York cycle path to cost public £1.3 million

York Press: York cycle path to cost public £1.3 million York cycle path to cost public £1.3 million

A NEW cycle route on the outskirts of York has increased in cost for a third time and will now cost taxpayers more than £1 million.

City of York Council is building the path beside the A1237 from Haxby to Clifton Moor to serve 15,000 residents in north York, but the cost has spiralled and work has also been delayed.

Coun Dave Merrett, cabinet member for transport, said he agreed to the latest £350,000 increase only “through gritted teeth” but local councillor Tony Richardson warned the project was in danger of becoming a “white elephant”.

The council says the new route will give people in Huntington, Strensall, Haxby, Wigginton and Earswick a safe cycle route to Clifton Moor, will also benefit Joseph Rowntree School pupils and will form part of the orbital cycle route around the city. It has been pursuing the project since 2011, but the estimated cost has risen from £700,000 to £925,000 then £967,000 and now £1.317 million.

At a meeting last week, Coun Merrett, cabinet member for transport, agreed to the latest increase, to fund a new bridge over the York to Scarborough railway line. Engineers said last September they were more confident in their cost estimates, but it has emerged the ground conditions need improved and the bridge will not be built until later this year.

Coun Merrett said the project was key to getting people around York but said: “It is clearly not a happy situation that we have found the ground conditions unstable and the bridge has had to be redesigned.”

Tony Richardson, Conservative councillor for Haxby and Wigginton, said the extra £350,000 could have funded cycling projects elsewhere, such as along Wigginton Road or near Westfield Beck.

He said: “I know there is a need for new cycle paths but there is also a need to balance the books, and I would hate to see this become a white elephant.”

Coun Richardson added: “There should have been a proper engineers’ report before the work started, but for some reason this was missed.”

A council spokeswoman said 80 per cent of respondents in a consultation last year backed the project, which is the flagship scheme in the £4.6 million Government funded iTravel York programme.

The council initially hoped to use the A1237 railway bridge but that plan was sunk by safety concerns.

It then hoped to use the existing embankments but with a new bridge and improved connections at the Wigginton Road and Haxby Road ends, but the spokeswoman said poor ground conditions meant a “significantly more complex scheme” was needed to provide acceptable support for the bridge. 

She said Network Rail had also laid down “unexpected additional requirements”, which had increased the budget cost, and said other schemes in the Local Transport Plan would be re-programmed to cover the cost increase.

Tony Clarke, council head of transport, said much of the path had been built and was usable westbound for cyclists already on the outer ring road, but would not be fully functional until the new bridge was built.

The cost increase follows a similar overspend at Clifton Green in 2009, when the £300,000 budget had to be increased to £520,000.

Comments (116)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

5:33pm Mon 14 Apr 14

malonemalone says...

it's hilarious, i drive along that route a few times a day and not once have I seen a cyclist use it............it looks like a bloke has done it in his spare time! awful awful awful
it's hilarious, i drive along that route a few times a day and not once have I seen a cyclist use it............it looks like a bloke has done it in his spare time! awful awful awful malonemalone
  • Score: -55

5:40pm Mon 14 Apr 14

The OX says...

Funny hows its gone up to £1.3 million just the same amount in fines for Lendal Bridge, I go past this twice a day in the last few weeks I have only ever seen 2 bikes on, money well spent again Merrett
Funny hows its gone up to £1.3 million just the same amount in fines for Lendal Bridge, I go past this twice a day in the last few weeks I have only ever seen 2 bikes on, money well spent again Merrett The OX
  • Score: -25

5:43pm Mon 14 Apr 14

marvell says...

Is there no limit to what these cretins get wrong. How can you be so dim as to not view an engineers reports?
Is there no limit to what these cretins get wrong. How can you be so dim as to not view an engineers reports? marvell
  • Score: -142

5:46pm Mon 14 Apr 14

maybejustmaybe says...

The first bit of tarmac on that photo looks a bit dodgy.
The first bit of tarmac on that photo looks a bit dodgy. maybejustmaybe
  • Score: -34

5:49pm Mon 14 Apr 14

yourkidding says...

lets all face it they don't use them any how .t
lets all face it they don't use them any how .t yourkidding
  • Score: -8

5:58pm Mon 14 Apr 14

Dave Ruddock says...

just to start on this flaw in cycle planning "IS THERE ANY PLANNING" . Be the Coun Dave Merrett, cabinet member for transport, and not the Yes man Merrett or get out of the job that you are clearly unable to perform in any guise. and in this case whoever agreed to no Enginers report and totally lack of former planning ....... Were on the road to nowhere
just to start on this flaw in cycle planning "IS THERE ANY PLANNING" . Be the Coun Dave Merrett, cabinet member for transport, and not the Yes man Merrett or get out of the job that you are clearly unable to perform in any guise. and in this case whoever agreed to no Enginers report and totally lack of former planning ....... Were on the road to nowhere Dave Ruddock
  • Score: -15

6:09pm Mon 14 Apr 14

courier46 says...

How much longer is this idiot going to waste our money!! LEAVE NOW!!!!!!
How much longer is this idiot going to waste our money!! LEAVE NOW!!!!!! courier46
  • Score: -114

6:12pm Mon 14 Apr 14

australia1 says...

An absolute shambles, as the picture shows a mass of bikes using this track........not.
Once again another great decision by Merrett. How much more money is he going to waste before he is booted out. He should resign now and get somebody in who has some common sense. You can tell he is anti car.
1.3 million on a unused cycle track and to add to this spending 100k on Marygate Car Park to change it to a pay on exit. This money could have been used to help in so many area's in the community.
An absolute shambles, as the picture shows a mass of bikes using this track........not. Once again another great decision by Merrett. How much more money is he going to waste before he is booted out. He should resign now and get somebody in who has some common sense. You can tell he is anti car. 1.3 million on a unused cycle track and to add to this spending 100k on Marygate Car Park to change it to a pay on exit. This money could have been used to help in so many area's in the community. australia1
  • Score: -3

6:16pm Mon 14 Apr 14

long distance depressive says...

Hand on heart...I have NEVER seen a bike on this 'track'. Who actually asked for it?
Hand on heart...I have NEVER seen a bike on this 'track'. Who actually asked for it? long distance depressive
  • Score: -24

6:28pm Mon 14 Apr 14

Rosieposie says...

Agree, honestly I am a cyclist and surely that is where they could have widened the ring road. We are rapidly becoming a gridlocked city
Agree, honestly I am a cyclist and surely that is where they could have widened the ring road. We are rapidly becoming a gridlocked city Rosieposie
  • Score: -7

6:43pm Mon 14 Apr 14

Yorkborneinbse says...

Its like a perpetual April fools day joke reading on how the Council waste money. It just isn't funny though. The most memorable, incompetent, bunch of foolhardy local politicians I have ever had the displeasure to be served by. How on earth do they continue to hold up their empty heads. If they had any moral standing, they would be sending letters of apology to every York resident, and giving back their salaries.

I will no doubt read with amusement, some form of ill informed justification for the folly, by a similar, incompetent tool
Its like a perpetual April fools day joke reading on how the Council waste money. It just isn't funny though. The most memorable, incompetent, bunch of foolhardy local politicians I have ever had the displeasure to be served by. How on earth do they continue to hold up their empty heads. If they had any moral standing, they would be sending letters of apology to every York resident, and giving back their salaries. I will no doubt read with amusement, some form of ill informed justification for the folly, by a similar, incompetent tool Yorkborneinbse
  • Score: -31

6:45pm Mon 14 Apr 14

bolero says...

Come on Peddling Paul, what have you got to say about this latest money wasting shambles thought up by` Heath Robinson` Merrett? You've had a lot to say about it not being finished for the want of a bridge. Now you've got it but at what cost? Absolutely disgusting. Surely this must not be allowed to go ahead.
Come on Peddling Paul, what have you got to say about this latest money wasting shambles thought up by` Heath Robinson` Merrett? You've had a lot to say about it not being finished for the want of a bridge. Now you've got it but at what cost? Absolutely disgusting. Surely this must not be allowed to go ahead. bolero
  • Score: -32

6:55pm Mon 14 Apr 14

bolero says...

So is that all you've got in reply PP? A minus vote. You Pathetic cyclist.
So is that all you've got in reply PP? A minus vote. You Pathetic cyclist. bolero
  • Score: -60

7:01pm Mon 14 Apr 14

old_geezer says...

"for some reason this was missed" - whoa, back up there, can The Press ask whose job it was to (a) commission such a reports, and (b) advise councillors before they voted that it wasn't there?
"for some reason this was missed" - whoa, back up there, can The Press ask whose job it was to (a) commission such a reports, and (b) advise councillors before they voted that it wasn't there? old_geezer
  • Score: -12

7:10pm Mon 14 Apr 14

pedalling paul says...

The scheme is not being funded from "our" locally raised taxes but from York's current £4.6m Government Grant from the Local Sustainable Transport Fund.
Budgets are often reallocated due to projected work not being do-able within an intended time. Not unique to CoYC or to transport issues, but happens all the time throughout Local Government in all expenditure areas.
Too many of you are reading too much between the lines.
The scheme is not being funded from "our" locally raised taxes but from York's current £4.6m Government Grant from the Local Sustainable Transport Fund. Budgets are often reallocated due to projected work not being do-able within an intended time. Not unique to CoYC or to transport issues, but happens all the time throughout Local Government in all expenditure areas. Too many of you are reading too much between the lines. pedalling paul
  • Score: 8

7:18pm Mon 14 Apr 14

barneyrubble82 says...

How Much!!! shame they don't use it, when I went round the other morning the cyclists were using the road! would have been better putting an extra lane each side for all the traffic!
How Much!!! shame they don't use it, when I went round the other morning the cyclists were using the road! would have been better putting an extra lane each side for all the traffic! barneyrubble82
  • Score: 12

7:18pm Mon 14 Apr 14

pedalling paul says...

....and I know that many of you think that you can see round corners when using the roads. Which of you can see what lies below the ground as well?

Again this demonstrates how heavily dependant Councillors and Officers are upon external third parties and advice.
....and I know that many of you think that you can see round corners when using the roads. Which of you can see what lies below the ground as well? Again this demonstrates how heavily dependant Councillors and Officers are upon external third parties and advice. pedalling paul
  • Score: 5

7:24pm Mon 14 Apr 14

Happytoliveinyork says...

pedalling paul wrote:
The scheme is not being funded from "our" locally raised taxes but from York's current £4.6m Government Grant from the Local Sustainable Transport Fund.
Budgets are often reallocated due to projected work not being do-able within an intended time. Not unique to CoYC or to transport issues, but happens all the time throughout Local Government in all expenditure areas.
Too many of you are reading too much between the lines.
It doesn't matter where the money comes from, ultimately it's tax payers who stump up the cash for this.

I'm not anti cycle, but in these days of budget and service cuts could anyone seriously defend spending £1.3m - yes you read that right.....ONE POINT THREE MILLION POUNDS! on this?

This council are beyond paridy
[quote][p][bold]pedalling paul [/bold] wrote: The scheme is not being funded from "our" locally raised taxes but from York's current £4.6m Government Grant from the Local Sustainable Transport Fund. Budgets are often reallocated due to projected work not being do-able within an intended time. Not unique to CoYC or to transport issues, but happens all the time throughout Local Government in all expenditure areas. Too many of you are reading too much between the lines.[/p][/quote]It doesn't matter where the money comes from, ultimately it's tax payers who stump up the cash for this. I'm not anti cycle, but in these days of budget and service cuts could anyone seriously defend spending £1.3m - yes you read that right.....ONE POINT THREE MILLION POUNDS! on this? This council are beyond paridy Happytoliveinyork
  • Score: -42

7:26pm Mon 14 Apr 14

Stressed Out says...

pedalling paul wrote:
The scheme is not being funded from "our" locally raised taxes but from York's current £4.6m Government Grant from the Local Sustainable Transport Fund.
Budgets are often reallocated due to projected work not being do-able within an intended time. Not unique to CoYC or to transport issues, but happens all the time throughout Local Government in all expenditure areas.
Too many of you are reading too much between the lines.
So why hasn't our esteemed Councillor Merritt said the extra funding was from the Government grant. He released it through 'gritted teeth' I'm sorry but all doesn't right here. Will the access over the railway line ever be built, I doubt it
[quote][p][bold]pedalling paul [/bold] wrote: The scheme is not being funded from "our" locally raised taxes but from York's current £4.6m Government Grant from the Local Sustainable Transport Fund. Budgets are often reallocated due to projected work not being do-able within an intended time. Not unique to CoYC or to transport issues, but happens all the time throughout Local Government in all expenditure areas. Too many of you are reading too much between the lines.[/p][/quote]So why hasn't our esteemed Councillor Merritt said the extra funding was from the Government grant. He released it through 'gritted teeth' I'm sorry but all doesn't right here. Will the access over the railway line ever be built, I doubt it Stressed Out
  • Score: -31

7:27pm Mon 14 Apr 14

just_back_in _York says...

