][/quote]My guess is... Banned yet again. And just like when the disruptive teenagers go back to college or the grandma with alzheimers goes back to care or the schizophrenic friend starts taking his meds again, it's quite a relief. Buzzz Light-year
  • Score: 14

9:00pm Tue 25 Feb 14

Igiveinthen says...

ouseswimmer wrote:
I see the people they chose for the editorial comments are completely unbiased and totally opposite to the vast majority of views. Hardly balanced journalism.
My thoughts exactly, but why don't the council have a referendum on the issue? two reasons, firstly, they know that the residents of the City of York would vote overwhelmingly in favour of cancelling the bridge restrictions, secondly, they believe that they know what's best for us as they view us as the hoi polloi, the common rabble, and we don't have the brains to make a decision.
[quote][p][bold]ouseswimmer[/bold] wrote: I see the people they chose for the editorial comments are completely unbiased and totally opposite to the vast majority of views. Hardly balanced journalism.[/p][/quote]My thoughts exactly, but why don't the council have a referendum on the issue? two reasons, firstly, they know that the residents of the City of York would vote overwhelmingly in favour of cancelling the bridge restrictions, secondly, they believe that they know what's best for us as they view us as the hoi polloi, the common rabble, and we don't have the brains to make a decision. Igiveinthen
  • Score: -15

9:06pm Tue 25 Feb 14

EleRogers says...

Nik Brown has some excellent comments on maximising utility of the bridge. I feel air quality has improved and it's easier for mass transport. Getting more people in and out of our city must only be good for business, and perhaps there will be a period of adapting to the alternative car routes but if there's solid transport options for that traffic to abandon the car then that's even better!A lot of articles commenting on tourism seem to overlook the masses of people who come via East Coast line from London or Edinburgh and crossing Lendal Bridge on foot is their first experience of our city. Do agree however that if made permanent red asphalt or similar to assist unfamiliar drivers would be good. It's going to be an exciting ruling from CYC!

Perhaps a few drivers could fall in love with a bicycle...?
Nik Brown has some excellent comments on maximising utility of the bridge. I feel air quality has improved and it's easier for mass transport. Getting more people in and out of our city must only be good for business, and perhaps there will be a period of adapting to the alternative car routes but if there's solid transport options for that traffic to abandon the car then that's even better!A lot of articles commenting on tourism seem to overlook the masses of people who come via East Coast line from London or Edinburgh and crossing Lendal Bridge on foot is their first experience of our city. Do agree however that if made permanent red asphalt or similar to assist unfamiliar drivers would be good. It's going to be an exciting ruling from CYC! Perhaps a few drivers could fall in love with a bicycle...? EleRogers
  • Score: 80

9:19pm Tue 25 Feb 14

York Rover says...

The one thing that irritates me about York since moving here three years ago is the constant speeding traffic down coney street if traffic needs banning from any where it's down there - and it's not just taxis, it's a free for all with cars and bikes oblivious to tourists and locals a like walking down what is supposed to be a pedestrianised walk way - really drives me mad
The one thing that irritates me about York since moving here three years ago is the constant speeding traffic down coney street if traffic needs banning from any where it's down there - and it's not just taxis, it's a free for all with cars and bikes oblivious to tourists and locals a like walking down what is supposed to be a pedestrianised walk way - really drives me mad York Rover
  • Score: -134

9:42pm Tue 25 Feb 14

Igiveinthen says...

Alf Garnett wrote:
nowthen wrote:
We all know that the traffic from Lendal bridge has been displaced to other parts of York's road network causing increased journey times , congestion and pollution . We all know it's not a trial . We all know that the Labour led council has disengaged and marginalised the electorate and will do exactly what it wants. This isn't a debate as Labour councillors think that consultation is unnecessary and a waste of time. The outcome has already been decided. Cue the council vote rigger..
Do we all know this ? I suspect that most if the antis are not Labour voters anyway. My drives round the inner ring - Foss Bank, Foss Islands Road, Skeldergate Bridge, Nunnery Lane seem to be a lot easier than hitherto. The bridge us open to allow traffic at peak flow times.
You must be driving at a time when the bridge restriction are not in place or more likely you refuse to accept the truth that congestion has increased in these areas.
I live on Fishergate a congestion nightmare even before the bridge restrictions were put in place, and I have tried to drive the bishopthorpe road, nunnery lane, skeldergate bridge route, but not any more, it's quicker to drive round the A64 and come back in via the A19.
[quote][p][bold]Alf Garnett[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]nowthen[/bold] wrote: We all know that the traffic from Lendal bridge has been displaced to other parts of York's road network causing increased journey times , congestion and pollution . We all know it's not a trial . We all know that the Labour led council has disengaged and marginalised the electorate and will do exactly what it wants. This isn't a debate as Labour councillors think that consultation is unnecessary and a waste of time. The outcome has already been decided. Cue the council vote rigger..[/p][/quote]Do we all know this ? I suspect that most if the antis are not Labour voters anyway. My drives round the inner ring - Foss Bank, Foss Islands Road, Skeldergate Bridge, Nunnery Lane seem to be a lot easier than hitherto. The bridge us open to allow traffic at peak flow times.[/p][/quote]You must be driving at a time when the bridge restriction are not in place or more likely you refuse to accept the truth that congestion has increased in these areas. I live on Fishergate a congestion nightmare even before the bridge restrictions were put in place, and I have tried to drive the bishopthorpe road, nunnery lane, skeldergate bridge route, but not any more, it's quicker to drive round the A64 and come back in via the A19. Igiveinthen
  • Score: 132

9:53pm Tue 25 Feb 14

Igiveinthen says...

gurgles wrote:
Archiebold the 1st wrote:
gurgles wrote:
small space + more cars = less space + more cars = less space + more cars = less space until eventually no space left for any cars or even space left for any space . . . York is not designed for the combustion engine never has been never will be quite simple really do you want little space or do you want no space to drive your cars . . .
do you know what that bridge was used for at first??? ha
prob to bridge the lack of immagination . . re the combustion engine which paradoxically if discovered today would be dismissed instantly as a completely inefficient method for motorising vehicles which still leaves the problem of space for the machines and space for the the human ego either way something has to give no room for both . . .
Can you clarify your statement ---- re the combustion engine which paradoxically if discovered today would be dismissed instantly as a completely inefficient method for motorising vehicles ---- against what method of propulsion?
[quote][p][bold]gurgles[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Archiebold the 1st[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]gurgles[/bold] wrote: small space + more cars = less space + more cars = less space + more cars = less space until eventually no space left for any cars or even space left for any space . . . York is not designed for the combustion engine never has been never will be quite simple really do you want little space or do you want no space to drive your cars . . .[/p][/quote]do you know what that bridge was used for at first??? ha[/p][/quote]prob to bridge the lack of immagination . . re the combustion engine which paradoxically if discovered today would be dismissed instantly as a completely inefficient method for motorising vehicles which still leaves the problem of space for the machines and space for the the human ego either way something has to give no room for both . . .[/p][/quote]Can you clarify your statement ---- re the combustion engine which paradoxically if discovered today would be dismissed instantly as a completely inefficient method for motorising vehicles ---- against what method of propulsion? Igiveinthen
  • Score: 305

10:18pm Tue 25 Feb 14

Igiveinthen says...

gibarch wrote:
Although sceptical before the closure I have found my car journey times have improved from Fulford Road area across York ( including travel to Monks Cross twice a week at 5pm, De Grey Rooms on a Saturday morning). Even a trip to the Leeman Road sorting office was faster.
Excuse me, but what route are you taking, or do you have a flying car? I live in Fishergate and I strongly disagree with your comment, but then I must be imagining all the congestion.
[quote][p][bold]gibarch[/bold] wrote: Although sceptical before the closure I have found my car journey times have improved from Fulford Road area across York ( including travel to Monks Cross twice a week at 5pm, De Grey Rooms on a Saturday morning). Even a trip to the Leeman Road sorting office was faster.[/p][/quote]Excuse me, but what route are you taking, or do you have a flying car? I live in Fishergate and I strongly disagree with your comment, but then I must be imagining all the congestion. Igiveinthen
  • Score: 273

10:32pm Tue 25 Feb 14

Igiveinthen says...

jake777 wrote:
Alf Garnett wrote:
Platform9 wrote:
I live in Clifton and work in town and I often see the farcical situation of at least 3 No 6 buses all nose to tail driving to Clifton Moor or stood in traffic along Gillygate into town - all presumably approaching Lendal Bridge at different times but then stuck in traffic that has been diverted due to the closure time.

I've not checked but I'm confident that there will be no nose to tail of these buses between Osbaldwick and Rougier Street as most traffic will not be going over Lendal Bridge.

It's a main bridge over the Ouse and closing it has caused congestion around Bootham, Leeman Road and Clifton Bridge - all around the Lendal Bridge side of town!
Come off it. Gillygate is a good deal less congested than it used to be. Use
your eyes.
Very true well said.
Oh no Jake777 has got out again, stand by for some really electrifying and prophetic comments, or should I have said pathetic, erm..............
[quote][p][bold]jake777[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Alf Garnett[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Platform9[/bold] wrote: I live in Clifton and work in town and I often see the farcical situation of at least 3 No 6 buses all nose to tail driving to Clifton Moor or stood in traffic along Gillygate into town - all presumably approaching Lendal Bridge at different times but then stuck in traffic that has been diverted due to the closure time. I've not checked but I'm confident that there will be no nose to tail of these buses between Osbaldwick and Rougier Street as most traffic will not be going over Lendal Bridge. It's a main bridge over the Ouse and closing it has caused congestion around Bootham, Leeman Road and Clifton Bridge - all around the Lendal Bridge side of town![/p][/quote]Come off it. Gillygate is a good deal less congested than it used to be. Use your eyes.[/p][/quote]Very true well said.[/p][/quote]Oh no Jake777 has got out again, stand by for some really electrifying and prophetic comments, or should I have said pathetic, erm.............. Igiveinthen
  • Score: -101

11:13pm Tue 25 Feb 14

gurgles says...

Archiebold the 1st wrote:
gurgles wrote:
Archiebold the 1st wrote:
gurgles wrote: small space + more cars = less space + more cars = less space + more cars = less space until eventually no space left for any cars or even space left for any space . . . York is not designed for the combustion engine never has been never will be quite simple really do you want little space or do you want no space to drive your cars . . .
do you know what that bridge was used for at first??? ha
prob to bridge the lack of immagination . . re the combustion engine which paradoxically if discovered today would be dismissed instantly as a completely inefficient method for motorising vehicles which still leaves the problem of space for the machines and space for the the human ego either way something has to give no room for both . . .
Clever... someone’s been eating their brown rice. Not once has your argument come up. Not one comment regarding there is no space for my car. Believe it or not houses or flats are built with these "spaces" and to use a car for transport to a destination requires a "space" at the end. The problem is the diversion of all the traffic (previously shared between "spaces") into 1x "space". Which using my human ego and combustion like mind means that one area has more space then another causing traffic not an overall lack of "space"?
space is full of brown rice and even fuller of car spaces with no space left for them . . . now the human ego ? gosh that is a whole universe of space full of basically - emptiness once the froth has been distilled away into the ether . . . we do not 'own' this land we do not even 'own' anything 'ownership' of space is a man made construct just as 'money' 'materials' 'power' and all the rest of the CrAss is merely insignificant and ultimately avoidment of the 'truth' ie we 'own' nothing . . . nothing at all . . . and in the great space of things we really really do not matter at all . . . only our egos insist 'otherwise' . . .
[quote][p][bold]Archiebold the 1st[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]gurgles[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Archiebold the 1st[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]gurgles[/bold] wrote: small space + more cars = less space + more cars = less space + more cars = less space until eventually no space left for any cars or even space left for any space . . . York is not designed for the combustion engine never has been never will be quite simple really do you want little space or do you want no space to drive your cars . . .[/p][/quote]do you know what that bridge was used for at first??? ha[/p][/quote]prob to bridge the lack of immagination . . re the combustion engine which paradoxically if discovered today would be dismissed instantly as a completely inefficient method for motorising vehicles which still leaves the problem of space for the machines and space for the the human ego either way something has to give no room for both . . .[/p][/quote]Clever... someone’s been eating their brown rice. Not once has your argument come up. Not one comment regarding there is no space for my car. Believe it or not houses or flats are built with these "spaces" and to use a car for transport to a destination requires a "space" at the end. The problem is the diversion of all the traffic (previously shared between "spaces") into 1x "space". Which using my human ego and combustion like mind means that one area has more space then another causing traffic not an overall lack of "space"?[/p][/quote]space is full of brown rice and even fuller of car spaces with no space left for them . . . now the human ego ? gosh that is a whole universe of space full of basically - emptiness once the froth has been distilled away into the ether . . . we do not 'own' this land we do not even 'own' anything 'ownership' of space is a man made construct just as 'money' 'materials' 'power' and all the rest of the CrAss is merely insignificant and ultimately avoidment of the 'truth' ie we 'own' nothing . . . nothing at all . . . and in the great space of things we really really do not matter at all . . . only our egos insist 'otherwise' . . . gurgles
  • Score: -20

11:13pm Tue 25 Feb 14

gurgles says...

Archiebold the 1st wrote:
gurgles wrote:
Archiebold the 1st wrote:
gurgles wrote: small space + more cars = less space + more cars = less space + more cars = less space until eventually no space left for any cars or even space left for any space . . . York is not designed for the combustion engine never has been never will be quite simple really do you want little space or do you want no space to drive your cars . . .
do you know what that bridge was used for at first??? ha
prob to bridge the lack of immagination . . re the combustion engine which paradoxically if discovered today would be dismissed instantly as a completely inefficient method for motorising vehicles which still leaves the problem of space for the machines and space for the the human ego either way something has to give no room for both . . .
Clever... someone’s been eating their brown rice. Not once has your argument come up. Not one comment regarding there is no space for my car. Believe it or not houses or flats are built with these "spaces" and to use a car for transport to a destination requires a "space" at the end. The problem is the diversion of all the traffic (previously shared between "spaces") into 1x "space". Which using my human ego and combustion like mind means that one area has more space then another causing traffic not an overall lack of "space"?
space is full of brown rice and even fuller of car spaces with no space left for them . . . now the human ego ? gosh that is a whole universe of space full of basically - emptiness once the froth has been distilled away into the ether . . . we do not 'own' this land we do not even 'own' anything 'ownership' of space is a man made construct just as 'money' 'materials' 'power' and all the rest of the CrAss is merely insignificant and ultimately avoidment of the 'truth' ie we 'own' nothing . . . nothing at all . . . and in the great space of things we really really do not matter at all . . . only our egos insist 'otherwise' . . .
[quote][p][bold]Archiebold the 1st[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]gurgles[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Archiebold the 1st[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]gurgles[/bold] wrote: small space + more cars = less space + more cars = less space + more cars = less space until eventually no space left for any cars or even space left for any space . . . York is not designed for the combustion engine never has been never will be quite simple really do you want little space or do you want no space to drive your cars . . .[/p][/quote]do you know what that bridge was used for at first??? ha[/p][/quote]prob to bridge the lack of immagination . . re the combustion engine which paradoxically if discovered today would be dismissed instantly as a completely inefficient method for motorising vehicles which still leaves the problem of space for the machines and space for the the human ego either way something has to give no room for both . . .[/p][/quote]Clever... someone’s been eating their brown rice. Not once has your argument come up. Not one comment regarding there is no space for my car. Believe it or not houses or flats are built with these "spaces" and to use a car for transport to a destination requires a "space" at the end. The problem is the diversion of all the traffic (previously shared between "spaces") into 1x "space". Which using my human ego and combustion like mind means that one area has more space then another causing traffic not an overall lack of "space"?[/p][/quote]space is full of brown rice and even fuller of car spaces with no space left for them . . . now the human ego ? gosh that is a whole universe of space full of basically - emptiness once the froth has been distilled away into the ether . . . we do not 'own' this land we do not even 'own' anything 'ownership' of space is a man made construct just as 'money' 'materials' 'power' and all the rest of the CrAss is merely insignificant and ultimately avoidment of the 'truth' ie we 'own' nothing . . . nothing at all . . . and in the great space of things we really really do not matter at all . . . only our egos insist 'otherwise' . . . gurgles
  • Score: 96

11:54pm Tue 25 Feb 14

AnotherPointofView says...

York Rover wrote:
The one thing that irritates me about York since moving here three years ago is the constant speeding traffic down coney street if traffic needs banning from any where it's down there - and it's not just taxis, it's a free for all with cars and bikes oblivious to tourists and locals a like walking down what is supposed to be a pedestrianised walk way - really drives me mad
I'm not sure which Coney Street you mean but it's not the one in York.
[quote][p][bold]York Rover[/bold] wrote: The one thing that irritates me about York since moving here three years ago is the constant speeding traffic down coney street if traffic needs banning from any where it's down there - and it's not just taxis, it's a free for all with cars and bikes oblivious to tourists and locals a like walking down what is supposed to be a pedestrianised walk way - really drives me mad[/p][/quote]I'm not sure which Coney Street you mean but it's not the one in York. AnotherPointofView
  • Score: 97

12:06am Wed 26 Feb 14

RingoStarr says...

