Anger after Lendal Bridge vote blocked

Anger after Lendal Bridge vote blocked

Anger after Lendal Bridge vote blocked

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

AN attempt by opposition councillors to force York's controversial Lendal Bridge traffic trial to be abandoned has been blocked.

City of York Council's Liberal Democrat group tabled a motion at last night's meeting of the full authority calling for the experiment - which has seen private vehicles banned from the bridge between 10.30am and 5pm every day since the end of last August - to end immediately and for the ruling Labour group to admit it had been "botched".

However, amid confusion at the end of the meeting, Labour councillor Sandy Fraser used a council 'standing order' to defer the motion to a meeting of the council's cabinet in May, when an assessment of the trial - which ended in February, but with the restrictions being kept in force until a decision is made on whether to continue it - will be discussed. More than 53,000 motorists had been issued with £60 penalty charge notices by the end of the official trial period.

The move meant there was no debate or vote on the motion last night, with the Lib Dems today accusing Labour of using an "obscure procedural order to stifle public debate" for six more weeks. Coun Keith Aspden, the group's leader, said: "We came to the meeting to have an open, cross-party debate, but what we got was an attack on local democracy.

"Rather than tackle the issue, Labour ducked it. This means another six weeks of fines, uncertainty for local businesses and increased traffic congestion for residents across the city. We still don't know whether Labour want to reopen Lendal Bridge.

"After ducking the issue last night, I would challenge council leader James Alexander to actually show some leadership and state what his position is. For the good of York, the dithering and delay has to stop."

The Lib Dems said the deferment of their motion to the May 6 cabinet meeting meant there would be no formal cross-party debate or vote on the trial.

Coun Fraser told last night's meeting the Lib Dem motion was "clearly premature", saying: "The data relating to the Lendal Bridge trial is still being collated - all information is not yet available.

"The trial has clearly been controversial and resulted in mixed views. It deserves proper consideration and therefore requires the full facts to be available."

Coun Dave Merrett, cabinet member for transport, planning and sustainability, said today: "The Lendal Bridge motion was due to be debated last night but, as one of the last items on the agenda, time ran out before we were able to debate it - debate would have taken place were this not the case.

"Referral to cabinet is appropriate in this instance as that is constitutionally where the final decision on the trial must be taken, something Coun Aspden is well aware of. All political parties will be able to make their views known at this meeting and I very much hope they will."

Coun Merrett said the council was "open-minded" about what happens with the trial until all evidence, including responses from a consultation with businesses and an independent review by the Institute of Transport Studies, is available. He said this would allow an "informed decision" in May, and claimed opposition parties were "uninterested in what the facts will tell them."

Comments (106)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

10:36am Fri 28 Mar 14

myselby says...

The Lib Dems would have done the same - Government introduced the Cabinet system to promote efficient and streamlined decision making at local level. That’s what CYC are doing- live with it
The Lib Dems would have done the same - Government introduced the Cabinet system to promote efficient and streamlined decision making at local level. That’s what CYC are doing- live with it myselby
  • Score: -2599

10:37am Fri 28 Mar 14

The Great Buda says...

The trial is over - OPEN THE BRIDGE
The trial is over - OPEN THE BRIDGE The Great Buda
  • Score: 20644

10:38am Fri 28 Mar 14

sheps lad says...

I agree the full facts need to be made available especially to the citizens of York!
I agree the full facts need to be made available especially to the citizens of York! sheps lad
  • Score: 20102

10:43am Fri 28 Mar 14

offa says...

I am not a great supporter of the Labour group, but well done this time. I endorse Sandy Fraser's com ments about the LibDems - a duplicitous lot if ever there was one.

It is wonderful in Exhibition Square and on Lendal Bridge when the traffic is restricted. Long may the ban continue.
I am not a great supporter of the Labour group, but well done this time. I endorse Sandy Fraser's com ments about the LibDems - a duplicitous lot if ever there was one. It is wonderful in Exhibition Square and on Lendal Bridge when the traffic is restricted. Long may the ban continue. offa
  • Score: -5995

10:44am Fri 28 Mar 14

LibDem says...

Under the Councils standing orders, the motion will come back to their July meeting at which all Councillors will have a vote on whether to remove the Lendal Bridge restrictions.

In the meantime the Council should have agreed to switch off the ANPR enforcement cameras.
Under the Councils standing orders, the motion will come back to their July meeting at which all Councillors will have a vote on whether to remove the Lendal Bridge restrictions. In the meantime the Council should have agreed to switch off the ANPR enforcement cameras. LibDem
  • Score: 11219

10:48am Fri 28 Mar 14

vax2002 says...

Every Penalty charge Dished out is one tourist and shopper that will never visit again.
This bridge is how visitors are directed by Sat nav to the main car parks.
They have built a honey trap.

Traders are going to have to put pressure on these councillors, the cities reputation is at stake, many will avoid even visiting having heard the tales of rough justice by the council troll hiding on the bridge.

If they are really that skint they have to build a honey trap to pick off visitors, perhaps it is time to start having a look at council spending wastage .
One thing is certain carry this on and York will become like Selby.
Visitors are the blood through the cities veins, stop trying to rob them !.
Did they get the idea visiting Dick Turpins grave in York ?
Every Penalty charge Dished out is one tourist and shopper that will never visit again. This bridge is how visitors are directed by Sat nav to the main car parks. They have built a honey trap. Traders are going to have to put pressure on these councillors, the cities reputation is at stake, many will avoid even visiting having heard the tales of rough justice by the council troll hiding on the bridge. If they are really that skint they have to build a honey trap to pick off visitors, perhaps it is time to start having a look at council spending wastage . One thing is certain carry this on and York will become like Selby. Visitors are the blood through the cities veins, stop trying to rob them !. Did they get the idea visiting Dick Turpins grave in York ? vax2002
  • Score: 15962

10:49am Fri 28 Mar 14

Septimius_Severus says...

I don't normally agree with the Lib Dems but on this one they have it right.
The trial has been a disaster - they have all the data (more traffic on Clifton Bridge, bus times up). They should listen and REOPEN THE BRIDGE NOW!
I don't normally agree with the Lib Dems but on this one they have it right. The trial has been a disaster - they have all the data (more traffic on Clifton Bridge, bus times up). They should listen and REOPEN THE BRIDGE NOW! Septimius_Severus
  • Score: 17554

11:03am Fri 28 Mar 14

courier46 says...

And they wonder why we dont trust politicians.
And they wonder why we dont trust politicians. courier46
  • Score: 15809

11:06am Fri 28 Mar 14

again says...

offa wrote:
I am not a great supporter of the Labour group, but well done this time. I endorse Sandy Fraser's com ments about the LibDems - a duplicitous lot if ever there was one.

It is wonderful in Exhibition Square and on Lendal Bridge when the traffic is restricted. Long may the ban continue.
I quite agree. There does need to be a balance struck between those people inside their cars and those who wish to use the streets while outside a car.

It's all too easy for the motor vehicle to be used to bully other street users and for its worshippers to tyrannise people into using nothing else to travel, even on ludicrously short journeys.

We are now a nation of the obese and overweight. Coincidence? Or cause and effect? Of course the car has a place in our lives but it must be kept in its place and not become an addiction.
[quote][p][bold]offa[/bold] wrote: I am not a great supporter of the Labour group, but well done this time. I endorse Sandy Fraser's com ments about the LibDems - a duplicitous lot if ever there was one. It is wonderful in Exhibition Square and on Lendal Bridge when the traffic is restricted. Long may the ban continue.[/p][/quote]I quite agree. There does need to be a balance struck between those people inside their cars and those who wish to use the streets while outside a car. It's all too easy for the motor vehicle to be used to bully other street users and for its worshippers to tyrannise people into using nothing else to travel, even on ludicrously short journeys. We are now a nation of the obese and overweight. Coincidence? Or cause and effect? Of course the car has a place in our lives but it must be kept in its place and not become an addiction. again
  • Score: -3827

11:09am Fri 28 Mar 14

SuperChris says...

Just a load of car drivers on here who can't read simple signs. The trial has proved Lendal Bridge needs to stay shut - long may it continue.
Just a load of car drivers on here who can't read simple signs. The trial has proved Lendal Bridge needs to stay shut - long may it continue. SuperChris
  • Score: -3565

11:10am Fri 28 Mar 14

meme says...

Its not the trail etc AND WHETHER IT WAS GOOD OR BAD... its the fact labour will not be open to debate when they are clearly wrong and have already made their minds up.
Local Democracy from this lot is under constant attack. The trial was to run for a period.....whether good or bad, that period is over...so make a decision or at least switch off the cameras until one is made but don't lie and cheat labour if you want our future support
Its not the trail etc AND WHETHER IT WAS GOOD OR BAD... its the fact labour will not be open to debate when they are clearly wrong and have already made their minds up. Local Democracy from this lot is under constant attack. The trial was to run for a period.....whether good or bad, that period is over...so make a decision or at least switch off the cameras until one is made but don't lie and cheat labour if you want our future support meme
  • Score: 18282

11:13am Fri 28 Mar 14

marvell says...

If anyone is in any doubt that Labour are going to fiddle the figures and then vote privately in Cabinet to keep it open - here you have the proof...
If anyone is in any doubt that Labour are going to fiddle the figures and then vote privately in Cabinet to keep it open - here you have the proof... marvell
  • Score: 5846

11:14am Fri 28 Mar 14

Oyy you says...

SuperChris wrote:
Just a load of car drivers on here who can't read simple signs. The trial has proved Lendal Bridge needs to stay shut - long may it continue.
No-bed........
[quote][p][bold]SuperChris[/bold] wrote: Just a load of car drivers on here who can't read simple signs. The trial has proved Lendal Bridge needs to stay shut - long may it continue.[/p][/quote]No-bed........ Oyy you
  • Score: -1974

11:16am Fri 28 Mar 14

marvell says...

myselby wrote:
The Lib Dems would have done the same - Government introduced the Cabinet system to promote efficient and streamlined decision making at local level. That’s what CYC are doing- live with it
"efficient and streamlined decision making" - now there's a euphemism for dictatorship...!!!
[quote][p][bold]myselby[/bold] wrote: The Lib Dems would have done the same - Government introduced the Cabinet system to promote efficient and streamlined decision making at local level. That’s what CYC are doing- live with it[/p][/quote]"efficient and streamlined decision making" - now there's a euphemism for dictatorship...!!! marvell
  • Score: 8571

11:21am Fri 28 Mar 14

Junior123 says...

Why not ask the people of York want they want! Hold a ballot, after all we pay the taxes for the MPs , we vote them in so we SHOULD have a say as obviously they cannot agree!
Why not ask the people of York want they want! Hold a ballot, after all we pay the taxes for the MPs , we vote them in so we SHOULD have a say as obviously they cannot agree! Junior123
  • Score: -1211

11:22am Fri 28 Mar 14

BL2 says...

The Labour council have no interest in openness or debate with other parties or members of the public. They see York as THEIR city to do with as they will - they should be forcibly removed from office as they are NOT representing the electorate!
The Labour council have no interest in openness or debate with other parties or members of the public. They see York as THEIR city to do with as they will - they should be forcibly removed from office as they are NOT representing the electorate! BL2
  • Score: -3059

11:26am Fri 28 Mar 14

wimtroch says...

"efficient and streamlined decision making" - now there's a euphemism for dictatorship...!!!

Haha, it is Labour you are talking about and under Milliband, that is exactly what you get. Just like his dad, democracy hating, Communist dictatorship loving Leftie lunatic. Cuba, China, North-Korea and Russia show us that Communism really works.
"efficient and streamlined decision making" - now there's a euphemism for dictatorship...!!! Haha, it is Labour you are talking about and under Milliband, that is exactly what you get. Just like his dad, democracy hating, Communist dictatorship loving Leftie lunatic. Cuba, China, North-Korea and Russia show us that Communism really works. wimtroch
  • Score: 195

11:29am Fri 28 Mar 14

dementia says...

The delay is so the Council can doctor the results and get the Spin ready
The delay is so the Council can doctor the results and get the Spin ready dementia
  • Score: 3453

11:33am Fri 28 Mar 14

oldgoat says...

again wrote:
offa wrote:
I am not a great supporter of the Labour group, but well done this time. I endorse Sandy Fraser's com ments about the LibDems - a duplicitous lot if ever there was one.

It is wonderful in Exhibition Square and on Lendal Bridge when the traffic is restricted. Long may the ban continue.
I quite agree. There does need to be a balance struck between those people inside their cars and those who wish to use the streets while outside a car.

It's all too easy for the motor vehicle to be used to bully other street users and for its worshippers to tyrannise people into using nothing else to travel, even on ludicrously short journeys.

We are now a nation of the obese and overweight. Coincidence? Or cause and effect? Of course the car has a place in our lives but it must be kept in its place and not become an addiction.
So this is really about cars?
If it was, taxis would have been banned from the bridge, so it can't be.

If the goal is really about reducing congestion somewhere, its an utter failure.
The fact that all the traffic simply heads across one of the other bridges instead, rather than deciding to use another method of transport, says the idea is a failure.

Park & Ride was and is a great idea. It keeps a quantity of cars out of town. However, its useless unless you live near one of the terminii.
It is however, one way to positively encourage folks to take the bus into town, as its cheaper than parking.
Isn't that a bit of a hint then, that a better public transport system is what would help? Encourage people onto such a system, be don't ban them from crossing a bridge!
[quote][p][bold]again[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]offa[/bold] wrote: I am not a great supporter of the Labour group, but well done this time. I endorse Sandy Fraser's com ments about the LibDems - a duplicitous lot if ever there was one. It is wonderful in Exhibition Square and on Lendal Bridge when the traffic is restricted. Long may the ban continue.[/p][/quote]I quite agree. There does need to be a balance struck between those people inside their cars and those who wish to use the streets while outside a car. It's all too easy for the motor vehicle to be used to bully other street users and for its worshippers to tyrannise people into using nothing else to travel, even on ludicrously short journeys. We are now a nation of the obese and overweight. Coincidence? Or cause and effect? Of course the car has a place in our lives but it must be kept in its place and not become an addiction.[/p][/quote]So this is really about cars? If it was, taxis would have been banned from the bridge, so it can't be. If the goal is really about reducing congestion somewhere, its an utter failure. The fact that all the traffic simply heads across one of the other bridges instead, rather than deciding to use another method of transport, says the idea is a failure. Park & Ride was and is a great idea. It keeps a quantity of cars out of town. However, its useless unless you live near one of the terminii. It is however, one way to positively encourage folks to take the bus into town, as its cheaper than parking. Isn't that a bit of a hint then, that a better public transport system is what would help? Encourage people onto such a system, be don't ban them from crossing a bridge! oldgoat
  • Score: -1986

11:46am Fri 28 Mar 14

wimtroch says...

Oldgoat, I could not agree more. If you want to promote public transport, build two or three more Park & Rides, make public transport public, i.e. cheap and out of the hands of one greedy private company, so that many more people use it. But most of all, do not block just one bridge, make your traffic ban city-wide, within the walls for example. This one bridge closure is just lunacy, thought up by politicians who have lost contact with the real world and the people that inhibit it. Politicians who are more worried about claiming expenses, on their push-bikes and during their holidays, than doing good for the city.
Oldgoat, I could not agree more. If you want to promote public transport, build two or three more Park & Rides, make public transport public, i.e. cheap and out of the hands of one greedy private company, so that many more people use it. But most of all, do not block just one bridge, make your traffic ban city-wide, within the walls for example. This one bridge closure is just lunacy, thought up by politicians who have lost contact with the real world and the people that inhibit it. Politicians who are more worried about claiming expenses, on their push-bikes and during their holidays, than doing good for the city. wimtroch
  • Score: 3198

11:50am Fri 28 Mar 14

Caecilius says...

offa wrote:
I am not a great supporter of the Labour group, but well done this time. I endorse Sandy Fraser's com ments about the LibDems - a duplicitous lot if ever there was one.

It is wonderful in Exhibition Square and on Lendal Bridge when the traffic is restricted. Long may the ban continue.
Hear, hear. The LibDems are doing what their party does nationally - selling out their principles in the hope of getting into office. In this case, they're trying to curry favour with the people who wail the loudest, which is exactly what Alexander did over Water End. They're just proving that it's a waste of time voting for them.

CoYC - stop caving in to motorists. You're never going to reduce congestion until you reduce the number of cars on the road. If people insist on driving, that's their prerogative but they should be the ones to take the consequences. Keep the bridge closed, for the benefit of all the other people who use this part of the city centre and who are enjoying a much more pleasant environment.
[quote][p][bold]offa[/bold] wrote: I am not a great supporter of the Labour group, but well done this time. I endorse Sandy Fraser's com ments about the LibDems - a duplicitous lot if ever there was one. It is wonderful in Exhibition Square and on Lendal Bridge when the traffic is restricted. Long may the ban continue.[/p][/quote]Hear, hear. The LibDems are doing what their party does nationally - selling out their principles in the hope of getting into office. In this case, they're trying to curry favour with the people who wail the loudest, which is exactly what Alexander did over Water End. They're just proving that it's a waste of time voting for them. CoYC - stop caving in to motorists. You're never going to reduce congestion until you reduce the number of cars on the road. If people insist on driving, that's their prerogative but they should be the ones to take the consequences. Keep the bridge closed, for the benefit of all the other people who use this part of the city centre and who are enjoying a much more pleasant environment. Caecilius
  • Score: -2583

11:58am Fri 28 Mar 14

YOUWILLDOASISAY says...

Coun Fraser:

The trial has clearly been controversial.
(Yes it has).

Resulted in mixed views.
(From your own survey 75% oppose it, just to add balance to the mixed view point).

It deserves proper consideration and therefore requires the full facts to be available.
(It takes time to make the facts fit the theory and develop a favourable interpretation).

Traffic management in York is about as effective as giving a fish a bath.

If you want a better bus service and more people to cycle then maybe you should have to look at making traffic flow more efficiently. I would rather sit in a traffic queue in my car than on a bus and I'd rather negotiate the same queue in my car than on a bike.

Every effort to restrict car use in my opinion has made travelling by car a more desirable option than the alternatives. Traffic management in York lacks vision and clarity of purpose using inefficiency as a weapon to drive through change thus damaging the prospects of the very things it wants to encourage (cycling and public transport).
Coun Fraser: The trial has clearly been controversial. (Yes it has). Resulted in mixed views. (From your own survey 75% oppose it, just to add balance to the mixed view point). It deserves proper consideration and therefore requires the full facts to be available. (It takes time to make the facts fit the theory and develop a favourable interpretation). Traffic management in York is about as effective as giving a fish a bath. If you want a better bus service and more people to cycle then maybe you should have to look at making traffic flow more efficiently. I would rather sit in a traffic queue in my car than on a bus and I'd rather negotiate the same queue in my car than on a bike. Every effort to restrict car use in my opinion has made travelling by car a more desirable option than the alternatives. Traffic management in York lacks vision and clarity of purpose using inefficiency as a weapon to drive through change thus damaging the prospects of the very things it wants to encourage (cycling and public transport). YOUWILLDOASISAY
  • Score: -1047

12:02pm Fri 28 Mar 14

PressPass says...

"Park & Ride was and is a great idea. It keeps a quantity of cars out of town. However, its useless unless you live near one of the terminii"

You really haven't got the idea about park and ride, have you?
You drive to the terminus and takes a bus in to town, you don't have to live near the terminus.
Day trippers should also be encouraged to use the park and ride, then they wouldn't need their car in the City centre.

As to the statement, "The fact that all the traffic simply heads across one of the other bridges instead", Do you have any figures to back this up?