But surely if the ring road is upgraded to a dual-carriageway which everyone, including CoYC is asking for, the cycle track will be bulldozed. That will include any new bridge unless it is sited a good distance from the current road one.
But surely if the ring road is upgraded to a dual-carriageway which everyone, including CoYC is asking for, the cycle track will be bulldozed. That will include any new bridge unless it is sited a good distance from the current road one. just_back_in _York
  • Score: -72

7:54pm Mon 14 Apr 14

chelk says...

pedalling paul wrote:
The scheme is not being funded from "our" locally raised taxes but from York's current £4.6m Government Grant from the Local Sustainable Transport Fund.
Budgets are often reallocated due to projected work not being do-able within an intended time. Not unique to CoYC or to transport issues, but happens all the time throughout Local Government in all expenditure areas.
Too many of you are reading too much between the lines.
So what you are saying is it's ok to waste other peoples money because it came from somewhere typical cyclists attitude you would say a lot more if it was spent on road improvements for car drivers
[quote][p][bold]pedalling paul [/bold] wrote: The scheme is not being funded from "our" locally raised taxes but from York's current £4.6m Government Grant from the Local Sustainable Transport Fund. Budgets are often reallocated due to projected work not being do-able within an intended time. Not unique to CoYC or to transport issues, but happens all the time throughout Local Government in all expenditure areas. Too many of you are reading too much between the lines.[/p][/quote]So what you are saying is it's ok to waste other peoples money because it came from somewhere typical cyclists attitude you would say a lot more if it was spent on road improvements for car drivers chelk
  • Score: -57

7:54pm Mon 14 Apr 14

Back and Beyond says...

Sorry but why couldn't they use the existing bridge? the path at the side of the bridge is more than the 1.5 metres that is recommended for a cycle path. Barriers could be erected to provide safe separation from the main road.
Even still does 1.3 million for a 1300 metre cycle path represent good value for money?

Am I right in thinking the councils own workforce has done the work to date?
Sorry but why couldn't they use the existing bridge? the path at the side of the bridge is more than the 1.5 metres that is recommended for a cycle path. Barriers could be erected to provide safe separation from the main road. Even still does 1.3 million for a 1300 metre cycle path represent good value for money? Am I right in thinking the councils own workforce has done the work to date? Back and Beyond
  • Score: -72

7:55pm Mon 14 Apr 14

imassey says...

It's not used because it's not finished. I, for one, will be more than happy to use it once I don't have to use the ring road to get to it.
It's not used because it's not finished. I, for one, will be more than happy to use it once I don't have to use the ring road to get to it. imassey
  • Score: -80

7:55pm Mon 14 Apr 14

Warren Z says...

The OX wrote:
Funny hows its gone up to £1.3 million just the same amount in fines for Lendal Bridge, I go past this twice a day in the last few weeks I have only ever seen 2 bikes on, money well spent again Merrett
Yeh I saw a bike on it last week OX.£1.3 million path to himself. Yet us car owners have potholes and speed bumps knacking our suspension,20MPH zones to slow us up etc etc.Should stop paying road tax and a proportion of council tax.
[quote][p][bold]The OX[/bold] wrote: Funny hows its gone up to £1.3 million just the same amount in fines for Lendal Bridge, I go past this twice a day in the last few weeks I have only ever seen 2 bikes on, money well spent again Merrett[/p][/quote]Yeh I saw a bike on it last week OX.£1.3 million path to himself. Yet us car owners have potholes and speed bumps knacking our suspension,20MPH zones to slow us up etc etc.Should stop paying road tax and a proportion of council tax. Warren Z
  • Score: -102

8:11pm Mon 14 Apr 14

Back and Beyond says...

Back and Beyond wrote:
Sorry but why couldn't they use the existing bridge? the path at the side of the bridge is more than the 1.5 metres that is recommended for a cycle path. Barriers could be erected to provide safe separation from the main road.
Even still does 1.3 million for a 1300 metre cycle path represent good value for money?

Am I right in thinking the councils own workforce has done the work to date?
Looks like the work to date was mainly done by the council workforce.

https://www.whatdoth
eyknow.com/request/1
79987/response/44561
5/attach/html/3/RS65
2446.docx.html
[quote][p][bold]Back and Beyond[/bold] wrote: Sorry but why couldn't they use the existing bridge? the path at the side of the bridge is more than the 1.5 metres that is recommended for a cycle path. Barriers could be erected to provide safe separation from the main road. Even still does 1.3 million for a 1300 metre cycle path represent good value for money? Am I right in thinking the councils own workforce has done the work to date?[/p][/quote]Looks like the work to date was mainly done by the council workforce. https://www.whatdoth eyknow.com/request/1 79987/response/44561 5/attach/html/3/RS65 2446.docx.html Back and Beyond
  • Score: -123

8:30pm Mon 14 Apr 14

jay, york says...

And just when you think things couldn't get any worse - do these clowns actually know how to prioritise and budget, and how to actually function efficiently?????
It doesnt matter where the money comes from, it is the CoYC duty to ensure that it is used wisely and for the benefit of the residents of inner and outer York. They are a disgrace!
And just when you think things couldn't get any worse - do these clowns actually know how to prioritise and budget, and how to actually function efficiently????? It doesnt matter where the money comes from, it is the CoYC duty to ensure that it is used wisely and for the benefit of the residents of inner and outer York. They are a disgrace! jay, york
  • Score: -91

8:31pm Mon 14 Apr 14

R_SLEIGHT57 says...

I voted for it and use it. I think more people will use it when it's finished. This is tax money well spent for me personally. The sooner this is finished the better. Good decision.
I voted for it and use it. I think more people will use it when it's finished. This is tax money well spent for me personally. The sooner this is finished the better. Good decision. R_SLEIGHT57
  • Score: 9

8:32pm Mon 14 Apr 14

strangebuttrue? says...

PP. Where ever the money came from it originally came out of our taxes or to put it another way our hard earned money. You often quote the cycling fairy when it comes to the wasteful schemes. She does not exists.

Who can see below the ground. Experts? If you have a contract then that contract should be to build what you say will be built. Only a mug would fall for this kind of con trick. It is up to the contractor to find out if the ground can be built on and price accordingly. That is unless of course all parties know there is an issue and sell the idea on the basis of a lie get the work started then oops we did not realise there was soil there we will have to put in some concrete and that will be extra. It is all one big con.
So in total that is now about £660k spent last Thursday night on what? Nothing useful at all.
PP. Where ever the money came from it originally came out of our taxes or to put it another way our hard earned money. You often quote the cycling fairy when it comes to the wasteful schemes. She does not exists. Who can see below the ground. Experts? If you have a contract then that contract should be to build what you say will be built. Only a mug would fall for this kind of con trick. It is up to the contractor to find out if the ground can be built on and price accordingly. That is unless of course all parties know there is an issue and sell the idea on the basis of a lie get the work started then oops we did not realise there was soil there we will have to put in some concrete and that will be extra. It is all one big con. So in total that is now about £660k spent last Thursday night on what? Nothing useful at all. strangebuttrue?
  • Score: -36

8:34pm Mon 14 Apr 14

BioLogic says...

How effing much!!!! I can understand the desire to promote cycling, but not at any cost. This is a scandalous waste of public funds, regardless of the source. £10k per metre is simply not value. Merritt and his incompetence has to go.
How effing much!!!! I can understand the desire to promote cycling, but not at any cost. This is a scandalous waste of public funds, regardless of the source. £10k per metre is simply not value. Merritt and his incompetence has to go. BioLogic
  • Score: -27

8:35pm Mon 14 Apr 14

bolero says...

Paul you are unbelievable and the rquirements for your chosen mode of transport is unsustainable at a time when money is short for things that are more important and there are people in real need. This is taxpayers' money in whatever form. I along with other taxpayers am paying for this Hepworth folly and I object. Your attitude can only be termed selfish and profligate. Nor is there much evidence that your views are shared by other cyclists who obviously have much more sensible opinions and views.Fiddling with figures and statistical qoutations in no way changes the basic principle. We too look to the future and It is most likely that this job will never be finished and the land already taken up will be utilised to best advantage; namely to form part of the duelled carriageway which is so badly needed and would serve a far greater purpose with advantages to everyone.
Paul you are unbelievable and the rquirements for your chosen mode of transport is unsustainable at a time when money is short for things that are more important and there are people in real need. This is taxpayers' money in whatever form. I along with other taxpayers am paying for this Hepworth folly and I object. Your attitude can only be termed selfish and profligate. Nor is there much evidence that your views are shared by other cyclists who obviously have much more sensible opinions and views.Fiddling with figures and statistical qoutations in no way changes the basic principle. We too look to the future and It is most likely that this job will never be finished and the land already taken up will be utilised to best advantage; namely to form part of the duelled carriageway which is so badly needed and would serve a far greater purpose with advantages to everyone. bolero
  • Score: -69

8:38pm Mon 14 Apr 14

kitkatbar says...

Has any one ever seen Councillor David Merrett actually astride a velocipede on this famous cycle track ? This would be an event to capture as a selfie perhaps or would it be a fake selfie for publicity purposes. My memories of Mr Rigby astride his two wheeled contraption will never fade as he biked off from a local Groves area residents meeting (in the dark) without any bike lights lit will never fade. Come on pedalling paul don't be shy. Post some some selfies as you perambulate around this city. We are all looking forward to identifying you as a real image, not just an apparition .
Has any one ever seen Councillor David Merrett actually astride a velocipede on this famous cycle track ? This would be an event to capture as a selfie perhaps or would it be a fake selfie for publicity purposes. My memories of Mr Rigby astride his two wheeled contraption will never fade as he biked off from a local Groves area residents meeting (in the dark) without any bike lights lit will never fade. Come on pedalling paul don't be shy. Post some some selfies as you perambulate around this city. We are all looking forward to identifying you as a real image, not just an apparition . kitkatbar
  • Score: -42

8:41pm Mon 14 Apr 14

Happytoliveinyork says...

R_SLEIGHT57 wrote:
I voted for it and use it. I think more people will use it when it's finished. This is tax money well spent for me personally. The sooner this is finished the better. Good decision.
One point three million pounds - in your heart of hearts can you really justify that amount of expenditure ??
[quote][p][bold]R_SLEIGHT57[/bold] wrote: I voted for it and use it. I think more people will use it when it's finished. This is tax money well spent for me personally. The sooner this is finished the better. Good decision.[/p][/quote]One point three million pounds - in your heart of hearts can you really justify that amount of expenditure ?? Happytoliveinyork
  • Score: -42

8:51pm Mon 14 Apr 14

nowthen says...

Hmmm ...looking at that photo it appears that the track's been laid by CoYC's favourite contractor ; Bodgit and Scarper.
Hmmm ...looking at that photo it appears that the track's been laid by CoYC's favourite contractor ; Bodgit and Scarper. nowthen
  • Score: -14

8:55pm Mon 14 Apr 14

Strayer says...

Useless track for cycles, east bound dumps the rider to cross three fast lanes of traffic from a standstill. Markings give priority to the field entrances over the track.
Would be better to have widened the ring road.
Access to the new Vangarde by bike is no better as there is a 30mph sign in the middle of the designated cycle path just off the Malton road. Black post in black tarmac.
Useless track for cycles, east bound dumps the rider to cross three fast lanes of traffic from a standstill. Markings give priority to the field entrances over the track. Would be better to have widened the ring road. Access to the new Vangarde by bike is no better as there is a 30mph sign in the middle of the designated cycle path just off the Malton road. Black post in black tarmac. Strayer
  • Score: -40

9:01pm Mon 14 Apr 14

Yadontsay! says...

This cycle path seems to be used more by cars turning round when they see the long queue to monks cross, than bikes. Can we please have some signs back up for the roundabout please as well and make sure they're not hidden in a hedge or behind another sign - like all the others! Maybe if councillor Merrett (and James Alexander) were car drivers they would not spend so much time and energy on cycling and pedestrian projects and be more understanding of how roads work!
This cycle path seems to be used more by cars turning round when they see the long queue to monks cross, than bikes. Can we please have some signs back up for the roundabout please as well and make sure they're not hidden in a hedge or behind another sign - like all the others! Maybe if councillor Merrett (and James Alexander) were car drivers they would not spend so much time and energy on cycling and pedestrian projects and be more understanding of how roads work! Yadontsay!
  • Score: -29

9:17pm Mon 14 Apr 14

nearlyman says...

...................A
stonishing fiscal incompetence........
...........
...................A stonishing fiscal incompetence........ ........... nearlyman
  • Score: -15

9:31pm Mon 14 Apr 14

twoleftfeet says...

How clueless is this council? I may be reading/interpreting this article wrongly but surely you receive engineers reports, landowners comments etc BEFORE you start construction.
This council really have no idea when it comes to transportation issues. Sack them all.
How clueless is this council? I may be reading/interpreting this article wrongly but surely you receive engineers reports, landowners comments etc BEFORE you start construction. This council really have no idea when it comes to transportation issues. Sack them all. twoleftfeet
  • Score: -37

9:44pm Mon 14 Apr 14

yorkie76 says...

Warren Z wrote:
The OX wrote:
Funny hows its gone up to £1.3 million just the same amount in fines for Lendal Bridge, I go past this twice a day in the last few weeks I have only ever seen 2 bikes on, money well spent again Merrett
Yeh I saw a bike on it last week OX.£1.3 million path to himself. Yet us car owners have potholes and speed bumps knacking our suspension,20MPH zones to slow us up etc etc.Should stop paying road tax and a proportion of council tax.
All this bickering between car drivers and cyclists. The car driver complaining about potholes. What about cyclists and pot holes? do you not think that is more dangerous?
The issues isn't the cyclists, is is the incompetence shown by the council again. This should not be a fight between 2 groups, we should combine and use all our energy and anger to get rid of the incompetent fools.
Share the road and combine the anger.
[quote][p][bold]Warren Z[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The OX[/bold] wrote: Funny hows its gone up to £1.3 million just the same amount in fines for Lendal Bridge, I go past this twice a day in the last few weeks I have only ever seen 2 bikes on, money well spent again Merrett[/p][/quote]Yeh I saw a bike on it last week OX.£1.3 million path to himself. Yet us car owners have potholes and speed bumps knacking our suspension,20MPH zones to slow us up etc etc.Should stop paying road tax and a proportion of council tax.[/p][/quote]All this bickering between car drivers and cyclists. The car driver complaining about potholes. What about cyclists and pot holes? do you not think that is more dangerous? The issues isn't the cyclists, is is the incompetence shown by the council again. This should not be a fight between 2 groups, we should combine and use all our energy and anger to get rid of the incompetent fools. Share the road and combine the anger. yorkie76
  • Score: -20

9:49pm Mon 14 Apr 14

eeoodares says...

pedalling paul wrote:
....and I know that many of you think that you can see round corners when using the roads. Which of you can see what lies below the ground as well?