The 'score hacker' is back!
The 'score hacker' is back! RingoStarr
  • Score: 590

12:43am Wed 26 Feb 14

inthesticks says...

gurgles wrote:
Archiebold the 1st wrote:
gurgles wrote:
Archiebold the 1st wrote:
gurgles wrote: small space + more cars = less space + more cars = less space + more cars = less space until eventually no space left for any cars or even space left for any space . . . York is not designed for the combustion engine never has been never will be quite simple really do you want little space or do you want no space to drive your cars . . .
do you know what that bridge was used for at first??? ha
prob to bridge the lack of immagination . . re the combustion engine which paradoxically if discovered today would be dismissed instantly as a completely inefficient method for motorising vehicles which still leaves the problem of space for the machines and space for the the human ego either way something has to give no room for both . . .
Clever... someone’s been eating their brown rice. Not once has your argument come up. Not one comment regarding there is no space for my car. Believe it or not houses or flats are built with these "spaces" and to use a car for transport to a destination requires a "space" at the end. The problem is the diversion of all the traffic (previously shared between "spaces") into 1x "space". Which using my human ego and combustion like mind means that one area has more space then another causing traffic not an overall lack of "space"?
space is full of brown rice and even fuller of car spaces with no space left for them . . . now the human ego ? gosh that is a whole universe of space full of basically - emptiness once the froth has been distilled away into the ether . . . we do not 'own' this land we do not even 'own' anything 'ownership' of space is a man made construct just as 'money' 'materials' 'power' and all the rest of the CrAss is merely insignificant and ultimately avoidment of the 'truth' ie we 'own' nothing . . . nothing at all . . . and in the great space of things we really really do not matter at all . . . only our egos insist 'otherwise' . . .
Could you pop back tomorrow and tell us what your opinion is on the bridge? Maybe keep off the blow this time?
[quote][p][bold]gurgles[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Archiebold the 1st[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]gurgles[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Archiebold the 1st[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]gurgles[/bold] wrote: small space + more cars = less space + more cars = less space + more cars = less space until eventually no space left for any cars or even space left for any space . . . York is not designed for the combustion engine never has been never will be quite simple really do you want little space or do you want no space to drive your cars . . .[/p][/quote]do you know what that bridge was used for at first??? ha[/p][/quote]prob to bridge the lack of immagination . . re the combustion engine which paradoxically if discovered today would be dismissed instantly as a completely inefficient method for motorising vehicles which still leaves the problem of space for the machines and space for the the human ego either way something has to give no room for both . . .[/p][/quote]Clever... someone’s been eating their brown rice. Not once has your argument come up. Not one comment regarding there is no space for my car. Believe it or not houses or flats are built with these "spaces" and to use a car for transport to a destination requires a "space" at the end. The problem is the diversion of all the traffic (previously shared between "spaces") into 1x "space". Which using my human ego and combustion like mind means that one area has more space then another causing traffic not an overall lack of "space"?[/p][/quote]space is full of brown rice and even fuller of car spaces with no space left for them . . . now the human ego ? gosh that is a whole universe of space full of basically - emptiness once the froth has been distilled away into the ether . . . we do not 'own' this land we do not even 'own' anything 'ownership' of space is a man made construct just as 'money' 'materials' 'power' and all the rest of the CrAss is merely insignificant and ultimately avoidment of the 'truth' ie we 'own' nothing . . . nothing at all . . . and in the great space of things we really really do not matter at all . . . only our egos insist 'otherwise' . . .[/p][/quote]Could you pop back tomorrow and tell us what your opinion is on the bridge? Maybe keep off the blow this time? inthesticks
  • Score: -41

6:44am Wed 26 Feb 14

anistasia says...

anti-rant wrote:
I would be interested to see the statistics linking the bridge closure to a downturn in city centre business. Moving the football team to the edge of town would probably have a more negative impact on trade than the allegations about the bridge.
I would like the council to answer this one 50 years Clifton bridge wad opened to help traffic flow through the city.so why 50 years later when we have more traffic on the road you decide to close a bridge.the main bridge to get to York station.bridges are built for a purpose to use them.
[quote][p][bold]anti-rant[/bold] wrote: I would be interested to see the statistics linking the bridge closure to a downturn in city centre business. Moving the football team to the edge of town would probably have a more negative impact on trade than the allegations about the bridge.[/p][/quote]I would like the council to answer this one 50 years Clifton bridge wad opened to help traffic flow through the city.so why 50 years later when we have more traffic on the road you decide to close a bridge.the main bridge to get to York station.bridges are built for a purpose to use them. anistasia
  • Score: 2

7:04am Wed 26 Feb 14

oi oi savaloy says...

Nik Brown of the University of York says cars are an inefficient form of transport and are squeezing the life out of public spaces. He says York risks becoming a city rammed with cars.

interesting that nik is to do with the uni, since the doubling up on students in York , the gridlock as got far worse. Also the reduction in blue collar jobs and the rise of white collar jobs as had an impact on traffic,thousands of men and women who worked at the carraigeworks , terry's ,vicar's, monroe's etc went to work on their push bike's! office workers in general are too lazy to jump on a bike to go to work (you might get the odd one, but i will wager that he/she was born in York and didn't re locate here).

Back to the students, a house near me as 4 students in it, each as a car, 4 cars outside a mid terrace ,squeezing the life out what was a nice little street,( they are not the only students in the street, i just don't know the car situation of the others) you don't see them biking tho!
Nik Brown of the University of York says cars are an inefficient form of transport and are squeezing the life out of public spaces. He says York risks becoming a city rammed with cars. interesting that nik is to do with the uni, since the doubling up on students in York , the gridlock as got far worse. Also the reduction in blue collar jobs and the rise of white collar jobs as had an impact on traffic,thousands of men and women who worked at the carraigeworks , terry's ,vicar's, monroe's etc went to work on their push bike's! office workers in general are too lazy to jump on a bike to go to work (you might get the odd one, but i will wager that he/she was born in York and didn't re locate here). Back to the students, a house near me as 4 students in it, each as a car, 4 cars outside a mid terrace ,squeezing the life out what was a nice little street,( they are not the only students in the street, i just don't know the car situation of the others) you don't see them biking tho! oi oi savaloy
  • Score: -4

7:44am Wed 26 Feb 14

Igiveinthen says...

oi oi savaloy wrote:
Nik Brown of the University of York says cars are an inefficient form of transport and are squeezing the life out of public spaces. He says York risks becoming a city rammed with cars.

interesting that nik is to do with the uni, since the doubling up on students in York , the gridlock as got far worse. Also the reduction in blue collar jobs and the rise of white collar jobs as had an impact on traffic,thousands of men and women who worked at the carraigeworks , terry's ,vicar's, monroe's etc went to work on their push bike's! office workers in general are too lazy to jump on a bike to go to work (you might get the odd one, but i will wager that he/she was born in York and didn't re locate here).

Back to the students, a house near me as 4 students in it, each as a car, 4 cars outside a mid terrace ,squeezing the life out what was a nice little street,( they are not the only students in the street, i just don't know the car situation of the others) you don't see them biking tho!
Do you by any chance live in the Heslington Road area of York? I do and it is noticeable how many cars are owned by students, the main Heslington Road and side streets that are usually full of cars are noticeably empty at the end of Unversity terms, I think Nick Brown of the University of York should eat his words!!
[quote][p][bold]oi oi savaloy[/bold] wrote: Nik Brown of the University of York says cars are an inefficient form of transport and are squeezing the life out of public spaces. He says York risks becoming a city rammed with cars. interesting that nik is to do with the uni, since the doubling up on students in York , the gridlock as got far worse. Also the reduction in blue collar jobs and the rise of white collar jobs as had an impact on traffic,thousands of men and women who worked at the carraigeworks , terry's ,vicar's, monroe's etc went to work on their push bike's! office workers in general are too lazy to jump on a bike to go to work (you might get the odd one, but i will wager that he/she was born in York and didn't re locate here). Back to the students, a house near me as 4 students in it, each as a car, 4 cars outside a mid terrace ,squeezing the life out what was a nice little street,( they are not the only students in the street, i just don't know the car situation of the others) you don't see them biking tho![/p][/quote]Do you by any chance live in the Heslington Road area of York? I do and it is noticeable how many cars are owned by students, the main Heslington Road and side streets that are usually full of cars are noticeably empty at the end of Unversity terms, I think Nick Brown of the University of York should eat his words!! Igiveinthen
  • Score: 3

8:16am Wed 26 Feb 14

oldgoat says...

EleRogers wrote:
Nik Brown has some excellent comments on maximising utility of the bridge. I feel air quality has improved and it's easier for mass transport. Getting more people in and out of our city must only be good for business, and perhaps there will be a period of adapting to the alternative car routes but if there's solid transport options for that traffic to abandon the car then that's even better!A lot of articles commenting on tourism seem to overlook the masses of people who come via East Coast line from London or Edinburgh and crossing Lendal Bridge on foot is their first experience of our city. Do agree however that if made permanent red asphalt or similar to assist unfamiliar drivers would be good. It's going to be an exciting ruling from CYC!

Perhaps a few drivers could fall in love with a bicycle...?
A bicycle is useless for many things, but all transport forms have their place, otherwise some would never get used......

By Nik Brown's logic, we'd close all cities and motorways and force everyone to use buses and trains, regardless of how much more time it then takes to get anywhere.
Does he also allow for taxis travelling to a fare pickup, when only the driver is in the car?
And what about the number of buses with two passengers on board?

Could I point out that walking from the station, past the city walls and Station Rise comes before Lendal Bridge, assuming of course they are not heading for any of the several hotels up Blossom Street.....
[quote][p][bold]EleRogers[/bold] wrote: Nik Brown has some excellent comments on maximising utility of the bridge. I feel air quality has improved and it's easier for mass transport. Getting more people in and out of our city must only be good for business, and perhaps there will be a period of adapting to the alternative car routes but if there's solid transport options for that traffic to abandon the car then that's even better!A lot of articles commenting on tourism seem to overlook the masses of people who come via East Coast line from London or Edinburgh and crossing Lendal Bridge on foot is their first experience of our city. Do agree however that if made permanent red asphalt or similar to assist unfamiliar drivers would be good. It's going to be an exciting ruling from CYC! Perhaps a few drivers could fall in love with a bicycle...?[/p][/quote]A bicycle is useless for many things, but all transport forms have their place, otherwise some would never get used...... By Nik Brown's logic, we'd close all cities and motorways and force everyone to use buses and trains, regardless of how much more time it then takes to get anywhere. Does he also allow for taxis travelling to a fare pickup, when only the driver is in the car? And what about the number of buses with two passengers on board? Could I point out that walking from the station, past the city walls and Station Rise comes before Lendal Bridge, assuming of course they are not heading for any of the several hotels up Blossom Street..... oldgoat
  • Score: 1

8:32am Wed 26 Feb 14

Archiebold the 1st says...

gurgles wrote:
Archiebold the 1st wrote:
gurgles wrote:
Archiebold the 1st wrote:
gurgles wrote: small space + more cars = less space + more cars = less space + more cars = less space until eventually no space left for any cars or even space left for any space . . . York is not designed for the combustion engine never has been never will be quite simple really do you want little space or do you want no space to drive your cars . . .
do you know what that bridge was used for at first??? ha
prob to bridge the lack of immagination . . re the combustion engine which paradoxically if discovered today would be dismissed instantly as a completely inefficient method for motorising vehicles which still leaves the problem of space for the machines and space for the the human ego either way something has to give no room for both . . .
Clever... someone’s been eating their brown rice. Not once has your argument come up. Not one comment regarding there is no space for my car. Believe it or not houses or flats are built with these "spaces" and to use a car for transport to a destination requires a "space" at the end. The problem is the diversion of all the traffic (previously shared between "spaces") into 1x "space". Which using my human ego and combustion like mind means that one area has more space then another causing traffic not an overall lack of "space"?
space is full of brown rice and even fuller of car spaces with no space left for them . . . now the human ego ? gosh that is a whole universe of space full of basically - emptiness once the froth has been distilled away into the ether . . . we do not 'own' this land we do not even 'own' anything 'ownership' of space is a man made construct just as 'money' 'materials' 'power' and all the rest of the CrAss is merely insignificant and ultimately avoidment of the 'truth' ie we 'own' nothing . . . nothing at all . . . and in the great space of things we really really do not matter at all . . . only our egos insist 'otherwise' . . .
YOU BLOW MY MIND!!! but if space is full of brown rice how can it be even fuller of cars? Its either full or not... and looking outside today there is plenty of space around but not a sight of brown rice? I'm so lost.... so do i own my ego? finally should i also drink my own urine?
[quote][p][bold]gurgles[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Archiebold the 1st[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]gurgles[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Archiebold the 1st[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]gurgles[/bold] wrote: small space + more cars = less space + more cars = less space + more cars = less space until eventually no space left for any cars or even space left for any space . . . York is not designed for the combustion engine never has been never will be quite simple really do you want little space or do you want no space to drive your cars . . .[/p][/quote]do you know what that bridge was used for at first??? ha[/p][/quote]prob to bridge the lack of immagination . . re the combustion engine which paradoxically if discovered today would be dismissed instantly as a completely inefficient method for motorising vehicles which still leaves the problem of space for the machines and space for the the human ego either way something has to give no room for both . . .[/p][/quote]Clever... someone’s been eating their brown rice. Not once has your argument come up. Not one comment regarding there is no space for my car. Believe it or not houses or flats are built with these "spaces" and to use a car for transport to a destination requires a "space" at the end. The problem is the diversion of all the traffic (previously shared between "spaces") into 1x "space". Which using my human ego and combustion like mind means that one area has more space then another causing traffic not an overall lack of "space"?[/p][/quote]space is full of brown rice and even fuller of car spaces with no space left for them . . . now the human ego ? gosh that is a whole universe of space full of basically - emptiness once the froth has been distilled away into the ether . . . we do not 'own' this land we do not even 'own' anything 'ownership' of space is a man made construct just as 'money' 'materials' 'power' and all the rest of the CrAss is merely insignificant and ultimately avoidment of the 'truth' ie we 'own' nothing . . . nothing at all . . . and in the great space of things we really really do not matter at all . . . only our egos insist 'otherwise' . . .[/p][/quote]YOU BLOW MY MIND!!! but if space is full of brown rice how can it be even fuller of cars? Its either full or not... and looking outside today there is plenty of space around but not a sight of brown rice? I'm so lost.... so do i own my ego? finally should i also drink my own urine? Archiebold the 1st
  • Score: -3

8:52am Wed 26 Feb 14

AGuyFromStrensall says...

So basically in an attempt to distill this whole 100+ comments.

95% of the conversation boils down to two groups:

a) One smaller group of people that live closeish to the bridge and can afford to walk/cycle over it without losing time
b) One much larger group (due to circumstance) that don't have the blind luck to live close.

Half of the post seem to be group a) being unable to entertain the thought that group b) could exist or have any valid opinion on the topic

(On a related note Guess which group most of the council seem to fall into)
So basically in an attempt to distill this whole 100+ comments. 95% of the conversation boils down to two groups: a) One smaller group of people that live closeish to the bridge and can afford to walk/cycle over it without losing time b) One much larger group (due to circumstance) that don't have the blind luck to live close. Half of the post seem to be group a) being unable to entertain the thought that group b) could exist or have any valid opinion on the topic (On a related note Guess which group most of the council seem to fall into) AGuyFromStrensall
  • Score: 4

9:53am Wed 26 Feb 14

hokey cokey says...

AGuyFromStrensall wrote:
So basically in an attempt to distill this whole 100+ comments.

95% of the conversation boils down to two groups:

a) One smaller group of people that live closeish to the bridge and can afford to walk/cycle over it without losing time
b) One much larger group (due to circumstance) that don't have the blind luck to live close.

Half of the post seem to be group a) being unable to entertain the thought that group b) could exist or have any valid opinion on the topic

(On a related note Guess which group most of the council seem to fall into)
The real reason why so many people from out of town have been caught is because they have seen the signs but have decided to drive on because they think they won't get caught for example traffic driving up Piccadilly and St Saviourgate during Access only hours or cars driving through the City Centre Pedestrian Zone. The guy from Hull who appealed against his fine for driving along Coppergate must have broken traffic regulations by driving up Piccadilly.
[quote][p][bold]AGuyFromStrensall[/bold] wrote: So basically in an attempt to distill this whole 100+ comments. 95% of the conversation boils down to two groups: a) One smaller group of people that live closeish to the bridge and can afford to walk/cycle over it without losing time b) One much larger group (due to circumstance) that don't have the blind luck to live close. Half of the post seem to be group a) being unable to entertain the thought that group b) could exist or have any valid opinion on the topic (On a related note Guess which group most of the council seem to fall into)[/p][/quote]The real reason why so many people from out of town have been caught is because they have seen the signs but have decided to drive on because they think they won't get caught for example traffic driving up Piccadilly and St Saviourgate during Access only hours or cars driving through the City Centre Pedestrian Zone. The guy from Hull who appealed against his fine for driving along Coppergate must have broken traffic regulations by driving up Piccadilly. hokey cokey
  • Score: -22

10:40am Wed 26 Feb 14

strangebuttrue? says...

