Merrett: I'm not quitting - Business bosses call for Outer Ring Road to be dualled - Pay back all Lendal Bridge fines, says MP

Coun Dave Merrett, pictured last year at Lendal Bridge

Coun Dave Merrett, pictured last year at Lendal Bridge

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

  • Transport chief defiant amid calls to resign.
  • He's invaluable, says council leader.
  • Outer Ring Road "must be made dual carriageway".
  • York MP says all bridge fines should be repaid.
  • Bus operator "very disappointed" scheme is being ditched.
  • Shuttle bus idea suggested.
  • Coppergate traffic rules will stay.

YORK'S under-fire transport boss has said he is not going to quit in the wake of the Lendal Bridge scheme being axed.

Coun Dave Merrett, City of York Council's cabinet member for transport, has faced calls for his resignation since Government traffic adjudicator Stephen Knapp said last week that the authority had no power to fine tens of thousands of drivers for breaching traffic restrictions on the bridge and Coppergate.

The council's ruling Labour group last night voted to ditch the controversial ban and the bridge will be fully reopened on Saturday. Coun Merrett said today: “The principle was right to have a trial closure of Lendal Bridge to test out whether we could improve bus patronage and reliability, so as to make the bus a credible, reliable alternative for people travelling into and out of the city. 

"The evidence strongly suggests that this succeeded, but it’s clear that the trial closure has become a polarising issue, and we therefore need to readdress the issue of trying to build a public consensus on the big issues around traffic congestion and how we tackle it going forward.

“Legal advice shows that we are in a sound position. I think how we meet future transport challenges is the most important issue, and I have not heard a single positive alternative suggestion from the opposition about how we do that other than looking at bold measures like the Lendal Bridge trial. I look forward to continuing to play a full part in the work of this administration with the Leader's continuing support”.

Council leader James Alexander said: “This isn’t the first and won’t be the last time an opposition councillor calls for a resignation, it’s what opposition councillors do. 

“Dave Merrett has instigated a trial, supported by the Labour group, which was worthwhile but which we are not taking forward and making permanent, something we said from the outset could be one possible outcome.  What is important now is that we build consensus going forward on how we tackle the issue of traffic congestion which is not going away.

“Dave Merrett has an immense amount of knowledge and experience and these qualities are invaluable to the council”.

York's Conservative group has launched an online petition calling for Coun Merrett to resign, with its leader Coun Chris Steward saying: "The council's employees are not to blame for this trial, it is the Labour councillors and it is time they took responsibility.

"The welcome reopening of Lendal Bridge on Saturday will not mark the end of the saga. There is so much more to sort out for the good of York."

The York and North Yorkshire Chamber of Commerce - one of the fiercest critics of the bridge scheme - has said the only way of solving York's congestion problems is to find the money to finally make the Outer Ring Road dual carriageway.

However, Green group leader Coun Andy D'Agorne said he would now push the case for a "serious trial" of a free shuttle bus service, similar to those operating in Sheffield and Bradford, between York Station, York Hospital and York St John University, the Barbican centre and Piccadilly. He said "bad publicity" had been the bridge scheme's downfall.

Susie Cawood, head of the Chamber, said today: "The Chamber is delighted that the council has listened to public opinion and is reopening Lendal Bridge to cars.

"Our members have been very vociferous in their condemnation of this trial and will be relieved they will not be hindered by idealistic transport strategies and can get on with doing business and creating wealth in the economy as well as providing jobs.

"We recognise the need for the council to address York's increasing congestion challenges in line with the city's growth and look forward to having some input into the commission the council is setting up to review these challenges. Indeed, if the council is serious about reducing city-centre congestion, the money needs to finally be found and the Outer Ring Road made into a dual carriageway.

"York has a great deal to be positive about. Its economy is the most resilient in the UK and there will be a unique opportunity to advertise the region for both investment and tourism when images of York and North Yorkshire are broadcast around the world in July during the Tour de France. It is now time to put this trial behind us and concentrate on the future development, growth and success of York and the wider region."

Julian Sturdy, Conservative MP for York Outer, welcomed the decision to abandon the controversial trial, but said motorists who had paid penalty charge notices should be given their money back by the Labour-led authority.

York Outer MP Julian Sturdy said: "I’m delighted to see the council has u-turned on this disastrous policy. This is a major victory for common sense and I’m looking forward to easier access through the city centre and less congestion in other areas of York as a result.

“It remains to be seen what will happen to the several million pounds worth of disputed fines. I’m aware that the council is appealing the adjudicator’s judgement, but I fear this will only serve to prolong the severe embarrassment they’re already experiencing.

"I call on the council to have the humility to repay the fines and bring about an end to this fiasco."

Mr Sturdy praised Coun Steward and his colleagues for their "decisive action" in opposing the policy and holding the council to account. 

The council has confirmed the restrictions will be lifted on April 12, but nobody crossing the bridge since the end of March will be fined.

Darren Richardson, the council's director of city and environmental services, said today: “We remain confident that any PCN’s issued are valid and this follows independent legal advice confirming the trial was operating within the law.

"Restrictions will be lifted on Lendal Bridge on Saturday, April 12. Drivers are urged to continue to adhere to these restrictions until this date. Restrictions on Coppergate are permanent and have been in place since the 1960s and will continue to remain in place.

“We have said from the outset that the purpose of the Lendal Bridge trial is not to generate revenue, but to reduce traffic going over the bridge and through the city centre, as part of a long-term vision to create a more attractive and thriving city centre for us all.

“Doing nothing for York is not an option. A report will be taken to May 6 Cabinet outlining proposals to introduce a new commission to consider what should be done to tackle traffic congestion in York long-term.

“As it stands, it is also important to stress at this point that any income generated from PCNs and will be invested back into the city’s transport and highways infrastructure.”

The cross-party commission, which Labour said would take "a long, hard look" at the data from the bridge trial, will be independently chaired and tasked with finding "more consensual suggestions" on how to tackle congestion.

Coun D'Agorne said the trial had been undermined by negative publicity, but opposition parties must now help the city come up with "viable alternatives" if congestion is to be addressed and pollution levels reduced.

On the shuttle bus idea, he said: "Costings have been done and this could be funded at modest cost from the profits from city-centre car parks and, perhaps, with support from retailers and entertainment venues in the city."

He said he had asked Mr Richardson to include the idea in any bid for funding to build a new bus interchange near York Station.

Frank Wood, who chairs York Retail Forum, said the organisation was "delighted" the bridge was being reopened, saying: "We make no apology for pursuing a policy for the reopening of the bridge from day one, as it was seen to negatively effect businesses within the city.

"However, we are very happy the council has listened to the views expressed by the Forum, other business organisations, visitors and residents and have acted upon that information. We now need to move forward and promote our city, to make us once again a leading must-visit destination city welcoming to all, and the Forum will work with the council to make sure our future is secured."

Kate McMullen, head of Visit York - which has said a yellow-card system giving drivers a warning before being fined should have been looked at when the trial was introduced - said lifting the restrictions is "the right decision at this time". She said: "However, now this has been decided, we must continue to work together in the city to plan for the future, tackling congestion issues and increasing the use of public transport.

"We are committed to working together to find solutions for the future."

Will Pearson, bus operator First's business manager in York, said: "We're very disappointed with the lifting of the traffic restrictions on Lendal Bridge.

"The trial helped to give thousands of our customers shopping, working in and visiting York more reliable bus services. We know reliability is key to attracting more people onto public transport and we'll continue to work closely with the council to deliver improvements for our customers across the York network."

Coun Alexander said: "It's great to see that businesses across the city are supporting the decision to create a cross-party and independently-chaired commission.

"We all share the same vision - to ensure York continues to prosper - and we hope that, by working together, it will help to find long-term solutions."

>> Last night's story - Lendal Bridge trial abandoned

Comments (139)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

11:00am Wed 9 Apr 14

yorkandproud says...

York council chiefs and " humility". Now there's a sentence you don't hear very often.
York council chiefs and " humility". Now there's a sentence you don't hear very often. yorkandproud
  • Score: 27706

11:11am Wed 9 Apr 14

YOUWILLDOASISAY says...

Darren Richardson:
“Doing nothing for York is not an option. A report will be taken to May 6 Cabinet outlining proposals to introduce a new commission to consider what should be done to tackle traffic congestion in York long-term.

1. Doing nothing is always an option, especially if you don't know what your doing.

2. Start by looking historically at the congestion causing traffic management projects that have been put in place in the last 10 years.
Darren Richardson: “Doing nothing for York is not an option. A report will be taken to May 6 Cabinet outlining proposals to introduce a new commission to consider what should be done to tackle traffic congestion in York long-term. 1. Doing nothing is always an option, especially if you don't know what your doing. 2. Start by looking historically at the congestion causing traffic management projects that have been put in place in the last 10 years. YOUWILLDOASISAY
  • Score: -222

11:14am Wed 9 Apr 14

3.8liter says...

Next thing is that we'll have Merritt and Alexander saying, 'We have listened to the people's wishes and responded accordingly, we must learn from this, and move on'. All the usual clichés will be dragged out once again. Well, give them their money back. That's what they want! Then resign!.
Next thing is that we'll have Merritt and Alexander saying, 'We have listened to the people's wishes and responded accordingly, we must learn from this, and move on'. All the usual clichés will be dragged out once again. Well, give them their money back. That's what they want! Then resign!. 3.8liter
  • Score: -338

11:28am Wed 9 Apr 14

Just zis guy, you know? says...

Hugely Boring Bayley is characteristically silent, I note ...
Hugely Boring Bayley is characteristically silent, I note ... Just zis guy, you know?
  • Score: -418

11:30am Wed 9 Apr 14

strangebuttrue? says...

Why do the council keep saying they are concerned about traffic congestion in York when by the evidence of their own reports it is they who have caused it with the anti car schemes they have introduced since 2005?.
Their own reports say there has been no increase in the volume of traffic since 2005 following a decrease since 2002.
You will note of course that they do mainly talk about congestion rather than volume and just throw in lines every now and again about future increases in the number of cars to mislead people into believing that it is more traffic or volume that is the problem. It is not volume it is the deliberate creation of congestion to give the illusion of increased volume that is the problem.
Why do the council keep saying they are concerned about traffic congestion in York when by the evidence of their own reports it is they who have caused it with the anti car schemes they have introduced since 2005?. Their own reports say there has been no increase in the volume of traffic since 2005 following a decrease since 2002. You will note of course that they do mainly talk about congestion rather than volume and just throw in lines every now and again about future increases in the number of cars to mislead people into believing that it is more traffic or volume that is the problem. It is not volume it is the deliberate creation of congestion to give the illusion of increased volume that is the problem. strangebuttrue?
  • Score: -513

11:35am Wed 9 Apr 14

northern belle says...

Julian Sturdy is absolutely right and the Council's PR department should be attempting to achieve this for them even as we speak...it is probably the only thing which could even begin to redress the balance.
Julian Sturdy is absolutely right and the Council's PR department should be attempting to achieve this for them even as we speak...it is probably the only thing which could even begin to redress the balance. northern belle
  • Score: -544

11:38am Wed 9 Apr 14

Sage9 says...

"Darren Richardson, the council's director of city and environmental services, said today: “We remain confident that any PCN’s issued are valid and this follows independent legal advice confirming the trial was operating within the law."

Yeah right. Let's see an analysis of Kersten's quotes and his quotes over the last week or so compared to the U turns as reality dawns.
"Darren Richardson, the council's director of city and environmental services, said today: “We remain confident that any PCN’s issued are valid and this follows independent legal advice confirming the trial was operating within the law." Yeah right. Let's see an analysis of Kersten's quotes and his quotes over the last week or so compared to the U turns as reality dawns. Sage9
  • Score: -634

11:38am Wed 9 Apr 14

York2000 says...

Zzzzzzz.
Zzzzzzz. York2000
  • Score: -695

11:39am Wed 9 Apr 14

YOUWILLDOASISAY says...

I want to know the break-down of fines issued since the end of the trial.

1. How many locals.
2. How many visitors.

Who determined who would get fined and what bases, requires an answer.
I want to know the break-down of fines issued since the end of the trial. 1. How many locals. 2. How many visitors. Who determined who would get fined and what bases, requires an answer. YOUWILLDOASISAY
  • Score: -623

11:44am Wed 9 Apr 14

the original Homer says...

There is a huge unfounded leap from being told "the trial was operating within the law" to concluding that "any PCNs issued are valid"

The adjudicator specifically differentiated between the two. He agreed the trial was within the law, but said the PCNs were not.

We haven't been told exactly what the latest legal advice they have received is, but it appears the Council leaders still don't understand the fundamentals. They may have either asked the wrong question, or mis-interpreted the answer they were given.

On the matter of refunds, they could be about to make another expensive mistake. Technically, having paid a PCN, people have accepted it as being valid (and thus aren't entitled to a refund). I just hope the Council don't use this as their reason for not issuing refunds though, as it won't ultimately apply in this case. Anyone who has paid a fine will be able to take the Council to court, where the PCNs being illegal will "out-trump" the above. By that time, extra interest would be due on the money, and the Council (or us) would end up paying the costs of both sides.

Admit the mistake and get the refunds sorted
There is a huge unfounded leap from being told "the trial was operating within the law" to concluding that "any PCNs issued are valid" The adjudicator specifically differentiated between the two. He agreed the trial was within the law, but said the PCNs were not. We haven't been told exactly what the latest legal advice they have received is, but it appears the Council leaders still don't understand the fundamentals. They may have either asked the wrong question, or mis-interpreted the answer they were given. On the matter of refunds, they could be about to make another expensive mistake. Technically, having paid a PCN, people have accepted it as being valid (and thus aren't entitled to a refund). I just hope the Council don't use this as their reason for not issuing refunds though, as it won't ultimately apply in this case. Anyone who has paid a fine will be able to take the Council to court, where the PCNs being illegal will "out-trump" the above. By that time, extra interest would be due on the money, and the Council (or us) would end up paying the costs of both sides. Admit the mistake and get the refunds sorted the original Homer
  • Score: -531

11:47am Wed 9 Apr 14

heworth.28 says...

A Tory lecturing people on 'humility', oh the irony....
A Tory lecturing people on 'humility', oh the irony.... heworth.28
  • Score: -448

11:57am Wed 9 Apr 14

Dave Ruddock says...

One wonders are there any clauses or local historic laws that can be regenerated for the Pillory in Parliament Street (an appropriate place next to the Vegetable market, for Merret and Alexander on Saturday (All Day).

Note if its not Pilloried then put them in stocks (there is a set on Micklegate
One wonders are there any clauses or local historic laws that can be regenerated for the Pillory in Parliament Street (an appropriate place next to the Vegetable market, for Merret and Alexander on Saturday (All Day). Note if its not Pilloried then put them in stocks (there is a set on Micklegate Dave Ruddock
  • Score: -335

12:42pm Wed 9 Apr 14

DB Bowman says...

Just zis guy, you know? wrote:
Hugely Boring Bayley is characteristically silent, I note ...
He's probably too busy cursing messrs Alexander and Merrett for giving the Tories their best chance of taking York for many a year. Julian Sturdy is likely to utterly demolish the challengers in York Outer (and rightfully so), meaning the Tories will be able to focus all their efforts on City of York. Just so long as they send a decent candidate rather than the idiots they chose in 2005 and 2010, I think Bayley could be knocked off his perch next year.
[quote][p][bold]Just zis guy, you know?[/bold] wrote: Hugely Boring Bayley is characteristically silent, I note ...[/p][/quote]He's probably too busy cursing messrs Alexander and Merrett for giving the Tories their best chance of taking York for many a year. Julian Sturdy is likely to utterly demolish the challengers in York Outer (and rightfully so), meaning the Tories will be able to focus all their efforts on City of York. Just so long as they send a decent candidate rather than the idiots they chose in 2005 and 2010, I think Bayley could be knocked off his perch next year. DB Bowman
  • Score: -223

12:57pm Wed 9 Apr 14

beretta says...

WHY WAIT TIL STURDAY, WHY NOT RE-OPEN TODAY
WHY WAIT TIL STURDAY, WHY NOT RE-OPEN TODAY beretta
  • Score: -164

1:14pm Wed 9 Apr 14

Archiebold the 1st says...

“We have said from the outset that the purpose of the Lendal Bridge trial is not to generate revenue, but to reduce traffic going over the bridge and through the city centre, as part of a long-term vision to create a more attractive and thriving city centre for us all."

Strange that you would take a section of the inner loop out then?? surly that would make traffic worse? Also if i recall correctly as you seem to be unable to the prime objective was to improve air quality in the city centre. Something which was later proven to be impossible...

You cant change goal posts to suit you.. and if you do.. make it something that the closure achieved. I.e we had worse traffic and 53k still used the bridge...

If it wasn’t money making why make the fine so high? and then double it if not paid in 2 weeks? Why not issue warning letters first? maybe because it was all about revenue due to recent cuts you thought this would create some much needed legal funding to create yet more 20mph & 30mph signs to please a certain member... If none of you have anything more creative then putting more busses on the road and closing roads then I would be asking for a refund on your degrees. They clearly didn’t teach you about futures or scenario thinking.

You are as competent at commenting on transport issues and implementing traffic schemes as Wayne Rooney would be entering Britons next top model.
“We have said from the outset that the purpose of the Lendal Bridge trial is not to generate revenue, but to reduce traffic going over the bridge and through the city centre, as part of a long-term vision to create a more attractive and thriving city centre for us all." Strange that you would take a section of the inner loop out then?? surly that would make traffic worse? Also if i recall correctly as you seem to be unable to the prime objective was to improve air quality in the city centre. Something which was later proven to be impossible... You cant change goal posts to suit you.. and if you do.. make it something that the closure achieved. I.e we had worse traffic and 53k still used the bridge... If it wasn’t money making why make the fine so high? and then double it if not paid in 2 weeks? Why not issue warning letters first? maybe because it was all about revenue due to recent cuts you thought this would create some much needed legal funding to create yet more 20mph & 30mph signs to please a certain member... If none of you have anything more creative then putting more busses on the road and closing roads then I would be asking for a refund on your degrees. They clearly didn’t teach you about futures or scenario thinking. You are as competent at commenting on transport issues and implementing traffic schemes as Wayne Rooney would be entering Britons next top model. Archiebold the 1st
  • Score: -107

1:48pm Wed 9 Apr 14

the original Homer says...

Archiebold the 1st wrote:
“We have said from the outset that the purpose of the Lendal Bridge trial is not to generate revenue, but to reduce traffic going over the bridge and through the city centre, as part of a long-term vision to create a more attractive and thriving city centre for us all."

Strange that you would take a section of the inner loop out then?? surly that would make traffic worse? Also if i recall correctly as you seem to be unable to the prime objective was to improve air quality in the city centre. Something which was later proven to be impossible...

You cant change goal posts to suit you.. and if you do.. make it something that the closure achieved. I.e we had worse traffic and 53k still used the bridge...

If it wasn’t money making why make the fine so high? and then double it if not paid in 2 weeks? Why not issue warning letters first? maybe because it was all about revenue due to recent cuts you thought this would create some much needed legal funding to create yet more 20mph & 30mph signs to please a certain member... If none of you have anything more creative then putting more busses on the road and closing roads then I would be asking for a refund on your degrees. They clearly didn’t teach you about futures or scenario thinking.

You are as competent at commenting on transport issues and implementing traffic schemes as Wayne Rooney would be entering Britons next top model.
Ah but - Wayne Rooney could be competent entering for Britain's top model - if it was a Shrek lookalike competition.

Good post though, I agree with what you say
[quote][p][bold]Archiebold the 1st[/bold] wrote: “We have said from the outset that the purpose of the Lendal Bridge trial is not to generate revenue, but to reduce traffic going over the bridge and through the city centre, as part of a long-term vision to create a more attractive and thriving city centre for us all." Strange that you would take a section of the inner loop out then?? surly that would make traffic worse? Also if i recall correctly as you seem to be unable to the prime objective was to improve air quality in the city centre. Something which was later proven to be impossible... You cant change goal posts to suit you.. and if you do.. make it something that the closure achieved. I.e we had worse traffic and 53k still used the bridge... If it wasn’t money making why make the fine so high? and then double it if not paid in 2 weeks? Why not issue warning letters first? maybe because it was all about revenue due to recent cuts you thought this would create some much needed legal funding to create yet more 20mph & 30mph signs to please a certain member... If none of you have anything more creative then putting more busses on the road and closing roads then I would be asking for a refund on your degrees. They clearly didn’t teach you about futures or scenario thinking. You are as competent at commenting on transport issues and implementing traffic schemes as Wayne Rooney would be entering Britons next top model.[/p][/quote]Ah but - Wayne Rooney could be competent entering for Britain's top model - if it was a Shrek lookalike competition. Good post though, I agree with what you say the original Homer
  • Score: -61

2:15pm Wed 9 Apr 14

York2000 says...

The Tory Press.
The Tory Press. York2000
  • Score: -62

2:35pm Wed 9 Apr 14

Madasanibbotson says...

Just zis guy, you know? wrote:
Hugely Boring Bayley is characteristically silent, I note ...
Bayley are Ferett both on the missing list. Perhaps they have gone for a bike ride (with Bayley charging mileage of course)
[quote][p][bold]Just zis guy, you know?[/bold] wrote: Hugely Boring Bayley is characteristically silent, I note ...[/p][/quote]Bayley are Ferett both on the missing list. Perhaps they have gone for a bike ride (with Bayley charging mileage of course) Madasanibbotson
  • Score: -25

2:39pm Wed 9 Apr 14

york_chap says...

Yesterday I read that Ealing Council - (an area of outer London I believe), has just been ordered to pay back over £300,000 in parking fines issued as a result of CCTV cameras which didn't meet strict legal requirements. Apparently the council was taken to court and ordered to reimburse those who were illegally fined after initially refusing to do so last year.

Different circumstances, but same principle.
Yesterday I read that Ealing Council - (an area of outer London I believe), has just been ordered to pay back over £300,000 in parking fines issued as a result of CCTV cameras which didn't meet strict legal requirements. Apparently the council was taken to court and ordered to reimburse those who were illegally fined after initially refusing to do so last year. Different circumstances, but same principle. york_chap
  • Score: -3

2:41pm Wed 9 Apr 14

york_chap says...

It was Newham council not Ealing council. Apologies.
It was Newham council not Ealing council. Apologies. york_chap
  • Score: -52

2:52pm Wed 9 Apr 14

the original Homer says...

york_chap wrote:
Yesterday I read that Ealing Council - (an area of outer London I believe), has just been ordered to pay back over £300,000 in parking fines issued as a result of CCTV cameras which didn't meet strict legal requirements. Apparently the council was taken to court and ordered to reimburse those who were illegally fined after initially refusing to do so last year.

Different circumstances, but same principle.
Yes, but this Council can't do joined-up thinking. It will all be one step at a time, increasing the final cost as we go, something like:

1 We have been told we're right, so the fines stand
2 That was wrong, but we don't have to refund those who've paid up
3 OK, we've now lost a test case, but we don't have to refund anyone else
4 That was wrong, we'll refund all fines paid, but no compensation
5 That was wrong, we'll now pay them all a bit more
6 Aren't we great? We listened to the public and fully reimbursed everyone
7 We're really great? We said it wasn't about making money and we proved it by losing money
[quote][p][bold]york_chap[/bold] wrote: Yesterday I read that Ealing Council - (an area of outer London I believe), has just been ordered to pay back over £300,000 in parking fines issued as a result of CCTV cameras which didn't meet strict legal requirements. Apparently the council was taken to court and ordered to reimburse those who were illegally fined after initially refusing to do so last year. Different circumstances, but same principle.[/p][/quote]Yes, but this Council can't do joined-up thinking. It will all be one step at a time, increasing the final cost as we go, something like: 1 We have been told we're right, so the fines stand 2 That was wrong, but we don't have to refund those who've paid up 3 OK, we've now lost a test case, but we don't have to refund anyone else 4 That was wrong, we'll refund all fines paid, but no compensation 5 That was wrong, we'll now pay them all a bit more 6 Aren't we great? We listened to the public and fully reimbursed everyone 7 We're really great? We said it wasn't about making money and we proved it by losing money the original Homer
  • Score: -21

2:55pm Wed 9 Apr 14

the original Homer says...

.........8 Where's my seat gone?
.........8 Where's my seat gone? the original Homer
  • Score: -42

3:17pm Wed 9 Apr 14

Kevin Turvey says...

Merret:’ I’m not quitting’

Be sacked then, or voted out in 2015, or face a vote of no confidence in the meantime, we have no confidence in you!
No difference to us, you are going either way.
Go now!

‘He's invaluable, says council leader’ you can go as well!

This is not the council opposition asking you to go but the populace! Why can’t you get that through into your skulls?
Merret:’ I’m not quitting’ Be sacked then, or voted out in 2015, or face a vote of no confidence in the meantime, we have no confidence in you! No difference to us, you are going either way. Go now! ‘He's invaluable, says council leader’ you can go as well! This is not the council opposition asking you to go but the populace! Why can’t you get that through into your skulls? Kevin Turvey
  • Score: -3

3:18pm Wed 9 Apr 14

smudge2 says...

Every politician and public figure who says they are not resigning always ends losing there job ...Watch this space . ???
Every politician and public figure who says they are not resigning always ends losing there job ...Watch this space . ??? smudge2
  • Score: -26

3:21pm Wed 9 Apr 14

Can't all be wrong says...