Oh no wait, nobody does yet, that's why the motion was deferred.
"Park & Ride was and is a great idea. It keeps a quantity of cars out of town. However, its useless unless you live near one of the terminii" You really haven't got the idea about park and ride, have you? You drive to the terminus and takes a bus in to town, you don't have to live near the terminus. Day trippers should also be encouraged to use the park and ride, then they wouldn't need their car in the City centre. As to the statement, "The fact that all the traffic simply heads across one of the other bridges instead", Do you have any figures to back this up? Oh no wait, nobody does yet, that's why the motion was deferred. PressPass
  • Score: -997

12:35pm Fri 28 Mar 14

Ichabod76 says...

PressPass says...

You really haven't got the idea about park and ride, have you?
You drive to the terminus and takes a bus in to town, you don't have to live near the terminus.

using AA route planner it says that the nearest park & ride is 1.5 miles closer to home than my office.
but the journey time to the park & ride takes 15 mins longer than the journey to the office then I would have wait for and sit on a bus for the journey to the office probably tripling my commute to work one way !

you would have to pay me about £70 each way to even consider park & ride
PressPass says... You really haven't got the idea about park and ride, have you? You drive to the terminus and takes a bus in to town, you don't have to live near the terminus. using AA route planner it says that the nearest park & ride is 1.5 miles closer to home than my office. but the journey time to the park & ride takes 15 mins longer than the journey to the office then I would have wait for and sit on a bus for the journey to the office probably tripling my commute to work one way ! you would have to pay me about £70 each way to even consider park & ride Ichabod76
  • Score: 2741

12:36pm Fri 28 Mar 14

pbrowne2009@live.co.uk says...

Lets sit here and moan about it...... because that's easy, hiding behind a keyboard and expressing an opinion.

You want to do something about it then hold a protest. Flaunt the trial which has ended now. Drive over the bridge, get the fine and put it in the bin, then drive over it again then put that in the bin as well.

Honestly, people in the UK (in general) are so good to sit back and let the fingers do the talking while the council and the gouv sit there probably not even reading the comment section of the local paper.
Lets sit here and moan about it...... because that's easy, hiding behind a keyboard and expressing an opinion. You want to do something about it then hold a protest. Flaunt the trial which has ended now. Drive over the bridge, get the fine and put it in the bin, then drive over it again then put that in the bin as well. Honestly, people in the UK (in general) are so good to sit back and let the fingers do the talking while the council and the gouv sit there probably not even reading the comment section of the local paper. pbrowne2009@live.co.uk
  • Score: -701

12:37pm Fri 28 Mar 14

MrsHoney says...

How many people going over the bridges are actually going into town? I'm not, if I want to go into town I get the bus. When I drive through York that's exactly what I'm doing, driving through because it takes far too long going on the ring road and I'd have to go back on myself too. I work too far from home to walk (I've tried it took me over 2 hours!) and I can't cycle nor do I want to! The park and ride is great for people going into town but how useful is it for everyone that is using those bridges daily? I still don't see what the big deal is about less traffic going over Lendal anyway, are people hanging about in the street? What are they doing wandering around in the road?! All it's doing surely is making it easier to cross to the other side, and having to wait half a minute less to be able to cross is hardly going to make huge differences to people's lives.
How many people going over the bridges are actually going into town? I'm not, if I want to go into town I get the bus. When I drive through York that's exactly what I'm doing, driving through because it takes far too long going on the ring road and I'd have to go back on myself too. I work too far from home to walk (I've tried it took me over 2 hours!) and I can't cycle nor do I want to! The park and ride is great for people going into town but how useful is it for everyone that is using those bridges daily? I still don't see what the big deal is about less traffic going over Lendal anyway, are people hanging about in the street? What are they doing wandering around in the road?! All it's doing surely is making it easier to cross to the other side, and having to wait half a minute less to be able to cross is hardly going to make huge differences to people's lives. MrsHoney
  • Score: -506

12:45pm Fri 28 Mar 14

MarkyMarkMark says...

BL2 wrote:
The Labour council have no interest in openness or debate with other parties or members of the public. They see York as THEIR city to do with as they will - they should be forcibly removed from office as they are NOT representing the electorate!
Forcibly? How very democratic....not.

And you may not like it, but they were elected in a fair and free ballot to govern and manage the city for a term.

I don't really approve of them either - they don't represent my views - but I will defend their right to govern according to the mandate they were given in the last local government election.

I'm not quite sure who or what I'd vote to replace them with at the moment - none of the current political parties give me any more hope that the city will be managed as I believe it should.

But we all get our say again in May 2015. If people are really that bothered, let's see a much higher turnout at the polls. If you don't vote, you have no right to complain about the result!
[quote][p][bold]BL2[/bold] wrote: The Labour council have no interest in openness or debate with other parties or members of the public. They see York as THEIR city to do with as they will - they should be forcibly removed from office as they are NOT representing the electorate![/p][/quote]Forcibly? How very democratic....not. And you may not like it, but they were elected in a fair and free ballot to govern and manage the city for a term. I don't really approve of them either - they don't represent my views - but I will defend their right to govern according to the mandate they were given in the last local government election. I'm not quite sure who or what I'd vote to replace them with at the moment - none of the current political parties give me any more hope that the city will be managed as I believe it should. But we all get our say again in May 2015. If people are really that bothered, let's see a much higher turnout at the polls. If you don't vote, you have no right to complain about the result! MarkyMarkMark
  • Score: -554

12:55pm Fri 28 Mar 14

ouseswimmer says...

SuperChris wrote:
Just a load of car drivers on here who can't read simple signs. The trial has proved Lendal Bridge needs to stay shut - long may it continue.
Does this mean you've actually found the sign that says 'This is Lendal Bridge?
I guess not. This is why Sat Navs tell drivers to go over Lendal Bridge and be fined. Signs saying 'Fine to cross Lendal bridge' Don't seem to be right somehow.
[quote][p][bold]SuperChris[/bold] wrote: Just a load of car drivers on here who can't read simple signs. The trial has proved Lendal Bridge needs to stay shut - long may it continue.[/p][/quote]Does this mean you've actually found the sign that says 'This is Lendal Bridge? I guess not. This is why Sat Navs tell drivers to go over Lendal Bridge and be fined. Signs saying 'Fine to cross Lendal bridge' Don't seem to be right somehow. ouseswimmer
  • Score: -696

12:56pm Fri 28 Mar 14

WhyEver says...

The Lib Dems knew this would happen, since the Lendal Bridge discussion has already been scheduled for the 6th May meeting.

They are right about the mismanagement of the trial, and the obvious outcome of moving traffic from Lendal to other areas of the City. And they are right that the fines could be stopped right now - the Council have said they could do it if they wanted.
The Lib Dems knew this would happen, since the Lendal Bridge discussion has already been scheduled for the 6th May meeting. They are right about the mismanagement of the trial, and the obvious outcome of moving traffic from Lendal to other areas of the City. And they are right that the fines could be stopped right now - the Council have said they could do it if they wanted. WhyEver
  • Score: -686

1:00pm Fri 28 Mar 14

Buzzz Light-year says...

Politics.
Leaves a nasty taste.
Politics. Leaves a nasty taste. Buzzz Light-year
  • Score: -611

1:03pm Fri 28 Mar 14

JasBro says...

MarkyMarkMark wrote:
BL2 wrote:
The Labour council have no interest in openness or debate with other parties or members of the public. They see York as THEIR city to do with as they will - they should be forcibly removed from office as they are NOT representing the electorate!
Forcibly? How very democratic....not.

And you may not like it, but they were elected in a fair and free ballot to govern and manage the city for a term.

I don't really approve of them either - they don't represent my views - but I will defend their right to govern according to the mandate they were given in the last local government election.

I'm not quite sure who or what I'd vote to replace them with at the moment - none of the current political parties give me any more hope that the city will be managed as I believe it should.

But we all get our say again in May 2015. If people are really that bothered, let's see a much higher turnout at the polls. If you don't vote, you have no right to complain about the result!
But they didn't mention the closure of the bridge in their election manifesto.

http://www.yorklabou
r.org.uk/policy/mani
festo.php

Difficult to vote properly when they lie.
[quote][p][bold]MarkyMarkMark[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]BL2[/bold] wrote: The Labour council have no interest in openness or debate with other parties or members of the public. They see York as THEIR city to do with as they will - they should be forcibly removed from office as they are NOT representing the electorate![/p][/quote]Forcibly? How very democratic....not. And you may not like it, but they were elected in a fair and free ballot to govern and manage the city for a term. I don't really approve of them either - they don't represent my views - but I will defend their right to govern according to the mandate they were given in the last local government election. I'm not quite sure who or what I'd vote to replace them with at the moment - none of the current political parties give me any more hope that the city will be managed as I believe it should. But we all get our say again in May 2015. If people are really that bothered, let's see a much higher turnout at the polls. If you don't vote, you have no right to complain about the result![/p][/quote]But they didn't mention the closure of the bridge in their election manifesto. http://www.yorklabou r.org.uk/policy/mani festo.php Difficult to vote properly when they lie. JasBro
  • Score: -506

1:09pm Fri 28 Mar 14

JasBro says...

PressPass wrote:
"Park & Ride was and is a great idea. It keeps a quantity of cars out of town. However, its useless unless you live near one of the terminii"

You really haven't got the idea about park and ride, have you?
You drive to the terminus and takes a bus in to town, you don't have to live near the terminus.
Day trippers should also be encouraged to use the park and ride, then they wouldn't need their car in the City centre.

As to the statement, "The fact that all the traffic simply heads across one of the other bridges instead", Do you have any figures to back this up?

Oh no wait, nobody does yet, that's why the motion was deferred.
There are loads of figures to prove that traffic has increased in and around other bridges, just look on the council website. Clifton Bridge increased by over 200 cars per hour in February.
[quote][p][bold]PressPass[/bold] wrote: "Park & Ride was and is a great idea. It keeps a quantity of cars out of town. However, its useless unless you live near one of the terminii" You really haven't got the idea about park and ride, have you? You drive to the terminus and takes a bus in to town, you don't have to live near the terminus. Day trippers should also be encouraged to use the park and ride, then they wouldn't need their car in the City centre. As to the statement, "The fact that all the traffic simply heads across one of the other bridges instead", Do you have any figures to back this up? Oh no wait, nobody does yet, that's why the motion was deferred.[/p][/quote]There are loads of figures to prove that traffic has increased in and around other bridges, just look on the council website. Clifton Bridge increased by over 200 cars per hour in February. JasBro
  • Score: -397

1:29pm Fri 28 Mar 14

Ignatius Lumpopo says...

First they blocked the bridge; now they've blocked the vote.

So much of this correspondence is about people coming IN to the city centre. They can change their routes or use public transport across Lendal Bridge to get to the centre. What about those of us living in the city centre close to the bridge - closer to this one than any other - who have to get OUT?
First they blocked the bridge; now they've blocked the vote. So much of this correspondence is about people coming IN to the city centre. They can change their routes or use public transport across Lendal Bridge to get to the centre. What about those of us living in the city centre close to the bridge - closer to this one than any other - who have to get OUT? Ignatius Lumpopo
  • Score: -3103

1:30pm Fri 28 Mar 14

bolero says...

The most difficult place to get to in this city is York hospital. For the majority of people this entails a journey across town by one means or another. How that is achieved is a matter of individual choice depending upon capabilities, convenience, etc. This journey must be an absolute nightmare for many; particularly from the south side of york. The closure of the bridge has only served to worsen this situation. The Lib Dems might blether on as they usually do; as that is all they are capable of; but when in office, this same situation existed then and was continually brought to their notice. What did they do to alieve the situation? Exactly what you would expect them to do as Lib Dems-nowt. Empty vessels make the most noise; as the saying goes. The bus services to the hospital are virtually non-existent or useless. When will something be done?
The most difficult place to get to in this city is York hospital. For the majority of people this entails a journey across town by one means or another. How that is achieved is a matter of individual choice depending upon capabilities, convenience, etc. This journey must be an absolute nightmare for many; particularly from the south side of york. The closure of the bridge has only served to worsen this situation. The Lib Dems might blether on as they usually do; as that is all they are capable of; but when in office, this same situation existed then and was continually brought to their notice. What did they do to alieve the situation? Exactly what you would expect them to do as Lib Dems-nowt. Empty vessels make the most noise; as the saying goes. The bus services to the hospital are virtually non-existent or useless. When will something be done? bolero
  • Score: 37

1:34pm Fri 28 Mar 14

jumpersforgoalposts says...

don't be too quick to judge the council, remember they said they were following the lead of forward looking cities like brugges and Barcelona in closing the bridge to traffic, as these cities already had in place airports, efficient underground rail systems, free car parking and many other transport solutions, we can expect exciting announcements from coyc if they are indeed to follow their lead and before extending the bridge closure.
don't be too quick to judge the council, remember they said they were following the lead of forward looking cities like brugges and Barcelona in closing the bridge to traffic, as these cities already had in place airports, efficient underground rail systems, free car parking and many other transport solutions, we can expect exciting announcements from coyc if they are indeed to follow their lead and before extending the bridge closure. jumpersforgoalposts
  • Score: -4089

1:37pm Fri 28 Mar 14

Pinza-C55 says...

"Coun Fraser told last night's meeting the Lib Dem motion was "clearly premature", saying: "The data relating to the Lendal Bridge trial is still being collated - all information is not yet available."
If I had been there I would have asked Mr Fraser precisely what information had still not been collected and why not?
"Coun Fraser told last night's meeting the Lib Dem motion was "clearly premature", saying: "The data relating to the Lendal Bridge trial is still being collated - all information is not yet available." If I had been there I would have asked Mr Fraser precisely what information had still not been collected and why not? Pinza-C55
  • Score: 740

1:37pm Fri 28 Mar 14

Major Bloodnok says...

LibDem wrote:
Under the Councils standing orders, the motion will come back to their July meeting at which all Councillors will have a vote on whether to remove the Lendal Bridge restrictions.

In the meantime the Council should have agreed to switch off the ANPR enforcement cameras.
Yet again this council act like Stalin .....it is not what the voters want ....But what we want..
[quote][p][bold]LibDem[/bold] wrote: Under the Councils standing orders, the motion will come back to their July meeting at which all Councillors will have a vote on whether to remove the Lendal Bridge restrictions. In the meantime the Council should have agreed to switch off the ANPR enforcement cameras.[/p][/quote]Yet again this council act like Stalin .....it is not what the voters want ....But what we want.. Major Bloodnok
  • Score: -3876

1:51pm Fri 28 Mar 14

yorkonafork says...

Pinza-C55 wrote:
"Coun Fraser told last night's meeting the Lib Dem motion was "clearly premature", saying: "The data relating to the Lendal Bridge trial is still being collated - all information is not yet available."
If I had been there I would have asked Mr Fraser precisely what information had still not been collected and why not?
This is a massive sticking point for me in this whole nonsense as well to be honest.
Open the bridge, close it, whatever, but how come all the data and analysis is a) so vague as to what they're comparing it to (i.e what were the figures before etc) and b) why this all takes so long. It's 2014 for crying out loud, data doesn't take this long to capture, organise and be 'collated'. I work in a run of the mill place of work and I can check in 5 mins a number of aspects of things sold/purchased in 2007 if I wanted to.
Given the the time between when the trial started to the 'decision day' that's a year it's taken to evaluate it all. Absolutely ridiculous, unprofessional and costly.
[quote][p][bold]Pinza-C55[/bold] wrote: "Coun Fraser told last night's meeting the Lib Dem motion was "clearly premature", saying: "The data relating to the Lendal Bridge trial is still being collated - all information is not yet available." If I had been there I would have asked Mr Fraser precisely what information had still not been collected and why not?[/p][/quote]This is a massive sticking point for me in this whole nonsense as well to be honest. Open the bridge, close it, whatever, but how come all the data and analysis is a) so vague as to what they're comparing it to (i.e what were the figures before etc) and b) why this all takes so long. It's 2014 for crying out loud, data doesn't take this long to capture, organise and be 'collated'. I work in a run of the mill place of work and I can check in 5 mins a number of aspects of things sold/purchased in 2007 if I wanted to. Given the the time between when the trial started to the 'decision day' that's a year it's taken to evaluate it all. Absolutely ridiculous, unprofessional and costly. yorkonafork
  • Score: -3284

1:55pm Fri 28 Mar 14

DB_4_Me says...

The real problem with the whole Lendal Bridge issue is the lack of a suitable alternative route. There seem to be some rather selfish comments from those who, for the sake of 2 minutes of less traffic while they walk or cycle across the bridge, would happily subject people living in areas such as Leeman Road to a constant stream of traffic all day past their front door. These are areas where large numbers of children and elderly people live, and where footpaths are often fairly narrow, space is confined and front doors come straight onto the street. Surely the heath and traffic dangers are far greater here than they are for the few yards of open space and wide footpaths across the river.
It is an inconvenience for me to avoid using Lendal Bridge, but I would be prepared to put up with it if a decent and reasonable alternative was available. For people living along the unsuitable alternative routes currently being used, there is no option.
The real problem with the whole Lendal Bridge issue is the lack of a suitable alternative route. There seem to be some rather selfish comments from those who, for the sake of 2 minutes of less traffic while they walk or cycle across the bridge, would happily subject people living in areas such as Leeman Road to a constant stream of traffic all day past their front door. These are areas where large numbers of children and elderly people live, and where footpaths are often fairly narrow, space is confined and front doors come straight onto the street. Surely the heath and traffic dangers are far greater here than they are for the few yards of open space and wide footpaths across the river. It is an inconvenience for me to avoid using Lendal Bridge, but I would be prepared to put up with it if a decent and reasonable alternative was available. For people living along the unsuitable alternative routes currently being used, there is no option. DB_4_Me
  • Score: -840

1:56pm Fri 28 Mar 14

Pinza-C55 says...

yorkonafork wrote:
Pinza-C55 wrote:
"Coun Fraser told last night's meeting the Lib Dem motion was "clearly premature", saying: "The data relating to the Lendal Bridge trial is still being collated - all information is not yet available."
If I had been there I would have asked Mr Fraser precisely what information had still not been collected and why not?
This is a massive sticking point for me in this whole nonsense as well to be honest.
Open the bridge, close it, whatever, but how come all the data and analysis is a) so vague as to what they're comparing it to (i.e what were the figures before etc) and b) why this all takes so long. It's 2014 for crying out loud, data doesn't take this long to capture, organise and be 'collated'. I work in a run of the mill place of work and I can check in 5 mins a number of aspects of things sold/purchased in 2007 if I wanted to.
Given the the time between when the trial started to the 'decision day' that's a year it's taken to evaluate it all. Absolutely ridiculous, unprofessional and costly.
Yes, I know a chef in a city centre restaurant and while the owners were on holiday abroad they were able to access the cash registers via the internet to keep an eye on the orders plus they could watch the CCTV.
COYC can actually see the bridge by leaning out of the window but apparently it takes them a long time to gather information?
[quote][p][bold]yorkonafork[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Pinza-C55[/bold] wrote: "Coun Fraser told last night's meeting the Lib Dem motion was "clearly premature", saying: "The data relating to the Lendal Bridge trial is still being collated - all information is not yet available." If I had been there I would have asked Mr Fraser precisely what information had still not been collected and why not?[/p][/quote]This is a massive sticking point for me in this whole nonsense as well to be honest. Open the bridge, close it, whatever, but how come all the data and analysis is a) so vague as to what they're comparing it to (i.e what were the figures before etc) and b) why this all takes so long. It's 2014 for crying out loud, data doesn't take this long to capture, organise and be 'collated'. I work in a run of the mill place of work and I can check in 5 mins a number of aspects of things sold/purchased in 2007 if I wanted to. Given the the time between when the trial started to the 'decision day' that's a year it's taken to evaluate it all. Absolutely ridiculous, unprofessional and costly.[/p][/quote]Yes, I know a chef in a city centre restaurant and while the owners were on holiday abroad they were able to access the cash registers via the internet to keep an eye on the orders plus they could watch the CCTV. COYC can actually see the bridge by leaning out of the window but apparently it takes them a long time to gather information? Pinza-C55
  • Score: -2806

1:57pm Fri 28 Mar 14

oldgoat says...