Having closed the bridge to many York residents another noteworthy piece of traffic constriction was put in place just before the closure namely the new lights and phasing of the same at the junction of Tower Street Fishergate. Interesting to note how before these were put in place queues around here were rare and seldom did you see more than one car waiting to get off Fishergate onto Paragon. These lights now follow the familiar pattern of others around the city by changing to red at every fourth vehicle which has created queues and congestion seldom seen before here. Now that Lendal Bridge is closed much more traffic goes this way causing even more congestion and pollution. Another shrewd bit of forward planning by the council I suspect?
Having closed the bridge to many York residents another noteworthy piece of traffic constriction was put in place just before the closure namely the new lights and phasing of the same at the junction of Tower Street Fishergate. Interesting to note how before these were put in place queues around here were rare and seldom did you see more than one car waiting to get off Fishergate onto Paragon. These lights now follow the familiar pattern of others around the city by changing to red at every fourth vehicle which has created queues and congestion seldom seen before here. Now that Lendal Bridge is closed much more traffic goes this way causing even more congestion and pollution. Another shrewd bit of forward planning by the council I suspect? strangebuttrue?
  • Score: 2

10:52am Wed 26 Feb 14

m dee says...

Buzzz Light-year wrote:
CaroleBaines wrote:
Where is Rocking Horse? Been quiet these last few days. Uncharacteristically


!
My guess is...
Banned yet again.

And just like when the disruptive teenagers go back to college or the grandma with alzheimers goes back to care or the schizophrenic friend starts taking his meds again, it's quite a relief.
These posters sound like they are on here to stir things up rather then debate the issue.
[quote][p][bold]Buzzz Light-year[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]CaroleBaines[/bold] wrote: Where is Rocking Horse? Been quiet these last few days. Uncharacteristically ![/p][/quote]My guess is... Banned yet again. And just like when the disruptive teenagers go back to college or the grandma with alzheimers goes back to care or the schizophrenic friend starts taking his meds again, it's quite a relief.[/p][/quote]These posters sound like they are on here to stir things up rather then debate the issue. m dee
  • Score: -11

10:55am Wed 26 Feb 14

alanyork says...

MrsHoney wrote:
It amazes me that people think that the closure of one bridge on the edge of the centre suddenly makes visiting York a far superior experience. I must admit, I don't often venture to that side of town but when I did, I didn't particularly find having to wait a few seconds longer to cross the road that much of an inconvenience. Especially in comparison to the inconvenience it's caused drivers, visitors and business owners. What is so great about there being less traffic along a small stretch of road?! Are people so incapable of walking on the pavement? I just don't get it.
well said Mrs Honey the Visitors to OUR CITY no nothing about the council objections to closing a main artery of the Inner Ring-road and indeed would not want to. It doe's not spoil their enjoyment one bit , after all are they here to see Lendal Bridge ? NO i'm sure that is well down the list of things to see in York. Maybe London should close Westminster Bridge so all the Tourists can wander across at anytime (CAN YOU IMAGINE THAT HAPPENING)
Fat chance eh! Only YORK COUNCIL can consider something so idiotic ! !
[quote][p][bold]MrsHoney[/bold] wrote: It amazes me that people think that the closure of one bridge on the edge of the centre suddenly makes visiting York a far superior experience. I must admit, I don't often venture to that side of town but when I did, I didn't particularly find having to wait a few seconds longer to cross the road that much of an inconvenience. Especially in comparison to the inconvenience it's caused drivers, visitors and business owners. What is so great about there being less traffic along a small stretch of road?! Are people so incapable of walking on the pavement? I just don't get it.[/p][/quote]well said Mrs Honey the Visitors to OUR CITY no nothing about the council objections to closing a main artery of the Inner Ring-road and indeed would not want to. It doe's not spoil their enjoyment one bit , after all are they here to see Lendal Bridge ? NO i'm sure that is well down the list of things to see in York. Maybe London should close Westminster Bridge so all the Tourists can wander across at anytime (CAN YOU IMAGINE THAT HAPPENING) Fat chance eh! Only YORK COUNCIL can consider something so idiotic ! ! alanyork
  • Score: -9

11:14am Wed 26 Feb 14

alanyork says...

anistasia wrote:
anti-rant wrote:
I would be interested to see the statistics linking the bridge closure to a downturn in city centre business. Moving the football team to the edge of town would probably have a more negative impact on trade than the allegations about the bridge.
I would like the council to answer this one 50 years Clifton bridge wad opened to help traffic flow through the city.so why 50 years later when we have more traffic on the road you decide to close a bridge.the main bridge to get to York station.bridges are built for a purpose to use them.
Yes we used to play underneath THE OLD ARMY BRIDGE which all these years later connects so many people from one side of the river to the other well done. Why don't the Council shut this one as well and force everyone onto Bikes or Buses ? HA! HA ! HA ! sounds a bit crazy eh !
SOUNDS LIKE LENDAL BRIDGE PLAN, SUPER, LET'S DO IT AND ANNOY EVEN MORE OF OUR YORK RESIDENTS ! ! ! !
[quote][p][bold]anistasia[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]anti-rant[/bold] wrote: I would be interested to see the statistics linking the bridge closure to a downturn in city centre business. Moving the football team to the edge of town would probably have a more negative impact on trade than the allegations about the bridge.[/p][/quote]I would like the council to answer this one 50 years Clifton bridge wad opened to help traffic flow through the city.so why 50 years later when we have more traffic on the road you decide to close a bridge.the main bridge to get to York station.bridges are built for a purpose to use them.[/p][/quote]Yes we used to play underneath THE OLD ARMY BRIDGE which all these years later connects so many people from one side of the river to the other well done. Why don't the Council shut this one as well and force everyone onto Bikes or Buses ? HA! HA ! HA ! sounds a bit crazy eh ! SOUNDS LIKE LENDAL BRIDGE PLAN, SUPER, LET'S DO IT AND ANNOY EVEN MORE OF OUR YORK RESIDENTS ! ! ! ! alanyork
  • Score: -6

11:15am Wed 26 Feb 14

gurgles says...

Igiveinthen wrote:
gurgles wrote:
Archiebold the 1st wrote:
gurgles wrote:
small space + more cars = less space + more cars = less space + more cars = less space until eventually no space left for any cars or even space left for any space . . . York is not designed for the combustion engine never has been never will be quite simple really do you want little space or do you want no space to drive your cars . . .
do you know what that bridge was used for at first??? ha
prob to bridge the lack of immagination . . re the combustion engine which paradoxically if discovered today would be dismissed instantly as a completely inefficient method for motorising vehicles which still leaves the problem of space for the machines and space for the the human ego either way something has to give no room for both . . .
Can you clarify your statement ---- re the combustion engine which paradoxically if discovered today would be dismissed instantly as a completely inefficient method for motorising vehicles ---- against what method of propulsion?
H2O and Hydrogen propulsion residue of steam as waste been around since the 40's but research and developement was quashed by the Oil interests in the US and hence by default in the rest of the World . . .still leaves the problem of 'no space' no matter how we propel ourselves as we only have a finite 'space' for motorised engines of any type in city and town locations . . .and York is getting to the 'no space' scenario as are most towns and cities in the UK - sooner or later the cup is full to the brim only the delusional think otherwise . . .
[quote][p][bold]Igiveinthen[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]gurgles[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Archiebold the 1st[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]gurgles[/bold] wrote: small space + more cars = less space + more cars = less space + more cars = less space until eventually no space left for any cars or even space left for any space . . . York is not designed for the combustion engine never has been never will be quite simple really do you want little space or do you want no space to drive your cars . . .[/p][/quote]do you know what that bridge was used for at first??? ha[/p][/quote]prob to bridge the lack of immagination . . re the combustion engine which paradoxically if discovered today would be dismissed instantly as a completely inefficient method for motorising vehicles which still leaves the problem of space for the machines and space for the the human ego either way something has to give no room for both . . .[/p][/quote]Can you clarify your statement ---- re the combustion engine which paradoxically if discovered today would be dismissed instantly as a completely inefficient method for motorising vehicles ---- against what method of propulsion?[/p][/quote]H2O and Hydrogen propulsion residue of steam as waste been around since the 40's but research and developement was quashed by the Oil interests in the US and hence by default in the rest of the World . . .still leaves the problem of 'no space' no matter how we propel ourselves as we only have a finite 'space' for motorised engines of any type in city and town locations . . .and York is getting to the 'no space' scenario as are most towns and cities in the UK - sooner or later the cup is full to the brim only the delusional think otherwise . . . gurgles
  • Score: -28

11:43am Wed 26 Feb 14

strangebuttrue? says...

What is gurgles talking about? Does gurgles not know that the council have already published a report saying there is less volume of traffic now than in 2002!! and that the volume of traffic has not risen since it's lowest level in 2005. More recently they conceded there is even less traffic in the centre of York. Sorry but the council have already blown your argument right out of the water.
Perhaps you confuse the councils anti car policies which create congestion and the therefore the illusion of more traffic with reality.
What is gurgles talking about? Does gurgles not know that the council have already published a report saying there is less volume of traffic now than in 2002!! and that the volume of traffic has not risen since it's lowest level in 2005. More recently they conceded there is even less traffic in the centre of York. Sorry but the council have already blown your argument right out of the water. Perhaps you confuse the councils anti car policies which create congestion and the therefore the illusion of more traffic with reality. strangebuttrue?
  • Score: -1

11:52am Wed 26 Feb 14

Ignatius Lumpopo says...

How many of these correspondents actually live close to Lendal Bridge? Those of us who do are fed up with people complaining about the inconvenience of a route closure over a mile or more into their journey.... but what about those of us for whom Lendal Bridge is one of only three routes into or out of our homes? We have to troll over 2 miles further in either direction to get to drive to and from our homes. It's not just about people getting into York - there are some of us who have to get out.

No one asked us if this would be all right.
How many of these correspondents actually live close to Lendal Bridge? Those of us who do are fed up with people complaining about the inconvenience of a route closure over a mile or more into their journey.... but what about those of us for whom Lendal Bridge is one of only three routes into or out of our homes? We have to troll over 2 miles further in either direction to get to drive to and from our homes. It's not just about people getting into York - there are some of us who have to get out. No one asked us if this would be all right. Ignatius Lumpopo
  • Score: 4

11:55am Wed 26 Feb 14

JasBro says...

Traffic counts for cars from the DfT

2003 - 385,298
2006 - 397,532
2012 - 377,459

So there are actually less cars than a decade ago.
Traffic counts for cars from the DfT 2003 - 385,298 2006 - 397,532 2012 - 377,459 So there are actually less cars than a decade ago. JasBro
  • Score: 10

12:08pm Wed 26 Feb 14

JasBro says...

Traffic count for cars on Museum St in 2012 (the most recent year figures are available for), were lower than any year back to 2000 (the earliest year figures are available for).

2009-2012 shows a drop of 2,600
Traffic count for cars on Museum St in 2012 (the most recent year figures are available for), were lower than any year back to 2000 (the earliest year figures are available for). 2009-2012 shows a drop of 2,600 JasBro
  • Score: 8

12:12pm Wed 26 Feb 14

Archiebold the 1st says...

gurgles wrote:
Igiveinthen wrote:
gurgles wrote:
Archiebold the 1st wrote:
gurgles wrote: small space + more cars = less space + more cars = less space + more cars = less space until eventually no space left for any cars or even space left for any space . . . York is not designed for the combustion engine never has been never will be quite simple really do you want little space or do you want no space to drive your cars . . .
do you know what that bridge was used for at first??? ha
prob to bridge the lack of immagination . . re the combustion engine which paradoxically if discovered today would be dismissed instantly as a completely inefficient method for motorising vehicles which still leaves the problem of space for the machines and space for the the human ego either way something has to give no room for both . . .
Can you clarify your statement ---- re the combustion engine which paradoxically if discovered today would be dismissed instantly as a completely inefficient method for motorising vehicles ---- against what method of propulsion?
H2O and Hydrogen propulsion residue of steam as waste been around since the 40's but research and developement was quashed by the Oil interests in the US and hence by default in the rest of the World . . .still leaves the problem of 'no space' no matter how we propel ourselves as we only have a finite 'space' for motorised engines of any type in city and town locations . . .and York is getting to the 'no space' scenario as are most towns and cities in the UK - sooner or later the cup is full to the brim only the delusional think otherwise . . .
Having written papers on the future of transportation I do agree that in the future other methods of transport need to be built and the time is now for planning for such infrastructure... but currently there is enough space. But taking away lendal has lead to over crowding in other areas? No one can deny this. This is the point of the above article? That traffic has got worse as people who used to use lendal are now using other routes causing gridlock? it really isn’t hard to digest. This is not a space issue is a miss use of the existing space to its best capacity.

So until there is enough investment to open up closed stations or build a tram train infrastructure they need to play with what they have to maximise efficiencies. At the moment yorks transpiration is not efficient in any way. From cycle lanes, roads, lights, signs. Even to the extent that there are too many busses that run on certain routes and not enough on others.

You can not take away something from the people without giving them a suitable solution but york council have not done this... Imagine during the trial if they said bus fairs would be discounted? Or park and rides slashed? But no. they just did it without thinking of how people are going to commute. This has resulted in people still using their cars on a different route.

The closure had no purpose.
[quote][p][bold]gurgles[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Igiveinthen[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]gurgles[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Archiebold the 1st[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]gurgles[/bold] wrote: small space + more cars = less space + more cars = less space + more cars = less space until eventually no space left for any cars or even space left for any space . . . York is not designed for the combustion engine never has been never will be quite simple really do you want little space or do you want no space to drive your cars . . .[/p][/quote]do you know what that bridge was used for at first??? ha[/p][/quote]prob to bridge the lack of immagination . . re the combustion engine which paradoxically if discovered today would be dismissed instantly as a completely inefficient method for motorising vehicles which still leaves the problem of space for the machines and space for the the human ego either way something has to give no room for both . . .[/p][/quote]Can you clarify your statement ---- re the combustion engine which paradoxically if discovered today would be dismissed instantly as a completely inefficient method for motorising vehicles ---- against what method of propulsion?[/p][/quote]H2O and Hydrogen propulsion residue of steam as waste been around since the 40's but research and developement was quashed by the Oil interests in the US and hence by default in the rest of the World . . .still leaves the problem of 'no space' no matter how we propel ourselves as we only have a finite 'space' for motorised engines of any type in city and town locations . . .and York is getting to the 'no space' scenario as are most towns and cities in the UK - sooner or later the cup is full to the brim only the delusional think otherwise . . .[/p][/quote]Having written papers on the future of transportation I do agree that in the future other methods of transport need to be built and the time is now for planning for such infrastructure... but currently there is enough space. But taking away lendal has lead to over crowding in other areas? No one can deny this. This is the point of the above article? That traffic has got worse as people who used to use lendal are now using other routes causing gridlock? it really isn’t hard to digest. This is not a space issue is a miss use of the existing space to its best capacity. So until there is enough investment to open up closed stations or build a tram train infrastructure they need to play with what they have to maximise efficiencies. At the moment yorks transpiration is not efficient in any way. From cycle lanes, roads, lights, signs. Even to the extent that there are too many busses that run on certain routes and not enough on others. You can not take away something from the people without giving them a suitable solution but york council have not done this... Imagine during the trial if they said bus fairs would be discounted? Or park and rides slashed? But no. they just did it without thinking of how people are going to commute. This has resulted in people still using their cars on a different route. The closure had no purpose. Archiebold the 1st
  • Score: 1

12:17pm Wed 26 Feb 14

eeoodares says...

I asked a question at the start when they were talking about closing the bridge.

What is the objective of closing the bridge?

I still do not know what the point was, what they were hoping to gain by closing it.
1) It is not to pedestrianise it, because a bus will do as much damage if not more to a pedestrian.
2) Benefit to the City residents air quality, well those living down Leeman Road would disagree.
3) Improve bus times, nope.
4) Reduce the number of car journeys, they have been reducing for years.
5) Improve traffic flow, just sort the traffic light timings.