"Dave Merrett has an immense amount of knowledge and experience and these qualities are invaluable to the council"
Really! Was it these "qualities " that allowed Mr Merrett to take incorrect advise from the outset? To ignore the opinion of endless critics of the bridge closure, to flannel his way through endless media interviews, and above all ignore the wishes of those people he is meant to represent. So these are qualities you admire Mr Alexander? Says it all really!
"Dave Merrett has an immense amount of knowledge and experience and these qualities are invaluable to the council" Really! Was it these "qualities " that allowed Mr Merrett to take incorrect advise from the outset? To ignore the opinion of endless critics of the bridge closure, to flannel his way through endless media interviews, and above all ignore the wishes of those people he is meant to represent. So these are qualities you admire Mr Alexander? Says it all really! Can't all be wrong
  • Score: 11

3:26pm Wed 9 Apr 14

lezyork1966 says...

so how much money has been lost from taxpayers with this escapade?

we have spent money on experts, enquirys, road markings, signage, road closures, now we pay back fines and have cost involved in that too, the people who are claiming them back should get interest on that money(legally) and could also claim compensation for inconvenience.

Merretts schemes are a joke. and were paying. very funny.
so how much money has been lost from taxpayers with this escapade? we have spent money on experts, enquirys, road markings, signage, road closures, now we pay back fines and have cost involved in that too, the people who are claiming them back should get interest on that money(legally) and could also claim compensation for inconvenience. Merretts schemes are a joke. and were paying. very funny. lezyork1966
  • Score: -11

3:30pm Wed 9 Apr 14

Lance Corporal Jones says...

He's invaluable, says council leader.

He's incompetent, says council leader, thats what it should say.

Where are the proof readers, are they kipping again.
He's invaluable, says council leader. He's incompetent, says council leader, thats what it should say. Where are the proof readers, are they kipping again. Lance Corporal Jones
  • Score: -13

3:32pm Wed 9 Apr 14

Ichabod76 says...

“Dave Merrett has an immense amount of knowledge and experience and these qualities are invaluable to the council”.

if this was true how did he manage to get it so badly wrong ?

don't worry about not resigning Mr Merrett you've already made sure we wont be electing Labour again !
“Dave Merrett has an immense amount of knowledge and experience and these qualities are invaluable to the council”. if this was true how did he manage to get it so badly wrong ? don't worry about not resigning Mr Merrett you've already made sure we wont be electing Labour again ! Ichabod76
  • Score: 19

3:36pm Wed 9 Apr 14

YorkPatrol says...

"Dave Merrett has an immense amount of knowledge and experience and these qualities are invaluable to the council”.

In what exactly??? Growing silly facial hair? Surely this was said tongue in cheek

Disappear Merritt - you are not wanted or needed in these parts
"Dave Merrett has an immense amount of knowledge and experience and these qualities are invaluable to the council”. In what exactly??? Growing silly facial hair? Surely this was said tongue in cheek Disappear Merritt - you are not wanted or needed in these parts YorkPatrol
  • Score: 18

3:40pm Wed 9 Apr 14

mickeytops says...

invaluable, is he having a laugh or should he have meant incompetent.
Resign now you idiots, you have said you are listening to Businesses and the people of York, well listen to us all now and resign you incompetent fools, or are you just not reading these comments over the last few Months.
invaluable, is he having a laugh or should he have meant incompetent. Resign now you idiots, you have said you are listening to Businesses and the people of York, well listen to us all now and resign you incompetent fools, or are you just not reading these comments over the last few Months. mickeytops
  • Score: -44

3:50pm Wed 9 Apr 14

chelk says...

Merrett its not just the opposition calling for you to resign think you will find it is most of the residents too but whatever happens we can be rid of you and all of your cronies at next years election
Merrett its not just the opposition calling for you to resign think you will find it is most of the residents too but whatever happens we can be rid of you and all of your cronies at next years election chelk
  • Score: -24

3:52pm Wed 9 Apr 14

mickeytops says...

We don't just want you to quit we want you sacked, you incompetent idiot.
You have all still not answered the question that your people as you say have been asking. How much has this cost us and who is going to pay for it.
We don't just want you to quit we want you sacked, you incompetent idiot. You have all still not answered the question that your people as you say have been asking. How much has this cost us and who is going to pay for it. mickeytops
  • Score: -28

3:59pm Wed 9 Apr 14

the original Homer says...

Lance Corporal Jones wrote:
He's invaluable, says council leader.

He's incompetent, says council leader, thats what it should say.

Where are the proof readers, are they kipping again.
Maybe JA couldn't think of the word meaning the opposite to valuable?

He might have thought the word was unvaluable (type it in and spell check suggests invaluable).

For future reference, he could use valueless or worthless..
[quote][p][bold]Lance Corporal Jones[/bold] wrote: He's invaluable, says council leader. He's incompetent, says council leader, thats what it should say. Where are the proof readers, are they kipping again.[/p][/quote]Maybe JA couldn't think of the word meaning the opposite to valuable? He might have thought the word was unvaluable (type it in and spell check suggests invaluable). For future reference, he could use valueless or worthless.. the original Homer
  • Score: -27

4:09pm Wed 9 Apr 14

mitch2nd says...

Not quitting, sorry mate you should be SACKED, maybe you can pay all the interest back that the people are entitled too out of your overpaid pocket, waste of space
Not quitting, sorry mate you should be SACKED, maybe you can pay all the interest back that the people are entitled too out of your overpaid pocket, waste of space mitch2nd
  • Score: -15

4:12pm Wed 9 Apr 14

mitch2nd says...

He's invaluable, says council leader.

Sorry how can someone that makes such a basic Balls up be invaluable, get rid of the twit
He's invaluable, says council leader. Sorry how can someone that makes such a basic Balls up be invaluable, get rid of the twit mitch2nd
  • Score: -3

4:32pm Wed 9 Apr 14

bolero says...

Answers please. Where is the evidence that the trial was a success and what is it? What is the legal advice that was obtained which supports the trial? Why is an incompetent officer who has wasted millions of pounds of taxpayers money still in the employ of CoYC? And Alexander says the trial was supported by the Labour group; so why has the same group deemed the trial to be a failure and recommended abandonment?
Answers please. Where is the evidence that the trial was a success and what is it? What is the legal advice that was obtained which supports the trial? Why is an incompetent officer who has wasted millions of pounds of taxpayers money still in the employ of CoYC? And Alexander says the trial was supported by the Labour group; so why has the same group deemed the trial to be a failure and recommended abandonment? bolero
  • Score: 2

4:36pm Wed 9 Apr 14

T'Marcus says...

YOUWILLDOASISAY wrote:
Darren Richardson:
“Doing nothing for York is not an option. A report will be taken to May 6 Cabinet outlining proposals to introduce a new commission to consider what should be done to tackle traffic congestion in York long-term.

1. Doing nothing is always an option, especially if you don't know what your doing.

2. Start by looking historically at the congestion causing traffic management projects that have been put in place in the last 10 years.
There is an option for you, Mr. Darren Richardson.
Now that you are leaving the sinking ship that you instigated, take YOU GARDEN LEAVE NOW! York doesn't need people like you.
Hawaii is nice at this time of the year.
Go somewhere far away from York.
[quote][p][bold]YOUWILLDOASISAY[/bold] wrote: Darren Richardson: “Doing nothing for York is not an option. A report will be taken to May 6 Cabinet outlining proposals to introduce a new commission to consider what should be done to tackle traffic congestion in York long-term. 1. Doing nothing is always an option, especially if you don't know what your doing. 2. Start by looking historically at the congestion causing traffic management projects that have been put in place in the last 10 years.[/p][/quote]There is an option for you, Mr. Darren Richardson. Now that you are leaving the sinking ship that you instigated, take YOU GARDEN LEAVE NOW! York doesn't need people like you. Hawaii is nice at this time of the year. Go somewhere far away from York. T'Marcus
  • Score: 7

4:39pm Wed 9 Apr 14

T'Marcus says...

Just zis guy, you know? wrote:
Hugely Boring Bayley is characteristically silent, I note ...
He has a cold....on his feet!
"Rabbits" and "headlights" comes to mind.
[quote][p][bold]Just zis guy, you know?[/bold] wrote: Hugely Boring Bayley is characteristically silent, I note ...[/p][/quote]He has a cold....on his feet! "Rabbits" and "headlights" comes to mind. T'Marcus
  • Score: 9

4:41pm Wed 9 Apr 14

T'Marcus says...

Sage9 wrote:
"Darren Richardson, the council's director of city and environmental services, said today: “We remain confident that any PCN’s issued are valid and this follows independent legal advice confirming the trial was operating within the law."

Yeah right. Let's see an analysis of Kersten's quotes and his quotes over the last week or so compared to the U turns as reality dawns.
He has a cold....on his feet!
"Rabbits" and "headlights" comes to mind.
[quote][p][bold]Sage9[/bold] wrote: "Darren Richardson, the council's director of city and environmental services, said today: “We remain confident that any PCN’s issued are valid and this follows independent legal advice confirming the trial was operating within the law." Yeah right. Let's see an analysis of Kersten's quotes and his quotes over the last week or so compared to the U turns as reality dawns.[/p][/quote]He has a cold....on his feet! "Rabbits" and "headlights" comes to mind. T'Marcus
  • Score: -4

4:47pm Wed 9 Apr 14

Mr. Marcus says...

Sage9 wrote:
"Darren Richardson, the council's director of city and environmental services, said today: “We remain confident that any PCN’s issued are valid and this follows independent legal advice confirming the trial was operating within the law."

Yeah right. Let's see an analysis of Kersten's quotes and his quotes over the last week or so compared to the U turns as reality dawns.
What "independent legal advice"?
Is this so called advice in the public domain?
Will it ever see daylight?
I doubt it.
It could be in Richardson's fertile imagination.
Go now, Richardson.
[quote][p][bold]Sage9[/bold] wrote: "Darren Richardson, the council's director of city and environmental services, said today: “We remain confident that any PCN’s issued are valid and this follows independent legal advice confirming the trial was operating within the law." Yeah right. Let's see an analysis of Kersten's quotes and his quotes over the last week or so compared to the U turns as reality dawns.[/p][/quote]What "independent legal advice"? Is this so called advice in the public domain? Will it ever see daylight? I doubt it. It could be in Richardson's fertile imagination. Go now, Richardson. Mr. Marcus
  • Score: -30

4:52pm Wed 9 Apr 14

aac2689 says...

Maybe the principal of the trial was right Mr Merrett,but the timing was awful,why do a trial on this scale in conjunction with major roadworks on the outer ring road
Maybe the principal of the trial was right Mr Merrett,but the timing was awful,why do a trial on this scale in conjunction with major roadworks on the outer ring road aac2689
  • Score: -49

4:54pm Wed 9 Apr 14

Diogenes2 says...

York2000 wrote:
The Tory Press.
I know many Labour-voters who are residents of York who will not vote Labour in 2015.
Alexander and Merrett and Tracy Simpson will have a very short political life in York following their mess.
[quote][p][bold]York2000[/bold] wrote: The Tory Press.[/p][/quote]I know many Labour-voters who are residents of York who will not vote Labour in 2015. Alexander and Merrett and Tracy Simpson will have a very short political life in York following their mess. Diogenes2
  • Score: -11

4:56pm Wed 9 Apr 14

York2000 says...

Diogenes2

True, but the Press is definitely a Tory paper now.
Diogenes2 True, but the Press is definitely a Tory paper now. York2000
  • Score: -57

4:58pm Wed 9 Apr 14

Got a life says...

Alexander said this morning that this legal challenge has implications across the country, who does he think he is? Prime Minister?

The arrogance of him and Merrett is amazing, not that I would, but if I made such a catastrophic misjudgement as these fools I'd resign, drift away and certainly not try to put spin on this whole sorry affair!
Alexander said this morning that this legal challenge has implications across the country, who does he think he is? Prime Minister? The arrogance of him and Merrett is amazing, not that I would, but if I made such a catastrophic misjudgement as these fools I'd resign, drift away and certainly not try to put spin on this whole sorry affair! Got a life
  • Score: -11

5:00pm Wed 9 Apr 14

Diogenes2 says...

Can't all be wrong wrote:
"Dave Merrett has an immense amount of knowledge and experience and these qualities are invaluable to the council"
Really! Was it these "qualities " that allowed Mr Merrett to take incorrect advise from the outset? To ignore the opinion of endless critics of the bridge closure, to flannel his way through endless media interviews, and above all ignore the wishes of those people he is meant to represent. So these are qualities you admire Mr Alexander? Says it all really!
Poor young Jimmy knows diddly squat about anything, sadly.
Go paly with you lego bricks.
Play with Richardson and Merrett together.
Muppets!
[quote][p][bold]Can't all be wrong[/bold] wrote: "Dave Merrett has an immense amount of knowledge and experience and these qualities are invaluable to the council" Really! Was it these "qualities " that allowed Mr Merrett to take incorrect advise from the outset? To ignore the opinion of endless critics of the bridge closure, to flannel his way through endless media interviews, and above all ignore the wishes of those people he is meant to represent. So these are qualities you admire Mr Alexander? Says it all really![/p][/quote]Poor young Jimmy knows diddly squat about anything, sadly. Go paly with you lego bricks. Play with Richardson and Merrett together. Muppets! Diogenes2
  • Score: -4

5:01pm Wed 9 Apr 14

Mr Sarcasm says...

I had PPI that was unlawful. That was paid back in full + 8% interest. In principal what's the difference?
I had PPI that was unlawful. That was paid back in full + 8% interest. In principal what's the difference? Mr Sarcasm
  • Score: 4

5:06pm Wed 9 Apr 14

Caecilius says...

strangebuttrue? wrote:
Why do the council keep saying they are concerned about traffic congestion in York when by the evidence of their own reports it is they who have caused it with the anti car schemes they have introduced since 2005?.
Their own reports say there has been no increase in the volume of traffic since 2005 following a decrease since 2002.
You will note of course that they do mainly talk about congestion rather than volume and just throw in lines every now and again about future increases in the number of cars to mislead people into believing that it is more traffic or volume that is the problem. It is not volume it is the deliberate creation of congestion to give the illusion of increased volume that is the problem.
Utter nonsense. The congestion is caused by cars, or more precisely by the people who choose to drive them. Car drivers will still be sitting in tailbacks on Saturday, just as they were sitting in them before the trial ever started, and wailing that everybody else is to blame. By 'anti car schemes', what you actually mean is any attempt to cater for those residents and visitors who don't choose to travel everywhere by car, or to challenge what some motorists believe to be their divine right to absolute priority over everyone else.
[quote][p][bold]strangebuttrue?[/bold] wrote: Why do the council keep saying they are concerned about traffic congestion in York when by the evidence of their own reports it is they who have caused it with the anti car schemes they have introduced since 2005?. Their own reports say there has been no increase in the volume of traffic since 2005 following a decrease since 2002. You will note of course that they do mainly talk about congestion rather than volume and just throw in lines every now and again about future increases in the number of cars to mislead people into believing that it is more traffic or volume that is the problem. It is not volume it is the deliberate creation of congestion to give the illusion of increased volume that is the problem.[/p][/quote]Utter nonsense. The congestion is caused by cars, or more precisely by the people who choose to drive them. Car drivers will still be sitting in tailbacks on Saturday, just as they were sitting in them before the trial ever started, and wailing that everybody else is to blame. By 'anti car schemes', what you actually mean is any attempt to cater for those residents and visitors who don't choose to travel everywhere by car, or to challenge what some motorists believe to be their divine right to absolute priority over everyone else. Caecilius
  • Score: -47

5:10pm Wed 9 Apr 14

strangebuttrue? says...

Seems Mr Merrett just can't help misleading us.

- The trial will last for 6 months.
- Fines will be imposed from day one.
- The closure will remain until the 6th May.
- The fines will continue despite us being told they are unlawful.
- I will resign.

Well here is something I can guarantee. I for one will never believe another word you say and I suspect many others will feel the same. If my suspicion is correct your staying on can only lead to the failure of every project you are associated with. As for the long awaited report, if you have had anything to do with it, which I also suspect you have considering the time it has taken to get it out, then it will be fairly meaningless to many.
Seems Mr Merrett just can't help misleading us. - The trial will last for 6 months. - Fines will be imposed from day one. - The closure will remain until the 6th May. - The fines will continue despite us being told they are unlawful. - I will resign. Well here is something I can guarantee. I for one will never believe another word you say and I suspect many others will feel the same. If my suspicion is correct your staying on can only lead to the failure of every project you are associated with. As for the long awaited report, if you have had anything to do with it, which I also suspect you have considering the time it has taken to get it out, then it will be fairly meaningless to many. strangebuttrue?
  • Score: 7

5:12pm Wed 9 Apr 14

strangebuttrue? says...

Caecilius wrote:
strangebuttrue? wrote:
Why do the council keep saying they are concerned about traffic congestion in York when by the evidence of their own reports it is they who have caused it with the anti car schemes they have introduced since 2005?.
Their own reports say there has been no increase in the volume of traffic since 2005 following a decrease since 2002.
You will note of course that they do mainly talk about congestion rather than volume and just throw in lines every now and again about future increases in the number of cars to mislead people into believing that it is more traffic or volume that is the problem. It is not volume it is the deliberate creation of congestion to give the illusion of increased volume that is the problem.
Utter nonsense. The congestion is caused by cars, or more precisely by the people who choose to drive them. Car drivers will still be sitting in tailbacks on Saturday, just as they were sitting in them before the trial ever started, and wailing that everybody else is to blame. By 'anti car schemes', what you actually mean is any attempt to cater for those residents and visitors who don't choose to travel everywhere by car, or to challenge what some motorists believe to be their divine right to absolute priority over everyone else.
I am mealy quoting the councils reports so if you want to argue about the numbers feel free to speak to Mr Merrett who signed off the report. I am sure you will hang on his every word.
[quote][p][bold]Caecilius[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]strangebuttrue?[/bold] wrote: Why do the council keep saying they are concerned about traffic congestion in York when by the evidence of their own reports it is they who have caused it with the anti car schemes they have introduced since 2005?. Their own reports say there has been no increase in the volume of traffic since 2005 following a decrease since 2002. You will note of course that they do mainly talk about congestion rather than volume and just throw in lines every now and again about future increases in the number of cars to mislead people into believing that it is more traffic or volume that is the problem. It is not volume it is the deliberate creation of congestion to give the illusion of increased volume that is the problem.[/p][/quote]Utter nonsense. The congestion is caused by cars, or more precisely by the people who choose to drive them. Car drivers will still be sitting in tailbacks on Saturday, just as they were sitting in them before the trial ever started, and wailing that everybody else is to blame. By 'anti car schemes', what you actually mean is any attempt to cater for those residents and visitors who don't choose to travel everywhere by car, or to challenge what some motorists believe to be their divine right to absolute priority over everyone else.[/p][/quote]I am mealy quoting the councils reports so if you want to argue about the numbers feel free to speak to Mr Merrett who signed off the report. I am sure you will hang on his every word. strangebuttrue?
  • Score: -3

5:13pm Wed 9 Apr 14

strangebuttrue? says...

Sorry meant merely.
Sorry meant merely. strangebuttrue?
  • Score: -46

5:14pm Wed 9 Apr 14

Got a life says...

I wonder if our two super hero's are planning a re planning a re opening ceremony at 10 30 on Saturday morning,

I can see a bloody great red ribbon across the bridge and the two of them stating that the listen to the citizens of York!
I wonder if our two super hero's are planning a re planning a re opening ceremony at 10 30 on Saturday morning, I can see a bloody great red ribbon across the bridge and the two of them stating that the listen to the citizens of York! Got a life
  • Score: -24

5:15pm Wed 9 Apr 14

eeoodares says...

York2000 wrote:
Diogenes2

True, but the Press is definitely a Tory paper now.
Is it Tory, or is it just sick of Labour?
[quote][p][bold]York2000[/bold] wrote: Diogenes2 True, but the Press is definitely a Tory paper now.[/p][/quote]Is it Tory, or is it just sick of Labour? eeoodares
  • Score: -27

5:17pm Wed 9 Apr 14

DB Bowman says...

York2000 wrote:
Diogenes2

True, but the Press is definitely a Tory paper now.
And what's wrong with that? In fact, given that both Labour and the Liberal Democrats have time and again proven themselves to be utter incompetents, I think it's high time we gave the Conservatives the chance to run our fair city.
[quote][p][bold]York2000[/bold] wrote: Diogenes2 True, but the Press is definitely a Tory paper now.[/p][/quote]And what's wrong with that? In fact, given that both Labour and the Liberal Democrats have time and again proven themselves to be utter incompetents, I think it's high time we gave the Conservatives the chance to run our fair city. DB Bowman
  • Score: -10

5:17pm Wed 9 Apr 14

CHISSY1 says...

What are all these posters going to moan about when this boring bridge sage comes to an end.
What are all these posters going to moan about when this boring bridge sage comes to an end. CHISSY1
  • Score: -44

5:20pm Wed 9 Apr 14

yorkiemum says...

Caecilius wrote:
strangebuttrue? wrote:
Why do the council keep saying they are concerned about traffic congestion in York when by the evidence of their own reports it is they who have caused it with the anti car schemes they have introduced since 2005?.
Their own reports say there has been no increase in the volume of traffic since 2005 following a decrease since 2002.
You will note of course that they do mainly talk about congestion rather than volume and just throw in lines every now and again about future increases in the number of cars to mislead people into believing that it is more traffic or volume that is the problem. It is not volume it is the deliberate creation of congestion to give the illusion of increased volume that is the problem.
Utter nonsense. The congestion is caused by cars, or more precisely by the people who choose to drive them. Car drivers will still be sitting in tailbacks on Saturday, just as they were sitting in them before the trial ever started, and wailing that everybody else is to blame. By 'anti car schemes', what you actually mean is any attempt to cater for those residents and visitors who don't choose to travel everywhere by car, or to challenge what some motorists believe to be their divine right to absolute priority over everyone else.
Caecilius what has made you so hateful towards motorists.With every post you seem to get more and more bitter. Please remember you are commenting about people and their lives.
[quote][p][bold]Caecilius[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]strangebuttrue?[/bold] wrote: Why do the council keep saying they are concerned about traffic congestion in York when by the evidence of their own reports it is they who have caused it with the anti car schemes they have introduced since 2005?. Their own reports say there has been no increase in the volume of traffic since 2005 following a decrease since 2002. You will note of course that they do mainly talk about congestion rather than volume and just throw in lines every now and again about future increases in the number of cars to mislead people into believing that it is more traffic or volume that is the problem. It is not volume it is the deliberate creation of congestion to give the illusion of increased volume that is the problem.[/p][/quote]Utter nonsense. The congestion is caused by cars, or more precisely by the people who choose to drive them. Car drivers will still be sitting in tailbacks on Saturday, just as they were sitting in them before the trial ever started, and wailing that everybody else is to blame. By 'anti car schemes', what you actually mean is any attempt to cater for those residents and visitors who don't choose to travel everywhere by car, or to challenge what some motorists believe to be their divine right to absolute priority over everyone else.[/p][/quote]Caecilius what has made you so hateful towards motorists.With every post you seem to get more and more bitter. Please remember you are commenting about people and their lives. yorkiemum
  • Score: -13

5:20pm Wed 9 Apr 14

yorkiemum says...

Caecilius wrote:
strangebuttrue? wrote:
Why do the council keep saying they are concerned about traffic congestion in York when by the evidence of their own reports it is they who have caused it with the anti car schemes they have introduced since 2005?.
Their own reports say there has been no increase in the volume of traffic since 2005 following a decrease since 2002.
You will note of course that they do mainly talk about congestion rather than volume and just throw in lines every now and again about future increases in the number of cars to mislead people into believing that it is more traffic or volume that is the problem. It is not volume it is the deliberate creation of congestion to give the illusion of increased volume that is the problem.
Utter nonsense. The congestion is caused by cars, or more precisely by the people who choose to drive them. Car drivers will still be sitting in tailbacks on Saturday, just as they were sitting in them before the trial ever started, and wailing that everybody else is to blame. By 'anti car schemes', what you actually mean is any attempt to cater for those residents and visitors who don't choose to travel everywhere by car, or to challenge what some motorists believe to be their divine right to absolute priority over everyone else.
Caecilius what has made you so hateful towards motorists.With every post you seem to get more and more bitter. Please remember you are commenting about people and their lives.
[quote][p][bold]Caecilius[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]strangebuttrue?[/bold] wrote: Why do the council keep saying they are concerned about traffic congestion in York when by the evidence of their own reports it is they who have caused it with the anti car schemes they have introduced since 2005?. Their own reports say there has been no increase in the volume of traffic since 2005 following a decrease since 2002. You will note of course that they do mainly talk about congestion rather than volume and just throw in lines every now and again about future increases in the number of cars to mislead people into believing that it is more traffic or volume that is the problem. It is not volume it is the deliberate creation of congestion to give the illusion of increased volume that is the problem.[/p][/quote]Utter nonsense. The congestion is caused by cars, or more precisely by the people who choose to drive them. Car drivers will still be sitting in tailbacks on Saturday, just as they were sitting in them before the trial ever started, and wailing that everybody else is to blame. By 'anti car schemes', what you actually mean is any attempt to cater for those residents and visitors who don't choose to travel everywhere by car, or to challenge what some motorists believe to be their divine right to absolute priority over everyone else.[/p][/quote]Caecilius what has made you so hateful towards motorists.With every post you seem to get more and more bitter. Please remember you are commenting about people and their lives. yorkiemum
  • Score: -3

5:27pm Wed 9 Apr 14

yorkshirelad says...

DB Bowman wrote:
York2000 wrote:
Diogenes2

True, but the Press is definitely a Tory paper now.
And what's wrong with that? In fact, given that both Labour and the Liberal Democrats have time and again proven themselves to be utter incompetents, I think it's high time we gave the Conservatives the chance to run our fair city.
Well whatever happens we won't fall for the Tories in York...the party of the rich and the South, dominated by an Eton educated elite so out of touch that have seriously damaged the economy of the North of England.