PressPass wrote:
"Park & Ride was and is a great idea. It keeps a quantity of cars out of town. However, its useless unless you live near one of the terminii"

You really haven't got the idea about park and ride, have you?
You drive to the terminus and takes a bus in to town, you don't have to live near the terminus.
Day trippers should also be encouraged to use the park and ride, then they wouldn't need their car in the City centre.

As to the statement, "The fact that all the traffic simply heads across one of the other bridges instead", Do you have any figures to back this up?

Oh no wait, nobody does yet, that's why the motion was deferred.
So you'd drive miles to a Park & Ride car park, from within the city? My point was, that the design of keeping cars away from the city fails if they're all driving across town to get to the P&R. Its a good system, but only so good.

To cross the river, you have to cross a bridge. Duh!
Unless you've found another way to get over the river?
[quote][p][bold]PressPass[/bold] wrote: "Park & Ride was and is a great idea. It keeps a quantity of cars out of town. However, its useless unless you live near one of the terminii" You really haven't got the idea about park and ride, have you? You drive to the terminus and takes a bus in to town, you don't have to live near the terminus. Day trippers should also be encouraged to use the park and ride, then they wouldn't need their car in the City centre. As to the statement, "The fact that all the traffic simply heads across one of the other bridges instead", Do you have any figures to back this up? Oh no wait, nobody does yet, that's why the motion was deferred.[/p][/quote]So you'd drive miles to a Park & Ride car park, from within the city? My point was, that the design of keeping cars away from the city fails if they're all driving across town to get to the P&R. Its a good system, but only so good. To cross the river, you have to cross a bridge. Duh! Unless you've found another way to get over the river? oldgoat
  • Score: -2173

2:05pm Fri 28 Mar 14

pedalling paul says...

Let us not forget that closing one of the three bridges was a plank of York's curent Local transport Plan. It runs from 2011 to 2031 and was signed off by the LibDem Councillor Steve Galloway, whose Party had control at the time.
Looking ahead to the 2015 local elections, one maybe senses a whiff of political opportunism.
But Labour were just as guilty. They supported the LibDem led Clifton Green changes, but as soon as they took power, carried out a so-called electroral pledge to undo the changes.
It is a sad fact that Transport Planning recommendations, which take a long term view can be undermined by those Councillors who wear election blinkers.
Likewise a statement above suggests that the Council should always do "what the voters want." But many voters are more incapable than some Councillors of taking a long term view. They are only concerned about the ease with which car users can get around today.
Believe me if the City's present traffic restrictions were all suddenly removed, there would be a massive free for all which would end up with few motor vehicle users getting anywhere.
Let us not forget that closing one of the three bridges was a plank of York's curent Local transport Plan. It runs from 2011 to 2031 and was signed off by the LibDem Councillor Steve Galloway, whose Party had control at the time. Looking ahead to the 2015 local elections, one maybe senses a whiff of political opportunism. But Labour were just as guilty. They supported the LibDem led Clifton Green changes, but as soon as they took power, carried out a so-called electroral pledge to undo the changes. It is a sad fact that Transport Planning recommendations, which take a long term view can be undermined by those Councillors who wear election blinkers. Likewise a statement above suggests that the Council should always do "what the voters want." But many voters are more incapable than some Councillors of taking a long term view. They are only concerned about the ease with which car users can get around today. Believe me if the City's present traffic restrictions were all suddenly removed, there would be a massive free for all which would end up with few motor vehicle users getting anywhere. pedalling paul
  • Score: -1934

2:16pm Fri 28 Mar 14

MorkofYork says...

Switch the cameras off. Make it voluntary. Play on peoples morals. Praise any success.
Switch the cameras off. Make it voluntary. Play on peoples morals. Praise any success. MorkofYork
  • Score: -1784

2:21pm Fri 28 Mar 14

Lego Fan says...

I visit York twice a year for a holiday. If Yoks council want to drive away visitors Id say your doing a pretty good job by keeping people away.

There was NOTHING wrong with Yorks Road, we drive there each time we go. Last time we want we got stuck in a jam on the way out of York, its the first time its ever happened.

SCRAP THE BAN YOU GREEDY FAT CATS OR LOOSE TOURISTS!!!!!!!!!
I visit York twice a year for a holiday. If Yoks council want to drive away visitors Id say your doing a pretty good job by keeping people away. There was NOTHING wrong with Yorks Road, we drive there each time we go. Last time we want we got stuck in a jam on the way out of York, its the first time its ever happened. SCRAP THE BAN YOU GREEDY FAT CATS OR LOOSE TOURISTS!!!!!!!!! Lego Fan
  • Score: -1423

2:25pm Fri 28 Mar 14

hammerphil says...

The sign for lendal bridge was painted over on the inside lane coming up station rise so you don't know where it is! If a bridge was meant to close it was surely "Ouse" bridge as it's not a direct bridge for hospital or the station.
The sign for lendal bridge was painted over on the inside lane coming up station rise so you don't know where it is! If a bridge was meant to close it was surely "Ouse" bridge as it's not a direct bridge for hospital or the station. hammerphil
  • Score: -1361

2:39pm Fri 28 Mar 14

redoner says...

As a Labour voter this is an absolute disgrace what the Fat controller is doing to this city. Only one way to put an end to it, bye bye Labour. Open the bridge and your eyes Mr Alexander and Merret.
As a Labour voter this is an absolute disgrace what the Fat controller is doing to this city. Only one way to put an end to it, bye bye Labour. Open the bridge and your eyes Mr Alexander and Merret. redoner
  • Score: -1179

2:42pm Fri 28 Mar 14

only human says...

stop this revenue generator immediately ,tax motc and insurance for cylcists would be a more agreeable subject for me....i am fed up with them swerving out into the road from side streets without even a passing glance and usually wearing a headset an oblivious to surrounding traffic.Its amazing how everytime a cyclist gets clipped its always the motorist held to account.
stop this revenue generator immediately ,tax motc and insurance for cylcists would be a more agreeable subject for me....i am fed up with them swerving out into the road from side streets without even a passing glance and usually wearing a headset an oblivious to surrounding traffic.Its amazing how everytime a cyclist gets clipped its always the motorist held to account. only human
  • Score: -917

2:48pm Fri 28 Mar 14

yorkshirelad says...

Democracy means that we elect councils to for a period of time. Inevitably this results in policies/schemes that not everyone agrees with. Occasionally it may result in policies or schemes that a majority do not agree with - this happens in all councils and all governments charged with looking at long term issues. The curreny national government faces the same sort of thing over HS2 - taking the short term pain for long term gain.

Whilst it's fine to comment, fine to oppose to a point...there does come a stage where under a democratic system you accept what a democratically elected body does. Endless attempts to thwart policies and use technical tricks to block them...or bombard councils with various expensive time-wasting tactics such as demanding tonnes of data are simply using all of us taxpayers money for a personal crusade or personal obsession.

There will never be a majority for any car-restriction policy in York but every council whatever colour will face the reality of the slow strangling of York unless they implement policies that gradually move towards a more rational use of private cars...hence the Footstreets (bitterly opposed at the time) and numerous other progressive transport policies (remember the huff and puff over the London Congestion Charge?).

The closure of Lendal Bridge is brilliant for York and when all the fuss has died down we'll wonder why we allowed crawling traffic to block it for so long. All change schemes will take a while to bed in...eventually most people will re-jig their journies and the world really won't end. I think everything possible should be done to make sure people don't accidentally get fined but for those who think that it doesn't apply to them because they don't agree with it...well....

The real scandal of Lendal Bridge is Lib Dem opportunism when they know full well that reductions in private car use are necessary for the long term economic survival of small cities, not to mention environmental and health reasons. You should be supporting the closure folks.
Democracy means that we elect councils to for a period of time. Inevitably this results in policies/schemes that not everyone agrees with. Occasionally it may result in policies or schemes that a majority do not agree with - this happens in all councils and all governments charged with looking at long term issues. The curreny national government faces the same sort of thing over HS2 - taking the short term pain for long term gain. Whilst it's fine to comment, fine to oppose to a point...there does come a stage where under a democratic system you accept what a democratically elected body does. Endless attempts to thwart policies and use technical tricks to block them...or bombard councils with various expensive time-wasting tactics such as demanding tonnes of data are simply using all of us taxpayers money for a personal crusade or personal obsession. There will never be a majority for any car-restriction policy in York but every council whatever colour will face the reality of the slow strangling of York unless they implement policies that gradually move towards a more rational use of private cars...hence the Footstreets (bitterly opposed at the time) and numerous other progressive transport policies (remember the huff and puff over the London Congestion Charge?). The closure of Lendal Bridge is brilliant for York and when all the fuss has died down we'll wonder why we allowed crawling traffic to block it for so long. All change schemes will take a while to bed in...eventually most people will re-jig their journies and the world really won't end. I think everything possible should be done to make sure people don't accidentally get fined but for those who think that it doesn't apply to them because they don't agree with it...well.... The real scandal of Lendal Bridge is Lib Dem opportunism when they know full well that reductions in private car use are necessary for the long term economic survival of small cities, not to mention environmental and health reasons. You should be supporting the closure folks. yorkshirelad
  • Score: -848

2:50pm Fri 28 Mar 14

York2000 says...

Zzzzzzzzz.
Zzzzzzzzz. York2000
  • Score: -691

3:16pm Fri 28 Mar 14

Cheeky face says...

I agree with comments from Bolero.

Regarding Ouse Swimmer - the comment "Fine to cross Lendal Bridge" has two meanings!

I still; await my queries with the council re signs, "restricted access" signs from the AA are a nonsense, bus lane blue signs missing, Coppergate bus lane signs missing. I started enquiring before Lendal bridge trial and, despite, e-mailing James Alexander and the Chief executive I still wait acceptable replies.

The feeling I get is that the council will not budge; and will not reply to challenging questions.

There will be a bigger problem long term with congestion and pollution; but this council's efforts on this trial have been poor. They must still be anxious waiting for the traffic fines adjudicator giving his verdict on signage/or lack of it, regarding Coppergate.

How will the cycle race visitors be treated?
I agree with comments from Bolero. Regarding Ouse Swimmer - the comment "Fine to cross Lendal Bridge" has two meanings! I still; await my queries with the council re signs, "restricted access" signs from the AA are a nonsense, bus lane blue signs missing, Coppergate bus lane signs missing. I started enquiring before Lendal bridge trial and, despite, e-mailing James Alexander and the Chief executive I still wait acceptable replies. The feeling I get is that the council will not budge; and will not reply to challenging questions. There will be a bigger problem long term with congestion and pollution; but this council's efforts on this trial have been poor. They must still be anxious waiting for the traffic fines adjudicator giving his verdict on signage/or lack of it, regarding Coppergate. How will the cycle race visitors be treated? Cheeky face
  • Score: -705

3:30pm Fri 28 Mar 14

Junior123 says...

Like I said before - ASK THE PEOPLE IN YORK what they want.
They are the voters, they have a right to a say. For once make this an honest debate and give people the chance to be heard. Why is it so hard?
It makes common sense for this to be the process and the majority who vote for the bridge either to be open or stay closed wins.
Why do Councils make things so hard, do they feel they have to?, so as to justify they are worth OUR money.
Like I said before - ASK THE PEOPLE IN YORK what they want. They are the voters, they have a right to a say. For once make this an honest debate and give people the chance to be heard. Why is it so hard? It makes common sense for this to be the process and the majority who vote for the bridge either to be open or stay closed wins. Why do Councils make things so hard, do they feel they have to?, so as to justify they are worth OUR money. Junior123
  • Score: -790

3:44pm Fri 28 Mar 14

holy_roller says...

MarkyMarkMark wrote:
BL2 wrote:
The Labour council have no interest in openness or debate with other parties or members of the public. They see York as THEIR city to do with as they will - they should be forcibly removed from office as they are NOT representing the electorate!
Forcibly? How very democratic....not.

And you may not like it, but they were elected in a fair and free ballot to govern and manage the city for a term.

I don't really approve of them either - they don't represent my views - but I will defend their right to govern according to the mandate they were given in the last local government election.

I'm not quite sure who or what I'd vote to replace them with at the moment - none of the current political parties give me any more hope that the city will be managed as I believe it should.

But we all get our say again in May 2015. If people are really that bothered, let's see a much higher turnout at the polls. If you don't vote, you have no right to complain about the result!
You contradict this...
If you don't vote, you have no right to complain about the result!

with this...
"none of the current political parties give me any more hope that the city will be managed as I believe it should."

Labour were elected to represent our views for a term. The fact that they are not (lendal bridge survey, 20s plenty survey) invalidates their tenure.

Perfectly honourable to refuse to take part. If we had a 'none of the above' you would have a fair point. If Labour's warmongering drove you LibDem you really have very little choice but to abstain.

The sooner we have minimum turnout rules the better, would be councillors would have to start giving a ****.
[quote][p][bold]MarkyMarkMark[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]BL2[/bold] wrote: The Labour council have no interest in openness or debate with other parties or members of the public. They see York as THEIR city to do with as they will - they should be forcibly removed from office as they are NOT representing the electorate![/p][/quote]Forcibly? How very democratic....not. And you may not like it, but they were elected in a fair and free ballot to govern and manage the city for a term. I don't really approve of them either - they don't represent my views - but I will defend their right to govern according to the mandate they were given in the last local government election. I'm not quite sure who or what I'd vote to replace them with at the moment - none of the current political parties give me any more hope that the city will be managed as I believe it should. But we all get our say again in May 2015. If people are really that bothered, let's see a much higher turnout at the polls. If you don't vote, you have no right to complain about the result![/p][/quote]You contradict this... If you don't vote, you have no right to complain about the result! with this... "none of the current political parties give me any more hope that the city will be managed as I believe it should." Labour were elected to represent our views for a term. The fact that they are not (lendal bridge survey, 20s plenty survey) invalidates their tenure. Perfectly honourable to refuse to take part. If we had a 'none of the above' you would have a fair point. If Labour's warmongering drove you LibDem you really have very little choice but to abstain. The sooner we have minimum turnout rules the better, would be councillors would have to start giving a ****. holy_roller
  • Score: -786

3:52pm Fri 28 Mar 14

angie 62 says...

there is a plaque on this bridge that says it is free from tolls ,is £30.00 a toll to cross if it is then surely this is illegal.
there is a plaque on this bridge that says it is free from tolls ,is £30.00 a toll to cross if it is then surely this is illegal. angie 62
  • Score: -884

3:54pm Fri 28 Mar 14

MrsHoney says...

yorkshirelad wrote:
Democracy means that we elect councils to for a period of time. Inevitably this results in policies/schemes that not everyone agrees with. Occasionally it may result in policies or schemes that a majority do not agree with - this happens in all councils and all governments charged with looking at long term issues. The curreny national government faces the same sort of thing over HS2 - taking the short term pain for long term gain.

Whilst it's fine to comment, fine to oppose to a point...there does come a stage where under a democratic system you accept what a democratically elected body does. Endless attempts to thwart policies and use technical tricks to block them...or bombard councils with various expensive time-wasting tactics such as demanding tonnes of data are simply using all of us taxpayers money for a personal crusade or personal obsession.

There will never be a majority for any car-restriction policy in York but every council whatever colour will face the reality of the slow strangling of York unless they implement policies that gradually move towards a more rational use of private cars...hence the Footstreets (bitterly opposed at the time) and numerous other progressive transport policies (remember the huff and puff over the London Congestion Charge?).

The closure of Lendal Bridge is brilliant for York and when all the fuss has died down we'll wonder why we allowed crawling traffic to block it for so long. All change schemes will take a while to bed in...eventually most people will re-jig their journies and the world really won't end. I think everything possible should be done to make sure people don't accidentally get fined but for those who think that it doesn't apply to them because they don't agree with it...well....

The real scandal of Lendal Bridge is Lib Dem opportunism when they know full well that reductions in private car use are necessary for the long term economic survival of small cities, not to mention environmental and health reasons. You should be supporting the closure folks.
What is so brilliant about the closure? I haven't heard anything that convinces me it's worth causing so many problems and upseting so many people. I would really like a list of the positives please.
[quote][p][bold]yorkshirelad[/bold] wrote: Democracy means that we elect councils to for a period of time. Inevitably this results in policies/schemes that not everyone agrees with. Occasionally it may result in policies or schemes that a majority do not agree with - this happens in all councils and all governments charged with looking at long term issues. The curreny national government faces the same sort of thing over HS2 - taking the short term pain for long term gain. Whilst it's fine to comment, fine to oppose to a point...there does come a stage where under a democratic system you accept what a democratically elected body does. Endless attempts to thwart policies and use technical tricks to block them...or bombard councils with various expensive time-wasting tactics such as demanding tonnes of data are simply using all of us taxpayers money for a personal crusade or personal obsession. There will never be a majority for any car-restriction policy in York but every council whatever colour will face the reality of the slow strangling of York unless they implement policies that gradually move towards a more rational use of private cars...hence the Footstreets (bitterly opposed at the time) and numerous other progressive transport policies (remember the huff and puff over the London Congestion Charge?). The closure of Lendal Bridge is brilliant for York and when all the fuss has died down we'll wonder why we allowed crawling traffic to block it for so long. All change schemes will take a while to bed in...eventually most people will re-jig their journies and the world really won't end. I think everything possible should be done to make sure people don't accidentally get fined but for those who think that it doesn't apply to them because they don't agree with it...well.... The real scandal of Lendal Bridge is Lib Dem opportunism when they know full well that reductions in private car use are necessary for the long term economic survival of small cities, not to mention environmental and health reasons. You should be supporting the closure folks.[/p][/quote]What is so brilliant about the closure? I haven't heard anything that convinces me it's worth causing so many problems and upseting so many people. I would really like a list of the positives please. MrsHoney
  • Score: -857

3:57pm Fri 28 Mar 14

oldgoat says...

pedalling paul wrote:
Let us not forget that closing one of the three bridges was a plank of York's curent Local transport Plan. It runs from 2011 to 2031 and was signed off by the LibDem Councillor Steve Galloway, whose Party had control at the time.
Looking ahead to the 2015 local elections, one maybe senses a whiff of political opportunism.
But Labour were just as guilty. They supported the LibDem led Clifton Green changes, but as soon as they took power, carried out a so-called electroral pledge to undo the changes.
It is a sad fact that Transport Planning recommendations, which take a long term view can be undermined by those Councillors who wear election blinkers.
Likewise a statement above suggests that the Council should always do "what the voters want." But many voters are more incapable than some Councillors of taking a long term view. They are only concerned about the ease with which car users can get around today.
Believe me if the City's present traffic restrictions were all suddenly removed, there would be a massive free for all which would end up with few motor vehicle users getting anywhere.
No they wouldn't. You make some massive assumptions.
Closing Lendal Bridge and Coppergate makes for long detours on cross-town journeys. The same cars are forced to use other routes which get clogged up as fewer roads are available for the same volumes of traffic.

On the east side (Bootham), there is no easy access to Ouse or Skeldergate bridges, so no easy escape route exists. Having driven through other larger cities and tried to understand road restrictions (Leeds is a good example) at the same times as navigating unfamiliar roads, its no surprise that plenty of visitors get trapped by the cameras before they realise what's going on.