Again this demonstrates how heavily dependant Councillors and Officers are upon external third parties and advice.
Pedalling Paul, you are sounding more and more desperate. Your time is up, your colleagues are all for the scrap heap.

Labour are a bungling bunch of buffoons and not one of you should still have a job!

If there was an once of integrity in the lot of you, you would quit and move to a remote Scottish Island!
[quote][p][bold]pedalling paul [/bold] wrote: ....and I know that many of you think that you can see round corners when using the roads. Which of you can see what lies below the ground as well? Again this demonstrates how heavily dependant Councillors and Officers are upon external third parties and advice.[/p][/quote]Pedalling Paul, you are sounding more and more desperate. Your time is up, your colleagues are all for the scrap heap. Labour are a bungling bunch of buffoons and not one of you should still have a job! If there was an once of integrity in the lot of you, you would quit and move to a remote Scottish Island! eeoodares
  • Score: -28

10:04pm Mon 14 Apr 14

R_SLEIGHT57 says...

Happytoliveinyork wrote:
R_SLEIGHT57 wrote:
I voted for it and use it. I think more people will use it when it's finished. This is tax money well spent for me personally. The sooner this is finished the better. Good decision.
One point three million pounds - in your heart of hearts can you really justify that amount of expenditure ??
Yes, I suspect you're not going to agree.
[quote][p][bold]Happytoliveinyork[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]R_SLEIGHT57[/bold] wrote: I voted for it and use it. I think more people will use it when it's finished. This is tax money well spent for me personally. The sooner this is finished the better. Good decision.[/p][/quote]One point three million pounds - in your heart of hearts can you really justify that amount of expenditure ??[/p][/quote]Yes, I suspect you're not going to agree. R_SLEIGHT57
  • Score: -53

10:27pm Mon 14 Apr 14

york_chap says...

LOL
LOL york_chap
  • Score: -38

10:27pm Mon 14 Apr 14

york_chap says...

Oh, wait, it's tax payers' money.

****.
Oh, wait, it's tax payers' money. ****. york_chap
  • Score: -41

11:14pm Mon 14 Apr 14

ycfcdk says...

used this path a few times, its half a mile long! how can that cost £1.3m.
used this path a few times, its half a mile long! how can that cost £1.3m. ycfcdk
  • Score: 6

2:06am Tue 15 Apr 14

Badgers Drift says...

maybejustmaybe wrote:
The first bit of tarmac on that photo looks a bit dodgy.
They had either run out of pin kerbs, or money ?

Do they bodge every job like this and Lendal 'Bodge' ?

Have they never heard of fixed price contracts, or design & build where the risk is taken on by the contractor?
[quote][p][bold]maybejustmaybe[/bold] wrote: The first bit of tarmac on that photo looks a bit dodgy.[/p][/quote]They had either run out of pin kerbs, or money ? Do they bodge every job like this and Lendal 'Bodge' ? Have they never heard of fixed price contracts, or design & build where the risk is taken on by the contractor? Badgers Drift
  • Score: -58

2:14am Tue 15 Apr 14

Badgers Drift says...

pedalling paul wrote:
....and I know that many of you think that you can see round corners when using the roads. Which of you can see what lies below the ground as well? Again this demonstrates how heavily dependant Councillors and Officers are upon external third parties and advice.
Its basic practice to do ground investigation, before engineering design of foundations.

Merrett is a civil engineer for heavens sake. What sort of cowboy outfit are these buffoons running?

God help us when they build the £10m bridge to nowhere!!!
[quote][p][bold]pedalling paul [/bold] wrote: ....and I know that many of you think that you can see round corners when using the roads. Which of you can see what lies below the ground as well? Again this demonstrates how heavily dependant Councillors and Officers are upon external third parties and advice.[/p][/quote]Its basic practice to do ground investigation, before engineering design of foundations. Merrett is a civil engineer for heavens sake. What sort of cowboy outfit are these buffoons running? God help us when they build the £10m bridge to nowhere!!! Badgers Drift
  • Score: -36

5:31am Tue 15 Apr 14

Magicman! says...

Just the latest in a line of this council not getting anything right. Since they have come to power, cycling provision is WORSE than before, there are more traffic lights creating more congestion for motor vehicles, the Lendal Bridge closure was good in principle but was executed with the skill of a neanderthal, they got rid of the Water End cycle lane despite professional advice against that move, they've retimed traffic lights to either let less traffic through or create a compulsory pedestrian phase just to make everybody wait that while longer for what I can only assume are poltergeists crossing, they allowed the non-compliant and potentially dangerous Minster Plazza to be built, they're blandifying Kings Square, and they're putting up 20mph signs all over the place as part of one councillors revenge drive against being knocked over several years ago.
Just the latest in a line of this council not getting anything right. Since they have come to power, cycling provision is WORSE than before, there are more traffic lights creating more congestion for motor vehicles, the Lendal Bridge closure was good in principle but was executed with the skill of a neanderthal, they got rid of the Water End cycle lane despite professional advice against that move, they've retimed traffic lights to either let less traffic through or create a compulsory pedestrian phase just to make everybody wait that while longer for what I can only assume are poltergeists crossing, they allowed the non-compliant and potentially dangerous Minster Plazza to be built, they're blandifying Kings Square, and they're putting up 20mph signs all over the place as part of one councillors revenge drive against being knocked over several years ago. Magicman!
  • Score: -11

7:05am Tue 15 Apr 14

Dazmond says...

I don't have a problem with Cycle paths, I generally think they're a good idea, but I think it would be nice if the council spent some money on maintaing the roads too. They have just finished off the cycle path on the junction of Wigginton road leading up to the roundabout to the tune of £1.3 million, but the road running through it is absolutely knackered!

I have a friend who is an MOT tester, he says once of the most common things he sees is knackered suspension components on vehicles, - likely due to the state of the roads in the UK!
I don't have a problem with Cycle paths, I generally think they're a good idea, but I think it would be nice if the council spent some money on maintaing the roads too. They have just finished off the cycle path on the junction of Wigginton road leading up to the roundabout to the tune of £1.3 million, but the road running through it is absolutely knackered! I have a friend who is an MOT tester, he says once of the most common things he sees is knackered suspension components on vehicles, - likely due to the state of the roads in the UK! Dazmond
  • Score: 16

8:33am Tue 15 Apr 14

Happytoliveinyork says...

R_SLEIGHT57 wrote:
Happytoliveinyork wrote:
R_SLEIGHT57 wrote:
I voted for it and use it. I think more people will use it when it's finished. This is tax money well spent for me personally. The sooner this is finished the better. Good decision.
One point three million pounds - in your heart of hearts can you really justify that amount of expenditure ??
Yes, I suspect you're not going to agree.
The words cloud and cuckoo spring to mind
[quote][p][bold]R_SLEIGHT57[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Happytoliveinyork[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]R_SLEIGHT57[/bold] wrote: I voted for it and use it. I think more people will use it when it's finished. This is tax money well spent for me personally. The sooner this is finished the better. Good decision.[/p][/quote]One point three million pounds - in your heart of hearts can you really justify that amount of expenditure ??[/p][/quote]Yes, I suspect you're not going to agree.[/p][/quote]The words cloud and cuckoo spring to mind Happytoliveinyork
  • Score: -124

8:49am Tue 15 Apr 14

Jim says...

"to serve 15,000 residents in north York".
And how many of those residents are cyclists who would want to use that route?
I cycle over 5000 miles a year and despite living in Rawcliffe and having family in Haxby I can't see any reason to use something with such a dangerous access point. It might seem a safer option for younger or inexperienced cyclists but having to cross lanes of traffic to get on or off the thing? It's an accident waiting to happen.
To any right-minded person the cycle path is a white elephant. Paul, haven't you realised that your sycophantic support of every half-baked, ill-considered addition to York's cycling provision just makes you a laughing stock? Even cyclists think you're a joke.
"to serve 15,000 residents in north York". And how many of those residents are cyclists who would want to use that route? I cycle over 5000 miles a year and despite living in Rawcliffe and having family in Haxby I can't see any reason to use something with such a dangerous access point. It might seem a safer option for younger or inexperienced cyclists but having to cross lanes of traffic to get on or off the thing? It's an accident waiting to happen. To any right-minded person the cycle path is a white elephant. Paul, haven't you realised that your sycophantic support of every half-baked, ill-considered addition to York's cycling provision just makes you a laughing stock? Even cyclists think you're a joke. Jim
  • Score: -5

8:54am Tue 15 Apr 14

Buzzz Light-year says...

The Press must laugh themselves silly at their commentator base every day. All they have to do is produce the same stories over and again slightly tweaked and they nudge the same old name to say the same old things without fail.
Half of their articles are just mickeytaking click producers.
The Press must laugh themselves silly at their commentator base every day. All they have to do is produce the same stories over and again slightly tweaked and they nudge the same old name to say the same old things without fail. Half of their articles are just mickeytaking click producers. Buzzz Light-year
  • Score: -1

9:00am Tue 15 Apr 14

pedalling paul says...

The cycle path is sadly being regarded in isolation and as a standalone project. In fact it is an essential plank of the infrastructure work that is associated with York's current Local Sustainable Transport Fund grant. That funding is being used to help promote all forms of sustainable travel, of which cycling is one element.
Instead of responding instantly to my posts, why not take a little time out to Google "York LSTF" and learn about this bigger picture.
LSTF funding is a brainchild of the present ConLib government, and York's successful bid ticked all their boxes.
I recall the debate about two parallel cycle lanes alongside the Knavesmire on Taddy Road, one on road and one off road. Both have their uses, one as an outbound "fast" lane and the other a two way part of the Orbital route. That settled down in time and so will the A1237-side link.
And perhaps the new bridge span over the railway, which has bedevilled the project, will be a hidden blessing if it reduces the likelihood of the road being dualled. After all, why spend £150 million for short term gain?More road space generates more car use..simple!!
The cycle path is sadly being regarded in isolation and as a standalone project. In fact it is an essential plank of the infrastructure work that is associated with York's current Local Sustainable Transport Fund grant. That funding is being used to help promote all forms of sustainable travel, of which cycling is one element. Instead of responding instantly to my posts, why not take a little time out to Google "York LSTF" and learn about this bigger picture. LSTF funding is a brainchild of the present ConLib government, and York's successful bid ticked all their boxes. I recall the debate about two parallel cycle lanes alongside the Knavesmire on Taddy Road, one on road and one off road. Both have their uses, one as an outbound "fast" lane and the other a two way part of the Orbital route. That settled down in time and so will the A1237-side link. And perhaps the new bridge span over the railway, which has bedevilled the project, will be a hidden blessing if it reduces the likelihood of the road being dualled. After all, why spend £150 million for short term gain?More road space generates more car use..simple!! pedalling paul
  • Score: 52

9:22am Tue 15 Apr 14

Archiebold the 1st says...

pedalling paul wrote:
The scheme is not being funded from "our" locally raised taxes but from York's current £4.6m Government Grant from the Local Sustainable Transport Fund. Budgets are often reallocated due to projected work not being do-able within an intended time. Not unique to CoYC or to transport issues, but happens all the time throughout Local Government in all expenditure areas. Too many of you are reading too much between the lines.
I'll tell you again Paul... this is not sustainable transport. 4.6 million could have built the outer city rail links york needs. That is sustainable. Its petrol free travel. Plonking down tarmac that needs maintaining for no obvious demand is actually bad for sustainability.

Take your cycle out your ar@e and realise that isn’t the future! investment in infrastructure is! not more busses and more cycle lanes as its you lot who add to traffic issues. Take it all off the road buy building outer city links!

Everytime i have said this to you, you ignore it! I thought being an x railway man you would have even suggested this common sense idea yourself!
[quote][p][bold]pedalling paul [/bold] wrote: The scheme is not being funded from "our" locally raised taxes but from York's current £4.6m Government Grant from the Local Sustainable Transport Fund. Budgets are often reallocated due to projected work not being do-able within an intended time. Not unique to CoYC or to transport issues, but happens all the time throughout Local Government in all expenditure areas. Too many of you are reading too much between the lines.[/p][/quote]I'll tell you again Paul... this is not sustainable transport. 4.6 million could have built the outer city rail links york needs. That is sustainable. Its petrol free travel. Plonking down tarmac that needs maintaining for no obvious demand is actually bad for sustainability. Take your cycle out your ar@e and realise that isn’t the future! investment in infrastructure is! not more busses and more cycle lanes as its you lot who add to traffic issues. Take it all off the road buy building outer city links! Everytime i have said this to you, you ignore it! I thought being an x railway man you would have even suggested this common sense idea yourself! Archiebold the 1st
  • Score: -113

9:43am Tue 15 Apr 14

Yorkshine1 says...