The Press a Tory paper? I'm not so sure - they all tend that way because the Press is nearly all owned by big corporations these days. But I think they just feel they have to pander to the 'disgusted of Tunbridge Wells' Victor Meldrew brigade. By siding with this faction though, they are committing suicide...I know hardly any young people who read The Press these days...the grumpy letters and general right-wing reactionary feel of it all is a real depressing turn-off for the young.

Small-c conservative probably but they are making a fatal error. On this one as in many recent things, The Press is on the wrong side.
[quote][p][bold]DB Bowman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]York2000[/bold] wrote: Diogenes2 True, but the Press is definitely a Tory paper now.[/p][/quote]And what's wrong with that? In fact, given that both Labour and the Liberal Democrats have time and again proven themselves to be utter incompetents, I think it's high time we gave the Conservatives the chance to run our fair city.[/p][/quote]Well whatever happens we won't fall for the Tories in York...the party of the rich and the South, dominated by an Eton educated elite so out of touch that have seriously damaged the economy of the North of England. The Press a Tory paper? I'm not so sure - they all tend that way because the Press is nearly all owned by big corporations these days. But I think they just feel they have to pander to the 'disgusted of Tunbridge Wells' Victor Meldrew brigade. By siding with this faction though, they are committing suicide...I know hardly any young people who read The Press these days...the grumpy letters and general right-wing reactionary feel of it all is a real depressing turn-off for the young. Small-c conservative probably but they are making a fatal error. On this one as in many recent things, The Press is on the wrong side. yorkshirelad
  • Score: -22

5:31pm Wed 9 Apr 14

strangebuttrue? says...

strangebuttrue? wrote:
Seems Mr Merrett just can't help misleading us.

- The trial will last for 6 months.
- Fines will be imposed from day one.
- The closure will remain until the 6th May.
- The fines will continue despite us being told they are unlawful.
- I will resign.

Well here is something I can guarantee. I for one will never believe another word you say and I suspect many others will feel the same. If my suspicion is correct your staying on can only lead to the failure of every project you are associated with. As for the long awaited report, if you have had anything to do with it, which I also suspect you have considering the time it has taken to get it out, then it will be fairly meaningless to many.
Sorry when I say "you" I mean Mr Merrett of course. Got a bit carried away there just sick of all these slippery twists and turns.
[quote][p][bold]strangebuttrue?[/bold] wrote: Seems Mr Merrett just can't help misleading us. - The trial will last for 6 months. - Fines will be imposed from day one. - The closure will remain until the 6th May. - The fines will continue despite us being told they are unlawful. - I will resign. Well here is something I can guarantee. I for one will never believe another word you say and I suspect many others will feel the same. If my suspicion is correct your staying on can only lead to the failure of every project you are associated with. As for the long awaited report, if you have had anything to do with it, which I also suspect you have considering the time it has taken to get it out, then it will be fairly meaningless to many.[/p][/quote]Sorry when I say "you" I mean Mr Merrett of course. Got a bit carried away there just sick of all these slippery twists and turns. strangebuttrue?
  • Score: -3

5:41pm Wed 9 Apr 14

Cheeky face says...

There are many schemes similar to the Lendal Bridge one that have resulted in legal challenges. Newham in to-day's Telegraph page 2 is one.

An Essex blonde was instrumental in making Essex C Council giving back £1.3m.

I heard Camden Council have £5m in fines under scrutiny!

Coppergate stays with restriction during 12 hours. But advance signs should be corrected and re-sited. Not my words but those included in the adjudicatoer's report. .

And I still await replies from the Council!
There are many schemes similar to the Lendal Bridge one that have resulted in legal challenges. Newham in to-day's Telegraph page 2 is one. An Essex blonde was instrumental in making Essex C Council giving back £1.3m. I heard Camden Council have £5m in fines under scrutiny! Coppergate stays with restriction during 12 hours. But advance signs should be corrected and re-sited. Not my words but those included in the adjudicatoer's report. . And I still await replies from the Council! Cheeky face
  • Score: -13

5:43pm Wed 9 Apr 14

AnotherPointofView says...

The ferrett's got to go now. How can he possibly see his position as anything but untenable?

Oh, silly me he's a politician.....
The ferrett's got to go now. How can he possibly see his position as anything but untenable? Oh, silly me he's a politician..... AnotherPointofView
  • Score: -34

5:47pm Wed 9 Apr 14

Fabius the Delayer says...

David Cameron defends Culture Secretary Maria Miller right up until……
Tell me is this relevant ???
David Cameron defends Culture Secretary Maria Miller right up until…… Tell me is this relevant ??? Fabius the Delayer
  • Score: -57

5:47pm Wed 9 Apr 14

Alan Waters says...

Dave, they've hung you out to dry and like in the picture The Press have used, you're standing alone. Move on, life's too short.
Dave, they've hung you out to dry and like in the picture The Press have used, you're standing alone. Move on, life's too short. Alan Waters
  • Score: -48

5:55pm Wed 9 Apr 14

NoNewsIsGoodNews says...

Council leader James Alexander said: “This isn’t the first and won’t be the last time an opposition councillor calls for a resignation, it’s what opposition councillors do.

But it's not just the opposition calling for him to resign is it?
It is every right thinking resident of York.
“Dave Merrett has an immense amount of knowledge and experience and these qualities are invaluable to the council”.

I beg to differ.
[quote]Council leader James Alexander said: “This isn’t the first and won’t be the last time an opposition councillor calls for a resignation, it’s what opposition councillors do. [/quote] But it's not just the opposition calling for him to resign is it? It is every right thinking resident of York. [quote]“Dave Merrett has an immense amount of knowledge and experience and these qualities are invaluable to the council”. [/quote] I beg to differ. NoNewsIsGoodNews
  • Score: -24

5:56pm Wed 9 Apr 14

trailblazer says...

MAYHEM Merrett and Darren Richardson should resign and we should read the comments of Coun D'Agorne and pray the Green party don't get elected. If they do we will have a complete ban on all cars entering the City Centre and a more draconian fining system for car owners.
MAYHEM Merrett and Darren Richardson should resign and we should read the comments of Coun D'Agorne and pray the Green party don't get elected. If they do we will have a complete ban on all cars entering the City Centre and a more draconian fining system for car owners. trailblazer
  • Score: -14

6:03pm Wed 9 Apr 14

NoNewsIsGoodNews says...

yorkiemum wrote:
Caecilius wrote:
strangebuttrue? wrote:
Why do the council keep saying they are concerned about traffic congestion in York when by the evidence of their own reports it is they who have caused it with the anti car schemes they have introduced since 2005?.
Their own reports say there has been no increase in the volume of traffic since 2005 following a decrease since 2002.
You will note of course that they do mainly talk about congestion rather than volume and just throw in lines every now and again about future increases in the number of cars to mislead people into believing that it is more traffic or volume that is the problem. It is not volume it is the deliberate creation of congestion to give the illusion of increased volume that is the problem.
Utter nonsense. The congestion is caused by cars, or more precisely by the people who choose to drive them. Car drivers will still be sitting in tailbacks on Saturday, just as they were sitting in them before the trial ever started, and wailing that everybody else is to blame. By 'anti car schemes', what you actually mean is any attempt to cater for those residents and visitors who don't choose to travel everywhere by car, or to challenge what some motorists believe to be their divine right to absolute priority over everyone else.
Caecilius what has made you so hateful towards motorists.With every post you seem to get more and more bitter. Please remember you are commenting about people and their lives.
Because he believes that the evil motorist is to blame for taking his cycle path away from him at Water End.
[quote][p][bold]yorkiemum[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Caecilius[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]strangebuttrue?[/bold] wrote: Why do the council keep saying they are concerned about traffic congestion in York when by the evidence of their own reports it is they who have caused it with the anti car schemes they have introduced since 2005?. Their own reports say there has been no increase in the volume of traffic since 2005 following a decrease since 2002. You will note of course that they do mainly talk about congestion rather than volume and just throw in lines every now and again about future increases in the number of cars to mislead people into believing that it is more traffic or volume that is the problem. It is not volume it is the deliberate creation of congestion to give the illusion of increased volume that is the problem.[/p][/quote]Utter nonsense. The congestion is caused by cars, or more precisely by the people who choose to drive them. Car drivers will still be sitting in tailbacks on Saturday, just as they were sitting in them before the trial ever started, and wailing that everybody else is to blame. By 'anti car schemes', what you actually mean is any attempt to cater for those residents and visitors who don't choose to travel everywhere by car, or to challenge what some motorists believe to be their divine right to absolute priority over everyone else.[/p][/quote]Caecilius what has made you so hateful towards motorists.With every post you seem to get more and more bitter. Please remember you are commenting about people and their lives.[/p][/quote]Because he believes that the evil motorist is to blame for taking his cycle path away from him at Water End. NoNewsIsGoodNews
  • Score: -15

6:08pm Wed 9 Apr 14

pedalling paul says...

yorkiemum wrote:
Caecilius wrote:
strangebuttrue? wrote:
Why do the council keep saying they are concerned about traffic congestion in York when by the evidence of their own reports it is they who have caused it with the anti car schemes they have introduced since 2005?.
Their own reports say there has been no increase in the volume of traffic since 2005 following a decrease since 2002.
You will note of course that they do mainly talk about congestion rather than volume and just throw in lines every now and again about future increases in the number of cars to mislead people into believing that it is more traffic or volume that is the problem. It is not volume it is the deliberate creation of congestion to give the illusion of increased volume that is the problem.
Utter nonsense. The congestion is caused by cars, or more precisely by the people who choose to drive them. Car drivers will still be sitting in tailbacks on Saturday, just as they were sitting in them before the trial ever started, and wailing that everybody else is to blame. By 'anti car schemes', what you actually mean is any attempt to cater for those residents and visitors who don't choose to travel everywhere by car, or to challenge what some motorists believe to be their divine right to absolute priority over everyone else.
Caecilius what has made you so hateful towards motorists.With every post you seem to get more and more bitter. Please remember you are commenting about people and their lives.
I take it that the majority of posters here are car owners who have chosen to lead car dependant lifestyles. Nothing wrong with leaving the car on the drive and hopping on a bus or bike for your short, local journeys.
If you choose to sit in long queues and moan about "the traffic" when you are actually contributing to it, that's your choice.
[quote][p][bold]yorkiemum[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Caecilius[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]strangebuttrue?[/bold] wrote: Why do the council keep saying they are concerned about traffic congestion in York when by the evidence of their own reports it is they who have caused it with the anti car schemes they have introduced since 2005?. Their own reports say there has been no increase in the volume of traffic since 2005 following a decrease since 2002. You will note of course that they do mainly talk about congestion rather than volume and just throw in lines every now and again about future increases in the number of cars to mislead people into believing that it is more traffic or volume that is the problem. It is not volume it is the deliberate creation of congestion to give the illusion of increased volume that is the problem.[/p][/quote]Utter nonsense. The congestion is caused by cars, or more precisely by the people who choose to drive them. Car drivers will still be sitting in tailbacks on Saturday, just as they were sitting in them before the trial ever started, and wailing that everybody else is to blame. By 'anti car schemes', what you actually mean is any attempt to cater for those residents and visitors who don't choose to travel everywhere by car, or to challenge what some motorists believe to be their divine right to absolute priority over everyone else.[/p][/quote]Caecilius what has made you so hateful towards motorists.With every post you seem to get more and more bitter. Please remember you are commenting about people and their lives.[/p][/quote]I take it that the majority of posters here are car owners who have chosen to lead car dependant lifestyles. Nothing wrong with leaving the car on the drive and hopping on a bus or bike for your short, local journeys. If you choose to sit in long queues and moan about "the traffic" when you are actually contributing to it, that's your choice. pedalling paul
  • Score: 82

6:26pm Wed 9 Apr 14

Alf Garnett says...

beretta wrote:
WHY WAIT TIL STURDAY, WHY NOT RE-OPEN TODAY
Sturday, isn't he the MP ?
[quote][p][bold]beretta[/bold] wrote: WHY WAIT TIL STURDAY, WHY NOT RE-OPEN TODAY[/p][/quote]Sturday, isn't he the MP ? Alf Garnett
  • Score: -18

6:26pm Wed 9 Apr 14

greenmonkey says...

No one yet suggesting what else should be done to make the city centre a pleasant place for residents and tourists going about their normal business on foot or bike. One thing you can be sure of is that First will now say that they have to reverse the cuts they made to some bus fares they made last September, because the growing congestion is costing them more in running costs. Torys and Lib Dems very vocal against the scheme but still waiting to hear what they would do instead to tackle air pollution and congestion.
No one yet suggesting what else should be done to make the city centre a pleasant place for residents and tourists going about their normal business on foot or bike. One thing you can be sure of is that First will now say that they have to reverse the cuts they made to some bus fares they made last September, because the growing congestion is costing them more in running costs. Torys and Lib Dems very vocal against the scheme but still waiting to hear what they would do instead to tackle air pollution and congestion. greenmonkey
  • Score: -38

6:30pm Wed 9 Apr 14

Alf Garnett says...

One thing is an absolute racing certainty, the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats certainly haven't any better ideas. Ian Gillies was calling for Coppergate to be regulated about three years ago. Absolutely right that the outer ring needs upgrading. Didn't our Prime Minister say that he would support the idea ?
One thing is an absolute racing certainty, the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats certainly haven't any better ideas. Ian Gillies was calling for Coppergate to be regulated about three years ago. Absolutely right that the outer ring needs upgrading. Didn't our Prime Minister say that he would support the idea ? Alf Garnett
  • Score: -21

6:32pm Wed 9 Apr 14

Back and Beyond says...

CHISSY1 wrote:
What are all these posters going to moan about when this boring bridge sage comes to an end.
JA's interview on Radio York was embarrassing and cringe worthy.

York CC is led by a bunch of power hungry fools, we have more chance of a football stadium than a resignation.
[quote][p][bold]CHISSY1[/bold] wrote: What are all these posters going to moan about when this boring bridge sage comes to an end.[/p][/quote]JA's interview on Radio York was embarrassing and cringe worthy. York CC is led by a bunch of power hungry fools, we have more chance of a football stadium than a resignation. Back and Beyond
  • Score: -29

6:34pm Wed 9 Apr 14

Alf Garnett says...

Frank Wood, who chairs York Retail Forum, said the organisation was "delighted" the bridge was being reopened, saying: "We make no apology for pursuing a policy for the reopening of the bridge from day one, as it was seen to negatively effect businesses within the city.

Blow me, only last December they were saying that they'd had their best pre-Christmas for seven years. One thing is sure, the hot air produced by this closure could be used to keep York self sufficient in energy for years to,come.
Frank Wood, who chairs York Retail Forum, said the organisation was "delighted" the bridge was being reopened, saying: "We make no apology for pursuing a policy for the reopening of the bridge from day one, as it was seen to negatively effect businesses within the city. Blow me, only last December they were saying that they'd had their best pre-Christmas for seven years. One thing is sure, the hot air produced by this closure could be used to keep York self sufficient in energy for years to,come. Alf Garnett
  • Score: -57

6:37pm Wed 9 Apr 14

Bailed Out says...

When your unemployable you hang on to what you've got !
When your unemployable you hang on to what you've got ! Bailed Out
  • Score: -49

6:39pm Wed 9 Apr 14

JasBro says...

greenmonkey wrote:
No one yet suggesting what else should be done to make the city centre a pleasant place for residents and tourists going about their normal business on foot or bike. One thing you can be sure of is that First will now say that they have to reverse the cuts they made to some bus fares they made last September, because the growing congestion is costing them more in running costs. Torys and Lib Dems very vocal against the scheme but still waiting to hear what they would do instead to tackle air pollution and congestion.
There have been loads of suggestions over the last seven months, but nobody was willing to listen, including you apparently.

It's not just the Tories and LibDems that have been against this scheme. Some of us left leaning, green inclined, non-drivers also realised that it was not going tackle air pollution or congestion.
[quote][p][bold]greenmonkey[/bold] wrote: No one yet suggesting what else should be done to make the city centre a pleasant place for residents and tourists going about their normal business on foot or bike. One thing you can be sure of is that First will now say that they have to reverse the cuts they made to some bus fares they made last September, because the growing congestion is costing them more in running costs. Torys and Lib Dems very vocal against the scheme but still waiting to hear what they would do instead to tackle air pollution and congestion.[/p][/quote]There have been loads of suggestions over the last seven months, but nobody was willing to listen, including you apparently. It's not just the Tories and LibDems that have been against this scheme. Some of us left leaning, green inclined, non-drivers also realised that it was not going tackle air pollution or congestion. JasBro
  • Score: -50

6:40pm Wed 9 Apr 14

Rantandrave says...

Caecilius wrote:
strangebuttrue? wrote:
Why do the council keep saying they are concerned about traffic congestion in York when by the evidence of their own reports it is they who have caused it with the anti car schemes they have introduced since 2005?.
Their own reports say there has been no increase in the volume of traffic since 2005 following a decrease since 2002.
You will note of course that they do mainly talk about congestion rather than volume and just throw in lines every now and again about future increases in the number of cars to mislead people into believing that it is more traffic or volume that is the problem. It is not volume it is the deliberate creation of congestion to give the illusion of increased volume that is the problem.
Utter nonsense. The congestion is caused by cars, or more precisely by the people who choose to drive them. Car drivers will still be sitting in tailbacks on Saturday, just as they were sitting in them before the trial ever started, and wailing that everybody else is to blame. By 'anti car schemes', what you actually mean is any attempt to cater for those residents and visitors who don't choose to travel everywhere by car, or to challenge what some motorists believe to be their divine right to absolute priority over everyone else.
Evidence has shown volume or number of cars has not increased since 2005! but yet congestion, i.e. speed of traffic flow, travelling times, pollution etc is up, that can only mean one thing that all the traffic measures introduced over that time have made travelling by car worse. Single lanes at traffic lights instead of two (meaning fewer cars get through each time and increases travel time and pollution), introducing stupid short sections of bus lanes that stop the flow of traffic (reduces the number of cars moving and increases travel time and pollution).
Despite best intentions I’m sure, some people will never and probably can never realistically give up their cars for some types of travel, so to introduce traffic measures that make it worse to travel by car, also makes it worse for those not in a car, such as on a bus or bike. So the whole ideals are fatally and naively flawed. You can't simply come up with ideas that improve certain travel aspects for a section of the travelling public, and that merely stick two fingers up at car and other vehicle drivers and expect no complaints and no problems along with it.

This scheme for instance to coin a medical analogy (I make no claims on its correctness). If the city centre is its heart and like a heart has congestion or reduced flow, and you complain of angina to the doctor, do you accept his response of, " No need for an arterial bypass surgery to improve it, we'll simply cut one of them and hope the other 3 cope".
We’ll just see how long you'd live if we did that, and that is effectively what the bridge closure did, it literally gave the centre a heart attack by forcing traffic on the remaining routes and it failing badly with routes clogged which would normally be flowing easily at that time of day.
Sensibly though what York really needs is serious funding to increase traffic flow across and round the centre, with expected increases in commerce with new shopping centres and the number of new houses going up that traffic is inevitably going to increase. That means measures to make it quicker and easier to flow, and thus reducing travelling time and pollution with it, not just to make it so unbearable that people don't drive into it any more. That is just simply not a practical or sensible option.
Unfortunately this is unrealistic in a city with little money or room for road expansion, where it really needs at least one another bridge across the river to reduce the need for use of such as Lendal, and the outer ring road fully duelling into a complete ring without all the roundabouts, having slip roads and under/overpasses, it should have been done from the start but that also typical of the time and again now of the short-sightedness of traffic management schemes.
That I think will never happen in my lifetime.
I am a car driver, cyclist and bus user as well as a local centre resident who routinely walks into town over the bridge so I do see from all sides.
This particular scheme was just flawed, badly planned with insufficient consultation of the public, arrogantly thinking they did not need to, and extremely poorly executed right from the offset.
[quote][p][bold]Caecilius[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]strangebuttrue?[/bold] wrote: Why do the council keep saying they are concerned about traffic congestion in York when by the evidence of their own reports it is they who have caused it with the anti car schemes they have introduced since 2005?. Their own reports say there has been no increase in the volume of traffic since 2005 following a decrease since 2002. You will note of course that they do mainly talk about congestion rather than volume and just throw in lines every now and again about future increases in the number of cars to mislead people into believing that it is more traffic or volume that is the problem. It is not volume it is the deliberate creation of congestion to give the illusion of increased volume that is the problem.[/p][/quote]Utter nonsense. The congestion is caused by cars, or more precisely by the people who choose to drive them. Car drivers will still be sitting in tailbacks on Saturday, just as they were sitting in them before the trial ever started, and wailing that everybody else is to blame. By 'anti car schemes', what you actually mean is any attempt to cater for those residents and visitors who don't choose to travel everywhere by car, or to challenge what some motorists believe to be their divine right to absolute priority over everyone else.[/p][/quote]Evidence has shown volume or number of cars has not increased since 2005! but yet congestion, i.e. speed of traffic flow, travelling times, pollution etc is up, that can only mean one thing that all the traffic measures introduced over that time have made travelling by car worse. Single lanes at traffic lights instead of two (meaning fewer cars get through each time and increases travel time and pollution), introducing stupid short sections of bus lanes that stop the flow of traffic (reduces the number of cars moving and increases travel time and pollution). Despite best intentions I’m sure, some people will never and probably can never realistically give up their cars for some types of travel, so to introduce traffic measures that make it worse to travel by car, also makes it worse for those not in a car, such as on a bus or bike. So the whole ideals are fatally and naively flawed. You can't simply come up with ideas that improve certain travel aspects for a section of the travelling public, and that merely stick two fingers up at car and other vehicle drivers and expect no complaints and no problems along with it. This scheme for instance to coin a medical analogy (I make no claims on its correctness). If the city centre is its heart and like a heart has congestion or reduced flow, and you complain of angina to the doctor, do you accept his response of, " No need for an arterial bypass surgery to improve it, we'll simply cut one of them and hope the other 3 cope". We’ll just see how long you'd live if we did that, and that is effectively what the bridge closure did, it literally gave the centre a heart attack by forcing traffic on the remaining routes and it failing badly with routes clogged which would normally be flowing easily at that time of day. Sensibly though what York really needs is serious funding to increase traffic flow across and round the centre, with expected increases in commerce with new shopping centres and the number of new houses going up that traffic is inevitably going to increase. That means measures to make it quicker and easier to flow, and thus reducing travelling time and pollution with it, not just to make it so unbearable that people don't drive into it any more. That is just simply not a practical or sensible option. Unfortunately this is unrealistic in a city with little money or room for road expansion, where it really needs at least one another bridge across the river to reduce the need for use of such as Lendal, and the outer ring road fully duelling into a complete ring without all the roundabouts, having slip roads and under/overpasses, it should have been done from the start but that also typical of the time and again now of the short-sightedness of traffic management schemes. That I think will never happen in my lifetime. I am a car driver, cyclist and bus user as well as a local centre resident who routinely walks into town over the bridge so I do see from all sides. This particular scheme was just flawed, badly planned with insufficient consultation of the public, arrogantly thinking they did not need to, and extremely poorly executed right from the offset. Rantandrave
  • Score: -22

6:43pm Wed 9 Apr 14

bolero says...

So has the vote twiddler got better things to do now? Gone back to the day job of twiddling with the traffic lights so that some more fictitious figures can be concocted.
So has the vote twiddler got better things to do now? Gone back to the day job of twiddling with the traffic lights so that some more fictitious figures can be concocted. bolero
  • Score: -19

6:44pm Wed 9 Apr 14

Back and Beyond says...

pedalling paul wrote:
yorkiemum wrote:
Caecilius wrote:
strangebuttrue? wrote:
Why do the council keep saying they are concerned about traffic congestion in York when by the evidence of their own reports it is they who have caused it with the anti car schemes they have introduced since 2005?.
Their own reports say there has been no increase in the volume of traffic since 2005 following a decrease since 2002.
You will note of course that they do mainly talk about congestion rather than volume and just throw in lines every now and again about future increases in the number of cars to mislead people into believing that it is more traffic or volume that is the problem. It is not volume it is the deliberate creation of congestion to give the illusion of increased volume that is the problem.
Utter nonsense. The congestion is caused by cars, or more precisely by the people who choose to drive them. Car drivers will still be sitting in tailbacks on Saturday, just as they were sitting in them before the trial ever started, and wailing that everybody else is to blame. By 'anti car schemes', what you actually mean is any attempt to cater for those residents and visitors who don't choose to travel everywhere by car, or to challenge what some motorists believe to be their divine right to absolute priority over everyone else.
Caecilius what has made you so hateful towards motorists.With every post you seem to get more and more bitter. Please remember you are commenting about people and their lives.
I take it that the majority of posters here are car owners who have chosen to lead car dependant lifestyles. Nothing wrong with leaving the car on the drive and hopping on a bus or bike for your short, local journeys.
If you choose to sit in long queues and moan about "the traffic" when you are actually contributing to it, that's your choice.
I think PP should set the wheels in motion and become an independent candidate at the next local election, maybe he should invite all the other 'green' Labour group hijackers to join him.
[quote][p][bold]pedalling paul [/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]yorkiemum[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Caecilius[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]strangebuttrue?[/bold] wrote: Why do the council keep saying they are concerned about traffic congestion in York when by the evidence of their own reports it is they who have caused it with the anti car schemes they have introduced since 2005?. Their own reports say there has been no increase in the volume of traffic since 2005 following a decrease since 2002. You will note of course that they do mainly talk about congestion rather than volume and just throw in lines every now and again about future increases in the number of cars to mislead people into believing that it is more traffic or volume that is the problem. It is not volume it is the deliberate creation of congestion to give the illusion of increased volume that is the problem.[/p][/quote]Utter nonsense. The congestion is caused by cars, or more precisely by the people who choose to drive them. Car drivers will still be sitting in tailbacks on Saturday, just as they were sitting in them before the trial ever started, and wailing that everybody else is to blame. By 'anti car schemes', what you actually mean is any attempt to cater for those residents and visitors who don't choose to travel everywhere by car, or to challenge what some motorists believe to be their divine right to absolute priority over everyone else.[/p][/quote]Caecilius what has made you so hateful towards motorists.With every post you seem to get more and more bitter. Please remember you are commenting about people and their lives.[/p][/quote]I take it that the majority of posters here are car owners who have chosen to lead car dependant lifestyles. Nothing wrong with leaving the car on the drive and hopping on a bus or bike for your short, local journeys. If you choose to sit in long queues and moan about "the traffic" when you are actually contributing to it, that's your choice.[/p][/quote]I think PP should set the wheels in motion and become an independent candidate at the next local election, maybe he should invite all the other 'green' Labour group hijackers to join him. Back and Beyond
  • Score: -24

6:47pm Wed 9 Apr 14

Knavesmire view says...