A transport plan for decades should be a little more visionary than blocking bridges like this. Giving people sensible alternatives that actually work and don't get in their way, is the way forwards.
[quote][p][bold]pedalling paul [/bold] wrote: Let us not forget that closing one of the three bridges was a plank of York's curent Local transport Plan. It runs from 2011 to 2031 and was signed off by the LibDem Councillor Steve Galloway, whose Party had control at the time. Looking ahead to the 2015 local elections, one maybe senses a whiff of political opportunism. But Labour were just as guilty. They supported the LibDem led Clifton Green changes, but as soon as they took power, carried out a so-called electroral pledge to undo the changes. It is a sad fact that Transport Planning recommendations, which take a long term view can be undermined by those Councillors who wear election blinkers. Likewise a statement above suggests that the Council should always do "what the voters want." But many voters are more incapable than some Councillors of taking a long term view. They are only concerned about the ease with which car users can get around today. Believe me if the City's present traffic restrictions were all suddenly removed, there would be a massive free for all which would end up with few motor vehicle users getting anywhere.[/p][/quote]No they wouldn't. You make some massive assumptions. Closing Lendal Bridge and Coppergate makes for long detours on cross-town journeys. The same cars are forced to use other routes which get clogged up as fewer roads are available for the same volumes of traffic. On the east side (Bootham), there is no easy access to Ouse or Skeldergate bridges, so no easy escape route exists. Having driven through other larger cities and tried to understand road restrictions (Leeds is a good example) at the same times as navigating unfamiliar roads, its no surprise that plenty of visitors get trapped by the cameras before they realise what's going on. A transport plan for decades should be a little more visionary than blocking bridges like this. Giving people sensible alternatives that actually work and don't get in their way, is the way forwards. oldgoat
  • Score: 1803

4:13pm Fri 28 Mar 14

Pinza-C55 says...

pedalling paul wrote:
Let us not forget that closing one of the three bridges was a plank of York's curent Local transport Plan. It runs from 2011 to 2031 and was signed off by the LibDem Councillor Steve Galloway, whose Party had control at the time.
Looking ahead to the 2015 local elections, one maybe senses a whiff of political opportunism.
But Labour were just as guilty. They supported the LibDem led Clifton Green changes, but as soon as they took power, carried out a so-called electroral pledge to undo the changes.
It is a sad fact that Transport Planning recommendations, which take a long term view can be undermined by those Councillors who wear election blinkers.
Likewise a statement above suggests that the Council should always do "what the voters want." But many voters are more incapable than some Councillors of taking a long term view. They are only concerned about the ease with which car users can get around today.
Believe me if the City's present traffic restrictions were all suddenly removed, there would be a massive free for all which would end up with few motor vehicle users getting anywhere.
"Let us not forget that closing one of the three bridges was a plank of York's curent Local transport Plan. It runs from 2011 to 2031 and was signed off by the LibDem Councillor Steve Galloway, whose Party had control at the time."
So your argument is that any administration is, or should be, bound by plans enacted by a previous administration?
Wow.
" Looking ahead to the 2015 local elections, one maybe senses a whiff of political opportunism."
By whom?
The bridge restrictions appear to be enormously unpopular and if Labour were "opportunist" they would have dropped them and said "well we only did what the Liberals decided".
"But Labour were just as guilty. They supported the LibDem led Clifton Green changes, but as soon as they took power, carried out a so-called electoral pledge to undo the changes."
An electoral pledge is an electoral whether you like it or not, which you clearly don't?
You think Labour should carry out Liberal policies but drop their electoral policies?
Double Wow.
" It is a sad fact that Transport Planning recommendations, which take a long term view can be undermined by those Councillors who wear election blinkers"
Translated "Councillors who are answerable to the electorate". If Transport Planners banned cycling would you accept it as the "long term view" or run whining to the Council?
" Likewise a statement above suggests that the Council should always do "what the voters want." But many voters are more incapable than some Councillors of taking a long term view."
Translated "I know better than the majority of the 200,000 people in York"
" They are only concerned about the ease with which car users can get around today."
Incorrect. I am not a car user and I am opposed to the bridge restrictions. Unlike you I am not obsessed with cycling.
"Believe me if the City's present traffic restrictions were all suddenly removed, there would be a massive free for all which would end up with few motor vehicle users getting anywhere."
I don't believe you. If your post was an example of your reasoning and logic I think believing the opposite of everything you believe would keep me on the straight and narrow.
[quote][p][bold]pedalling paul [/bold] wrote: Let us not forget that closing one of the three bridges was a plank of York's curent Local transport Plan. It runs from 2011 to 2031 and was signed off by the LibDem Councillor Steve Galloway, whose Party had control at the time. Looking ahead to the 2015 local elections, one maybe senses a whiff of political opportunism. But Labour were just as guilty. They supported the LibDem led Clifton Green changes, but as soon as they took power, carried out a so-called electroral pledge to undo the changes. It is a sad fact that Transport Planning recommendations, which take a long term view can be undermined by those Councillors who wear election blinkers. Likewise a statement above suggests that the Council should always do "what the voters want." But many voters are more incapable than some Councillors of taking a long term view. They are only concerned about the ease with which car users can get around today. Believe me if the City's present traffic restrictions were all suddenly removed, there would be a massive free for all which would end up with few motor vehicle users getting anywhere.[/p][/quote]"Let us not forget that closing one of the three bridges was a plank of York's curent Local transport Plan. It runs from 2011 to 2031 and was signed off by the LibDem Councillor Steve Galloway, whose Party had control at the time." So your argument is that any administration is, or should be, bound by plans enacted by a previous administration? Wow. " Looking ahead to the 2015 local elections, one maybe senses a whiff of political opportunism." By whom? The bridge restrictions appear to be enormously unpopular and if Labour were "opportunist" they would have dropped them and said "well we only did what the Liberals decided". "But Labour were just as guilty. They supported the LibDem led Clifton Green changes, but as soon as they took power, carried out a so-called electoral pledge to undo the changes." An electoral pledge is an electoral whether you like it or not, which you clearly don't? You think Labour should carry out Liberal policies but drop their electoral policies? Double Wow. " It is a sad fact that Transport Planning recommendations, which take a long term view can be undermined by those Councillors who wear election blinkers" Translated "Councillors who are answerable to the electorate". If Transport Planners banned cycling would you accept it as the "long term view" or run whining to the Council? " Likewise a statement above suggests that the Council should always do "what the voters want." But many voters are more incapable than some Councillors of taking a long term view." Translated "I know better than the majority of the 200,000 people in York" " They are only concerned about the ease with which car users can get around today." Incorrect. I am not a car user and I am opposed to the bridge restrictions. Unlike you I am not obsessed with cycling. "Believe me if the City's present traffic restrictions were all suddenly removed, there would be a massive free for all which would end up with few motor vehicle users getting anywhere." I don't believe you. If your post was an example of your reasoning and logic I think believing the opposite of everything you believe would keep me on the straight and narrow. Pinza-C55
  • Score: -701

4:17pm Fri 28 Mar 14

jay, york says...

pedalling paul wrote:
Let us not forget that closing one of the three bridges was a plank of York's curent Local transport Plan. It runs from 2011 to 2031 and was signed off by the LibDem Councillor Steve Galloway, whose Party had control at the time. Looking ahead to the 2015 local elections, one maybe senses a whiff of political opportunism. But Labour were just as guilty. They supported the LibDem led Clifton Green changes, but as soon as they took power, carried out a so-called electroral pledge to undo the changes. It is a sad fact that Transport Planning recommendations, which take a long term view can be undermined by those Councillors who wear election blinkers. Likewise a statement above suggests that the Council should always do "what the voters want." But many voters are more incapable than some Councillors of taking a long term view. They are only concerned about the ease with which car users can get around today. Believe me if the City's present traffic restrictions were all suddenly removed, there would be a massive free for all which would end up with few motor vehicle users getting anywhere.
May I start by saying I am NOT against sensible and safe cyclists - which some of my friends are and what they do is great But everyone should have the right to chose their own preferred method of transport depending on individual circumstances and purpose for making a particular jouirney - and not be told that we should all be cycling.

Also, ALL road users should be tested on their capabilities of being on the road - including their understanding of the highway code, road signs and markings, use of lights, use of road junctions, turning left and right etc - oh and the difference between (i) red and green traffic lights and (ii) road and pavement.

Perhaps the "election blinkers" you refer to are a bit like your cyclists blinkers PP - dont see anything outside your own little bubble - except possible gridlock unless all cars are banned (although you do word it differently here)!

And for goodness sake stop referring just to "car users" - the vehicles not allowed to use the inner ring road (and lets not forget this is what it is) at Lendal Bridge includes doctors, nurses, carers, patient ambulances, private ambulances, business vehicles, delivery vehicles, disabled drivers, coaches bringing visitors to York. But it seems strange that taxi drivers are able to drive over the bridge at ANY time even when they are not working - how did they manage to get away with that one?

Lets face facts, CYC have confirmed that there are fewer motor vehicles on the roads now, yet congestion and air pollution have increased. Surely even you can work this one out PP. The more roads that are closed to motor vehicles just reduces the road network available to use and will therefore create more congestion and air pollution everywhere else.
[quote][p][bold]pedalling paul [/bold] wrote: Let us not forget that closing one of the three bridges was a plank of York's curent Local transport Plan. It runs from 2011 to 2031 and was signed off by the LibDem Councillor Steve Galloway, whose Party had control at the time. Looking ahead to the 2015 local elections, one maybe senses a whiff of political opportunism. But Labour were just as guilty. They supported the LibDem led Clifton Green changes, but as soon as they took power, carried out a so-called electroral pledge to undo the changes. It is a sad fact that Transport Planning recommendations, which take a long term view can be undermined by those Councillors who wear election blinkers. Likewise a statement above suggests that the Council should always do "what the voters want." But many voters are more incapable than some Councillors of taking a long term view. They are only concerned about the ease with which car users can get around today. Believe me if the City's present traffic restrictions were all suddenly removed, there would be a massive free for all which would end up with few motor vehicle users getting anywhere.[/p][/quote]May I start by saying I am NOT against sensible and safe cyclists - which some of my friends are and what they do is great But everyone should have the right to chose their own preferred method of transport depending on individual circumstances and purpose for making a particular jouirney - and not be told that we should all be cycling. Also, ALL road users should be tested on their capabilities of being on the road - including their understanding of the highway code, road signs and markings, use of lights, use of road junctions, turning left and right etc - oh and the difference between (i) red and green traffic lights and (ii) road and pavement. Perhaps the "election blinkers" you refer to are a bit like your cyclists blinkers PP - dont see anything outside your own little bubble - except possible gridlock unless all cars are banned (although you do word it differently here)! And for goodness sake stop referring just to "car users" - the vehicles not allowed to use the inner ring road (and lets not forget this is what it is) at Lendal Bridge includes doctors, nurses, carers, patient ambulances, private ambulances, business vehicles, delivery vehicles, disabled drivers, coaches bringing visitors to York. But it seems strange that taxi drivers are able to drive over the bridge at ANY time even when they are not working - how did they manage to get away with that one? Lets face facts, CYC have confirmed that there are fewer motor vehicles on the roads now, yet congestion and air pollution have increased. Surely even you can work this one out PP. The more roads that are closed to motor vehicles just reduces the road network available to use and will therefore create more congestion and air pollution everywhere else. jay, york
  • Score: 2309

4:23pm Fri 28 Mar 14

MarkyMarkMark says...

holy_roller wrote:
MarkyMarkMark wrote:
BL2 wrote:
The Labour council have no interest in openness or debate with other parties or members of the public. They see York as THEIR city to do with as they will - they should be forcibly removed from office as they are NOT representing the electorate!
Forcibly? How very democratic....not.

And you may not like it, but they were elected in a fair and free ballot to govern and manage the city for a term.

I don't really approve of them either - they don't represent my views - but I will defend their right to govern according to the mandate they were given in the last local government election.

I'm not quite sure who or what I'd vote to replace them with at the moment - none of the current political parties give me any more hope that the city will be managed as I believe it should.

But we all get our say again in May 2015. If people are really that bothered, let's see a much higher turnout at the polls. If you don't vote, you have no right to complain about the result!
You contradict this...
If you don't vote, you have no right to complain about the result!

with this...
"none of the current political parties give me any more hope that the city will be managed as I believe it should."

Labour were elected to represent our views for a term. The fact that they are not (lendal bridge survey, 20s plenty survey) invalidates their tenure.

Perfectly honourable to refuse to take part. If we had a 'none of the above' you would have a fair point. If Labour's warmongering drove you LibDem you really have very little choice but to abstain.

The sooner we have minimum turnout rules the better, would be councillors would have to start giving a ****.
Ah well, I didn't say I didn't vote for one of the parties, did I? Just that none of them offer me a lot of hope at the moment...... it's a case of the lesser of several evils at the moment, I'm afraid. They may have lied or omitted to tell me what their actual plans were, but I will not forget that when it comes to voting next time.

But don't get me started on the voting/electoral process. That's different! Within the rules of the one we've currently got, the current incumbents are entitled to exercise the authority they've been give, I do think they could exercise it with a bit more consideration and courtesy, though.

I agree with you about a "none of the above" option, and a minimum turnout requirement. But what do you do when not enough people care enough to reach the magic percentage? Who pays for a re-run? I'd like to see mandatory voting (as in Australia) but with a more sophisticated system that didn't mean you use pencil and paper with a drawn out "count" - have the Electoral Commission never heard of technology and security?
[quote][p][bold]holy_roller[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]MarkyMarkMark[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]BL2[/bold] wrote: The Labour council have no interest in openness or debate with other parties or members of the public. They see York as THEIR city to do with as they will - they should be forcibly removed from office as they are NOT representing the electorate![/p][/quote]Forcibly? How very democratic....not. And you may not like it, but they were elected in a fair and free ballot to govern and manage the city for a term. I don't really approve of them either - they don't represent my views - but I will defend their right to govern according to the mandate they were given in the last local government election. I'm not quite sure who or what I'd vote to replace them with at the moment - none of the current political parties give me any more hope that the city will be managed as I believe it should. But we all get our say again in May 2015. If people are really that bothered, let's see a much higher turnout at the polls. If you don't vote, you have no right to complain about the result![/p][/quote]You contradict this... If you don't vote, you have no right to complain about the result! with this... "none of the current political parties give me any more hope that the city will be managed as I believe it should." Labour were elected to represent our views for a term. The fact that they are not (lendal bridge survey, 20s plenty survey) invalidates their tenure. Perfectly honourable to refuse to take part. If we had a 'none of the above' you would have a fair point. If Labour's warmongering drove you LibDem you really have very little choice but to abstain. The sooner we have minimum turnout rules the better, would be councillors would have to start giving a ****.[/p][/quote]Ah well, I didn't say I didn't vote for one of the parties, did I? Just that none of them offer me a lot of hope at the moment...... it's a case of the lesser of several evils at the moment, I'm afraid. They may have lied or omitted to tell me what their actual plans were, but I will not forget that when it comes to voting next time. But don't get me started on the voting/electoral process. That's different! Within the rules of the one we've currently got, the current incumbents are entitled to exercise the authority they've been give, I do think they could exercise it with a bit more consideration and courtesy, though. I agree with you about a "none of the above" option, and a minimum turnout requirement. But what do you do when not enough people care enough to reach the magic percentage? Who pays for a re-run? I'd like to see mandatory voting (as in Australia) but with a more sophisticated system that didn't mean you use pencil and paper with a drawn out "count" - have the Electoral Commission never heard of technology and security? MarkyMarkMark
  • Score: -569

4:30pm Fri 28 Mar 14

zaccwm says...

Apparently we have one of the best bus services in the UK but this was another piece of dodgy stats. They only asked users of the buses and if you are one of the people using them, especially if you are on a free ticket, then you may well think they are good value.
http://www.itravelyo
rk.info/news/yorks-b
uses-ranked-among-th
e-best-in-the-uk
Sadly for people who actually travel around the country they seem too infrequent to be useful, too expensive and the few times I have used at peak times they have been so massively overcrouded (much like the trains) that it is a health hazzard, quite apart from unpleasant.
Apparently we have one of the best bus services in the UK but this was another piece of dodgy stats. They only asked users of the buses and if you are one of the people using them, especially if you are on a free ticket, then you may well think they are good value. http://www.itravelyo rk.info/news/yorks-b uses-ranked-among-th e-best-in-the-uk Sadly for people who actually travel around the country they seem too infrequent to be useful, too expensive and the few times I have used at peak times they have been so massively overcrouded (much like the trains) that it is a health hazzard, quite apart from unpleasant. zaccwm
  • Score: -587

4:31pm Fri 28 Mar 14

c hogg says...

What has been the impact on emergency service vehicles negotiating the extra gridlock. Some of us don't have the luxury of 9x5 jobs in the city where we can utilise public transport and walk across the bridges. Why has the council jot built into planning for the former Terry site and the Uni of funding for a new bridge linking Bishopthorpe Road and Broadway. This would reduce the traffic through the congestion points. York traffic needs to be addressed or are they weakening us to offer the option of tolls contradicting the freedom signs on the bridge. Park and ride doesnt operate late for people spending a dsy in tge city and wishing to enjoy a family meal in the many city centre redtaurants etc.Lets see some honest politician declare their thoughts.
What has been the impact on emergency service vehicles negotiating the extra gridlock. Some of us don't have the luxury of 9x5 jobs in the city where we can utilise public transport and walk across the bridges. Why has the council jot built into planning for the former Terry site and the Uni of funding for a new bridge linking Bishopthorpe Road and Broadway. This would reduce the traffic through the congestion points. York traffic needs to be addressed or are they weakening us to offer the option of tolls contradicting the freedom signs on the bridge. Park and ride doesnt operate late for people spending a dsy in tge city and wishing to enjoy a family meal in the many city centre redtaurants etc.Lets see some honest politician declare their thoughts. c hogg
  • Score: 4380

4:51pm Fri 28 Mar 14

AlanAtClifton says...

offa wrote:
I am not a great supporter of the Labour group, but well done this time. I endorse Sandy Fraser's com ments about the LibDems - a duplicitous lot if ever there was one. It is wonderful in Exhibition Square and on Lendal Bridge when the traffic is restricted. Long may the ban continue.
"It is wonderful in Exhibition Square and on Lendal Bridge when the traffic is restricted. Long may the ban continue."

BUT it is NOT wonderful along Water End, Water Lane, Burdyke Avenue, Leeman Road, Lord Mayors Walk, Foss Island Road, etc.. etc..

Once there were FIVE road bridges across the river - now there are FOUR,
So the four remaining bridges have to absorbe the extra displaced traffic.
[quote][p][bold]offa[/bold] wrote: I am not a great supporter of the Labour group, but well done this time. I endorse Sandy Fraser's com ments about the LibDems - a duplicitous lot if ever there was one. It is wonderful in Exhibition Square and on Lendal Bridge when the traffic is restricted. Long may the ban continue.[/p][/quote]"It is wonderful in Exhibition Square and on Lendal Bridge when the traffic is restricted. Long may the ban continue." BUT it is NOT wonderful along Water End, Water Lane, Burdyke Avenue, Leeman Road, Lord Mayors Walk, Foss Island Road, etc.. etc.. Once there were FIVE road bridges across the river - now there are FOUR, So the four remaining bridges have to absorbe the extra displaced traffic. AlanAtClifton
  • Score: 4445

4:56pm Fri 28 Mar 14

Igiveinthen says...

again wrote:
offa wrote:
I am not a great supporter of the Labour group, but well done this time. I endorse Sandy Fraser's com ments about the LibDems - a duplicitous lot if ever there was one.

It is wonderful in Exhibition Square and on Lendal Bridge when the traffic is restricted. Long may the ban continue.
I quite agree. There does need to be a balance struck between those people inside their cars and those who wish to use the streets while outside a car.

It's all too easy for the motor vehicle to be used to bully other street users and for its worshippers to tyrannise people into using nothing else to travel, even on ludicrously short journeys.