What I think is the real reason is the the Council has been taken over by a militant group of anti-car loons, who are ruining the City and the prospects of Labour ever getting into power again.
I asked a question at the start when they were talking about closing the bridge. What is the objective of closing the bridge? I still do not know what the point was, what they were hoping to gain by closing it. 1) It is not to pedestrianise it, because a bus will do as much damage if not more to a pedestrian. 2) Benefit to the City residents air quality, well those living down Leeman Road would disagree. 3) Improve bus times, nope. 4) Reduce the number of car journeys, they have been reducing for years. 5) Improve traffic flow, just sort the traffic light timings. What I think is the real reason is the the Council has been taken over by a militant group of anti-car loons, who are ruining the City and the prospects of Labour ever getting into power again. eeoodares
  • Score: 3

12:50pm Wed 26 Feb 14

Buzzz Light-year says...

m dee wrote:
Buzzz Light-year wrote:
CaroleBaines wrote:
Where is Rocking Horse? Been quiet these last few days. Uncharacteristically



!
My guess is...
Banned yet again.

And just like when the disruptive teenagers go back to college or the grandma with alzheimers goes back to care or the schizophrenic friend starts taking his meds again, it's quite a relief.
These posters sound like they are on here to stir things up rather then debate the issue.
Not at all stirring.

I've expressed my opinion on the bridge many times.
With over 100 comments here and the thousands upon thousands of words already written and printed, not to mention the received opinion that no-one is listening anyway, one can end up wondering what's the point? There is little I can add.

I'm happy to read what others have to say and happened to comment on Carol Baines observation of the notable absence of a vociferous and disruptive user here, an absence not unlike a breath of fresh air.
[quote][p][bold]m dee[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Buzzz Light-year[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]CaroleBaines[/bold] wrote: Where is Rocking Horse? Been quiet these last few days. Uncharacteristically ![/p][/quote]My guess is... Banned yet again. And just like when the disruptive teenagers go back to college or the grandma with alzheimers goes back to care or the schizophrenic friend starts taking his meds again, it's quite a relief.[/p][/quote]These posters sound like they are on here to stir things up rather then debate the issue.[/p][/quote]Not at all stirring. I've expressed my opinion on the bridge many times. With over 100 comments here and the thousands upon thousands of words already written and printed, not to mention the received opinion that no-one is listening anyway, one can end up wondering what's the point? There is little I can add. I'm happy to read what others have to say and happened to comment on Carol Baines observation of the notable absence of a vociferous and disruptive user here, an absence not unlike a breath of fresh air. Buzzz Light-year
  • Score: -14

3:40pm Wed 26 Feb 14

HoofHearteds says...

JasBro wrote:
Traffic counts for cars from the DfT

2003 - 385,298
2006 - 397,532
2012 - 377,459

So there are actually less cars than a decade ago.
There are four kinds of lies...Lies - **** lies - statistics and statistics used to support a bigoted opinion.

Everyone can see traffic flow through York is getting worse year on year. Only a person obsessed with a council decision to preserve the city it's elected to care for, would attempt to argue otherwise.
[quote][p][bold]JasBro[/bold] wrote: Traffic counts for cars from the DfT 2003 - 385,298 2006 - 397,532 2012 - 377,459 So there are actually less cars than a decade ago.[/p][/quote]There are four kinds of lies...Lies - **** lies - statistics and statistics used to support a bigoted opinion. Everyone can see traffic flow through York is getting worse year on year. Only a person obsessed with a council decision to preserve the city it's elected to care for, would attempt to argue otherwise. HoofHearteds
  • Score: -41

3:45pm Wed 26 Feb 14

CaroleBaines says...

m dee wrote:
Buzzz Light-year wrote:
CaroleBaines wrote:
Where is Rocking Horse? Been quiet these last few days. Uncharacteristically



!
My guess is...
Banned yet again.

And just like when the disruptive teenagers go back to college or the grandma with alzheimers goes back to care or the schizophrenic friend starts taking his meds again, it's quite a relief.
These posters sound like they are on here to stir things up rather then debate the issue.
My goodness! If Rocking Horse were here he would certainly believe you to be worthy of one of his Marxist stooge labels - is one not allowed to ask questions nowadays? Is this Stalinist USSR, as he might say!? Got to laugh and no - am most certainly not stirring it, for heaven's sake - a mere ponder.
[quote][p][bold]m dee[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Buzzz Light-year[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]CaroleBaines[/bold] wrote: Where is Rocking Horse? Been quiet these last few days. Uncharacteristically ![/p][/quote]My guess is... Banned yet again. And just like when the disruptive teenagers go back to college or the grandma with alzheimers goes back to care or the schizophrenic friend starts taking his meds again, it's quite a relief.[/p][/quote]These posters sound like they are on here to stir things up rather then debate the issue.[/p][/quote]My goodness! If Rocking Horse were here he would certainly believe you to be worthy of one of his Marxist stooge labels - is one not allowed to ask questions nowadays? Is this Stalinist USSR, as he might say!? Got to laugh and no - am most certainly not stirring it, for heaven's sake - a mere ponder. CaroleBaines
  • Score: -13

4:16pm Wed 26 Feb 14

JasBro says...

HoofHearteds wrote:
JasBro wrote:
Traffic counts for cars from the DfT

2003 - 385,298
2006 - 397,532
2012 - 377,459

So there are actually less cars than a decade ago.
There are four kinds of lies...Lies - **** lies - statistics and statistics used to support a bigoted opinion.

Everyone can see traffic flow through York is getting worse year on year. Only a person obsessed with a council decision to preserve the city it's elected to care for, would attempt to argue otherwise.
They're not my figures, they're from the Department for Transport..

http://www.dft.gov.u
k/traffic-counts/are
a.php?region=Yorkshi
re+and+The+Humber&la
=York
[quote][p][bold]HoofHearteds[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]JasBro[/bold] wrote: Traffic counts for cars from the DfT 2003 - 385,298 2006 - 397,532 2012 - 377,459 So there are actually less cars than a decade ago.[/p][/quote]There are four kinds of lies...Lies - **** lies - statistics and statistics used to support a bigoted opinion. Everyone can see traffic flow through York is getting worse year on year. Only a person obsessed with a council decision to preserve the city it's elected to care for, would attempt to argue otherwise.[/p][/quote]They're not my figures, they're from the Department for Transport.. http://www.dft.gov.u k/traffic-counts/are a.php?region=Yorkshi re+and+The+Humber&la =York JasBro
  • Score: 17

4:26pm Wed 26 Feb 14

nowthen says...

If you want a straight answer about Lendal Bridge don't ask this Councillor : http://www.youtube.c
om/watch?v=VAWpWz-pz
sM&feature=youtu.be reading between the lines it's going to be permanent , end of , Dave's Realm Rules !
If you want a straight answer about Lendal Bridge don't ask this Councillor : http://www.youtube.c om/watch?v=VAWpWz-pz sM&feature=youtu.be reading between the lines it's going to be permanent , end of , Dave's Realm Rules ! nowthen
  • Score: 3

4:32pm Wed 26 Feb 14

strangebuttrue? says...

HoofHearteds wrote:
JasBro wrote:
Traffic counts for cars from the DfT

2003 - 385,298
2006 - 397,532
2012 - 377,459

So there are actually less cars than a decade ago.
There are four kinds of lies...Lies - **** lies - statistics and statistics used to support a bigoted opinion.

Everyone can see traffic flow through York is getting worse year on year. Only a person obsessed with a council decision to preserve the city it's elected to care for, would attempt to argue otherwise.
Yes there are lies and there are misleading comments.

Everyone knows that traffic flow is getting worse but that has nothing to do with the volume of traffic. What it does have to do with is the anti car council and the way that the traffic is, in Mr Merrett's own words, "constrained".

This is achieved in several ways in York and one of the most used is traffic lights. Everyone knows traffic flow is getting worse but everyone also knows that every time a set of lights fail all the traffic disappears and the reason for this? It is not longer being "constrained" and has got to it's intended destination.

I could go on about closing roads, putting in more traffic lights, taking out carriageway space, bus gates, cyclist being encouraged to get in everyone else's way (thankfully most are too sensible to do this) but we all know the form.

As for those elected to care for our city - well bring on the next election I won't make the same mistake ever again.
[quote][p][bold]HoofHearteds[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]JasBro[/bold] wrote: Traffic counts for cars from the DfT 2003 - 385,298 2006 - 397,532 2012 - 377,459 So there are actually less cars than a decade ago.[/p][/quote]There are four kinds of lies...Lies - **** lies - statistics and statistics used to support a bigoted opinion. Everyone can see traffic flow through York is getting worse year on year. Only a person obsessed with a council decision to preserve the city it's elected to care for, would attempt to argue otherwise.[/p][/quote]Yes there are lies and there are misleading comments. Everyone knows that traffic flow is getting worse but that has nothing to do with the volume of traffic. What it does have to do with is the anti car council and the way that the traffic is, in Mr Merrett's own words, "constrained". This is achieved in several ways in York and one of the most used is traffic lights. Everyone knows traffic flow is getting worse but everyone also knows that every time a set of lights fail all the traffic disappears and the reason for this? It is not longer being "constrained" and has got to it's intended destination. I could go on about closing roads, putting in more traffic lights, taking out carriageway space, bus gates, cyclist being encouraged to get in everyone else's way (thankfully most are too sensible to do this) but we all know the form. As for those elected to care for our city - well bring on the next election I won't make the same mistake ever again. strangebuttrue?
  • Score: 14

4:36pm Wed 26 Feb 14

strangebuttrue? says...

And by the way name calling "bigoted opinion" is usually used here by minority campaigners who have no real argument and just want to try the old put down to stop others giving their opinion.
And by the way name calling "bigoted opinion" is usually used here by minority campaigners who have no real argument and just want to try the old put down to stop others giving their opinion. strangebuttrue?
  • Score: 9

4:54pm Wed 26 Feb 14

tricky1992000 says...

I have had enough of ideological idiots, they state the Bridge should not be open, because cars are baaaaaaaaad, but they are happy that people have to add on at least 15 minutes to their trip because they have to go down either waterlane, or the outer ring road.
I have had enough of ideological idiots, they state the Bridge should not be open, because cars are baaaaaaaaad, but they are happy that people have to add on at least 15 minutes to their trip because they have to go down either waterlane, or the outer ring road. tricky1992000
  • Score: 2

5:28pm Wed 26 Feb 14

HoofHearteds says...

A bigoted opinion isn't name calling. It's stating a factual explanation to certain people who thrive on negativity. To be more precise:

"a person who strongly and unfairly dislikes other people, ideas, etc. : a bigoted person; especially : a person who hates or refuses to accept the members of a particular group (such as a racial or religious group)"

As strangebuttrues clearly shown in their last post "used here by minority campaigners " You i'm afraid are a bigot!
A bigoted opinion isn't name calling. It's stating a factual explanation to certain people who thrive on negativity. To be more precise: "a person who strongly and unfairly dislikes other people, ideas, etc. : a bigoted person; especially : a person who hates or refuses to accept the members of a particular group (such as a racial or religious group)" As strangebuttrues clearly shown in their last post "used here by minority campaigners " You i'm afraid are a bigot! HoofHearteds
  • Score: -53

5:52pm Wed 26 Feb 14

Ichabod76 says...

HoofHearteds wrote:
JasBro wrote:
Traffic counts for cars from the DfT

2003 - 385,298
2006 - 397,532
2012 - 377,459

So there are actually less cars than a decade ago.
There are four kinds of lies...Lies - **** lies - statistics and statistics used to support a bigoted opinion.

Everyone can see traffic flow through York is getting worse year on year. Only a person obsessed with a council decision to preserve the city it's elected to care for, would attempt to argue otherwise.
Hoofarted

Care to offer an explanation - opinion as to why the number of vehicles has dropped but congestion and pollution has risen ?
[quote][p][bold]HoofHearteds[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]JasBro[/bold] wrote: Traffic counts for cars from the DfT 2003 - 385,298 2006 - 397,532 2012 - 377,459 So there are actually less cars than a decade ago.[/p][/quote]There are four kinds of lies...Lies - **** lies - statistics and statistics used to support a bigoted opinion. Everyone can see traffic flow through York is getting worse year on year. Only a person obsessed with a council decision to preserve the city it's elected to care for, would attempt to argue otherwise.[/p][/quote]Hoofarted Care to offer an explanation - opinion as to why the number of vehicles has dropped but congestion and pollution has risen ? Ichabod76
  • Score: 10

6:12pm Wed 26 Feb 14

strangebuttrue? says...

HoofHearteds wrote:
A bigoted opinion isn't name calling. It's stating a factual explanation to certain people who thrive on negativity. To be more precise:

"a person who strongly and unfairly dislikes other people, ideas, etc. : a bigoted person; especially : a person who hates or refuses to accept the members of a particular group (such as a racial or religious group)"

As strangebuttrues clearly shown in their last post "used here by minority campaigners " You i'm afraid are a bigot!
There you go can't resist can you!! Grow up.
[quote][p][bold]HoofHearteds[/bold] wrote: A bigoted opinion isn't name calling. It's stating a factual explanation to certain people who thrive on negativity. To be more precise: "a person who strongly and unfairly dislikes other people, ideas, etc. : a bigoted person; especially : a person who hates or refuses to accept the members of a particular group (such as a racial or religious group)" As strangebuttrues clearly shown in their last post "used here by minority campaigners " You i'm afraid are a bigot![/p][/quote]There you go can't resist can you!! Grow up. strangebuttrue?
  • Score: 1

6:13pm Wed 26 Feb 14

acomblass says...

I have tried to go on line to complete the short questionnaire but all I get is a page saying "Thanks for completing this survey - now create your own"
Is anyone else having this problem?
I have tried to go on line to complete the short questionnaire but all I get is a page saying "Thanks for completing this survey - now create your own" Is anyone else having this problem? acomblass
  • Score: -20

6:31pm Wed 26 Feb 14

meme says...

It may be complete coincidence but the Southern ring road A64 in the mornings is now nose to tail from taddy rd junction to designer centre junction due to the back up of cars off the Fulford road
It was never like this before the bridge closed but is hell now...why?
all the bridge closure has done is create bad news and huge fines for tourists The bridge is no better an experience for pedestrians etc
If its going to be closed close it fully not allow stinking busses and hordes of taxis over it.
Busses could stop at each end and people could walk over it or take another route. this half hearted closure is bad news for everyone; either abandon it or do it properly but stop messing around CoYC, man up and and make some real decisions, as you are finished anyway because for whatever reason no one really trusts you anymore with facts right or wrong.
It may be complete coincidence but the Southern ring road A64 in the mornings is now nose to tail from taddy rd junction to designer centre junction due to the back up of cars off the Fulford road[A19] It was never like this before the bridge closed but is hell now...why? all the bridge closure has done is create bad news and huge fines for tourists The bridge is no better an experience for pedestrians etc If its going to be closed close it fully not allow stinking busses and hordes of taxis over it. Busses could stop at each end and people could walk over it or take another route. this half hearted closure is bad news for everyone; either abandon it or do it properly but stop messing around CoYC, man up and and make some real decisions, as you are finished anyway because for whatever reason no one really trusts you anymore with facts right or wrong. meme
  • Score: -4

6:54pm Wed 26 Feb 14

Yorkdad says...

The bridge closure is nothing but a money making exercise if it was really about calming the traffic they would of installed retracting bollards like the one in operation on stonebow, this would of stopped the traffic altogether rather then allowing unfamiliar drivers in the city to drive straight into what is essentially a trap.
The bridge closure is nothing but a money making exercise if it was really about calming the traffic they would of installed retracting bollards like the one in operation on stonebow, this would of stopped the traffic altogether rather then allowing unfamiliar drivers in the city to drive straight into what is essentially a trap. Yorkdad
  • Score: -7

7:18pm Wed 26 Feb 14

wallman says...

gibarch wrote:
Although sceptical before the closure I have found my car journey times have improved from Fulford Road area across York ( including travel to Monks Cross twice a week at 5pm, De Grey Rooms on a Saturday morning). Even a trip to the Leeman Road sorting office was faster.
then you woke up
[quote][p][bold]gibarch[/bold] wrote: Although sceptical before the closure I have found my car journey times have improved from Fulford Road area across York ( including travel to Monks Cross twice a week at 5pm, De Grey Rooms on a Saturday morning). Even a trip to the Leeman Road sorting office was faster.[/p][/quote]then you woke up wallman
  • Score: -11

8:28pm Wed 26 Feb 14

Silver says...

Wait till it's 7 to 7, the school rush is going to line the council's pockets
Wait till it's 7 to 7, the school rush is going to line the council's pockets Silver
  • Score: -7

8:48pm Wed 26 Feb 14

strangebuttrue? says...

acomblass wrote:
I have tried to go on line to complete the short questionnaire but all I get is a page saying "Thanks for completing this survey - now create your own"
Is anyone else having this problem?
Usually comes up when you have already done the survey. The score adjuster may know a way round this!
[quote][p][bold]acomblass[/bold] wrote: I have tried to go on line to complete the short questionnaire but all I get is a page saying "Thanks for completing this survey - now create your own" Is anyone else having this problem?[/p][/quote]Usually comes up when you have already done the survey. The score adjuster may know a way round this! strangebuttrue?
  • Score: -4

9:04pm Wed 26 Feb 14

Athelstan30 says...