Two things to console us all:

1. When the Council lose the appeal and have to refund fines he'll have no choice but to resign.

2. Come May 2015 he and the rest of his incompetent mob will lose their seats.
Two things to console us all: 1. When the Council lose the appeal and have to refund fines he'll have no choice but to resign. 2. Come May 2015 he and the rest of his incompetent mob will lose their seats. Knavesmire view
  • Score: -13

6:51pm Wed 9 Apr 14

Mr Sarcasm says...

I understand JobcentrePlus & other government bodies offer employability training. After so long they can offer you job experience at a £ retail outlet too!
I understand JobcentrePlus & other government bodies offer employability training. After so long they can offer you job experience at a £ retail outlet too! Mr Sarcasm
  • Score: -16

7:03pm Wed 9 Apr 14

Igiveinthen says...

Caecilius wrote:
strangebuttrue? wrote:
Why do the council keep saying they are concerned about traffic congestion in York when by the evidence of their own reports it is they who have caused it with the anti car schemes they have introduced since 2005?.
Their own reports say there has been no increase in the volume of traffic since 2005 following a decrease since 2002.
You will note of course that they do mainly talk about congestion rather than volume and just throw in lines every now and again about future increases in the number of cars to mislead people into believing that it is more traffic or volume that is the problem. It is not volume it is the deliberate creation of congestion to give the illusion of increased volume that is the problem.
Utter nonsense. The congestion is caused by cars, or more precisely by the people who choose to drive them. Car drivers will still be sitting in tailbacks on Saturday, just as they were sitting in them before the trial ever started, and wailing that everybody else is to blame. By 'anti car schemes', what you actually mean is any attempt to cater for those residents and visitors who don't choose to travel everywhere by car, or to challenge what some motorists believe to be their divine right to absolute priority over everyone else.
Do you get up on a morning and recite to yourself 'see car hate car', what is it about people like you that try to impose restrictions just because you think you are right, we car drivers do not think we have a 'divine right' at least I don't, to have absolute priority over others, if you want less congestion in the city, then lobby the so called traffic experts in the council to improve the outer ring road, time and time again, commenters have said this, but the likes of you and the other so called expert pp/Hepworth, think the 'be all and end all' is to 'artificialy' restrict traffic, how stupid is that, but the best of all is the often quoted proverbs 'we need to persuade people out of their cars' 'we need to encourage people to use other forms of transport'.
So keep repeating WE NEED A SUITABLE OUTER RING ROAD FOR CAR USERS THEN I WILL BE HAPPY AS I CAN RIDE MY BIKE IN PEACE.
[quote][p][bold]Caecilius[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]strangebuttrue?[/bold] wrote: Why do the council keep saying they are concerned about traffic congestion in York when by the evidence of their own reports it is they who have caused it with the anti car schemes they have introduced since 2005?. Their own reports say there has been no increase in the volume of traffic since 2005 following a decrease since 2002. You will note of course that they do mainly talk about congestion rather than volume and just throw in lines every now and again about future increases in the number of cars to mislead people into believing that it is more traffic or volume that is the problem. It is not volume it is the deliberate creation of congestion to give the illusion of increased volume that is the problem.[/p][/quote]Utter nonsense. The congestion is caused by cars, or more precisely by the people who choose to drive them. Car drivers will still be sitting in tailbacks on Saturday, just as they were sitting in them before the trial ever started, and wailing that everybody else is to blame. By 'anti car schemes', what you actually mean is any attempt to cater for those residents and visitors who don't choose to travel everywhere by car, or to challenge what some motorists believe to be their divine right to absolute priority over everyone else.[/p][/quote]Do you get up on a morning and recite to yourself 'see car hate car', what is it about people like you that try to impose restrictions just because you think you are right, we car drivers do not think we have a 'divine right' at least I don't, to have absolute priority over others, if you want less congestion in the city, then lobby the so called traffic experts in the council to improve the outer ring road, time and time again, commenters have said this, but the likes of you and the other so called expert pp/Hepworth, think the 'be all and end all' is to 'artificialy' restrict traffic, how stupid is that, but the best of all is the often quoted proverbs 'we need to persuade people out of their cars' 'we need to encourage people to use other forms of transport'. So keep repeating WE NEED A SUITABLE OUTER RING ROAD FOR CAR USERS THEN I WILL BE HAPPY AS I CAN RIDE MY BIKE IN PEACE. Igiveinthen
  • Score: -12

7:18pm Wed 9 Apr 14

A19A64 says...

I will miss the Lendal debate. However, all is not lost as I have inside information that North Yorks will be making other bridges subject to `resticted access`.
Those at Cawood, Buttercrambe and Sutton on Derwent will only be open to general traffic from 20.30 to 06.30 each weekday. Apparently these bridges have been found guilty of `allowing people to get around the county`.
During the restricted period only cyclists, pedestrians and tractors will be allowed, and persons wishing to cross will need to utter the password to the bridgemaster. The password will be issued by Radio York each morning at 05.30.
Hopefully these restrictions will reduce the volume of traffic on these routes, leading to a saving on road repairs and maintenance, and will encourage people to work from home.
Air quality is expected to improve as a result, though it may turn blue in the immediate vicinity of each bridge. Supporting discussions with Arab states about the impact of their dust on our air quality are also at an advanced stage.
Restrictions during the weekend of Le Grand Depart will be extended over the full 24hr period. At this time only tractors, cycle and pedestrians painted in the correct shade of yellow will be permitted to cross.
I will miss the Lendal debate. However, all is not lost as I have inside information that North Yorks will be making other bridges subject to `resticted access`. Those at Cawood, Buttercrambe and Sutton on Derwent will only be open to general traffic from 20.30 to 06.30 each weekday. Apparently these bridges have been found guilty of `allowing people to get around the county`. During the restricted period only cyclists, pedestrians and tractors will be allowed, and persons wishing to cross will need to utter the password to the bridgemaster. The password will be issued by Radio York each morning at 05.30. Hopefully these restrictions will reduce the volume of traffic on these routes, leading to a saving on road repairs and maintenance, and will encourage people to work from home. Air quality is expected to improve as a result, though it may turn blue in the immediate vicinity of each bridge. Supporting discussions with Arab states about the impact of their dust on our air quality are also at an advanced stage. Restrictions during the weekend of Le Grand Depart will be extended over the full 24hr period. At this time only tractors, cycle and pedestrians painted in the correct shade of yellow will be permitted to cross. A19A64
  • Score: -207

7:28pm Wed 9 Apr 14

andy fowler says...

3.8liter wrote:
Next thing is that we'll have Merritt and Alexander saying, 'We have listened to the people's wishes and responded accordingly, we must learn from this, and move on'. All the usual clichés will be dragged out once again. Well, give them their money back. That's what they want! Then resign!.
Resign now, both of you!!!!
[quote][p][bold]3.8liter[/bold] wrote: Next thing is that we'll have Merritt and Alexander saying, 'We have listened to the people's wishes and responded accordingly, we must learn from this, and move on'. All the usual clichés will be dragged out once again. Well, give them their money back. That's what they want! Then resign!.[/p][/quote]Resign now, both of you!!!! andy fowler
  • Score: 1

7:36pm Wed 9 Apr 14

non pedalling pete says...

Hugh Bailey will be live on Radio York at 10am on Friday. Should be interesting.
Hugh Bailey will be live on Radio York at 10am on Friday. Should be interesting. non pedalling pete
  • Score: 2

7:37pm Wed 9 Apr 14

pedalling paul says...

Rantandrave wrote:
Caecilius wrote:
strangebuttrue? wrote:
Why do the council keep saying they are concerned about traffic congestion in York when by the evidence of their own reports it is they who have caused it with the anti car schemes they have introduced since 2005?.
Their own reports say there has been no increase in the volume of traffic since 2005 following a decrease since 2002.
You will note of course that they do mainly talk about congestion rather than volume and just throw in lines every now and again about future increases in the number of cars to mislead people into believing that it is more traffic or volume that is the problem. It is not volume it is the deliberate creation of congestion to give the illusion of increased volume that is the problem.
Utter nonsense. The congestion is caused by cars, or more precisely by the people who choose to drive them. Car drivers will still be sitting in tailbacks on Saturday, just as they were sitting in them before the trial ever started, and wailing that everybody else is to blame. By 'anti car schemes', what you actually mean is any attempt to cater for those residents and visitors who don't choose to travel everywhere by car, or to challenge what some motorists believe to be their divine right to absolute priority over everyone else.
Evidence has shown volume or number of cars has not increased since 2005! but yet congestion, i.e. speed of traffic flow, travelling times, pollution etc is up, that can only mean one thing that all the traffic measures introduced over that time have made travelling by car worse. Single lanes at traffic lights instead of two (meaning fewer cars get through each time and increases travel time and pollution), introducing stupid short sections of bus lanes that stop the flow of traffic (reduces the number of cars moving and increases travel time and pollution).
Despite best intentions I’m sure, some people will never and probably can never realistically give up their cars for some types of travel, so to introduce traffic measures that make it worse to travel by car, also makes it worse for those not in a car, such as on a bus or bike. So the whole ideals are fatally and naively flawed. You can't simply come up with ideas that improve certain travel aspects for a section of the travelling public, and that merely stick two fingers up at car and other vehicle drivers and expect no complaints and no problems along with it.

This scheme for instance to coin a medical analogy (I make no claims on its correctness). If the city centre is its heart and like a heart has congestion or reduced flow, and you complain of angina to the doctor, do you accept his response of, " No need for an arterial bypass surgery to improve it, we'll simply cut one of them and hope the other 3 cope".
We’ll just see how long you'd live if we did that, and that is effectively what the bridge closure did, it literally gave the centre a heart attack by forcing traffic on the remaining routes and it failing badly with routes clogged which would normally be flowing easily at that time of day.
Sensibly though what York really needs is serious funding to increase traffic flow across and round the centre, with expected increases in commerce with new shopping centres and the number of new houses going up that traffic is inevitably going to increase. That means measures to make it quicker and easier to flow, and thus reducing travelling time and pollution with it, not just to make it so unbearable that people don't drive into it any more. That is just simply not a practical or sensible option.
Unfortunately this is unrealistic in a city with little money or room for road expansion, where it really needs at least one another bridge across the river to reduce the need for use of such as Lendal, and the outer ring road fully duelling into a complete ring without all the roundabouts, having slip roads and under/overpasses, it should have been done from the start but that also typical of the time and again now of the short-sightedness of traffic management schemes.
That I think will never happen in my lifetime.
I am a car driver, cyclist and bus user as well as a local centre resident who routinely walks into town over the bridge so I do see from all sides.
This particular scheme was just flawed, badly planned with insufficient consultation of the public, arrogantly thinking they did not need to, and extremely poorly executed right from the offset.
York inherited the A1237 from the Highways Agency which in turn inherited it from NYCC. I see that you are not suggesting where to find the £150 million cost of your suggestion. CoYC can't afford it. Who can?
[quote][p][bold]Rantandrave[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Caecilius[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]strangebuttrue?[/bold] wrote: Why do the council keep saying they are concerned about traffic congestion in York when by the evidence of their own reports it is they who have caused it with the anti car schemes they have introduced since 2005?. Their own reports say there has been no increase in the volume of traffic since 2005 following a decrease since 2002. You will note of course that they do mainly talk about congestion rather than volume and just throw in lines every now and again about future increases in the number of cars to mislead people into believing that it is more traffic or volume that is the problem. It is not volume it is the deliberate creation of congestion to give the illusion of increased volume that is the problem.[/p][/quote]Utter nonsense. The congestion is caused by cars, or more precisely by the people who choose to drive them. Car drivers will still be sitting in tailbacks on Saturday, just as they were sitting in them before the trial ever started, and wailing that everybody else is to blame. By 'anti car schemes', what you actually mean is any attempt to cater for those residents and visitors who don't choose to travel everywhere by car, or to challenge what some motorists believe to be their divine right to absolute priority over everyone else.[/p][/quote]Evidence has shown volume or number of cars has not increased since 2005! but yet congestion, i.e. speed of traffic flow, travelling times, pollution etc is up, that can only mean one thing that all the traffic measures introduced over that time have made travelling by car worse. Single lanes at traffic lights instead of two (meaning fewer cars get through each time and increases travel time and pollution), introducing stupid short sections of bus lanes that stop the flow of traffic (reduces the number of cars moving and increases travel time and pollution). Despite best intentions I’m sure, some people will never and probably can never realistically give up their cars for some types of travel, so to introduce traffic measures that make it worse to travel by car, also makes it worse for those not in a car, such as on a bus or bike. So the whole ideals are fatally and naively flawed. You can't simply come up with ideas that improve certain travel aspects for a section of the travelling public, and that merely stick two fingers up at car and other vehicle drivers and expect no complaints and no problems along with it. This scheme for instance to coin a medical analogy (I make no claims on its correctness). If the city centre is its heart and like a heart has congestion or reduced flow, and you complain of angina to the doctor, do you accept his response of, " No need for an arterial bypass surgery to improve it, we'll simply cut one of them and hope the other 3 cope". We’ll just see how long you'd live if we did that, and that is effectively what the bridge closure did, it literally gave the centre a heart attack by forcing traffic on the remaining routes and it failing badly with routes clogged which would normally be flowing easily at that time of day. Sensibly though what York really needs is serious funding to increase traffic flow across and round the centre, with expected increases in commerce with new shopping centres and the number of new houses going up that traffic is inevitably going to increase. That means measures to make it quicker and easier to flow, and thus reducing travelling time and pollution with it, not just to make it so unbearable that people don't drive into it any more. That is just simply not a practical or sensible option. Unfortunately this is unrealistic in a city with little money or room for road expansion, where it really needs at least one another bridge across the river to reduce the need for use of such as Lendal, and the outer ring road fully duelling into a complete ring without all the roundabouts, having slip roads and under/overpasses, it should have been done from the start but that also typical of the time and again now of the short-sightedness of traffic management schemes. That I think will never happen in my lifetime. I am a car driver, cyclist and bus user as well as a local centre resident who routinely walks into town over the bridge so I do see from all sides. This particular scheme was just flawed, badly planned with insufficient consultation of the public, arrogantly thinking they did not need to, and extremely poorly executed right from the offset.[/p][/quote]York inherited the A1237 from the Highways Agency which in turn inherited it from NYCC. I see that you are not suggesting where to find the £150 million cost of your suggestion. CoYC can't afford it. Who can? pedalling paul
  • Score: 291

7:45pm Wed 9 Apr 14

b3nson says...

why would Merrett quit? He's like them all - in denial and incapable. Just watch them all twist the story to suit their own ends. The truth is they were scared to death they'd get voted out at the next election and thought they better try and save their bacon. The good news is its already too late, we wont forget!!
why would Merrett quit? He's like them all - in denial and incapable. Just watch them all twist the story to suit their own ends. The truth is they were scared to death they'd get voted out at the next election and thought they better try and save their bacon. The good news is its already too late, we wont forget!! b3nson
  • Score: -93

7:45pm Wed 9 Apr 14

yorkshirelad says...

Rantandrave....
Your post above contains very commonly held views - probably the majority view. However, all over Europe, cities like York have dealt with congestion by a) encouraging alternatives (could you imagine some of the bile you get on here about cycling in many other European countries?)..mainly walking, cycling and public transport
b) limiting private car use in and near city centres.
It does take a bit of vision, because we are all addicted to our cars (and to be honest a lot of the time we could use alternatives if we really wanted to).
You hint at major road building...duelling roads, bypasses, flyovers etc etc. But, even if it was possible, would that really help or would it just encourage more traffic? Did the M25 solve London's congestion?
Many haven't seen it, but forward thinking European countries like the Netherlands, Germany, Denmark etc have successfully rebalanced car use without being 'anti-car'. In many of these, the imperative was economic survival.... change, modernise or slowly get strangled.
The reactionary resistance to more integrated transport is very dangerous for the future viability of the city centre which is already renowned for traffic congestion...
I think your medical analogy is a good one...but the current decision simply allows more blocking of the arteries for buses and other essential users. You're right - the arteries are getting blocked but you've just allowed more clots to block them rather than less!
Rantandrave.... Your post above contains very commonly held views - probably the majority view. However, all over Europe, cities like York have dealt with congestion by a) encouraging alternatives (could you imagine some of the bile you get on here about cycling in many other European countries?)..mainly walking, cycling and public transport b) limiting private car use in and near city centres. It does take a bit of vision, because we are all addicted to our cars (and to be honest a lot of the time we could use alternatives if we really wanted to). You hint at major road building...duelling roads, bypasses, flyovers etc etc. But, even if it was possible, would that really help or would it just encourage more traffic? Did the M25 solve London's congestion? Many haven't seen it, but forward thinking European countries like the Netherlands, Germany, Denmark etc have successfully rebalanced car use without being 'anti-car'. In many of these, the imperative was economic survival.... change, modernise or slowly get strangled. The reactionary resistance to more integrated transport is very dangerous for the future viability of the city centre which is already renowned for traffic congestion... I think your medical analogy is a good one...but the current decision simply allows more blocking of the arteries for buses and other essential users. You're right - the arteries are getting blocked but you've just allowed more clots to block them rather than less! yorkshirelad
  • Score: 342

7:46pm Wed 9 Apr 14

Igiveinthen says...

Its been rumoured that Dave Merrett recorded a track before JA publicly backed him, it was a take on the Gloria Gaynor song 'I will survive'.......

Now that I'm alone I am mystified
As I thought you always wanted me by your side
But now JA you have done me wrong so I'll resign I will resign......
Its been rumoured that Dave Merrett recorded a track before JA publicly backed him, it was a take on the Gloria Gaynor song 'I will survive'....... Now that I'm alone I am mystified As I thought you always wanted me by your side But now JA you have done me wrong so I'll resign I will resign...... Igiveinthen
  • Score: -236

7:53pm Wed 9 Apr 14

velvetdixie says...

If there are no consequences for the loons who brought this on then they will come up with something more onerous and damaging to trade in York. If they're not voted out at the earliest possible moment they will put a new dress on their madness and breathe life into it once more.
If there are no consequences for the loons who brought this on then they will come up with something more onerous and damaging to trade in York. If they're not voted out at the earliest possible moment they will put a new dress on their madness and breathe life into it once more. velvetdixie
  • Score: -189

8:24pm Wed 9 Apr 14

Back and Beyond says...

b3nson wrote:
why would Merrett quit? He's like them all - in denial and incapable. Just watch them all twist the story to suit their own ends. The truth is they were scared to death they'd get voted out at the next election and thought they better try and save their bacon. The good news is its already too late, we wont forget!!
Unfortunately Merritt has survived in his Micklegate ward ever since he introduced restricted access to Bishophill via signage and a rising bollard. Any other residential area in York gets this?
[quote][p][bold]b3nson[/bold] wrote: why would Merrett quit? He's like them all - in denial and incapable. Just watch them all twist the story to suit their own ends. The truth is they were scared to death they'd get voted out at the next election and thought they better try and save their bacon. The good news is its already too late, we wont forget!![/p][/quote]Unfortunately Merritt has survived in his Micklegate ward ever since he introduced restricted access to Bishophill via signage and a rising bollard. Any other residential area in York gets this? Back and Beyond
  • Score: -80

8:31pm Wed 9 Apr 14

Back and Beyond says...

greenmonkey wrote:
No one yet suggesting what else should be done to make the city centre a pleasant place for residents and tourists going about their normal business on foot or bike. One thing you can be sure of is that First will now say that they have to reverse the cuts they made to some bus fares they made last September, because the growing congestion is costing them more in running costs. Torys and Lib Dems very vocal against the scheme but still waiting to hear what they would do instead to tackle air pollution and congestion.
Green or Labour convert Monkey?
[quote][p][bold]greenmonkey[/bold] wrote: No one yet suggesting what else should be done to make the city centre a pleasant place for residents and tourists going about their normal business on foot or bike. One thing you can be sure of is that First will now say that they have to reverse the cuts they made to some bus fares they made last September, because the growing congestion is costing them more in running costs. Torys and Lib Dems very vocal against the scheme but still waiting to hear what they would do instead to tackle air pollution and congestion.[/p][/quote]Green or Labour convert Monkey? Back and Beyond
  • Score: -43

8:32pm Wed 9 Apr 14

courier46 says...

The arrogance is unbelievable,how they can show there faces or put there name to ANYTHING else is beyond me,they are a total failure and as stated resign now!!!!
The arrogance is unbelievable,how they can show there faces or put there name to ANYTHING else is beyond me,they are a total failure and as stated resign now!!!! courier46
  • Score: 6

8:57pm Wed 9 Apr 14

yorkandproud says...

I'm just sad that the bridge is reopening for the wrong reasons. Instead of realising that it is a bad idea cutting a city in two by closing a major bridge, and opening it because it didn't work it is opening for political reasons. Sadly, we are stuck with this hopeless bunch of councillors for now, by the look of it.
I'm just sad that the bridge is reopening for the wrong reasons. Instead of realising that it is a bad idea cutting a city in two by closing a major bridge, and opening it because it didn't work it is opening for political reasons. Sadly, we are stuck with this hopeless bunch of councillors for now, by the look of it. yorkandproud
  • Score: -114

9:16pm Wed 9 Apr 14

A thorn in your side says...

For sale high quality set of NPR cameras, very little use, purchased in error, didn't really do my homework on these, best cash offer taken as I have a few refunds to send out.

Also free to good home several useless bafoons, a real drain on my resources, I'm sure someone out there can make some use of them, but really scratching head as to what value they have in the real world.

Collection in person
Alexander Merrett joke shop, station rise.
For sale high quality set of NPR cameras, very little use, purchased in error, didn't really do my homework on these, best cash offer taken as I have a few refunds to send out. Also free to good home several useless bafoons, a real drain on my resources, I'm sure someone out there can make some use of them, but really scratching head as to what value they have in the real world. Collection in person Alexander Merrett joke shop, station rise. A thorn in your side
  • Score: -110

9:24pm Wed 9 Apr 14

Dave Ruddock says...

question what area do Merret and Alexander belong and i do hope for the sake of the labor party that they resign like a true labor member who F--k up should do or we wait for their demise at the next election

Be a MAN merret and Alexander
or "Real Pilloried"
question what area do Merret and Alexander belong and i do hope for the sake of the labor party that they resign like a true labor member who F--k up should do or we wait for their demise at the next election Be a MAN merret and Alexander or "Real Pilloried" Dave Ruddock
  • Score: -92

9:41pm Wed 9 Apr 14

dementia says...

Trying to leave "politics" aside it cannot be healthy to Have one man Councillor Merritt in charge of transport policy for so long. There is a clear danger that he is capable of facing only one way, as unfortunately is the Council Dept that reports to him. We need a fresh pair of eyes to start looking afresh.
Trying to leave "politics" aside it cannot be healthy to Have one man Councillor Merritt in charge of transport policy for so long. There is a clear danger that he is capable of facing only one way, as unfortunately is the Council Dept that reports to him. We need a fresh pair of eyes to start looking afresh. dementia
  • Score: -41

9:54pm Wed 9 Apr 14

Rantandrave says...

Oh I see the durn hacker has been at it again putting high negative scores on ones that were positive only a short while ago. Look everybody knows it's being done now so why bother!! can't you just let reality sink in and let the people actually see real figures!. Altering them is just about as deluded as the labour councilors were to begin with and what they'll probably do to the results. Why don't you just grow up and leave it alone you pl@nk!
Oh I see the durn hacker has been at it again putting high negative scores on ones that were positive only a short while ago. Look everybody knows it's being done now so why bother!! can't you just let reality sink in and let the people actually see real figures!. Altering them is just about as deluded as the labour councilors were to begin with and what they'll probably do to the results. Why don't you just grow up and leave it alone you pl@nk! Rantandrave
  • Score: -95

10:13pm Wed 9 Apr 14

YOUWILLDOASISAY says...

Merrett refuses to resign – gets £4,500 (20%) pay rise?

http://stevegalloway
.mycouncillor.org.uk
/2014/04/09/merrett-
refuses-to-resign-ge
ts-4500-20-pay-rise/


Make your own mind up about this one.
Merrett refuses to resign – gets £4,500 (20%) pay rise? http://stevegalloway .mycouncillor.org.uk /2014/04/09/merrett- refuses-to-resign-ge ts-4500-20-pay-rise/ Make your own mind up about this one. YOUWILLDOASISAY
  • Score: -74

10:26pm Wed 9 Apr 14

piaggio1 says...

Going well off course here. Forget the pay rise.well no its a bloody disgrace. ...but on the uni story???
600+more
Accommodation blocks ?
Who owns em???.
Not the uni!!!!!
Some company from the land of..AJAX.FEYNOORD.DE
N BOSCH..........
Going well off course here. Forget the pay rise.well no its a bloody disgrace. ...but on the uni story??? 600+more Accommodation blocks ? Who owns em???. Not the uni!!!!! Some company from the land of..AJAX.FEYNOORD.DE N BOSCH.......... piaggio1
  • Score: -48

12:04am Thu 10 Apr 14

pedalling paul says...

