REVEALED: Critical report that led to scrapping of Lendal Bridge trial

Public opposition to Lendal Bridge closure revealed in report

Public opposition to Lendal Bridge closure revealed in report

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

THE depth of opposition from businesses, visitors and residents to the Lendal Bridge traffic ban has been revealed in a report.

The document, which went to City of York Council's ruling Labour group before it decided last week to abandon the trial closure, said that in a poll of 326 businesses, 77 per cent felt it had had a "negative or very negative" impact on business.

>>>  Read the report here

And in a separate online survey of residents and visitors which drew 2,600 responses, 75 per cent said they thought the trial had had a "negative or very negative" impact on the city generally, with car drivers strongly against it and cyclists more positive.

The report says results have yet to be fully analysed and response data may have been skewed by people who have received fines.

Meanwhile, in an annual bus survey carried out in November, 79 per cent of passengers were "satisfied" with reliability, 27 per cent more than the year before, while 87 per cent were satisfied with the speed of services, compared with 66 per cent the previous year.

Bus operator First had also seen an average seven per cent increase in passengers during the trial, with more than 15,000 extra people using its services each week, and "better reliability" was one of the reasons for this with a 7.5 per cent rise in services running on time.

The bridge was fully reopened on Saturday, in the wake of a Government traffic adjudicator saying the council had no power to fine motorists who breached the restrictions on Lendal Bridge and Coppergate - a decision which the council is appealing against.

The report revealed that rising bollards, warning letters and "part-time enforcement" could have been considered if the traffic ban had continued.

It said a "significant proportion" of traffic delays in the city would have been tackled by lifting the bridge closure at 4pm, rather than 5pm, and revealed air quality in York had "generally improved" and traffic flows during the trial were "broadly the same" as those the year before, but with "significant differences between areas of the city".

The report said axing the restrictions would mean improvements to bus reliability and "pedestrian, cyclist and environmental benefits" being lost, but making them permanent was "not advised until [the] legal position [is] clarified."

>>>   Read the report here

Comments (65)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

10:48am Mon 14 Apr 14

Archiebold the 1st says...

Tripe... air quality has not improved? how is it measured? The council even said it wouldn't... The benefits in the report are all non measurable... Better environment for people to cycle and walk? how? with busses running across it every minute...

A rise in bus use down to a section of bridge being shut to cars? how are the two even related. Did the extra 15% of people need to go over the bridge in their car before? i doubt it. Surveys and statistics say what people want them too..

Was the survey of bus reliability taken on those whose service went over the bridge? Notice the survey results of this state satisfied... so don’t really care... if the bridge closure was making it amazing surly they would have replied more to very satisfied..

Sick of all the made up reports on this subject now. Face it York is a better place when we have an inner ring road... Closing the bridge has no positive impacts at all... just fictional ones.
Tripe... air quality has not improved? how is it measured? The council even said it wouldn't... The benefits in the report are all non measurable... Better environment for people to cycle and walk? how? with busses running across it every minute... A rise in bus use down to a section of bridge being shut to cars? how are the two even related. Did the extra 15% of people need to go over the bridge in their car before? i doubt it. Surveys and statistics say what people want them too.. Was the survey of bus reliability taken on those whose service went over the bridge? Notice the survey results of this state satisfied... so don’t really care... if the bridge closure was making it amazing surly they would have replied more to very satisfied.. Sick of all the made up reports on this subject now. Face it York is a better place when we have an inner ring road... Closing the bridge has no positive impacts at all... just fictional ones. Archiebold the 1st
  • Score: 1131

10:50am Mon 14 Apr 14

YOUWILLDOASISAY says...

The report says results have yet to be fully analysed and response data may have been skewed by people who have received fines.

Meanwhile, in an annual bus survey carried out in November, 79 per cent of passengers were "satisfied" with reliability, 27 per cent more than the year before, while 87 per cent were satisfied with the speed of services, compared with 66 per cent the previous year.

Funny how negative feed-back may have been skewed and yet positive feed-back is not questioned, just accepted, no further analysis required. I would question the 15,000 extra people using its services each week, conveniently announced as the University year started.

Looks like an example of making the facts fit the story you want to tell.
The report says results have yet to be fully analysed and response data may have been skewed by people who have received fines. Meanwhile, in an annual bus survey carried out in November, 79 per cent of passengers were "satisfied" with reliability, 27 per cent more than the year before, while 87 per cent were satisfied with the speed of services, compared with 66 per cent the previous year. Funny how negative feed-back may have been skewed and yet positive feed-back is not questioned, just accepted, no further analysis required. I would question the 15,000 extra people using its services each week, conveniently announced as the University year started. Looks like an example of making the facts fit the story you want to tell. YOUWILLDOASISAY
  • Score: 1082

10:53am Mon 14 Apr 14

strangebuttrue? says...

They just can't help being misleading can they. The report actually says: -

"Air quality across the city has generally improved"
"Background concentrations of nitrogen dioxide have fallen between 2012 and 2013 (a consequence of local weather conditions)"

It also said: -
"Traffic count data shows that traffic flows across York during the restricted period (2013/14) are broadly the same as traffic flows for the same period in 2012/13." So no decrease in volume and as we said it just moved it.

And despite the obvious opposition from both business and the residents of York against shutting the Bridge they still say: -

"Make Permanent – Not advised until legal position clarified"
Which they are going to challenge with thousands more of out hard earned money despite the fact the majority would not want this.
They just can't help being misleading can they. The report actually says: - "Air quality across the city has generally improved" "Background concentrations of nitrogen dioxide have fallen between 2012 and 2013 (a consequence of local weather conditions)" It also said: - "Traffic count data shows that traffic flows across York during the restricted period (2013/14) are broadly the same as traffic flows for the same period in 2012/13." So no decrease in volume and as we said it just moved it. And despite the obvious opposition from both business and the residents of York against shutting the Bridge they still say: - "Make Permanent – Not advised until legal position clarified" Which they are going to challenge with thousands more of out hard earned money despite the fact the majority would not want this. strangebuttrue?
  • Score: 1132

11:18am Mon 14 Apr 14

eeoodares says...

They do not listen, they do not care, they just want to stop cars because they have an axe to grind. I am sorry Semlyn that you had an accident on your bike, but to make a City pay for it is ridiculous. Merret start looking for a new job, you are toast!
They do not listen, they do not care, they just want to stop cars because they have an axe to grind. I am sorry Semlyn that you had an accident on your bike, but to make a City pay for it is ridiculous. Merret start looking for a new job, you are toast! eeoodares
  • Score: 1372

11:43am Mon 14 Apr 14

Kevin Turvey says...

‘eeoodares says...
Merret start looking for a new job, you are toast’


No, toast would be useful!
He and his cronies Simply Very Wrong, Little Jimmy ‘Lend me a Tanner’ Alexander et al are unelectable and unemployable so unfortunately they will be holding on with grim determination to the end leading to a huge determent to York Council taxpayers, York reputation, their party’s reputation and the spirit of democracy.
Perhaps the public need to find a way to prize their grip free sooner rather than later!

All three resign now, this is the public telling you and not party political minded go now, you are an embarrassment to yourselves and society in general!

Somebody who has overseen such a large financial debacle as this should resign immediately out of personal responsibility.
‘eeoodares says... Merret start looking for a new job, you are toast’ No, toast would be useful! He and his cronies Simply Very Wrong, Little Jimmy ‘Lend me a Tanner’ Alexander et al are unelectable and unemployable so unfortunately they will be holding on with grim determination to the end leading to a huge determent to York Council taxpayers, York reputation, their party’s reputation and the spirit of democracy. Perhaps the public need to find a way to prize their grip free sooner rather than later! All three resign now, this is the public telling you and not party political minded go now, you are an embarrassment to yourselves and society in general! Somebody who has overseen such a large financial debacle as this should resign immediately out of personal responsibility. Kevin Turvey
  • Score: 229

11:58am Mon 14 Apr 14

York2000 says...

Move on Stead, give it up. No doubt your Conservative friends have got a boost, so job done for you.
Move on Stead, give it up. No doubt your Conservative friends have got a boost, so job done for you. York2000
  • Score: -397

12:39pm Mon 14 Apr 14

ouseswimmer says...

Air quality was not measured in the new traffic jam hotspots. Whilst it continued to be measured in the old traffic jam hotspots related to Lendal Bridge. Therefore quality 'improved'

Students returning to college and Uni directly caused the increase in bus passenger numbers.
Air quality was not measured in the new traffic jam hotspots. Whilst it continued to be measured in the old traffic jam hotspots related to Lendal Bridge. Therefore quality 'improved' Students returning to college and Uni directly caused the increase in bus passenger numbers. ouseswimmer
  • Score: 1115

12:39pm Mon 14 Apr 14

bloodaxe says...

Time at Clarence Street/Lord Mayor's Walk traffic lights, to move 70 metres, 6.46 minutes, at 10.35. As predicted the congestion is moving back into the centre. The delay was not caused by the lights but by traffic backing up from Bootham and delivery vans in Gillygate.
Time at Clarence Street/Lord Mayor's Walk traffic lights, to move 70 metres, 6.46 minutes, at 10.35. As predicted the congestion is moving back into the centre. The delay was not caused by the lights but by traffic backing up from Bootham and delivery vans in Gillygate. bloodaxe
  • Score: 638

12:53pm Mon 14 Apr 14

bloodaxe says...

ouseswimmer wrote:
Air quality was not measured in the new traffic jam hotspots. Whilst it continued to be measured in the old traffic jam hotspots related to Lendal Bridge. Therefore quality 'improved'

Students returning to college and Uni directly caused the increase in bus passenger numbers.
Compared with when ? The trial period ran over the Christmas vac. I'm afraid that reactions to this episode are more akin to theology than geography. Clearly hardwired motorists who never walk and expect to be able to drive from their sitting rooms to every conceivable destination will never agree to any sort of restriction on their UN guaranteed rights. Cyclists who want the right to avoid being crushed by vehicles but also the right to barge pedestrians probably saw it as a positive thing and pedestrians who simply want to walk and breathe at the same time will probably get on a train and go to Leeds. What is really bad is that the many good things which the city council do have been buried under a relatively minor inconvenience for a few.
[quote][p][bold]ouseswimmer[/bold] wrote: Air quality was not measured in the new traffic jam hotspots. Whilst it continued to be measured in the old traffic jam hotspots related to Lendal Bridge. Therefore quality 'improved' Students returning to college and Uni directly caused the increase in bus passenger numbers.[/p][/quote]Compared with when ? The trial period ran over the Christmas vac. I'm afraid that reactions to this episode are more akin to theology than geography. Clearly hardwired motorists who never walk and expect to be able to drive from their sitting rooms to every conceivable destination will never agree to any sort of restriction on their UN guaranteed rights. Cyclists who want the right to avoid being crushed by vehicles but also the right to barge pedestrians probably saw it as a positive thing and pedestrians who simply want to walk and breathe at the same time will probably get on a train and go to Leeds. What is really bad is that the many good things which the city council do have been buried under a relatively minor inconvenience for a few. bloodaxe
  • Score: 890

12:57pm Mon 14 Apr 14

DB Bowman says...

Well, I have to hand it to this this council. I'm not sure what more they could have done to make themselves unelectable, short of closing down the Barbican and trying to demolish it, but getting caught in a legal quagmire for... oh, wait.

Meanwhile, Selby's Tory-led council continues to make their York counterparts look like the rank amateurs they are.
Well, I have to hand it to this this council. I'm not sure what more they could have done to make themselves unelectable, short of closing down the Barbican and trying to demolish it, but getting caught in a legal quagmire for... oh, wait. Meanwhile, Selby's Tory-led council continues to make their York counterparts look like the rank amateurs they are. DB Bowman
  • Score: -243

12:59pm Mon 14 Apr 14

THEWlZZARD says...

I hope this is one of the issues that gets the people of York to get rid of the current Labour council. They have done so much damage to York since they started its unbelievable.
I hope this is one of the issues that gets the people of York to get rid of the current Labour council. They have done so much damage to York since they started its unbelievable. THEWlZZARD
  • Score: -212

1:00pm Mon 14 Apr 14

pedalling paul says...

I'm sure that the independent Report from the Leeds University-based Institute of Transport Studies will make very interesting reading. Also the planned cross-party independently Chaired Congestion commission will have some hard thinking to do. The Report published today is a foretaste of the very significant issues that they must address.
Doing nothing, and allowing unrestrained car access to the centre, are not a viable long term option. That is made very clear. I spotted a mention of congestion charging.........!!
I'm sure that the independent Report from the Leeds University-based Institute of Transport Studies will make very interesting reading. Also the planned cross-party independently Chaired Congestion commission will have some hard thinking to do. The Report published today is a foretaste of the very significant issues that they must address. Doing nothing, and allowing unrestrained car access to the centre, are not a viable long term option. That is made very clear. I spotted a mention of congestion charging.........!! pedalling paul
  • Score: 49

1:11pm Mon 14 Apr 14

eeoodares says...

bloodaxe wrote:
ouseswimmer wrote:
Air quality was not measured in the new traffic jam hotspots. Whilst it continued to be measured in the old traffic jam hotspots related to Lendal Bridge. Therefore quality 'improved'

Students returning to college and Uni directly caused the increase in bus passenger numbers.
Compared with when ? The trial period ran over the Christmas vac. I'm afraid that reactions to this episode are more akin to theology than geography. Clearly hardwired motorists who never walk and expect to be able to drive from their sitting rooms to every conceivable destination will never agree to any sort of restriction on their UN guaranteed rights. Cyclists who want the right to avoid being crushed by vehicles but also the right to barge pedestrians probably saw it as a positive thing and pedestrians who simply want to walk and breathe at the same time will probably get on a train and go to Leeds. What is really bad is that the many good things which the city council do have been buried under a relatively minor inconvenience for a few.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAH


Yeah, Leeds the car-free, clean air city!!!!! Just think before you type!

If you wanted to separate people from vehicles coming from the Station to the City Centre, build a footbridge from North Street. It would be popular, it could be beautiful and with Corporate sponsorship it could be virtually free!

Please tell me about the good things the council do? They have their own agenda, which does not reflect the hopes and aspirations of its electorate, they are there to serve us, not to set about changing the face of a City without the express consent of those who live here and put them in power!

Finally, what are the UN rights you are referring to?
[quote][p][bold]bloodaxe[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ouseswimmer[/bold] wrote: Air quality was not measured in the new traffic jam hotspots. Whilst it continued to be measured in the old traffic jam hotspots related to Lendal Bridge. Therefore quality 'improved' Students returning to college and Uni directly caused the increase in bus passenger numbers.[/p][/quote]Compared with when ? The trial period ran over the Christmas vac. I'm afraid that reactions to this episode are more akin to theology than geography. Clearly hardwired motorists who never walk and expect to be able to drive from their sitting rooms to every conceivable destination will never agree to any sort of restriction on their UN guaranteed rights. Cyclists who want the right to avoid being crushed by vehicles but also the right to barge pedestrians probably saw it as a positive thing and pedestrians who simply want to walk and breathe at the same time will probably get on a train and go to Leeds. What is really bad is that the many good things which the city council do have been buried under a relatively minor inconvenience for a few.[/p][/quote]HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAH Yeah, Leeds the car-free, clean air city!!!!! Just think before you type! If you wanted to separate people from vehicles coming from the Station to the City Centre, build a footbridge from North Street. It would be popular, it could be beautiful and with Corporate sponsorship it could be virtually free! Please tell me about the good things the council do? They have their own agenda, which does not reflect the hopes and aspirations of its electorate, they are there to serve us, not to set about changing the face of a City without the express consent of those who live here and put them in power! Finally, what are the UN rights you are referring to? eeoodares
  • Score: -73

1:14pm Mon 14 Apr 14

Richard Catton says...

York2000 wrote:
Move on Stead, give it up. No doubt your Conservative friends have got a boost, so job done for you.
Ridiculous
[quote][p][bold]York2000[/bold] wrote: Move on Stead, give it up. No doubt your Conservative friends have got a boost, so job done for you.[/p][/quote]Ridiculous Richard Catton
  • Score: -25

1:15pm Mon 14 Apr 14

yorkshirelad says...

Most of the comments above show that this issue - of massive importance for our city - has been hijacked for political ends. One can only assume it is Lib Dem or Conservative activists at work but they will know full well that if they happened to be elected in York, they would face the same difficult decisions on congestion, pollution and health - all sacrificed for political expediency in the Lendal Bridge issue.

The Press clearly sided with one section of York but they do this at their peril...many young people find the Press grumpy and depressing with it's right-wing reactionary tone... hardly any young folk seem to bother with it nowadays.

Walking over the Bridge was a pleasure..(generally less congested with some too high speeds though) ...great while it lasted.

Remember the footstreets and the vision they took... who now would reverse that change and yet it was bitterly resisted at the time. York will regret the lack of political consensus which would have put the city first and ultimately (though like the footstreets not in the short term) would have been very popular in time.

The political ping-pong over transport in York has to end now.
Most of the comments above show that this issue - of massive importance for our city - has been hijacked for political ends. One can only assume it is Lib Dem or Conservative activists at work but they will know full well that if they happened to be elected in York, they would face the same difficult decisions on congestion, pollution and health - all sacrificed for political expediency in the Lendal Bridge issue. The Press clearly sided with one section of York but they do this at their peril...many young people find the Press grumpy and depressing with it's right-wing reactionary tone... hardly any young folk seem to bother with it nowadays. Walking over the Bridge was a pleasure..(generally less congested with some too high speeds though) ...great while it lasted. Remember the footstreets and the vision they took... who now would reverse that change and yet it was bitterly resisted at the time. York will regret the lack of political consensus which would have put the city first and ultimately (though like the footstreets not in the short term) would have been very popular in time. The political ping-pong over transport in York has to end now. yorkshirelad
  • Score: 82

1:30pm Mon 14 Apr 14

Archiebold the 1st says...

yorkshirelad wrote:
Most of the comments above show that this issue - of massive importance for our city - has been hijacked for political ends. One can only assume it is Lib Dem or Conservative activists at work but they will know full well that if they happened to be elected in York, they would face the same difficult decisions on congestion, pollution and health - all sacrificed for political expediency in the Lendal Bridge issue. The Press clearly sided with one section of York but they do this at their peril...many young people find the Press grumpy and depressing with it's right-wing reactionary tone... hardly any young folk seem to bother with it nowadays. Walking over the Bridge was a pleasure..(generally less congested with some too high speeds though) ...great while it lasted. Remember the footstreets and the vision they took... who now would reverse that change and yet it was bitterly resisted at the time. York will regret the lack of political consensus which would have put the city first and ultimately (though like the footstreets not in the short term) would have been very popular in time. The political ping-pong over transport in York has to end now.
Not so pleasant when a bus goes tanking by blowing its fumes directly onto the pedestrian side of the path? But your right, traffic chaos and millions wasted for a nice 100m stretch where pedestrians (most of who couldn’t care less if cars were there or not) can walk without cars next to a road was worth it. This scheme wasn’t aimed at improving York’s congestion read the initial main target. It was for air improvements. Which letting busses over was never going to achieve this.