I have recently moved to York, so I have no bias regarding the council, but my experience this week in trying to get my partially sighted daughter in law from Huntington to the Railway Station involved a lot of driving through housing estates, where the parking and volume of traffic seemed inappropriate. I use the bus as often as I can, and the reail from Poppleton is useful to get to the city centre, but the Lendal closure is poorly signed, especially the flashing signs, that in strong sunlight are virtually unreadable. As a retired Traffic Manager in another authority, this scheme appears porrly though out, and poorly administered.
I have recently moved to York, so I have no bias regarding the council, but my experience this week in trying to get my partially sighted daughter in law from Huntington to the Railway Station involved a lot of driving through housing estates, where the parking and volume of traffic seemed inappropriate. I use the bus as often as I can, and the reail from Poppleton is useful to get to the city centre, but the Lendal closure is poorly signed, especially the flashing signs, that in strong sunlight are virtually unreadable. As a retired Traffic Manager in another authority, this scheme appears porrly though out, and poorly administered. Athelstan30
  • Score: -4

9:05pm Wed 26 Feb 14

Bo Jolly says...

eeoodares wrote:
I asked a question at the start when they were talking about closing the bridge.

What is the objective of closing the bridge?

I still do not know what the point was, what they were hoping to gain by closing it.
1) It is not to pedestrianise it, because a bus will do as much damage if not more to a pedestrian.
2) Benefit to the City residents air quality, well those living down Leeman Road would disagree.
3) Improve bus times, nope.
4) Reduce the number of car journeys, they have been reducing for years.
5) Improve traffic flow, just sort the traffic light timings.

What I think is the real reason is the the Council has been taken over by a militant group of anti-car loons, who are ruining the City and the prospects of Labour ever getting into power again.
Dead right eeoodares. "taken over by a militant group of anti-car loons" isn't far from the truth. And they've achieved a rare thing. Loads of people who were formerly staunch Labour voters (like me) have suddenly found themselves bed-fellows with lots of other people with whose fundamental politics they probably don't agree, all united in their opposition to this lunatic fringe and their replacement of rational transport planning with a policy of trying to stop car use by causing congestion!

Considering how far-reaching the negative effects of the bridge closure, in terms of extra congestion, have been and thus how many drivers of all political opinions and none have thus been p*ssed off by it I expect a serious political meltdown at the next election.

Lib Dems take note - if you want to be assured a win, start pinning your colours to the mast and come out against the closure.
[quote][p][bold]eeoodares[/bold] wrote: I asked a question at the start when they were talking about closing the bridge. What is the objective of closing the bridge? I still do not know what the point was, what they were hoping to gain by closing it. 1) It is not to pedestrianise it, because a bus will do as much damage if not more to a pedestrian. 2) Benefit to the City residents air quality, well those living down Leeman Road would disagree. 3) Improve bus times, nope. 4) Reduce the number of car journeys, they have been reducing for years. 5) Improve traffic flow, just sort the traffic light timings. What I think is the real reason is the the Council has been taken over by a militant group of anti-car loons, who are ruining the City and the prospects of Labour ever getting into power again.[/p][/quote]Dead right eeoodares. "taken over by a militant group of anti-car loons" isn't far from the truth. And they've achieved a rare thing. Loads of people who were formerly staunch Labour voters (like me) have suddenly found themselves bed-fellows with lots of other people with whose fundamental politics they probably don't agree, all united in their opposition to this lunatic fringe and their replacement of rational transport planning with a policy of trying to stop car use by causing congestion! Considering how far-reaching the negative effects of the bridge closure, in terms of extra congestion, have been and thus how many drivers of all political opinions and none have thus been p*ssed off by it I expect a serious political meltdown at the next election. Lib Dems take note - if you want to be assured a win, start pinning your colours to the mast and come out against the closure. Bo Jolly
  • Score: -5

9:15pm Wed 26 Feb 14

24.2.1969bestcitygoalever... says...

I avoid taking my car anywhere within 2 miles of the centre. Every alternative way is quicker. I often walk past lines of cars & buses going nowhere fast.

What is needed:
1. A completed, proper bypass
2. A much better low priced or even free public transport system, inside 3.
3. An exclusion zone....
I avoid taking my car anywhere within 2 miles of the centre. Every alternative way is quicker. I often walk past lines of cars & buses going nowhere fast. What is needed: 1. A completed, proper bypass 2. A much better low priced or even free public transport system, inside 3. 3. An exclusion zone.... 24.2.1969bestcitygoalever...
  • Score: -5

9:53pm Wed 26 Feb 14

Bo Jolly says...

24.2.1969bestcitygoa
lever...
wrote:
I avoid taking my car anywhere within 2 miles of the centre. Every alternative way is quicker. I often walk past lines of cars & buses going nowhere fast.

What is needed:
1. A completed, proper bypass
2. A much better low priced or even free public transport system, inside 3.
3. An exclusion zone....
This would work, and work very well (depending on the size of the exclusion zone you've got in mind). However all the council have sought to achieve is point 3, and on it's own it is *dumb*, causes masses of extra congestion, forces people driving to make extra-long journeys to get to their destinations, and encourages the private bus company to put up prices to maximise profit.

Years ago Sheffield Council introduced cheap flat rate bus fares and if I remember correctly the GLC did something similar on the London tube. In the heady days before privatisation the trains were cheap(ish) and were not, as they have become, a 'rich man's toy' as the Tory transport secretary so candidly admitted. Rational, sensible approaches to transport from days gone by... perhaps they need reviving.
[quote][p][bold]24.2.1969bestcitygoa lever...[/bold] wrote: I avoid taking my car anywhere within 2 miles of the centre. Every alternative way is quicker. I often walk past lines of cars & buses going nowhere fast. What is needed: 1. A completed, proper bypass 2. A much better low priced or even free public transport system, inside 3. 3. An exclusion zone....[/p][/quote]This would work, and work very well (depending on the size of the exclusion zone you've got in mind). However all the council have sought to achieve is point 3, and on it's own it is *dumb*, causes masses of extra congestion, forces people driving to make extra-long journeys to get to their destinations, and encourages the private bus company to put up prices to maximise profit. Years ago Sheffield Council introduced cheap flat rate bus fares and if I remember correctly the GLC did something similar on the London tube. In the heady days before privatisation the trains were cheap(ish) and were not, as they have become, a 'rich man's toy' as the Tory transport secretary so candidly admitted. Rational, sensible approaches to transport from days gone by... perhaps they need reviving. Bo Jolly
  • Score: -6

10:10pm Wed 26 Feb 14

strangebuttrue? says...

I see the fines story has reached the front page of the BBC news website now. £600K and counting.
Mr Merrett is surprised by the number of fines?
Hardly surprising where else do you come across a road to nowhere?

"The council said the figure of 45,000 fines did not take into account the number of drivers who might successfully appeal against a fine"

If a number of people successfully appeal and are not just those like taxi drivers then would not that mean a challenge could be made to refund all the fines? Wonder how much that would cost us on top of the lost business and lost of reputation and of course all of our personal losses in time and extra fuel.
I see the fines story has reached the front page of the BBC news website now. £600K and counting. Mr Merrett is surprised by the number of fines? Hardly surprising where else do you come across a road to nowhere? "The council said the figure of 45,000 fines did not take into account the number of drivers who might successfully appeal against a fine" If a number of people successfully appeal and are not just those like taxi drivers then would not that mean a challenge could be made to refund all the fines? Wonder how much that would cost us on top of the lost business and lost of reputation and of course all of our personal losses in time and extra fuel. strangebuttrue?
  • Score: -1

10:13pm Wed 26 Feb 14

Igiveinthen says...

Athelstan30 wrote:
I have recently moved to York, so I have no bias regarding the council, but my experience this week in trying to get my partially sighted daughter in law from Huntington to the Railway Station involved a lot of driving through housing estates, where the parking and volume of traffic seemed inappropriate. I use the bus as often as I can, and the reail from Poppleton is useful to get to the city centre, but the Lendal closure is poorly signed, especially the flashing signs, that in strong sunlight are virtually unreadable. As a retired Traffic Manager in another authority, this scheme appears porrly though out, and poorly administered.
Not very good at spelling, were you a good traffic manager? Nice comment though.
[quote][p][bold]Athelstan30[/bold] wrote: I have recently moved to York, so I have no bias regarding the council, but my experience this week in trying to get my partially sighted daughter in law from Huntington to the Railway Station involved a lot of driving through housing estates, where the parking and volume of traffic seemed inappropriate. I use the bus as often as I can, and the reail from Poppleton is useful to get to the city centre, but the Lendal closure is poorly signed, especially the flashing signs, that in strong sunlight are virtually unreadable. As a retired Traffic Manager in another authority, this scheme appears porrly though out, and poorly administered.[/p][/quote]Not very good at spelling, were you a good traffic manager? Nice comment though. Igiveinthen
  • Score: -7

10:43pm Wed 26 Feb 14

strangebuttrue? says...

So Mr Merrett's own reports say we have less traffic now in York and then he says, on the BBC web site.

"Tackling York's transport issues is fundamental to the success of the city. We are trying to make the right long-term decisions for York so it doesn't choke up,"

So why do you, in your own words "constrain" traffic flow if you trying to stop the city choking up? By constraining the flow of traffic are you not the one choking the city and all of it's residents?
So Mr Merrett's own reports say we have less traffic now in York and then he says, on the BBC web site. "Tackling York's transport issues is fundamental to the success of the city. We are trying to make the right long-term decisions for York so it doesn't choke up," So why do you, in your own words "constrain" traffic flow if you trying to stop the city choking up? By constraining the flow of traffic are you not the one choking the city and all of it's residents? strangebuttrue?
  • Score: 8

11:45pm Wed 26 Feb 14

Silver says...

Silver wrote:
Wait till it's 7 to 7, the school rush is going to line the council's pockets
Wow -11, yep the hacker at work there. Sorry if it's actually genuine but lets face it if you're a parent and your child goes to school the other side of the river and you're late for work what are your real options? Lose a day wages or mess up your child's education? Then if your child is SEN and needs medication and needs it ASAP what do you pick? I was for the trial closure if it was done intelligently, and it wasn't done
[quote][p][bold]Silver[/bold] wrote: Wait till it's 7 to 7, the school rush is going to line the council's pockets[/p][/quote]Wow -11, yep the hacker at work there. Sorry if it's actually genuine but lets face it if you're a parent and your child goes to school the other side of the river and you're late for work what are your real options? Lose a day wages or mess up your child's education? Then if your child is SEN and needs medication and needs it ASAP what do you pick? I was for the trial closure if it was done intelligently, and it wasn't done Silver
  • Score: 8

1:17am Thu 27 Feb 14

strangebuttrue? says...

Ahh yes the score adjuster has been at work. Makes you wonder if you can trust any data which shows the closure results?
Ahh yes the score adjuster has been at work. Makes you wonder if you can trust any data which shows the closure results? strangebuttrue?
  • Score: 7

3:02am Thu 27 Feb 14

Magicman! says...

There was a TV programme in the 1990's in which Victoria Wood travelled around a loop of northern England by train, her return journey had a bit of a layover period in York. In the programme she returns to the train station and what she said of york is that whilst the buildings are nice, the city is absolutely choked with cars and the pollution was making it hard to breathe, and that she was glad to be getitng back on a train and leaving....

Is THAT the impression of the city we want to be giving people the minute they step off the train - where they come out of the station and all they see is York Minster surrounded by an endless line of cars spanning right from Gillygate all the way back over the bridge and past the station, making it hard to cross the road and/or enjoy the views of the riverside area?

There is only ONE type of buisness in York that makes money without needing people to get out of their car, and that's a drive-through KFC or McDonalds... if you want to buy anything whilst in York, you have to walk to the shop concerned - and so shifting traffic away from the highly sensitive city centre streets to more outer radial routes is a good thing PROVIDING the target streets are improved to deal with the increased volume of traffic.

I remember the town of Kendal in the lake district... in 2001 when I visited there on a holiday, the main central street which housed the shopping arcades and independant traders was a 2-way street for all traffic on the A6, with only 1 pelican crossing provided for pedestrians. It was a nightmare trying to shop there, trying to think about purchases when in the background is the constant drone of traffic, the fumes getting into your throat, and the fact that if you wanted to cross the road you had to walk up the hill and wait for the lights to eventually change before going down the other side of the road. Since then that whole street has been pedestrianised, not even buses go down there now - and the result is a much nicer place to go around, and a better impression for visitors.

Cities and towns are not going to be nice places to drive around in; if you want a nice place to drive then go onto the motorway. Look at towns which are easy to drive through... they are generally sh!tholes dominated by a large dual carriageway slicing through the heart of the city/town taking people who are not stopping in the city/town to do buisness but just passing through to take their money elsewhere. More buisness is done when people can get around the shops at a leisurely pace. York should focus on improving orbital routes around the city so that the bulk of private traffic stays out of the city centre, and then develop a rapid transit link such as a tram network to get people into the city quickly and efficiently (guided bus lanes and trolleybuses would not work... a bus is a bus is a bus, and the perception of a bus is that 'it might not arrive' - whereas because a tram is stuck on its rails people know a tram will come along... plus much more effort goes into a tram system into making sure trams will run to time by means of priority systems in the heart of a city, such measures are skipped when it comes to buses... look at Leeds: bus lanes / guided bus lane along York Road, Kirkstall Road and Scott Hall Lane, but get closer towards the city centre and bus priority dissappears completely leaving the buses to get caught in the rest of the city congestion).