The suggestion of a first offence yellow card was sought by CYC but they were told by Whitehall that is was not legal. Then having initiated the first offence fine system the Govt. advice was suddenly changed and we could have had the yellow card system after all.
How much more Govt advice on Use of ANPR can be relied on? Perhaps the legal challenge on the Traffic Adjudicators ruling will unearth the real truth.
The suggestion of a first offence yellow card was sought by CYC but they were told by Whitehall that is was not legal. Then having initiated the first offence fine system the Govt. advice was suddenly changed and we could have had the yellow card system after all. How much more Govt advice on Use of ANPR can be relied on? Perhaps the legal challenge on the Traffic Adjudicators ruling will unearth the real truth. pedalling paul
  • Score: 138

1:07am Thu 10 Apr 14

jay, york says...

Rantandrave wrote:
Oh I see the durn hacker has been at it again putting high negative scores on ones that were positive only a short while ago. Look everybody knows it's being done now so why bother!! can't you just let reality sink in and let the people actually see real figures!. Altering them is just about as deluded as the labour councilors were to begin with and what they'll probably do to the results. Why don't you just grow up and leave it alone you pl@nk!
Dont worry rantandrave - theyve been doing it for a while now. Thing is, they actually have nothing to say - if they did, they would post meaningful comments stating the reasons why they support what CoYC has done.
As it is, the only comments they have made have been throwing insults around (actually they have been quiet today - maybe theyre having a playday) and namecalling - even tourists and visitors to York come in for that. Oh and theres also the pp monologues that have nothing to do with reality.
The thing is though, the CoYC members and labour supporters responsible for this dont even realise that, because we all know what they are doing, it no longer has any effect. The scores now have no meaning. All that matters is that we, the public, are able to state our feelings here - and CoYC cant stop it and dont like it. This is the only way they can try to manipulate things to look as thought it is in their favour.
What they also have remember is that any further investigatons will take into consideration the comments on sites like this to find out peoples genuine opinions.
[quote][p][bold]Rantandrave[/bold] wrote: Oh I see the durn hacker has been at it again putting high negative scores on ones that were positive only a short while ago. Look everybody knows it's being done now so why bother!! can't you just let reality sink in and let the people actually see real figures!. Altering them is just about as deluded as the labour councilors were to begin with and what they'll probably do to the results. Why don't you just grow up and leave it alone you pl@nk![/p][/quote]Dont worry rantandrave - theyve been doing it for a while now. Thing is, they actually have nothing to say - if they did, they would post meaningful comments stating the reasons why they support what CoYC has done. As it is, the only comments they have made have been throwing insults around (actually they have been quiet today - maybe theyre having a playday) and namecalling - even tourists and visitors to York come in for that. Oh and theres also the pp monologues that have nothing to do with reality. The thing is though, the CoYC members and labour supporters responsible for this dont even realise that, because we all know what they are doing, it no longer has any effect. The scores now have no meaning. All that matters is that we, the public, are able to state our feelings here - and CoYC cant stop it and dont like it. This is the only way they can try to manipulate things to look as thought it is in their favour. What they also have remember is that any further investigatons will take into consideration the comments on sites like this to find out peoples genuine opinions. jay, york
  • Score: -57

1:28am Thu 10 Apr 14

sniper 9964 says...

Why can not cyc do owt right. ?
Close it and do it right. Close all three if Ihad my way
Why can not cyc do owt right. ? Close it and do it right. Close all three if Ihad my way sniper 9964
  • Score: -5

1:32am Thu 10 Apr 14

GeofYork says...

This council do not listen. They say they consult; they say they listen then they go ahead and do exactly what they want. I reel in horror at the decisions made with regard to roads, flooding, housing development in flood areas and what residents require. Today John Lewis opens which will be the death knoll for York and York Residents. Shopkeepers will be shouting and where is the new sports development, promised if John Lewis went to Monks Cross / Vangarde! But too late now!
York should belong to York Residents first, not tourists. I am delighted that Lendal Bridge will be open as usual and York City Council have a moral, if not legal duty to refund all those they have finned by placing a claims form on the website and behave like good York Citiizens ...admit when wrong, fully apologise and learn from their errors.
This council do not listen. They say they consult; they say they listen then they go ahead and do exactly what they want. I reel in horror at the decisions made with regard to roads, flooding, housing development in flood areas and what residents require. Today John Lewis opens which will be the death knoll for York and York Residents. Shopkeepers will be shouting and where is the new sports development, promised if John Lewis went to Monks Cross / Vangarde! But too late now! York should belong to York Residents first, not tourists. I am delighted that Lendal Bridge will be open as usual and York City Council have a moral, if not legal duty to refund all those they have finned by placing a claims form on the website and behave like good York Citiizens ...admit when wrong, fully apologise and learn from their errors. GeofYork
  • Score: -43

8:07am Thu 10 Apr 14

AnotherPointofView says...

pedalling paul wrote:
The suggestion of a first offence yellow card was sought by CYC but they were told by Whitehall that is was not legal. Then having initiated the first offence fine system the Govt. advice was suddenly changed and we could have had the yellow card system after all.
How much more Govt advice on Use of ANPR can be relied on? Perhaps the legal challenge on the Traffic Adjudicators ruling will unearth the real truth.
A warning letter for the first offence IS in the bus lane guidelines. Something I brought up right at the begining of the closure period.

The council chose to ignore this and other things they were told at the time. Such arrogance from the leaders. They should now do the decent thing and resign. Don't leave Darren Richardson to be hung out to dry alone.

Merrett, Alexander & TSL should go now.
[quote][p][bold]pedalling paul [/bold] wrote: The suggestion of a first offence yellow card was sought by CYC but they were told by Whitehall that is was not legal. Then having initiated the first offence fine system the Govt. advice was suddenly changed and we could have had the yellow card system after all. How much more Govt advice on Use of ANPR can be relied on? Perhaps the legal challenge on the Traffic Adjudicators ruling will unearth the real truth.[/p][/quote]A warning letter for the first offence IS in the bus lane guidelines. Something I brought up right at the begining of the closure period. The council chose to ignore this and other things they were told at the time. Such arrogance from the leaders. They should now do the decent thing and resign. Don't leave Darren Richardson to be hung out to dry alone. Merrett, Alexander & TSL should go now. AnotherPointofView
  • Score: -9

8:20am Thu 10 Apr 14

Shouter says...

I have never believed a word Mr Merrett says and this proves it. Enough said!
I have never believed a word Mr Merrett says and this proves it. Enough said! Shouter
  • Score: -38

8:33am Thu 10 Apr 14

Derek Domino says...

I know lets build loads of new houses on green belt land on the outskirts of York that's sure to ease the congestion problems!!!
I know lets build loads of new houses on green belt land on the outskirts of York that's sure to ease the congestion problems!!! Derek Domino
  • Score: 4

8:38am Thu 10 Apr 14

pedalling paul says...

I've lost count of the different spellings of Cllr. Merrett's surname. Some of you can't get anything right......
CoYC under its last Labour administration with Cllr Merrett as Leader, wholeheartedly embraced a succession of Whitehall initiatives to help Local Authorities tackle congestion. The Local Transport Plan grants scheme helped to fund York's first Park & Rides, its initial cycle network, plus soft measures like the promotion of car sharing and the option of short term car hire in the City centre, via City car club. All designed to help dampen an incessant increase in demand for car access, which can never be accommodated on our confined streets.
Be under no illusion that, were it not for these measures, York would already be experiencing the gridlock that has now been pushed back until the 2030's. But that ticking time bomb has not gone away. That's why York's current Local Transport Plan (still a Govt. requirement) has further reductions in car dependancy at its heart.
York has continued to win grants under the present Government's competitive bidding schemes. Cycling City, Local Sustainable Transport Fund and the Better Bus Fund come to mind. But if these carrots don't work, then the congestion charging stick could start to be waved.
Many commentators to this thread are only concerned about the ease with which they can travel round York by car today. The car is a good servant, but when used as the default travel choice for short distance commuting, it becomes a bad master and an inefficient use of road space especially if single occupancy.
I read somewhere that 60% of peak car travel into York is in this latter category. So should we continue to encourage these road users onto other travel choices, so that those who need to use motor vehicles can do so more easily. Also so that bus passengers, servicing and delivery journeys are delayed less. Encouraging long distance car users onto P&R, and linking our rail station more efficiently with the City centre also helps.
But as long as too many residents insist on driving themselves to and from the City centre willy nilly, the time bomb will continue to tick merrily away.
So who will you vote for in 2015? The candidate who offers your yearned for car drivers paradise, one who claims they can instantly magic up £140m to dual the A1237, or one who takes the same realistic, long term view as the Council's professional transport planning team?
I've lost count of the different spellings of Cllr. Merrett's surname. Some of you can't get anything right...... CoYC under its last Labour administration with Cllr Merrett as Leader, wholeheartedly embraced a succession of Whitehall initiatives to help Local Authorities tackle congestion. The Local Transport Plan grants scheme helped to fund York's first Park & Rides, its initial cycle network, plus soft measures like the promotion of car sharing and the option of short term car hire in the City centre, via City car club. All designed to help dampen an incessant increase in demand for car access, which can never be accommodated on our confined streets. Be under no illusion that, were it not for these measures, York would already be experiencing the gridlock that has now been pushed back until the 2030's. But that ticking time bomb has not gone away. That's why York's current Local Transport Plan (still a Govt. requirement) has further reductions in car dependancy at its heart. York has continued to win grants under the present Government's competitive bidding schemes. Cycling City, Local Sustainable Transport Fund and the Better Bus Fund come to mind. But if these carrots don't work, then the congestion charging stick could start to be waved. Many commentators to this thread are only concerned about the ease with which they can travel round York by car today. The car is a good servant, but when used as the default travel choice for short distance commuting, it becomes a bad master and an inefficient use of road space especially if single occupancy. I read somewhere that 60% of peak car travel into York is in this latter category. So should we continue to encourage these road users onto other travel choices, so that those who need to use motor vehicles can do so more easily. Also so that bus passengers, servicing and delivery journeys are delayed less. Encouraging long distance car users onto P&R, and linking our rail station more efficiently with the City centre also helps. But as long as too many residents insist on driving themselves to and from the City centre willy nilly, the time bomb will continue to tick merrily away. So who will you vote for in 2015? The candidate who offers your yearned for car drivers paradise, one who claims they can instantly magic up £140m to dual the A1237, or one who takes the same realistic, long term view as the Council's professional transport planning team? pedalling paul
  • Score: 34

8:41am Thu 10 Apr 14

the original Homer says...

pedalling paul wrote:
The suggestion of a first offence yellow card was sought by CYC but they were told by Whitehall that is was not legal. Then having initiated the first offence fine system the Govt. advice was suddenly changed and we could have had the yellow card system after all.
How much more Govt advice on Use of ANPR can be relied on? Perhaps the legal challenge on the Traffic Adjudicators ruling will unearth the real truth.
The fundamental point is still that Lendal Bridge has never been a bus street, as there were too many other kinds of traffic with exemption from the restrictions. That means the Council couldn't issue PCNs, which makes the whole yellow card idea irrelevant.

In addition, we don't know the credentials of that "initial advice", because our Council don't disclose details. It could be that they asked the wrong question, or misinterpreted the answer they were given.

I've also given some thought to the Council's pending appeal, and I think the basis might be that most of the exempted classes of vehicle are legally required anyway, and are normally allowed as part of a bus street. If that is the basis of the appeal, then the stumbling blocks will be in the Council's interpretation of the detail, such as:

They must allow a Police car responding to an emergency, but chose to allow all Police vehicles

They must allow some Royal Mail vans, but chose to allow all

They must allow buses, but chose to allow the wally trolley (land train)

They must allow Council Vehicles to maintain things on the bridge, but chose to allow all Council vehicles.

I suspect that choosing to apply a broad brush to those exemptions will be what makes a bus street into a general traffic restriction, and therefore it will be those choices that make the use of CCTV and issuing of PCNs illegal.

Of course, these exemptions were the first things that laymen like myself were commenting on six month's ago - simply because our instincts and common sense told us they were wrong.

That instinct and common sense is sadly missing with most Councillors (of all colours) and often with legal experts as well.

The Council are starting to get things right (eventually). Lendal is effectively open already, and Coppergate can be fixed with some new signs.

They may as well forget the appeal though, and get on with the refunds. I think that morally they need to refund ALL of the Lendal fines. In the case of Coppergate, they should refund the fines which fall within the borderline where the times changed.
[quote][p][bold]pedalling paul [/bold] wrote: The suggestion of a first offence yellow card was sought by CYC but they were told by Whitehall that is was not legal. Then having initiated the first offence fine system the Govt. advice was suddenly changed and we could have had the yellow card system after all. How much more Govt advice on Use of ANPR can be relied on? Perhaps the legal challenge on the Traffic Adjudicators ruling will unearth the real truth.[/p][/quote]The fundamental point is still that Lendal Bridge has never been a bus street, as there were too many other kinds of traffic with exemption from the restrictions. That means the Council couldn't issue PCNs, which makes the whole yellow card idea irrelevant. In addition, we don't know the credentials of that "initial advice", because our Council don't disclose details. It could be that they asked the wrong question, or misinterpreted the answer they were given. I've also given some thought to the Council's pending appeal, and I think the basis might be that most of the exempted classes of vehicle are legally required anyway, and are normally allowed as part of a bus street. If that is the basis of the appeal, then the stumbling blocks will be in the Council's interpretation of the detail, such as: They must allow a Police car responding to an emergency, but chose to allow all Police vehicles They must allow some Royal Mail vans, but chose to allow all They must allow buses, but chose to allow the wally trolley (land train) They must allow Council Vehicles to maintain things on the bridge, but chose to allow all Council vehicles. I suspect that choosing to apply a broad brush to those exemptions will be what makes a bus street into a general traffic restriction, and therefore it will be those choices that make the use of CCTV and issuing of PCNs illegal. Of course, these exemptions were the first things that laymen like myself were commenting on six month's ago - simply because our instincts and common sense told us they were wrong. That instinct and common sense is sadly missing with most Councillors (of all colours) and often with legal experts as well. The Council are starting to get things right (eventually). Lendal is effectively open already, and Coppergate can be fixed with some new signs. They may as well forget the appeal though, and get on with the refunds. I think that morally they need to refund ALL of the Lendal fines. In the case of Coppergate, they should refund the fines which fall within the borderline where the times changed. the original Homer
  • Score: -20

8:45am Thu 10 Apr 14

the original Homer says...

pedalling paul wrote:
I've lost count of the different spellings of Cllr. Merrett's surname. Some of you can't get anything right......
CoYC under its last Labour administration with Cllr Merrett as Leader, wholeheartedly embraced a succession of Whitehall initiatives to help Local Authorities tackle congestion. The Local Transport Plan grants scheme helped to fund York's first Park & Rides, its initial cycle network, plus soft measures like the promotion of car sharing and the option of short term car hire in the City centre, via City car club. All designed to help dampen an incessant increase in demand for car access, which can never be accommodated on our confined streets.
Be under no illusion that, were it not for these measures, York would already be experiencing the gridlock that has now been pushed back until the 2030's. But that ticking time bomb has not gone away. That's why York's current Local Transport Plan (still a Govt. requirement) has further reductions in car dependancy at its heart.
York has continued to win grants under the present Government's competitive bidding schemes. Cycling City, Local Sustainable Transport Fund and the Better Bus Fund come to mind. But if these carrots don't work, then the congestion charging stick could start to be waved.
Many commentators to this thread are only concerned about the ease with which they can travel round York by car today. The car is a good servant, but when used as the default travel choice for short distance commuting, it becomes a bad master and an inefficient use of road space especially if single occupancy.
I read somewhere that 60% of peak car travel into York is in this latter category. So should we continue to encourage these road users onto other travel choices, so that those who need to use motor vehicles can do so more easily. Also so that bus passengers, servicing and delivery journeys are delayed less. Encouraging long distance car users onto P&R, and linking our rail station more efficiently with the City centre also helps.
But as long as too many residents insist on driving themselves to and from the City centre willy nilly, the time bomb will continue to tick merrily away.
So who will you vote for in 2015? The candidate who offers your yearned for car drivers paradise, one who claims they can instantly magic up £140m to dual the A1237, or one who takes the same realistic, long term view as the Council's professional transport planning team?
OK PP

We'll add being unable to count to your many inabilities.
[quote][p][bold]pedalling paul [/bold] wrote: I've lost count of the different spellings of Cllr. Merrett's surname. Some of you can't get anything right...... CoYC under its last Labour administration with Cllr Merrett as Leader, wholeheartedly embraced a succession of Whitehall initiatives to help Local Authorities tackle congestion. The Local Transport Plan grants scheme helped to fund York's first Park & Rides, its initial cycle network, plus soft measures like the promotion of car sharing and the option of short term car hire in the City centre, via City car club. All designed to help dampen an incessant increase in demand for car access, which can never be accommodated on our confined streets. Be under no illusion that, were it not for these measures, York would already be experiencing the gridlock that has now been pushed back until the 2030's. But that ticking time bomb has not gone away. That's why York's current Local Transport Plan (still a Govt. requirement) has further reductions in car dependancy at its heart. York has continued to win grants under the present Government's competitive bidding schemes. Cycling City, Local Sustainable Transport Fund and the Better Bus Fund come to mind. But if these carrots don't work, then the congestion charging stick could start to be waved. Many commentators to this thread are only concerned about the ease with which they can travel round York by car today. The car is a good servant, but when used as the default travel choice for short distance commuting, it becomes a bad master and an inefficient use of road space especially if single occupancy. I read somewhere that 60% of peak car travel into York is in this latter category. So should we continue to encourage these road users onto other travel choices, so that those who need to use motor vehicles can do so more easily. Also so that bus passengers, servicing and delivery journeys are delayed less. Encouraging long distance car users onto P&R, and linking our rail station more efficiently with the City centre also helps. But as long as too many residents insist on driving themselves to and from the City centre willy nilly, the time bomb will continue to tick merrily away. So who will you vote for in 2015? The candidate who offers your yearned for car drivers paradise, one who claims they can instantly magic up £140m to dual the A1237, or one who takes the same realistic, long term view as the Council's professional transport planning team?[/p][/quote]OK PP We'll add being unable to count to your many inabilities. the original Homer
  • Score: -52

9:27am Thu 10 Apr 14

SRT_CM says...

pedalling paul wrote:
I've lost count of the different spellings of Cllr. Merrett's surname. Some of you can't get anything right......
CoYC under its last Labour administration with Cllr Merrett as Leader, wholeheartedly embraced a succession of Whitehall initiatives to help Local Authorities tackle congestion. The Local Transport Plan grants scheme helped to fund York's first Park & Rides, its initial cycle network, plus soft measures like the promotion of car sharing and the option of short term car hire in the City centre, via City car club. All designed to help dampen an incessant increase in demand for car access, which can never be accommodated on our confined streets.
Be under no illusion that, were it not for these measures, York would already be experiencing the gridlock that has now been pushed back until the 2030's. But that ticking time bomb has not gone away. That's why York's current Local Transport Plan (still a Govt. requirement) has further reductions in car dependancy at its heart.
York has continued to win grants under the present Government's competitive bidding schemes. Cycling City, Local Sustainable Transport Fund and the Better Bus Fund come to mind. But if these carrots don't work, then the congestion charging stick could start to be waved.
Many commentators to this thread are only concerned about the ease with which they can travel round York by car today. The car is a good servant, but when used as the default travel choice for short distance commuting, it becomes a bad master and an inefficient use of road space especially if single occupancy.
I read somewhere that 60% of peak car travel into York is in this latter category. So should we continue to encourage these road users onto other travel choices, so that those who need to use motor vehicles can do so more easily. Also so that bus passengers, servicing and delivery journeys are delayed less. Encouraging long distance car users onto P&R, and linking our rail station more efficiently with the City centre also helps.
But as long as too many residents insist on driving themselves to and from the City centre willy nilly, the time bomb will continue to tick merrily away.
So who will you vote for in 2015? The candidate who offers your yearned for car drivers paradise, one who claims they can instantly magic up £140m to dual the A1237, or one who takes the same realistic, long term view as the Council's professional transport planning team?
Gridlock, blah, blah... ticking time bomb, blah, blah... car dependancy, blah, blah... good servant, bad master, blah, blah... inefficient use of road space, blah, blah... single occupancy, blah, blah... car drivers' paradise, blah, blah...

^ Essentially every reply PP posts when it comes to traffic discussions.
[quote][p][bold]pedalling paul [/bold] wrote: I've lost count of the different spellings of Cllr. Merrett's surname. Some of you can't get anything right...... CoYC under its last Labour administration with Cllr Merrett as Leader, wholeheartedly embraced a succession of Whitehall initiatives to help Local Authorities tackle congestion. The Local Transport Plan grants scheme helped to fund York's first Park & Rides, its initial cycle network, plus soft measures like the promotion of car sharing and the option of short term car hire in the City centre, via City car club. All designed to help dampen an incessant increase in demand for car access, which can never be accommodated on our confined streets. Be under no illusion that, were it not for these measures, York would already be experiencing the gridlock that has now been pushed back until the 2030's. But that ticking time bomb has not gone away. That's why York's current Local Transport Plan (still a Govt. requirement) has further reductions in car dependancy at its heart. York has continued to win grants under the present Government's competitive bidding schemes. Cycling City, Local Sustainable Transport Fund and the Better Bus Fund come to mind. But if these carrots don't work, then the congestion charging stick could start to be waved. Many commentators to this thread are only concerned about the ease with which they can travel round York by car today. The car is a good servant, but when used as the default travel choice for short distance commuting, it becomes a bad master and an inefficient use of road space especially if single occupancy. I read somewhere that 60% of peak car travel into York is in this latter category. So should we continue to encourage these road users onto other travel choices, so that those who need to use motor vehicles can do so more easily. Also so that bus passengers, servicing and delivery journeys are delayed less. Encouraging long distance car users onto P&R, and linking our rail station more efficiently with the City centre also helps. But as long as too many residents insist on driving themselves to and from the City centre willy nilly, the time bomb will continue to tick merrily away. So who will you vote for in 2015? The candidate who offers your yearned for car drivers paradise, one who claims they can instantly magic up £140m to dual the A1237, or one who takes the same realistic, long term view as the Council's professional transport planning team?[/p][/quote]Gridlock, blah, blah... ticking time bomb, blah, blah... car dependancy, blah, blah... good servant, bad master, blah, blah... inefficient use of road space, blah, blah... single occupancy, blah, blah... car drivers' paradise, blah, blah... ^ Essentially every reply PP posts when it comes to traffic discussions. SRT_CM
  • Score: -35

9:50am Thu 10 Apr 14

YOUWILLDOASISAY says...

pedalling paul wrote:
I've lost count of the different spellings of Cllr. Merrett's surname. Some of you can't get anything right......
CoYC under its last Labour administration with Cllr Merrett as Leader, wholeheartedly embraced a succession of Whitehall initiatives to help Local Authorities tackle congestion. The Local Transport Plan grants scheme helped to fund York's first Park & Rides, its initial cycle network, plus soft measures like the promotion of car sharing and the option of short term car hire in the City centre, via City car club. All designed to help dampen an incessant increase in demand for car access, which can never be accommodated on our confined streets.
Be under no illusion that, were it not for these measures, York would already be experiencing the gridlock that has now been pushed back until the 2030's. But that ticking time bomb has not gone away. That's why York's current Local Transport Plan (still a Govt. requirement) has further reductions in car dependancy at its heart.
York has continued to win grants under the present Government's competitive bidding schemes. Cycling City, Local Sustainable Transport Fund and the Better Bus Fund come to mind. But if these carrots don't work, then the congestion charging stick could start to be waved.
Many commentators to this thread are only concerned about the ease with which they can travel round York by car today. The car is a good servant, but when used as the default travel choice for short distance commuting, it becomes a bad master and an inefficient use of road space especially if single occupancy.
I read somewhere that 60% of peak car travel into York is in this latter category. So should we continue to encourage these road users onto other travel choices, so that those who need to use motor vehicles can do so more easily. Also so that bus passengers, servicing and delivery journeys are delayed less. Encouraging long distance car users onto P&R, and linking our rail station more efficiently with the City centre also helps.
But as long as too many residents insist on driving themselves to and from the City centre willy nilly, the time bomb will continue to tick merrily away.
So who will you vote for in 2015? The candidate who offers your yearned for car drivers paradise, one who claims they can instantly magic up £140m to dual the A1237, or one who takes the same realistic, long term view as the Council's professional transport planning team?
At 10:19am Wed 9 Apr 14, I asked, How long before we hear the words "Congestion Charge"?. (Lendal Bridge traffic ban is axed).

Answer 22hrs 19 minutes.

Bring on the big stick, but first explain why it has never been implemented in the UK outside London. After all it started in London 17th February 2003, so it can't be lack of evidence.

Don't bother quoting Durham, a tiny one street system that will create all the issues and reactions that failed project Lendal produced.

PP:
But as long as too many residents insist on driving themselves to and from the City centre willy nilly, the time bomb will continue to tick merrily away.

Clearly your focus is just on residents, but the overall problem of traffic is greatly contributed to by visitors, you cannot disconnect the two contributory factors. I would suggest that efforts were concentrated on understanding why visitors are driving through the city on the inner ring road and what could be done to reduce this.