The only people making this political or even mentioning political agendas are the pro labour. Those of us who couldn't give a sh@t about political parties still hate the current lot in change for wasting our money, damaging businesses and causing traffic mayhem. Bez could have spent the money wiser and has off his face 90% of the time...
[quote][p][bold]yorkshirelad[/bold] wrote: Most of the comments above show that this issue - of massive importance for our city - has been hijacked for political ends. One can only assume it is Lib Dem or Conservative activists at work but they will know full well that if they happened to be elected in York, they would face the same difficult decisions on congestion, pollution and health - all sacrificed for political expediency in the Lendal Bridge issue. The Press clearly sided with one section of York but they do this at their peril...many young people find the Press grumpy and depressing with it's right-wing reactionary tone... hardly any young folk seem to bother with it nowadays. Walking over the Bridge was a pleasure..(generally less congested with some too high speeds though) ...great while it lasted. Remember the footstreets and the vision they took... who now would reverse that change and yet it was bitterly resisted at the time. York will regret the lack of political consensus which would have put the city first and ultimately (though like the footstreets not in the short term) would have been very popular in time. The political ping-pong over transport in York has to end now.[/p][/quote]Not so pleasant when a bus goes tanking by blowing its fumes directly onto the pedestrian side of the path? But your right, traffic chaos and millions wasted for a nice 100m stretch where pedestrians (most of who couldn’t care less if cars were there or not) can walk without cars next to a road was worth it. This scheme wasn’t aimed at improving York’s congestion read the initial main target. It was for air improvements. Which letting busses over was never going to achieve this. The only people making this political or even mentioning political agendas are the pro labour. Those of us who couldn't give a sh@t about political parties still hate the current lot in change for wasting our money, damaging businesses and causing traffic mayhem. Bez could have spent the money wiser and has off his face 90% of the time... Archiebold the 1st
  • Score: -59

1:32pm Mon 14 Apr 14

THEWlZZARD says...

I agree with you yorkshirelad, congestion needs to be tackled and the traffic free bridge was a pleasure. But the issue is HOW it was done. It was done in a bungling incompetent manner by a City Council that haven't got a clue. This is the City Council that want to build all over our green belts and destroy every green area they can get their grubby hands on. If they can't sort out the traffic over a bridge then who would trust them to do anything?
I agree with you yorkshirelad, congestion needs to be tackled and the traffic free bridge was a pleasure. But the issue is HOW it was done. It was done in a bungling incompetent manner by a City Council that haven't got a clue. This is the City Council that want to build all over our green belts and destroy every green area they can get their grubby hands on. If they can't sort out the traffic over a bridge then who would trust them to do anything? THEWlZZARD
  • Score: 20

1:36pm Mon 14 Apr 14

Archiebold the 1st says...

bloodaxe wrote:
Time at Clarence Street/Lord Mayor's Walk traffic lights, to move 70 metres, 6.46 minutes, at 10.35. As predicted the congestion is moving back into the centre. The delay was not caused by the lights but by traffic backing up from Bootham and delivery vans in Gillygate.
So a delivery van caused you delay so the bridge should be shut?

So ok you say 6/7min delay... how long would it have taken you to go all the way around should the bridge have be closed? How much extra fumes would have been emitted from your car?

My point is it might seem like a long delay time but its quicker and cheaper then driving around the whole city centre to get to your destination.
[quote][p][bold]bloodaxe[/bold] wrote: Time at Clarence Street/Lord Mayor's Walk traffic lights, to move 70 metres, 6.46 minutes, at 10.35. As predicted the congestion is moving back into the centre. The delay was not caused by the lights but by traffic backing up from Bootham and delivery vans in Gillygate.[/p][/quote]So a delivery van caused you delay so the bridge should be shut? So ok you say 6/7min delay... how long would it have taken you to go all the way around should the bridge have be closed? How much extra fumes would have been emitted from your car? My point is it might seem like a long delay time but its quicker and cheaper then driving around the whole city centre to get to your destination. Archiebold the 1st
  • Score: -29

1:44pm Mon 14 Apr 14

Archiebold the 1st says...

pedalling paul wrote:
I'm sure that the independent Report from the Leeds University-based Institute of Transport Studies will make very interesting reading. Also the planned cross-party independently Chaired Congestion commission will have some hard thinking to do. The Report published today is a foretaste of the very significant issues that they must address. Doing nothing, and allowing unrestrained car access to the centre, are not a viable long term option. That is made very clear. I spotted a mention of congestion charging.........!!
neither is banning cars or charging people to enter their city to shop! If they move this way then the city centre economy will be crippled!

Doing nothing is an option paul... do you know why? people would rather wait in a bit of traffic then use a) a bus which doesn’t run decently and costs well over the odds b) cycle, as with shopping its pretty hard c) walk, walking with shopping can be hard if you live miles away.

All the anti car lot who say this is such a big issue can you explain why? apart from using mythical reports that say soon we will run out of room? You don't drive in the centre (neither do i!) so why are you bothered?

I can promise you this, if a trial like this is done again, or indeed if cars are banned or a congestion chrage implemented, you will all be the cause for yorks economy collapsing.

I suggest you see how traffic goes as opening up the new shopping park will take a lot of traffic out of the city and don't just think a pleasant walk is worth the consequences of crippling much needed local businesses.
[quote][p][bold]pedalling paul [/bold] wrote: I'm sure that the independent Report from the Leeds University-based Institute of Transport Studies will make very interesting reading. Also the planned cross-party independently Chaired Congestion commission will have some hard thinking to do. The Report published today is a foretaste of the very significant issues that they must address. Doing nothing, and allowing unrestrained car access to the centre, are not a viable long term option. That is made very clear. I spotted a mention of congestion charging.........!![/p][/quote]neither is banning cars or charging people to enter their city to shop! If they move this way then the city centre economy will be crippled! Doing nothing is an option paul... do you know why? people would rather wait in a bit of traffic then use a) a bus which doesn’t run decently and costs well over the odds b) cycle, as with shopping its pretty hard c) walk, walking with shopping can be hard if you live miles away. All the anti car lot who say this is such a big issue can you explain why? apart from using mythical reports that say soon we will run out of room? You don't drive in the centre (neither do i!) so why are you bothered? I can promise you this, if a trial like this is done again, or indeed if cars are banned or a congestion chrage implemented, you will all be the cause for yorks economy collapsing. I suggest you see how traffic goes as opening up the new shopping park will take a lot of traffic out of the city and don't just think a pleasant walk is worth the consequences of crippling much needed local businesses. Archiebold the 1st
  • Score: -20

1:48pm Mon 14 Apr 14

DB Bowman says...

yorkshirelad wrote:
Most of the comments above show that this issue - of massive importance for our city - has been hijacked for political ends. One can only assume it is Lib Dem or Conservative activists at work but they will know full well that if they happened to be elected in York, they would face the same difficult decisions on congestion, pollution and health - all sacrificed for political expediency in the Lendal Bridge issue.

The Press clearly sided with one section of York but they do this at their peril...many young people find the Press grumpy and depressing with it's right-wing reactionary tone... hardly any young folk seem to bother with it nowadays.

Walking over the Bridge was a pleasure..(generally less congested with some too high speeds though) ...great while it lasted.

Remember the footstreets and the vision they took... who now would reverse that change and yet it was bitterly resisted at the time. York will regret the lack of political consensus which would have put the city first and ultimately (though like the footstreets not in the short term) would have been very popular in time.

The political ping-pong over transport in York has to end now.
Unless you're suggesting tearing down half of the city centre in order to build new roads and dual carriageways, there simply isn't any way to significantly improve the flow of traffic in the centre of York. This council took a situation where the best course of action was to do nothing, and somehow managed to balls it up spectacularly.
[quote][p][bold]yorkshirelad[/bold] wrote: Most of the comments above show that this issue - of massive importance for our city - has been hijacked for political ends. One can only assume it is Lib Dem or Conservative activists at work but they will know full well that if they happened to be elected in York, they would face the same difficult decisions on congestion, pollution and health - all sacrificed for political expediency in the Lendal Bridge issue. The Press clearly sided with one section of York but they do this at their peril...many young people find the Press grumpy and depressing with it's right-wing reactionary tone... hardly any young folk seem to bother with it nowadays. Walking over the Bridge was a pleasure..(generally less congested with some too high speeds though) ...great while it lasted. Remember the footstreets and the vision they took... who now would reverse that change and yet it was bitterly resisted at the time. York will regret the lack of political consensus which would have put the city first and ultimately (though like the footstreets not in the short term) would have been very popular in time. The political ping-pong over transport in York has to end now.[/p][/quote]Unless you're suggesting tearing down half of the city centre in order to build new roads and dual carriageways, there simply isn't any way to significantly improve the flow of traffic in the centre of York. This council took a situation where the best course of action was to do nothing, and somehow managed to balls it up spectacularly. DB Bowman
  • Score: 8

2:00pm Mon 14 Apr 14

pedalling paul says...

Archiebold the 1st wrote:
pedalling paul wrote:
I'm sure that the independent Report from the Leeds University-based Institute of Transport Studies will make very interesting reading. Also the planned cross-party independently Chaired Congestion commission will have some hard thinking to do. The Report published today is a foretaste of the very significant issues that they must address. Doing nothing, and allowing unrestrained car access to the centre, are not a viable long term option. That is made very clear. I spotted a mention of congestion charging.........!!
neither is banning cars or charging people to enter their city to shop! If they move this way then the city centre economy will be crippled!

Doing nothing is an option paul... do you know why? people would rather wait in a bit of traffic then use a) a bus which doesn’t run decently and costs well over the odds b) cycle, as with shopping its pretty hard c) walk, walking with shopping can be hard if you live miles away.

All the anti car lot who say this is such a big issue can you explain why? apart from using mythical reports that say soon we will run out of room? You don't drive in the centre (neither do i!) so why are you bothered?

I can promise you this, if a trial like this is done again, or indeed if cars are banned or a congestion chrage implemented, you will all be the cause for yorks economy collapsing.

I suggest you see how traffic goes as opening up the new shopping park will take a lot of traffic out of the city and don't just think a pleasant walk is worth the consequences of crippling much needed local businesses.
Question...why don't buses "run decently" as you phrase it? Simply because they are competing for the same roaad space for most of their journeys, except where priority measures, begrudged by many here, ahave been installed.
If there were fewrer cars being used for short distance commutes, with the car parked up all day, the buses would be able to offer a very competitive service. The phrase "Chicken and Egg" springs to mind.
[quote][p][bold]Archiebold the 1st[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]pedalling paul [/bold] wrote: I'm sure that the independent Report from the Leeds University-based Institute of Transport Studies will make very interesting reading. Also the planned cross-party independently Chaired Congestion commission will have some hard thinking to do. The Report published today is a foretaste of the very significant issues that they must address. Doing nothing, and allowing unrestrained car access to the centre, are not a viable long term option. That is made very clear. I spotted a mention of congestion charging.........!![/p][/quote]neither is banning cars or charging people to enter their city to shop! If they move this way then the city centre economy will be crippled! Doing nothing is an option paul... do you know why? people would rather wait in a bit of traffic then use a) a bus which doesn’t run decently and costs well over the odds b) cycle, as with shopping its pretty hard c) walk, walking with shopping can be hard if you live miles away. All the anti car lot who say this is such a big issue can you explain why? apart from using mythical reports that say soon we will run out of room? You don't drive in the centre (neither do i!) so why are you bothered? I can promise you this, if a trial like this is done again, or indeed if cars are banned or a congestion chrage implemented, you will all be the cause for yorks economy collapsing. I suggest you see how traffic goes as opening up the new shopping park will take a lot of traffic out of the city and don't just think a pleasant walk is worth the consequences of crippling much needed local businesses.[/p][/quote]Question...why don't buses "run decently" as you phrase it? Simply because they are competing for the same roaad space for most of their journeys, except where priority measures, begrudged by many here, ahave been installed. If there were fewrer cars being used for short distance commutes, with the car parked up all day, the buses would be able to offer a very competitive service. The phrase "Chicken and Egg" springs to mind. pedalling paul
  • Score: 15

2:08pm Mon 14 Apr 14

JasBro says...

yorkshirelad wrote:
Most of the comments above show that this issue - of massive importance for our city - has been hijacked for political ends. One can only assume it is Lib Dem or Conservative activists at work but they will know full well that if they happened to be elected in York, they would face the same difficult decisions on congestion, pollution and health - all sacrificed for political expediency in the Lendal Bridge issue.

The Press clearly sided with one section of York but they do this at their peril...many young people find the Press grumpy and depressing with it's right-wing reactionary tone... hardly any young folk seem to bother with it nowadays.

Walking over the Bridge was a pleasure..(generally less congested with some too high speeds though) ...great while it lasted.

Remember the footstreets and the vision they took... who now would reverse that change and yet it was bitterly resisted at the time. York will regret the lack of political consensus which would have put the city first and ultimately (though like the footstreets not in the short term) would have been very popular in time.

The political ping-pong over transport in York has to end now.
Unless the politicians and traffic planners take the time and effort to achieve some sort of popular consensus, the political ping-pong is inevitable. That's democracy for you.

Unfortunately, politicians and traffic planners don't seem very bright. They would love to bypass popular opinion, but seem to forget that we have elections.
[quote][p][bold]yorkshirelad[/bold] wrote: Most of the comments above show that this issue - of massive importance for our city - has been hijacked for political ends. One can only assume it is Lib Dem or Conservative activists at work but they will know full well that if they happened to be elected in York, they would face the same difficult decisions on congestion, pollution and health - all sacrificed for political expediency in the Lendal Bridge issue. The Press clearly sided with one section of York but they do this at their peril...many young people find the Press grumpy and depressing with it's right-wing reactionary tone... hardly any young folk seem to bother with it nowadays. Walking over the Bridge was a pleasure..(generally less congested with some too high speeds though) ...great while it lasted. Remember the footstreets and the vision they took... who now would reverse that change and yet it was bitterly resisted at the time. York will regret the lack of political consensus which would have put the city first and ultimately (though like the footstreets not in the short term) would have been very popular in time. The political ping-pong over transport in York has to end now.[/p][/quote]Unless the politicians and traffic planners take the time and effort to achieve some sort of popular consensus, the political ping-pong is inevitable. That's democracy for you. Unfortunately, politicians and traffic planners don't seem very bright. They would love to bypass popular opinion, but seem to forget that we have elections. JasBro
  • Score: -26

2:10pm Mon 14 Apr 14

Archiebold the 1st says...

pedalling paul wrote:
Archiebold the 1st wrote:
pedalling paul wrote: I'm sure that the independent Report from the Leeds University-based Institute of Transport Studies will make very interesting reading. Also the planned cross-party independently Chaired Congestion commission will have some hard thinking to do. The Report published today is a foretaste of the very significant issues that they must address. Doing nothing, and allowing unrestrained car access to the centre, are not a viable long term option. That is made very clear. I spotted a mention of congestion charging.........!!
neither is banning cars or charging people to enter their city to shop! If they move this way then the city centre economy will be crippled! Doing nothing is an option paul... do you know why? people would rather wait in a bit of traffic then use a) a bus which doesn’t run decently and costs well over the odds b) cycle, as with shopping its pretty hard c) walk, walking with shopping can be hard if you live miles away. All the anti car lot who say this is such a big issue can you explain why? apart from using mythical reports that say soon we will run out of room? You don't drive in the centre (neither do i!) so why are you bothered? I can promise you this, if a trial like this is done again, or indeed if cars are banned or a congestion chrage implemented, you will all be the cause for yorks economy collapsing. I suggest you see how traffic goes as opening up the new shopping park will take a lot of traffic out of the city and don't just think a pleasant walk is worth the consequences of crippling much needed local businesses.
Question...why don't buses "run decently" as you phrase it? Simply because they are competing for the same roaad space for most of their journeys, except where priority measures, begrudged by many here, ahave been installed. If there were fewrer cars being used for short distance commutes, with the car parked up all day, the buses would be able to offer a very competitive service. The phrase "Chicken and Egg" springs to mind.
Ok for example Paul if you live in cop or acomb park the once every hour bus service really isn’t that convenient? Especially as it does a loop woodthorpe and then tesco... not what I would call a quick and convenient option. This service has been cut and changed in recent years meaning a large area on the outskirt of town doesn't really have a better option then to drive into town. (or drive to tesco park there and wait for the p&r to set off with no set timescales, you can sit on one for 10mins before it even sets off.)

Then I’d say why pay £3+ for the bus when you can nip into town in your car, pay for an hours parking and get home within the hour? Could a once an hour bus service do this? Or would it take around 2 hours? (Being kind there!).