And the annoying things is that as a cyclist who neither supports the exhorbitant cost nor will ever use it, I am going to recieve 'punishment' from 'road tax payers' in other areas of York because of this. One may argue that thsi is part of a bigger picture to actually rid the city of cyclists...just a thought.
And the annoying things is that as a cyclist who neither supports the exhorbitant cost nor will ever use it, I am going to recieve 'punishment' from 'road tax payers' in other areas of York because of this. One may argue that thsi is part of a bigger picture to actually rid the city of cyclists...just a thought. Yorkshine1
  • Score: -152

10:04am Tue 15 Apr 14

greenmonkey says...

just_back_in _York wrote:
But surely if the ring road is upgraded to a dual-carriageway which everyone, including CoYC is asking for, the cycle track will be bulldozed. That will include any new bridge unless it is sited a good distance from the current road one.
This is a good point which I would hope has been considered.
However it should be pointed out that saying it is empty is a bit like complaining that the unfinished new park and ride sites are empty - that's because the bridge isn't there yet so it doesn't go anywhere! This route should have been opened before the new shops - the traffic they generate will surely make ring road ever worse, and that's before labour's planned new housing alongside the ring road.
[quote][p][bold]just_back_in _York[/bold] wrote: But surely if the ring road is upgraded to a dual-carriageway which everyone, including CoYC is asking for, the cycle track will be bulldozed. That will include any new bridge unless it is sited a good distance from the current road one.[/p][/quote]This is a good point which I would hope has been considered. However it should be pointed out that saying it is empty is a bit like complaining that the unfinished new park and ride sites are empty - that's because the bridge isn't there yet so it doesn't go anywhere! This route should have been opened before the new shops - the traffic they generate will surely make ring road ever worse, and that's before labour's planned new housing alongside the ring road. greenmonkey
  • Score: -173

10:05am Tue 15 Apr 14

pistaycer says...

Grow your own dope plant Merrett
Grow your own dope plant Merrett pistaycer
  • Score: -153

10:05am Tue 15 Apr 14

smudge2 says...

pedalling paul wrote:
The cycle path is sadly being regarded in isolation and as a standalone project. In fact it is an essential plank of the infrastructure work that is associated with York's current Local Sustainable Transport Fund grant. That funding is being used to help promote all forms of sustainable travel, of which cycling is one element.
Instead of responding instantly to my posts, why not take a little time out to Google "York LSTF" and learn about this bigger picture.
LSTF funding is a brainchild of the present ConLib government, and York's successful bid ticked all their boxes.
I recall the debate about two parallel cycle lanes alongside the Knavesmire on Taddy Road, one on road and one off road. Both have their uses, one as an outbound "fast" lane and the other a two way part of the Orbital route. That settled down in time and so will the A1237-side link.
And perhaps the new bridge span over the railway, which has bedevilled the project, will be a hidden blessing if it reduces the likelihood of the road being dualled. After all, why spend £150 million for short term gain?More road space generates more car use..simple!!
You are becoming increasingly more desperate having to post multiple comments on every story line to defend your wind up tactics to the York public which you have done for years.Most of your statements have been proved to be wildly off the mark and the time has come to go quietly and shut your press account down and get on with your life and stop winding the people of York up all the time and making your self look an idiot talking about cycling all the time.
[quote][p][bold]pedalling paul [/bold] wrote: The cycle path is sadly being regarded in isolation and as a standalone project. In fact it is an essential plank of the infrastructure work that is associated with York's current Local Sustainable Transport Fund grant. That funding is being used to help promote all forms of sustainable travel, of which cycling is one element. Instead of responding instantly to my posts, why not take a little time out to Google "York LSTF" and learn about this bigger picture. LSTF funding is a brainchild of the present ConLib government, and York's successful bid ticked all their boxes. I recall the debate about two parallel cycle lanes alongside the Knavesmire on Taddy Road, one on road and one off road. Both have their uses, one as an outbound "fast" lane and the other a two way part of the Orbital route. That settled down in time and so will the A1237-side link. And perhaps the new bridge span over the railway, which has bedevilled the project, will be a hidden blessing if it reduces the likelihood of the road being dualled. After all, why spend £150 million for short term gain?More road space generates more car use..simple!![/p][/quote]You are becoming increasingly more desperate having to post multiple comments on every story line to defend your wind up tactics to the York public which you have done for years.Most of your statements have been proved to be wildly off the mark and the time has come to go quietly and shut your press account down and get on with your life and stop winding the people of York up all the time and making your self look an idiot talking about cycling all the time. smudge2
  • Score: -172

10:15am Tue 15 Apr 14

Warren Z says...

yorkie76 wrote:
Warren Z wrote:
The OX wrote:
Funny hows its gone up to £1.3 million just the same amount in fines for Lendal Bridge, I go past this twice a day in the last few weeks I have only ever seen 2 bikes on, money well spent again Merrett
Yeh I saw a bike on it last week OX.£1.3 million path to himself. Yet us car owners have potholes and speed bumps knacking our suspension,20MPH zones to slow us up etc etc.Should stop paying road tax and a proportion of council tax.
All this bickering between car drivers and cyclists. The car driver complaining about potholes. What about cyclists and pot holes? do you not think that is more dangerous?
The issues isn't the cyclists, is is the incompetence shown by the council again. This should not be a fight between 2 groups, we should combine and use all our energy and anger to get rid of the incompetent fools.
Share the road and combine the anger.
Good point Yorkie, It is the incompetent council. You are right it should be an alliance to depose these fools.
[quote][p][bold]yorkie76[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Warren Z[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The OX[/bold] wrote: Funny hows its gone up to £1.3 million just the same amount in fines for Lendal Bridge, I go past this twice a day in the last few weeks I have only ever seen 2 bikes on, money well spent again Merrett[/p][/quote]Yeh I saw a bike on it last week OX.£1.3 million path to himself. Yet us car owners have potholes and speed bumps knacking our suspension,20MPH zones to slow us up etc etc.Should stop paying road tax and a proportion of council tax.[/p][/quote]All this bickering between car drivers and cyclists. The car driver complaining about potholes. What about cyclists and pot holes? do you not think that is more dangerous? The issues isn't the cyclists, is is the incompetence shown by the council again. This should not be a fight between 2 groups, we should combine and use all our energy and anger to get rid of the incompetent fools. Share the road and combine the anger.[/p][/quote]Good point Yorkie, It is the incompetent council. You are right it should be an alliance to depose these fools. Warren Z
  • Score: -134

10:18am Tue 15 Apr 14

tobefair says...

If this cycle path needs a separate bridge to cross the railway then why doesn't the cycle path that goes over the river and railway on the A1237 between Shipton Road and York Business Park need a separate bridge. This always seems a dangerous section of road to me.
Come on Pedalling Paul, start a campaign for a separate bridge. I'm sure your friend Councillor Merrett will find the odd £10 or £15 million to fund it.
If this cycle path needs a separate bridge to cross the railway then why doesn't the cycle path that goes over the river and railway on the A1237 between Shipton Road and York Business Park need a separate bridge. This always seems a dangerous section of road to me. Come on Pedalling Paul, start a campaign for a separate bridge. I'm sure your friend Councillor Merrett will find the odd £10 or £15 million to fund it. tobefair
  • Score: -143

10:18am Tue 15 Apr 14

Jim says...

pedalling paul wrote:
The cycle path is sadly being regarded in isolation and as a standalone project. In fact it is an essential plank of the infrastructure work that is associated with York's current Local Sustainable Transport Fund grant. That funding is being used to help promote all forms of sustainable travel, of which cycling is one element.
Instead of responding instantly to my posts, why not take a little time out to Google "York LSTF" and learn about this bigger picture.
LSTF funding is a brainchild of the present ConLib government, and York's successful bid ticked all their boxes.
I recall the debate about two parallel cycle lanes alongside the Knavesmire on Taddy Road, one on road and one off road. Both have their uses, one as an outbound "fast" lane and the other a two way part of the Orbital route. That settled down in time and so will the A1237-side link.
And perhaps the new bridge span over the railway, which has bedevilled the project, will be a hidden blessing if it reduces the likelihood of the road being dualled. After all, why spend £150 million for short term gain?More road space generates more car use..simple!!
More road space DOES NOT generate more car use.
The days of people 'going out for a drive' are long over, it's too expensive and there's too much traffic for it to be enjoyable. Build a new road or upgrade an existing one and people will use them but only if they are a more convienient route to get to a destination - they don't use them simply because they are there. The 1237 was able to deal with the level of when it was built and would still be able to if people hadn't been given other reasons to use it - take away the vehicles heading for Monks Cross, Clifton Moor and York Business Park and it'll still be able to deal with the traffic.
Our traffic problems are down to a lack of both joined up thinking and communication between different departments and authorities. Will there ever be a solution? Not in my lifetime....
[quote][p][bold]pedalling paul [/bold] wrote: The cycle path is sadly being regarded in isolation and as a standalone project. In fact it is an essential plank of the infrastructure work that is associated with York's current Local Sustainable Transport Fund grant. That funding is being used to help promote all forms of sustainable travel, of which cycling is one element. Instead of responding instantly to my posts, why not take a little time out to Google "York LSTF" and learn about this bigger picture. LSTF funding is a brainchild of the present ConLib government, and York's successful bid ticked all their boxes. I recall the debate about two parallel cycle lanes alongside the Knavesmire on Taddy Road, one on road and one off road. Both have their uses, one as an outbound "fast" lane and the other a two way part of the Orbital route. That settled down in time and so will the A1237-side link. And perhaps the new bridge span over the railway, which has bedevilled the project, will be a hidden blessing if it reduces the likelihood of the road being dualled. After all, why spend £150 million for short term gain?More road space generates more car use..simple!![/p][/quote]More road space DOES NOT generate more car use. The days of people 'going out for a drive' are long over, it's too expensive and there's too much traffic for it to be enjoyable. Build a new road or upgrade an existing one and people will use them but only if they are a more convienient route to get to a destination - they don't use them simply because they are there. The 1237 was able to deal with the level of when it was built and would still be able to if people hadn't been given other reasons to use it - take away the vehicles heading for Monks Cross, Clifton Moor and York Business Park and it'll still be able to deal with the traffic. Our traffic problems are down to a lack of both joined up thinking and communication between different departments and authorities. Will there ever be a solution? Not in my lifetime.... Jim
  • Score: -81

10:20am Tue 15 Apr 14

Von_Dutch says...

Do half of you commentators actually bother to read the story? Comments such as "I never see anyone on it" and "it just dumps you at a dangerous point to cross the ring road". IT'S ONLY HALF BUILT. Just because it's not fenced off and you can physically get onto it doesn't mean it's open for use. Until the new bridge goes in, it's mostly useless for people. Hence no - drivers will not see cyclists using it. Not until it's finished.

I personally think it's a useful addition, although perhaps an expensive one. It may all be "taxpayers money", but if we hadn't won it and built this, some other town city would be spending it now - it wouldn't be being refunded back to us now would it. Rather something in York than elsewhere.
Do half of you commentators actually bother to read the story? Comments such as "I never see anyone on it" and "it just dumps you at a dangerous point to cross the ring road". IT'S ONLY HALF BUILT. Just because it's not fenced off and you can physically get onto it doesn't mean it's open for use. Until the new bridge goes in, it's mostly useless for people. Hence no - drivers will not see cyclists using it. Not until it's finished. I personally think it's a useful addition, although perhaps an expensive one. It may all be "taxpayers money", but if we hadn't won it and built this, some other town city would be spending it now - it wouldn't be being refunded back to us now would it. Rather something in York than elsewhere. Von_Dutch
  • Score: -86

10:21am Tue 15 Apr 14

Garrowby Turnoff says...

I don't care how much spin PP and others write about this £1.3 million white elephant, the fact that access to it is dangerous and poorly planned makes the half-mile route unfit for purpose.

BTW. Attracting cyclists to a shopping centre is akin to inviting eunuchs to an orgy.
I don't care how much spin PP and others write about this £1.3 million white elephant, the fact that access to it is dangerous and poorly planned makes the half-mile route unfit for purpose. BTW. Attracting cyclists to a shopping centre is akin to inviting eunuchs to an orgy. Garrowby Turnoff
  • Score: -84

10:27am Tue 15 Apr 14

roskoboskovic says...

surely even his own labour mates can see that merrett is incompetent and shouldn t be in the job.who the hell does the feasability studies for these schemes and why can t they be held to account.
surely even his own labour mates can see that merrett is incompetent and shouldn t be in the job.who the hell does the feasability studies for these schemes and why can t they be held to account. roskoboskovic
  • Score: -74

10:40am Tue 15 Apr 14

Big Bad Wolf says...

JOKE....
JOKE.... Big Bad Wolf
  • Score: -50

10:44am Tue 15 Apr 14

Platform9 says...

"The council says the new route will give people in Huntington, Strensall, Haxby, Wigginton and Earswick a safe cycle route to Clifton Moor"

Can't wait to see the cyclists dragging their shopping trolly's behind them or laden down with Iceland carrier bags rushing back home before their goods melt!
"The council says the new route will give people in Huntington, Strensall, Haxby, Wigginton and Earswick a safe cycle route to Clifton Moor" Can't wait to see the cyclists dragging their shopping trolly's behind them or laden down with Iceland carrier bags rushing back home before their goods melt! Platform9
  • Score: -34

11:14am Tue 15 Apr 14

oldgoat says...

pedalling paul wrote:
The cycle path is sadly being regarded in isolation and as a standalone project. In fact it is an essential plank of the infrastructure work that is associated with York's current Local Sustainable Transport Fund grant. That funding is being used to help promote all forms of sustainable travel, of which cycling is one element.
Instead of responding instantly to my posts, why not take a little time out to Google "York LSTF" and learn about this bigger picture.
LSTF funding is a brainchild of the present ConLib government, and York's successful bid ticked all their boxes.
I recall the debate about two parallel cycle lanes alongside the Knavesmire on Taddy Road, one on road and one off road. Both have their uses, one as an outbound "fast" lane and the other a two way part of the Orbital route. That settled down in time and so will the A1237-side link.
And perhaps the new bridge span over the railway, which has bedevilled the project, will be a hidden blessing if it reduces the likelihood of the road being dualled. After all, why spend £150 million for short term gain?More road space generates more car use..simple!!
You do talk cobblers sometimes. Well, most of the time....
Cycle routes are only any use if they are not in everyone else's way. The dual track on Taddy Road seems only to encourage folks to carry on cycling up the footpath afterwards, and is a pain to use if you are trying to get past people walking along the footpath - pretty much the same as the one up The Mount.
The one along Hallfield Road and James Street is another.