Blanket solution implemented for ideological reasons lacking understanding will never succeed. Use the now redundant ANPR cameras to learn about the traffic, local/visitor plates then you have a bases from which to launch a traffic management plan. Put simply quantify and target visitor traffic to P&R facilities.
[quote][p][bold]pedalling paul [/bold] wrote: I've lost count of the different spellings of Cllr. Merrett's surname. Some of you can't get anything right...... CoYC under its last Labour administration with Cllr Merrett as Leader, wholeheartedly embraced a succession of Whitehall initiatives to help Local Authorities tackle congestion. The Local Transport Plan grants scheme helped to fund York's first Park & Rides, its initial cycle network, plus soft measures like the promotion of car sharing and the option of short term car hire in the City centre, via City car club. All designed to help dampen an incessant increase in demand for car access, which can never be accommodated on our confined streets. Be under no illusion that, were it not for these measures, York would already be experiencing the gridlock that has now been pushed back until the 2030's. But that ticking time bomb has not gone away. That's why York's current Local Transport Plan (still a Govt. requirement) has further reductions in car dependancy at its heart. York has continued to win grants under the present Government's competitive bidding schemes. Cycling City, Local Sustainable Transport Fund and the Better Bus Fund come to mind. But if these carrots don't work, then the congestion charging stick could start to be waved. Many commentators to this thread are only concerned about the ease with which they can travel round York by car today. The car is a good servant, but when used as the default travel choice for short distance commuting, it becomes a bad master and an inefficient use of road space especially if single occupancy. I read somewhere that 60% of peak car travel into York is in this latter category. So should we continue to encourage these road users onto other travel choices, so that those who need to use motor vehicles can do so more easily. Also so that bus passengers, servicing and delivery journeys are delayed less. Encouraging long distance car users onto P&R, and linking our rail station more efficiently with the City centre also helps. But as long as too many residents insist on driving themselves to and from the City centre willy nilly, the time bomb will continue to tick merrily away. So who will you vote for in 2015? The candidate who offers your yearned for car drivers paradise, one who claims they can instantly magic up £140m to dual the A1237, or one who takes the same realistic, long term view as the Council's professional transport planning team?[/p][/quote]At 10:19am Wed 9 Apr 14, I asked, How long before we hear the words "Congestion Charge"?. (Lendal Bridge traffic ban is axed). Answer 22hrs 19 minutes. Bring on the big stick, but first explain why it has never been implemented in the UK outside London. After all it started in London 17th February 2003, so it can't be lack of evidence. Don't bother quoting Durham, a tiny one street system that will create all the issues and reactions that failed project Lendal produced. PP: But as long as too many residents insist on driving themselves to and from the City centre willy nilly, the time bomb will continue to tick merrily away. Clearly your focus is just on residents, but the overall problem of traffic is greatly contributed to by visitors, you cannot disconnect the two contributory factors. I would suggest that efforts were concentrated on understanding why visitors are driving through the city on the inner ring road and what could be done to reduce this. Blanket solution implemented for ideological reasons lacking understanding will never succeed. Use the now redundant ANPR cameras to learn about the traffic, local/visitor plates then you have a bases from which to launch a traffic management plan. Put simply quantify and target visitor traffic to P&R facilities. YOUWILLDOASISAY
  • Score: -34

10:18am Thu 10 Apr 14

Ignatius Lumpopo says...

There's that ridiculous dual-carriageway argument again. All a dual carriageway will do is feed traffic in four, rather than two, lanes onto all those wretched roundabouts. It's the junctions on the ring-road that cause the problems, not the single carriageway.
There's that ridiculous dual-carriageway argument again. All a dual carriageway will do is feed traffic in four, rather than two, lanes onto all those wretched roundabouts. It's the junctions on the ring-road that cause the problems, not the single carriageway. Ignatius Lumpopo
  • Score: -29

10:24am Thu 10 Apr 14

roskoboskovic says...

i love it when d agorne opens his mouth because he inevitably says something stupi.FREE shuttle buses says andy pandy in his studentish idealistic way when the council say they ve not got two pennies to rub together.the bridge scheme was thwarted by negative publicity says andy pandy when the media were only publicising what 90% of residents were thinking.time for a clear out of all these wishy washy characters on york council and time for some people who live in the real world.
i love it when d agorne opens his mouth because he inevitably says something stupi.FREE shuttle buses says andy pandy in his studentish idealistic way when the council say they ve not got two pennies to rub together.the bridge scheme was thwarted by negative publicity says andy pandy when the media were only publicising what 90% of residents were thinking.time for a clear out of all these wishy washy characters on york council and time for some people who live in the real world. roskoboskovic
  • Score: -23

10:40am Thu 10 Apr 14

mutley12321 says...

pedalling paul wrote:
I've lost count of the different spellings of Cllr. Merrett's surname. Some of you can't get anything right......
CoYC under its last Labour administration with Cllr Merrett as Leader, wholeheartedly embraced a succession of Whitehall initiatives to help Local Authorities tackle congestion. The Local Transport Plan grants scheme helped to fund York's first Park & Rides, its initial cycle network, plus soft measures like the promotion of car sharing and the option of short term car hire in the City centre, via City car club. All designed to help dampen an incessant increase in demand for car access, which can never be accommodated on our confined streets.
Be under no illusion that, were it not for these measures, York would already be experiencing the gridlock that has now been pushed back until the 2030's. But that ticking time bomb has not gone away. That's why York's current Local Transport Plan (still a Govt. requirement) has further reductions in car dependancy at its heart.
York has continued to win grants under the present Government's competitive bidding schemes. Cycling City, Local Sustainable Transport Fund and the Better Bus Fund come to mind. But if these carrots don't work, then the congestion charging stick could start to be waved.
Many commentators to this thread are only concerned about the ease with which they can travel round York by car today. The car is a good servant, but when used as the default travel choice for short distance commuting, it becomes a bad master and an inefficient use of road space especially if single occupancy.
I read somewhere that 60% of peak car travel into York is in this latter category. So should we continue to encourage these road users onto other travel choices, so that those who need to use motor vehicles can do so more easily. Also so that bus passengers, servicing and delivery journeys are delayed less. Encouraging long distance car users onto P&R, and linking our rail station more efficiently with the City centre also helps.
But as long as too many residents insist on driving themselves to and from the City centre willy nilly, the time bomb will continue to tick merrily away.
So who will you vote for in 2015? The candidate who offers your yearned for car drivers paradise, one who claims they can instantly magic up £140m to dual the A1237, or one who takes the same realistic, long term view as the Council's professional transport planning team?
Good morning Paul,

It’s a beautiful morning, so why the need to be such grouchy cyclist this morning then?!!? Having a go from your lofty perch in some not being able to spell a name correctly? Some perspective from you would not go amiss, how about a response from you for the financial cost and incalculable and probably irreparable damage done to the City by you and your fellow Labour chums? Again Paul, classic misdirection!!!

It does seem the council are shifting their position again, with the reliance on not having to repay the fines would justify the ill-thought out scheme as a success as CoYC would make a profit? It worries me, as it should you if (assuming you’re a York Council Tax payer) if we have to repay the fines, cost of implementation and legal fees this will prove a very costly exercise; one that we’ll be paying for in years to come? It’s a shame CoYC clearly took the wrong advice. Speaking of which, what is your role in this? Your continued silence on this speaks volumes dear boy and your continued defensive approach smacks of desperation.

I doubt few would disagree that York needs a better plan to deal with congestion. Heaven to betsy, let’s hope it’s better than the current version which has been a disaster. Your continued hyperbole of the situation does nothing but inflame opinion and as you’ve seen from the comments, polarises views. We all have requirements, not all of us are able to cycle, wait for unreliable buses or use expensive taxis or the car club? Just because we’re not worthy in your eyes, this doesn't make us wrong? Why don’t you try to consult with your views instead of dictating? You do sound just like a councillor??!!

You want a council that can have a long term view, you’re half right. We need a council that can have a long term view, balanced against short term requirements to keep the city moving. We also need a council that listens to their residents? The party that can do this will have my vote?

Regards, and chill out – enjoy the sunshine.

Mutt.

PS. Apologies if there are any spelling mistakes, I know you're a stickler on these things :)
[quote][p][bold]pedalling paul [/bold] wrote: I've lost count of the different spellings of Cllr. Merrett's surname. Some of you can't get anything right...... CoYC under its last Labour administration with Cllr Merrett as Leader, wholeheartedly embraced a succession of Whitehall initiatives to help Local Authorities tackle congestion. The Local Transport Plan grants scheme helped to fund York's first Park & Rides, its initial cycle network, plus soft measures like the promotion of car sharing and the option of short term car hire in the City centre, via City car club. All designed to help dampen an incessant increase in demand for car access, which can never be accommodated on our confined streets. Be under no illusion that, were it not for these measures, York would already be experiencing the gridlock that has now been pushed back until the 2030's. But that ticking time bomb has not gone away. That's why York's current Local Transport Plan (still a Govt. requirement) has further reductions in car dependancy at its heart. York has continued to win grants under the present Government's competitive bidding schemes. Cycling City, Local Sustainable Transport Fund and the Better Bus Fund come to mind. But if these carrots don't work, then the congestion charging stick could start to be waved. Many commentators to this thread are only concerned about the ease with which they can travel round York by car today. The car is a good servant, but when used as the default travel choice for short distance commuting, it becomes a bad master and an inefficient use of road space especially if single occupancy. I read somewhere that 60% of peak car travel into York is in this latter category. So should we continue to encourage these road users onto other travel choices, so that those who need to use motor vehicles can do so more easily. Also so that bus passengers, servicing and delivery journeys are delayed less. Encouraging long distance car users onto P&R, and linking our rail station more efficiently with the City centre also helps. But as long as too many residents insist on driving themselves to and from the City centre willy nilly, the time bomb will continue to tick merrily away. So who will you vote for in 2015? The candidate who offers your yearned for car drivers paradise, one who claims they can instantly magic up £140m to dual the A1237, or one who takes the same realistic, long term view as the Council's professional transport planning team?[/p][/quote]Good morning Paul, It’s a beautiful morning, so why the need to be such grouchy cyclist this morning then?!!? Having a go from your lofty perch in some not being able to spell a name correctly? Some perspective from you would not go amiss, how about a response from you for the financial cost and incalculable and probably irreparable damage done to the City by you and your fellow Labour chums? Again Paul, classic misdirection!!! It does seem the council are shifting their position again, with the reliance on not having to repay the fines would justify the ill-thought out scheme as a success as CoYC would make a profit? It worries me, as it should you if (assuming you’re a York Council Tax payer) if we have to repay the fines, cost of implementation and legal fees this will prove a very costly exercise; one that we’ll be paying for in years to come? It’s a shame CoYC clearly took the wrong advice. Speaking of which, what is your role in this? Your continued silence on this speaks volumes dear boy and your continued defensive approach smacks of desperation. I doubt few would disagree that York needs a better plan to deal with congestion. Heaven to betsy, let’s hope it’s better than the current version which has been a disaster. Your continued hyperbole of the situation does nothing but inflame opinion and as you’ve seen from the comments, polarises views. We all have requirements, not all of us are able to cycle, wait for unreliable buses or use expensive taxis or the car club? Just because we’re not worthy in your eyes, this doesn't make us wrong? Why don’t you try to consult with your views instead of dictating? You do sound just like a councillor??!! You want a council that can have a long term view, you’re half right. We need a council that can have a long term view, balanced against short term requirements to keep the city moving. We also need a council that listens to their residents? The party that can do this will have my vote? Regards, and chill out – enjoy the sunshine. Mutt. PS. Apologies if there are any spelling mistakes, I know you're a stickler on these things :) mutley12321
  • Score: -51

12:29pm Thu 10 Apr 14

york_chap says...

Trouble is, York is the only major city in the largest and one of the most rural counties in England. It's also a tourist mecca. For many people visiting the city each day for work or for pleasure, a car is the only practical and cost-effective means of getting here and subsequently going about their business.

Those who want a traffic-free, pedestrian and cyclist heaven should move to a big city like London, where most people live centrally in flats where there aren't any parking facilities because they don't need cars - every journey is 2 miles max and there are shops and public transport options on literally every corner.
Trouble is, York is the only major city in the largest and one of the most rural counties in England. It's also a tourist mecca. For many people visiting the city each day for work or for pleasure, a car is the only practical and cost-effective means of getting here and subsequently going about their business. Those who want a traffic-free, pedestrian and cyclist heaven should move to a big city like London, where most people live centrally in flats where there aren't any parking facilities because they don't need cars - every journey is 2 miles max and there are shops and public transport options on literally every corner. york_chap
  • Score: -55

12:35pm Thu 10 Apr 14

York2000 says...

I can't believe you are all still typing huge posts about this. Even more unbelievable is the Press posting at least ten links today on Lendal.

Clickbait.
I can't believe you are all still typing huge posts about this. Even more unbelievable is the Press posting at least ten links today on Lendal. Clickbait. York2000
  • Score: -61

12:48pm Thu 10 Apr 14

Buzzz Light-year says...

roskoboskovic wrote:
i love it when d agorne opens his mouth because he inevitably says something stupi.FREE shuttle buses says andy pandy in his studentish idealistic way when the council say they ve not got two pennies to rub together.the bridge scheme was thwarted by negative publicity says andy pandy when the media were only publicising what 90% of residents were thinking.time for a clear out of all these wishy washy characters on york council and time for some people who live in the real world.
You know all about saying something stupid.
Your analysis of the Kilburn Road allotment site path tarmac was way off the mark.

"andy pandy?" That's just infantile.
[quote][p][bold]roskoboskovic[/bold] wrote: i love it when d agorne opens his mouth because he inevitably says something stupi.FREE shuttle buses says andy pandy in his studentish idealistic way when the council say they ve not got two pennies to rub together.the bridge scheme was thwarted by negative publicity says andy pandy when the media were only publicising what 90% of residents were thinking.time for a clear out of all these wishy washy characters on york council and time for some people who live in the real world.[/p][/quote]You know all about saying something stupid. Your analysis of the Kilburn Road allotment site path tarmac was way off the mark. "andy pandy?" That's just infantile. Buzzz Light-year
  • Score: 10

12:56pm Thu 10 Apr 14

Buzzz Light-year says...

Politics is the worst thing.

Here we have a whole cabinet refusing to admit any fault or responsibility, going on record to claim not that the trial failed but that all of a sudden "they have listened to the people" Hah! Shameless spin.

I remember Steve Galloway showing a similar lack of contrition after the Fulford Road failure a few years ago.

Then we have the local LibDems and Conservatives teaming up (even though they aren't together locally, just nationally) to make political capital while they can, hypocritically accusing their opposite numbers of photo ops, whilst being photgraphed grinning smugly on the bridge.

Then nationally we have Maria Miller stepping down, not because she was a fraudster, not because she admits she was very wrong, not because she should be punished but because she feels her story is "distracting from the good work" that Cameron and the coalition are doing. Unbelievable arrogance!

What's the number one quality required for modern politics, both local and national? Yep, arrogance.

Will we ever see humility in government?
Politics is the worst thing. Here we have a whole cabinet refusing to admit any fault or responsibility, going on record to claim not that the trial failed but that all of a sudden "they have listened to the people" Hah! Shameless spin. I remember Steve Galloway showing a similar lack of contrition after the Fulford Road failure a few years ago. Then we have the local LibDems and Conservatives teaming up (even though they aren't together locally, just nationally) to make political capital while they can, hypocritically accusing their opposite numbers of photo ops, whilst being photgraphed grinning smugly on the bridge. Then nationally we have Maria Miller stepping down, not because she was a fraudster, not because she admits she was very wrong, not because she should be punished but because she feels her story is "distracting from the good work" that Cameron and the coalition are doing. Unbelievable arrogance! What's the number one quality required for modern politics, both local and national? Yep, arrogance. Will we ever see humility in government? Buzzz Light-year
  • Score: 0

1:01pm Thu 10 Apr 14

greenmonkey says...

Ignatius Lumpopo wrote:
There's that ridiculous dual-carriageway argument again. All a dual carriageway will do is feed traffic in four, rather than two, lanes onto all those wretched roundabouts. It's the junctions on the ring-road that cause the problems, not the single carriageway.
Correct - read the Halcrow report 2008 commissioned by the Lib Dems. spells out that building flyovers for the junctions is the only really effective way to increase capacity - dualling on its own just creates more storage space for cars waiting to get through the junctions! However flyovers would also cost loads more as well as being a blot on the flat landscape blocking views of the Minster! Would also cost as much as a modest urban tram system which would be better for the economy and environment.
[quote][p][bold]Ignatius Lumpopo[/bold] wrote: There's that ridiculous dual-carriageway argument again. All a dual carriageway will do is feed traffic in four, rather than two, lanes onto all those wretched roundabouts. It's the junctions on the ring-road that cause the problems, not the single carriageway.[/p][/quote]Correct - read the Halcrow report 2008 commissioned by the Lib Dems. spells out that building flyovers for the junctions is the only really effective way to increase capacity - dualling on its own just creates more storage space for cars waiting to get through the junctions! However flyovers would also cost loads more as well as being a blot on the flat landscape blocking views of the Minster! Would also cost as much as a modest urban tram system which would be better for the economy and environment. greenmonkey
  • Score: -97

1:36pm Thu 10 Apr 14

Archiebold the 1st says...

yes Paul you are right... this council setting up a park and ride adding more vehicles to the road has put the gridlock dooms day back to 2030... And the cycle network! well that reduced traffic loads... I mean making cars wait for cycles crossing a path was actually a really effective measure to make traffic flow smoother..imagine if bikes used the road that was there… mental….. . and these soft measures... I mean what can I say? I’m glad the council promoted car sharing.. How else would others have thought about cutting their petrol costs each month...

Paul... please can I suggest you actually do some research about traffic successes and failures and don’t just think labour did it, it must be amazing..

And yet still no comment back to my reality of what needs to be done to take cars off the road? Is that because it isn’t cycling dependant? Or because you don’t take my views seriously being a non labour supporter who drives occasionally? As people have said car usage hasn’t gone up in around 10 years Paul. So while you are gathering supplies for gridlock doomsday in 2030 everyone back in reality knows that little tweets to the lighting system and a bit of investment into a train shuttle scheme could see this city right for at least 40 years. We could even paint bikes on the outside of the train carriages to keep you happy?

Untimely Paul they need to boot out the Muppets who add in lights for the sake of it, signs for the sake of it and actually rely on drivers knowing what they are doing… Having looked at the layout for the new P&R Paul I will bet you that it adds to yorks traffic problems.. Lets add more sets of lights to the main entrance from the south of the city… with daft light sequences. If you can defend these people you have issues.. I don’t have a road traffic background but I know signalling very well and whoever designs these sequences for COYC and your mate dave signing them off there is no hope.

Also can you justify the cost of having 8 lights for one route?? How much are they? About 4k each last I checked… why have 3 when 8 will do ey.. lets cover the h&s aspects with more is right as we can’t be bothered to check signal sighting issues…
yes Paul you are right... this council setting up a park and ride adding more vehicles to the road has put the gridlock dooms day back to 2030... And the cycle network! well that reduced traffic loads... I mean making cars wait for cycles crossing a path was actually a really effective measure to make traffic flow smoother..imagine if bikes used the road that was there… mental….. . and these soft measures... I mean what can I say? I’m glad the council promoted car sharing.. How else would others have thought about cutting their petrol costs each month... Paul... please can I suggest you actually do some research about traffic successes and failures and don’t just think labour did it, it must be amazing.. And yet still no comment back to my reality of what needs to be done to take cars off the road? Is that because it isn’t cycling dependant? Or because you don’t take my views seriously being a non labour supporter who drives occasionally? As people have said car usage hasn’t gone up in around 10 years Paul. So while you are gathering supplies for gridlock doomsday in 2030 everyone back in reality knows that little tweets to the lighting system and a bit of investment into a train shuttle scheme could see this city right for at least 40 years. We could even paint bikes on the outside of the train carriages to keep you happy? Untimely Paul they need to boot out the Muppets who add in lights for the sake of it, signs for the sake of it and actually rely on drivers knowing what they are doing… Having looked at the layout for the new P&R Paul I will bet you that it adds to yorks traffic problems.. Lets add more sets of lights to the main entrance from the south of the city… with daft light sequences. If you can defend these people you have issues.. I don’t have a road traffic background but I know signalling very well and whoever designs these sequences for COYC and your mate dave signing them off there is no hope. Also can you justify the cost of having 8 lights for one route?? How much are they? About 4k each last I checked… why have 3 when 8 will do ey.. lets cover the h&s aspects with more is right as we can’t be bothered to check signal sighting issues… Archiebold the 1st
  • Score: -78

1:58pm Thu 10 Apr 14

yorkshirelad says...

Congesting charging should be seriously considered now. Perhaps no less complex than cameras/fines and could be simply achieved by tolling all the bridges inside the ring road. A modest amount adjusted until it reduced traffic and exempting (genuinely) essential users. £1 thrown into an auto-bucket or a £2 credit card charge (to cover bank charges and the slower use of CCs).

Or what? We need to start thinking of positive alternatives until, inevitably, we close some of the city-centre bridges to private cars in the future.
Congesting charging should be seriously considered now. Perhaps no less complex than cameras/fines and could be simply achieved by tolling all the bridges inside the ring road. A modest amount adjusted until it reduced traffic and exempting (genuinely) essential users. £1 thrown into an auto-bucket or a £2 credit card charge (to cover bank charges and the slower use of CCs). Or what? We need to start thinking of positive alternatives until, inevitably, we close some of the city-centre bridges to private cars in the future. yorkshirelad
  • Score: -94

2:30pm Thu 10 Apr 14

Archiebold the 1st says...

yorkshirelad wrote:
Congesting charging should be seriously considered now. Perhaps no less complex than cameras/fines and could be simply achieved by tolling all the bridges inside the ring road. A modest amount adjusted until it reduced traffic and exempting (genuinely) essential users. £1 thrown into an auto-bucket or a £2 credit card charge (to cover bank charges and the slower use of CCs). Or what? We need to start thinking of positive alternatives until, inevitably, we close some of the city-centre bridges to private cars in the future.
Are you mad?? What traffic issues are you relating to here? Traffic was bad due to the closure.. Ok yeh peak times it can cause issues but that’s peak time! You expect it!

So yeh plonking machines and having them manned wont make York look like inner Moscow at all! And def wont cause extra traffic into the city while people throw money into a bucket or have to do a card transaction! Charging people for using an inner ring road? WHAT? And what about all the city centre workers who already pay for parking bays? They will then have to pay £2 a day on top of the fees?

Simple minded hemp smoking buffoon! Another one of Paul’s friends who has no idea about traffic schemes, management of the future solutions! Lets force people to use an inadequate bus service! wake up this is not a dictatorship! nor is it london! if Manchester, Liverpool, Leeds and other major cities can plan without this charge then why can't a small city like york? Give you a clue... the people in change of transport are as educated in the subject matter as you.
[quote][p][bold]yorkshirelad[/bold] wrote: Congesting charging should be seriously considered now. Perhaps no less complex than cameras/fines and could be simply achieved by tolling all the bridges inside the ring road. A modest amount adjusted until it reduced traffic and exempting (genuinely) essential users. £1 thrown into an auto-bucket or a £2 credit card charge (to cover bank charges and the slower use of CCs). Or what? We need to start thinking of positive alternatives until, inevitably, we close some of the city-centre bridges to private cars in the future.[/p][/quote]Are you mad?? What traffic issues are you relating to here? Traffic was bad due to the closure.. Ok yeh peak times it can cause issues but that’s peak time! You expect it! So yeh plonking machines and having them manned wont make York look like inner Moscow at all! And def wont cause extra traffic into the city while people throw money into a bucket or have to do a card transaction! Charging people for using an inner ring road? WHAT? And what about all the city centre workers who already pay for parking bays? They will then have to pay £2 a day on top of the fees? Simple minded hemp smoking buffoon! Another one of Paul’s friends who has no idea about traffic schemes, management of the future solutions! Lets force people to use an inadequate bus service! wake up this is not a dictatorship! nor is it london! if Manchester, Liverpool, Leeds and other major cities can plan without this charge then why can't a small city like york? Give you a clue... the people in change of transport are as educated in the subject matter as you. Archiebold the 1st
  • Score: -46

2:54pm Thu 10 Apr 14

YOUWILLDOASISAY says...

yorkshirelad wrote:
Congesting charging should be seriously considered now. Perhaps no less complex than cameras/fines and could be simply achieved by tolling all the bridges inside the ring road. A modest amount adjusted until it reduced traffic and exempting (genuinely) essential users. £1 thrown into an auto-bucket or a £2 credit card charge (to cover bank charges and the slower use of CCs).

Or what? We need to start thinking of positive alternatives until, inevitably, we close some of the city-centre bridges to private cars in the future.
Congestion charging would without doubt be an effective method of reducing congestion. However it discriminates between those who can afford to pay and those that can't, in other words it is a socioeconomic solution that takes no account of need. E.g. Need to use but can't afford it Vs Don't need to use but can afford it.

Congestion charging is not about cultural change and attitudes to transportation, it is a penalty system that achieves it's objective by directly restricting those least able to pay regardless of need. So unless you are going to include a means tested assessment that should also demonstrate a need then forget it, it's a non-starter.

I look forward to any political group announcing congestion charging as a solution, they should ensure they make it clear that this is only going to affect those poorer sections of the community. They should also add in that the average person working 180 days per year with return jouneys is about to be taxed a further £360 just for going about their business.
[quote][p][bold]yorkshirelad[/bold] wrote: Congesting charging should be seriously considered now. Perhaps no less complex than cameras/fines and could be simply achieved by tolling all the bridges inside the ring road. A modest amount adjusted until it reduced traffic and exempting (genuinely) essential users. £1 thrown into an auto-bucket or a £2 credit card charge (to cover bank charges and the slower use of CCs). Or what? We need to start thinking of positive alternatives until, inevitably, we close some of the city-centre bridges to private cars in the future.[/p][/quote]Congestion charging would without doubt be an effective method of reducing congestion. However it discriminates between those who can afford to pay and those that can't, in other words it is a socioeconomic solution that takes no account of need. E.g. Need to use but can't afford it Vs Don't need to use but can afford it. Congestion charging is not about cultural change and attitudes to transportation, it is a penalty system that achieves it's objective by directly restricting those least able to pay regardless of need. So unless you are going to include a means tested assessment that should also demonstrate a need then forget it, it's a non-starter. I look forward to any political group announcing congestion charging as a solution, they should ensure they make it clear that this is only going to affect those poorer sections of the community. They should also add in that the average person working 180 days per year with return jouneys is about to be taxed a further £360 just for going about their business. YOUWILLDOASISAY
  • Score: -91

3:20pm Thu 10 Apr 14

Archiebold the 1st says...