Time is money. I wouldn't pay more and waste time for something that doesn’t offer me any benefits? Would you?
[quote][p][bold]pedalling paul [/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Archiebold the 1st[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]pedalling paul [/bold] wrote: I'm sure that the independent Report from the Leeds University-based Institute of Transport Studies will make very interesting reading. Also the planned cross-party independently Chaired Congestion commission will have some hard thinking to do. The Report published today is a foretaste of the very significant issues that they must address. Doing nothing, and allowing unrestrained car access to the centre, are not a viable long term option. That is made very clear. I spotted a mention of congestion charging.........!![/p][/quote]neither is banning cars or charging people to enter their city to shop! If they move this way then the city centre economy will be crippled! Doing nothing is an option paul... do you know why? people would rather wait in a bit of traffic then use a) a bus which doesn’t run decently and costs well over the odds b) cycle, as with shopping its pretty hard c) walk, walking with shopping can be hard if you live miles away. All the anti car lot who say this is such a big issue can you explain why? apart from using mythical reports that say soon we will run out of room? You don't drive in the centre (neither do i!) so why are you bothered? I can promise you this, if a trial like this is done again, or indeed if cars are banned or a congestion chrage implemented, you will all be the cause for yorks economy collapsing. I suggest you see how traffic goes as opening up the new shopping park will take a lot of traffic out of the city and don't just think a pleasant walk is worth the consequences of crippling much needed local businesses.[/p][/quote]Question...why don't buses "run decently" as you phrase it? Simply because they are competing for the same roaad space for most of their journeys, except where priority measures, begrudged by many here, ahave been installed. If there were fewrer cars being used for short distance commutes, with the car parked up all day, the buses would be able to offer a very competitive service. The phrase "Chicken and Egg" springs to mind.[/p][/quote]Ok for example Paul if you live in cop or acomb park the once every hour bus service really isn’t that convenient? Especially as it does a loop woodthorpe and then tesco... not what I would call a quick and convenient option. This service has been cut and changed in recent years meaning a large area on the outskirt of town doesn't really have a better option then to drive into town. (or drive to tesco park there and wait for the p&r to set off with no set timescales, you can sit on one for 10mins before it even sets off.) Then I’d say why pay £3+ for the bus when you can nip into town in your car, pay for an hours parking and get home within the hour? Could a once an hour bus service do this? Or would it take around 2 hours? (Being kind there!). Time is money. I wouldn't pay more and waste time for something that doesn’t offer me any benefits? Would you? Archiebold the 1st
  • Score: -27

2:30pm Mon 14 Apr 14

pedalling paul says...

I wonder whether Mark Stead's use of the word "Critical" should be read as "Vital". The content seems to look equally at both sides of the debate.
I wonder whether Mark Stead's use of the word "Critical" should be read as "Vital". The content seems to look equally at both sides of the debate. pedalling paul
  • Score: 16

2:31pm Mon 14 Apr 14

yorkshirelad says...

DB Bowman wrote:
'Unless you're suggesting tearing down half of the city centre in order to build new roads and dual carriageways, there simply isn't any way to significantly improve the flow of traffic in the centre of York.'

Yes - I agree, we are at capacity. But there is a way to make small historic cities much better for everyone. It's happening all over the world, but notably in the Netherlands, Denmark, Germany etc. There are case histories all over the place but the transformation of Delft in the Netherlands seems relatively comparable to what York could achieve. Whether or not we will do similar remains to be seen as there just seems to be an altogether different attitude to these things in many other countries.

I googled Delft and came up with this. For those not bothered to click the link, it begins:

'For my parents, a lot of that business was done by car. When I was growing up, my dad would happily negotiate the narrow canal-side streets, park on the very edge of the canal, or else on the expansive market square between the New Church and City Hall. Buses would pile into the same market square to disgorge hordes of tourists following umbrellas. Trucks would come in for deliveries, causing traffic jams in the one-way streets. I didn't realise it at the time, but it probably stank of exhaust - none of it unleaded.

In the late 1970s, the city of Delft decided to do something about the noise and the pollution. Since then, it has been a pioneer on a long but inexorable path to reclaim life from the effects of car traffic.....'

Sound a bit like York now? Have a look at the rest of the blog at:
http://www.cellomomc
ars.com/2013/08/ten-
ways-to-calm-car-tra
ffic.html

I suspect we'll go that way in the end but probably 50 years after Delft and the rest of them...
DB Bowman wrote: 'Unless you're suggesting tearing down half of the city centre in order to build new roads and dual carriageways, there simply isn't any way to significantly improve the flow of traffic in the centre of York.' Yes - I agree, we are at capacity. But there is a way to make small historic cities much better for everyone. It's happening all over the world, but notably in the Netherlands, Denmark, Germany etc. There are case histories all over the place but the transformation of Delft in the Netherlands seems relatively comparable to what York could achieve. Whether or not we will do similar remains to be seen as there just seems to be an altogether different attitude to these things in many other countries. I googled Delft and came up with this. For those not bothered to click the link, it begins: 'For my parents, a lot of that business was done by car. When I was growing up, my dad would happily negotiate the narrow canal-side streets, park on the very edge of the canal, or else on the expansive market square between the New Church and City Hall. Buses would pile into the same market square to disgorge hordes of tourists following umbrellas. Trucks would come in for deliveries, causing traffic jams in the one-way streets. I didn't realise it at the time, but it probably stank of exhaust - none of it unleaded. In the late 1970s, the city of Delft decided to do something about the noise and the pollution. Since then, it has been a pioneer on a long but inexorable path to reclaim life from the effects of car traffic.....' Sound a bit like York now? Have a look at the rest of the blog at: http://www.cellomomc ars.com/2013/08/ten- ways-to-calm-car-tra ffic.html I suspect we'll go that way in the end but probably 50 years after Delft and the rest of them... yorkshirelad
  • Score: -1

2:39pm Mon 14 Apr 14

piaggio1 says...

Strange.bout 12, 30 today .saw this lot all down nunnery lane.mr alexander in a stunnin blue suit.thought oh they.ve had a meeting in a people carrier int carr park.no doubt schemeing somert else up.
Strange.bout 12, 30 today .saw this lot all down nunnery lane.mr alexander in a stunnin blue suit.thought oh they.ve had a meeting in a people carrier int carr park.no doubt schemeing somert else up. piaggio1
  • Score: 14

2:43pm Mon 14 Apr 14

CaroleBaines says...

pedalling paul wrote:
I wonder whether Mark Stead's use of the word "Critical" should be read as "Vital". The content seems to look equally at both sides of the debate.
Not known for his headlines matching his content isn't our Mr Stead. Is he moving on btw - sure I saw and advert for political reporter in the Press last week. Or are they just getting another one to work alongside him?
[quote][p][bold]pedalling paul [/bold] wrote: I wonder whether Mark Stead's use of the word "Critical" should be read as "Vital". The content seems to look equally at both sides of the debate.[/p][/quote]Not known for his headlines matching his content isn't our Mr Stead. Is he moving on btw - sure I saw and advert for political reporter in the Press last week. Or are they just getting another one to work alongside him? CaroleBaines
  • Score: -3

2:47pm Mon 14 Apr 14

York2000 says...

CaroleBaines

I hope he is moving on. He is responsible for the Daily Mail-ising of our local newspaper website. Using upper case in sentences to get his point across, long messy headlines and blatant Conservative political leaning.
CaroleBaines I hope he is moving on. He is responsible for the Daily Mail-ising of our local newspaper website. Using upper case in sentences to get his point across, long messy headlines and blatant Conservative political leaning. York2000
  • Score: -11

2:51pm Mon 14 Apr 14

Garrowby Turnoff says...

One of the most disappointment aspects of the Press reporting on this issue is the failure of Newsquest to stop the irritating poll spamming that has totally disabled its usefulness. It would have been interesting to see actual single shot voting here, but the skewing has ruined our chances of that. Every topic has been overvoted by an annoying hacker.

I'm informed by a nerd that this multiple voting, which can be done either by adjusting the cookie settings in your browser to allow repeated voting after a refresh, or by creating a small program which alters the IP address of the voter every 6 seconds and automatically votes repeatedly. This method can be run unattended and is difficult to stop but not impossible. Yet Newsquest have let the unscrupulous poll spammers have their way and ruin the voting results for us all. Honestly, it would have been quite acceptable to have removed the score extensions all together rather than this assumption that we would think the scores accurate.

If anyone wants to research further then Google "poll spamming" and you'll see that it's a worldwide topic among hackers, who seem to get off on wrecking the establishment and all it stands for. Be careful though as by clicking on certain links you may be entering the realm of exposure to virus infestation, another of their nasty dirty habits.
One of the most disappointment aspects of the Press reporting on this issue is the failure of Newsquest to stop the irritating poll spamming that has totally disabled its usefulness. It would have been interesting to see actual single shot voting here, but the skewing has ruined our chances of that. Every topic has been overvoted by an annoying hacker. I'm informed by a nerd that this multiple voting, which can be done either by adjusting the cookie settings in your browser to allow repeated voting after a refresh, or by creating a small program which alters the IP address of the voter every 6 seconds and automatically votes repeatedly. This method can be run unattended and is difficult to stop but not impossible. Yet Newsquest have let the unscrupulous poll spammers have their way and ruin the voting results for us all. Honestly, it would have been quite acceptable to have removed the score extensions all together rather than this assumption that we would think the scores accurate. If anyone wants to research further then Google "poll spamming" and you'll see that it's a worldwide topic among hackers, who seem to get off on wrecking the establishment and all it stands for. Be careful though as by clicking on certain links you may be entering the realm of exposure to virus infestation, another of their nasty dirty habits. Garrowby Turnoff
  • Score: 21432

3:27pm Mon 14 Apr 14

Ignatius Lumpopo says...

At what time of day did First buses have increased numbers of passengers? If it was before 10.00 am and after 5.00pm, the closure of Lendal Bridge had nothing to do with it!
At what time of day did First buses have increased numbers of passengers? If it was before 10.00 am and after 5.00pm, the closure of Lendal Bridge had nothing to do with it! Ignatius Lumpopo
  • Score: 14

3:27pm Mon 14 Apr 14

asd says...

The trouble is people like P.P and Merret think that blocking of a bridge is great idea but, they are so deluded thinking its radical. radical is trying river taxis, open Haxby train station, using Poppleton station, build a platform at Askem bar park and ride for the train from Leeds to York . Maybe trial period of week of turning Inner ring road one way Loop. But NO its about only cyclist or pedestrians not about EVERYONE. I vote Labour but these bloody clowns are useless in York. By the way why was it done when outer ring road was is having major work done, and Pollution better that is a sick joke saying its better. I cycle into York by the river get of at Mary gate walk through Museum Gardens into town not many cyclist need to go over the bridge.
The trouble is people like P.P and Merret think that blocking of a bridge is great idea but, they are so deluded thinking its radical. radical is trying river taxis, open Haxby train station, using Poppleton station, build a platform at Askem bar park and ride for the train from Leeds to York . Maybe trial period of week of turning Inner ring road one way Loop. But NO its about only cyclist or pedestrians not about EVERYONE. I vote Labour but these bloody clowns are useless in York. By the way why was it done when outer ring road was is having major work done, and Pollution better that is a sick joke saying its better. I cycle into York by the river get of at Mary gate walk through Museum Gardens into town not many cyclist need to go over the bridge. asd
  • Score: 10

3:32pm Mon 14 Apr 14

Fat Harry says...

The poll spammers ate my hamster
The poll spammers ate my hamster Fat Harry
  • Score: -4

3:51pm Mon 14 Apr 14

eeoodares says...

yorkshirelad wrote:
Most of the comments above show that this issue - of massive importance for our city - has been hijacked for political ends. One can only assume it is Lib Dem or Conservative activists at work but they will know full well that if they happened to be elected in York, they would face the same difficult decisions on congestion, pollution and health - all sacrificed for political expediency in the Lendal Bridge issue.

The Press clearly sided with one section of York but they do this at their peril...many young people find the Press grumpy and depressing with it's right-wing reactionary tone... hardly any young folk seem to bother with it nowadays.

Walking over the Bridge was a pleasure..(generally less congested with some too high speeds though) ...great while it lasted.

Remember the footstreets and the vision they took... who now would reverse that change and yet it was bitterly resisted at the time. York will regret the lack of political consensus which would have put the city first and ultimately (though like the footstreets not in the short term) would have been very popular in time.

The political ping-pong over transport in York has to end now.
Glad you enjoyed walking over the bridge....did you try walking around Clifton Green or Leeman Road???? No, I did not think so, these were the areas the congestion was pushed to. These areas are where PEOPLE live!

Is the Political expediancy you are referring the fact that they created a wholly unworkable and unpopular decision, that was legally dubious, they refused to discuss their plans or detail any criteria on which their scheme could be considered a success or failure.

I would suggest that it is these morally bankrupt actions that turn off the youth.

Incidentally I had not had any political allegiances, however I will do all in my power to get this lot out of my City!
[quote][p][bold]yorkshirelad[/bold] wrote: Most of the comments above show that this issue - of massive importance for our city - has been hijacked for political ends. One can only assume it is Lib Dem or Conservative activists at work but they will know full well that if they happened to be elected in York, they would face the same difficult decisions on congestion, pollution and health - all sacrificed for political expediency in the Lendal Bridge issue. The Press clearly sided with one section of York but they do this at their peril...many young people find the Press grumpy and depressing with it's right-wing reactionary tone... hardly any young folk seem to bother with it nowadays. Walking over the Bridge was a pleasure..(generally less congested with some too high speeds though) ...great while it lasted. Remember the footstreets and the vision they took... who now would reverse that change and yet it was bitterly resisted at the time. York will regret the lack of political consensus which would have put the city first and ultimately (though like the footstreets not in the short term) would have been very popular in time. The political ping-pong over transport in York has to end now.[/p][/quote]Glad you enjoyed walking over the bridge....did you try walking around Clifton Green or Leeman Road???? No, I did not think so, these were the areas the congestion was pushed to. These areas are where PEOPLE live! Is the Political expediancy you are referring the fact that they created a wholly unworkable and unpopular decision, that was legally dubious, they refused to discuss their plans or detail any criteria on which their scheme could be considered a success or failure. I would suggest that it is these morally bankrupt actions that turn off the youth. Incidentally I had not had any political allegiances, however I will do all in my power to get this lot out of my City! eeoodares
  • Score: -1

4:37pm Mon 14 Apr 14

razor08 says...

Each and every traffic scheme implemented has to be studied in great detail I am sure many will be found to be causing delay and congestion. for example the lights at the end of Skeldergate bridge do we need them? you sit there some times and nothing comes over the Foss bridge yet it backed up Bishopthorpe road why? how about Holgate, Acomb and Popleton road lights another point in case.
Each and every traffic scheme implemented has to be studied in great detail I am sure many will be found to be causing delay and congestion. for example the lights at the end of Skeldergate bridge do we need them? you sit there some times and nothing comes over the Foss bridge yet it backed up Bishopthorpe road why? how about Holgate, Acomb and Popleton road lights another point in case. razor08
  • Score: -11

4:45pm Mon 14 Apr 14

Jazzper says...

eeoodares wrote:
yorkshirelad wrote:
Most of the comments above show that this issue - of massive importance for our city - has been hijacked for political ends. One can only assume it is Lib Dem or Conservative activists at work but they will know full well that if they happened to be elected in York, they would face the same difficult decisions on congestion, pollution and health - all sacrificed for political expediency in the Lendal Bridge issue.

The Press clearly sided with one section of York but they do this at their peril...many young people find the Press grumpy and depressing with it's right-wing reactionary tone... hardly any young folk seem to bother with it nowadays.

Walking over the Bridge was a pleasure..(generally less congested with some too high speeds though) ...great while it lasted.

Remember the footstreets and the vision they took... who now would reverse that change and yet it was bitterly resisted at the time. York will regret the lack of political consensus which would have put the city first and ultimately (though like the footstreets not in the short term) would have been very popular in time.

The political ping-pong over transport in York has to end now.
Glad you enjoyed walking over the bridge....did you try walking around Clifton Green or Leeman Road???? No, I did not think so, these were the areas the congestion was pushed to. These areas are where PEOPLE live!

Is the Political expediancy you are referring the fact that they created a wholly unworkable and unpopular decision, that was legally dubious, they refused to discuss their plans or detail any criteria on which their scheme could be considered a success or failure.

I would suggest that it is these morally bankrupt actions that turn off the youth.

Incidentally I had not had any political allegiances, however I will do all in my power to get this lot out of my City!
"Incidentally I had not had any political allegiances, however I will do all in my power to get this lot out of my City!"
Me too !
[quote][p][bold]eeoodares[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]yorkshirelad[/bold] wrote: Most of the comments above show that this issue - of massive importance for our city - has been hijacked for political ends. One can only assume it is Lib Dem or Conservative activists at work but they will know full well that if they happened to be elected in York, they would face the same difficult decisions on congestion, pollution and health - all sacrificed for political expediency in the Lendal Bridge issue. The Press clearly sided with one section of York but they do this at their peril...many young people find the Press grumpy and depressing with it's right-wing reactionary tone... hardly any young folk seem to bother with it nowadays. Walking over the Bridge was a pleasure..(generally less congested with some too high speeds though) ...great while it lasted. Remember the footstreets and the vision they took... who now would reverse that change and yet it was bitterly resisted at the time. York will regret the lack of political consensus which would have put the city first and ultimately (though like the footstreets not in the short term) would have been very popular in time. The political ping-pong over transport in York has to end now.[/p][/quote]Glad you enjoyed walking over the bridge....did you try walking around Clifton Green or Leeman Road???? No, I did not think so, these were the areas the congestion was pushed to. These areas are where PEOPLE live! Is the Political expediancy you are referring the fact that they created a wholly unworkable and unpopular decision, that was legally dubious, they refused to discuss their plans or detail any criteria on which their scheme could be considered a success or failure. I would suggest that it is these morally bankrupt actions that turn off the youth. Incidentally I had not had any political allegiances, however I will do all in my power to get this lot out of my City![/p][/quote]"Incidentally I had not had any political allegiances, however I will do all in my power to get this lot out of my City!" Me too ! Jazzper
  • Score: -24

5:30pm Mon 14 Apr 14

Caecilius says...

Archiebold the 1st wrote:
pedalling paul wrote:
I'm sure that the independent Report from the Leeds University-based Institute of Transport Studies will make very interesting reading. Also the planned cross-party independently Chaired Congestion commission will have some hard thinking to do. The Report published today is a foretaste of the very significant issues that they must address. Doing nothing, and allowing unrestrained car access to the centre, are not a viable long term option. That is made very clear. I spotted a mention of congestion charging.........!!
neither is banning cars or charging people to enter their city to shop! If they move this way then the city centre economy will be crippled!