Before you spout, I drive a car and thus pay my 'Car Tax' as well as cycle. Having a balanced transport system is what we need, not the mess we have.
[quote][p][bold]pedalling paul [/bold] wrote: The cycle path is sadly being regarded in isolation and as a standalone project. In fact it is an essential plank of the infrastructure work that is associated with York's current Local Sustainable Transport Fund grant. That funding is being used to help promote all forms of sustainable travel, of which cycling is one element. Instead of responding instantly to my posts, why not take a little time out to Google "York LSTF" and learn about this bigger picture. LSTF funding is a brainchild of the present ConLib government, and York's successful bid ticked all their boxes. I recall the debate about two parallel cycle lanes alongside the Knavesmire on Taddy Road, one on road and one off road. Both have their uses, one as an outbound "fast" lane and the other a two way part of the Orbital route. That settled down in time and so will the A1237-side link. And perhaps the new bridge span over the railway, which has bedevilled the project, will be a hidden blessing if it reduces the likelihood of the road being dualled. After all, why spend £150 million for short term gain?More road space generates more car use..simple!![/p][/quote]You do talk cobblers sometimes. Well, most of the time.... Cycle routes are only any use if they are not in everyone else's way. The dual track on Taddy Road seems only to encourage folks to carry on cycling up the footpath afterwards, and is a pain to use if you are trying to get past people walking along the footpath - pretty much the same as the one up The Mount. The one along Hallfield Road and James Street is another. Before you spout, I drive a car and thus pay my 'Car Tax' as well as cycle. Having a balanced transport system is what we need, not the mess we have. oldgoat
  • Score: -11

12:00pm Tue 15 Apr 14

Mr Udigawa says...

pedalling paul wrote:
The cycle path is sadly being regarded in isolation and as a standalone project. In fact it is an essential plank....

Whilst most people would consider you to be a "non-essential plank"
pedalling paul wrote: The cycle path is sadly being regarded in isolation and as a standalone project. In fact it is an essential plank.... Whilst most people would consider you to be a "non-essential plank" Mr Udigawa
  • Score: -61

12:42pm Tue 15 Apr 14

ouseswimmer says...

As a cyclist and a driver I do think it about time a cyclist designed these routes. I refuse to use many cycle routes in York because they are clearly dangerous or misplaced. An integrated approach needs to be instigated. One which involves pedestrians and cars too.
As a cyclist and a driver I do think it about time a cyclist designed these routes. I refuse to use many cycle routes in York because they are clearly dangerous or misplaced. An integrated approach needs to be instigated. One which involves pedestrians and cars too. ouseswimmer
  • Score: -87

1:30pm Tue 15 Apr 14

Geoff Beacon says...

See those polluters in their cars next to the cycle track. Let's not call the payments they make to the public purse "taxes" or let's call them" fines". for the pollution they cause. Look up the deaths that car pollution causes on the Public Health England website:

"Despite these improvements, the Committee on the Medical Effects of Air Pollutants (COMEAP) estimated that long term exposure to air pollution had an effect equivalent to 29,000 deaths a year in the UK in 2008."

Price these killers out of their cars and onto the healthy cycle tracks.
See those polluters in their cars next to the cycle track. Let's not call the payments they make to the public purse "taxes" or let's call them" fines". for the pollution they cause. Look up the deaths that car pollution causes on the Public Health England website: "Despite these improvements, the Committee on the Medical Effects of Air Pollutants (COMEAP) estimated that long term exposure to air pollution had an effect equivalent to 29,000 deaths a year in the UK in 2008." Price these killers out of their cars and onto the healthy cycle tracks. Geoff Beacon
  • Score: -114

1:43pm Tue 15 Apr 14

Archiebold the 1st says...

Geoff Beacon wrote:
See those polluters in their cars next to the cycle track. Let's not call the payments they make to the public purse "taxes" or let's call them" fines". for the pollution they cause. Look up the deaths that car pollution causes on the Public Health England website: "Despite these improvements, the Committee on the Medical Effects of Air Pollutants (COMEAP) estimated that long term exposure to air pollution had an effect equivalent to 29,000 deaths a year in the UK in 2008." Price these killers out of their cars and onto the healthy cycle tracks.
Nut job! Go join Paul and get your facts right! COMEAP have just made a number up that is not related to medical data... as none of them are qualified dr's!!!! ! In fact with new efficient cars there is little pollution at all.. new economical engines emit less fumes then is the legal requirement. They turn off at lights... If there were 28,000 deaths from cars then surly concrete factories and coal burners caused around 400,000 deaths as they are directly responsible for more co2 and other nasty emissions then cars? Bet that wasn’t in their report was it!!!
[quote][p][bold]Geoff Beacon[/bold] wrote: See those polluters in their cars next to the cycle track. Let's not call the payments they make to the public purse "taxes" or let's call them" fines". for the pollution they cause. Look up the deaths that car pollution causes on the Public Health England website: "Despite these improvements, the Committee on the Medical Effects of Air Pollutants (COMEAP) estimated that long term exposure to air pollution had an effect equivalent to 29,000 deaths a year in the UK in 2008." Price these killers out of their cars and onto the healthy cycle tracks.[/p][/quote]Nut job! Go join Paul and get your facts right! COMEAP have just made a number up that is not related to medical data... as none of them are qualified dr's!!!! ! In fact with new efficient cars there is little pollution at all.. new economical engines emit less fumes then is the legal requirement. They turn off at lights... If there were 28,000 deaths from cars then surly concrete factories and coal burners caused around 400,000 deaths as they are directly responsible for more co2 and other nasty emissions then cars? Bet that wasn’t in their report was it!!! Archiebold the 1st
  • Score: -81

2:18pm Tue 15 Apr 14

Can't all be wrong says...

pedalling paul wrote:
The scheme is not being funded from "our" locally raised taxes but from York's current £4.6m Government Grant from the Local Sustainable Transport Fund.
Budgets are often reallocated due to projected work not being do-able within an intended time. Not unique to CoYC or to transport issues, but happens all the time throughout Local Government in all expenditure areas.
Too many of you are reading too much between the lines.
Money is money PP regardless of which budget it comes from, ultimately it is sourced from tax revenues.
[quote][p][bold]pedalling paul [/bold] wrote: The scheme is not being funded from "our" locally raised taxes but from York's current £4.6m Government Grant from the Local Sustainable Transport Fund. Budgets are often reallocated due to projected work not being do-able within an intended time. Not unique to CoYC or to transport issues, but happens all the time throughout Local Government in all expenditure areas. Too many of you are reading too much between the lines.[/p][/quote]Money is money PP regardless of which budget it comes from, ultimately it is sourced from tax revenues. Can't all be wrong
  • Score: -41

2:42pm Tue 15 Apr 14

harrygilmore says...

I like the cycle path when the roads are busy you can drive down the inside as nobody uses it
I like the cycle path when the roads are busy you can drive down the inside as nobody uses it harrygilmore
  • Score: -52

3:14pm Tue 15 Apr 14

Cheeky face says...

What that cycle route needs is an independent financial resume on it's cost effectiveness; and a new post of an appraisement officer in the council. Forget about austerity that post would be a good investment. I am aware this cycle path is part of a longer plan; but at the moment it looks like a waste of resources!

The funds going in the Central Government treasury come from various sources; but when it is re-allocated it should be used wisely, and seen to be so

There are cycles paths along the a64 east of Malton and the use of these is somewhat little!
What that cycle route needs is an independent financial resume on it's cost effectiveness; and a new post of an appraisement officer in the council. Forget about austerity that post would be a good investment. I am aware this cycle path is part of a longer plan; but at the moment it looks like a waste of resources! The funds going in the Central Government treasury come from various sources; but when it is re-allocated it should be used wisely, and seen to be so There are cycles paths along the a64 east of Malton and the use of these is somewhat little! Cheeky face
  • Score: -80

3:16pm Tue 15 Apr 14

Geoff Beacon says...

Archiebold

There is some truth in what you say but coal burning power stations are not driven past our houses or through our towns.

On another note I have yet to hear of a power station which has knocked anyone over and killed them.I have met several people that have been killed by cars. Some too tragic to discuss openly.

On the CO2 point you mention. Roughly speaking, the average car produces 4 tonnes a year and making the car causes another 4 tonnes. The UK Government's target for personal emissions by 2050 is 2 tonnes per year - that is total emissions.

We can replace coal burning in power stations much more easily than we can replace the billion cars in the world.

If you don't care much about the climate, perhaps you should look at the "Last Hours" video. It's easily found and certainly food for thought.
Archiebold There is some truth in what you say but coal burning power stations are not driven past our houses or through our towns. On another note I have yet to hear of a power station which has knocked anyone over and killed them.I have met several people that have been killed by cars. Some too tragic to discuss openly. On the CO2 point you mention. Roughly speaking, the average car produces 4 tonnes a year and making the car causes another 4 tonnes. The UK Government's target for personal emissions by 2050 is 2 tonnes per year - that is total emissions. We can replace coal burning in power stations much more easily than we can replace the billion cars in the world. If you don't care much about the climate, perhaps you should look at the "Last Hours" video. It's easily found and certainly food for thought. Geoff Beacon
  • Score: -72

3:45pm Tue 15 Apr 14

YorkPatrol says...

pedalling paul wrote:
The cycle path is sadly being regarded in isolation and as a standalone project. In fact it is an essential plank of the infrastructure work that is associated with York's current Local Sustainable Transport Fund grant. That funding is being used to help promote all forms of sustainable travel, of which cycling is one element. Instead of responding instantly to my posts, why not take a little time out to Google "York LSTF" and learn about this bigger picture. LSTF funding is a brainchild of the present ConLib government, and York's successful bid ticked all their boxes. I recall the debate about two parallel cycle lanes alongside the Knavesmire on Taddy Road, one on road and one off road. Both have their uses, one as an outbound "fast" lane and the other a two way part of the Orbital route. That settled down in time and so will the A1237-side link. And perhaps the new bridge span over the railway, which has bedevilled the project, will be a hidden blessing if it reduces the likelihood of the road being dualled. After all, why spend £150 million for short term gain?More road space generates more car use..simple!!
You absolute misguided idiot - Your the simple one...

You'd be dangerous with even half a brain cell
[quote][p][bold]pedalling paul [/bold] wrote: The cycle path is sadly being regarded in isolation and as a standalone project. In fact it is an essential plank of the infrastructure work that is associated with York's current Local Sustainable Transport Fund grant. That funding is being used to help promote all forms of sustainable travel, of which cycling is one element. Instead of responding instantly to my posts, why not take a little time out to Google "York LSTF" and learn about this bigger picture. LSTF funding is a brainchild of the present ConLib government, and York's successful bid ticked all their boxes. I recall the debate about two parallel cycle lanes alongside the Knavesmire on Taddy Road, one on road and one off road. Both have their uses, one as an outbound "fast" lane and the other a two way part of the Orbital route. That settled down in time and so will the A1237-side link. And perhaps the new bridge span over the railway, which has bedevilled the project, will be a hidden blessing if it reduces the likelihood of the road being dualled. After all, why spend £150 million for short term gain?More road space generates more car use..simple!![/p][/quote]You absolute misguided idiot - Your the simple one... You'd be dangerous with even half a brain cell YorkPatrol
  • Score: -33

3:50pm Tue 15 Apr 14

YorkPatrol says...

Geoff Beacon wrote:
See those polluters in their cars next to the cycle track. Let's not call the payments they make to the public purse "taxes" or let's call them" fines". for the pollution they cause. Look up the deaths that car pollution causes on the Public Health England website: "Despite these improvements, the Committee on the Medical Effects of Air Pollutants (COMEAP) estimated that long term exposure to air pollution had an effect equivalent to 29,000 deaths a year in the UK in 2008." Price these killers out of their cars and onto the healthy cycle tracks.
You should be priced based on the air you breathe – oxygen thief!
[quote][p][bold]Geoff Beacon[/bold] wrote: See those polluters in their cars next to the cycle track. Let's not call the payments they make to the public purse "taxes" or let's call them" fines". for the pollution they cause. Look up the deaths that car pollution causes on the Public Health England website: "Despite these improvements, the Committee on the Medical Effects of Air Pollutants (COMEAP) estimated that long term exposure to air pollution had an effect equivalent to 29,000 deaths a year in the UK in 2008." Price these killers out of their cars and onto the healthy cycle tracks.[/p][/quote]You should be priced based on the air you breathe – oxygen thief! YorkPatrol
  • Score: -36

3:54pm Tue 15 Apr 14

YorkPatrol says...

Geoff Beacon wrote:
Archiebold There is some truth in what you say but coal burning power stations are not driven past our houses or through our towns. On another note I have yet to hear of a power station which has knocked anyone over and killed them.I have met several people that have been killed by cars. Some too tragic to discuss openly. On the CO2 point you mention. Roughly speaking, the average car produces 4 tonnes a year and making the car causes another 4 tonnes. The UK Government's target for personal emissions by 2050 is 2 tonnes per year - that is total emissions. We can replace coal burning in power stations much more easily than we can replace the billion cars in the world. If you don't care much about the climate, perhaps you should look at the "Last Hours" video. It's easily found and certainly food for thought.
Why don't you eat the video then?
[quote][p][bold]Geoff Beacon[/bold] wrote: Archiebold There is some truth in what you say but coal burning power stations are not driven past our houses or through our towns. On another note I have yet to hear of a power station which has knocked anyone over and killed them.I have met several people that have been killed by cars. Some too tragic to discuss openly. On the CO2 point you mention. Roughly speaking, the average car produces 4 tonnes a year and making the car causes another 4 tonnes. The UK Government's target for personal emissions by 2050 is 2 tonnes per year - that is total emissions. We can replace coal burning in power stations much more easily than we can replace the billion cars in the world. If you don't care much about the climate, perhaps you should look at the "Last Hours" video. It's easily found and certainly food for thought.[/p][/quote]Why don't you eat the video then? YorkPatrol
  • Score: -10

4:26pm Tue 15 Apr 14

Caecilius says...