The current closure of Lendal Bridge is good in theory, but has been executed poorly. Back in the 1990's when there was a challenge show on TV called 'The Crystal Maze', there was a puzzle where water was pouring out of a pipe and to get the prize the contestant had to get water flowing through one particular pipe; but the order had to be done in the right way, by opening up some valves before closing others - if they closed off the valves first, the water went out of the relief pipe at the top and completely soaked the contestant. What York council have done is metaphorically soaked themselves, as they have closed off the 'valve' of lendal bridge but have NOT opened up other 'valves'.... Foss Islands Road being an example: why does Waitrose have its own set of traffic lights? I went along there today and, as with many other times I've gone along there heading towards Layerthorpe, I got a red light - a red light which went only so that only 2 cars emerged from waitrose and turned left thereby not coming into my direction of travel at all and so delaying my journey (because the next set of lights then went red as I approached) for no reason. A simple solution would be to make the Waitrose entrance a LILO (Left In, Left Out), and all traffic leaving there wanting to go to layerthorpe direction could go along James Street (and anybody who has driven there even though they only live in Walmgate or navigation Road can work things out for themselves seeing as they've decided to drive such a stupidly short journey)... Meanwhile, get a mini roundabout at the end of Navigation Road (and Piccadilly with its junction with Tower Street), widen the corner of Navigation Road and move parking to Percy's lane which would then become one-way-only, so that Navigation Road then becomes the exit from the city so that Walmgate Bar then becomes inbound only, taking away the traffic light set and assigning the 40 seconds of time either equally around the three other roads, or using sensors to assign it to whichever road has the biggest tailback of traffic... at Water End, align the road with Water Lane so both roads share the green light - both roads would get about 50 seconds of green time, but with no negative impact on the A19 as there'd actually be less time on red for Shipton Road and Bootham and so all traffic there would flow better (traffic wanting to turn right into Water Lane would be redirected to the Rawcliffe Lane junction which would then be a mini roundabout, and any traffic wanting to turn right out of Water Lane would be redirected the same way so that Water End could have 10 seconds longer on green for a right-turn filter to operate.... and the council might try and say that the grass of Clifton Green is a 'village green', but they've built a park and ride site on the 'village green' for Poppleton, so they got around the issues when they wanted to!!
There was a TV programme in the 1990's in which Victoria Wood travelled around a loop of northern England by train, her return journey had a bit of a layover period in York. In the programme she returns to the train station and what she said of york is that whilst the buildings are nice, the city is absolutely choked with cars and the pollution was making it hard to breathe, and that she was glad to be getitng back on a train and leaving.... Is THAT the impression of the city we want to be giving people the minute they step off the train - where they come out of the station and all they see is York Minster surrounded by an endless line of cars spanning right from Gillygate all the way back over the bridge and past the station, making it hard to cross the road and/or enjoy the views of the riverside area? There is only ONE type of buisness in York that makes money without needing people to get out of their car, and that's a drive-through KFC or McDonalds... if you want to buy anything whilst in York, you have to walk to the shop concerned - and so shifting traffic away from the highly sensitive city centre streets to more outer radial routes is a good thing PROVIDING the target streets are improved to deal with the increased volume of traffic. I remember the town of Kendal in the lake district... in 2001 when I visited there on a holiday, the main central street which housed the shopping arcades and independant traders was a 2-way street for all traffic on the A6, with only 1 pelican crossing provided for pedestrians. It was a nightmare trying to shop there, trying to think about purchases when in the background is the constant drone of traffic, the fumes getting into your throat, and the fact that if you wanted to cross the road you had to walk up the hill and wait for the lights to eventually change before going down the other side of the road. Since then that whole street has been pedestrianised, not even buses go down there now - and the result is a much nicer place to go around, and a better impression for visitors. Cities and towns are not going to be nice places to drive around in; if you want a nice place to drive then go onto the motorway. Look at towns which are easy to drive through... they are generally sh!tholes dominated by a large dual carriageway slicing through the heart of the city/town taking people who are not stopping in the city/town to do buisness but just passing through to take their money elsewhere. More buisness is done when people can get around the shops at a leisurely pace. York should focus on improving orbital routes around the city so that the bulk of private traffic stays out of the city centre, and then develop a rapid transit link such as a tram network to get people into the city quickly and efficiently (guided bus lanes and trolleybuses would not work... a bus is a bus is a bus, and the perception of a bus is that 'it might not arrive' - whereas because a tram is stuck on its rails people know a tram will come along... plus much more effort goes into a tram system into making sure trams will run to time by means of priority systems in the heart of a city, such measures are skipped when it comes to buses... look at Leeds: bus lanes / guided bus lane along York Road, Kirkstall Road and Scott Hall Lane, but get closer towards the city centre and bus priority dissappears completely leaving the buses to get caught in the rest of the city congestion). The current closure of Lendal Bridge is good in theory, but has been executed poorly. Back in the 1990's when there was a challenge show on TV called 'The Crystal Maze', there was a puzzle where water was pouring out of a pipe and to get the prize the contestant had to get water flowing through one particular pipe; but the order had to be done in the right way, by opening up some valves before closing others - if they closed off the valves first, the water went out of the relief pipe at the top and completely soaked the contestant. What York council have done is metaphorically soaked themselves, as they have closed off the 'valve' of lendal bridge but have NOT opened up other 'valves'.... Foss Islands Road being an example: why does Waitrose have its own set of traffic lights? I went along there today and, as with many other times I've gone along there heading towards Layerthorpe, I got a red light - a red light which went only so that only 2 cars emerged from waitrose and turned left thereby not coming into my direction of travel at all and so delaying my journey (because the next set of lights then went red as I approached) for no reason. A simple solution would be to make the Waitrose entrance a LILO (Left In, Left Out), and all traffic leaving there wanting to go to layerthorpe direction could go along James Street (and anybody who has driven there even though they only live in Walmgate or navigation Road can work things out for themselves seeing as they've decided to drive such a stupidly short journey)... Meanwhile, get a mini roundabout at the end of Navigation Road (and Piccadilly with its junction with Tower Street), widen the corner of Navigation Road and move parking to Percy's lane which would then become one-way-only, so that Navigation Road then becomes the exit from the city so that Walmgate Bar then becomes inbound only, taking away the traffic light set and assigning the 40 seconds of time either equally around the three other roads, or using sensors to assign it to whichever road has the biggest tailback of traffic... at Water End, align the road with Water Lane so both roads share the green light - both roads would get about 50 seconds of green time, but with no negative impact on the A19 as there'd actually be less time on red for Shipton Road and Bootham and so all traffic there would flow better (traffic wanting to turn right into Water Lane would be redirected to the Rawcliffe Lane junction which would then be a mini roundabout, and any traffic wanting to turn right out of Water Lane would be redirected the same way so that Water End could have 10 seconds longer on green for a right-turn filter to operate.... and the council might try and say that the grass of Clifton Green is a 'village green', but they've built a park and ride site on the 'village green' for Poppleton, so they got around the issues when they wanted to!! Magicman!
  • Score: -6

6:07am Thu 27 Feb 14

JasBro says...

HoofHearteds wrote:
A bigoted opinion isn't name calling. It's stating a factual explanation to certain people who thrive on negativity. To be more precise:

"a person who strongly and unfairly dislikes other people, ideas, etc. : a bigoted person; especially : a person who hates or refuses to accept the members of a particular group (such as a racial or religious group)"

As strangebuttrues clearly shown in their last post "used here by minority campaigners " You i'm afraid are a bigot!
Goodness me, try to stay calm and positive.

I should just leave you to rant and rave, but I'm in such a good mood today that I'll give you a tip.

Try to say something intelligent, rather than launching these childish personal attacks. The bridge closure is already divisive and unpopular, and you're just making it worse.

Perhaps an anger management course might help you?
[quote][p][bold]HoofHearteds[/bold] wrote: A bigoted opinion isn't name calling. It's stating a factual explanation to certain people who thrive on negativity. To be more precise: "a person who strongly and unfairly dislikes other people, ideas, etc. : a bigoted person; especially : a person who hates or refuses to accept the members of a particular group (such as a racial or religious group)" As strangebuttrues clearly shown in their last post "used here by minority campaigners " You i'm afraid are a bigot![/p][/quote]Goodness me, try to stay calm and positive. I should just leave you to rant and rave, but I'm in such a good mood today that I'll give you a tip. Try to say something intelligent, rather than launching these childish personal attacks. The bridge closure is already divisive and unpopular, and you're just making it worse. Perhaps an anger management course might help you? JasBro
  • Score: -26

10:07am Thu 27 Feb 14

Cheeky face says...

To-day's Press explains a lot! Dave Merritt is quoted as saying he knew signs were inadequate in jan, 2014. In fact the council knew that in July 2013 when they were planning the wording of the AA signs.

Restricted access is not adequate at all; and is clearly mentioned in the traffic regs and the traffic signs manual, that if restrictions are known then words explaining the restriction should be used.

The comments from Dave Merritt regarding his contact with the DVLA and the their use of registered keepers info is at variance with my calls to DVLA and the DfR.

Quite clearly, reading this paper, some cover up has occurred which could explain the long delay on my questions being answered on the signs,(particularly the one at ther Theatre, which has been sited in a position which is against the provisions of the manual, the words and times order on the supplementary plates on Lendal Bridge and indeed Coppergate, and other issues not relating to Lendal Bridge.

What will the hordes of visitors think of York when the big cycle event arrives. York's cycle lane/routes need remarking/upgrading.

Thankfully the Tour De France has a created a liaison officer based in Leeds controlling a lot of the dozen councils directly affected by the event.
To-day's Press explains a lot! Dave Merritt is quoted as saying he knew signs were inadequate in jan, 2014. In fact the council knew that in July 2013 when they were planning the wording of the AA signs. Restricted access is not adequate at all; and is clearly mentioned in the traffic regs and the traffic signs manual, that if restrictions are known then words explaining the restriction should be used. The comments from Dave Merritt regarding his contact with the DVLA and the their use of registered keepers info is at variance with my calls to DVLA and the DfR. Quite clearly, reading this paper, some cover up has occurred which could explain the long delay on my questions being answered on the signs,(particularly the one at ther Theatre, which has been sited in a position which is against the provisions of the manual, the words and times order on the supplementary plates on Lendal Bridge and indeed Coppergate, and other issues not relating to Lendal Bridge. What will the hordes of visitors think of York when the big cycle event arrives. York's cycle lane/routes need remarking/upgrading. Thankfully the Tour De France has a created a liaison officer based in Leeds controlling a lot of the dozen councils directly affected by the event. Cheeky face
  • Score: 4

10:17am Thu 27 Feb 14

HoofHearteds says...

JasBro wrote:
HoofHearteds wrote:
A bigoted opinion isn't name calling. It's stating a factual explanation to certain people who thrive on negativity. To be more precise:

"a person who strongly and unfairly dislikes other people, ideas, etc. : a bigoted person; especially : a person who hates or refuses to accept the members of a particular group (such as a racial or religious group)"

As strangebuttrues clearly shown in their last post "used here by minority campaigners " You i'm afraid are a bigot!
Goodness me, try to stay calm and positive.

I should just leave you to rant and rave, but I'm in such a good mood today that I'll give you a tip.

Try to say something intelligent, rather than launching these childish personal attacks. The bridge closure is already divisive and unpopular, and you're just making it worse.

Perhaps an anger management course might help you?
Jason, I'm extremely relaxed, to the point of laughing regularly at your biased posts relating to cleaner York bridge closure. Tell me Jason, are you still sat with a clip board counting the number of cars passing along lincoln street? ;)

The only problem with dispersing traffic from the congested centre is, you upset a few who live on the outer parts and as a result, get a few obsessives who manipulate statistics and become abusive on forums.

Anger management verses Obsessive behaviour over council policy. Both are the illness of having too much time on ones hands
[quote][p][bold]JasBro[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]HoofHearteds[/bold] wrote: A bigoted opinion isn't name calling. It's stating a factual explanation to certain people who thrive on negativity. To be more precise: "a person who strongly and unfairly dislikes other people, ideas, etc. : a bigoted person; especially : a person who hates or refuses to accept the members of a particular group (such as a racial or religious group)" As strangebuttrues clearly shown in their last post "used here by minority campaigners " You i'm afraid are a bigot![/p][/quote]Goodness me, try to stay calm and positive. I should just leave you to rant and rave, but I'm in such a good mood today that I'll give you a tip. Try to say something intelligent, rather than launching these childish personal attacks. The bridge closure is already divisive and unpopular, and you're just making it worse. Perhaps an anger management course might help you?[/p][/quote]Jason, I'm extremely relaxed, to the point of laughing regularly at your biased posts relating to cleaner York bridge closure. Tell me Jason, are you still sat with a clip board counting the number of cars passing along lincoln street? ;) The only problem with dispersing traffic from the congested centre is, you upset a few who live on the outer parts and as a result, get a few obsessives who manipulate statistics and become abusive on forums. Anger management verses Obsessive behaviour over council policy. Both are the illness of having too much time on ones hands HoofHearteds
  • Score: 15

10:28am Thu 27 Feb 14

pedalling paul says...

Interestingly, York's third Local transport Plan (LTP3) covering the period 2011-2031 was completed and endorsed by the then LibDem led Council. It included a plan to close one of York's three river bridge crossings to private motor vehicles (Ouse Bridge was mentioned but the magic robot's finger then swung in favour of Lendal).
So it is the case that Labour inherited this strategy and have sensibly continued to support it.
Interestingly, York's third Local transport Plan (LTP3) covering the period 2011-2031 was completed and endorsed by the then LibDem led Council. It included a plan to close one of York's three river bridge crossings to private motor vehicles (Ouse Bridge was mentioned but the magic robot's finger then swung in favour of Lendal). So it is the case that Labour inherited this strategy and have sensibly continued to support it. pedalling paul
  • Score: -9

10:38am Thu 27 Feb 14

again says...

If the York economy is so feeble that it depends on Lendal Bridge being open then there is something seriously wrong with us all.

But of course York's economy and reputation is easily strong enough to allow the use of Lendal Bridge to be restricted without it being anything but a positive move.

A far worse deterrent to visitors is the behaviour of drunken louts in the evenings and on race days.

The more road space that is given to the motor car, the more it will take. Driving is an incredibly lazy form of entertainment for some!
If the York economy is so feeble that it depends on Lendal Bridge being open then there is something seriously wrong with us all. But of course York's economy and reputation is easily strong enough to allow the use of Lendal Bridge to be restricted without it being anything but a positive move. A far worse deterrent to visitors is the behaviour of drunken louts in the evenings and on race days. The more road space that is given to the motor car, the more it will take. Driving is an incredibly lazy form of entertainment for some! again
  • Score: -8

10:39am Thu 27 Feb 14

AGuyFromStrensall says...

HoofHearteds wrote:
JasBro wrote:
HoofHearteds wrote:
A bigoted opinion isn't name calling. It's stating a factual explanation to certain people who thrive on negativity. To be more precise:

"a person who strongly and unfairly dislikes other people, ideas, etc. : a bigoted person; especially : a person who hates or refuses to accept the members of a particular group (such as a racial or religious group)"

As strangebuttrues clearly shown in their last post "used here by minority campaigners " You i'm afraid are a bigot!
Goodness me, try to stay calm and positive.

I should just leave you to rant and rave, but I'm in such a good mood today that I'll give you a tip.

Try to say something intelligent, rather than launching these childish personal attacks. The bridge closure is already divisive and unpopular, and you're just making it worse.

Perhaps an anger management course might help you?
Jason, I'm extremely relaxed, to the point of laughing regularly at your biased posts relating to cleaner York bridge closure. Tell me Jason, are you still sat with a clip board counting the number of cars passing along lincoln street? ;)

The only problem with dispersing traffic from the congested centre is, you upset a few who live on the outer parts and as a result, get a few obsessives who manipulate statistics and become abusive on forums.

Anger management verses Obsessive behaviour over council policy. Both are the illness of having too much time on ones hands
There we go, fixed it for you:

HoofHearteds wrote:
Jason, I'm extremely relaxed, to the point of laughing regularly at my biased posts relating to cleaner York bridge closure.

One of many problems with dispersing traffic from the a main thoroughfare, you upset a the majority who live anywhere but near the bridge and as a result, get a few average people who talk like normal people on forums.
[quote][p][bold]HoofHearteds[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]JasBro[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]HoofHearteds[/bold] wrote: A bigoted opinion isn't name calling. It's stating a factual explanation to certain people who thrive on negativity. To be more precise: "a person who strongly and unfairly dislikes other people, ideas, etc. : a bigoted person; especially : a person who hates or refuses to accept the members of a particular group (such as a racial or religious group)" As strangebuttrues clearly shown in their last post "used here by minority campaigners " You i'm afraid are a bigot![/p][/quote]Goodness me, try to stay calm and positive. I should just leave you to rant and rave, but I'm in such a good mood today that I'll give you a tip. Try to say something intelligent, rather than launching these childish personal attacks. The bridge closure is already divisive and unpopular, and you're just making it worse. Perhaps an anger management course might help you?[/p][/quote]Jason, I'm extremely relaxed, to the point of laughing regularly at your biased posts relating to cleaner York bridge closure. Tell me Jason, are you still sat with a clip board counting the number of cars passing along lincoln street? ;) The only problem with dispersing traffic from the congested centre is, you upset a few who live on the outer parts and as a result, get a few obsessives who manipulate statistics and become abusive on forums. Anger management verses Obsessive behaviour over council policy. Both are the illness of having too much time on ones hands[/p][/quote]There we go, fixed it for you: HoofHearteds wrote: Jason, I'm extremely relaxed, to the point of laughing regularly at my biased posts relating to cleaner York bridge closure. One of many problems with dispersing traffic from the a main thoroughfare, you upset a the majority who live anywhere but near the bridge and as a result, get a few average people who talk like normal people on forums. AGuyFromStrensall
  • Score: -4

10:50am Thu 27 Feb 14

HoofHearteds says...

Tell me Mr strensallguy, how is the restriction of traffic on lendal affecting strensall village? Surely your not like Jason and also sat with a clipboard counting the cars passing through. There's one in every area lol
Tell me Mr strensallguy, how is the restriction of traffic on lendal affecting strensall village? Surely your not like Jason and also sat with a clipboard counting the cars passing through. There's one in every area lol HoofHearteds
  • Score: 17

10:56am Thu 27 Feb 14

AGuyFromStrensall says...

HoofHearteds wrote:
Tell me Mr strensallguy, how is the restriction of traffic on lendal affecting strensall village? Surely your not like Jason and also sat with a clipboard counting the cars passing through. There's one in every area lol
I can't tell if you are a troll or just simple (or both, it's possible)
Am I not allowed to have to go into the centre of York? Can it not make a journey I make longer? Just because it's not on my day to day doesn't make it any less hard to see that it's a barking plan.
Throwing out barbs at people who make sensible points doesn't make you right, just rude.

(By the way if you are trolling this page, kudos! It's very effective...)
[quote][p][bold]HoofHearteds[/bold] wrote: Tell me Mr strensallguy, how is the restriction of traffic on lendal affecting strensall village? Surely your not like Jason and also sat with a clipboard counting the cars passing through. There's one in every area lol[/p][/quote]I can't tell if you are a troll or just simple (or both, it's possible) Am I not allowed to have to go into the centre of York? Can it not make a journey I make longer? Just because it's not on my day to day doesn't make it any less hard to see that it's a barking plan. Throwing out barbs at people who make sensible points doesn't make you right, just rude. (By the way if you are trolling this page, kudos! It's very effective...) AGuyFromStrensall
  • Score: -56

11:10am Thu 27 Feb 14

HoofHearteds says...

"Simple or a troll!" Resorting to insults demolishes your argument completely.

Try and debate sensibly please. Jasbro attempted to deflect the debate to anger issues and you jumped in on my response to his insults with troll like quoting me by manipulating what was typed. That is the work of a troll strensallguy, being unable to debate by needing to resort to manipulation of what was said.