Doing nothing is an option paul... do you know why? people would rather wait in a bit of traffic then use a) a bus which doesn’t run decently and costs well over the odds b) cycle, as with shopping its pretty hard c) walk, walking with shopping can be hard if you live miles away.

All the anti car lot who say this is such a big issue can you explain why? apart from using mythical reports that say soon we will run out of room? You don't drive in the centre (neither do i!) so why are you bothered?

I can promise you this, if a trial like this is done again, or indeed if cars are banned or a congestion chrage implemented, you will all be the cause for yorks economy collapsing.

I suggest you see how traffic goes as opening up the new shopping park will take a lot of traffic out of the city and don't just think a pleasant walk is worth the consequences of crippling much needed local businesses.
A lot of people AREN'T prepared to "wait in a bit of traffic", though, are they? They want other groups, not themselves, to be the ones who take the consequences of their choice to get into a car and clog the roads up. The 'solutions' they shout for always involve somebody else losing out - people who used the Water End cycle lane; people who live on the residential streets that drivers use as rat-runs, while ignoring the 20 mph limit because it doesn't suit them; pedestrians who cross the road at the traffic lights that some of them demand should be ripped out; people who want to walk freely down streets that were never designed to accommodate motor vehicles.....the list goes on and on. And you turn this attitude on its head and characterise those of us who object to it as "anti-car".That's why it's a big issue. If the drivers causing the congestion were the only ones it was impacting on, then most likely the rest of us would take a 'live and let live' line - unlike the car lobby, which demands that its interests always have to be paramount..
[quote][p][bold]Archiebold the 1st[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]pedalling paul [/bold] wrote: I'm sure that the independent Report from the Leeds University-based Institute of Transport Studies will make very interesting reading. Also the planned cross-party independently Chaired Congestion commission will have some hard thinking to do. The Report published today is a foretaste of the very significant issues that they must address. Doing nothing, and allowing unrestrained car access to the centre, are not a viable long term option. That is made very clear. I spotted a mention of congestion charging.........!![/p][/quote]neither is banning cars or charging people to enter their city to shop! If they move this way then the city centre economy will be crippled! Doing nothing is an option paul... do you know why? people would rather wait in a bit of traffic then use a) a bus which doesn’t run decently and costs well over the odds b) cycle, as with shopping its pretty hard c) walk, walking with shopping can be hard if you live miles away. All the anti car lot who say this is such a big issue can you explain why? apart from using mythical reports that say soon we will run out of room? You don't drive in the centre (neither do i!) so why are you bothered? I can promise you this, if a trial like this is done again, or indeed if cars are banned or a congestion chrage implemented, you will all be the cause for yorks economy collapsing. I suggest you see how traffic goes as opening up the new shopping park will take a lot of traffic out of the city and don't just think a pleasant walk is worth the consequences of crippling much needed local businesses.[/p][/quote]A lot of people AREN'T prepared to "wait in a bit [sic] of traffic", though, are they? They want other groups, not themselves, to be the ones who take the consequences of their choice to get into a car and clog the roads up. The 'solutions' they shout for always involve somebody else losing out - people who used the Water End cycle lane; people who live on the residential streets that drivers use as rat-runs, while ignoring the 20 mph limit because it doesn't suit them; pedestrians who cross the road at the traffic lights that some of them demand should be ripped out; people who want to walk freely down streets that were never designed to accommodate motor vehicles.....the list goes on and on. And you turn this attitude on its head and characterise those of us who object to it as "anti-car".That's why it's a big issue. If the drivers causing the congestion were the only ones it was impacting on, then most likely the rest of us would take a 'live and let live' line - unlike the car lobby, which demands that its interests always have to be paramount.. Caecilius
  • Score: 27

5:33pm Mon 14 Apr 14

wildthing666 says...

I walked across the bridge today and it seemed that some traffic was avoiding it just in case they have their number plates read and recieve a fine some months later, which in itself is illegal as a fine must be sent within 1 months of the offence.
I walked across the bridge today and it seemed that some traffic was avoiding it just in case they have their number plates read and recieve a fine some months later, which in itself is illegal as a fine must be sent within 1 months of the offence. wildthing666
  • Score: -2

5:37pm Mon 14 Apr 14

wildthing666 says...

The council is talking utter BS as all it did was shift congestion from Lendal bridge to other parts of the city. This council will say anything to try and say it was correct to fine drivers for this illegal scheme.
The council is talking utter BS as all it did was shift congestion from Lendal bridge to other parts of the city. This council will say anything to try and say it was correct to fine drivers for this illegal scheme. wildthing666
  • Score: -36

5:42pm Mon 14 Apr 14

dc1926 says...

Six weeks ago I decided to cycle from Rawcliffe to the City centre. Swerving between the potholes and pollution on Shipton road/Clifton Green ,
I will not be doing that again in a hurry . Internet shopping is looking more appealing by the day!
Six weeks ago I decided to cycle from Rawcliffe to the City centre. Swerving between the potholes and pollution on Shipton road/Clifton Green , I will not be doing that again in a hurry . Internet shopping is looking more appealing by the day! dc1926
  • Score: -41

6:13pm Mon 14 Apr 14

Dave Ruddock says...

no idea what the stats mean as
1. Frist run a city wide bus service, not just lendal Bridge, so figures mean nothing.
2. Stats are a guide not a result
3. I for one live in York , use the No1 bus service and also family use cars none of which have been polled, surveyed or handed a questionnaire
4 If similar ways are used on next election GOD HELP Citizens in the City of York

its getting like Secret Squirrel labor party
no idea what the stats mean as 1. Frist run a city wide bus service, not just lendal Bridge, so figures mean nothing. 2. Stats are a guide not a result 3. I for one live in York , use the No1 bus service and also family use cars none of which have been polled, surveyed or handed a questionnaire 4 If similar ways are used on next election GOD HELP Citizens in the City of York its getting like Secret Squirrel labor party Dave Ruddock
  • Score: -41

6:19pm Mon 14 Apr 14

australia1 says...

This council are supposed to represent the people of York and this was not welcomed when it was first muted.
It was obvious that traffic was going to be backed up on other approaches in to the City and increase the so called air quality in those area's. So it has been an embarrassing episode and the usual suspects, Alexander and Merrett have side stepped the flack and blamed other people.
This council are supposed to represent the people of York and this was not welcomed when it was first muted. It was obvious that traffic was going to be backed up on other approaches in to the City and increase the so called air quality in those area's. So it has been an embarrassing episode and the usual suspects, Alexander and Merrett have side stepped the flack and blamed other people. australia1
  • Score: -51

7:16pm Mon 14 Apr 14

Alf Garnett says...

eeoodares wrote:
bloodaxe wrote:
ouseswimmer wrote:
Air quality was not measured in the new traffic jam hotspots. Whilst it continued to be measured in the old traffic jam hotspots related to Lendal Bridge. Therefore quality 'improved'

Students returning to college and Uni directly caused the increase in bus passenger numbers.
Compared with when ? The trial period ran over the Christmas vac. I'm afraid that reactions to this episode are more akin to theology than geography. Clearly hardwired motorists who never walk and expect to be able to drive from their sitting rooms to every conceivable destination will never agree to any sort of restriction on their UN guaranteed rights. Cyclists who want the right to avoid being crushed by vehicles but also the right to barge pedestrians probably saw it as a positive thing and pedestrians who simply want to walk and breathe at the same time will probably get on a train and go to Leeds. What is really bad is that the many good things which the city council do have been buried under a relatively minor inconvenience for a few.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAH



Yeah, Leeds the car-free, clean air city!!!!! Just think before you type!

If you wanted to separate people from vehicles coming from the Station to the City Centre, build a footbridge from North Street. It would be popular, it could be beautiful and with Corporate sponsorship it could be virtually free!

Please tell me about the good things the council do? They have their own agenda, which does not reflect the hopes and aspirations of its electorate, they are there to serve us, not to set about changing the face of a City without the express consent of those who live here and put them in power!

Finally, what are the UN rights you are referring to?
One would imagine he/she is referring to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights 10.12.1948.
[quote][p][bold]eeoodares[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]bloodaxe[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ouseswimmer[/bold] wrote: Air quality was not measured in the new traffic jam hotspots. Whilst it continued to be measured in the old traffic jam hotspots related to Lendal Bridge. Therefore quality 'improved' Students returning to college and Uni directly caused the increase in bus passenger numbers.[/p][/quote]Compared with when ? The trial period ran over the Christmas vac. I'm afraid that reactions to this episode are more akin to theology than geography. Clearly hardwired motorists who never walk and expect to be able to drive from their sitting rooms to every conceivable destination will never agree to any sort of restriction on their UN guaranteed rights. Cyclists who want the right to avoid being crushed by vehicles but also the right to barge pedestrians probably saw it as a positive thing and pedestrians who simply want to walk and breathe at the same time will probably get on a train and go to Leeds. What is really bad is that the many good things which the city council do have been buried under a relatively minor inconvenience for a few.[/p][/quote]HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAH Yeah, Leeds the car-free, clean air city!!!!! Just think before you type! If you wanted to separate people from vehicles coming from the Station to the City Centre, build a footbridge from North Street. It would be popular, it could be beautiful and with Corporate sponsorship it could be virtually free! Please tell me about the good things the council do? They have their own agenda, which does not reflect the hopes and aspirations of its electorate, they are there to serve us, not to set about changing the face of a City without the express consent of those who live here and put them in power! Finally, what are the UN rights you are referring to?[/p][/quote]One would imagine he/she is referring to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights 10.12.1948. Alf Garnett
  • Score: -51

7:26pm Mon 14 Apr 14

bloodaxe says...

eeoodares wrote:
bloodaxe wrote:
ouseswimmer wrote:
Air quality was not measured in the new traffic jam hotspots. Whilst it continued to be measured in the old traffic jam hotspots related to Lendal Bridge. Therefore quality 'improved'

Students returning to college and Uni directly caused the increase in bus passenger numbers.
Compared with when ? The trial period ran over the Christmas vac. I'm afraid that reactions to this episode are more akin to theology than geography. Clearly hardwired motorists who never walk and expect to be able to drive from their sitting rooms to every conceivable destination will never agree to any sort of restriction on their UN guaranteed rights. Cyclists who want the right to avoid being crushed by vehicles but also the right to barge pedestrians probably saw it as a positive thing and pedestrians who simply want to walk and breathe at the same time will probably get on a train and go to Leeds. What is really bad is that the many good things which the city council do have been buried under a relatively minor inconvenience for a few.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAH



Yeah, Leeds the car-free, clean air city!!!!! Just think before you type!

If you wanted to separate people from vehicles coming from the Station to the City Centre, build a footbridge from North Street. It would be popular, it could be beautiful and with Corporate sponsorship it could be virtually free!

Please tell me about the good things the council do? They have their own agenda, which does not reflect the hopes and aspirations of its electorate, they are there to serve us, not to set about changing the face of a City without the express consent of those who live here and put them in power!

Finally, what are the UN rights you are referring to?
Someone got in first so see above reply. As for council: social services, education, libraries (still open), support for culture and tourism (big money earners) among others. Leeds: thriving and dynamic. Takes decisions, has a lively centre largely traffic-free and one of the most bouyant retail economies in the UK. As for thinking before typing, I prefer to base my comments on observation rather than trendy hearsay. G'night.
[quote][p][bold]eeoodares[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]bloodaxe[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ouseswimmer[/bold] wrote: Air quality was not measured in the new traffic jam hotspots. Whilst it continued to be measured in the old traffic jam hotspots related to Lendal Bridge. Therefore quality 'improved' Students returning to college and Uni directly caused the increase in bus passenger numbers.[/p][/quote]Compared with when ? The trial period ran over the Christmas vac. I'm afraid that reactions to this episode are more akin to theology than geography. Clearly hardwired motorists who never walk and expect to be able to drive from their sitting rooms to every conceivable destination will never agree to any sort of restriction on their UN guaranteed rights. Cyclists who want the right to avoid being crushed by vehicles but also the right to barge pedestrians probably saw it as a positive thing and pedestrians who simply want to walk and breathe at the same time will probably get on a train and go to Leeds. What is really bad is that the many good things which the city council do have been buried under a relatively minor inconvenience for a few.[/p][/quote]HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAH Yeah, Leeds the car-free, clean air city!!!!! Just think before you type! If you wanted to separate people from vehicles coming from the Station to the City Centre, build a footbridge from North Street. It would be popular, it could be beautiful and with Corporate sponsorship it could be virtually free! Please tell me about the good things the council do? They have their own agenda, which does not reflect the hopes and aspirations of its electorate, they are there to serve us, not to set about changing the face of a City without the express consent of those who live here and put them in power! Finally, what are the UN rights you are referring to?[/p][/quote]Someone got in first so see above reply. As for council: social services, education, libraries (still open), support for culture and tourism (big money earners) among others. Leeds: thriving and dynamic. Takes decisions, has a lively centre largely traffic-free and one of the most bouyant retail economies in the UK. As for thinking before typing, I prefer to base my comments on observation rather than trendy hearsay. G'night. bloodaxe
  • Score: -39

8:04pm Mon 14 Apr 14

jay, york says...

Caecilius wrote:
Archiebold the 1st wrote:
pedalling paul wrote: I'm sure that the independent Report from the Leeds University-based Institute of Transport Studies will make very interesting reading. Also the planned cross-party independently Chaired Congestion commission will have some hard thinking to do. The Report published today is a foretaste of the very significant issues that they must address. Doing nothing, and allowing unrestrained car access to the centre, are not a viable long term option. That is made very clear. I spotted a mention of congestion charging.........!!
neither is banning cars or charging people to enter their city to shop! If they move this way then the city centre economy will be crippled! Doing nothing is an option paul... do you know why? people would rather wait in a bit of traffic then use a) a bus which doesn’t run decently and costs well over the odds b) cycle, as with shopping its pretty hard c) walk, walking with shopping can be hard if you live miles away. All the anti car lot who say this is such a big issue can you explain why? apart from using mythical reports that say soon we will run out of room? You don't drive in the centre (neither do i!) so why are you bothered? I can promise you this, if a trial like this is done again, or indeed if cars are banned or a congestion chrage implemented, you will all be the cause for yorks economy collapsing. I suggest you see how traffic goes as opening up the new shopping park will take a lot of traffic out of the city and don't just think a pleasant walk is worth the consequences of crippling much needed local businesses.
A lot of people AREN'T prepared to "wait in a bit of traffic", though, are they? They want other groups, not themselves, to be the ones who take the consequences of their choice to get into a car and clog the roads up. The 'solutions' they shout for always involve somebody else losing out - people who used the Water End cycle lane; people who live on the residential streets that drivers use as rat-runs, while ignoring the 20 mph limit because it doesn't suit them; pedestrians who cross the road at the traffic lights that some of them demand should be ripped out; people who want to walk freely down streets that were never designed to accommodate motor vehicles.....the list goes on and on. And you turn this attitude on its head and characterise those of us who object to it as "anti-car".That's why it's a big issue. If the drivers causing the congestion were the only ones it was impacting on, then most likely the rest of us would take a 'live and let live' line - unlike the car lobby, which demands that its interests always have to be paramount..
You're as bad as pp/ hepworth.
Your mentality is "anti motorist/ pro pedestrian and cyclists no matter what"
I would personally like to know what I have done to offend you.
I am in my sixties, I live out of York, If I occasionally need to go into York, I drive. I combine several things into the one journey and I park on the outskirts. This means that occasionally I will drive on roads in York to get from one side of town to the other. This is not a crime. To do this using busses or a bike would be impossible. So your message to me seems to be clear - stay away from York, we dont want you here.. And you know what - l just might.
Contrary to the opinion of you and others, the main consideration for people that drive a car is NOT how they can cause problems and create "gridlock". People have a need to get somewhere and also use their vehicles for business purposes - often the quickest, easiest and cheapest way is to drive, Why would you not do it? This is the option that cyclists choose for themselves.
Whenever CoYC closes a road (especially an inner ring road) to certain categories of motor vehicles, it means that drivers have to find another route. And if Lendal Bodge is now showing signes of congestion again, it is because the trial has failed and has not reduced car use - it merely pushed it elsewhere in the city (eg. residential streets), forcing it to take a much longer route and create even more congestion. Drivers are not takimg the ,most direct route again.
[quote][p][bold]Caecilius[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Archiebold the 1st[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]pedalling paul [/bold] wrote: I'm sure that the independent Report from the Leeds University-based Institute of Transport Studies will make very interesting reading. Also the planned cross-party independently Chaired Congestion commission will have some hard thinking to do. The Report published today is a foretaste of the very significant issues that they must address. Doing nothing, and allowing unrestrained car access to the centre, are not a viable long term option. That is made very clear. I spotted a mention of congestion charging.........!![/p][/quote]neither is banning cars or charging people to enter their city to shop! If they move this way then the city centre economy will be crippled! Doing nothing is an option paul... do you know why? people would rather wait in a bit of traffic then use a) a bus which doesn’t run decently and costs well over the odds b) cycle, as with shopping its pretty hard c) walk, walking with shopping can be hard if you live miles away. All the anti car lot who say this is such a big issue can you explain why? apart from using mythical reports that say soon we will run out of room? You don't drive in the centre (neither do i!) so why are you bothered? I can promise you this, if a trial like this is done again, or indeed if cars are banned or a congestion chrage implemented, you will all be the cause for yorks economy collapsing. I suggest you see how traffic goes as opening up the new shopping park will take a lot of traffic out of the city and don't just think a pleasant walk is worth the consequences of crippling much needed local businesses.[/p][/quote]A lot of people AREN'T prepared to "wait in a bit [sic] of traffic", though, are they? They want other groups, not themselves, to be the ones who take the consequences of their choice to get into a car and clog the roads up. The 'solutions' they shout for always involve somebody else losing out - people who used the Water End cycle lane; people who live on the residential streets that drivers use as rat-runs, while ignoring the 20 mph limit because it doesn't suit them; pedestrians who cross the road at the traffic lights that some of them demand should be ripped out; people who want to walk freely down streets that were never designed to accommodate motor vehicles.....the list goes on and on. And you turn this attitude on its head and characterise those of us who object to it as "anti-car".That's why it's a big issue. If the drivers causing the congestion were the only ones it was impacting on, then most likely the rest of us would take a 'live and let live' line - unlike the car lobby, which demands that its interests always have to be paramount..[/p][/quote]You're as bad as pp/ hepworth. Your mentality is "anti motorist/ pro pedestrian and cyclists no matter what" I would personally like to know what I have done to offend you. I am in my sixties, I live out of York, If I occasionally need to go into York, I drive. I combine several things into the one journey and I park on the outskirts. This means that occasionally I will drive on roads in York to get from one side of town to the other. This is not a crime. To do this using busses or a bike would be impossible. So your message to me seems to be clear - stay away from York, we dont want you here.. And you know what - l just might. Contrary to the opinion of you and others, the main consideration for people that drive a car is NOT how they can cause problems and create "gridlock". People have a need to get somewhere and also use their vehicles for business purposes - often the quickest, easiest and cheapest way is to drive, Why would you not do it? This is the option that cyclists choose for themselves. Whenever CoYC closes a road (especially an inner ring road) to certain categories of motor vehicles, it means that drivers have to find another route. And if Lendal Bodge is now showing signes of congestion again, it is because the trial has failed and has not reduced car use - it merely pushed it elsewhere in the city (eg. residential streets), forcing it to take a much longer route and create even more congestion. Drivers are not takimg the ,most direct route again. jay, york
  • Score: -23

8:04pm Mon 14 Apr 14

ouseswimmer says...