Peanuts compared to the estimated £115M cost of dualling the ringroad, a completely futile scheme advocated by the Chamber of Commerce, Julian Sturdy and all the usual suspects - and endorsed by James Alexander, eager as ever to appease the car lobby. I wouldn't want to see a penny out of my taxes wasted on providing more tarmac that, sooner or later (probably sooner) will just be clogged with cars like all the rest.
Peanuts compared to the estimated £115M cost of dualling the ringroad, a completely futile scheme advocated by the Chamber of Commerce, Julian Sturdy and all the usual suspects - and endorsed by James Alexander, eager as ever to appease the car lobby. I wouldn't want to see a penny out of my taxes wasted on providing more tarmac that, sooner or later (probably sooner) will just be clogged with cars like all the rest. Caecilius
  • Score: 38

5:22pm Tue 15 Apr 14

trailblazer says...

Mayhem MERRET wasting taxpayers money yet again surely Darren Richardson has to be involved in this if we are wasting money.
Mayhem MERRET wasting taxpayers money yet again surely Darren Richardson has to be involved in this if we are wasting money. trailblazer
  • Score: -22

5:37pm Tue 15 Apr 14

NoNewsIsGoodNews says...

Caecilius wrote:
Peanuts compared to the estimated £115M cost of dualling the ringroad, a completely futile scheme advocated by the Chamber of Commerce, Julian Sturdy and all the usual suspects - and endorsed by James Alexander, eager as ever to appease the car lobby. I wouldn't want to see a penny out of my taxes wasted on providing more tarmac that, sooner or later (probably sooner) will just be clogged with cars like all the rest.
So if you don't want your tax penny's providing more tarmac, then I can only assume that you are against the building of the new A1237 cycle path.
Well done Caeilius, it's about time you joined us in the 21st century.
See if you can can drag pedalling paul along with you.
[quote][p][bold]Caecilius[/bold] wrote: Peanuts compared to the estimated £115M cost of dualling the ringroad, a completely futile scheme advocated by the Chamber of Commerce, Julian Sturdy and all the usual suspects - and endorsed by James Alexander, eager as ever to appease the car lobby. I wouldn't want to see a penny out of my taxes wasted on providing more tarmac that, sooner or later (probably sooner) will just be clogged with cars like all the rest.[/p][/quote]So if you don't want your tax penny's providing more tarmac, then I can only assume that you are against the building of the new A1237 cycle path. Well done Caeilius, it's about time you joined us in the 21st century. See if you can can drag pedalling paul along with you. NoNewsIsGoodNews
  • Score: -25

6:14pm Tue 15 Apr 14

deckhanddave says...

Does this mean that the ring road will never be dual carriageway now? Or will it be a case of just wasting more money by our erstwhile forward thinking republic government, sorry council. I keep forgetting we don't live in a socialist state. no brown shirts here,eh! Few brown noses though! The council could ask trading Standards to sort out the boys from the black stuff that did the work. Actually, maybe not. Don't you have to jump through hoops with CAB nowadays and wait and wait and wait before you can talk to anyone? Society and it's infrastructure is crumbling as surely as the councils new cycle track. Better remember to put a 20mph sign on it too!
Does this mean that the ring road will never be dual carriageway now? Or will it be a case of just wasting more money by our erstwhile forward thinking republic government, sorry council. I keep forgetting we don't live in a socialist state. no brown shirts here,eh! Few brown noses though! The council could ask trading Standards to sort out the boys from the black stuff that did the work. Actually, maybe not. Don't you have to jump through hoops with CAB nowadays and wait and wait and wait before you can talk to anyone? Society and it's infrastructure is crumbling as surely as the councils new cycle track. Better remember to put a 20mph sign on it too! deckhanddave
  • Score: -28

6:15pm Tue 15 Apr 14

the commentator says...

this city needs to come together and organise protest marches to get these idiots out now! They are running this city and our money into the ground. Enough is enough.
this city needs to come together and organise protest marches to get these idiots out now! They are running this city and our money into the ground. Enough is enough. the commentator
  • Score: -25

6:16pm Tue 15 Apr 14

Garrowby Turnoff says...

If I were to choose to drive on cycle free roads with all the bikes travelling alongside on their own safe tracks and not interfering with my vehicle, then I'm up for that.

Now then, what I'm not sure about is "'ow much" that'll cost.
If I were to choose to drive on cycle free roads with all the bikes travelling alongside on their own safe tracks and not interfering with my vehicle, then I'm up for that. Now then, what I'm not sure about is "'ow much" that'll cost. Garrowby Turnoff
  • Score: -38

6:56pm Tue 15 Apr 14

bolero says...

Can't all be wrong wrote:
pedalling paul wrote:
The scheme is not being funded from "our" locally raised taxes but from York's current £4.6m Government Grant from the Local Sustainable Transport Fund.
Budgets are often reallocated due to projected work not being do-able within an intended time. Not unique to CoYC or to transport issues, but happens all the time throughout Local Government in all expenditure areas.
Too many of you are reading too much between the lines.
Money is money PP regardless of which budget it comes from, ultimately it is sourced from tax revenues.
PP doesn't do tax because he doesn't understand it. Well that's his excuse. Remember Ken Dodd, he's a comedian as well.
[quote][p][bold]Can't all be wrong[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]pedalling paul [/bold] wrote: The scheme is not being funded from "our" locally raised taxes but from York's current £4.6m Government Grant from the Local Sustainable Transport Fund. Budgets are often reallocated due to projected work not being do-able within an intended time. Not unique to CoYC or to transport issues, but happens all the time throughout Local Government in all expenditure areas. Too many of you are reading too much between the lines.[/p][/quote]Money is money PP regardless of which budget it comes from, ultimately it is sourced from tax revenues.[/p][/quote]PP doesn't do tax because he doesn't understand it. Well that's his excuse. Remember Ken Dodd, he's a comedian as well. bolero
  • Score: -30

7:13pm Tue 15 Apr 14

PKH says...

Why did not the council do a proper groundwork analysis before they started on the project given that the bridge over the railway was always going to be the most expensive component of this project, this makes it look that they planned the scheme on the back of a fag packet.
Why did not the council do a proper groundwork analysis before they started on the project given that the bridge over the railway was always going to be the most expensive component of this project, this makes it look that they planned the scheme on the back of a fag packet. PKH
  • Score: -34

7:25pm Tue 15 Apr 14

Mullarkian says...

Why do we need marked cycle lanes anyway,?
Has peoples intelligence degenerated so much that they don't know how to use the roads.
There is absolutely no need for gallons of paint , chicanes, humps and all the rest, the only thing it acieves is frustration and needless aggression by all road users.
Why do we need marked cycle lanes anyway,? Has peoples intelligence degenerated so much that they don't know how to use the roads. There is absolutely no need for gallons of paint , chicanes, humps and all the rest, the only thing it acieves is frustration and needless aggression by all road users. Mullarkian
  • Score: -27

7:27pm Tue 15 Apr 14

Kelvar says...

Haven't 'read' all the previous comments - BUT how can a Cycle Path looking like THAT cost 1.3 Million!!! I could have done a better job, and I'm a retired Pensioner!!!
Haven't 'read' all the previous comments - BUT how can a Cycle Path looking like THAT cost 1.3 Million!!! I could have done a better job, and I'm a retired Pensioner!!! Kelvar
  • Score: -36

7:51pm Tue 15 Apr 14

Igiveinthen says...

Geoff Beacon wrote:
Archiebold

There is some truth in what you say but coal burning power stations are not driven past our houses or through our towns.

On another note I have yet to hear of a power station which has knocked anyone over and killed them.I have met several people that have been killed by cars. Some too tragic to discuss openly.

On the CO2 point you mention. Roughly speaking, the average car produces 4 tonnes a year and making the car causes another 4 tonnes. The UK Government's target for personal emissions by 2050 is 2 tonnes per year - that is total emissions.

We can replace coal burning in power stations much more easily than we can replace the billion cars in the world.

If you don't care much about the climate, perhaps you should look at the "Last Hours" video. It's easily found and certainly food for thought.
Bet you also believed in the book 'Was God an Astronaut', your comment about pricing people out of their cars will have as much success as pp/Hepworth's desire to see everyone riding a bike, get real for everyone else's sake.
[quote][p][bold]Geoff Beacon[/bold] wrote: Archiebold There is some truth in what you say but coal burning power stations are not driven past our houses or through our towns. On another note I have yet to hear of a power station which has knocked anyone over and killed them.I have met several people that have been killed by cars. Some too tragic to discuss openly. On the CO2 point you mention. Roughly speaking, the average car produces 4 tonnes a year and making the car causes another 4 tonnes. The UK Government's target for personal emissions by 2050 is 2 tonnes per year - that is total emissions. We can replace coal burning in power stations much more easily than we can replace the billion cars in the world. If you don't care much about the climate, perhaps you should look at the "Last Hours" video. It's easily found and certainly food for thought.[/p][/quote]Bet you also believed in the book 'Was God an Astronaut', your comment about pricing people out of their cars will have as much success as pp/Hepworth's desire to see everyone riding a bike, get real for everyone else's sake. Igiveinthen
  • Score: -34

8:10pm Tue 15 Apr 14

Yorkie41 says...

Maybe it is time to consider a tax on Cycles.
Maybe it is time to consider a tax on Cycles. Yorkie41
  • Score: -31

8:16pm Tue 15 Apr 14

yorkshirelad says...

Look at the headline...designed to goad the grumpy Victor Meldrew party into action...and it works! Another way of putting it is that spending on cycling infrastructure is virtually undetectable compared to road spending.

In general people will decide to cycle or not based on the worst bit of their route (Clifton Green anyone?), so it stands to reason that until a proper network is in place, they are going to be pretty quiet.

The only bit I agree with the grumpy brigade is the quality...my goodness we do need to build to a higher quality that will last.
Look at the headline...designed to goad the grumpy Victor Meldrew party into action...and it works! Another way of putting it is that spending on cycling infrastructure is virtually undetectable compared to road spending. In general people will decide to cycle or not based on the worst bit of their route (Clifton Green anyone?), so it stands to reason that until a proper network is in place, they are going to be pretty quiet. The only bit I agree with the grumpy brigade is the quality...my goodness we do need to build to a higher quality that will last. yorkshirelad
  • Score: -45

9:17pm Tue 15 Apr 14

fred02 says...

Cycle paths in York are terrible. Someone needs to be shown how to lay FLAT SMOOTH tarmac. I always ride on the road, the cycle paths are too bumpy.
Cycle paths in York are terrible. Someone needs to be shown how to lay FLAT SMOOTH tarmac. I always ride on the road, the cycle paths are too bumpy. fred02
  • Score: -20

9:24pm Tue 15 Apr 14

pedalling paul says...

We're almost neck and neck with the free parking story now...keep it up chaps!
We're almost neck and neck with the free parking story now...keep it up chaps! pedalling paul
  • Score: 82

10:05pm Tue 15 Apr 14

barry4met says...

what a waste of ratepayers money. Travelled past the said cycle track today and spotted a Community Police Officer still using the road on his bicycle. Please Please spend OUR !! rates to resurface long forgotten roads around Huntington and fill in Potholes in residential areas before someone has a terrible accident.
what a waste of ratepayers money. Travelled past the said cycle track today and spotted a Community Police Officer still using the road on his bicycle. Please Please spend OUR !! rates to resurface long forgotten roads around Huntington and fill in Potholes in residential areas before someone has a terrible accident. barry4met
  • Score: -46

10:17pm Tue 15 Apr 14

level-headed says...

yorkshirelad wrote:
Look at the headline...designed to goad the grumpy Victor Meldrew party into action...and it works! Another way of putting it is that spending on cycling infrastructure is virtually undetectable compared to road spending.

In general people will decide to cycle or not based on the worst bit of their route (Clifton Green anyone?), so it stands to reason that until a proper network is in place, they are going to be pretty quiet.

The only bit I agree with the grumpy brigade is the quality...my goodness we do need to build to a higher quality that will last.
People do not carry out a 'cycle path survey' before deciding whether or not to cycle. They choose based on whether they can or cannot be ar$ed to cycle and what is most convenient for them. For me, cycling or taking buses will never be convenient as you either get pi$$ wet through or your journey takes three times as long. The cycle routes which dodge on and off pavements are more hassle than they're worth anyway as it's quicker to just stay on the road. York is already full of cycle paths - they're called roads and if you're too frightened to ride a cycle on them, then you shouldn't be riding one.
[quote][p][bold]yorkshirelad[/bold] wrote: Look at the headline...designed to goad the grumpy Victor Meldrew party into action...and it works! Another way of putting it is that spending on cycling infrastructure is virtually undetectable compared to road spending. In general people will decide to cycle or not based on the worst bit of their route (Clifton Green anyone?), so it stands to reason that until a proper network is in place, they are going to be pretty quiet. The only bit I agree with the grumpy brigade is the quality...my goodness we do need to build to a higher quality that will last.[/p][/quote]People do not carry out a 'cycle path survey' before deciding whether or not to cycle. They choose based on whether they can or cannot be ar$ed to cycle and what is most convenient for them. For me, cycling or taking buses will never be convenient as you either get pi$$ wet through or your journey takes three times as long. The cycle routes which dodge on and off pavements are more hassle than they're worth anyway as it's quicker to just stay on the road. York is already full of cycle paths - they're called roads and if you're too frightened to ride a cycle on them, then you shouldn't be riding one. level-headed
  • Score: -31

10:55pm Tue 15 Apr 14

bolero says...