YOUWILLDOASISAY wrote:
yorkshirelad wrote: Congesting charging should be seriously considered now. Perhaps no less complex than cameras/fines and could be simply achieved by tolling all the bridges inside the ring road. A modest amount adjusted until it reduced traffic and exempting (genuinely) essential users. £1 thrown into an auto-bucket or a £2 credit card charge (to cover bank charges and the slower use of CCs). Or what? We need to start thinking of positive alternatives until, inevitably, we close some of the city-centre bridges to private cars in the future.
Congestion charging would without doubt be an effective method of reducing congestion. However it discriminates between those who can afford to pay and those that can't, in other words it is a socioeconomic solution that takes no account of need. E.g. Need to use but can't afford it Vs Don't need to use but can afford it. Congestion charging is not about cultural change and attitudes to transportation, it is a penalty system that achieves it's objective by directly restricting those least able to pay regardless of need. So unless you are going to include a means tested assessment that should also demonstrate a need then forget it, it's a non-starter. I look forward to any political group announcing congestion charging as a solution, they should ensure they make it clear that this is only going to affect those poorer sections of the community. They should also add in that the average person working 180 days per year with return jouneys is about to be taxed a further £360 just for going about their business.
So let me get this right... congestion charging would 100% reduce congestion? And you'd support it blindly not thinking about the other effects? You’re as bad as Paul and the other bunch... take a step back! If York could afford the London solution (they have tubes and a lot more busses remember) of a call centre and all the cameras and even card top up points maybe... But has it reduced the traffic in London? Slightly. The fact is people will pay. A few things would be certain though.

1) Ring road traffic would be at a stand still.
2) no one would visit the centre meaning local businesses are forced to shut.
3) traffic wouldn’t be noticeably reduced as in the actual city centre there isn’t congestion in the actual centre (i.e inside the inner ring road)
4) tourism would crash on its ar@e... say 60,000 people per weekend by car calling to top up a card... or even the elderly who don’t know how to... Why would you?
5) Businesses in the centre would leave York. (why should they pay for pool cars to be parked up and then pay to get out of York and back in)
6) total economic crash though reduced tourism, reduced businesses, no local support for the city centre.

You are all mad... you can not force people down your own preferred route! more options need to be available that are more convenient to help sway car drivers off the road. You all make it out to be that the city centre is at a stand still! walk around it! Its not! there are bigger issues on tadcaster road, holgate, fishergate and the ring road? are you going to charge all them too?? You are lunatics!
[quote][p][bold]YOUWILLDOASISAY[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]yorkshirelad[/bold] wrote: Congesting charging should be seriously considered now. Perhaps no less complex than cameras/fines and could be simply achieved by tolling all the bridges inside the ring road. A modest amount adjusted until it reduced traffic and exempting (genuinely) essential users. £1 thrown into an auto-bucket or a £2 credit card charge (to cover bank charges and the slower use of CCs). Or what? We need to start thinking of positive alternatives until, inevitably, we close some of the city-centre bridges to private cars in the future.[/p][/quote]Congestion charging would without doubt be an effective method of reducing congestion. However it discriminates between those who can afford to pay and those that can't, in other words it is a socioeconomic solution that takes no account of need. E.g. Need to use but can't afford it Vs Don't need to use but can afford it. Congestion charging is not about cultural change and attitudes to transportation, it is a penalty system that achieves it's objective by directly restricting those least able to pay regardless of need. So unless you are going to include a means tested assessment that should also demonstrate a need then forget it, it's a non-starter. I look forward to any political group announcing congestion charging as a solution, they should ensure they make it clear that this is only going to affect those poorer sections of the community. They should also add in that the average person working 180 days per year with return jouneys is about to be taxed a further £360 just for going about their business.[/p][/quote]So let me get this right... congestion charging would 100% reduce congestion? And you'd support it blindly not thinking about the other effects? You’re as bad as Paul and the other bunch... take a step back! If York could afford the London solution (they have tubes and a lot more busses remember) of a call centre and all the cameras and even card top up points maybe... But has it reduced the traffic in London? Slightly. The fact is people will pay. A few things would be certain though. 1) Ring road traffic would be at a stand still. 2) no one would visit the centre meaning local businesses are forced to shut. 3) traffic wouldn’t be noticeably reduced as in the actual city centre there isn’t congestion in the actual centre (i.e inside the inner ring road) 4) tourism would crash on its ar@e... say 60,000 people per weekend by car calling to top up a card... or even the elderly who don’t know how to... Why would you? 5) Businesses in the centre would leave York. (why should they pay for pool cars to be parked up and then pay to get out of York and back in) 6) total economic crash though reduced tourism, reduced businesses, no local support for the city centre. You are all mad... you can not force people down your own preferred route! more options need to be available that are more convenient to help sway car drivers off the road. You all make it out to be that the city centre is at a stand still! walk around it! Its not! there are bigger issues on tadcaster road, holgate, fishergate and the ring road? are you going to charge all them too?? You are lunatics! Archiebold the 1st
  • Score: -94

3:25pm Thu 10 Apr 14

wildthing666 says...

I agree with the opposition pay back fines to motorists fined for crossing the bridge
I agree with the opposition pay back fines to motorists fined for crossing the bridge wildthing666
  • Score: -69

3:48pm Thu 10 Apr 14

wildthing666 says...

I see the proposed schemes for part of York will also have to be axed
I see the proposed schemes for part of York will also have to be axed wildthing666
  • Score: -61

3:50pm Thu 10 Apr 14

jb1983 says...

“This isn’t the first and won’t be the last time an opposition councillor calls for a resignation, it’s what opposition councillors do."

But it's not just opposition councillors that are calling for his resignation. The public are, as well. The public he is meant to represent. He is not accountable to opposition councillors, he is accountable to us, the people who put him in office. If we want him gone, he should go, whether that is before an election or not.
“This isn’t the first and won’t be the last time an opposition councillor calls for a resignation, it’s what opposition councillors do." But it's not just opposition councillors that are calling for his resignation. The public are, as well. The public he is meant to represent. He is not accountable to opposition councillors, he is accountable to us, the people who put him in office. If we want him gone, he should go, whether that is before an election or not. jb1983
  • Score: -47

3:59pm Thu 10 Apr 14

YOUWILLDOASISAY says...

Archiebold the 1st wrote:
YOUWILLDOASISAY wrote:
yorkshirelad wrote: Congesting charging should be seriously considered now. Perhaps no less complex than cameras/fines and could be simply achieved by tolling all the bridges inside the ring road. A modest amount adjusted until it reduced traffic and exempting (genuinely) essential users. £1 thrown into an auto-bucket or a £2 credit card charge (to cover bank charges and the slower use of CCs). Or what? We need to start thinking of positive alternatives until, inevitably, we close some of the city-centre bridges to private cars in the future.
Congestion charging would without doubt be an effective method of reducing congestion. However it discriminates between those who can afford to pay and those that can't, in other words it is a socioeconomic solution that takes no account of need. E.g. Need to use but can't afford it Vs Don't need to use but can afford it. Congestion charging is not about cultural change and attitudes to transportation, it is a penalty system that achieves it's objective by directly restricting those least able to pay regardless of need. So unless you are going to include a means tested assessment that should also demonstrate a need then forget it, it's a non-starter. I look forward to any political group announcing congestion charging as a solution, they should ensure they make it clear that this is only going to affect those poorer sections of the community. They should also add in that the average person working 180 days per year with return jouneys is about to be taxed a further £360 just for going about their business.
So let me get this right... congestion charging would 100% reduce congestion? And you'd support it blindly not thinking about the other effects? You’re as bad as Paul and the other bunch... take a step back! If York could afford the London solution (they have tubes and a lot more busses remember) of a call centre and all the cameras and even card top up points maybe... But has it reduced the traffic in London? Slightly. The fact is people will pay. A few things would be certain though.

1) Ring road traffic would be at a stand still.
2) no one would visit the centre meaning local businesses are forced to shut.
3) traffic wouldn’t be noticeably reduced as in the actual city centre there isn’t congestion in the actual centre (i.e inside the inner ring road)
4) tourism would crash on its ar@e... say 60,000 people per weekend by car calling to top up a card... or even the elderly who don’t know how to... Why would you?
5) Businesses in the centre would leave York. (why should they pay for pool cars to be parked up and then pay to get out of York and back in)
6) total economic crash though reduced tourism, reduced businesses, no local support for the city centre.

You are all mad... you can not force people down your own preferred route! more options need to be available that are more convenient to help sway car drivers off the road. You all make it out to be that the city centre is at a stand still! walk around it! Its not! there are bigger issues on tadcaster road, holgate, fishergate and the ring road? are you going to charge all them too?? You are lunatics!
I suggest you calm down and go back and read my posts. There is nothing there that supports the introduction of a congestion charge, only points out that it is a selective and discriminating method.

Are you sure you have responded to the right post…?
[quote][p][bold]Archiebold the 1st[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]YOUWILLDOASISAY[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]yorkshirelad[/bold] wrote: Congesting charging should be seriously considered now. Perhaps no less complex than cameras/fines and could be simply achieved by tolling all the bridges inside the ring road. A modest amount adjusted until it reduced traffic and exempting (genuinely) essential users. £1 thrown into an auto-bucket or a £2 credit card charge (to cover bank charges and the slower use of CCs). Or what? We need to start thinking of positive alternatives until, inevitably, we close some of the city-centre bridges to private cars in the future.[/p][/quote]Congestion charging would without doubt be an effective method of reducing congestion. However it discriminates between those who can afford to pay and those that can't, in other words it is a socioeconomic solution that takes no account of need. E.g. Need to use but can't afford it Vs Don't need to use but can afford it. Congestion charging is not about cultural change and attitudes to transportation, it is a penalty system that achieves it's objective by directly restricting those least able to pay regardless of need. So unless you are going to include a means tested assessment that should also demonstrate a need then forget it, it's a non-starter. I look forward to any political group announcing congestion charging as a solution, they should ensure they make it clear that this is only going to affect those poorer sections of the community. They should also add in that the average person working 180 days per year with return jouneys is about to be taxed a further £360 just for going about their business.[/p][/quote]So let me get this right... congestion charging would 100% reduce congestion? And you'd support it blindly not thinking about the other effects? You’re as bad as Paul and the other bunch... take a step back! If York could afford the London solution (they have tubes and a lot more busses remember) of a call centre and all the cameras and even card top up points maybe... But has it reduced the traffic in London? Slightly. The fact is people will pay. A few things would be certain though. 1) Ring road traffic would be at a stand still. 2) no one would visit the centre meaning local businesses are forced to shut. 3) traffic wouldn’t be noticeably reduced as in the actual city centre there isn’t congestion in the actual centre (i.e inside the inner ring road) 4) tourism would crash on its ar@e... say 60,000 people per weekend by car calling to top up a card... or even the elderly who don’t know how to... Why would you? 5) Businesses in the centre would leave York. (why should they pay for pool cars to be parked up and then pay to get out of York and back in) 6) total economic crash though reduced tourism, reduced businesses, no local support for the city centre. You are all mad... you can not force people down your own preferred route! more options need to be available that are more convenient to help sway car drivers off the road. You all make it out to be that the city centre is at a stand still! walk around it! Its not! there are bigger issues on tadcaster road, holgate, fishergate and the ring road? are you going to charge all them too?? You are lunatics![/p][/quote]I suggest you calm down and go back and read my posts. There is nothing there that supports the introduction of a congestion charge, only points out that it is a selective and discriminating method. Are you sure you have responded to the right post…? YOUWILLDOASISAY
  • Score: -89

4:06pm Thu 10 Apr 14

pedalling paul says...

A lot of you seem to believe that Councillors are elected to do as you want. Indulge in the luxury of opposition if you will, but unlike you, Councillors must also weigh in the balance local, regional and national policies and strategies. Advice on this comes principally via Council Officers.
If every traffic light was switched off, every restriction removed, every car park made free, what would lots more residents do? And what would be the consequences.
A lot of you seem to believe that Councillors are elected to do as you want. Indulge in the luxury of opposition if you will, but unlike you, Councillors must also weigh in the balance local, regional and national policies and strategies. Advice on this comes principally via Council Officers. If every traffic light was switched off, every restriction removed, every car park made free, what would lots more residents do? And what would be the consequences. pedalling paul
  • Score: -13

4:18pm Thu 10 Apr 14

seatothewest says...

This particular trial has failed - the failure might be described as a triumph for human selfishness, as we slump further towards environmental disaster simply because lazy folk can't get out of their cars.

Now we can try closing Ouse Bridge or Skeldergate, and watch drivers turn purple with rage (or heart attack due to lack of exercise).
This particular trial has failed - the failure might be described as a triumph for human selfishness, as we slump further towards environmental disaster simply because lazy folk can't get out of their cars. Now we can try closing Ouse Bridge or Skeldergate, and watch drivers turn purple with rage (or heart attack due to lack of exercise). seatothewest
  • Score: -93

4:20pm Thu 10 Apr 14

Archiebold the 1st says...

YOUWILLDOASISAY wrote:
Archiebold the 1st wrote:
YOUWILLDOASISAY wrote:
yorkshirelad wrote: Congesting charging should be seriously considered now. Perhaps no less complex than cameras/fines and could be simply achieved by tolling all the bridges inside the ring road. A modest amount adjusted until it reduced traffic and exempting (genuinely) essential users. £1 thrown into an auto-bucket or a £2 credit card charge (to cover bank charges and the slower use of CCs). Or what? We need to start thinking of positive alternatives until, inevitably, we close some of the city-centre bridges to private cars in the future.
Congestion charging would without doubt be an effective method of reducing congestion. However it discriminates between those who can afford to pay and those that can't, in other words it is a socioeconomic solution that takes no account of need. E.g. Need to use but can't afford it Vs Don't need to use but can afford it. Congestion charging is not about cultural change and attitudes to transportation, it is a penalty system that achieves it's objective by directly restricting those least able to pay regardless of need. So unless you are going to include a means tested assessment that should also demonstrate a need then forget it, it's a non-starter. I look forward to any political group announcing congestion charging as a solution, they should ensure they make it clear that this is only going to affect those poorer sections of the community. They should also add in that the average person working 180 days per year with return jouneys is about to be taxed a further £360 just for going about their business.
So let me get this right... congestion charging would 100% reduce congestion? And you'd support it blindly not thinking about the other effects? You’re as bad as Paul and the other bunch... take a step back! If York could afford the London solution (they have tubes and a lot more busses remember) of a call centre and all the cameras and even card top up points maybe... But has it reduced the traffic in London? Slightly. The fact is people will pay. A few things would be certain though. 1) Ring road traffic would be at a stand still. 2) no one would visit the centre meaning local businesses are forced to shut. 3) traffic wouldn’t be noticeably reduced as in the actual city centre there isn’t congestion in the actual centre (i.e inside the inner ring road) 4) tourism would crash on its ar@e... say 60,000 people per weekend by car calling to top up a card... or even the elderly who don’t know how to... Why would you? 5) Businesses in the centre would leave York. (why should they pay for pool cars to be parked up and then pay to get out of York and back in) 6) total economic crash though reduced tourism, reduced businesses, no local support for the city centre. You are all mad... you can not force people down your own preferred route! more options need to be available that are more convenient to help sway car drivers off the road. You all make it out to be that the city centre is at a stand still! walk around it! Its not! there are bigger issues on tadcaster road, holgate, fishergate and the ring road? are you going to charge all them too?? You are lunatics!
I suggest you calm down and go back and read my posts. There is nothing there that supports the introduction of a congestion charge, only points out that it is a selective and discriminating method. Are you sure you have responded to the right post…?
ha read the first line and errupted.....
[quote][p][bold]YOUWILLDOASISAY[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Archiebold the 1st[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]YOUWILLDOASISAY[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]yorkshirelad[/bold] wrote: Congesting charging should be seriously considered now. Perhaps no less complex than cameras/fines and could be simply achieved by tolling all the bridges inside the ring road. A modest amount adjusted until it reduced traffic and exempting (genuinely) essential users. £1 thrown into an auto-bucket or a £2 credit card charge (to cover bank charges and the slower use of CCs). Or what? We need to start thinking of positive alternatives until, inevitably, we close some of the city-centre bridges to private cars in the future.[/p][/quote]Congestion charging would without doubt be an effective method of reducing congestion. However it discriminates between those who can afford to pay and those that can't, in other words it is a socioeconomic solution that takes no account of need. E.g. Need to use but can't afford it Vs Don't need to use but can afford it. Congestion charging is not about cultural change and attitudes to transportation, it is a penalty system that achieves it's objective by directly restricting those least able to pay regardless of need. So unless you are going to include a means tested assessment that should also demonstrate a need then forget it, it's a non-starter. I look forward to any political group announcing congestion charging as a solution, they should ensure they make it clear that this is only going to affect those poorer sections of the community. They should also add in that the average person working 180 days per year with return jouneys is about to be taxed a further £360 just for going about their business.[/p][/quote]So let me get this right... congestion charging would 100% reduce congestion? And you'd support it blindly not thinking about the other effects? You’re as bad as Paul and the other bunch... take a step back! If York could afford the London solution (they have tubes and a lot more busses remember) of a call centre and all the cameras and even card top up points maybe... But has it reduced the traffic in London? Slightly. The fact is people will pay. A few things would be certain though. 1) Ring road traffic would be at a stand still. 2) no one would visit the centre meaning local businesses are forced to shut. 3) traffic wouldn’t be noticeably reduced as in the actual city centre there isn’t congestion in the actual centre (i.e inside the inner ring road) 4) tourism would crash on its ar@e... say 60,000 people per weekend by car calling to top up a card... or even the elderly who don’t know how to... Why would you? 5) Businesses in the centre would leave York. (why should they pay for pool cars to be parked up and then pay to get out of York and back in) 6) total economic crash though reduced tourism, reduced businesses, no local support for the city centre. You are all mad... you can not force people down your own preferred route! more options need to be available that are more convenient to help sway car drivers off the road. You all make it out to be that the city centre is at a stand still! walk around it! Its not! there are bigger issues on tadcaster road, holgate, fishergate and the ring road? are you going to charge all them too?? You are lunatics![/p][/quote]I suggest you calm down and go back and read my posts. There is nothing there that supports the introduction of a congestion charge, only points out that it is a selective and discriminating method. Are you sure you have responded to the right post…?[/p][/quote]ha read the first line and errupted..... Archiebold the 1st
  • Score: -142

4:23pm Thu 10 Apr 14

YOUWILLDOASISAY says...

Archiebold the 1st wrote:
YOUWILLDOASISAY wrote:
Archiebold the 1st wrote:
YOUWILLDOASISAY wrote:
yorkshirelad wrote: Congesting charging should be seriously considered now. Perhaps no less complex than cameras/fines and could be simply achieved by tolling all the bridges inside the ring road. A modest amount adjusted until it reduced traffic and exempting (genuinely) essential users. £1 thrown into an auto-bucket or a £2 credit card charge (to cover bank charges and the slower use of CCs). Or what? We need to start thinking of positive alternatives until, inevitably, we close some of the city-centre bridges to private cars in the future.
Congestion charging would without doubt be an effective method of reducing congestion. However it discriminates between those who can afford to pay and those that can't, in other words it is a socioeconomic solution that takes no account of need. E.g. Need to use but can't afford it Vs Don't need to use but can afford it. Congestion charging is not about cultural change and attitudes to transportation, it is a penalty system that achieves it's objective by directly restricting those least able to pay regardless of need. So unless you are going to include a means tested assessment that should also demonstrate a need then forget it, it's a non-starter. I look forward to any political group announcing congestion charging as a solution, they should ensure they make it clear that this is only going to affect those poorer sections of the community. They should also add in that the average person working 180 days per year with return jouneys is about to be taxed a further £360 just for going about their business.
So let me get this right... congestion charging would 100% reduce congestion? And you'd support it blindly not thinking about the other effects? You’re as bad as Paul and the other bunch... take a step back! If York could afford the London solution (they have tubes and a lot more busses remember) of a call centre and all the cameras and even card top up points maybe... But has it reduced the traffic in London? Slightly. The fact is people will pay. A few things would be certain though. 1) Ring road traffic would be at a stand still. 2) no one would visit the centre meaning local businesses are forced to shut. 3) traffic wouldn’t be noticeably reduced as in the actual city centre there isn’t congestion in the actual centre (i.e inside the inner ring road) 4) tourism would crash on its ar@e... say 60,000 people per weekend by car calling to top up a card... or even the elderly who don’t know how to... Why would you? 5) Businesses in the centre would leave York. (why should they pay for pool cars to be parked up and then pay to get out of York and back in) 6) total economic crash though reduced tourism, reduced businesses, no local support for the city centre. You are all mad... you can not force people down your own preferred route! more options need to be available that are more convenient to help sway car drivers off the road. You all make it out to be that the city centre is at a stand still! walk around it! Its not! there are bigger issues on tadcaster road, holgate, fishergate and the ring road? are you going to charge all them too?? You are lunatics!
I suggest you calm down and go back and read my posts. There is nothing there that supports the introduction of a congestion charge, only points out that it is a selective and discriminating method. Are you sure you have responded to the right post…?
ha read the first line and errupted.....
I did when I wrote it.

By the way my psychiatrist has confirmed that I'm not a lunatic, but then she doesn't understand me.
[quote][p][bold]Archiebold the 1st[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]YOUWILLDOASISAY[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Archiebold the 1st[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]YOUWILLDOASISAY[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]yorkshirelad[/bold] wrote: Congesting charging should be seriously considered now. Perhaps no less complex than cameras/fines and could be simply achieved by tolling all the bridges inside the ring road. A modest amount adjusted until it reduced traffic and exempting (genuinely) essential users. £1 thrown into an auto-bucket or a £2 credit card charge (to cover bank charges and the slower use of CCs). Or what? We need to start thinking of positive alternatives until, inevitably, we close some of the city-centre bridges to private cars in the future.[/p][/quote]Congestion charging would without doubt be an effective method of reducing congestion. However it discriminates between those who can afford to pay and those that can't, in other words it is a socioeconomic solution that takes no account of need. E.g. Need to use but can't afford it Vs Don't need to use but can afford it. Congestion charging is not about cultural change and attitudes to transportation, it is a penalty system that achieves it's objective by directly restricting those least able to pay regardless of need. So unless you are going to include a means tested assessment that should also demonstrate a need then forget it, it's a non-starter. I look forward to any political group announcing congestion charging as a solution, they should ensure they make it clear that this is only going to affect those poorer sections of the community. They should also add in that the average person working 180 days per year with return jouneys is about to be taxed a further £360 just for going about their business.[/p][/quote]So let me get this right... congestion charging would 100% reduce congestion? And you'd support it blindly not thinking about the other effects? You’re as bad as Paul and the other bunch... take a step back! If York could afford the London solution (they have tubes and a lot more busses remember) of a call centre and all the cameras and even card top up points maybe... But has it reduced the traffic in London? Slightly. The fact is people will pay. A few things would be certain though. 1) Ring road traffic would be at a stand still. 2) no one would visit the centre meaning local businesses are forced to shut. 3) traffic wouldn’t be noticeably reduced as in the actual city centre there isn’t congestion in the actual centre (i.e inside the inner ring road) 4) tourism would crash on its ar@e... say 60,000 people per weekend by car calling to top up a card... or even the elderly who don’t know how to... Why would you? 5) Businesses in the centre would leave York. (why should they pay for pool cars to be parked up and then pay to get out of York and back in) 6) total economic crash though reduced tourism, reduced businesses, no local support for the city centre. You are all mad... you can not force people down your own preferred route! more options need to be available that are more convenient to help sway car drivers off the road. You all make it out to be that the city centre is at a stand still! walk around it! Its not! there are bigger issues on tadcaster road, holgate, fishergate and the ring road? are you going to charge all them too?? You are lunatics![/p][/quote]I suggest you calm down and go back and read my posts. There is nothing there that supports the introduction of a congestion charge, only points out that it is a selective and discriminating method. Are you sure you have responded to the right post…?[/p][/quote]ha read the first line and errupted.....[/p][/quote]I did when I wrote it. By the way my psychiatrist has confirmed that I'm not a lunatic, but then she doesn't understand me. YOUWILLDOASISAY
  • Score: -128

4:24pm Thu 10 Apr 14

bolero says...

pedalling paul wrote:
A lot of you seem to believe that Councillors are elected to do as you want. Indulge in the luxury of opposition if you will, but unlike you, Councillors must also weigh in the balance local, regional and national policies and strategies. Advice on this comes principally via Council Officers.
If every traffic light was switched off, every restriction removed, every car park made free, what would lots more residents do? And what would be the consequences.
It would not make any difference to most cyclists anyway. They don't know what a traffic light is. You leave yourself wide open every time, don't you? Over many years for some inane reason you have done your level best to alienate not only yourself but every other cyclist in York with your never ending silly rantings. I have every respect for the careful considerate cyclist but one cannot help but think Peddling b***** Paul each time a poor cyclist comes into view.
[quote][p][bold]pedalling paul [/bold] wrote: A lot of you seem to believe that Councillors are elected to do as you want. Indulge in the luxury of opposition if you will, but unlike you, Councillors must also weigh in the balance local, regional and national policies and strategies. Advice on this comes principally via Council Officers. If every traffic light was switched off, every restriction removed, every car park made free, what would lots more residents do? And what would be the consequences.[/p][/quote]It would not make any difference to most cyclists anyway. They don't know what a traffic light is. You leave yourself wide open every time, don't you? Over many years for some inane reason you have done your level best to alienate not only yourself but every other cyclist in York with your never ending silly rantings. I have every respect for the careful considerate cyclist but one cannot help but think Peddling b***** Paul each time a poor cyclist comes into view. bolero
  • Score: -134

4:30pm Thu 10 Apr 14

Archiebold the 1st says...

pedalling paul wrote:
A lot of you seem to believe that Councillors are elected to do as you want. Indulge in the luxury of opposition if you will, but unlike you, Councillors must also weigh in the balance local, regional and national policies and strategies. Advice on this comes principally via Council Officers. If every traffic light was switched off, every restriction removed, every car park made free, what would lots more residents do? And what would be the consequences.
No Paul we simply want councillors to use common sense... not shut off lights or make parking free or indeed lift every restriction. I'm an independent having never voted nor had any interest in any political party. But i do know that will now vote and it wont be for labour simply as they have proved incompetent at managing money and rush into schemes without consulting experts in the matter.