Are there now pot holes in the city due to the increased traffic during the Lendal \bridge closure?
Are there now pot holes in the city due to the increased traffic during the Lendal \bridge closure? ouseswimmer
  • Score: -3

8:07pm Mon 14 Apr 14

jay, york says...

jay, york wrote:
Caecilius wrote:
Archiebold the 1st wrote:
pedalling paul wrote: I'm sure that the independent Report from the Leeds University-based Institute of Transport Studies will make very interesting reading. Also the planned cross-party independently Chaired Congestion commission will have some hard thinking to do. The Report published today is a foretaste of the very significant issues that they must address. Doing nothing, and allowing unrestrained car access to the centre, are not a viable long term option. That is made very clear. I spotted a mention of congestion charging.........!!
neither is banning cars or charging people to enter their city to shop! If they move this way then the city centre economy will be crippled! Doing nothing is an option paul... do you know why? people would rather wait in a bit of traffic then use a) a bus which doesn’t run decently and costs well over the odds b) cycle, as with shopping its pretty hard c) walk, walking with shopping can be hard if you live miles away. All the anti car lot who say this is such a big issue can you explain why? apart from using mythical reports that say soon we will run out of room? You don't drive in the centre (neither do i!) so why are you bothered? I can promise you this, if a trial like this is done again, or indeed if cars are banned or a congestion chrage implemented, you will all be the cause for yorks economy collapsing. I suggest you see how traffic goes as opening up the new shopping park will take a lot of traffic out of the city and don't just think a pleasant walk is worth the consequences of crippling much needed local businesses.
A lot of people AREN'T prepared to "wait in a bit of traffic", though, are they? They want other groups, not themselves, to be the ones who take the consequences of their choice to get into a car and clog the roads up. The 'solutions' they shout for always involve somebody else losing out - people who used the Water End cycle lane; people who live on the residential streets that drivers use as rat-runs, while ignoring the 20 mph limit because it doesn't suit them; pedestrians who cross the road at the traffic lights that some of them demand should be ripped out; people who want to walk freely down streets that were never designed to accommodate motor vehicles.....the list goes on and on. And you turn this attitude on its head and characterise those of us who object to it as "anti-car".That's why it's a big issue. If the drivers causing the congestion were the only ones it was impacting on, then most likely the rest of us would take a 'live and let live' line - unlike the car lobby, which demands that its interests always have to be paramount..
You're as bad as pp/ hepworth. Your mentality is "anti motorist/ pro pedestrian and cyclists no matter what" I would personally like to know what I have done to offend you. I am in my sixties, I live out of York, If I occasionally need to go into York, I drive. I combine several things into the one journey and I park on the outskirts. This means that occasionally I will drive on roads in York to get from one side of town to the other. This is not a crime. To do this using busses or a bike would be impossible. So your message to me seems to be clear - stay away from York, we dont want you here.. And you know what - l just might. Contrary to the opinion of you and others, the main consideration for people that drive a car is NOT how they can cause problems and create "gridlock". People have a need to get somewhere and also use their vehicles for business purposes - often the quickest, easiest and cheapest way is to drive, Why would you not do it? This is the option that cyclists choose for themselves. Whenever CoYC closes a road (especially an inner ring road) to certain categories of motor vehicles, it means that drivers have to find another route. And if Lendal Bodge is now showing signes of congestion again, it is because the trial has failed and has not reduced car use - it merely pushed it elsewhere in the city (eg. residential streets), forcing it to take a much longer route and create even more congestion. Drivers are not takimg the ,most direct route again.
Sorry - that should say that drivers ARE taking the most direct route again.
[quote][p][bold]jay, york[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Caecilius[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Archiebold the 1st[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]pedalling paul [/bold] wrote: I'm sure that the independent Report from the Leeds University-based Institute of Transport Studies will make very interesting reading. Also the planned cross-party independently Chaired Congestion commission will have some hard thinking to do. The Report published today is a foretaste of the very significant issues that they must address. Doing nothing, and allowing unrestrained car access to the centre, are not a viable long term option. That is made very clear. I spotted a mention of congestion charging.........!![/p][/quote]neither is banning cars or charging people to enter their city to shop! If they move this way then the city centre economy will be crippled! Doing nothing is an option paul... do you know why? people would rather wait in a bit of traffic then use a) a bus which doesn’t run decently and costs well over the odds b) cycle, as with shopping its pretty hard c) walk, walking with shopping can be hard if you live miles away. All the anti car lot who say this is such a big issue can you explain why? apart from using mythical reports that say soon we will run out of room? You don't drive in the centre (neither do i!) so why are you bothered? I can promise you this, if a trial like this is done again, or indeed if cars are banned or a congestion chrage implemented, you will all be the cause for yorks economy collapsing. I suggest you see how traffic goes as opening up the new shopping park will take a lot of traffic out of the city and don't just think a pleasant walk is worth the consequences of crippling much needed local businesses.[/p][/quote]A lot of people AREN'T prepared to "wait in a bit [sic] of traffic", though, are they? They want other groups, not themselves, to be the ones who take the consequences of their choice to get into a car and clog the roads up. The 'solutions' they shout for always involve somebody else losing out - people who used the Water End cycle lane; people who live on the residential streets that drivers use as rat-runs, while ignoring the 20 mph limit because it doesn't suit them; pedestrians who cross the road at the traffic lights that some of them demand should be ripped out; people who want to walk freely down streets that were never designed to accommodate motor vehicles.....the list goes on and on. And you turn this attitude on its head and characterise those of us who object to it as "anti-car".That's why it's a big issue. If the drivers causing the congestion were the only ones it was impacting on, then most likely the rest of us would take a 'live and let live' line - unlike the car lobby, which demands that its interests always have to be paramount..[/p][/quote]You're as bad as pp/ hepworth. Your mentality is "anti motorist/ pro pedestrian and cyclists no matter what" I would personally like to know what I have done to offend you. I am in my sixties, I live out of York, If I occasionally need to go into York, I drive. I combine several things into the one journey and I park on the outskirts. This means that occasionally I will drive on roads in York to get from one side of town to the other. This is not a crime. To do this using busses or a bike would be impossible. So your message to me seems to be clear - stay away from York, we dont want you here.. And you know what - l just might. Contrary to the opinion of you and others, the main consideration for people that drive a car is NOT how they can cause problems and create "gridlock". People have a need to get somewhere and also use their vehicles for business purposes - often the quickest, easiest and cheapest way is to drive, Why would you not do it? This is the option that cyclists choose for themselves. Whenever CoYC closes a road (especially an inner ring road) to certain categories of motor vehicles, it means that drivers have to find another route. And if Lendal Bodge is now showing signes of congestion again, it is because the trial has failed and has not reduced car use - it merely pushed it elsewhere in the city (eg. residential streets), forcing it to take a much longer route and create even more congestion. Drivers are not takimg the ,most direct route again.[/p][/quote]Sorry - that should say that drivers ARE taking the most direct route again. jay, york
  • Score: -53

9:43pm Mon 14 Apr 14

reedy100 says...

This money would have been better spent on a cycle path down Strensall Road.
Cars and lorries traveling at 60mph at the side of you is frightening.
I use the footpath but this cant be right!
God knows what it will be like when the new housing estate is built.
More cars and lorries plus cyclists.
This money would have been better spent on a cycle path down Strensall Road. Cars and lorries traveling at 60mph at the side of you is frightening. I use the footpath but this cant be right! God knows what it will be like when the new housing estate is built. More cars and lorries plus cyclists. reedy100
  • Score: -33

9:47pm Mon 14 Apr 14

reedy100 says...

Sorry commented on wrong report.
Sorry commented on wrong report. reedy100
  • Score: -2

12:57am Tue 15 Apr 14

jake777 says...

Archiebold the 1st wrote:
bloodaxe wrote:
Time at Clarence Street/Lord Mayor's Walk traffic lights, to move 70 metres, 6.46 minutes, at 10.35. As predicted the congestion is moving back into the centre. The delay was not caused by the lights but by traffic backing up from Bootham and delivery vans in Gillygate.
So a delivery van caused you delay so the bridge should be shut?

So ok you say 6/7min delay... how long would it have taken you to go all the way around should the bridge have be closed? How much extra fumes would have been emitted from your car?

My point is it might seem like a long delay time but its quicker and cheaper then driving around the whole city centre to get to your destination.
Yawn Yawn Yawn, same old same old,
[quote][p][bold]Archiebold the 1st[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]bloodaxe[/bold] wrote: Time at Clarence Street/Lord Mayor's Walk traffic lights, to move 70 metres, 6.46 minutes, at 10.35. As predicted the congestion is moving back into the centre. The delay was not caused by the lights but by traffic backing up from Bootham and delivery vans in Gillygate.[/p][/quote]So a delivery van caused you delay so the bridge should be shut? So ok you say 6/7min delay... how long would it have taken you to go all the way around should the bridge have be closed? How much extra fumes would have been emitted from your car? My point is it might seem like a long delay time but its quicker and cheaper then driving around the whole city centre to get to your destination.[/p][/quote]Yawn Yawn Yawn, same old same old, jake777
  • Score: 58

1:05am Tue 15 Apr 14

jake777 says...

pedalling paul wrote:
Archiebold the 1st wrote:
pedalling paul wrote:
I'm sure that the independent Report from the Leeds University-based Institute of Transport Studies will make very interesting reading. Also the planned cross-party independently Chaired Congestion commission will have some hard thinking to do. The Report published today is a foretaste of the very significant issues that they must address. Doing nothing, and allowing unrestrained car access to the centre, are not a viable long term option. That is made very clear. I spotted a mention of congestion charging.........!!
neither is banning cars or charging people to enter their city to shop! If they move this way then the city centre economy will be crippled!

Doing nothing is an option paul... do you know why? people would rather wait in a bit of traffic then use a) a bus which doesn’t run decently and costs well over the odds b) cycle, as with shopping its pretty hard c) walk, walking with shopping can be hard if you live miles away.

All the anti car lot who say this is such a big issue can you explain why? apart from using mythical reports that say soon we will run out of room? You don't drive in the centre (neither do i!) so why are you bothered?

I can promise you this, if a trial like this is done again, or indeed if cars are banned or a congestion chrage implemented, you will all be the cause for yorks economy collapsing.

I suggest you see how traffic goes as opening up the new shopping park will take a lot of traffic out of the city and don't just think a pleasant walk is worth the consequences of crippling much needed local businesses.
Question...why don't buses "run decently" as you phrase it? Simply because they are competing for the same roaad space for most of their journeys, except where priority measures, begrudged by many here, ahave been installed.
If there were fewrer cars being used for short distance commutes, with the car parked up all day, the buses would be able to offer a very competitive service. The phrase "Chicken and Egg" springs to mind.
Well said Paul , they just can't get it into their thick heads it is to hard for them to understand. But then they all go round with blinkers on.
[quote][p][bold]pedalling paul [/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Archiebold the 1st[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]pedalling paul [/bold] wrote: I'm sure that the independent Report from the Leeds University-based Institute of Transport Studies will make very interesting reading. Also the planned cross-party independently Chaired Congestion commission will have some hard thinking to do. The Report published today is a foretaste of the very significant issues that they must address. Doing nothing, and allowing unrestrained car access to the centre, are not a viable long term option. That is made very clear. I spotted a mention of congestion charging.........!![/p][/quote]neither is banning cars or charging people to enter their city to shop! If they move this way then the city centre economy will be crippled! Doing nothing is an option paul... do you know why? people would rather wait in a bit of traffic then use a) a bus which doesn’t run decently and costs well over the odds b) cycle, as with shopping its pretty hard c) walk, walking with shopping can be hard if you live miles away. All the anti car lot who say this is such a big issue can you explain why? apart from using mythical reports that say soon we will run out of room? You don't drive in the centre (neither do i!) so why are you bothered? I can promise you this, if a trial like this is done again, or indeed if cars are banned or a congestion chrage implemented, you will all be the cause for yorks economy collapsing. I suggest you see how traffic goes as opening up the new shopping park will take a lot of traffic out of the city and don't just think a pleasant walk is worth the consequences of crippling much needed local businesses.[/p][/quote]Question...why don't buses "run decently" as you phrase it? Simply because they are competing for the same roaad space for most of their journeys, except where priority measures, begrudged by many here, ahave been installed. If there were fewrer cars being used for short distance commutes, with the car parked up all day, the buses would be able to offer a very competitive service. The phrase "Chicken and Egg" springs to mind.[/p][/quote]Well said Paul , they just can't get it into their thick heads it is to hard for them to understand. But then they all go round with blinkers on. jake777
  • Score: 46

1:06am Tue 15 Apr 14

jake777 says...

Archiebold the 1st wrote:
bloodaxe wrote:
Time at Clarence Street/Lord Mayor's Walk traffic lights, to move 70 metres, 6.46 minutes, at 10.35. As predicted the congestion is moving back into the centre. The delay was not caused by the lights but by traffic backing up from Bootham and delivery vans in Gillygate.
So a delivery van caused you delay so the bridge should be shut?

So ok you say 6/7min delay... how long would it have taken you to go all the way around should the bridge have be closed? How much extra fumes would have been emitted from your car?

My point is it might seem like a long delay time but its quicker and cheaper then driving around the whole city centre to get to your destination.
You really have no idea at all.
[quote][p][bold]Archiebold the 1st[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]bloodaxe[/bold] wrote: Time at Clarence Street/Lord Mayor's Walk traffic lights, to move 70 metres, 6.46 minutes, at 10.35. As predicted the congestion is moving back into the centre. The delay was not caused by the lights but by traffic backing up from Bootham and delivery vans in Gillygate.[/p][/quote]So a delivery van caused you delay so the bridge should be shut? So ok you say 6/7min delay... how long would it have taken you to go all the way around should the bridge have be closed? How much extra fumes would have been emitted from your car? My point is it might seem like a long delay time but its quicker and cheaper then driving around the whole city centre to get to your destination.[/p][/quote]You really have no idea at all. jake777
  • Score: 37

1:13am Tue 15 Apr 14

jake777 says...

Archiebold the 1st wrote:
pedalling paul wrote:
Archiebold the 1st wrote:
pedalling paul wrote: I'm sure that the independent Report from the Leeds University-based Institute of Transport Studies will make very interesting reading. Also the planned cross-party independently Chaired Congestion commission will have some hard thinking to do. The Report published today is a foretaste of the very significant issues that they must address. Doing nothing, and allowing unrestrained car access to the centre, are not a viable long term option. That is made very clear. I spotted a mention of congestion charging.........!!
neither is banning cars or charging people to enter their city to shop! If they move this way then the city centre economy will be crippled! Doing nothing is an option paul... do you know why? people would rather wait in a bit of traffic then use a) a bus which doesn’t run decently and costs well over the odds b) cycle, as with shopping its pretty hard c) walk, walking with shopping can be hard if you live miles away. All the anti car lot who say this is such a big issue can you explain why? apart from using mythical reports that say soon we will run out of room? You don't drive in the centre (neither do i!) so why are you bothered? I can promise you this, if a trial like this is done again, or indeed if cars are banned or a congestion chrage implemented, you will all be the cause for yorks economy collapsing. I suggest you see how traffic goes as opening up the new shopping park will take a lot of traffic out of the city and don't just think a pleasant walk is worth the consequences of crippling much needed local businesses.
Question...why don't buses "run decently" as you phrase it? Simply because they are competing for the same roaad space for most of their journeys, except where priority measures, begrudged by many here, ahave been installed. If there were fewrer cars being used for short distance commutes, with the car parked up all day, the buses would be able to offer a very competitive service. The phrase "Chicken and Egg" springs to mind.
Ok for example Paul if you live in cop or acomb park the once every hour bus service really isn’t that convenient? Especially as it does a loop woodthorpe and then tesco... not what I would call a quick and convenient option. This service has been cut and changed in recent years meaning a large area on the outskirt of town doesn't really have a better option then to drive into town. (or drive to tesco park there and wait for the p&r to set off with no set timescales, you can sit on one for 10mins before it even sets off.)

Then I’d say why pay £3+ for the bus when you can nip into town in your car, pay for an hours parking and get home within the hour? Could a once an hour bus service do this? Or would it take around 2 hours? (Being kind there!).