We are now a nation of the obese and overweight. Coincidence? Or cause and effect? Of course the car has a place in our lives but it must be kept in its place and not become an addiction.
What on earth are you talking about......... It's all too easy for the motor vehicle to be used to bully other street users and for its worshippers to tyrannise people into using nothing else to travel, even on ludicrously short journeys..........ar
e you saying that drivers deliberately aim their cars at pedestrians and cyclists? Somebody must have forgot to lock you in your room!
[quote][p][bold]again[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]offa[/bold] wrote: I am not a great supporter of the Labour group, but well done this time. I endorse Sandy Fraser's com ments about the LibDems - a duplicitous lot if ever there was one. It is wonderful in Exhibition Square and on Lendal Bridge when the traffic is restricted. Long may the ban continue.[/p][/quote]I quite agree. There does need to be a balance struck between those people inside their cars and those who wish to use the streets while outside a car. It's all too easy for the motor vehicle to be used to bully other street users and for its worshippers to tyrannise people into using nothing else to travel, even on ludicrously short journeys. We are now a nation of the obese and overweight. Coincidence? Or cause and effect? Of course the car has a place in our lives but it must be kept in its place and not become an addiction.[/p][/quote]What on earth are you talking about......... It's all too easy for the motor vehicle to be used to bully other street users and for its worshippers to tyrannise people into using nothing else to travel, even on ludicrously short journeys..........ar e you saying that drivers deliberately aim their cars at pedestrians and cyclists? Somebody must have forgot to lock you in your room! Igiveinthen
  • Score: -231

5:54pm Fri 28 Mar 14

mmarshal says...

Dick Turpin is still with us in the form of CYC. Whether or not Lendal Bridge should be closed to traffic is debatable but the poor signage is self evident.
A masked man stepping into the road with a musket and shouting 'Stand and deliver. Your money or your life' is unambiguous. Lendal Bridge Restricted Access is much less clear.
Sat Navs direct drivers across the bridge, signs on the A19 at Clifton still display straight on for National Rail Museum and City Centre. It's not until the visitor is funnelled into Museum straight that the closure sign becomes unambiguous. By which time the visitor can see taxis, buses, Royal Mail vehicles a CYC highways vehicles together with the other lost soles (or sheep following the vehicle in front) all ignoring the vehicle restriction signs.
At this time the visitor either joins the sheep or does a U turn in a street which was never designed for such manouvres, particularly when he/she is tailgated by a queue of impatient buses and taxis.
Come on CYC, why not study the history of Dick Turpin and see if you can get the signs right? Perhaps enlist assistance from your local primary school.
Maybe even Councillor Merrett standing in the middle of the road wearing an A frame and waiving a sign, 'Stand and deliver £30/£60 before crossing my bridge.'
Dick Turpin is still with us in the form of CYC. Whether or not Lendal Bridge should be closed to traffic is debatable but the poor signage is self evident. A masked man stepping into the road with a musket and shouting 'Stand and deliver. Your money or your life' is unambiguous. Lendal Bridge Restricted Access is much less clear. Sat Navs direct drivers across the bridge, signs on the A19 at Clifton still display straight on for National Rail Museum and City Centre. It's not until the visitor is funnelled into Museum straight that the closure sign becomes unambiguous. By which time the visitor can see taxis, buses, Royal Mail vehicles a CYC highways vehicles together with the other lost soles (or sheep following the vehicle in front) all ignoring the vehicle restriction signs. At this time the visitor either joins the sheep or does a U turn in a street which was never designed for such manouvres, particularly when he/she is tailgated by a queue of impatient buses and taxis. Come on CYC, why not study the history of Dick Turpin and see if you can get the signs right? Perhaps enlist assistance from your local primary school. Maybe even Councillor Merrett standing in the middle of the road wearing an A frame and waiving a sign, 'Stand and deliver £30/£60 before crossing my bridge.' mmarshal
  • Score: 5250

6:08pm Fri 28 Mar 14

jimbell says...

Anger after Lendal Bridge vote blocked ! not just anger but also disgust. Cllr Alexander when previously asked about when a decision would be made re:Lendal Bridge closure said that it would be before the trial ended ! or has that been airbrushed out of history ? Last night's filibustering by the Labour council was disgraceful. It's patently obvious that the so called " trial " is going to be forced through and made permanent whatever the evidence against it . Will we ever be allowed to see the raw data ? I doubt it . Will this Council ever conduct a meaningful consultation with the electorate ? I doubt it. It seems that we're stuck with this dogma sodden clique until the next elections. P.S. you can view the travesty of democracy webcast here : http://www.york.gov.
uk/webcasts
Anger after Lendal Bridge vote blocked ! not just anger but also disgust. Cllr Alexander when previously asked about when a decision would be made re:Lendal Bridge closure said that it would be before the trial ended ! or has that been airbrushed out of history ? Last night's filibustering by the Labour council was disgraceful. It's patently obvious that the so called " trial " is going to be forced through and made permanent whatever the evidence against it . Will we ever be allowed to see the raw data ? I doubt it . Will this Council ever conduct a meaningful consultation with the electorate ? I doubt it. It seems that we're stuck with this dogma sodden clique until the next elections. P.S. you can view the travesty of democracy webcast here : http://www.york.gov. uk/webcasts jimbell
  • Score: -516

6:47pm Fri 28 Mar 14

RoseD says...

offa wrote:
I am not a great supporter of the Labour group, but well done this time. I endorse Sandy Fraser's com ments about the LibDems - a duplicitous lot if ever there was one.

It is wonderful in Exhibition Square and on Lendal Bridge when the traffic is restricted. Long may the ban continue.
Not wonderful to those with mobility issues, NO money for a taxi (nor the patience to deal with them). Stated like a true Temporarily Abled person.

Those who don't care
1. don't drive at all
2. don't use the bridge if they drive
and certainly
3. DON'T live or regularly travel along the now highly-congested routes where the traffic has been relocated.

the traffic hasn't stopped: its just shifted.
[quote][p][bold]offa[/bold] wrote: I am not a great supporter of the Labour group, but well done this time. I endorse Sandy Fraser's com ments about the LibDems - a duplicitous lot if ever there was one. It is wonderful in Exhibition Square and on Lendal Bridge when the traffic is restricted. Long may the ban continue.[/p][/quote]Not wonderful to those with mobility issues, NO money for a taxi (nor the patience to deal with them). Stated like a true Temporarily Abled person. Those who don't care 1. don't drive at all 2. don't use the bridge if they drive and certainly 3. DON'T live or regularly travel along the now highly-congested routes where the traffic has been relocated. the traffic hasn't stopped: its just shifted. RoseD
  • Score: 224

6:57pm Fri 28 Mar 14

RoseD says...

pbrowne2009@live.co.
uk
wrote:
Lets sit here and moan about it...... because that's easy, hiding behind a keyboard and expressing an opinion.

You want to do something about it then hold a protest. Flaunt the trial which has ended now. Drive over the bridge, get the fine and put it in the bin, then drive over it again then put that in the bin as well.

Honestly, people in the UK (in general) are so good to sit back and let the fingers do the talking while the council and the gouv sit there probably not even reading the comment section of the local paper.
Been (bin) doing exactly that. Or rather will contest each and every one.

The train I missed cost £64 so the £30 Cripple Tax & Bridge Toll is, after all, cheaper and Alexander & His Ragtime Band want to make ££ on a physically impaired, unemployed person. How typical of this CYC.
[quote][p][bold]pbrowne2009@live.co. uk[/bold] wrote: Lets sit here and moan about it...... because that's easy, hiding behind a keyboard and expressing an opinion. You want to do something about it then hold a protest. Flaunt the trial which has ended now. Drive over the bridge, get the fine and put it in the bin, then drive over it again then put that in the bin as well. Honestly, people in the UK (in general) are so good to sit back and let the fingers do the talking while the council and the gouv sit there probably not even reading the comment section of the local paper.[/p][/quote]Been (bin) doing exactly that. Or rather will contest each and every one. The train I missed cost £64 so the £30 Cripple Tax & Bridge Toll is, after all, cheaper and Alexander & His Ragtime Band want to make ££ on a physically impaired, unemployed person. How typical of this CYC. RoseD
  • Score: 428

7:15pm Fri 28 Mar 14

RoseD says...

An interesting comment regarding the now-highly-congested routes around 100 metres of so-called Ring Road.... Yes, our house faces the road and our bedroom is 3 feet from the fumes. Last summer we were forced to close our windows. So, the CYC excuse is that a few folks died of asthma while walking on Lendal or Gillygate (if I understand Merrett). But now what about elevated respiratory disease among all the folks who live along the now congested routes?

Do I sue Merrett directly or the entire Labour Council for when my health worsens?
An interesting comment regarding the now-highly-congested routes around 100 metres of so-called Ring Road.... Yes, our house faces the road and our bedroom is 3 feet from the fumes. Last summer we were forced to close our windows. So, the CYC excuse is that a few folks died of asthma while walking on Lendal or Gillygate (if I understand Merrett). But now what about elevated respiratory disease among all the folks who live along the now congested routes? Do I sue Merrett directly or the entire Labour Council for when my health worsens? RoseD
  • Score: 229

7:34pm Fri 28 Mar 14

tizme says...

This was an important debate/subject. Why was it left 'til last? Regardless of whether or not you agree with the closure of the bridge this council do as they please, not what the public want. You may be happy with the closure but what about an issue that you disagree with. You have a voice? No chance!
This was an important debate/subject. Why was it left 'til last? Regardless of whether or not you agree with the closure of the bridge this council do as they please, not what the public want. You may be happy with the closure but what about an issue that you disagree with. You have a voice? No chance! tizme
  • Score: 194

8:45pm Fri 28 Mar 14

piaggio1 says...

Oh come on .the whole lot of em are CORRUPT.
Just do not vote for any of em .....life wll go on.....
Oh come on .the whole lot of em are CORRUPT. Just do not vote for any of em .....life wll go on..... piaggio1
  • Score: -419

8:54pm Fri 28 Mar 14

holy_roller says...

MarkyMarkMark wrote:
holy_roller wrote:
MarkyMarkMark wrote:
BL2 wrote:
The Labour council have no interest in openness or debate with other parties or members of the public. They see York as THEIR city to do with as they will - they should be forcibly removed from office as they are NOT representing the electorate!
Forcibly? How very democratic....not.

And you may not like it, but they were elected in a fair and free ballot to govern and manage the city for a term.

I don't really approve of them either - they don't represent my views - but I will defend their right to govern according to the mandate they were given in the last local government election.

I'm not quite sure who or what I'd vote to replace them with at the moment - none of the current political parties give me any more hope that the city will be managed as I believe it should.

But we all get our say again in May 2015. If people are really that bothered, let's see a much higher turnout at the polls. If you don't vote, you have no right to complain about the result!
You contradict this...
If you don't vote, you have no right to complain about the result!

with this...
"none of the current political parties give me any more hope that the city will be managed as I believe it should."

Labour were elected to represent our views for a term. The fact that they are not (lendal bridge survey, 20s plenty survey) invalidates their tenure.

Perfectly honourable to refuse to take part. If we had a 'none of the above' you would have a fair point. If Labour's warmongering drove you LibDem you really have very little choice but to abstain.

The sooner we have minimum turnout rules the better, would be councillors would have to start giving a ****.
Ah well, I didn't say I didn't vote for one of the parties, did I? Just that none of them offer me a lot of hope at the moment...... it's a case of the lesser of several evils at the moment, I'm afraid. They may have lied or omitted to tell me what their actual plans were, but I will not forget that when it comes to voting next time.

But don't get me started on the voting/electoral process. That's different! Within the rules of the one we've currently got, the current incumbents are entitled to exercise the authority they've been give, I do think they could exercise it with a bit more consideration and courtesy, though.

I agree with you about a "none of the above" option, and a minimum turnout requirement. But what do you do when not enough people care enough to reach the magic percentage? Who pays for a re-run? I'd like to see mandatory voting (as in Australia) but with a more sophisticated system that didn't mean you use pencil and paper with a drawn out "count" - have the Electoral Commission never heard of technology and security?
I think we agree, except on mandatory voting - too easy to manipulate people. And surely anti-democratic.
[quote][p][bold]MarkyMarkMark[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]holy_roller[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]MarkyMarkMark[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]BL2[/bold] wrote: The Labour council have no interest in openness or debate with other parties or members of the public. They see York as THEIR city to do with as they will - they should be forcibly removed from office as they are NOT representing the electorate![/p][/quote]Forcibly? How very democratic....not. And you may not like it, but they were elected in a fair and free ballot to govern and manage the city for a term. I don't really approve of them either - they don't represent my views - but I will defend their right to govern according to the mandate they were given in the last local government election. I'm not quite sure who or what I'd vote to replace them with at the moment - none of the current political parties give me any more hope that the city will be managed as I believe it should. But we all get our say again in May 2015. If people are really that bothered, let's see a much higher turnout at the polls. If you don't vote, you have no right to complain about the result![/p][/quote]You contradict this... If you don't vote, you have no right to complain about the result! with this... "none of the current political parties give me any more hope that the city will be managed as I believe it should." Labour were elected to represent our views for a term. The fact that they are not (lendal bridge survey, 20s plenty survey) invalidates their tenure. Perfectly honourable to refuse to take part. If we had a 'none of the above' you would have a fair point. If Labour's warmongering drove you LibDem you really have very little choice but to abstain. The sooner we have minimum turnout rules the better, would be councillors would have to start giving a ****.[/p][/quote]Ah well, I didn't say I didn't vote for one of the parties, did I? Just that none of them offer me a lot of hope at the moment...... it's a case of the lesser of several evils at the moment, I'm afraid. They may have lied or omitted to tell me what their actual plans were, but I will not forget that when it comes to voting next time. But don't get me started on the voting/electoral process. That's different! Within the rules of the one we've currently got, the current incumbents are entitled to exercise the authority they've been give, I do think they could exercise it with a bit more consideration and courtesy, though. I agree with you about a "none of the above" option, and a minimum turnout requirement. But what do you do when not enough people care enough to reach the magic percentage? Who pays for a re-run? I'd like to see mandatory voting (as in Australia) but with a more sophisticated system that didn't mean you use pencil and paper with a drawn out "count" - have the Electoral Commission never heard of technology and security?[/p][/quote]I think we agree, except on mandatory voting - too easy to manipulate people. And surely anti-democratic. holy_roller
  • Score: -490

9:28pm Fri 28 Mar 14

jumbojet says...

bolero wrote:
The most difficult place to get to in this city is York hospital. For the majority of people this entails a journey across town by one means or another. How that is achieved is a matter of individual choice depending upon capabilities, convenience, etc. This journey must be an absolute nightmare for many; particularly from the south side of york. The closure of the bridge has only served to worsen this situation. The Lib Dems might blether on as they usually do; as that is all they are capable of; but when in office, this same situation existed then and was continually brought to their notice. What did they do to alieve the situation? Exactly what you would expect them to do as Lib Dems-nowt. Empty vessels make the most noise; as the saying goes. The bus services to the hospital are virtually non-existent or useless. When will something be done?
If you are coming in from the South side of York, to go to the hospital, why would you go anywhere near Lendal Bridge? the Southern traffic enters via Fulford and the A19, so you would go down Foss Islands and around the system to get to the hospital. You obviously failed your Navigation course. Keep the bridge closed, their are too many cars within our City, it is impossible to take a descent breath of good air when walking our streets.
[quote][p][bold]bolero[/bold] wrote: The most difficult place to get to in this city is York hospital. For the majority of people this entails a journey across town by one means or another. How that is achieved is a matter of individual choice depending upon capabilities, convenience, etc. This journey must be an absolute nightmare for many; particularly from the south side of york. The closure of the bridge has only served to worsen this situation. The Lib Dems might blether on as they usually do; as that is all they are capable of; but when in office, this same situation existed then and was continually brought to their notice. What did they do to alieve the situation? Exactly what you would expect them to do as Lib Dems-nowt. Empty vessels make the most noise; as the saying goes. The bus services to the hospital are virtually non-existent or useless. When will something be done?[/p][/quote]If you are coming in from the South side of York, to go to the hospital, why would you go anywhere near Lendal Bridge? the Southern traffic enters via Fulford and the A19, so you would go down Foss Islands and around the system to get to the hospital. You obviously failed your Navigation course. Keep the bridge closed, their are too many cars within our City, it is impossible to take a descent breath of good air when walking our streets. jumbojet
  • Score: -349

10:37pm Fri 28 Mar 14

Silver says...

jumbojet wrote:
bolero wrote:
The most difficult place to get to in this city is York hospital. For the majority of people this entails a journey across town by one means or another. How that is achieved is a matter of individual choice depending upon capabilities, convenience, etc. This journey must be an absolute nightmare for many; particularly from the south side of york. The closure of the bridge has only served to worsen this situation. The Lib Dems might blether on as they usually do; as that is all they are capable of; but when in office, this same situation existed then and was continually brought to their notice. What did they do to alieve the situation? Exactly what you would expect them to do as Lib Dems-nowt. Empty vessels make the most noise; as the saying goes. The bus services to the hospital are virtually non-existent or useless. When will something be done?
If you are coming in from the South side of York, to go to the hospital, why would you go anywhere near Lendal Bridge? the Southern traffic enters via Fulford and the A19, so you would go down Foss Islands and around the system to get to the hospital. You obviously failed your Navigation course. Keep the bridge closed, their are too many cars within our City, it is impossible to take a descent breath of good air when walking our streets.
I actually agree with you but I tested my sat nav for a laugh to direct me from Haxby to Morrisons, it tried to take me from one side of the river to the other to make the journey ok I ignored it.And I know people who have lived here for nearly a decade who don't know which way to get around the city and rely on those systems despite the fact it takes a wrong route. So perhaps we need to really educate people around getting round york better.
[quote][p][bold]jumbojet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]bolero[/bold] wrote: The most difficult place to get to in this city is York hospital. For the majority of people this entails a journey across town by one means or another. How that is achieved is a matter of individual choice depending upon capabilities, convenience, etc. This journey must be an absolute nightmare for many; particularly from the south side of york. The closure of the bridge has only served to worsen this situation. The Lib Dems might blether on as they usually do; as that is all they are capable of; but when in office, this same situation existed then and was continually brought to their notice. What did they do to alieve the situation? Exactly what you would expect them to do as Lib Dems-nowt. Empty vessels make the most noise; as the saying goes. The bus services to the hospital are virtually non-existent or useless. When will something be done?[/p][/quote]If you are coming in from the South side of York, to go to the hospital, why would you go anywhere near Lendal Bridge? the Southern traffic enters via Fulford and the A19, so you would go down Foss Islands and around the system to get to the hospital. You obviously failed your Navigation course. Keep the bridge closed, their are too many cars within our City, it is impossible to take a descent breath of good air when walking our streets.[/p][/quote]I actually agree with you but I tested my sat nav for a laugh to direct me from Haxby to Morrisons, it tried to take me from one side of the river to the other to make the journey ok I ignored it.And I know people who have lived here for nearly a decade who don't know which way to get around the city and rely on those systems despite the fact it takes a wrong route. So perhaps we need to really educate people around getting round york better. Silver
  • Score: -295

10:44pm Fri 28 Mar 14

hokey cokey says...

I work on Lendal and come out just after 5 pm to see nose to tail traffic in both directions across the bridge every weekday. To give the buses a chance of keeping to the timetable the ban needs to be 7 to 7 as in other parts of town.
I work on Lendal and come out just after 5 pm to see nose to tail traffic in both directions across the bridge every weekday. To give the buses a chance of keeping to the timetable the ban needs to be 7 to 7 as in other parts of town. hokey cokey
  • Score: -260

11:34pm Fri 28 Mar 14

wallman says...

offa wrote:
I am not a great supporter of the Labour group, but well done this time. I endorse Sandy Fraser's com ments about the LibDems - a duplicitous lot if ever there was one.

It is wonderful in Exhibition Square and on Lendal Bridge when the traffic is restricted. Long may the ban continue.
you will be able to enjoy it more when the bridge is shut 7 till7
[quote][p][bold]offa[/bold] wrote: I am not a great supporter of the Labour group, but well done this time. I endorse Sandy Fraser's com ments about the LibDems - a duplicitous lot if ever there was one. It is wonderful in Exhibition Square and on Lendal Bridge when the traffic is restricted. Long may the ban continue.[/p][/quote]you will be able to enjoy it more when the bridge is shut 7 till7 wallman
  • Score: -189

11:47pm Fri 28 Mar 14

far2bizzy says...