I'd settle for them to improve the light sequencing. Keep lendal open as it made traffic worse. And actually look into some future schemes not just implement restrictions and put more busses on the road...

Do you think the consequences of closing lendal were examined thoroughly? Not once have i head one of them admit "there was the risk it could increase traffic" or "it could have an adverse effect on tourism" so Paul might i suggest that you tell dave to do proper analysis prior to implementing schemes. Such as is twenty is plenty going to reduce speed that will result in saving lives? or would a £200k school programme actually be more effective? you party bails in to any internal pressure so they can all stamp their own ideas (often in the interest of the minority) to gain status.

What is the difference with the council and a company? its the fact if a company spent money like the council did they would be bankrupt or their leaders sacked. Companies look into things in more detail to assess if it will benefit their interests or not.
The council live in a public funded imaginary world and spend their money based on the fact it will never run out.. if they ran the council like an actual business with real money they would be a lot more effective. And maybe then the people would appreciate things more.. .wasting 2m of our money on a trail majority knew would fail is not seen as good spending in the publics eyes... money that could have been spent on a giant statue of archie would have actually achieved more then the temp closure of lendal (and got better press!)
[quote][p][bold]pedalling paul [/bold] wrote: A lot of you seem to believe that Councillors are elected to do as you want. Indulge in the luxury of opposition if you will, but unlike you, Councillors must also weigh in the balance local, regional and national policies and strategies. Advice on this comes principally via Council Officers. If every traffic light was switched off, every restriction removed, every car park made free, what would lots more residents do? And what would be the consequences.[/p][/quote]No Paul we simply want councillors to use common sense... not shut off lights or make parking free or indeed lift every restriction. I'm an independent having never voted nor had any interest in any political party. But i do know that will now vote and it wont be for labour simply as they have proved incompetent at managing money and rush into schemes without consulting experts in the matter. I'd settle for them to improve the light sequencing. Keep lendal open as it made traffic worse. And actually look into some future schemes not just implement restrictions and put more busses on the road... Do you think the consequences of closing lendal were examined thoroughly? Not once have i head one of them admit "there was the risk it could increase traffic" or "it could have an adverse effect on tourism" so Paul might i suggest that you tell dave to do proper analysis prior to implementing schemes. Such as is twenty is plenty going to reduce speed that will result in saving lives? or would a £200k school programme actually be more effective? you party bails in to any internal pressure so they can all stamp their own ideas (often in the interest of the minority) to gain status. What is the difference with the council and a company? its the fact if a company spent money like the council did they would be bankrupt or their leaders sacked. Companies look into things in more detail to assess if it will benefit their interests or not. The council live in a public funded imaginary world and spend their money based on the fact it will never run out.. if they ran the council like an actual business with real money they would be a lot more effective. And maybe then the people would appreciate things more.. .wasting 2m of our money on a trail majority knew would fail is not seen as good spending in the publics eyes... money that could have been spent on a giant statue of archie would have actually achieved more then the temp closure of lendal (and got better press!) Archiebold the 1st
  • Score: -106

12:12pm Fri 11 Apr 14

petethefeet says...

I've resisted commenting on this issue until I've had time to consider it. When we were fighting the establishment of the Bail Hostel 20 years ago, I became aware that the negotiations with the probation officers had been conducted by 2 senior council officials. The councillors got the rotten job of monitoring the situation and were expected to 'take the heat' for the work of the faceless duo. Now, do we want to throw out another bunch of councillors, including the able David Merrett for similar reasons? The Liberals, including Steve Galloway, became the victims of the similar 'Water-End-Gate'. The truth is that the overall traffic policy is largely determined by Kirsten & her team.
So, what's behind this policy? The fact is that York is a popular & growing City. As the economy picks up just imagine how many new houses will be built in the York North-West sites. This is where the gridlock, pedalled by Paul, will be coming from. The council has done a great job in promoting cycling but getting people back onto buses is much more difficult. Normally, unless they are given advantage, they have to compete with the gridlocked traffic. So you're no better off timewise, you might have to sit next to smelly people and it costs a fortune because most of them are empty half-the-time.
I need to pinch myself but I'm actually quite impressed with James's handling of this affair. There is much more work to be done to convince people of York for the need for this and it might be that Buses simply aren't the answer. So, I'm cutting him some slack but I still won't vote labour because I think they are too free with public money!
I've resisted commenting on this issue until I've had time to consider it. When we were fighting the establishment of the Bail Hostel 20 years ago, I became aware that the negotiations with the probation officers had been conducted by 2 senior council officials. The councillors got the rotten job of monitoring the situation and were expected to 'take the heat' for the work of the faceless duo. Now, do we want to throw out another bunch of councillors, including the able David Merrett for similar reasons? The Liberals, including Steve Galloway, became the victims of the similar 'Water-End-Gate'. The truth is that the overall traffic policy is largely determined by Kirsten & her team. So, what's behind this policy? The fact is that York is a popular & growing City. As the economy picks up just imagine how many new houses will be built in the York North-West sites. This is where the gridlock, pedalled by Paul, will be coming from. The council has done a great job in promoting cycling but getting people back onto buses is much more difficult. Normally, unless they are given advantage, they have to compete with the gridlocked traffic. So you're no better off timewise, you might have to sit next to smelly people and it costs a fortune because most of them are empty half-the-time. I need to pinch myself but I'm actually quite impressed with James's handling of this affair. There is much more work to be done to convince people of York for the need for this and it might be that Buses simply aren't the answer. So, I'm cutting him some slack but I still won't vote labour because I think they are too free with public money! petethefeet
  • Score: -6

1:08pm Fri 11 Apr 14

the original Homer says...

petethefeet wrote:
I've resisted commenting on this issue until I've had time to consider it. When we were fighting the establishment of the Bail Hostel 20 years ago, I became aware that the negotiations with the probation officers had been conducted by 2 senior council officials. The councillors got the rotten job of monitoring the situation and were expected to 'take the heat' for the work of the faceless duo. Now, do we want to throw out another bunch of councillors, including the able David Merrett for similar reasons? The Liberals, including Steve Galloway, became the victims of the similar 'Water-End-Gate'. The truth is that the overall traffic policy is largely determined by Kirsten & her team.
So, what's behind this policy? The fact is that York is a popular & growing City. As the economy picks up just imagine how many new houses will be built in the York North-West sites. This is where the gridlock, pedalled by Paul, will be coming from. The council has done a great job in promoting cycling but getting people back onto buses is much more difficult. Normally, unless they are given advantage, they have to compete with the gridlocked traffic. So you're no better off timewise, you might have to sit next to smelly people and it costs a fortune because most of them are empty half-the-time.
I need to pinch myself but I'm actually quite impressed with James's handling of this affair. There is much more work to be done to convince people of York for the need for this and it might be that Buses simply aren't the answer. So, I'm cutting him some slack but I still won't vote labour because I think they are too free with public money!
But the Councilors are elected by us.

If, as you say, they are obeying orders from non-elected officials, then they need to rethink who gave them their job, and who has the power to get rid of them (i.e. us - the voters).

If they really were following policies they didn't believe in then they'd only have to speak out and they'd become our heroes.

I suspect their silence is because they do believe in the policies, and I also suspect that they set policies for the officials to follow, not the other way round.

If you are right and I'm wrong, then you have just made a very good case for not having elected Councillors at all. They are put there to make the policy makers answerable to the voters.

So, elected Councillors, here's your opportunity:

If you don't support the policies you're "fronting" tell us now, and we'll think a lot more of you.

If you do support the policies, keep doing what you're doing and we'll put you out of a job next election.
[quote][p][bold]petethefeet[/bold] wrote: I've resisted commenting on this issue until I've had time to consider it. When we were fighting the establishment of the Bail Hostel 20 years ago, I became aware that the negotiations with the probation officers had been conducted by 2 senior council officials. The councillors got the rotten job of monitoring the situation and were expected to 'take the heat' for the work of the faceless duo. Now, do we want to throw out another bunch of councillors, including the able David Merrett for similar reasons? The Liberals, including Steve Galloway, became the victims of the similar 'Water-End-Gate'. The truth is that the overall traffic policy is largely determined by Kirsten & her team. So, what's behind this policy? The fact is that York is a popular & growing City. As the economy picks up just imagine how many new houses will be built in the York North-West sites. This is where the gridlock, pedalled by Paul, will be coming from. The council has done a great job in promoting cycling but getting people back onto buses is much more difficult. Normally, unless they are given advantage, they have to compete with the gridlocked traffic. So you're no better off timewise, you might have to sit next to smelly people and it costs a fortune because most of them are empty half-the-time. I need to pinch myself but I'm actually quite impressed with James's handling of this affair. There is much more work to be done to convince people of York for the need for this and it might be that Buses simply aren't the answer. So, I'm cutting him some slack but I still won't vote labour because I think they are too free with public money![/p][/quote]But the Councilors are elected by us. If, as you say, they are obeying orders from non-elected officials, then they need to rethink who gave them their job, and who has the power to get rid of them (i.e. us - the voters). If they really were following policies they didn't believe in then they'd only have to speak out and they'd become our heroes. I suspect their silence is because they do believe in the policies, and I also suspect that they set policies for the officials to follow, not the other way round. If you are right and I'm wrong, then you have just made a very good case for not having elected Councillors at all. They are put there to make the policy makers answerable to the voters. So, elected Councillors, here's your opportunity: If you don't support the policies you're "fronting" tell us now, and we'll think a lot more of you. If you do support the policies, keep doing what you're doing and we'll put you out of a job next election. the original Homer
  • Score: 2

5:09pm Fri 11 Apr 14

petethefeet says...

In reply to the original Homer. I've noticed that James has used the term 'making tough decisions' at least twice, i.e. on this subject and in relation to the Clarence Street car-park. It's my suspicion that this is part of Kersten's brain-washing tactics and she gets straight to work whenever there is a change of ruling party. To be fair, the last thing we need is to be jumping from grand policy to another every few years. I've congratulated the French on having an 'all-party' policy in slowly building up the railways that has lasted 40 years.

In relation to this issue, the policy is about getting us to use alternative means of transport (for the reasons said). It's worked quite well for cycling but the bus issue has stalled - numbers are simply not rising. We are stuck in the catch-22 situation of buses been over-priced and suffering from all the same problems/delays as the self-drive alternative. So, somebody has determined that the only way to progress this issue is to give advantage to buses over cars. That policy, like central governments 30-year old march into further European integration has never been put to the people and that's why they are now paying the price. So, that's why I'm applauding James's statement that much more work needs to be done on getting the local populace on board. Having said that, I suspect it's a hopeless task unless a way can be found to break the chicken-and-egg problem and reduce the fares to a quid or less - something that the greens have been saying.
In reply to the original Homer. I've noticed that James has used the term 'making tough decisions' at least twice, i.e. on this subject and in relation to the Clarence Street car-park. It's my suspicion that this is part of Kersten's brain-washing tactics and she gets straight to work whenever there is a change of ruling party. To be fair, the last thing we need is to be jumping from grand policy to another every few years. I've congratulated the French on having an 'all-party' policy in slowly building up the railways that has lasted 40 years. In relation to this issue, the policy is about getting us to use alternative means of transport (for the reasons said). It's worked quite well for cycling but the bus issue has stalled - numbers are simply not rising. We are stuck in the catch-22 situation of buses been over-priced and suffering from all the same problems/delays as the self-drive alternative. So, somebody has determined that the only way to progress this issue is to give advantage to buses over cars. That policy, like central governments 30-year old march into further European integration has never been put to the people and that's why they are now paying the price. So, that's why I'm applauding James's statement that much more work needs to be done on getting the local populace on board. Having said that, I suspect it's a hopeless task unless a way can be found to break the chicken-and-egg problem and reduce the fares to a quid or less - something that the greens have been saying. petethefeet
  • Score: -1

5:53pm Fri 11 Apr 14

mmarshal says...

'Dave, don't worry; I'll support you.'
'Thanks James. If I say you're invaluable and you say the same aboutme, probably nobody will notice that we're both a waste of space and we can get back in at the next elections.'
'You're right. Goodnight Dave.'
'Goodnight James.'
'James.'
'Yes Dave.'
'You don't think they'll blame us for Lendal Folly.'
'Of Course not. Don't worry. Go to sleep Dave.'
'Dave, don't worry; I'll support you.' 'Thanks James. If I say you're invaluable and you say the same aboutme, probably nobody will notice that we're both a waste of space and we can get back in at the next elections.' 'You're right. Goodnight Dave.' 'Goodnight James.' 'James.' 'Yes Dave.' 'You don't think they'll blame us for Lendal Folly.' 'Of Course not. Don't worry. Go to sleep Dave.' mmarshal
  • Score: 4

6:41pm Fri 11 Apr 14

JasBro says...

petethefeet wrote:
In reply to the original Homer. I've noticed that James has used the term 'making tough decisions' at least twice, i.e. on this subject and in relation to the Clarence Street car-park. It's my suspicion that this is part of Kersten's brain-washing tactics and she gets straight to work whenever there is a change of ruling party. To be fair, the last thing we need is to be jumping from grand policy to another every few years. I've congratulated the French on having an 'all-party' policy in slowly building up the railways that has lasted 40 years.

In relation to this issue, the policy is about getting us to use alternative means of transport (for the reasons said). It's worked quite well for cycling but the bus issue has stalled - numbers are simply not rising. We are stuck in the catch-22 situation of buses been over-priced and suffering from all the same problems/delays as the self-drive alternative. So, somebody has determined that the only way to progress this issue is to give advantage to buses over cars. That policy, like central governments 30-year old march into further European integration has never been put to the people and that's why they are now paying the price. So, that's why I'm applauding James's statement that much more work needs to be done on getting the local populace on board. Having said that, I suspect it's a hopeless task unless a way can be found to break the chicken-and-egg problem and reduce the fares to a quid or less - something that the greens have been saying.
Some fair points but actually cycling numbers haven't changed substantially, in spite of all the efforts to encourage it.

Some figures from the DfT...
2000 - 6,103
2006 - 6,558
2012 - 5,559
[quote][p][bold]petethefeet[/bold] wrote: In reply to the original Homer. I've noticed that James has used the term 'making tough decisions' at least twice, i.e. on this subject and in relation to the Clarence Street car-park. It's my suspicion that this is part of Kersten's brain-washing tactics and she gets straight to work whenever there is a change of ruling party. To be fair, the last thing we need is to be jumping from grand policy to another every few years. I've congratulated the French on having an 'all-party' policy in slowly building up the railways that has lasted 40 years. In relation to this issue, the policy is about getting us to use alternative means of transport (for the reasons said). It's worked quite well for cycling but the bus issue has stalled - numbers are simply not rising. We are stuck in the catch-22 situation of buses been over-priced and suffering from all the same problems/delays as the self-drive alternative. So, somebody has determined that the only way to progress this issue is to give advantage to buses over cars. That policy, like central governments 30-year old march into further European integration has never been put to the people and that's why they are now paying the price. So, that's why I'm applauding James's statement that much more work needs to be done on getting the local populace on board. Having said that, I suspect it's a hopeless task unless a way can be found to break the chicken-and-egg problem and reduce the fares to a quid or less - something that the greens have been saying.[/p][/quote]Some fair points but actually cycling numbers haven't changed substantially, in spite of all the efforts to encourage it. Some figures from the DfT... 2000 - 6,103 2006 - 6,558 2012 - 5,559 JasBro
  • Score: 3

11:49am Sat 12 Apr 14

petethefeet says...

Promoting cycling is good for lots of reasons and, for the most part, it hasn't been the direct cause of reducing road capacity for cars. It seems that many people simply don't want to use buses (like me) and many others aren't interested in cycling.
The other thing people have to think about is the purpose behind all of this? People have to disabuse themselves of the notion that government bodies main purpose is public service. It isn't - the main purpose is running a job creation scheme. That's why they keep fixing things that have been fixed before and therefore they have to keep searching for reasons (policies) to drive that. Cynical?
Promoting cycling is good for lots of reasons and, for the most part, it hasn't been the direct cause of reducing road capacity for cars. It seems that many people simply don't want to use buses (like me) and many others aren't interested in cycling. The other thing people have to think about is the purpose behind all of this? People have to disabuse themselves of the notion that government bodies main purpose is public service. It isn't - the main purpose is running a job creation scheme. That's why they keep fixing things that have been fixed before and therefore they have to keep searching for reasons (policies) to drive that. Cynical? petethefeet
  • Score: 2

11:55am Sat 12 Apr 14

nomorenursing says...

pedalling paul wrote:
yorkiemum wrote:
Caecilius wrote:
strangebuttrue? wrote:
Why do the council keep saying they are concerned about traffic congestion in York when by the evidence of their own reports it is they who have caused it with the anti car schemes they have introduced since 2005?.
Their own reports say there has been no increase in the volume of traffic since 2005 following a decrease since 2002.
You will note of course that they do mainly talk about congestion rather than volume and just throw in lines every now and again about future increases in the number of cars to mislead people into believing that it is more traffic or volume that is the problem. It is not volume it is the deliberate creation of congestion to give the illusion of increased volume that is the problem.
Utter nonsense. The congestion is caused by cars, or more precisely by the people who choose to drive them. Car drivers will still be sitting in tailbacks on Saturday, just as they were sitting in them before the trial ever started, and wailing that everybody else is to blame. By 'anti car schemes', what you actually mean is any attempt to cater for those residents and visitors who don't choose to travel everywhere by car, or to challenge what some motorists believe to be their divine right to absolute priority over everyone else.
Caecilius what has made you so hateful towards motorists.With every post you seem to get more and more bitter. Please remember you are commenting about people and their lives.
I take it that the majority of posters here are car owners who have chosen to lead car dependant lifestyles. Nothing wrong with leaving the car on the drive and hopping on a bus or bike for your short, local journeys.
If you choose to sit in long queues and moan about "the traffic" when you are actually contributing to it, that's your choice.
I have lived and worked in York for 57 years and, like many other posters on here, have cycled, ridden mopeds, motorbikes and cars around this fair city in this time. I find the arguments either for or against cycle lanes or for 'traffic management' schemes around York becoming lost in bitterness and discrimination between the 'cycling' lobby and the general car user. After this latest debacle re Lendal Bridge it is about time that people realise that York has suffered from poor planning for years. York has grown so much in the last fifty years and as a consequence the infrastructure has not grown accordingly to cope with the increased amount of traffic. All we wish for is to get from say, Huntington to Acomb in around 20 or 30 minutes. Or, for people travelling into York via Holgate, Clifton Green, Bishopthorpe Rd, and all other main routes, not to be faced with one lane. Rather than ever slowing down the flow of traffic the roads should be made freer to move around. I am not talking about the side-streets (rat-runs) of old being opened up either, but for our main arterial roads being less shackled by poorly sited bus stops and pedestrian crossings (Holgate for instance). The cycle lane at Clifton Green was one such error. In all the years of cycling from Acomb to Clifton in my teens and later all I did was GET OFF MY BIKE FOR A SHORT TIME to avoid getting squashed by a bus or lorry before continuing in the saddle up Bootham or Shipton Rd. Plenty of friends of mine have been knocked off their bikes around York by careless drivers, plenty of pedestrians (including me), have been knocked over by cyclists riding on paths when they shouldn't have been. Plenty of cyclists ride around York dangerously with no lights whatsoever. Plenty of motorists drive around with lights not working. Everyone of us whether a cyclist or driver has a responsibility to be safe. The roads as we have them at the moment are not safe for cyclists (too many pot-holes for a start), the cycle paths we do have are pretty good and well used, but where the cyclist has to use the main road that is where common-sense must start to come into play. I saw that one man has started to video some of the bad practices of some cyclists recently... good! Because there's never a policeman around is there when stuff like that happens. I was recently given a two-fingered salute from a member of a Sunday cycling club because I was deemed to be driving on the right side of the road while he and his mates were riding four abreast over the centre white line! Do people wonder that allegations of arrogance are rife. Please calm down everyone. I have to travel all around the York,Selby and sometimes Doncaster area for my work as a nurse, and I do most of my shopping at Monks Cross because it's generally easier (that's the whole idea of shopping centres isn't it)! The current Labour council have not done themselves any favours, but neither did the Lib-Dems before them (even worse). Would a Tory council do any better? As I say, the last fifty years have shown that York Residents have been consistently poorly served (still waiting for a bus station), while the council have wonderfully bright, new headquarters to work in (good for them), we, the poorly served York Residents, continue to suffer from idealogical planning that is flawed and impractical.
[quote][p][bold]pedalling paul [/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]yorkiemum[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Caecilius[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]strangebuttrue?[/bold] wrote: Why do the council keep saying they are concerned about traffic congestion in York when by the evidence of their own reports it is they who have caused it with the anti car schemes they have introduced since 2005?. Their own reports say there has been no increase in the volume of traffic since 2005 following a decrease since 2002. You will note of course that they do mainly talk about congestion rather than volume and just throw in lines every now and again about future increases in the number of cars to mislead people into believing that it is more traffic or volume that is the problem. It is not volume it is the deliberate creation of congestion to give the illusion of increased volume that is the problem.[/p][/quote]Utter nonsense. The congestion is caused by cars, or more precisely by the people who choose to drive them. Car drivers will still be sitting in tailbacks on Saturday, just as they were sitting in them before the trial ever started, and wailing that everybody else is to blame. By 'anti car schemes', what you actually mean is any attempt to cater for those residents and visitors who don't choose to travel everywhere by car, or to challenge what some motorists believe to be their divine right to absolute priority over everyone else.[/p][/quote]Caecilius what has made you so hateful towards motorists.With every post you seem to get more and more bitter. Please remember you are commenting about people and their lives.[/p][/quote]I take it that the majority of posters here are car owners who have chosen to lead car dependant lifestyles. Nothing wrong with leaving the car on the drive and hopping on a bus or bike for your short, local journeys. If you choose to sit in long queues and moan about "the traffic" when you are actually contributing to it, that's your choice.[/p][/quote]I have lived and worked in York for 57 years and, like many other posters on here, have cycled, ridden mopeds, motorbikes and cars around this fair city in this time. I find the arguments either for or against cycle lanes or for 'traffic management' schemes around York becoming lost in bitterness and discrimination between the 'cycling' lobby and the general car user. After this latest debacle re Lendal Bridge it is about time that people realise that York has suffered from poor planning for years. York has grown so much in the last fifty years and as a consequence the infrastructure has not grown accordingly to cope with the increased amount of traffic. All we wish for is to get from say, Huntington to Acomb in around 20 or 30 minutes. Or, for people travelling into York via Holgate, Clifton Green, Bishopthorpe Rd, and all other main routes, not to be faced with one lane. Rather than ever slowing down the flow of traffic the roads should be made freer to move around. I am not talking about the side-streets (rat-runs) of old being opened up either, but for our main arterial roads being less shackled by poorly sited bus stops and pedestrian crossings (Holgate for instance). The cycle lane at Clifton Green was one such error. In all the years of cycling from Acomb to Clifton in my teens and later all I did was GET OFF MY BIKE FOR A SHORT TIME to avoid getting squashed by a bus or lorry before continuing in the saddle up Bootham or Shipton Rd. Plenty of friends of mine have been knocked off their bikes around York by careless drivers, plenty of pedestrians (including me), have been knocked over by cyclists riding on paths when they shouldn't have been. Plenty of cyclists ride around York dangerously with no lights whatsoever. Plenty of motorists drive around with lights not working. Everyone of us whether a cyclist or driver has a responsibility to be safe. The roads as we have them at the moment are not safe for cyclists (too many pot-holes for a start), the cycle paths we do have are pretty good and well used, but where the cyclist has to use the main road that is where common-sense must start to come into play. I saw that one man has started to video some of the bad practices of some cyclists recently... good! Because there's never a policeman around is there when stuff like that happens. I was recently given a two-fingered salute from a member of a Sunday cycling club because I was deemed to be driving on the right side of the road while he and his mates were riding four abreast over the centre white line! Do people wonder that allegations of arrogance are rife. Please calm down everyone. I have to travel all around the York,Selby and sometimes Doncaster area for my work as a nurse, and I do most of my shopping at Monks Cross because it's generally easier (that's the whole idea of shopping centres isn't it)! The current Labour council have not done themselves any favours, but neither did the Lib-Dems before them (even worse). Would a Tory council do any better? As I say, the last fifty years have shown that York Residents have been consistently poorly served (still waiting for a bus station), while the council have wonderfully bright, new headquarters to work in (good for them), we, the poorly served York Residents, continue to suffer from idealogical planning that is flawed and impractical. nomorenursing
  • Score: 11

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