Time is money. I wouldn't pay more and waste time for something that doesn’t offer me any benefits? Would you?
P + R leave every 7-10 minutes the cost is £2.60 so you are saying you can go to town in your car for less than £2.60 not a cat in hell s chance,
[quote][p][bold]Archiebold the 1st[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]pedalling paul [/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Archiebold the 1st[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]pedalling paul [/bold] wrote: I'm sure that the independent Report from the Leeds University-based Institute of Transport Studies will make very interesting reading. Also the planned cross-party independently Chaired Congestion commission will have some hard thinking to do. The Report published today is a foretaste of the very significant issues that they must address. Doing nothing, and allowing unrestrained car access to the centre, are not a viable long term option. That is made very clear. I spotted a mention of congestion charging.........!![/p][/quote]neither is banning cars or charging people to enter their city to shop! If they move this way then the city centre economy will be crippled! Doing nothing is an option paul... do you know why? people would rather wait in a bit of traffic then use a) a bus which doesn’t run decently and costs well over the odds b) cycle, as with shopping its pretty hard c) walk, walking with shopping can be hard if you live miles away. All the anti car lot who say this is such a big issue can you explain why? apart from using mythical reports that say soon we will run out of room? You don't drive in the centre (neither do i!) so why are you bothered? I can promise you this, if a trial like this is done again, or indeed if cars are banned or a congestion chrage implemented, you will all be the cause for yorks economy collapsing. I suggest you see how traffic goes as opening up the new shopping park will take a lot of traffic out of the city and don't just think a pleasant walk is worth the consequences of crippling much needed local businesses.[/p][/quote]Question...why don't buses "run decently" as you phrase it? Simply because they are competing for the same roaad space for most of their journeys, except where priority measures, begrudged by many here, ahave been installed. If there were fewrer cars being used for short distance commutes, with the car parked up all day, the buses would be able to offer a very competitive service. The phrase "Chicken and Egg" springs to mind.[/p][/quote]Ok for example Paul if you live in cop or acomb park the once every hour bus service really isn’t that convenient? Especially as it does a loop woodthorpe and then tesco... not what I would call a quick and convenient option. This service has been cut and changed in recent years meaning a large area on the outskirt of town doesn't really have a better option then to drive into town. (or drive to tesco park there and wait for the p&r to set off with no set timescales, you can sit on one for 10mins before it even sets off.) Then I’d say why pay £3+ for the bus when you can nip into town in your car, pay for an hours parking and get home within the hour? Could a once an hour bus service do this? Or would it take around 2 hours? (Being kind there!). Time is money. I wouldn't pay more and waste time for something that doesn’t offer me any benefits? Would you?[/p][/quote]P + R leave every 7-10 minutes the cost is £2.60 so you are saying you can go to town in your car for less than £2.60 not a cat in hell s chance, jake777
  • Score: 19

2:26am Tue 15 Apr 14

Badgers Drift says...

York2000 wrote:
Move on Stead, give it up. No doubt your Conservative friends have got a boost, so job done for you.
Mark Stead is staying.

It's your discredited, disreputable Labour councillor chums who need to go.

Go now Alexander, Simpson-Laing, and Merrett - avoid further inevitable embarrassment coming your way in May 2015.
[quote][p][bold]York2000[/bold] wrote: Move on Stead, give it up. No doubt your Conservative friends have got a boost, so job done for you.[/p][/quote]Mark Stead is staying. It's your discredited, disreputable Labour councillor chums who need to go. Go now Alexander, Simpson-Laing, and Merrett - avoid further inevitable embarrassment coming your way in May 2015. Badgers Drift
  • Score: -105

2:35am Tue 15 Apr 14

Badgers Drift says...

Garrowby Turnoff wrote:
One of the most disappointment aspects of the Press reporting on this issue is the failure of Newsquest to stop the irritating poll spamming that has totally disabled its usefulness. It would have been interesting to see actual single shot voting here, but the skewing has ruined our chances of that. Every topic has been overvoted by an annoying hacker. I'm informed by a nerd that this multiple voting, which can be done either by adjusting the cookie settings in your browser to allow repeated voting after a refresh, or by creating a small program which alters the IP address of the voter every 6 seconds and automatically votes repeatedly. This method can be run unattended and is difficult to stop but not impossible. Yet Newsquest have let the unscrupulous poll spammers have their way and ruin the voting results for us all. Honestly, it would have been quite acceptable to have removed the score extensions all together rather than this assumption that we would think the scores accurate. If anyone wants to research further then Google "poll spamming" and you'll see that it's a worldwide topic among hackers, who seem to get off on wrecking the establishment and all it stands for. Be careful though as by clicking on certain links you may be entering the realm of exposure to virus infestation, another of their nasty dirty habits.
I agree.

The lack of any action by the Press/Newsquest on this, reflects very badly on them.

I would urge them to do something about it, otherwise they risk being seen as being politically biased.
[quote][p][bold]Garrowby Turnoff[/bold] wrote: One of the most disappointment aspects of the Press reporting on this issue is the failure of Newsquest to stop the irritating poll spamming that has totally disabled its usefulness. It would have been interesting to see actual single shot voting here, but the skewing has ruined our chances of that. Every topic has been overvoted by an annoying hacker. I'm informed by a nerd that this multiple voting, which can be done either by adjusting the cookie settings in your browser to allow repeated voting after a refresh, or by creating a small program which alters the IP address of the voter every 6 seconds and automatically votes repeatedly. This method can be run unattended and is difficult to stop but not impossible. Yet Newsquest have let the unscrupulous poll spammers have their way and ruin the voting results for us all. Honestly, it would have been quite acceptable to have removed the score extensions all together rather than this assumption that we would think the scores accurate. If anyone wants to research further then Google "poll spamming" and you'll see that it's a worldwide topic among hackers, who seem to get off on wrecking the establishment and all it stands for. Be careful though as by clicking on certain links you may be entering the realm of exposure to virus infestation, another of their nasty dirty habits.[/p][/quote]I agree. The lack of any action by the Press/Newsquest on this, reflects very badly on them. I would urge them to do something about it, otherwise they risk being seen as being politically biased. Badgers Drift
  • Score: -102

2:42am Tue 15 Apr 14

Badgers Drift says...

yorkshirelad wrote:
Most of the comments above show that this issue - of massive importance for our city - has been hijacked for political ends. One can only assume it is Lib Dem or Conservative activists at work but they will know full well that if they happened to be elected in York, they would face the same difficult decisions on congestion, pollution and health - all sacrificed for political expediency in the Lendal Bridge issue. The Press clearly sided with one section of York but they do this at their peril...many young people find the Press grumpy and depressing with it's right-wing reactionary tone... hardly any young folk seem to bother with it nowadays. Walking over the Bridge was a pleasure..(generally less congested with some too high speeds though) ...great while it lasted. Remember the footstreets and the vision they took... who now would reverse that change and yet it was bitterly resisted at the time. York will regret the lack of political consensus which would have put the city first and ultimately (though like the footstreets not in the short term) would have been very popular in time. The political ping-pong over transport in York has to end now.
Face the truth - this had very little to do with opposition councillors.


It was the anti-closure sentiment of the majority York people that has caused this trial to fail, with some help from the council with it;'s botched implementation of it.
[quote][p][bold]yorkshirelad[/bold] wrote: Most of the comments above show that this issue - of massive importance for our city - has been hijacked for political ends. One can only assume it is Lib Dem or Conservative activists at work but they will know full well that if they happened to be elected in York, they would face the same difficult decisions on congestion, pollution and health - all sacrificed for political expediency in the Lendal Bridge issue. The Press clearly sided with one section of York but they do this at their peril...many young people find the Press grumpy and depressing with it's right-wing reactionary tone... hardly any young folk seem to bother with it nowadays. Walking over the Bridge was a pleasure..(generally less congested with some too high speeds though) ...great while it lasted. Remember the footstreets and the vision they took... who now would reverse that change and yet it was bitterly resisted at the time. York will regret the lack of political consensus which would have put the city first and ultimately (though like the footstreets not in the short term) would have been very popular in time. The political ping-pong over transport in York has to end now.[/p][/quote]Face the truth - this had very little to do with opposition councillors. It was the anti-closure sentiment of the majority York people that has caused this trial to fail, with some help from the council with it;'s botched implementation of it. Badgers Drift
  • Score: -104

7:08am Tue 15 Apr 14

eeoodares says...

jake777 wrote:
Archiebold the 1st wrote:
pedalling paul wrote:
Archiebold the 1st wrote:
pedalling paul wrote: I'm sure that the independent Report from the Leeds University-based Institute of Transport Studies will make very interesting reading. Also the planned cross-party independently Chaired Congestion commission will have some hard thinking to do. The Report published today is a foretaste of the very significant issues that they must address. Doing nothing, and allowing unrestrained car access to the centre, are not a viable long term option. That is made very clear. I spotted a mention of congestion charging.........!!
neither is banning cars or charging people to enter their city to shop! If they move this way then the city centre economy will be crippled! Doing nothing is an option paul... do you know why? people would rather wait in a bit of traffic then use a) a bus which doesn’t run decently and costs well over the odds b) cycle, as with shopping its pretty hard c) walk, walking with shopping can be hard if you live miles away. All the anti car lot who say this is such a big issue can you explain why? apart from using mythical reports that say soon we will run out of room? You don't drive in the centre (neither do i!) so why are you bothered? I can promise you this, if a trial like this is done again, or indeed if cars are banned or a congestion chrage implemented, you will all be the cause for yorks economy collapsing. I suggest you see how traffic goes as opening up the new shopping park will take a lot of traffic out of the city and don't just think a pleasant walk is worth the consequences of crippling much needed local businesses.
Question...why don't buses "run decently" as you phrase it? Simply because they are competing for the same roaad space for most of their journeys, except where priority measures, begrudged by many here, ahave been installed. If there were fewrer cars being used for short distance commutes, with the car parked up all day, the buses would be able to offer a very competitive service. The phrase "Chicken and Egg" springs to mind.
Ok for example Paul if you live in cop or acomb park the once every hour bus service really isn’t that convenient? Especially as it does a loop woodthorpe and then tesco... not what I would call a quick and convenient option. This service has been cut and changed in recent years meaning a large area on the outskirt of town doesn't really have a better option then to drive into town. (or drive to tesco park there and wait for the p&r to set off with no set timescales, you can sit on one for 10mins before it even sets off.)

Then I’d say why pay £3+ for the bus when you can nip into town in your car, pay for an hours parking and get home within the hour? Could a once an hour bus service do this? Or would it take around 2 hours? (Being kind there!).

Time is money. I wouldn't pay more and waste time for something that doesn’t offer me any benefits? Would you?
P + R leave every 7-10 minutes the cost is £2.60 so you are saying you can go to town in your car for less than £2.60 not a cat in hell s chance,
Are you saying that the distance from the park and ride into town and back will cost you more than £2.60 in fuel???? what are you driving a helicopter!

If its a quick shop, you can park for 1 hour at many spots in York for 30p. Enough time to do your shop, get back and get home.
[quote][p][bold]jake777[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Archiebold the 1st[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]pedalling paul [/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Archiebold the 1st[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]pedalling paul [/bold] wrote: I'm sure that the independent Report from the Leeds University-based Institute of Transport Studies will make very interesting reading. Also the planned cross-party independently Chaired Congestion commission will have some hard thinking to do. The Report published today is a foretaste of the very significant issues that they must address. Doing nothing, and allowing unrestrained car access to the centre, are not a viable long term option. That is made very clear. I spotted a mention of congestion charging.........!![/p][/quote]neither is banning cars or charging people to enter their city to shop! If they move this way then the city centre economy will be crippled! Doing nothing is an option paul... do you know why? people would rather wait in a bit of traffic then use a) a bus which doesn’t run decently and costs well over the odds b) cycle, as with shopping its pretty hard c) walk, walking with shopping can be hard if you live miles away. All the anti car lot who say this is such a big issue can you explain why? apart from using mythical reports that say soon we will run out of room? You don't drive in the centre (neither do i!) so why are you bothered? I can promise you this, if a trial like this is done again, or indeed if cars are banned or a congestion chrage implemented, you will all be the cause for yorks economy collapsing. I suggest you see how traffic goes as opening up the new shopping park will take a lot of traffic out of the city and don't just think a pleasant walk is worth the consequences of crippling much needed local businesses.[/p][/quote]Question...why don't buses "run decently" as you phrase it? Simply because they are competing for the same roaad space for most of their journeys, except where priority measures, begrudged by many here, ahave been installed. If there were fewrer cars being used for short distance commutes, with the car parked up all day, the buses would be able to offer a very competitive service. The phrase "Chicken and Egg" springs to mind.[/p][/quote]Ok for example Paul if you live in cop or acomb park the once every hour bus service really isn’t that convenient? Especially as it does a loop woodthorpe and then tesco... not what I would call a quick and convenient option. This service has been cut and changed in recent years meaning a large area on the outskirt of town doesn't really have a better option then to drive into town. (or drive to tesco park there and wait for the p&r to set off with no set timescales, you can sit on one for 10mins before it even sets off.) Then I’d say why pay £3+ for the bus when you can nip into town in your car, pay for an hours parking and get home within the hour? Could a once an hour bus service do this? Or would it take around 2 hours? (Being kind there!). Time is money. I wouldn't pay more and waste time for something that doesn’t offer me any benefits? Would you?[/p][/quote]P + R leave every 7-10 minutes the cost is £2.60 so you are saying you can go to town in your car for less than £2.60 not a cat in hell s chance,[/p][/quote]Are you saying that the distance from the park and ride into town and back will cost you more than £2.60 in fuel???? what are you driving a helicopter! If its a quick shop, you can park for 1 hour at many spots in York for 30p. Enough time to do your shop, get back and get home. eeoodares
  • Score: -129

7:10am Tue 15 Apr 14

eeoodares says...

jake777 wrote:
pedalling paul wrote:
Archiebold the 1st wrote:
pedalling paul wrote:
I'm sure that the independent Report from the Leeds University-based Institute of Transport Studies will make very interesting reading. Also the planned cross-party independently Chaired Congestion commission will have some hard thinking to do. The Report published today is a foretaste of the very significant issues that they must address. Doing nothing, and allowing unrestrained car access to the centre, are not a viable long term option. That is made very clear. I spotted a mention of congestion charging.........!!
neither is banning cars or charging people to enter their city to shop! If they move this way then the city centre economy will be crippled!

Doing nothing is an option paul... do you know why? people would rather wait in a bit of traffic then use a) a bus which doesn’t run decently and costs well over the odds b) cycle, as with shopping its pretty hard c) walk, walking with shopping can be hard if you live miles away.

All the anti car lot who say this is such a big issue can you explain why? apart from using mythical reports that say soon we will run out of room? You don't drive in the centre (neither do i!) so why are you bothered?

I can promise you this, if a trial like this is done again, or indeed if cars are banned or a congestion chrage implemented, you will all be the cause for yorks economy collapsing.

I suggest you see how traffic goes as opening up the new shopping park will take a lot of traffic out of the city and don't just think a pleasant walk is worth the consequences of crippling much needed local businesses.
Question...why don't buses "run decently" as you phrase it? Simply because they are competing for the same roaad space for most of their journeys, except where priority measures, begrudged by many here, ahave been installed.
If there were fewrer cars being used for short distance commutes, with the car parked up all day, the buses would be able to offer a very competitive service. The phrase "Chicken and Egg" springs to mind.
Well said Paul , they just can't get it into their thick heads it is to hard for them to understand. But then they all go round with blinkers on.
Are you saying that the distance from the park and ride into town and back will cost you more than £2.60 in fuel???? what are you driving a helicopter!

If its a quick shop, you can park for 1 hour at many spots in York for 30p. Enough time to do your shop, get back and get home.
[quote][p][bold]jake777[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]pedalling paul [/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Archiebold the 1st[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]pedalling paul [/bold] wrote: I'm sure that the independent Report from the Leeds University-based Institute of Transport Studies will make very interesting reading. Also the planned cross-party independently Chaired Congestion commission will have some hard thinking to do. The Report published today is a foretaste of the very significant issues that they must address. Doing nothing, and allowing unrestrained car access to the centre, are not a viable long term option. That is made very clear. I spotted a mention of congestion charging.........!![/p][/quote]neither is banning cars or charging people to enter their city to shop! If they move this way then the city centre economy will be crippled! Doing nothing is an option paul... do you know why? people would rather wait in a bit of traffic then use a) a bus which doesn’t run decently and costs well over the odds b) cycle, as with shopping its pretty hard c) walk, walking with shopping can be hard if you live miles away. All the anti car lot who say this is such a big issue can you explain why? apart from using mythical reports that say soon we will run out of room? You don't drive in the centre (neither do i!) so why are you bothered? I can promise you this, if a trial like this is done again, or indeed if cars are banned or a congestion chrage implemented, you will all be the cause for yorks economy collapsing. I suggest you see how traffic goes as opening up the new shopping park will take a lot of traffic out of the city and don't just think a pleasant walk is worth the consequences of crippling much needed local businesses.[/p][/quote]Question...why don't buses "run decently" as you phrase it? Simply because they are competing for the same roaad space for most of their journeys, except where priority measures, begrudged by many here, ahave been installed. If there were fewrer cars being used for short distance commutes, with the car parked up all day, the buses would be able to offer a very competitive service. The phrase "Chicken and Egg" springs to mind.[/p][/quote]Well said Paul , they just can't get it into their thick heads it is to hard for them to understand. But then they all go round with blinkers on.[/p][/quote]Are you saying that the distance from the park and ride into town and back will cost you more than £2.60 in fuel???? what are you driving a helicopter! If its a quick shop, you can park for 1 hour at many spots in York for 30p. Enough time to do your shop, get back and get home. eeoodares
  • Score: -136

7:16am Tue 15 Apr 14

eeoodares says...

jake777 wrote:
pedalling paul wrote:
Archiebold the 1st wrote:
pedalling paul wrote:
I'm sure that the independent Report from the Leeds University-based Institute of Transport Studies will make very interesting reading. Also the planned cross-party independently Chaired Congestion commission will have some hard thinking to do. The Report published today is a foretaste of the very significant issues that they must address. Doing nothing, and allowing unrestrained car access to the centre, are not a viable long term option. That is made very clear. I spotted a mention of congestion charging.........!!
neither is banning cars or charging people to enter their city to shop! If they move this way then the city centre economy will be crippled!