MrsHoney wrote:
yorkshirelad wrote:
Democracy means that we elect councils to for a period of time. Inevitably this results in policies/schemes that not everyone agrees with. Occasionally it may result in policies or schemes that a majority do not agree with - this happens in all councils and all governments charged with looking at long term issues. The curreny national government faces the same sort of thing over HS2 - taking the short term pain for long term gain.

Whilst it's fine to comment, fine to oppose to a point...there does come a stage where under a democratic system you accept what a democratically elected body does. Endless attempts to thwart policies and use technical tricks to block them...or bombard councils with various expensive time-wasting tactics such as demanding tonnes of data are simply using all of us taxpayers money for a personal crusade or personal obsession.

There will never be a majority for any car-restriction policy in York but every council whatever colour will face the reality of the slow strangling of York unless they implement policies that gradually move towards a more rational use of private cars...hence the Footstreets (bitterly opposed at the time) and numerous other progressive transport policies (remember the huff and puff over the London Congestion Charge?).

The closure of Lendal Bridge is brilliant for York and when all the fuss has died down we'll wonder why we allowed crawling traffic to block it for so long. All change schemes will take a while to bed in...eventually most people will re-jig their journies and the world really won't end. I think everything possible should be done to make sure people don't accidentally get fined but for those who think that it doesn't apply to them because they don't agree with it...well....

The real scandal of Lendal Bridge is Lib Dem opportunism when they know full well that reductions in private car use are necessary for the long term economic survival of small cities, not to mention environmental and health reasons. You should be supporting the closure folks.
What is so brilliant about the closure? I haven't heard anything that convinces me it's worth causing so many problems and upseting so many people. I would really like a list of the positives please.
York has the potential to be a world class tourist destination. But to up its game it needs to grasp the nettle on certain issues and one is the area around our iconic building. We need to pedestrianise the Minster area (Duncombe Place, St. Leonards, Museum Street) and this cannot be done without restricting traffic on Lendal Bridge. Yes we still have buses and taxis crossing but they will need to be removed or calmed. One thing at a time.
Forget all this talk about thousands of people turning their backs on the city because they have been fined, we are talking about additional tourists in their hundreds of thousands or even millions being attracted to the city, in the years to come. That’s where the world is going – global tourism is the future. And regardless of the cries of the nay-sayers and nimbys, if York is going to flourish then this is an initiative that has to happen.
[quote][p][bold]MrsHoney[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]yorkshirelad[/bold] wrote: Democracy means that we elect councils to for a period of time. Inevitably this results in policies/schemes that not everyone agrees with. Occasionally it may result in policies or schemes that a majority do not agree with - this happens in all councils and all governments charged with looking at long term issues. The curreny national government faces the same sort of thing over HS2 - taking the short term pain for long term gain. Whilst it's fine to comment, fine to oppose to a point...there does come a stage where under a democratic system you accept what a democratically elected body does. Endless attempts to thwart policies and use technical tricks to block them...or bombard councils with various expensive time-wasting tactics such as demanding tonnes of data are simply using all of us taxpayers money for a personal crusade or personal obsession. There will never be a majority for any car-restriction policy in York but every council whatever colour will face the reality of the slow strangling of York unless they implement policies that gradually move towards a more rational use of private cars...hence the Footstreets (bitterly opposed at the time) and numerous other progressive transport policies (remember the huff and puff over the London Congestion Charge?). The closure of Lendal Bridge is brilliant for York and when all the fuss has died down we'll wonder why we allowed crawling traffic to block it for so long. All change schemes will take a while to bed in...eventually most people will re-jig their journies and the world really won't end. I think everything possible should be done to make sure people don't accidentally get fined but for those who think that it doesn't apply to them because they don't agree with it...well.... The real scandal of Lendal Bridge is Lib Dem opportunism when they know full well that reductions in private car use are necessary for the long term economic survival of small cities, not to mention environmental and health reasons. You should be supporting the closure folks.[/p][/quote]What is so brilliant about the closure? I haven't heard anything that convinces me it's worth causing so many problems and upseting so many people. I would really like a list of the positives please.[/p][/quote]York has the potential to be a world class tourist destination. But to up its game it needs to grasp the nettle on certain issues and one is the area around our iconic building. We need to pedestrianise the Minster area (Duncombe Place, St. Leonards, Museum Street) and this cannot be done without restricting traffic on Lendal Bridge. Yes we still have buses and taxis crossing but they will need to be removed or calmed. One thing at a time. Forget all this talk about thousands of people turning their backs on the city because they have been fined, we are talking about additional tourists in their hundreds of thousands or even millions being attracted to the city, in the years to come. That’s where the world is going – global tourism is the future. And regardless of the cries of the nay-sayers and nimbys, if York is going to flourish then this is an initiative that has to happen. far2bizzy
  • Score: -197

11:48pm Fri 28 Mar 14

wallman says...

offa wrote:
I am not a great supporter of the Labour group, but well done this time. I endorse Sandy Fraser's com ments about the LibDems - a duplicitous lot if ever there was one.

It is wonderful in Exhibition Square and on Lendal Bridge when the traffic is restricted. Long may the ban continue.
you will be able to enjoy it more when the bridge is shut 7 till7
[quote][p][bold]offa[/bold] wrote: I am not a great supporter of the Labour group, but well done this time. I endorse Sandy Fraser's com ments about the LibDems - a duplicitous lot if ever there was one. It is wonderful in Exhibition Square and on Lendal Bridge when the traffic is restricted. Long may the ban continue.[/p][/quote]you will be able to enjoy it more when the bridge is shut 7 till7 wallman
  • Score: -214

11:51pm Fri 28 Mar 14

wallman says...

Con. fraser you own a car? oh no just like your partner who fronts a driving charity who wants all cars banned from the centre of York and supports the farce 20 is plenty but has never driven in their live
Con. fraser you own a car? oh no just like your partner who fronts a driving charity who wants all cars banned from the centre of York and supports the farce 20 is plenty but has never driven in their live wallman
  • Score: -184

12:20am Sat 29 Mar 14

Woody G Mellor says...

far2bizzy wrote:
MrsHoney wrote:
yorkshirelad wrote:
Democracy means that we elect councils to for a period of time. Inevitably this results in policies/schemes that not everyone agrees with. Occasionally it may result in policies or schemes that a majority do not agree with - this happens in all councils and all governments charged with looking at long term issues. The curreny national government faces the same sort of thing over HS2 - taking the short term pain for long term gain.

Whilst it's fine to comment, fine to oppose to a point...there does come a stage where under a democratic system you accept what a democratically elected body does. Endless attempts to thwart policies and use technical tricks to block them...or bombard councils with various expensive time-wasting tactics such as demanding tonnes of data are simply using all of us taxpayers money for a personal crusade or personal obsession.

There will never be a majority for any car-restriction policy in York but every council whatever colour will face the reality of the slow strangling of York unless they implement policies that gradually move towards a more rational use of private cars...hence the Footstreets (bitterly opposed at the time) and numerous other progressive transport policies (remember the huff and puff over the London Congestion Charge?).

The closure of Lendal Bridge is brilliant for York and when all the fuss has died down we'll wonder why we allowed crawling traffic to block it for so long. All change schemes will take a while to bed in...eventually most people will re-jig their journies and the world really won't end. I think everything possible should be done to make sure people don't accidentally get fined but for those who think that it doesn't apply to them because they don't agree with it...well....

The real scandal of Lendal Bridge is Lib Dem opportunism when they know full well that reductions in private car use are necessary for the long term economic survival of small cities, not to mention environmental and health reasons. You should be supporting the closure folks.
What is so brilliant about the closure? I haven't heard anything that convinces me it's worth causing so many problems and upseting so many people. I would really like a list of the positives please.
York has the potential to be a world class tourist destination. But to up its game it needs to grasp the nettle on certain issues and one is the area around our iconic building. We need to pedestrianise the Minster area (Duncombe Place, St. Leonards, Museum Street) and this cannot be done without restricting traffic on Lendal Bridge. Yes we still have buses and taxis crossing but they will need to be removed or calmed. One thing at a time.
Forget all this talk about thousands of people turning their backs on the city because they have been fined, we are talking about additional tourists in their hundreds of thousands or even millions being attracted to the city, in the years to come. That’s where the world is going – global tourism is the future. And regardless of the cries of the nay-sayers and nimbys, if York is going to flourish then this is an initiative that has to happen.
Ignorant Idiot! Tourism is not the only business in York. Others, and myself 'NEED' to drive in and around York day to day, regardless of your selfish reasons. We provide a service, an essential service that you may need one day. Take your selfish blinkers off.
[quote][p][bold]far2bizzy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]MrsHoney[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]yorkshirelad[/bold] wrote: Democracy means that we elect councils to for a period of time. Inevitably this results in policies/schemes that not everyone agrees with. Occasionally it may result in policies or schemes that a majority do not agree with - this happens in all councils and all governments charged with looking at long term issues. The curreny national government faces the same sort of thing over HS2 - taking the short term pain for long term gain. Whilst it's fine to comment, fine to oppose to a point...there does come a stage where under a democratic system you accept what a democratically elected body does. Endless attempts to thwart policies and use technical tricks to block them...or bombard councils with various expensive time-wasting tactics such as demanding tonnes of data are simply using all of us taxpayers money for a personal crusade or personal obsession. There will never be a majority for any car-restriction policy in York but every council whatever colour will face the reality of the slow strangling of York unless they implement policies that gradually move towards a more rational use of private cars...hence the Footstreets (bitterly opposed at the time) and numerous other progressive transport policies (remember the huff and puff over the London Congestion Charge?). The closure of Lendal Bridge is brilliant for York and when all the fuss has died down we'll wonder why we allowed crawling traffic to block it for so long. All change schemes will take a while to bed in...eventually most people will re-jig their journies and the world really won't end. I think everything possible should be done to make sure people don't accidentally get fined but for those who think that it doesn't apply to them because they don't agree with it...well.... The real scandal of Lendal Bridge is Lib Dem opportunism when they know full well that reductions in private car use are necessary for the long term economic survival of small cities, not to mention environmental and health reasons. You should be supporting the closure folks.[/p][/quote]What is so brilliant about the closure? I haven't heard anything that convinces me it's worth causing so many problems and upseting so many people. I would really like a list of the positives please.[/p][/quote]York has the potential to be a world class tourist destination. But to up its game it needs to grasp the nettle on certain issues and one is the area around our iconic building. We need to pedestrianise the Minster area (Duncombe Place, St. Leonards, Museum Street) and this cannot be done without restricting traffic on Lendal Bridge. Yes we still have buses and taxis crossing but they will need to be removed or calmed. One thing at a time. Forget all this talk about thousands of people turning their backs on the city because they have been fined, we are talking about additional tourists in their hundreds of thousands or even millions being attracted to the city, in the years to come. That’s where the world is going – global tourism is the future. And regardless of the cries of the nay-sayers and nimbys, if York is going to flourish then this is an initiative that has to happen.[/p][/quote]Ignorant Idiot! Tourism is not the only business in York. Others, and myself 'NEED' to drive in and around York day to day, regardless of your selfish reasons. We provide a service, an essential service that you may need one day. Take your selfish blinkers off. Woody G Mellor
  • Score: 4836

1:43am Sat 29 Mar 14

Dave Ruddock says...

would be great if the press showed Merritt and the cronies in office all the above and explain (IN PUBLIC ) to all the citizens (ON HIS SOAP BOX ON LENDAL BRIDGE) exact;y the reason in the first place as from what i hear he is one of those that likes the sound of his own voice
and hope all Labour voters join in and listen to the total rubbish he and others spout
would be great if the press showed Merritt and the cronies in office all the above and explain (IN PUBLIC ) to all the citizens (ON HIS SOAP BOX ON LENDAL BRIDGE) exact;y the reason in the first place as from what i hear he is one of those that likes the sound of his own voice and hope all Labour voters join in and listen to the total rubbish he and others spout Dave Ruddock
  • Score: 3064

9:09am Sat 29 Mar 14

roskoboskovic says...

merrett moves his mouth,merrett lies.the man is a weasel and to state that he s got an open mind on the matter is nonsense.they said that the trial would be for 6 months yet when the 6 month period is up we are told it will take another 2 months for a decision to be made.meanwhile restrictions are still in place.this mob aren t going to all this trouble to reopen the bridge.mark my words,alexander,merr
ett and co will not lose face on this one.
merrett moves his mouth,merrett lies.the man is a weasel and to state that he s got an open mind on the matter is nonsense.they said that the trial would be for 6 months yet when the 6 month period is up we are told it will take another 2 months for a decision to be made.meanwhile restrictions are still in place.this mob aren t going to all this trouble to reopen the bridge.mark my words,alexander,merr ett and co will not lose face on this one. roskoboskovic
  • Score: 3038

9:15am Sat 29 Mar 14

pedalling paul says...

Are any of the self proclaimed experts here, willing to tell us how few years it would be, until a traffic free for all will lead to total gridlock. Load of ostriches!!
Are any of the self proclaimed experts here, willing to tell us how few years it would be, until a traffic free for all will lead to total gridlock. Load of ostriches!! pedalling paul
  • Score: -5712

10:17am Sat 29 Mar 14

alanyork says...

JasBro wrote:
PressPass wrote:
"Park & Ride was and is a great idea. It keeps a quantity of cars out of town. However, its useless unless you live near one of the terminii"

You really haven't got the idea about park and ride, have you?
You drive to the terminus and takes a bus in to town, you don't have to live near the terminus.
Day trippers should also be encouraged to use the park and ride, then they wouldn't need their car in the City centre.

As to the statement, "The fact that all the traffic simply heads across one of the other bridges instead", Do you have any figures to back this up?

Oh no wait, nobody does yet, that's why the motion was deferred.
There are loads of figures to prove that traffic has increased in and around other bridges, just look on the council website. Clifton Bridge increased by over 200 cars per hour in February.
you know whats next---close clifton bridge---then ouse bridge---then skeldergate bridge---step back in time and get ready for more COYC TOLLS
lets all get on the outer ring road after all they really made a success of that !
well done mutton-heads!!!!!!
[quote][p][bold]JasBro[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]PressPass[/bold] wrote: "Park & Ride was and is a great idea. It keeps a quantity of cars out of town. However, its useless unless you live near one of the terminii" You really haven't got the idea about park and ride, have you? You drive to the terminus and takes a bus in to town, you don't have to live near the terminus. Day trippers should also be encouraged to use the park and ride, then they wouldn't need their car in the City centre. As to the statement, "The fact that all the traffic simply heads across one of the other bridges instead", Do you have any figures to back this up? Oh no wait, nobody does yet, that's why the motion was deferred.[/p][/quote]There are loads of figures to prove that traffic has increased in and around other bridges, just look on the council website. Clifton Bridge increased by over 200 cars per hour in February.[/p][/quote]you know whats next---close clifton bridge---then ouse bridge---then skeldergate bridge---step back in time and get ready for more COYC TOLLS lets all get on the outer ring road after all they really made a success of that ! well done mutton-heads!!!!!! alanyork
  • Score: -105

10:24am Sat 29 Mar 14

YorkshireCat says...

As a self employed worker in York who needs my car to get to jobs in the city (and not to be lazy to quote a few) it has become an unpleasant experience driving in an around York of late because of the build up of traffic and as expected due to the closure of Lendal Bridge I find myself in standstill traffic in Leeman Road, Bootham and on Clifton Bridge every day which is noticebly heavier since the bridge closed. Understand that it is nicer for pedestrians but it isn't convenient for those of us who need to get through the city for work,I have to divert at least four times a day,making my working day even longer than it already is, it was fine how it was I didnt see people complaining so why change something that wasnt a problem which has now become one?
As a self employed worker in York who needs my car to get to jobs in the city (and not to be lazy to quote a few) it has become an unpleasant experience driving in an around York of late because of the build up of traffic and as expected due to the closure of Lendal Bridge I find myself in standstill traffic in Leeman Road, Bootham and on Clifton Bridge every day which is noticebly heavier since the bridge closed. Understand that it is nicer for pedestrians but it isn't convenient for those of us who need to get through the city for work,I have to divert at least four times a day,making my working day even longer than it already is, it was fine how it was I didnt see people complaining so why change something that wasnt a problem which has now become one? YorkshireCat
  • Score: -138

10:47am Sat 29 Mar 14

JasBro says...

pedalling paul wrote:
Are any of the self proclaimed experts here, willing to tell us how few years it would be, until a traffic free for all will lead to total gridlock. Load of ostriches!!
Self proclaimed experts? Ostriches? That's the pot calling the kettle black.

Is there any evidence to show that closing Lendal Bridge has reduced overall car useage? I haven't seen any at all.

Reducing people's reliance on cars is something that should be attempted at a national level, I doubt very much that closing one bridge will make any difference to the actual number of car journeys, it just creates extra gridlock elsewhere by forcing the same amount of traffic to travel further, and across fewer bridges.

Nobody is asking for this mythical traffic free for all that you keep going on about, nobody apart from you has ever mentioned it. It never existed and never will. It's just a "straw man" argument.

From my point of view they closed the wrong bridge, and they closed it without any support, or proper alternatives.
[quote][p][bold]pedalling paul [/bold] wrote: Are any of the self proclaimed experts here, willing to tell us how few years it would be, until a traffic free for all will lead to total gridlock. Load of ostriches!![/p][/quote]Self proclaimed experts? Ostriches? That's the pot calling the kettle black. Is there any evidence to show that closing Lendal Bridge has reduced overall car useage? I haven't seen any at all. Reducing people's reliance on cars is something that should be attempted at a national level, I doubt very much that closing one bridge will make any difference to the actual number of car journeys, it just creates extra gridlock elsewhere by forcing the same amount of traffic to travel further, and across fewer bridges. Nobody is asking for this mythical traffic free for all that you keep going on about, nobody apart from you has ever mentioned it. It never existed and never will. It's just a "straw man" argument. From my point of view they closed the wrong bridge, and they closed it without any support, or proper alternatives. JasBro
  • Score: 3294

10:57am Sat 29 Mar 14

Bridehopper says...