If all the cycle tracks in York were laid in a concentric circle PP could ride round in circles and then disappear up you know where. There must be some statistical conclusion to this.
If all the cycle tracks in York were laid in a concentric circle PP could ride round in circles and then disappear up you know where. There must be some statistical conclusion to this. bolero
  • Score: -17

6:52am Wed 16 Apr 14

Igiveinthen says...

bolero wrote:
If all the cycle tracks in York were laid in a concentric circle PP could ride round in circles and then disappear up you know where. There must be some statistical conclusion to this.
Ah, but would we get rid of pp or Hepworth? On second thoughts if he/they did disappear up 'you know where' there wouldn't be anyone left to give us the endless hours of fun on these pages!
[quote][p][bold]bolero[/bold] wrote: If all the cycle tracks in York were laid in a concentric circle PP could ride round in circles and then disappear up you know where. There must be some statistical conclusion to this.[/p][/quote]Ah, but would we get rid of pp or Hepworth? On second thoughts if he/they did disappear up 'you know where' there wouldn't be anyone left to give us the endless hours of fun on these pages! Igiveinthen
  • Score: 11

7:18am Wed 16 Apr 14

roy_batty says...

What a mess, as a cyclist i am dumbfounded by the cycle lanes up near ScrewFix! Who came up with that idea? Basically the cycle lane should be on the path, for two reasons really, very few pedestrian's and very few cyclist's.
And also no cycle path is needed on the A1237 between the Wiggington Road and Haxby Road roundabouts because car's are at a crawl practically 99.99% of the time and no real danger to anyone at all.
What a mess, as a cyclist i am dumbfounded by the cycle lanes up near ScrewFix! Who came up with that idea? Basically the cycle lane should be on the path, for two reasons really, very few pedestrian's and very few cyclist's. And also no cycle path is needed on the A1237 between the Wiggington Road and Haxby Road roundabouts because car's are at a crawl practically 99.99% of the time and no real danger to anyone at all. roy_batty
  • Score: 9

8:37am Wed 16 Apr 14

Jim says...

Has anybody else noticed that the resurfaced cycle/footpath alongside the A19 between the A1237 and Skelton has already got weeds gowing through the tarmac? If this cycle path has been built to the same low standard by the end of the summer you won't be able to see the thing.
Has anybody else noticed that the resurfaced cycle/footpath alongside the A19 between the A1237 and Skelton has already got weeds gowing through the tarmac? If this cycle path has been built to the same low standard by the end of the summer you won't be able to see the thing. Jim
  • Score: 9

8:45am Wed 16 Apr 14

Yorkie41 says...

Yorkie41 wrote:
Maybe it is time to consider a tax on Cycles.
Taking into consideration the amount of people who are objecting to this suggestion, who do they think should pay for the upkeep of all these cycle paths.
[quote][p][bold]Yorkie41[/bold] wrote: Maybe it is time to consider a tax on Cycles.[/p][/quote]Taking into consideration the amount of people who are objecting to this suggestion, who do they think should pay for the upkeep of all these cycle paths. Yorkie41
  • Score: 5

9:31am Wed 16 Apr 14

Igiveinthen says...

Yorkie41 wrote:
Yorkie41 wrote: Maybe it is time to consider a tax on Cycles.
Taking into consideration the amount of people who are objecting to this suggestion, who do they think should pay for the upkeep of all these cycle paths.
Cyclists?
[quote][p][bold]Yorkie41[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Yorkie41[/bold] wrote: Maybe it is time to consider a tax on Cycles.[/p][/quote]Taking into consideration the amount of people who are objecting to this suggestion, who do they think should pay for the upkeep of all these cycle paths.[/p][/quote]Cyclists? Igiveinthen
  • Score: 5

9:50am Wed 16 Apr 14

pedalling paul says...

barry4met wrote:
what a waste of ratepayers money. Travelled past the said cycle track today and spotted a Community Police Officer still using the road on his bicycle. Please Please spend OUR !! rates to resurface long forgotten roads around Huntington and fill in Potholes in residential areas before someone has a terrible accident.
Please read previous threads which confirm that the spend is coming wholly from Government grants.
[quote][p][bold]barry4met[/bold] wrote: what a waste of ratepayers money. Travelled past the said cycle track today and spotted a Community Police Officer still using the road on his bicycle. Please Please spend OUR !! rates to resurface long forgotten roads around Huntington and fill in Potholes in residential areas before someone has a terrible accident.[/p][/quote]Please read previous threads which confirm that the spend is coming wholly from Government grants. pedalling paul
  • Score: -6

9:54am Wed 16 Apr 14

greenmonkey says...

Von_Dutch wrote:
Do half of you commentators actually bother to read the story? Comments such as "I never see anyone on it" and "it just dumps you at a dangerous point to cross the ring road". IT'S ONLY HALF BUILT. Just because it's not fenced off and you can physically get onto it doesn't mean it's open for use. Until the new bridge goes in, it's mostly useless for people. Hence no - drivers will not see cyclists using it. Not until it's finished.

I personally think it's a useful addition, although perhaps an expensive one. It may all be "taxpayers money", but if we hadn't won it and built this, some other town city would be spending it now - it wouldn't be being refunded back to us now would it. Rather something in York than elsewhere.
Im amazed the press even failed to mention this fundamental factual point and commentators are so blindly anti cyclist as not to even acknowledge the fact. As von dutch says if the funding hadn't been won for sustainable travel in York it would have been spent elsewhere. If we can provide decent cycle routes and reliable convenient public transport we simply give in to the M25 scenario of building more lanes for cars going nowhere fast. Yes the ring road is clogged and too much traffic is trying to use it (more now with John Lewis opening) but the engineers report from 2008 commissioned by the Lib Dem council for 100s of thousands of pounds said that the choke points are the junctions not the number of lanes on the ring road. £300m or more would be needed for the fly overs and dualling. So Labour, Tories and Lib Dems know they can bleat on about promises to do something but the money isn't there, and is not a priority when we are closing old peoples homes, slashing basic council services and have no money to maintain existing roads never mind new ones.
[quote][p][bold]Von_Dutch[/bold] wrote: Do half of you commentators actually bother to read the story? Comments such as "I never see anyone on it" and "it just dumps you at a dangerous point to cross the ring road". IT'S ONLY HALF BUILT. Just because it's not fenced off and you can physically get onto it doesn't mean it's open for use. Until the new bridge goes in, it's mostly useless for people. Hence no - drivers will not see cyclists using it. Not until it's finished. I personally think it's a useful addition, although perhaps an expensive one. It may all be "taxpayers money", but if we hadn't won it and built this, some other town city would be spending it now - it wouldn't be being refunded back to us now would it. Rather something in York than elsewhere.[/p][/quote]Im amazed the press even failed to mention this fundamental factual point and commentators are so blindly anti cyclist as not to even acknowledge the fact. As von dutch says if the funding hadn't been won for sustainable travel in York it would have been spent elsewhere. If we can provide decent cycle routes and reliable convenient public transport we simply give in to the M25 scenario of building more lanes for cars going nowhere fast. Yes the ring road is clogged and too much traffic is trying to use it (more now with John Lewis opening) but the engineers report from 2008 commissioned by the Lib Dem council for 100s of thousands of pounds said that the choke points are the junctions not the number of lanes on the ring road. £300m or more would be needed for the fly overs and dualling. So Labour, Tories and Lib Dems know they can bleat on about promises to do something but the money isn't there, and is not a priority when we are closing old peoples homes, slashing basic council services and have no money to maintain existing roads never mind new ones. greenmonkey
  • Score: -3

10:09am Wed 16 Apr 14

Ichabod76 says...

Check this out

http://www.minsterfm

.com/news/local/1258

443/exclusive-york-t

ransport-boss-20mph-

e-mails-revealed/

not looking good for dodgy Dave !
Check this out http://www.minsterfm .com/news/local/1258 443/exclusive-york-t ransport-boss-20mph- e-mails-revealed/ not looking good for dodgy Dave ! Ichabod76
  • Score: 8

10:09am Wed 16 Apr 14

PKH says...

PKH wrote:
Why did not the council do a proper groundwork analysis before they started on the project given that the bridge over the railway was always going to be the most expensive component of this project, this makes it look that they planned the scheme on the back of a fag packet.
Looks like I've hit a raw nerve with the score fixers
[quote][p][bold]PKH[/bold] wrote: Why did not the council do a proper groundwork analysis before they started on the project given that the bridge over the railway was always going to be the most expensive component of this project, this makes it look that they planned the scheme on the back of a fag packet.[/p][/quote]Looks like I've hit a raw nerve with the score fixers PKH
  • Score: 5

10:57am Wed 16 Apr 14

yorkshirelad says...

Yorkie41 wrote:
Yorkie41 wrote:
Maybe it is time to consider a tax on Cycles.
Taking into consideration the amount of people who are objecting to this suggestion, who do they think should pay for the upkeep of all these cycle paths.
What about pavements? A tax on pedestrians and kids walking to school?
What about green spaces? A tax on dog walkers?

Hang on though...maybe it' really is a good idea. Perhaps people who only ever use cars to get about could fund A&E departments, diabetic clinics, hip replacements and gastric banding services...asthma clinics......
[quote][p][bold]Yorkie41[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Yorkie41[/bold] wrote: Maybe it is time to consider a tax on Cycles.[/p][/quote]Taking into consideration the amount of people who are objecting to this suggestion, who do they think should pay for the upkeep of all these cycle paths.[/p][/quote]What about pavements? A tax on pedestrians and kids walking to school? What about green spaces? A tax on dog walkers? Hang on though...maybe it' really is a good idea. Perhaps people who only ever use cars to get about could fund A&E departments, diabetic clinics, hip replacements and gastric banding services...asthma clinics...... yorkshirelad
  • Score: 0

12:03pm Wed 16 Apr 14

Igiveinthen says...

yorkshirelad wrote:
Yorkie41 wrote:
Yorkie41 wrote: Maybe it is time to consider a tax on Cycles.
Taking into consideration the amount of people who are objecting to this suggestion, who do they think should pay for the upkeep of all these cycle paths.
What about pavements? A tax on pedestrians and kids walking to school? What about green spaces? A tax on dog walkers? Hang on though...maybe it' really is a good idea. Perhaps people who only ever use cars to get about could fund A&E departments, diabetic clinics, hip replacements and gastric banding services...asthma clinics......
eh up an sithee, Yorkie41, tard yorkshirelad's getting a'bit tetchy tha nos.
[quote][p][bold]yorkshirelad[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Yorkie41[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Yorkie41[/bold] wrote: Maybe it is time to consider a tax on Cycles.[/p][/quote]Taking into consideration the amount of people who are objecting to this suggestion, who do they think should pay for the upkeep of all these cycle paths.[/p][/quote]What about pavements? A tax on pedestrians and kids walking to school? What about green spaces? A tax on dog walkers? Hang on though...maybe it' really is a good idea. Perhaps people who only ever use cars to get about could fund A&E departments, diabetic clinics, hip replacements and gastric banding services...asthma clinics......[/p][/quote]eh up an sithee, Yorkie41, tard yorkshirelad's getting a'bit tetchy tha nos. Igiveinthen
  • Score: 1

2:51pm Wed 16 Apr 14

mmarshal says...

Can no one rid me of this meddlesome Merrett?
Can no one rid me of this meddlesome Merrett? mmarshal
  • Score: 4

3:27pm Wed 16 Apr 14

Archiebold the 1st says...

Geoff Beacon wrote:
Archiebold There is some truth in what you say but coal burning power stations are not driven past our houses or through our towns. On another note I have yet to hear of a power station which has knocked anyone over and killed them.I have met several people that have been killed by cars. Some too tragic to discuss openly. On the CO2 point you mention. Roughly speaking, the average car produces 4 tonnes a year and making the car causes another 4 tonnes. The UK Government's target for personal emissions by 2050 is 2 tonnes per year - that is total emissions. We can replace coal burning in power stations much more easily than we can replace the billion cars in the world. If you don't care much about the climate, perhaps you should look at the "Last Hours" video. It's easily found and certainly food for thought.
No there is full truth in what I say? You just choose to ignore it? What is the biggest polluter in the UK??? The construction industry! why? concrete!!!!

No they are not on our doorstep but do you think there is a force field around them?

Ah is the 4 tonnes based on the 9000 driven per year? If so then how are you going to drive 9000 on our doorstep as you put it?? Also you neglect to mention that the creating of cars and their use has a trend of falling C02.... do other main contributors have this trend?? no...

Trust me having looked into the future of transportation in some detail using various studies, futures thinking and scenario based analysis (Such as the big ideas project) I have come to my conclusion thanks...

Maybe if you did the same you'd retract the lies you spurt out. 28,000 Deaths related to car emissions?? No! That’s like saying 50,000 deaths from people falling over per year! Just because they have fallen doesn’t mean it’s the cause! Its people like you who stop common sense approaches from being implemented due to your unfounded views!