Doing nothing is an option paul... do you know why? people would rather wait in a bit of traffic then use a) a bus which doesn’t run decently and costs well over the odds b) cycle, as with shopping its pretty hard c) walk, walking with shopping can be hard if you live miles away.

All the anti car lot who say this is such a big issue can you explain why? apart from using mythical reports that say soon we will run out of room? You don't drive in the centre (neither do i!) so why are you bothered?

I can promise you this, if a trial like this is done again, or indeed if cars are banned or a congestion chrage implemented, you will all be the cause for yorks economy collapsing.

I suggest you see how traffic goes as opening up the new shopping park will take a lot of traffic out of the city and don't just think a pleasant walk is worth the consequences of crippling much needed local businesses.
Question...why don't buses "run decently" as you phrase it? Simply because they are competing for the same roaad space for most of their journeys, except where priority measures, begrudged by many here, ahave been installed.
If there were fewrer cars being used for short distance commutes, with the car parked up all day, the buses would be able to offer a very competitive service. The phrase "Chicken and Egg" springs to mind.
Well said Paul , they just can't get it into their thick heads it is to hard for them to understand. But then they all go round with blinkers on.
Paul and Jake. You and your colleagues at the Council are through, they are finished.

Your arguments are worthless and you lose at every turn.

If, as you two believe that the biggest problem is the volume of traffic in our City. Why oh why have your leaders decided that on several random mornings a week that they will incentivise car drivers to come into the City centre AT RUSH HOUR???? Where is your argument supporting your colleagues on this!
[quote][p][bold]jake777[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]pedalling paul [/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Archiebold the 1st[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]pedalling paul [/bold] wrote: I'm sure that the independent Report from the Leeds University-based Institute of Transport Studies will make very interesting reading. Also the planned cross-party independently Chaired Congestion commission will have some hard thinking to do. The Report published today is a foretaste of the very significant issues that they must address. Doing nothing, and allowing unrestrained car access to the centre, are not a viable long term option. That is made very clear. I spotted a mention of congestion charging.........!![/p][/quote]neither is banning cars or charging people to enter their city to shop! If they move this way then the city centre economy will be crippled! Doing nothing is an option paul... do you know why? people would rather wait in a bit of traffic then use a) a bus which doesn’t run decently and costs well over the odds b) cycle, as with shopping its pretty hard c) walk, walking with shopping can be hard if you live miles away. All the anti car lot who say this is such a big issue can you explain why? apart from using mythical reports that say soon we will run out of room? You don't drive in the centre (neither do i!) so why are you bothered? I can promise you this, if a trial like this is done again, or indeed if cars are banned or a congestion chrage implemented, you will all be the cause for yorks economy collapsing. I suggest you see how traffic goes as opening up the new shopping park will take a lot of traffic out of the city and don't just think a pleasant walk is worth the consequences of crippling much needed local businesses.[/p][/quote]Question...why don't buses "run decently" as you phrase it? Simply because they are competing for the same roaad space for most of their journeys, except where priority measures, begrudged by many here, ahave been installed. If there were fewrer cars being used for short distance commutes, with the car parked up all day, the buses would be able to offer a very competitive service. The phrase "Chicken and Egg" springs to mind.[/p][/quote]Well said Paul , they just can't get it into their thick heads it is to hard for them to understand. But then they all go round with blinkers on.[/p][/quote]Paul and Jake. You and your colleagues at the Council are through, they are finished. Your arguments are worthless and you lose at every turn. If, as you two believe that the biggest problem is the volume of traffic in our City. Why oh why have your leaders decided that on several random mornings a week that they will incentivise car drivers to come into the City centre AT RUSH HOUR???? Where is your argument supporting your colleagues on this! eeoodares
  • Score: -121

8:46am Tue 15 Apr 14

pedalling paul says...

eeoodares wrote:
jake777 wrote:
pedalling paul wrote:
Archiebold the 1st wrote:
pedalling paul wrote:
I'm sure that the independent Report from the Leeds University-based Institute of Transport Studies will make very interesting reading. Also the planned cross-party independently Chaired Congestion commission will have some hard thinking to do. The Report published today is a foretaste of the very significant issues that they must address. Doing nothing, and allowing unrestrained car access to the centre, are not a viable long term option. That is made very clear. I spotted a mention of congestion charging.........!!
neither is banning cars or charging people to enter their city to shop! If they move this way then the city centre economy will be crippled!

Doing nothing is an option paul... do you know why? people would rather wait in a bit of traffic then use a) a bus which doesn’t run decently and costs well over the odds b) cycle, as with shopping its pretty hard c) walk, walking with shopping can be hard if you live miles away.

All the anti car lot who say this is such a big issue can you explain why? apart from using mythical reports that say soon we will run out of room? You don't drive in the centre (neither do i!) so why are you bothered?

I can promise you this, if a trial like this is done again, or indeed if cars are banned or a congestion chrage implemented, you will all be the cause for yorks economy collapsing.

I suggest you see how traffic goes as opening up the new shopping park will take a lot of traffic out of the city and don't just think a pleasant walk is worth the consequences of crippling much needed local businesses.
Question...why don't buses "run decently" as you phrase it? Simply because they are competing for the same roaad space for most of their journeys, except where priority measures, begrudged by many here, ahave been installed.
If there were fewrer cars being used for short distance commutes, with the car parked up all day, the buses would be able to offer a very competitive service. The phrase "Chicken and Egg" springs to mind.
Well said Paul , they just can't get it into their thick heads it is to hard for them to understand. But then they all go round with blinkers on.
Paul and Jake. You and your colleagues at the Council are through, they are finished.

Your arguments are worthless and you lose at every turn.

If, as you two believe that the biggest problem is the volume of traffic in our City. Why oh why have your leaders decided that on several random mornings a week that they will incentivise car drivers to come into the City centre AT RUSH HOUR???? Where is your argument supporting your colleagues on this!
Check the main thread on the free parking topic please.
[quote][p][bold]eeoodares[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]jake777[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]pedalling paul [/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Archiebold the 1st[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]pedalling paul [/bold] wrote: I'm sure that the independent Report from the Leeds University-based Institute of Transport Studies will make very interesting reading. Also the planned cross-party independently Chaired Congestion commission will have some hard thinking to do. The Report published today is a foretaste of the very significant issues that they must address. Doing nothing, and allowing unrestrained car access to the centre, are not a viable long term option. That is made very clear. I spotted a mention of congestion charging.........!![/p][/quote]neither is banning cars or charging people to enter their city to shop! If they move this way then the city centre economy will be crippled! Doing nothing is an option paul... do you know why? people would rather wait in a bit of traffic then use a) a bus which doesn’t run decently and costs well over the odds b) cycle, as with shopping its pretty hard c) walk, walking with shopping can be hard if you live miles away. All the anti car lot who say this is such a big issue can you explain why? apart from using mythical reports that say soon we will run out of room? You don't drive in the centre (neither do i!) so why are you bothered? I can promise you this, if a trial like this is done again, or indeed if cars are banned or a congestion chrage implemented, you will all be the cause for yorks economy collapsing. I suggest you see how traffic goes as opening up the new shopping park will take a lot of traffic out of the city and don't just think a pleasant walk is worth the consequences of crippling much needed local businesses.[/p][/quote]Question...why don't buses "run decently" as you phrase it? Simply because they are competing for the same roaad space for most of their journeys, except where priority measures, begrudged by many here, ahave been installed. If there were fewrer cars being used for short distance commutes, with the car parked up all day, the buses would be able to offer a very competitive service. The phrase "Chicken and Egg" springs to mind.[/p][/quote]Well said Paul , they just can't get it into their thick heads it is to hard for them to understand. But then they all go round with blinkers on.[/p][/quote]Paul and Jake. You and your colleagues at the Council are through, they are finished. Your arguments are worthless and you lose at every turn. If, as you two believe that the biggest problem is the volume of traffic in our City. Why oh why have your leaders decided that on several random mornings a week that they will incentivise car drivers to come into the City centre AT RUSH HOUR???? Where is your argument supporting your colleagues on this![/p][/quote]Check the main thread on the free parking topic please. pedalling paul
  • Score: -1

9:11am Tue 15 Apr 14

Archiebold the 1st says...

Caecilius wrote:
Archiebold the 1st wrote:
pedalling paul wrote: I'm sure that the independent Report from the Leeds University-based Institute of Transport Studies will make very interesting reading. Also the planned cross-party independently Chaired Congestion commission will have some hard thinking to do. The Report published today is a foretaste of the very significant issues that they must address. Doing nothing, and allowing unrestrained car access to the centre, are not a viable long term option. That is made very clear. I spotted a mention of congestion charging.........!!
neither is banning cars or charging people to enter their city to shop! If they move this way then the city centre economy will be crippled! Doing nothing is an option paul... do you know why? people would rather wait in a bit of traffic then use a) a bus which doesn’t run decently and costs well over the odds b) cycle, as with shopping its pretty hard c) walk, walking with shopping can be hard if you live miles away. All the anti car lot who say this is such a big issue can you explain why? apart from using mythical reports that say soon we will run out of room? You don't drive in the centre (neither do i!) so why are you bothered? I can promise you this, if a trial like this is done again, or indeed if cars are banned or a congestion chrage implemented, you will all be the cause for yorks economy collapsing. I suggest you see how traffic goes as opening up the new shopping park will take a lot of traffic out of the city and don't just think a pleasant walk is worth the consequences of crippling much needed local businesses.
A lot of people AREN'T prepared to "wait in a bit of traffic", though, are they? They want other groups, not themselves, to be the ones who take the consequences of their choice to get into a car and clog the roads up. The 'solutions' they shout for always involve somebody else losing out - people who used the Water End cycle lane; people who live on the residential streets that drivers use as rat-runs, while ignoring the 20 mph limit because it doesn't suit them; pedestrians who cross the road at the traffic lights that some of them demand should be ripped out; people who want to walk freely down streets that were never designed to accommodate motor vehicles.....the list goes on and on. And you turn this attitude on its head and characterise those of us who object to it as "anti-car".That's why it's a big issue. If the drivers causing the congestion were the only ones it was impacting on, then most likely the rest of us would take a 'live and let live' line - unlike the car lobby, which demands that its interests always have to be paramount..
Well they are prepared to wait in traffic or there wouldn't be any?? and if by using an alternative route to reduce traffic is seen as a bad thing then what can you do?

Don't start on the 20mph thing... yeh at schools it should be! but most streets in york where the limits are you can't even get above 20mph! and if you can its safe! how many people are knocked over in residential areas of 20mph? give you a clue... none! So you're against cars because they drive past your house... you chose where you live... pretty sure cars will have been driving past there prior to your arrival. You say my view flips it but petty arguments like "they aren't prepared to wait blah". so what if they did stick to the ridicules 20mph zones? would you be happy then? no your wouldn't as there is no pleasing people like you who have a vendetta against cars.
[quote][p][bold]Caecilius[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Archiebold the 1st[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]pedalling paul [/bold] wrote: I'm sure that the independent Report from the Leeds University-based Institute of Transport Studies will make very interesting reading. Also the planned cross-party independently Chaired Congestion commission will have some hard thinking to do. The Report published today is a foretaste of the very significant issues that they must address. Doing nothing, and allowing unrestrained car access to the centre, are not a viable long term option. That is made very clear. I spotted a mention of congestion charging.........!![/p][/quote]neither is banning cars or charging people to enter their city to shop! If they move this way then the city centre economy will be crippled! Doing nothing is an option paul... do you know why? people would rather wait in a bit of traffic then use a) a bus which doesn’t run decently and costs well over the odds b) cycle, as with shopping its pretty hard c) walk, walking with shopping can be hard if you live miles away. All the anti car lot who say this is such a big issue can you explain why? apart from using mythical reports that say soon we will run out of room? You don't drive in the centre (neither do i!) so why are you bothered? I can promise you this, if a trial like this is done again, or indeed if cars are banned or a congestion chrage implemented, you will all be the cause for yorks economy collapsing. I suggest you see how traffic goes as opening up the new shopping park will take a lot of traffic out of the city and don't just think a pleasant walk is worth the consequences of crippling much needed local businesses.[/p][/quote]A lot of people AREN'T prepared to "wait in a bit [sic] of traffic", though, are they? They want other groups, not themselves, to be the ones who take the consequences of their choice to get into a car and clog the roads up. The 'solutions' they shout for always involve somebody else losing out - people who used the Water End cycle lane; people who live on the residential streets that drivers use as rat-runs, while ignoring the 20 mph limit because it doesn't suit them; pedestrians who cross the road at the traffic lights that some of them demand should be ripped out; people who want to walk freely down streets that were never designed to accommodate motor vehicles.....the list goes on and on. And you turn this attitude on its head and characterise those of us who object to it as "anti-car".That's why it's a big issue. If the drivers causing the congestion were the only ones it was impacting on, then most likely the rest of us would take a 'live and let live' line - unlike the car lobby, which demands that its interests always have to be paramount..[/p][/quote]Well they are prepared to wait in traffic or there wouldn't be any?? and if by using an alternative route to reduce traffic is seen as a bad thing then what can you do? Don't start on the 20mph thing... yeh at schools it should be! but most streets in york where the limits are you can't even get above 20mph! and if you can its safe! how many people are knocked over in residential areas of 20mph? give you a clue... none! So you're against cars because they drive past your house... you chose where you live... pretty sure cars will have been driving past there prior to your arrival. You say my view flips it but petty arguments like "they aren't prepared to wait blah". so what if they did stick to the ridicules 20mph zones? would you be happy then? no your wouldn't as there is no pleasing people like you who have a vendetta against cars. Archiebold the 1st
  • Score: 0

9:16am Tue 15 Apr 14

Archiebold the 1st says...

jake777 wrote:
Archiebold the 1st wrote:
pedalling paul wrote:
Archiebold the 1st wrote:
pedalling paul wrote: I'm sure that the independent Report from the Leeds University-based Institute of Transport Studies will make very interesting reading. Also the planned cross-party independently Chaired Congestion commission will have some hard thinking to do. The Report published today is a foretaste of the very significant issues that they must address. Doing nothing, and allowing unrestrained car access to the centre, are not a viable long term option. That is made very clear. I spotted a mention of congestion charging.........!!
neither is banning cars or charging people to enter their city to shop! If they move this way then the city centre economy will be crippled! Doing nothing is an option paul... do you know why? people would rather wait in a bit of traffic then use a) a bus which doesn’t run decently and costs well over the odds b) cycle, as with shopping its pretty hard c) walk, walking with shopping can be hard if you live miles away. All the anti car lot who say this is such a big issue can you explain why? apart from using mythical reports that say soon we will run out of room? You don't drive in the centre (neither do i!) so why are you bothered? I can promise you this, if a trial like this is done again, or indeed if cars are banned or a congestion chrage implemented, you will all be the cause for yorks economy collapsing. I suggest you see how traffic goes as opening up the new shopping park will take a lot of traffic out of the city and don't just think a pleasant walk is worth the consequences of crippling much needed local businesses.
Question...why don't buses "run decently" as you phrase it? Simply because they are competing for the same roaad space for most of their journeys, except where priority measures, begrudged by many here, ahave been installed. If there were fewrer cars being used for short distance commutes, with the car parked up all day, the buses would be able to offer a very competitive service. The phrase "Chicken and Egg" springs to mind.
Ok for example Paul if you live in cop or acomb park the once every hour bus service really isn’t that convenient? Especially as it does a loop woodthorpe and then tesco... not what I would call a quick and convenient option. This service has been cut and changed in recent years meaning a large area on the outskirt of town doesn't really have a better option then to drive into town. (or drive to tesco park there and wait for the p&r to set off with no set timescales, you can sit on one for 10mins before it even sets off.) Then I’d say why pay £3+ for the bus when you can nip into town in your car, pay for an hours parking and get home within the hour? Could a once an hour bus service do this? Or would it take around 2 hours? (Being kind there!). Time is money. I wouldn't pay more and waste time for something that doesn’t offer me any benefits? Would you?
P + R leave every 7-10 minutes the cost is £2.60 so you are saying you can go to town in your car for less than £2.60 not a cat in hell s chance,
Ok so you might only have to wait 7mins... oh ok.. .if you use the park and ride it might be £1 cheaper.. but you have to drive there anyway and its only an extra mile to town. So petrol £1 & parking £2 you could save 40p by using the park and ride.. obviously this would add a min of 1 hour to your journey time but for the 40p you could get... eerrr.... 2 packs of space raiders?
[quote][p][bold]jake777[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Archiebold the 1st[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]pedalling paul [/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Archiebold the 1st[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]pedalling paul [/bold] wrote: I'm sure that the independent Report from the Leeds University-based Institute of Transport Studies will make very interesting reading. Also the planned cross-party independently Chaired Congestion commission will have some hard thinking to do. The Report published today is a foretaste of the very significant issues that they must address. Doing nothing, and allowing unrestrained car access to the centre, are not a viable long term option. That is made very clear. I spotted a mention of congestion charging.........!![/p][/quote]neither is banning cars or charging people to enter their city to shop! If they move this way then the city centre economy will be crippled! Doing nothing is an option paul... do you know why? people would rather wait in a bit of traffic then use a) a bus which doesn’t run decently and costs well over the odds b) cycle, as with shopping its pretty hard c) walk, walking with shopping can be hard if you live miles away. All the anti car lot who say this is such a big issue can you explain why? apart from using mythical reports that say soon we will run out of room? You don't drive in the centre (neither do i!) so why are you bothered? I can promise you this, if a trial like this is done again, or indeed if cars are banned or a congestion chrage implemented, you will all be the cause for yorks economy collapsing. I suggest you see how traffic goes as opening up the new shopping park will take a lot of traffic out of the city and don't just think a pleasant walk is worth the consequences of crippling much needed local businesses.[/p][/quote]Question...why don't buses "run decently" as you phrase it? Simply because they are competing for the same roaad space for most of their journeys, except where priority measures, begrudged by many here, ahave been installed. If there were fewrer cars being used for short distance commutes, with the car parked up all day, the buses would be able to offer a very competitive service. The phrase "Chicken and Egg" springs to mind.[/p][/quote]Ok for example Paul if you live in cop or acomb park the once every hour bus service really isn’t that convenient? Especially as it does a loop woodthorpe and then tesco... not what I would call a quick and convenient option. This service has been cut and changed in recent years meaning a large area on the outskirt of town doesn't really have a better option then to drive into town. (or drive to tesco park there and wait for the p&r to set off with no set timescales, you can sit on one for 10mins before it even sets off.) Then I’d say why pay £3+ for the bus when you can nip into town in your car, pay for an hours parking and get home within the hour? Could a once an hour bus service do this? Or would it take around 2 hours? (Being kind there!). Time is money. I wouldn't pay more and waste time for something that doesn’t offer me any benefits? Would you?[/p][/quote]P + R leave every 7-10 minutes the cost is £2.60 so you are saying you can go to town in your car for less than £2.60 not a cat in hell s chance,[/p][/quote]Ok so you might only have to wait 7mins... oh ok.. .if you use the park and ride it might be £1 cheaper.. but you have to drive there anyway and its only an extra mile to town. So petrol £1 & parking £2 you could save 40p by using the park and ride.. obviously this would add a min of 1 hour to your journey time but for the 40p you could get... eerrr.... 2 packs of space raiders? Archiebold the 1st
  • Score: 0

9:33am Tue 15 Apr 14

itsjustme2 says...