Stay positive and keep focused on the arguments. Resorting to changing statements and accusing your opponent in debate as simple or troll like is admission of failure.
"Simple or a troll!" Resorting to insults demolishes your argument completely. Try and debate sensibly please. Jasbro attempted to deflect the debate to anger issues and you jumped in on my response to his insults with troll like quoting me by manipulating what was typed. That is the work of a troll strensallguy, being unable to debate by needing to resort to manipulation of what was said. Stay positive and keep focused on the arguments. Resorting to changing statements and accusing your opponent in debate as simple or troll like is admission of failure. HoofHearteds
  • Score: 50

11:16am Thu 27 Feb 14

AGuyFromStrensall says...

HoofHearteds wrote:
"Simple or a troll!" Resorting to insults demolishes your argument completely.

Try and debate sensibly please. Jasbro attempted to deflect the debate to anger issues and you jumped in on my response to his insults with troll like quoting me by manipulating what was typed. That is the work of a troll strensallguy, being unable to debate by needing to resort to manipulation of what was said.

Stay positive and keep focused on the arguments. Resorting to changing statements and accusing your opponent in debate as simple or troll like is admission of failure.
Fair enough, troll it is...

The argument isn't demolished no matter what I say, it's obvious enough and it's been said again and again. No matter of feigning hurt pride doesn't make your argument ludicrous, if you want the reasons then look at 90% of the above posts.

But hey no matter what the rational and reasonable majority of York say, you and your cronies have it sewn up so we're allowed to be negative there.
[quote][p][bold]HoofHearteds[/bold] wrote: "Simple or a troll!" Resorting to insults demolishes your argument completely. Try and debate sensibly please. Jasbro attempted to deflect the debate to anger issues and you jumped in on my response to his insults with troll like quoting me by manipulating what was typed. That is the work of a troll strensallguy, being unable to debate by needing to resort to manipulation of what was said. Stay positive and keep focused on the arguments. Resorting to changing statements and accusing your opponent in debate as simple or troll like is admission of failure.[/p][/quote]Fair enough, troll it is... The argument isn't demolished no matter what I say, it's obvious enough and it's been said again and again. No matter of feigning hurt pride doesn't make your argument ludicrous, if you want the reasons then look at 90% of the above posts. But hey no matter what the rational and reasonable majority of York say, you and your cronies have it sewn up so we're allowed to be negative there. AGuyFromStrensall
  • Score: -37

11:26am Thu 27 Feb 14

pedalling paul says...

Still waiting for today's Press banner headline on "Secret Files" article to appear on the website
Still waiting for today's Press banner headline on "Secret Files" article to appear on the website pedalling paul
  • Score: -8

11:45am Thu 27 Feb 14

Starboard22 says...

Is it just me or do others think Nik Brown would be more suited to a job in North Korea or China, I have never heard so much twaddle in all my life.
Is it just me or do others think Nik Brown would be more suited to a job in North Korea or China, I have never heard so much twaddle in all my life. Starboard22
  • Score: 5

11:57am Thu 27 Feb 14

AGuyFromStrensall says...

Starboard22 wrote:
Is it just me or do others think Nik Brown would be more suited to a job in North Korea or China, I have never heard so much twaddle in all my life.
"Comrade Alexander, I support your diktat to close the bridge."

"Comrade - make is so"!
[quote][p][bold]Starboard22[/bold] wrote: Is it just me or do others think Nik Brown would be more suited to a job in North Korea or China, I have never heard so much twaddle in all my life.[/p][/quote]"Comrade Alexander, I support your diktat to close the bridge." "Comrade - make is so"! AGuyFromStrensall
  • Score: -17

11:57am Thu 27 Feb 14

AGuyFromStrensall says...

Starboard22 wrote:
Is it just me or do others think Nik Brown would be more suited to a job in North Korea or China, I have never heard so much twaddle in all my life.
"Comrade Alexander, I support your diktat to close the bridge."

"Comrade - make it so"!
[quote][p][bold]Starboard22[/bold] wrote: Is it just me or do others think Nik Brown would be more suited to a job in North Korea or China, I have never heard so much twaddle in all my life.[/p][/quote]"Comrade Alexander, I support your diktat to close the bridge." "Comrade - make it so"! AGuyFromStrensall
  • Score: -14

11:58am Thu 27 Feb 14

AGuyFromStrensall says...

Starboard22 wrote:
Is it just me or do others think Nik Brown would be more suited to a job in North Korea or China, I have never heard so much twaddle in all my life.
"Comrade Alexander, I support your diktat to close the bridge."

"Comrade - make it so"
[quote][p][bold]Starboard22[/bold] wrote: Is it just me or do others think Nik Brown would be more suited to a job in North Korea or China, I have never heard so much twaddle in all my life.[/p][/quote]"Comrade Alexander, I support your diktat to close the bridge." "Comrade - make it so" AGuyFromStrensall
  • Score: -7

11:59am Thu 27 Feb 14

AGuyFromStrensall says...

(Apologies for the triple post, it really wasn't a point that important to post thrice - oops)
(Apologies for the triple post, it really wasn't a point that important to post thrice - oops) AGuyFromStrensall
  • Score: -33

12:02pm Thu 27 Feb 14

HoofHearteds says...

AGuyFromStrensall wrote:
Starboard22 wrote:
Is it just me or do others think Nik Brown would be more suited to a job in North Korea or China, I have never heard so much twaddle in all my life.
"Comrade Alexander, I support your diktat to close the bridge."

"Comrade - make it so"
Troll :)
[quote][p][bold]AGuyFromStrensall[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Starboard22[/bold] wrote: Is it just me or do others think Nik Brown would be more suited to a job in North Korea or China, I have never heard so much twaddle in all my life.[/p][/quote]"Comrade Alexander, I support your diktat to close the bridge." "Comrade - make it so"[/p][/quote]Troll :) HoofHearteds
  • Score: 18

12:09pm Thu 27 Feb 14

AGuyFromStrensall says...

HoofHearteds wrote:
AGuyFromStrensall wrote:
Starboard22 wrote:
Is it just me or do others think Nik Brown would be more suited to a job in North Korea or China, I have never heard so much twaddle in all my life.
"Comrade Alexander, I support your diktat to close the bridge."

"Comrade - make it so"
Troll :)
Ahhh so it's ok for you to throw the word around eh....
(Not 100% sure you know what it means, but hey freedom of speech and all that)

Not much point in debating you, that's clear, I think an attempt to get you to look at neutral POVs is doomed to failure.

So I'll just let the many reasoned arguments above speak for themselves against your refusal to do anything else other than throw barbs at people rather than give any counter arguments.
[quote][p][bold]HoofHearteds[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]AGuyFromStrensall[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Starboard22[/bold] wrote: Is it just me or do others think Nik Brown would be more suited to a job in North Korea or China, I have never heard so much twaddle in all my life.[/p][/quote]"Comrade Alexander, I support your diktat to close the bridge." "Comrade - make it so"[/p][/quote]Troll :)[/p][/quote]Ahhh so it's ok for you to throw the word around eh.... (Not 100% sure you know what it means, but hey freedom of speech and all that) Not much point in debating you, that's clear, I think an attempt to get you to look at neutral POVs is doomed to failure. So I'll just let the many reasoned arguments above speak for themselves against your refusal to do anything else other than throw barbs at people rather than give any counter arguments. AGuyFromStrensall
  • Score: -9

12:10pm Thu 27 Feb 14

AGuyFromStrensall says...

Loving the pre-adjustment scores too, we may lose the battle by default, but it's hard to argue which way public support goes on this.
Loving the pre-adjustment scores too, we may lose the battle by default, but it's hard to argue which way public support goes on this. AGuyFromStrensall
  • Score: -3

12:18pm Thu 27 Feb 14

Batman Begins says...

Ichabod76 wrote:
HoofHearteds wrote:
JasBro wrote:
Traffic counts for cars from the DfT

2003 - 385,298
2006 - 397,532
2012 - 377,459

So there are actually less cars than a decade ago.
There are four kinds of lies...Lies - **** lies - statistics and statistics used to support a bigoted opinion.

Everyone can see traffic flow through York is getting worse year on year. Only a person obsessed with a council decision to preserve the city it's elected to care for, would attempt to argue otherwise.
Hoofarted

Care to offer an explanation - opinion as to why the number of vehicles has dropped but congestion and pollution has risen ?
Could it be because somebody keeps closing roads and bridges?
[quote][p][bold]Ichabod76[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]HoofHearteds[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]JasBro[/bold] wrote: Traffic counts for cars from the DfT 2003 - 385,298 2006 - 397,532 2012 - 377,459 So there are actually less cars than a decade ago.[/p][/quote]There are four kinds of lies...Lies - **** lies - statistics and statistics used to support a bigoted opinion. Everyone can see traffic flow through York is getting worse year on year. Only a person obsessed with a council decision to preserve the city it's elected to care for, would attempt to argue otherwise.[/p][/quote]Hoofarted Care to offer an explanation - opinion as to why the number of vehicles has dropped but congestion and pollution has risen ?[/p][/quote]Could it be because somebody keeps closing roads and bridges? Batman Begins
  • Score: 9

12:31pm Thu 27 Feb 14

bolero says...

Not much point in further debate is there? According to today's report the whole concept is based on lies and deceit.
Not much point in further debate is there? According to today's report the whole concept is based on lies and deceit. bolero
  • Score: 8

12:55pm Thu 27 Feb 14

AGuyFromStrensall says...

Can we make a similar FOI request on 20s plenty next?

(Obviously there won't be any surveys to reveal however because of course we can't be trusted to make decisions)
Can we make a similar FOI request on 20s plenty next? (Obviously there won't be any surveys to reveal however because of course we can't be trusted to make decisions) AGuyFromStrensall
  • Score: -12

2:05pm Thu 27 Feb 14

petethefeet says...

Will somebody (PP perhaps) explain to me why taxis are privileged transport in our(or any) city? As far as I can tell, they are at least as polluting\congesting as any other private and possibly twice as much when you consider return journeys with no passengers. It makes a total nonsense of this argument.
Will somebody (PP perhaps) explain to me why taxis are privileged transport in our(or any) city? As far as I can tell, they are at least as polluting\congesting as any other private and possibly twice as much when you consider return journeys with no passengers. It makes a total nonsense of this argument. petethefeet
  • Score: 7

2:23pm Thu 27 Feb 14

AGuyFromStrensall says...

petethefeet wrote:
Will somebody (PP perhaps) explain to me why taxis are privileged transport in our(or any) city? As far as I can tell, they are at least as polluting\congesting as any other private and possibly twice as much when you consider return journeys with no passengers. It makes a total nonsense of this argument.
I'm sure a taxi driver soon will come on and chastise us for that view (again), but the truth is that they are a powerful lobby interest, no more no less
[quote][p][bold]petethefeet[/bold] wrote: Will somebody (PP perhaps) explain to me why taxis are privileged transport in our(or any) city? As far as I can tell, they are at least as polluting\congesting as any other private and possibly twice as much when you consider return journeys with no passengers. It makes a total nonsense of this argument.[/p][/quote]I'm sure a taxi driver soon will come on and chastise us for that view (again), but the truth is that they are a powerful lobby interest, no more no less AGuyFromStrensall
  • Score: -18

5:35pm Thu 27 Feb 14

JasBro says...

HoofHearteds wrote:
JasBro wrote:
HoofHearteds wrote:
A bigoted opinion isn't name calling. It's stating a factual explanation to certain people who thrive on negativity. To be more precise:

"a person who strongly and unfairly dislikes other people, ideas, etc. : a bigoted person; especially : a person who hates or refuses to accept the members of a particular group (such as a racial or religious group)"

As strangebuttrues clearly shown in their last post "used here by minority campaigners " You i'm afraid are a bigot!
Goodness me, try to stay calm and positive.

I should just leave you to rant and rave, but I'm in such a good mood today that I'll give you a tip.

Try to say something intelligent, rather than launching these childish personal attacks. The bridge closure is already divisive and unpopular, and you're just making it worse.

Perhaps an anger management course might help you?
Jason, I'm extremely relaxed, to the point of laughing regularly at your biased posts relating to cleaner York bridge closure. Tell me Jason, are you still sat with a clip board counting the number of cars passing along lincoln street? ;)

The only problem with dispersing traffic from the congested centre is, you upset a few who live on the outer parts and as a result, get a few obsessives who manipulate statistics and become abusive on forums.

Anger management verses Obsessive behaviour over council policy. Both are the illness of having too much time on ones hands
Relaxed? I can hear your teeth grinding from here.
Closure? Didn't you get the memo? You must not call it a closure.
Clipboard? Never had one.
Lincoln St? Check your map
Manipulate statistics? No, simple copy & paste
Abusive? That's you.

So, wrong on all counts then :-)
[quote][p][bold]HoofHearteds[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]JasBro[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]HoofHearteds[/bold] wrote: A bigoted opinion isn't name calling. It's stating a factual explanation to certain people who thrive on negativity. To be more precise: "a person who strongly and unfairly dislikes other people, ideas, etc. : a bigoted person; especially : a person who hates or refuses to accept the members of a particular group (such as a racial or religious group)" As strangebuttrues clearly shown in their last post "used here by minority campaigners " You i'm afraid are a bigot![/p][/quote]Goodness me, try to stay calm and positive. I should just leave you to rant and rave, but I'm in such a good mood today that I'll give you a tip. Try to say something intelligent, rather than launching these childish personal attacks. The bridge closure is already divisive and unpopular, and you're just making it worse. Perhaps an anger management course might help you?[/p][/quote]Jason, I'm extremely relaxed, to the point of laughing regularly at your biased posts relating to cleaner York bridge closure. Tell me Jason, are you still sat with a clip board counting the number of cars passing along lincoln street? ;) The only problem with dispersing traffic from the congested centre is, you upset a few who live on the outer parts and as a result, get a few obsessives who manipulate statistics and become abusive on forums. Anger management verses Obsessive behaviour over council policy. Both are the illness of having too much time on ones hands[/p][/quote]Relaxed? I can hear your teeth grinding from here. Closure? Didn't you get the memo? You must not call it a closure. Clipboard? Never had one. Lincoln St? Check your map Manipulate statistics? No, simple copy & paste Abusive? That's you. So, wrong on all counts then :-) JasBro
  • Score: -49

5:45pm Thu 27 Feb 14

Buzzz Light-year says...

Badgers Drift wrote:
I notice that the scores so far have not been tampered with, and before Rocking Horse does his/her? usual progress report, I'm going to do it instead...

First eight comments are currently scored as follows:-

+56, +1, +21, -52 (Pedalling Paul), +36, +45, +21 & +24

The score hacker usually starts after they have got home from work after 5.30pm.
Gawd! Really?
Ham-tastic.
[quote][p][bold]Badgers Drift[/bold] wrote: I notice that the scores so far have not been tampered with, and before Rocking Horse does his/her? usual progress report, I'm going to do it instead... First eight comments are currently scored as follows:- +56, +1, +21, -52 (Pedalling Paul), +36, +45, +21 & +24 The score hacker usually starts after they have got home from work after 5.30pm.[/p][/quote]Gawd! Really? Ham-tastic. Buzzz Light-year
  • Score: 2

7:07pm Thu 27 Feb 14

AlanAtClifton says...

Lendal Bridge was, and still should be part of the inner ring road. How can it be called a ring road if there is a major break in the ring. There are still many road markings using the incorrect words “Ring Road” on the approaches to Lendal Bridge. If the ring is broken then people will just find the next nearest, quickest or shortest route and then cause congestion in other outlaying areas.

Whatever happens there will be some who gain, some who lose out, and some who just don’t care but will moan anyway.

Re-open Lendal Bridge and instead close Ouse Bridge to all vehicles except busses, taxis and cyclists from 10:30am to 5:00pm every day.

Closing Ouse Bridge would achieve the same overall effect on bus times as is claimed for the Lendal Bridge closure. The dubious minor reduction in air pollution would also be similar. Who needs to use Ouse Bridge anyway – it’s not a major through route. Lendal Bridge however is part of the inner ring – keep it that way.
Lendal Bridge was, and still should be part of the inner ring road. How can it be called a ring road if there is a major break in the ring. There are still many road markings using the incorrect words “Ring Road” on the approaches to Lendal Bridge. If the ring is broken then people will just find the next nearest, quickest or shortest route and then cause congestion in other outlaying areas. Whatever happens there will be some who gain, some who lose out, and some who just don’t care but will moan anyway. Re-open Lendal Bridge and instead close Ouse Bridge to all vehicles except busses, taxis and cyclists from 10:30am to 5:00pm every day. Closing Ouse Bridge would achieve the same overall effect on bus times as is claimed for the Lendal Bridge closure. The dubious minor reduction in air pollution would also be similar. Who needs to use Ouse Bridge anyway – it’s not a major through route. Lendal Bridge however is part of the inner ring – keep it that way. AlanAtClifton
  • Score: 2

10:17am Fri 28 Feb 14

JasBro says...