Woody G Mellor wrote:
far2bizzy wrote:
MrsHoney wrote:
yorkshirelad wrote: Democracy means that we elect councils to for a period of time. Inevitably this results in policies/schemes that not everyone agrees with. Occasionally it may result in policies or schemes that a majority do not agree with - this happens in all councils and all governments charged with looking at long term issues. The curreny national government faces the same sort of thing over HS2 - taking the short term pain for long term gain. Whilst it's fine to comment, fine to oppose to a point...there does come a stage where under a democratic system you accept what a democratically elected body does. Endless attempts to thwart policies and use technical tricks to block them...or bombard councils with various expensive time-wasting tactics such as demanding tonnes of data are simply using all of us taxpayers money for a personal crusade or personal obsession. There will never be a majority for any car-restriction policy in York but every council whatever colour will face the reality of the slow strangling of York unless they implement policies that gradually move towards a more rational use of private cars...hence the Footstreets (bitterly opposed at the time) and numerous other progressive transport policies (remember the huff and puff over the London Congestion Charge?). The closure of Lendal Bridge is brilliant for York and when all the fuss has died down we'll wonder why we allowed crawling traffic to block it for so long. All change schemes will take a while to bed in...eventually most people will re-jig their journies and the world really won't end. I think everything possible should be done to make sure people don't accidentally get fined but for those who think that it doesn't apply to them because they don't agree with it...well.... The real scandal of Lendal Bridge is Lib Dem opportunism when they know full well that reductions in private car use are necessary for the long term economic survival of small cities, not to mention environmental and health reasons. You should be supporting the closure folks.
What is so brilliant about the closure? I haven't heard anything that convinces me it's worth causing so many problems and upseting so many people. I would really like a list of the positives please.
York has the potential to be a world class tourist destination. But to up its game it needs to grasp the nettle on certain issues and one is the area around our iconic building. We need to pedestrianise the Minster area (Duncombe Place, St. Leonards, Museum Street) and this cannot be done without restricting traffic on Lendal Bridge. Yes we still have buses and taxis crossing but they will need to be removed or calmed. One thing at a time. Forget all this talk about thousands of people turning their backs on the city because they have been fined, we are talking about additional tourists in their hundreds of thousands or even millions being attracted to the city, in the years to come. That’s where the world is going – global tourism is the future. And regardless of the cries of the nay-sayers and nimbys, if York is going to flourish then this is an initiative that has to happen.
Ignorant Idiot! Tourism is not the only business in York. Others, and myself 'NEED' to drive in and around York day to day, regardless of your selfish reasons. We provide a service, an essential service that you may need one day. Take your selfish blinkers off.
The council don't seem to care about the hundreds of people running a business from a vehicle and seem to be slowly edging towards closing the city center to vehicles and so shutting us out of our workplace, they need to remember this is a city for the people who live here to make a living, but of course it's still ok for council workers and their vehicles to use closed and pedestrian zones at any time .. Get rid of the fools
[quote][p][bold]Woody G Mellor[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]far2bizzy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]MrsHoney[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]yorkshirelad[/bold] wrote: Democracy means that we elect councils to for a period of time. Inevitably this results in policies/schemes that not everyone agrees with. Occasionally it may result in policies or schemes that a majority do not agree with - this happens in all councils and all governments charged with looking at long term issues. The curreny national government faces the same sort of thing over HS2 - taking the short term pain for long term gain. Whilst it's fine to comment, fine to oppose to a point...there does come a stage where under a democratic system you accept what a democratically elected body does. Endless attempts to thwart policies and use technical tricks to block them...or bombard councils with various expensive time-wasting tactics such as demanding tonnes of data are simply using all of us taxpayers money for a personal crusade or personal obsession. There will never be a majority for any car-restriction policy in York but every council whatever colour will face the reality of the slow strangling of York unless they implement policies that gradually move towards a more rational use of private cars...hence the Footstreets (bitterly opposed at the time) and numerous other progressive transport policies (remember the huff and puff over the London Congestion Charge?). The closure of Lendal Bridge is brilliant for York and when all the fuss has died down we'll wonder why we allowed crawling traffic to block it for so long. All change schemes will take a while to bed in...eventually most people will re-jig their journies and the world really won't end. I think everything possible should be done to make sure people don't accidentally get fined but for those who think that it doesn't apply to them because they don't agree with it...well.... The real scandal of Lendal Bridge is Lib Dem opportunism when they know full well that reductions in private car use are necessary for the long term economic survival of small cities, not to mention environmental and health reasons. You should be supporting the closure folks.[/p][/quote]What is so brilliant about the closure? I haven't heard anything that convinces me it's worth causing so many problems and upseting so many people. I would really like a list of the positives please.[/p][/quote]York has the potential to be a world class tourist destination. But to up its game it needs to grasp the nettle on certain issues and one is the area around our iconic building. We need to pedestrianise the Minster area (Duncombe Place, St. Leonards, Museum Street) and this cannot be done without restricting traffic on Lendal Bridge. Yes we still have buses and taxis crossing but they will need to be removed or calmed. One thing at a time. Forget all this talk about thousands of people turning their backs on the city because they have been fined, we are talking about additional tourists in their hundreds of thousands or even millions being attracted to the city, in the years to come. That’s where the world is going – global tourism is the future. And regardless of the cries of the nay-sayers and nimbys, if York is going to flourish then this is an initiative that has to happen.[/p][/quote]Ignorant Idiot! Tourism is not the only business in York. Others, and myself 'NEED' to drive in and around York day to day, regardless of your selfish reasons. We provide a service, an essential service that you may need one day. Take your selfish blinkers off.[/p][/quote]The council don't seem to care about the hundreds of people running a business from a vehicle and seem to be slowly edging towards closing the city center to vehicles and so shutting us out of our workplace, they need to remember this is a city for the people who live here to make a living, but of course it's still ok for council workers and their vehicles to use closed and pedestrian zones at any time .. Get rid of the fools Bridehopper
  • Score: 3196

12:41pm Sat 29 Mar 14

Pinza-C55 says...

WhyEver wrote:
The Lib Dems knew this would happen, since the Lendal Bridge discussion has already been scheduled for the 6th May meeting.

They are right about the mismanagement of the trial, and the obvious outcome of moving traffic from Lendal to other areas of the City. And they are right that the fines could be stopped right now - the Council have said they could do it if they wanted.
Problem with that is that the York Transport Expert "Pedalling Paul" has pointed out that the Liberals included closure of one of the bridges in their Local Plan, so they are not on any sort of high ground in this matter?
[quote][p][bold]WhyEver[/bold] wrote: The Lib Dems knew this would happen, since the Lendal Bridge discussion has already been scheduled for the 6th May meeting. They are right about the mismanagement of the trial, and the obvious outcome of moving traffic from Lendal to other areas of the City. And they are right that the fines could be stopped right now - the Council have said they could do it if they wanted.[/p][/quote]Problem with that is that the York Transport Expert "Pedalling Paul" has pointed out that the Liberals included closure of one of the bridges in their Local Plan, so they are not on any sort of high ground in this matter? Pinza-C55
  • Score: -67

1:44pm Sat 29 Mar 14

jay, york says...

So Mr Merrett states that:-
1. "the trial has been clearly controversial and resulted in mixed views - it deserves proper consideration"
2. "as one of the last items on the agenda and time ran out before we were able to discuss it"
3 "the council is open minded about the what happens with the trial"
4. "rerferral to cabinet was appropriate in this instance as that is constitutionally where the final decision must be taken"
5. an 'informed decision' in May and claimed opposition parties were uninterested in what the facts will tell them

In plain english, this means that :
1. the council will now say that they are open minded about Lendal Bridge and that it deserves proper consideration - but will do everything in their power NOT to let this happen - including (a) talk too long about earlier items on the agenda so that there is no time left for anyone to discuss Lendal Bridge.(b) ignore anyone who dares to question them about it and (c) be downright rude to people who dare to oppose the bridge closure in the Press and get all their labour cronies to mark them down.
2. Opposition councillors will be more than interested in seeing the facts, so they must do everything in their power to distort the facts to look as though the closure is working and stop anyone from seeing what the real facts are at all costs.
3. The council has now decided that they will not be seen to make the final decision - that has been now passed on to the cabinet. So basically, if the Bridge stays closed it is not their fault - and if the brdge reopens it is not their fault. And they can always apportion any blame there may be to the departed Darren Richardson.

This is why so many people have no confidence in the council anymore and simply do not believe a single word they say.
So Mr Merrett states that:- 1. "the trial has been clearly controversial and resulted in mixed views - it deserves proper consideration" 2. "as one of the last items on the agenda and time ran out before we were able to discuss it" 3 "the council is open minded about the what happens with the trial" 4. "rerferral to cabinet was appropriate in this instance as that is constitutionally where the final decision must be taken" 5. an 'informed decision' in May and claimed opposition parties were uninterested in what the facts will tell them In plain english, this means that : 1. the council will now say that they are open minded about Lendal Bridge and that it deserves proper consideration - but will do everything in their power NOT to let this happen - including (a) talk too long about earlier items on the agenda so that there is no time left for anyone to discuss Lendal Bridge.(b) ignore anyone who dares to question them about it and (c) be downright rude to people who dare to oppose the bridge closure in the Press and get all their labour cronies to mark them down. 2. Opposition councillors will be more than interested in seeing the facts, so they must do everything in their power to distort the facts to look as though the closure is working and stop anyone from seeing what the real facts are at all costs. 3. The council has now decided that they will not be seen to make the final decision - that has been now passed on to the cabinet. So basically, if the Bridge stays closed it is not their fault - and if the brdge reopens it is not their fault. And they can always apportion any blame there may be to the departed Darren Richardson. This is why so many people have no confidence in the council anymore and simply do not believe a single word they say. jay, york
  • Score: -95

2:51pm Sat 29 Mar 14

pedalling paul says...

Pinza-C55 wrote:
WhyEver wrote: The Lib Dems knew this would happen, since the Lendal Bridge discussion has already been scheduled for the 6th May meeting. They are right about the mismanagement of the trial, and the obvious outcome of moving traffic from Lendal to other areas of the City. And they are right that the fines could be stopped right now - the Council have said they could do it if they wanted.
Problem with that is that the York Transport Expert "Pedalling Paul" has pointed out that the Liberals included closure of one of the bridges in their Local Plan, so they are not on any sort of high ground in this matter?
More a case that the Local Transport Plan was prepared by Officers, in accordance with Whitehall guidance. It was then presented to whichever Party had control at the time, ....just happened to be th LibDems....with an Officer recommendation that Councillors formally adopt it.
[quote][p][bold]Pinza-C55[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]WhyEver[/bold] wrote: The Lib Dems knew this would happen, since the Lendal Bridge discussion has already been scheduled for the 6th May meeting. They are right about the mismanagement of the trial, and the obvious outcome of moving traffic from Lendal to other areas of the City. And they are right that the fines could be stopped right now - the Council have said they could do it if they wanted.[/p][/quote]Problem with that is that the York Transport Expert "Pedalling Paul" has pointed out that the Liberals included closure of one of the bridges in their Local Plan, so they are not on any sort of high ground in this matter?[/p][/quote]More a case that the Local Transport Plan was prepared by Officers, in accordance with Whitehall guidance. It was then presented to whichever Party had control at the time, ....just happened to be th LibDems....with an Officer recommendation that Councillors formally adopt it. pedalling paul
  • Score: 60

3:19pm Sat 29 Mar 14

bolero says...

Having just returned from a trip in the countryside I noticed that the same feeble minded cretin who adjusts the voting figures has been busy rotating the signposts on many of the junctions. So sad.
Having just returned from a trip in the countryside I noticed that the same feeble minded cretin who adjusts the voting figures has been busy rotating the signposts on many of the junctions. So sad. bolero
  • Score: -64

5:13pm Sat 29 Mar 14

Ichabod76 says...

Pinza-C55 wrote:
WhyEver wrote:
The Lib Dems knew this would happen, since the Lendal Bridge discussion has already been scheduled for the 6th May meeting.

They are right about the mismanagement of the trial, and the obvious outcome of moving traffic from Lendal to other areas of the City. And they are right that the fines could be stopped right now - the Council have said they could do it if they wanted.
Problem with that is that the York Transport Expert "Pedalling Paul" has pointed out that the Liberals included closure of one of the bridges in their Local Plan, so they are not on any sort of high ground in this matter?
Self proclaimed Transport Expert "Pedalling Paul"
[quote][p][bold]Pinza-C55[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]WhyEver[/bold] wrote: The Lib Dems knew this would happen, since the Lendal Bridge discussion has already been scheduled for the 6th May meeting. They are right about the mismanagement of the trial, and the obvious outcome of moving traffic from Lendal to other areas of the City. And they are right that the fines could be stopped right now - the Council have said they could do it if they wanted.[/p][/quote]Problem with that is that the York Transport Expert "Pedalling Paul" has pointed out that the Liberals included closure of one of the bridges in their Local Plan, so they are not on any sort of high ground in this matter?[/p][/quote]Self proclaimed Transport Expert "Pedalling Paul" Ichabod76
  • Score: -64

6:19pm Sat 29 Mar 14

MorkofYork says...

angie 62 wrote:
there is a plaque on this bridge that says it is free from tolls ,is £30.00 a toll to cross if it is then surely this is illegal.
If you read the info thing for Lendal tower it says there's 5 main gates...
No there isn't.
[quote][p][bold]angie 62[/bold] wrote: there is a plaque on this bridge that says it is free from tolls ,is £30.00 a toll to cross if it is then surely this is illegal.[/p][/quote]If you read the info thing for Lendal tower it says there's 5 main gates... No there isn't. MorkofYork
  • Score: -12

9:55pm Sat 29 Mar 14

iwontgrowup says...

myselby wrote:
The Lib Dems would have done the same - Government introduced the Cabinet system to promote efficient and streamlined decision making at local level. That’s what CYC are doing- live with it
The Lendal Bridge scheme is working.
It has made the area less congested and pleasanter to walk around during the day.
When it was open to all vehicles it was terrible to walk along the footpaths as they are very narrow over the bridge in the busy tourist season.
We should be encouraging more pedestrianized zones as the city centre is quieter and more relaxed.
There is the need to effectively promote the park and ride scheme to reduce congestion.
I drive all over York on a daily basis and it has not made the traffic congestion any worse than it was before the scheme was in place.
Its good for taxis and buses
The biggest downside to the scheme is the management of it. The signs need to clearer especially around the train station area leading to Rougier Street. I very much doubt it would do too much damage to businesses in that area as York's Tourism is booming! More people will be encouraged to the area because it is quieter.
[quote][p][bold]myselby[/bold] wrote: The Lib Dems would have done the same - Government introduced the Cabinet system to promote efficient and streamlined decision making at local level. That’s what CYC are doing- live with it[/p][/quote]The Lendal Bridge scheme is working. It has made the area less congested and pleasanter to walk around during the day. When it was open to all vehicles it was terrible to walk along the footpaths as they are very narrow over the bridge in the busy tourist season. We should be encouraging more pedestrianized zones as the city centre is quieter and more relaxed. There is the need to effectively promote the park and ride scheme to reduce congestion. I drive all over York on a daily basis and it has not made the traffic congestion any worse than it was before the scheme was in place. Its good for taxis and buses The biggest downside to the scheme is the management of it. The signs need to clearer especially around the train station area leading to Rougier Street. I very much doubt it would do too much damage to businesses in that area as York's Tourism is booming! More people will be encouraged to the area because it is quieter. iwontgrowup
  • Score: 91

11:01pm Sat 29 Mar 14

Pinza-C55 says...

iwontgrowup wrote:
myselby wrote:
The Lib Dems would have done the same - Government introduced the Cabinet system to promote efficient and streamlined decision making at local level. That’s what CYC are doing- live with it
The Lendal Bridge scheme is working.
It has made the area less congested and pleasanter to walk around during the day.
When it was open to all vehicles it was terrible to walk along the footpaths as they are very narrow over the bridge in the busy tourist season.
We should be encouraging more pedestrianized zones as the city centre is quieter and more relaxed.
There is the need to effectively promote the park and ride scheme to reduce congestion.
I drive all over York on a daily basis and it has not made the traffic congestion any worse than it was before the scheme was in place.
Its good for taxis and buses
The biggest downside to the scheme is the management of it. The signs need to clearer especially around the train station area leading to Rougier Street. I very much doubt it would do too much damage to businesses in that area as York's Tourism is booming! More people will be encouraged to the area because it is quieter.
"The signs need to clearer especially around the train station area leading to Rougier Street."
Balderdash and poppycock.
I just came back from Leeman Road delivery office today and the number of signs adjacent to and just past the city wall are overkill verging on the insane. You would have to be one of the Walking Dead not to see them.
[quote][p][bold]iwontgrowup[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]myselby[/bold] wrote: The Lib Dems would have done the same - Government introduced the Cabinet system to promote efficient and streamlined decision making at local level. That’s what CYC are doing- live with it[/p][/quote]The Lendal Bridge scheme is working. It has made the area less congested and pleasanter to walk around during the day. When it was open to all vehicles it was terrible to walk along the footpaths as they are very narrow over the bridge in the busy tourist season. We should be encouraging more pedestrianized zones as the city centre is quieter and more relaxed. There is the need to effectively promote the park and ride scheme to reduce congestion. I drive all over York on a daily basis and it has not made the traffic congestion any worse than it was before the scheme was in place. Its good for taxis and buses The biggest downside to the scheme is the management of it. The signs need to clearer especially around the train station area leading to Rougier Street. I very much doubt it would do too much damage to businesses in that area as York's Tourism is booming! More people will be encouraged to the area because it is quieter.[/p][/quote]"The signs need to clearer especially around the train station area leading to Rougier Street." Balderdash and poppycock. I just came back from Leeman Road delivery office today and the number of signs adjacent to and just past the city wall are overkill verging on the insane. You would have to be one of the Walking Dead not to see them. Pinza-C55
  • Score: 103

12:25am Sun 30 Mar 14

jake777 says...

ouseswimmer wrote:
SuperChris wrote:
Just a load of car drivers on here who can't read simple signs. The trial has proved Lendal Bridge needs to stay shut - long may it continue.
Does this mean you've actually found the sign that says 'This is Lendal Bridge?
I guess not. This is why Sat Navs tell drivers to go over Lendal Bridge and be fined. Signs saying 'Fine to cross Lendal bridge' Don't seem to be right somehow.
Yawn Yawn Yawn !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!
[quote][p][bold]ouseswimmer[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]SuperChris[/bold] wrote: Just a load of car drivers on here who can't read simple signs. The trial has proved Lendal Bridge needs to stay shut - long may it continue.[/p][/quote]Does this mean you've actually found the sign that says 'This is Lendal Bridge? I guess not. This is why Sat Navs tell drivers to go over Lendal Bridge and be fined. Signs saying 'Fine to cross Lendal bridge' Don't seem to be right somehow.[/p][/quote]Yawn Yawn Yawn !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!! jake777
  • Score: -2485

12:42am Sun 30 Mar 14

jake777 says...

Cheeky face wrote:
I agree with comments from Bolero.

Regarding Ouse Swimmer - the comment "Fine to cross Lendal Bridge" has two meanings!

I still; await my queries with the council re signs, "restricted access" signs from the AA are a nonsense, bus lane blue signs missing, Coppergate bus lane signs missing. I started enquiring before Lendal bridge trial and, despite, e-mailing James Alexander and the Chief executive I still wait acceptable replies.

The feeling I get is that the council will not budge; and will not reply to challenging questions.

There will be a bigger problem long term with congestion and pollution; but this council's efforts on this trial have been poor. They must still be anxious waiting for the traffic fines adjudicator giving his verdict on signage/or lack of it, regarding Coppergate.

How will the cycle race visitors be treated?
Yawn Yawn Yawn, try buying a highway code book and read it.
[quote][p][bold]Cheeky face[/bold] wrote: I agree with comments from Bolero. Regarding Ouse Swimmer - the comment "Fine to cross Lendal Bridge" has two meanings! I still; await my queries with the council re signs, "restricted access" signs from the AA are a nonsense, bus lane blue signs missing, Coppergate bus lane signs missing. I started enquiring before Lendal bridge trial and, despite, e-mailing James Alexander and the Chief executive I still wait acceptable replies. The feeling I get is that the council will not budge; and will not reply to challenging questions. There will be a bigger problem long term with congestion and pollution; but this council's efforts on this trial have been poor. They must still be anxious waiting for the traffic fines adjudicator giving his verdict on signage/or lack of it, regarding Coppergate. How will the cycle race visitors be treated?[/p][/quote]Yawn Yawn Yawn, try buying a highway code book and read it. jake777
  • Score: -2558

2:01am Sun 30 Mar 14

jake777 says...

hokey cokey wrote:
I work on Lendal and come out just after 5 pm to see nose to tail traffic in both directions across the bridge every weekday. To give the buses a chance of keeping to the timetable the ban needs to be 7 to 7 as in other parts of town.
well said and totaly true.
[quote][p][bold]hokey cokey[/bold] wrote: I work on Lendal and come out just after 5 pm to see nose to tail traffic in both directions across the bridge every weekday. To give the buses a chance of keeping to the timetable the ban needs to be 7 to 7 as in other parts of town.[/p][/quote]well said and totaly true. jake777
  • Score: -3034

2:07am Sun 30 Mar 14

bagnall1928@yahoo.com says...