Isn't David Merritt a cyclist?
No surprises then where this crazy idea had its origins!!
Isn't David Merritt a cyclist? No surprises then where this crazy idea had its origins!! itsjustme2
  • Score: 3

12:12am Wed 16 Apr 14

jake777 says...

eeoodares wrote:
jake777 wrote:
Archiebold the 1st wrote:
pedalling paul wrote:
Archiebold the 1st wrote:
pedalling paul wrote: I'm sure that the independent Report from the Leeds University-based Institute of Transport Studies will make very interesting reading. Also the planned cross-party independently Chaired Congestion commission will have some hard thinking to do. The Report published today is a foretaste of the very significant issues that they must address. Doing nothing, and allowing unrestrained car access to the centre, are not a viable long term option. That is made very clear. I spotted a mention of congestion charging.........!!
neither is banning cars or charging people to enter their city to shop! If they move this way then the city centre economy will be crippled! Doing nothing is an option paul... do you know why? people would rather wait in a bit of traffic then use a) a bus which doesn’t run decently and costs well over the odds b) cycle, as with shopping its pretty hard c) walk, walking with shopping can be hard if you live miles away. All the anti car lot who say this is such a big issue can you explain why? apart from using mythical reports that say soon we will run out of room? You don't drive in the centre (neither do i!) so why are you bothered? I can promise you this, if a trial like this is done again, or indeed if cars are banned or a congestion chrage implemented, you will all be the cause for yorks economy collapsing. I suggest you see how traffic goes as opening up the new shopping park will take a lot of traffic out of the city and don't just think a pleasant walk is worth the consequences of crippling much needed local businesses.
Question...why don't buses "run decently" as you phrase it? Simply because they are competing for the same roaad space for most of their journeys, except where priority measures, begrudged by many here, ahave been installed. If there were fewrer cars being used for short distance commutes, with the car parked up all day, the buses would be able to offer a very competitive service. The phrase "Chicken and Egg" springs to mind.
Ok for example Paul if you live in cop or acomb park the once every hour bus service really isn’t that convenient? Especially as it does a loop woodthorpe and then tesco... not what I would call a quick and convenient option. This service has been cut and changed in recent years meaning a large area on the outskirt of town doesn't really have a better option then to drive into town. (or drive to tesco park there and wait for the p&r to set off with no set timescales, you can sit on one for 10mins before it even sets off.)

Then I’d say why pay £3+ for the bus when you can nip into town in your car, pay for an hours parking and get home within the hour? Could a once an hour bus service do this? Or would it take around 2 hours? (Being kind there!).

Time is money. I wouldn't pay more and waste time for something that doesn’t offer me any benefits? Would you?
P + R leave every 7-10 minutes the cost is £2.60 so you are saying you can go to town in your car for less than £2.60 not a cat in hell s chance,
Are you saying that the distance from the park and ride into town and back will cost you more than £2.60 in fuel???? what are you driving a helicopter!

If its a quick shop, you can park for 1 hour at many spots in York for 30p. Enough time to do your shop, get back and get home.
read it properly, I am saying you cannot drive to town in a car for £2.60 not just fuel all running costs total more than £2.60. You have just said 30p to park so your total running cost are less than £2.30 now don't think so.
[quote][p][bold]eeoodares[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]jake777[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Archiebold the 1st[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]pedalling paul [/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Archiebold the 1st[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]pedalling paul [/bold] wrote: I'm sure that the independent Report from the Leeds University-based Institute of Transport Studies will make very interesting reading. Also the planned cross-party independently Chaired Congestion commission will have some hard thinking to do. The Report published today is a foretaste of the very significant issues that they must address. Doing nothing, and allowing unrestrained car access to the centre, are not a viable long term option. That is made very clear. I spotted a mention of congestion charging.........!![/p][/quote]neither is banning cars or charging people to enter their city to shop! If they move this way then the city centre economy will be crippled! Doing nothing is an option paul... do you know why? people would rather wait in a bit of traffic then use a) a bus which doesn’t run decently and costs well over the odds b) cycle, as with shopping its pretty hard c) walk, walking with shopping can be hard if you live miles away. All the anti car lot who say this is such a big issue can you explain why? apart from using mythical reports that say soon we will run out of room? You don't drive in the centre (neither do i!) so why are you bothered? I can promise you this, if a trial like this is done again, or indeed if cars are banned or a congestion chrage implemented, you will all be the cause for yorks economy collapsing. I suggest you see how traffic goes as opening up the new shopping park will take a lot of traffic out of the city and don't just think a pleasant walk is worth the consequences of crippling much needed local businesses.[/p][/quote]Question...why don't buses "run decently" as you phrase it? Simply because they are competing for the same roaad space for most of their journeys, except where priority measures, begrudged by many here, ahave been installed. If there were fewrer cars being used for short distance commutes, with the car parked up all day, the buses would be able to offer a very competitive service. The phrase "Chicken and Egg" springs to mind.[/p][/quote]Ok for example Paul if you live in cop or acomb park the once every hour bus service really isn’t that convenient? Especially as it does a loop woodthorpe and then tesco... not what I would call a quick and convenient option. This service has been cut and changed in recent years meaning a large area on the outskirt of town doesn't really have a better option then to drive into town. (or drive to tesco park there and wait for the p&r to set off with no set timescales, you can sit on one for 10mins before it even sets off.) Then I’d say why pay £3+ for the bus when you can nip into town in your car, pay for an hours parking and get home within the hour? Could a once an hour bus service do this? Or would it take around 2 hours? (Being kind there!). Time is money. I wouldn't pay more and waste time for something that doesn’t offer me any benefits? Would you?[/p][/quote]P + R leave every 7-10 minutes the cost is £2.60 so you are saying you can go to town in your car for less than £2.60 not a cat in hell s chance,[/p][/quote]Are you saying that the distance from the park and ride into town and back will cost you more than £2.60 in fuel???? what are you driving a helicopter! If its a quick shop, you can park for 1 hour at many spots in York for 30p. Enough time to do your shop, get back and get home.[/p][/quote]read it properly, I am saying you cannot drive to town in a car for £2.60 not just fuel all running costs total more than £2.60. You have just said 30p to park so your total running cost are less than £2.30 now don't think so. jake777
  • Score: 0

12:21am Wed 16 Apr 14

jake777 says...

eeoodares wrote:
jake777 wrote:
pedalling paul wrote:
Archiebold the 1st wrote:
pedalling paul wrote:
I'm sure that the independent Report from the Leeds University-based Institute of Transport Studies will make very interesting reading. Also the planned cross-party independently Chaired Congestion commission will have some hard thinking to do. The Report published today is a foretaste of the very significant issues that they must address. Doing nothing, and allowing unrestrained car access to the centre, are not a viable long term option. That is made very clear. I spotted a mention of congestion charging.........!!
neither is banning cars or charging people to enter their city to shop! If they move this way then the city centre economy will be crippled!

Doing nothing is an option paul... do you know why? people would rather wait in a bit of traffic then use a) a bus which doesn’t run decently and costs well over the odds b) cycle, as with shopping its pretty hard c) walk, walking with shopping can be hard if you live miles away.

All the anti car lot who say this is such a big issue can you explain why? apart from using mythical reports that say soon we will run out of room? You don't drive in the centre (neither do i!) so why are you bothered?

I can promise you this, if a trial like this is done again, or indeed if cars are banned or a congestion chrage implemented, you will all be the cause for yorks economy collapsing.

I suggest you see how traffic goes as opening up the new shopping park will take a lot of traffic out of the city and don't just think a pleasant walk is worth the consequences of crippling much needed local businesses.
Question...why don't buses "run decently" as you phrase it? Simply because they are competing for the same roaad space for most of their journeys, except where priority measures, begrudged by many here, ahave been installed.
If there were fewrer cars being used for short distance commutes, with the car parked up all day, the buses would be able to offer a very competitive service. The phrase "Chicken and Egg" springs to mind.
Well said Paul , they just can't get it into their thick heads it is to hard for them to understand. But then they all go round with blinkers on.
Paul and Jake. You and your colleagues at the Council are through, they are finished.

Your arguments are worthless and you lose at every turn.

If, as you two believe that the biggest problem is the volume of traffic in our City. Why oh why have your leaders decided that on several random mornings a week that they will incentivise car drivers to come into the City centre AT RUSH HOUR???? Where is your argument supporting your colleagues on this!
Please get your facts right a) I dont work for york city council and my colleagues and I uphold the law thats a clue, b) and we are not through unlike you, c) we dont lose at all.
[quote][p][bold]eeoodares[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]jake777[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]pedalling paul [/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Archiebold the 1st[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]pedalling paul [/bold] wrote: I'm sure that the independent Report from the Leeds University-based Institute of Transport Studies will make very interesting reading. Also the planned cross-party independently Chaired Congestion commission will have some hard thinking to do. The Report published today is a foretaste of the very significant issues that they must address. Doing nothing, and allowing unrestrained car access to the centre, are not a viable long term option. That is made very clear. I spotted a mention of congestion charging.........!![/p][/quote]neither is banning cars or charging people to enter their city to shop! If they move this way then the city centre economy will be crippled! Doing nothing is an option paul... do you know why? people would rather wait in a bit of traffic then use a) a bus which doesn’t run decently and costs well over the odds b) cycle, as with shopping its pretty hard c) walk, walking with shopping can be hard if you live miles away. All the anti car lot who say this is such a big issue can you explain why? apart from using mythical reports that say soon we will run out of room? You don't drive in the centre (neither do i!) so why are you bothered? I can promise you this, if a trial like this is done again, or indeed if cars are banned or a congestion chrage implemented, you will all be the cause for yorks economy collapsing. I suggest you see how traffic goes as opening up the new shopping park will take a lot of traffic out of the city and don't just think a pleasant walk is worth the consequences of crippling much needed local businesses.[/p][/quote]Question...why don't buses "run decently" as you phrase it? Simply because they are competing for the same roaad space for most of their journeys, except where priority measures, begrudged by many here, ahave been installed. If there were fewrer cars being used for short distance commutes, with the car parked up all day, the buses would be able to offer a very competitive service. The phrase "Chicken and Egg" springs to mind.[/p][/quote]Well said Paul , they just can't get it into their thick heads it is to hard for them to understand. But then they all go round with blinkers on.[/p][/quote]Paul and Jake. You and your colleagues at the Council are through, they are finished. Your arguments are worthless and you lose at every turn. If, as you two believe that the biggest problem is the volume of traffic in our City. Why oh why have your leaders decided that on several random mornings a week that they will incentivise car drivers to come into the City centre AT RUSH HOUR???? Where is your argument supporting your colleagues on this![/p][/quote]Please get your facts right a) I dont work for york city council and my colleagues and I uphold the law thats a clue, b) and we are not through unlike you, c) we dont lose at all. jake777
  • Score: 0

12:28am Wed 16 Apr 14

jake777 says...

Archiebold the 1st wrote:
jake777 wrote:
Archiebold the 1st wrote:
pedalling paul wrote:
Archiebold the 1st wrote:
pedalling paul wrote: I'm sure that the independent Report from the Leeds University-based Institute of Transport Studies will make very interesting reading. Also the planned cross-party independently Chaired Congestion commission will have some hard thinking to do. The Report published today is a foretaste of the very significant issues that they must address. Doing nothing, and allowing unrestrained car access to the centre, are not a viable long term option. That is made very clear. I spotted a mention of congestion charging.........!!
neither is banning cars or charging people to enter their city to shop! If they move this way then the city centre economy will be crippled! Doing nothing is an option paul... do you know why? people would rather wait in a bit of traffic then use a) a bus which doesn’t run decently and costs well over the odds b) cycle, as with shopping its pretty hard c) walk, walking with shopping can be hard if you live miles away. All the anti car lot who say this is such a big issue can you explain why? apart from using mythical reports that say soon we will run out of room? You don't drive in the centre (neither do i!) so why are you bothered? I can promise you this, if a trial like this is done again, or indeed if cars are banned or a congestion chrage implemented, you will all be the cause for yorks economy collapsing. I suggest you see how traffic goes as opening up the new shopping park will take a lot of traffic out of the city and don't just think a pleasant walk is worth the consequences of crippling much needed local businesses.
Question...why don't buses "run decently" as you phrase it? Simply because they are competing for the same roaad space for most of their journeys, except where priority measures, begrudged by many here, ahave been installed. If there were fewrer cars being used for short distance commutes, with the car parked up all day, the buses would be able to offer a very competitive service. The phrase "Chicken and Egg" springs to mind.
Ok for example Paul if you live in cop or acomb park the once every hour bus service really isn’t that convenient? Especially as it does a loop woodthorpe and then tesco... not what I would call a quick and convenient option. This service has been cut and changed in recent years meaning a large area on the outskirt of town doesn't really have a better option then to drive into town. (or drive to tesco park there and wait for the p&r to set off with no set timescales, you can sit on one for 10mins before it even sets off.) Then I’d say why pay £3+ for the bus when you can nip into town in your car, pay for an hours parking and get home within the hour? Could a once an hour bus service do this? Or would it take around 2 hours? (Being kind there!). Time is money. I wouldn't pay more and waste time for something that doesn’t offer me any benefits? Would you?
P + R leave every 7-10 minutes the cost is £2.60 so you are saying you can go to town in your car for less than £2.60 not a cat in hell s chance,
Ok so you might only have to wait 7mins... oh ok.. .if you use the park and ride it might be £1 cheaper.. but you have to drive there anyway and its only an extra mile to town. So petrol £1 & parking £2 you could save 40p by using the park and ride.. obviously this would add a min of 1 hour to your journey time but for the 40p you could get... eerrr.... 2 packs of space raiders?
what about the cost of wear & tear Oh I forgot about that yer you might need the 2 packls of space raiders while waiting in the garage for repairs to your car,
[quote][p][bold]Archiebold the 1st[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]jake777[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Archiebold the 1st[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]pedalling paul [/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Archiebold the 1st[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]pedalling paul [/bold] wrote: I'm sure that the independent Report from the Leeds University-based Institute of Transport Studies will make very interesting reading. Also the planned cross-party independently Chaired Congestion commission will have some hard thinking to do. The Report published today is a foretaste of the very significant issues that they must address. Doing nothing, and allowing unrestrained car access to the centre, are not a viable long term option. That is made very clear. I spotted a mention of congestion charging.........!![/p][/quote]neither is banning cars or charging people to enter their city to shop! If they move this way then the city centre economy will be crippled! Doing nothing is an option paul... do you know why? people would rather wait in a bit of traffic then use a) a bus which doesn’t run decently and costs well over the odds b) cycle, as with shopping its pretty hard c) walk, walking with shopping can be hard if you live miles away. All the anti car lot who say this is such a big issue can you explain why? apart from using mythical reports that say soon we will run out of room? You don't drive in the centre (neither do i!) so why are you bothered? I can promise you this, if a trial like this is done again, or indeed if cars are banned or a congestion chrage implemented, you will all be the cause for yorks economy collapsing. I suggest you see how traffic goes as opening up the new shopping park will take a lot of traffic out of the city and don't just think a pleasant walk is worth the consequences of crippling much needed local businesses.[/p][/quote]Question...why don't buses "run decently" as you phrase it? Simply because they are competing for the same roaad space for most of their journeys, except where priority measures, begrudged by many here, ahave been installed. If there were fewrer cars being used for short distance commutes, with the car parked up all day, the buses would be able to offer a very competitive service. The phrase "Chicken and Egg" springs to mind.[/p][/quote]Ok for example Paul if you live in cop or acomb park the once every hour bus service really isn’t that convenient? Especially as it does a loop woodthorpe and then tesco... not what I would call a quick and convenient option. This service has been cut and changed in recent years meaning a large area on the outskirt of town doesn't really have a better option then to drive into town. (or drive to tesco park there and wait for the p&r to set off with no set timescales, you can sit on one for 10mins before it even sets off.) Then I’d say why pay £3+ for the bus when you can nip into town in your car, pay for an hours parking and get home within the hour? Could a once an hour bus service do this? Or would it take around 2 hours? (Being kind there!). Time is money. I wouldn't pay more and waste time for something that doesn’t offer me any benefits? Would you?[/p][/quote]P + R leave every 7-10 minutes the cost is £2.60 so you are saying you can go to town in your car for less than £2.60 not a cat in hell s chance,[/p][/quote]Ok so you might only have to wait 7mins... oh ok.. .if you use the park and ride it might be £1 cheaper.. but you have to drive there anyway and its only an extra mile to town. So petrol £1 & parking £2 you could save 40p by using the park and ride.. obviously this would add a min of 1 hour to your journey time but for the 40p you could get... eerrr.... 2 packs of space raiders?[/p][/quote]what about the cost of wear & tear Oh I forgot about that yer you might need the 2 packls of space raiders while waiting in the garage for repairs to your car, jake777
  • Score: -2

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