You say CO2 is damaging…. Maybe we should slaughter all cows as methane is just as bad!
[quote][p][bold]Geoff Beacon[/bold] wrote: Archiebold There is some truth in what you say but coal burning power stations are not driven past our houses or through our towns. On another note I have yet to hear of a power station which has knocked anyone over and killed them.I have met several people that have been killed by cars. Some too tragic to discuss openly. On the CO2 point you mention. Roughly speaking, the average car produces 4 tonnes a year and making the car causes another 4 tonnes. The UK Government's target for personal emissions by 2050 is 2 tonnes per year - that is total emissions. We can replace coal burning in power stations much more easily than we can replace the billion cars in the world. If you don't care much about the climate, perhaps you should look at the "Last Hours" video. It's easily found and certainly food for thought.[/p][/quote]No there is full truth in what I say? You just choose to ignore it? What is the biggest polluter in the UK??? The construction industry! why? concrete!!!! No they are not on our doorstep but do you think there is a force field around them? Ah is the 4 tonnes based on the 9000 driven per year? If so then how are you going to drive 9000 on our doorstep as you put it?? Also you neglect to mention that the creating of cars and their use has a trend of falling C02.... do other main contributors have this trend?? no... Trust me having looked into the future of transportation in some detail using various studies, futures thinking and scenario based analysis (Such as the big ideas project) I have come to my conclusion thanks... Maybe if you did the same you'd retract the lies you spurt out. 28,000 Deaths related to car emissions?? No! That’s like saying 50,000 deaths from people falling over per year! Just because they have fallen doesn’t mean it’s the cause! Its people like you who stop common sense approaches from being implemented due to your unfounded views! You say CO2 is damaging…. Maybe we should slaughter all cows as methane is just as bad! Archiebold the 1st
  • Score: 2

3:49pm Wed 16 Apr 14

Igiveinthen says...

Ichabod76 wrote:
Check this out http://www.minsterfm .com/news/local/1258 443/exclusive-york-t ransport-boss-20mph- e-mails-revealed/ not looking good for dodgy Dave !
Have just read it, and have saved it as a word document, it just shows what this council get up to.
I think that Semlyen should stick to teaching yoga, and I'm not sure what Merrett could do, any suggestions.
[quote][p][bold]Ichabod76[/bold] wrote: Check this out http://www.minsterfm .com/news/local/1258 443/exclusive-york-t ransport-boss-20mph- e-mails-revealed/ not looking good for dodgy Dave ![/p][/quote]Have just read it, and have saved it as a word document, it just shows what this council get up to. I think that Semlyen should stick to teaching yoga, and I'm not sure what Merrett could do, any suggestions. Igiveinthen
  • Score: 4

6:15pm Wed 16 Apr 14

Back and Beyond says...

greenmonkey wrote:
Von_Dutch wrote:
Do half of you commentators actually bother to read the story? Comments such as "I never see anyone on it" and "it just dumps you at a dangerous point to cross the ring road". IT'S ONLY HALF BUILT. Just because it's not fenced off and you can physically get onto it doesn't mean it's open for use. Until the new bridge goes in, it's mostly useless for people. Hence no - drivers will not see cyclists using it. Not until it's finished.

I personally think it's a useful addition, although perhaps an expensive one. It may all be "taxpayers money", but if we hadn't won it and built this, some other town city would be spending it now - it wouldn't be being refunded back to us now would it. Rather something in York than elsewhere.
Im amazed the press even failed to mention this fundamental factual point and commentators are so blindly anti cyclist as not to even acknowledge the fact. As von dutch says if the funding hadn't been won for sustainable travel in York it would have been spent elsewhere. If we can provide decent cycle routes and reliable convenient public transport we simply give in to the M25 scenario of building more lanes for cars going nowhere fast. Yes the ring road is clogged and too much traffic is trying to use it (more now with John Lewis opening) but the engineers report from 2008 commissioned by the Lib Dem council for 100s of thousands of pounds said that the choke points are the junctions not the number of lanes on the ring road. £300m or more would be needed for the fly overs and dualling. So Labour, Tories and Lib Dems know they can bleat on about promises to do something but the money isn't there, and is not a priority when we are closing old peoples homes, slashing basic council services and have no money to maintain existing roads never mind new ones.
Ah the M25 argument....more lanes encourage more car usage blah blah blah. How about looking at population of York when the ring road was built and the population as it stands now? Why are we encouraging even more residents to this city when we are incapable of putting the necessary road infrastructure in place for it to function.
[quote][p][bold]greenmonkey[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Von_Dutch[/bold] wrote: Do half of you commentators actually bother to read the story? Comments such as "I never see anyone on it" and "it just dumps you at a dangerous point to cross the ring road". IT'S ONLY HALF BUILT. Just because it's not fenced off and you can physically get onto it doesn't mean it's open for use. Until the new bridge goes in, it's mostly useless for people. Hence no - drivers will not see cyclists using it. Not until it's finished. I personally think it's a useful addition, although perhaps an expensive one. It may all be "taxpayers money", but if we hadn't won it and built this, some other town city would be spending it now - it wouldn't be being refunded back to us now would it. Rather something in York than elsewhere.[/p][/quote]Im amazed the press even failed to mention this fundamental factual point and commentators are so blindly anti cyclist as not to even acknowledge the fact. As von dutch says if the funding hadn't been won for sustainable travel in York it would have been spent elsewhere. If we can provide decent cycle routes and reliable convenient public transport we simply give in to the M25 scenario of building more lanes for cars going nowhere fast. Yes the ring road is clogged and too much traffic is trying to use it (more now with John Lewis opening) but the engineers report from 2008 commissioned by the Lib Dem council for 100s of thousands of pounds said that the choke points are the junctions not the number of lanes on the ring road. £300m or more would be needed for the fly overs and dualling. So Labour, Tories and Lib Dems know they can bleat on about promises to do something but the money isn't there, and is not a priority when we are closing old peoples homes, slashing basic council services and have no money to maintain existing roads never mind new ones.[/p][/quote]Ah the M25 argument....more lanes encourage more car usage blah blah blah. How about looking at population of York when the ring road was built and the population as it stands now? Why are we encouraging even more residents to this city when we are incapable of putting the necessary road infrastructure in place for it to function. Back and Beyond
  • Score: 3

6:40pm Wed 16 Apr 14

Back and Beyond says...

Ichabod76 wrote:
Check this out

http://www.minsterfm


.com/news/local/1258


443/exclusive-york-t


ransport-boss-20mph-


e-mails-revealed/

not looking good for dodgy Dave !
I Suppose most people who comment on here along with the Press knew what was and is still going on.
Would be interesting to see who has been manipulating the scores!!
[quote][p][bold]Ichabod76[/bold] wrote: Check this out http://www.minsterfm .com/news/local/1258 443/exclusive-york-t ransport-boss-20mph- e-mails-revealed/ not looking good for dodgy Dave ![/p][/quote]I Suppose most people who comment on here along with the Press knew what was and is still going on. Would be interesting to see who has been manipulating the scores!! Back and Beyond
  • Score: 4

7:30pm Wed 16 Apr 14

pedalling paul says...

Cheeky face wrote:
What that cycle route needs is an independent financial resume on it's cost effectiveness; and a new post of an appraisement officer in the council. Forget about austerity that post would be a good investment. I am aware this cycle path is part of a longer plan; but at the moment it looks like a waste of resources!

The funds going in the Central Government treasury come from various sources; but when it is re-allocated it should be used wisely, and seen to be so

There are cycles paths along the a64 east of Malton and the use of these is somewhat little!
No-one asked the Highways Agency to add cycle tracks to the side of their roads. I wouldn't like to have to use them. Equally the wretched jug handle junctions across high speed exit slip roads which invite disaster.
But plans are afoot to persuade the HA to create safe places for cyclists and other non-motorised users to get from one side to t'other of these roads, Yorkshire-wide. A much more sensible spending of resources.
[quote][p][bold]Cheeky face[/bold] wrote: What that cycle route needs is an independent financial resume on it's cost effectiveness; and a new post of an appraisement officer in the council. Forget about austerity that post would be a good investment. I am aware this cycle path is part of a longer plan; but at the moment it looks like a waste of resources! The funds going in the Central Government treasury come from various sources; but when it is re-allocated it should be used wisely, and seen to be so There are cycles paths along the a64 east of Malton and the use of these is somewhat little![/p][/quote]No-one asked the Highways Agency to add cycle tracks to the side of their roads. I wouldn't like to have to use them. Equally the wretched jug handle junctions across high speed exit slip roads which invite disaster. But plans are afoot to persuade the HA to create safe places for cyclists and other non-motorised users to get from one side to t'other of these roads, Yorkshire-wide. A much more sensible spending of resources. pedalling paul
  • Score: -3

9:38pm Wed 16 Apr 14

DeeJaiEss says...

I thought it was the streets of London that were paved with gold...
I thought it was the streets of London that were paved with gold... DeeJaiEss
  • Score: 3

11:08pm Wed 16 Apr 14

dudbertman says...

This Labour Council are crazy people. I have not see a bike on it yet. Going to New Earswick it just runs out to a muddy track. Out Out Out. I just hope the other parties don't take the same line if they get voted in.
This Labour Council are crazy people. I have not see a bike on it yet. Going to New Earswick it just runs out to a muddy track. Out Out Out. I just hope the other parties don't take the same line if they get voted in. dudbertman
  • Score: 4

11:52pm Wed 16 Apr 14

Thunderblade says...

pedalling paul wrote:
The cycle path is sadly being regarded in isolation and as a standalone project. In fact it is an essential plank of the infrastructure work that is associated with York's current Local Sustainable Transport Fund grant. That funding is being used to help promote all forms of sustainable travel, of which cycling is one element.
Instead of responding instantly to my posts, why not take a little time out to Google "York LSTF" and learn about this bigger picture.
LSTF funding is a brainchild of the present ConLib government, and York's successful bid ticked all their boxes.
I recall the debate about two parallel cycle lanes alongside the Knavesmire on Taddy Road, one on road and one off road. Both have their uses, one as an outbound "fast" lane and the other a two way part of the Orbital route. That settled down in time and so will the A1237-side link.
And perhaps the new bridge span over the railway, which has bedevilled the project, will be a hidden blessing if it reduces the likelihood of the road being dualled. After all, why spend £150 million for short term gain?More road space generates more car use..simple!!
As Paul keeps repeating this drivel I will reply, more hospitals more sick people?
[quote][p][bold]pedalling paul [/bold] wrote: The cycle path is sadly being regarded in isolation and as a standalone project. In fact it is an essential plank of the infrastructure work that is associated with York's current Local Sustainable Transport Fund grant. That funding is being used to help promote all forms of sustainable travel, of which cycling is one element. Instead of responding instantly to my posts, why not take a little time out to Google "York LSTF" and learn about this bigger picture. LSTF funding is a brainchild of the present ConLib government, and York's successful bid ticked all their boxes. I recall the debate about two parallel cycle lanes alongside the Knavesmire on Taddy Road, one on road and one off road. Both have their uses, one as an outbound "fast" lane and the other a two way part of the Orbital route. That settled down in time and so will the A1237-side link. And perhaps the new bridge span over the railway, which has bedevilled the project, will be a hidden blessing if it reduces the likelihood of the road being dualled. After all, why spend £150 million for short term gain?More road space generates more car use..simple!![/p][/quote]As Paul keeps repeating this drivel I will reply, more hospitals more sick people? Thunderblade
  • Score: 3

9:29pm Thu 17 Apr 14

R_SLEIGHT57 says...

Happytoliveinyork wrote:
R_SLEIGHT57 wrote:
Happytoliveinyork wrote:
R_SLEIGHT57 wrote:
I voted for it and use it. I think more people will use it when it's finished. This is tax money well spent for me personally. The sooner this is finished the better. Good decision.
One point three million pounds - in your heart of hearts can you really justify that amount of expenditure ??
Yes, I suspect you're not going to agree.
The words cloud and cuckoo spring to mind
The futuristic visionary Norman Tebbit told me to get on my bike and find a job. So I did. Unfortunately he failed to consider how dangerous the daily commute would be. He didn't mention the astronomical cost of safe cycle paths as we all cheered. Unless he'd taken into account the long term environmentally friendly, healthy, sustainable, comparatively cheap benefits of cycling without wanting to worry us. Maybe he knew some lunatic Labour politician would take the flack for agreeing to pay for it. I don't think it's wrong to want to cycle to work safely as ridiculous as it might sound.
Gridlock tonight fortunately so I was able to cycle passed the cars without any problem you'll be relieved to know. #happytoliveincloudc
uckooland.
[quote][p][bold]Happytoliveinyork[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]R_SLEIGHT57[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Happytoliveinyork[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]R_SLEIGHT57[/bold] wrote: I voted for it and use it. I think more people will use it when it's finished. This is tax money well spent for me personally. The sooner this is finished the better. Good decision.[/p][/quote]One point three million pounds - in your heart of hearts can you really justify that amount of expenditure ??[/p][/quote]Yes, I suspect you're not going to agree.[/p][/quote]The words cloud and cuckoo spring to mind[/p][/quote]The futuristic visionary Norman Tebbit told me to get on my bike and find a job. So I did. Unfortunately he failed to consider how dangerous the daily commute would be. He didn't mention the astronomical cost of safe cycle paths as we all cheered. Unless he'd taken into account the long term environmentally friendly, healthy, sustainable, comparatively cheap benefits of cycling without wanting to worry us. Maybe he knew some lunatic Labour politician would take the flack for agreeing to pay for it. I don't think it's wrong to want to cycle to work safely as ridiculous as it might sound. Gridlock tonight fortunately so I was able to cycle passed the cars without any problem you'll be relieved to know. #happytoliveincloudc uckooland. R_SLEIGHT57
  • Score: -2

4:41pm Mon 12 May 14

DavidMaughan says...

Is it open as never seen a cyclist on it! Another example of how the coucil love wasting other peoples money. Time for Merrett and Alexander to resign.
Is it open as never seen a cyclist on it! Another example of how the coucil love wasting other peoples money. Time for Merrett and Alexander to resign. DavidMaughan
  • Score: 0

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

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

I agree