Traffic holdups are a part of life, we want our cars, have to travel further to get to work. Buses dont always run close to peoples work area. plus often full
at peak times.
Perhaps if working hours sere staggered, do we all have to be at work at 8 or 9 am which most town centre jobs do. The individual car is often the only means of getting to work if you arent on a bus route. kids have to get into school and home. people to hospital appointments and customers to shops.
So sit down and bring the public into the meetings, listen to ideas, dont poo poo every thing put forward, Look with fresh eyes and open minds at
plans to improve things.
Transport is an essential need, to get goods into shops, people to work, hospitals etc. so provide for it. be open minded and listen to the public,
Possiblly people who live in town centres, or businesses whos car parks empty for delivery purposes could offer spaces. put all ideas forward,
then discuss them, dont turn them down out of hand.
People have to get to work, buses arent always convenient, nor near jobs they hold,
THINK POSITIVE AND THEN BE POSITIVE
Traffic holdups are a part of life, we want our cars, have to travel further to get to work. Buses dont always run close to peoples work area. plus often full at peak times. Perhaps if working hours sere staggered, do we all have to be at work at 8 or 9 am which most town centre jobs do. The individual car is often the only means of getting to work if you arent on a bus route. kids have to get into school and home. people to hospital appointments and customers to shops. So sit down and bring the public into the meetings, listen to ideas, dont poo poo every thing put forward, Look with fresh eyes and open minds at plans to improve things. Transport is an essential need, to get goods into shops, people to work, hospitals etc. so provide for it. be open minded and listen to the public, Possiblly people who live in town centres, or businesses whos car parks empty for delivery purposes could offer spaces. put all ideas forward, then discuss them, dont turn them down out of hand. People have to get to work, buses arent always convenient, nor near jobs they hold, THINK POSITIVE AND THEN BE POSITIVE bagnall1928@yahoo.com
  • Score: 48

2:14am Sun 30 Mar 14

jake777 says...

MorkofYork wrote:
angie 62 wrote:
there is a plaque on this bridge that says it is free from tolls ,is £30.00 a toll to cross if it is then surely this is illegal.
If you read the info thing for Lendal tower it says there's 5 main gates...
No there isn't.
there are five you are wrong, take a walk round the walls and count them.
[quote][p][bold]MorkofYork[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]angie 62[/bold] wrote: there is a plaque on this bridge that says it is free from tolls ,is £30.00 a toll to cross if it is then surely this is illegal.[/p][/quote]If you read the info thing for Lendal tower it says there's 5 main gates... No there isn't.[/p][/quote]there are five you are wrong, take a walk round the walls and count them. jake777
  • Score: -3231

9:59am Sun 30 Mar 14

York1900 says...

Lets open Lendal Bridge but instead have City wide congestion charging instead so those who want to drive through York can do so but pay for the privilege to do so and set the times at 7am to 7pm and the charge at £5 per car entry in to the zone

This would give the car lovers the choice of having to pay find another route or use the buses at £3.70 per day

This would be a really good way to solve the problem
The charge zone would start at Blossom Street Bishopthorpe Road, Fulford Road , Lawrence Street , Layerthorpe , Foss Bank , Monkgate , Clarence Street Bootham
Lets open Lendal Bridge but instead have City wide congestion charging instead so those who want to drive through York can do so but pay for the privilege to do so and set the times at 7am to 7pm and the charge at £5 per car entry in to the zone This would give the car lovers the choice of having to pay find another route or use the buses at £3.70 per day This would be a really good way to solve the problem The charge zone would start at Blossom Street Bishopthorpe Road, Fulford Road , Lawrence Street , Layerthorpe , Foss Bank , Monkgate , Clarence Street Bootham York1900
  • Score: 23

11:21am Sun 30 Mar 14

pedalling paul says...

bagnall1928@yahoo.co
m
wrote:
Traffic holdups are a part of life, we want our cars, have to travel further to get to work. Buses dont always run close to peoples work area. plus often full
at peak times.
Perhaps if working hours sere staggered, do we all have to be at work at 8 or 9 am which most town centre jobs do. The individual car is often the only means of getting to work if you arent on a bus route. kids have to get into school and home. people to hospital appointments and customers to shops.
So sit down and bring the public into the meetings, listen to ideas, dont poo poo every thing put forward, Look with fresh eyes and open minds at
plans to improve things.
Transport is an essential need, to get goods into shops, people to work, hospitals etc. so provide for it. be open minded and listen to the public,
Possiblly people who live in town centres, or businesses whos car parks empty for delivery purposes could offer spaces. put all ideas forward,
then discuss them, dont turn them down out of hand.
People have to get to work, buses arent always convenient, nor near jobs they hold,
THINK POSITIVE AND THEN BE POSITIVE
Perhaps that's a consequence of making lifestyle decisions base on regular car use eg where to live, work, shop and send your kids to school. Problem is that when thousands of residents do likewise, they create a demand that far exceeds the peak capacity of the highway network, but expect "The Council" to facilitate their individual car journeys. think again. Could you make some of those journeys by other means..even by car sharing? The responsibility lies with car owners to make intelligent travel choices. Several residents in my suburban locale cycle commute to work but get the car out for occasional longer journeys. And what's wrong with letting your kids walk or cycle to school with their friends...or have you chosen to live a long way from your school's catchment area??
[quote][p][bold]bagnall1928@yahoo.co m[/bold] wrote: Traffic holdups are a part of life, we want our cars, have to travel further to get to work. Buses dont always run close to peoples work area. plus often full at peak times. Perhaps if working hours sere staggered, do we all have to be at work at 8 or 9 am which most town centre jobs do. The individual car is often the only means of getting to work if you arent on a bus route. kids have to get into school and home. people to hospital appointments and customers to shops. So sit down and bring the public into the meetings, listen to ideas, dont poo poo every thing put forward, Look with fresh eyes and open minds at plans to improve things. Transport is an essential need, to get goods into shops, people to work, hospitals etc. so provide for it. be open minded and listen to the public, Possiblly people who live in town centres, or businesses whos car parks empty for delivery purposes could offer spaces. put all ideas forward, then discuss them, dont turn them down out of hand. People have to get to work, buses arent always convenient, nor near jobs they hold, THINK POSITIVE AND THEN BE POSITIVE[/p][/quote]Perhaps that's a consequence of making lifestyle decisions base on regular car use eg where to live, work, shop and send your kids to school. Problem is that when thousands of residents do likewise, they create a demand that far exceeds the peak capacity of the highway network, but expect "The Council" to facilitate their individual car journeys. think again. Could you make some of those journeys by other means..even by car sharing? The responsibility lies with car owners to make intelligent travel choices. Several residents in my suburban locale cycle commute to work but get the car out for occasional longer journeys. And what's wrong with letting your kids walk or cycle to school with their friends...or have you chosen to live a long way from your school's catchment area?? pedalling paul
  • Score: -5844

4:08pm Sun 30 Mar 14

holy_roller says...

York1900 wrote:
Lets open Lendal Bridge but instead have City wide congestion charging instead so those who want to drive through York can do so but pay for the privilege to do so and set the times at 7am to 7pm and the charge at £5 per car entry in to the zone This would give the car lovers the choice of having to pay find another route or use the buses at £3.70 per day This would be a really good way to solve the problem The charge zone would start at Blossom Street Bishopthorpe Road, Fulford Road , Lawrence Street , Layerthorpe , Foss Bank , Monkgate , Clarence Street Bootham
Ah, so driving is a privilege for the wealthy?
[quote][p][bold]York1900[/bold] wrote: Lets open Lendal Bridge but instead have City wide congestion charging instead so those who want to drive through York can do so but pay for the privilege to do so and set the times at 7am to 7pm and the charge at £5 per car entry in to the zone This would give the car lovers the choice of having to pay find another route or use the buses at £3.70 per day This would be a really good way to solve the problem The charge zone would start at Blossom Street Bishopthorpe Road, Fulford Road , Lawrence Street , Layerthorpe , Foss Bank , Monkgate , Clarence Street Bootham[/p][/quote]Ah, so driving is a privilege for the wealthy? holy_roller
  • Score: 4

4:11pm Sun 30 Mar 14

jake777 says...

York1900 wrote:
Lets open Lendal Bridge but instead have City wide congestion charging instead so those who want to drive through York can do so but pay for the privilege to do so and set the times at 7am to 7pm and the charge at £5 per car entry in to the zone

This would give the car lovers the choice of having to pay find another route or use the buses at £3.70 per day

This would be a really good way to solve the problem
The charge zone would start at Blossom Street Bishopthorpe Road, Fulford Road , Lawrence Street , Layerthorpe , Foss Bank , Monkgate , Clarence Street Bootham
totally agree now watch they will still moan at that.
[quote][p][bold]York1900[/bold] wrote: Lets open Lendal Bridge but instead have City wide congestion charging instead so those who want to drive through York can do so but pay for the privilege to do so and set the times at 7am to 7pm and the charge at £5 per car entry in to the zone This would give the car lovers the choice of having to pay find another route or use the buses at £3.70 per day This would be a really good way to solve the problem The charge zone would start at Blossom Street Bishopthorpe Road, Fulford Road , Lawrence Street , Layerthorpe , Foss Bank , Monkgate , Clarence Street Bootham[/p][/quote]totally agree now watch they will still moan at that. jake777
  • Score: -5

4:18pm Sun 30 Mar 14

jake777 says...

Pinza-C55 wrote:
iwontgrowup wrote:
myselby wrote:
The Lib Dems would have done the same - Government introduced the Cabinet system to promote efficient and streamlined decision making at local level. That’s what CYC are doing- live with it
The Lendal Bridge scheme is working.
It has made the area less congested and pleasanter to walk around during the day.
When it was open to all vehicles it was terrible to walk along the footpaths as they are very narrow over the bridge in the busy tourist season.
We should be encouraging more pedestrianized zones as the city centre is quieter and more relaxed.
There is the need to effectively promote the park and ride scheme to reduce congestion.
I drive all over York on a daily basis and it has not made the traffic congestion any worse than it was before the scheme was in place.
Its good for taxis and buses
The biggest downside to the scheme is the management of it. The signs need to clearer especially around the train station area leading to Rougier Street. I very much doubt it would do too much damage to businesses in that area as York's Tourism is booming! More people will be encouraged to the area because it is quieter.
"The signs need to clearer especially around the train station area leading to Rougier Street."
Balderdash and poppycock.
I just came back from Leeman Road delivery office today and the number of signs adjacent to and just past the city wall are overkill verging on the insane. You would have to be one of the Walking Dead not to see them.
So tell us all why people are saying the signs cant be seen, and using it as an excuse to get out of paying fines. Can't have it all ways.
[quote][p][bold]Pinza-C55[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]iwontgrowup[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]myselby[/bold] wrote: The Lib Dems would have done the same - Government introduced the Cabinet system to promote efficient and streamlined decision making at local level. That’s what CYC are doing- live with it[/p][/quote]The Lendal Bridge scheme is working. It has made the area less congested and pleasanter to walk around during the day. When it was open to all vehicles it was terrible to walk along the footpaths as they are very narrow over the bridge in the busy tourist season. We should be encouraging more pedestrianized zones as the city centre is quieter and more relaxed. There is the need to effectively promote the park and ride scheme to reduce congestion. I drive all over York on a daily basis and it has not made the traffic congestion any worse than it was before the scheme was in place. Its good for taxis and buses The biggest downside to the scheme is the management of it. The signs need to clearer especially around the train station area leading to Rougier Street. I very much doubt it would do too much damage to businesses in that area as York's Tourism is booming! More people will be encouraged to the area because it is quieter.[/p][/quote]"The signs need to clearer especially around the train station area leading to Rougier Street." Balderdash and poppycock. I just came back from Leeman Road delivery office today and the number of signs adjacent to and just past the city wall are overkill verging on the insane. You would have to be one of the Walking Dead not to see them.[/p][/quote]So tell us all why people are saying the signs cant be seen, and using it as an excuse to get out of paying fines. Can't have it all ways. jake777
  • Score: -3

4:22pm Sun 30 Mar 14

holy_roller says...

pedalling paul wrote:
bagnall1928@yahoo.co m wrote: Traffic holdups are a part of life, we want our cars, have to travel further to get to work. Buses dont always run close to peoples work area. plus often full at peak times. Perhaps if working hours sere staggered, do we all have to be at work at 8 or 9 am which most town centre jobs do. The individual car is often the only means of getting to work if you arent on a bus route. kids have to get into school and home. people to hospital appointments and customers to shops. So sit down and bring the public into the meetings, listen to ideas, dont poo poo every thing put forward, Look with fresh eyes and open minds at plans to improve things. Transport is an essential need, to get goods into shops, people to work, hospitals etc. so provide for it. be open minded and listen to the public, Possiblly people who live in town centres, or businesses whos car parks empty for delivery purposes could offer spaces. put all ideas forward, then discuss them, dont turn them down out of hand. People have to get to work, buses arent always convenient, nor near jobs they hold, THINK POSITIVE AND THEN BE POSITIVE
Perhaps that's a consequence of making lifestyle decisions base on regular car use eg where to live, work, shop and send your kids to school. Problem is that when thousands of residents do likewise, they create a demand that far exceeds the peak capacity of the highway network, but expect "The Council" to facilitate their individual car journeys. think again. Could you make some of those journeys by other means..even by car sharing? The responsibility lies with car owners to make intelligent travel choices. Several residents in my suburban locale cycle commute to work but get the car out for occasional longer journeys. And what's wrong with letting your kids walk or cycle to school with their friends...or have you chosen to live a long way from your school's catchment area??
Your pro-cycle arguments are all well and good but utterly irrelevant. There are plenty of cyclists also against the closure.

I walk most of my journeys & cycle many but when I'm working I'm serving numerous city centre businesses. my work allows them to serve their customers online - massively reducing car journeys. But I carry 150kg of bulky, high value equipment and goods and live in an area where congestion has increased.

We're not asking for the council to 'facilitate' our journeys, we're asking the council not to 'obstruct' our businesses.
[quote][p][bold]pedalling paul [/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]bagnall1928@yahoo.co m[/bold] wrote: Traffic holdups are a part of life, we want our cars, have to travel further to get to work. Buses dont always run close to peoples work area. plus often full at peak times. Perhaps if working hours sere staggered, do we all have to be at work at 8 or 9 am which most town centre jobs do. The individual car is often the only means of getting to work if you arent on a bus route. kids have to get into school and home. people to hospital appointments and customers to shops. So sit down and bring the public into the meetings, listen to ideas, dont poo poo every thing put forward, Look with fresh eyes and open minds at plans to improve things. Transport is an essential need, to get goods into shops, people to work, hospitals etc. so provide for it. be open minded and listen to the public, Possiblly people who live in town centres, or businesses whos car parks empty for delivery purposes could offer spaces. put all ideas forward, then discuss them, dont turn them down out of hand. People have to get to work, buses arent always convenient, nor near jobs they hold, THINK POSITIVE AND THEN BE POSITIVE[/p][/quote]Perhaps that's a consequence of making lifestyle decisions base on regular car use eg where to live, work, shop and send your kids to school. Problem is that when thousands of residents do likewise, they create a demand that far exceeds the peak capacity of the highway network, but expect "The Council" to facilitate their individual car journeys. think again. Could you make some of those journeys by other means..even by car sharing? The responsibility lies with car owners to make intelligent travel choices. Several residents in my suburban locale cycle commute to work but get the car out for occasional longer journeys. And what's wrong with letting your kids walk or cycle to school with their friends...or have you chosen to live a long way from your school's catchment area??[/p][/quote]Your pro-cycle arguments are all well and good but utterly irrelevant. There are plenty of cyclists also against the closure. I walk most of my journeys & cycle many but when I'm working I'm serving numerous city centre businesses. my work allows them to serve their customers online - massively reducing car journeys. But I carry 150kg of bulky, high value equipment and goods and live in an area where congestion has increased. We're not asking for the council to 'facilitate' our journeys, we're asking the council not to 'obstruct' our businesses. holy_roller
  • Score: 13

9:46pm Sun 30 Mar 14

Buzzz Light-year says...

There are plenty of cyclists also against the closure.

Yep. Me for one.


However, I'm not just a cyclist, I walk, ride and drive.
[quote]There are plenty of cyclists also against the closure.[/quote] Yep. Me for one. However, I'm not just a cyclist, I walk, ride and drive. Buzzz Light-year
  • Score: 2

9:01pm Mon 31 Mar 14

Pinza-C55 says...

jake777 wrote:
Pinza-C55 wrote:
iwontgrowup wrote:
myselby wrote:
The Lib Dems would have done the same - Government introduced the Cabinet system to promote efficient and streamlined decision making at local level. That’s what CYC are doing- live with it
The Lendal Bridge scheme is working.
It has made the area less congested and pleasanter to walk around during the day.
When it was open to all vehicles it was terrible to walk along the footpaths as they are very narrow over the bridge in the busy tourist season.
We should be encouraging more pedestrianized zones as the city centre is quieter and more relaxed.
There is the need to effectively promote the park and ride scheme to reduce congestion.
I drive all over York on a daily basis and it has not made the traffic congestion any worse than it was before the scheme was in place.
Its good for taxis and buses
The biggest downside to the scheme is the management of it. The signs need to clearer especially around the train station area leading to Rougier Street. I very much doubt it would do too much damage to businesses in that area as York's Tourism is booming! More people will be encouraged to the area because it is quieter.
"The signs need to clearer especially around the train station area leading to Rougier Street."
Balderdash and poppycock.
I just came back from Leeman Road delivery office today and the number of signs adjacent to and just past the city wall are overkill verging on the insane. You would have to be one of the Walking Dead not to see them.
So tell us all why people are saying the signs cant be seen, and using it as an excuse to get out of paying fines. Can't have it all ways.
Because they don't want to take responsibility for their own actions, a common trait nowadays.
"Can't have it all ways."
I am not trying to "have it" any way?
I am neither a car driver or a cyclist.
I am against the closure since I think it is motivated by political dogma and the amount of money it brings in.
I am against people whining that the signs are inadequate when they simply weren't paying attention.
Is that clear enough for you?
[quote][p][bold]jake777[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Pinza-C55[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]iwontgrowup[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]myselby[/bold] wrote: The Lib Dems would have done the same - Government introduced the Cabinet system to promote efficient and streamlined decision making at local level. That’s what CYC are doing- live with it[/p][/quote]The Lendal Bridge scheme is working. It has made the area less congested and pleasanter to walk around during the day. When it was open to all vehicles it was terrible to walk along the footpaths as they are very narrow over the bridge in the busy tourist season. We should be encouraging more pedestrianized zones as the city centre is quieter and more relaxed. There is the need to effectively promote the park and ride scheme to reduce congestion. I drive all over York on a daily basis and it has not made the traffic congestion any worse than it was before the scheme was in place. Its good for taxis and buses The biggest downside to the scheme is the management of it. The signs need to clearer especially around the train station area leading to Rougier Street. I very much doubt it would do too much damage to businesses in that area as York's Tourism is booming! More people will be encouraged to the area because it is quieter.[/p][/quote]"The signs need to clearer especially around the train station area leading to Rougier Street." Balderdash and poppycock. I just came back from Leeman Road delivery office today and the number of signs adjacent to and just past the city wall are overkill verging on the insane. You would have to be one of the Walking Dead not to see them.[/p][/quote]So tell us all why people are saying the signs cant be seen, and using it as an excuse to get out of paying fines. Can't have it all ways.[/p][/quote]Because they don't want to take responsibility for their own actions, a common trait nowadays. "Can't have it all ways." I am not trying to "have it" any way? I am neither a car driver or a cyclist. I am against the closure since I think it is motivated by political dogma and the amount of money it brings in. I am against people whining that the signs are inadequate when they simply weren't paying attention. Is that clear enough for you? Pinza-C55
  • Score: -1

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

About cookies

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

I agree