AlanAtClifton wrote:
Lendal Bridge was, and still should be part of the inner ring road. How can it be called a ring road if there is a major break in the ring. There are still many road markings using the incorrect words “Ring Road” on the approaches to Lendal Bridge. If the ring is broken then people will just find the next nearest, quickest or shortest route and then cause congestion in other outlaying areas.

Whatever happens there will be some who gain, some who lose out, and some who just don’t care but will moan anyway.

Re-open Lendal Bridge and instead close Ouse Bridge to all vehicles except busses, taxis and cyclists from 10:30am to 5:00pm every day.

Closing Ouse Bridge would achieve the same overall effect on bus times as is claimed for the Lendal Bridge closure. The dubious minor reduction in air pollution would also be similar. Who needs to use Ouse Bridge anyway – it’s not a major through route. Lendal Bridge however is part of the inner ring – keep it that way.
I'd agree with all of that, apart from the taxis.

I don't understand why they get special treatment. They're just cars that have to make an unnecessary and inefficient return journey.
[quote][p][bold]AlanAtClifton[/bold] wrote: Lendal Bridge was, and still should be part of the inner ring road. How can it be called a ring road if there is a major break in the ring. There are still many road markings using the incorrect words “Ring Road” on the approaches to Lendal Bridge. If the ring is broken then people will just find the next nearest, quickest or shortest route and then cause congestion in other outlaying areas. Whatever happens there will be some who gain, some who lose out, and some who just don’t care but will moan anyway. Re-open Lendal Bridge and instead close Ouse Bridge to all vehicles except busses, taxis and cyclists from 10:30am to 5:00pm every day. Closing Ouse Bridge would achieve the same overall effect on bus times as is claimed for the Lendal Bridge closure. The dubious minor reduction in air pollution would also be similar. Who needs to use Ouse Bridge anyway – it’s not a major through route. Lendal Bridge however is part of the inner ring – keep it that way.[/p][/quote]I'd agree with all of that, apart from the taxis. I don't understand why they get special treatment. They're just cars that have to make an unnecessary and inefficient return journey. JasBro
  • Score: -113

11:03am Fri 28 Feb 14

Batman Begins says...

AlanAtClifton wrote:
Lendal Bridge was, and still should be part of the inner ring road. How can it be called a ring road if there is a major break in the ring. There are still many road markings using the incorrect words “Ring Road” on the approaches to Lendal Bridge. If the ring is broken then people will just find the next nearest, quickest or shortest route and then cause congestion in other outlaying areas.

Whatever happens there will be some who gain, some who lose out, and some who just don’t care but will moan anyway.

Re-open Lendal Bridge and instead close Ouse Bridge to all vehicles except busses, taxis and cyclists from 10:30am to 5:00pm every day.

Closing Ouse Bridge would achieve the same overall effect on bus times as is claimed for the Lendal Bridge closure. The dubious minor reduction in air pollution would also be similar. Who needs to use Ouse Bridge anyway – it’s not a major through route. Lendal Bridge however is part of the inner ring – keep it that way.
I think CYC already have a new Inner Ring Road in mind! In a clockwise direction it runs from York railway Station, turns left onto Leeman Road, emerges on Salisbury Road, right onto Clifton Bridge, left onto Water Lane, Right onto Kingsway North, onto Crighton Avenue, right at the lights onto Wigginton Rd, then finally onto Clarence Street where it re-joins the Ring Road at Lord Mayor’s Walk, or turns onto Lowther Street, right onto Huntington Rd and then on to Foss bank where it re-joins the Inner Ring Road.

This will allow them at a later date to close Gillygate to private traffic, do the same for Bootham where they will create a nice private road for both Bootham and Petergate Schools, as they did for the Minster School when Deangate was closed!

they can then close Ouse Bridge, as well as Lendal Bridge, as was I believe the original plan?
[quote][p][bold]AlanAtClifton[/bold] wrote: Lendal Bridge was, and still should be part of the inner ring road. How can it be called a ring road if there is a major break in the ring. There are still many road markings using the incorrect words “Ring Road” on the approaches to Lendal Bridge. If the ring is broken then people will just find the next nearest, quickest or shortest route and then cause congestion in other outlaying areas. Whatever happens there will be some who gain, some who lose out, and some who just don’t care but will moan anyway. Re-open Lendal Bridge and instead close Ouse Bridge to all vehicles except busses, taxis and cyclists from 10:30am to 5:00pm every day. Closing Ouse Bridge would achieve the same overall effect on bus times as is claimed for the Lendal Bridge closure. The dubious minor reduction in air pollution would also be similar. Who needs to use Ouse Bridge anyway – it’s not a major through route. Lendal Bridge however is part of the inner ring – keep it that way.[/p][/quote]I think CYC already have a new Inner Ring Road in mind! In a clockwise direction it runs from York railway Station, turns left onto Leeman Road, emerges on Salisbury Road, right onto Clifton Bridge, left onto Water Lane, Right onto Kingsway North, onto Crighton Avenue, right at the lights onto Wigginton Rd, then finally onto Clarence Street where it re-joins the Ring Road at Lord Mayor’s Walk, or turns onto Lowther Street, right onto Huntington Rd and then on to Foss bank where it re-joins the Inner Ring Road. This will allow them at a later date to close Gillygate to private traffic, do the same for Bootham where they will create a nice private road for both Bootham and Petergate Schools, as they did for the Minster School when Deangate was closed! they can then close Ouse Bridge, as well as Lendal Bridge, as was I believe the original plan? Batman Begins
  • Score: 4

11:15am Fri 28 Feb 14

Batman Begins says...

JasBro wrote:
AlanAtClifton wrote:
Lendal Bridge was, and still should be part of the inner ring road. How can it be called a ring road if there is a major break in the ring. There are still many road markings using the incorrect words “Ring Road” on the approaches to Lendal Bridge. If the ring is broken then people will just find the next nearest, quickest or shortest route and then cause congestion in other outlaying areas.

Whatever happens there will be some who gain, some who lose out, and some who just don’t care but will moan anyway.

Re-open Lendal Bridge and instead close Ouse Bridge to all vehicles except busses, taxis and cyclists from 10:30am to 5:00pm every day.

Closing Ouse Bridge would achieve the same overall effect on bus times as is claimed for the Lendal Bridge closure. The dubious minor reduction in air pollution would also be similar. Who needs to use Ouse Bridge anyway – it’s not a major through route. Lendal Bridge however is part of the inner ring – keep it that way.
I'd agree with all of that, apart from the taxis.

I don't understand why they get special treatment. They're just cars that have to make an unnecessary and inefficient return journey.
yes, why do taxi's have an exemption? they are no more "efficient" than a family car, often having only one the one passenger payload , as it is claimed private cars do.

It is interesting that in this debate the taxi lobby hasn't been heard from! I hadn't thought about it until I noticed the outrageously negative score for your comment JasBro!
[quote][p][bold]JasBro[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]AlanAtClifton[/bold] wrote: Lendal Bridge was, and still should be part of the inner ring road. How can it be called a ring road if there is a major break in the ring. There are still many road markings using the incorrect words “Ring Road” on the approaches to Lendal Bridge. If the ring is broken then people will just find the next nearest, quickest or shortest route and then cause congestion in other outlaying areas. Whatever happens there will be some who gain, some who lose out, and some who just don’t care but will moan anyway. Re-open Lendal Bridge and instead close Ouse Bridge to all vehicles except busses, taxis and cyclists from 10:30am to 5:00pm every day. Closing Ouse Bridge would achieve the same overall effect on bus times as is claimed for the Lendal Bridge closure. The dubious minor reduction in air pollution would also be similar. Who needs to use Ouse Bridge anyway – it’s not a major through route. Lendal Bridge however is part of the inner ring – keep it that way.[/p][/quote]I'd agree with all of that, apart from the taxis. I don't understand why they get special treatment. They're just cars that have to make an unnecessary and inefficient return journey.[/p][/quote]yes, why do taxi's have an exemption? they are no more "efficient" than a family car, often having only one the one passenger payload , as it is claimed private cars do. It is interesting that in this debate the taxi lobby hasn't been heard from! I hadn't thought about it until I noticed the outrageously negative score for your comment JasBro! Batman Begins
  • Score: -24

12:16pm Fri 28 Feb 14

AntMcM says...

Well done the Press but this is so appalling it should be all over the national media!
Well done the Press but this is so appalling it should be all over the national media! AntMcM
  • Score: 8

5:30pm Fri 28 Feb 14

Starboard22 says...

Why are all these 'higher educated' numpties going on about the opposition to the closure of Lendal Bridge. I think that I can speak on behalf of 45,000 motorists like myself who have been fined that we don't give a toss whether Lendal Bridge is open, closed or washed away in the floods.
Most like myself who live in other parts of the country, indeed other countries have never heard of Lendal Bridge before this debacle. We do not wish to hear of it again.
What we are angry about is the way in which the closure was carried out and the lies told and are still being told by brainwashed council staff.
Why are all these 'higher educated' numpties going on about the opposition to the closure of Lendal Bridge. I think that I can speak on behalf of 45,000 motorists like myself who have been fined that we don't give a toss whether Lendal Bridge is open, closed or washed away in the floods. Most like myself who live in other parts of the country, indeed other countries have never heard of Lendal Bridge before this debacle. We do not wish to hear of it again. What we are angry about is the way in which the closure was carried out and the lies told and are still being told by brainwashed council staff. Starboard22
  • Score: 7

7:56pm Fri 28 Feb 14

JasBro says...

Well, the fines imposed on visitors are an important part of many people's objections. York's economy depends on tourism, so we certainly don't want to discourage anyone from visiting York, and I'm sure we all hope that our council's incompetence doesn't put you off.

The lies being told by the council are another major objection.

But although it might not matter to you, or anybody else who lives outside of York, there are legitimate objections on other grounds.

To put it simply, the closure forces thousands of people to drive miles out of their way to drive around the city. This causes extra congestion, extra pollution and extra costs for everybody. Much of that extra congestion and air pollution has been transferred from what was the inner ring road, to small residential streets.

I may be one of those "higher educated" numpties that you mentioned, but to me, our council isn't helping visitors with this decision, and it's not helping the people of York either.
Well, the fines imposed on visitors are an important part of many people's objections. York's economy depends on tourism, so we certainly don't want to discourage anyone from visiting York, and I'm sure we all hope that our council's incompetence doesn't put you off. The lies being told by the council are another major objection. But although it might not matter to you, or anybody else who lives outside of York, there are legitimate objections on other grounds. To put it simply, the closure forces thousands of people to drive miles out of their way to drive around the city. This causes extra congestion, extra pollution and extra costs for everybody. Much of that extra congestion and air pollution has been transferred from what was the inner ring road, to small residential streets. I may be one of those "higher educated" numpties that you mentioned, but to me, our council isn't helping visitors with this decision, and it's not helping the people of York either. JasBro
  • Score: -88

8:00pm Fri 28 Feb 14

Cheeky face says...

Good comments recently. we need the Press to approach the Press Agency or whatever name they now have.

The rumours about the old council premises being sold as a hotel with "special" conditions was aired by a taxi driver at last year's Scarborough Cricket Festival.

The council WRONGLY AND RECKLESSLY maintaining the signage was compliant with the Regs/Manual produced by the DfT became a nonsense. When I quoted specific pages/guidance notes from the manual/regs and DfT circulars they then ignored my questions.

There are also useful comments on the subject of leaked council e-mails.
Actually tax payers pay for those e-mails in reality; and perhaps we could all ask for details of council meeting minutes unless on the odd occasion
it would not be appropriate to have these.

I am fed up with them spoiling apologies with excuses.

James Alexander has often said he likes to be open and honest.

I have not made a new complaint/suggestion to the council since Oct as I was not getting proper replies.

I congratulated the council on efficient signage on the A64. They said we do not maintain those- and I said EXACTLY!
Good comments recently. we need the Press to approach the Press Agency or whatever name they now have. The rumours about the old council premises being sold as a hotel with "special" conditions was aired by a taxi driver at last year's Scarborough Cricket Festival. The council WRONGLY AND RECKLESSLY maintaining the signage was compliant with the Regs/Manual produced by the DfT became a nonsense. When I quoted specific pages/guidance notes from the manual/regs and DfT circulars they then ignored my questions. There are also useful comments on the subject of leaked council e-mails. Actually tax payers pay for those e-mails in reality; and perhaps we could all ask for details of council meeting minutes unless on the odd occasion it would not be appropriate to have these. I am fed up with them spoiling apologies with excuses. James Alexander has often said he likes to be open and honest. I have not made a new complaint/suggestion to the council since Oct as I was not getting proper replies. I congratulated the council on efficient signage on the A64. They said we do not maintain those- and I said EXACTLY! Cheeky face
  • Score: 4

9:57pm Sat 1 Mar 14

bagnall1928@yahoo.com says...

Generations have passed over this bridge, it a means to get over the river,
it may be slow at times due to the volume of modern transport.
Closing it wont serve any good. people will queue they will also try and pick quieter times to cross, also
Ouse Bridge Skeldergate Bridge, Lendal Bridge and the railay bridge, plus the newer on off poppleton rd all carrry traffic. Its busy at work start and leave times, but there are quieter periods too. There is the ring road also.
It is not beyond the planning dept. to work out traffic flow peak periods.
'factories could decide with other big work places to stagger by intervals of 5,10, 15 miinutes etc. The buses rerouting or altering timetables.
There willl always be traffic, it wont go away.
Could another bridge be the answer . When you thinkof the age of the bridges we have it is amazing that the planners who arranged their location did such a good job. now its time our generations had a new look at the needs of today!!! not those of our great grandparentts..
let people put forward ideas, and see if any new ideas come up
Generations have passed over this bridge, it a means to get over the river, it may be slow at times due to the volume of modern transport. Closing it wont serve any good. people will queue they will also try and pick quieter times to cross, also Ouse Bridge Skeldergate Bridge, Lendal Bridge and the railay bridge, plus the newer on off poppleton rd all carrry traffic. Its busy at work start and leave times, but there are quieter periods too. There is the ring road also. It is not beyond the planning dept. to work out traffic flow peak periods. 'factories could decide with other big work places to stagger by intervals of 5,10, 15 miinutes etc. The buses rerouting or altering timetables. There willl always be traffic, it wont go away. Could another bridge be the answer . When you thinkof the age of the bridges we have it is amazing that the planners who arranged their location did such a good job. now its time our generations had a new look at the needs of today!!! not those of our great grandparentts.. let people put forward ideas, and see if any new ideas come up bagnall1928@yahoo.com
  • Score: 5

6:18pm Wed 5 Mar 14

bagnall1928@yahoo.com says...

I was born in York and used all the bridges on foot. including the railway bridge, I lived in Blossom St. Since my day many new estates have been built around the city. big superstores too. Cars abound and people want to use them.
So time we brougtht new ideas to sor tout the present clogged system.
What worked in the past is not t now adequate
No use cutting roads off, or banning traffic but a real new system.
We have put large malls on the outtskirts so that the the city centre isnt such a draw as it was. the smalll corner shop who sold everything too have gone to the wall . We cant bring back the past but we can plan
better than we have.
Build shops with homes over as they used to. look in the city for unused
top stories over shops and give grants for the to become flats and appartments.. York is lucky in having its strays so see that people can
get to the, kids can play ball games etc. on them.
Schools have large playgrounds and fields than be more widely used.'
It takes new thinking to change things. Ask young people what they like, encourage them in activities from chess to football see that there are free schools where they can learn new skills, plus playing games etc. Above all be receptive to the idea of change. we cant live in
the past, If people hundreds of years ago could build the York
Minster, the Shambles, then surely modern architects can come up with
some planning that makes our century one in which lovely and functional building is done.
I was born in York and used all the bridges on foot. including the railway bridge, I lived in Blossom St. Since my day many new estates have been built around the city. big superstores too. Cars abound and people want to use them. So time we brougtht new ideas to sor tout the present clogged system. What worked in the past is not t now adequate No use cutting roads off, or banning traffic but a real new system. We have put large malls on the outtskirts so that the the city centre isnt such a draw as it was. the smalll corner shop who sold everything too have gone to the wall . We cant bring back the past but we can plan better than we have. Build shops with homes over as they used to. look in the city for unused top stories over shops and give grants for the to become flats and appartments.. York is lucky in having its strays so see that people can get to the, kids can play ball games etc. on them. Schools have large playgrounds and fields than be more widely used.' It takes new thinking to change things. Ask young people what they like, encourage them in activities from chess to football see that there are free schools where they can learn new skills, plus playing games etc. Above all be receptive to the idea of change. we cant live in the past, If people hundreds of years ago could build the York Minster, the Shambles, then surely modern architects can come up with some planning that makes our century one in which lovely and functional building is done. bagnall1928@yahoo.com
  • 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