Lendal Bridge legal challenge dropped

Lendal Bridge

Lendal Bridge

First published in News
Last updated
by

FRESH questions are being asked about the decision to offer refunds for Lendal Bridge fines.

Yesterday, the City of York Council's cabinet made a formal decision that Lendal Bridge legal challenge will be dropped and drivers will be offered a refund for their fines, but the plans have already been called into question by opposition parties.

In a brief half hour meeting, the cabinet members approved the plan meaning council officers will now have to work out a refunds application process to give back the 60,000 fines issued during the trial closure.

In the meeting, cabinet member for transport Cllr David Levene said the trial had not been about making money but about tackling issues of congestion, air quality, and public transport in the city, but almost three months after the council first lodged its legal appeal about Lendal Bridge, public concern was growing meaning it was time to move on.

Along with council leader Cllr James Alexander and cabinet member Cllr Janet Looker, he called for the other parties to take part in the cross party congestion commission.

But after the meeting both the Conservative and Liberal Democrat groups confirmed they would be "calling in" the refunds decision, meaning it has to go before another committee meeting before it can be finally approved.

Conservative group leader Chris Steward said his party wanted to see the refunds issued across the board, not just to those who apply.

Liberal Democrat member Ian Cuthbertson made a case for all fines to be refunded in full without question. He said the trial had done serious damage to the city, and a single block repayment would be the most straightforward way to proceed.

After the meeting, Liberal Democrat group leader Keith Aspden added: "If the fines are not repaid automatically, this risks doing further reputational damage to York through an unclear individual repayment process, where some get their money back but others don’t. It will also create the impression that the council is trying to hang on to as much of the fine money as possible."

The cabinet meeting also saw approval for a scheme to offer business rate relief to shops opening up on Front Street, Acomb, as part of a plan to regenerate the area, and a report on Fairtrade in the city discussed.

Cabinet members spoke in support of the Fairtrade movement, and gave their approval to plans to renew the city's Fairtrade status, and to look at new ways of promoting Fairtrade produce around York.

Comments (78)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

11:53am Wed 6 Aug 14

archieboldthe2nd says...

Finally!!!!! Right now PP will you apologise to everyone for being categorically wrong saying "lets wait until the legal review has been undertaken". I tried to tell you at the time an expert in the field is never proven wrong in court! The council have simply just wasted a further 15k!!! This could have surly been used to balance the bin books? Or maybe provide new sports fields? or even to construct a new pointless cycle lane on a road? Or even contributed to another pointless green bus that could take another 3 cars off the road... But no they pressed ahead with it...

I await your defence of your beloved council and its logic..

Ps good to be back...
Finally!!!!! Right now PP will you apologise to everyone for being categorically wrong saying "lets wait until the legal review has been undertaken". I tried to tell you at the time an expert in the field is never proven wrong in court! The council have simply just wasted a further 15k!!! This could have surly been used to balance the bin books? Or maybe provide new sports fields? or even to construct a new pointless cycle lane on a road? Or even contributed to another pointless green bus that could take another 3 cars off the road... But no they pressed ahead with it... I await your defence of your beloved council and its logic.. Ps good to be back... archieboldthe2nd
  • Score: -28

11:57am Wed 6 Aug 14

York2000 says...

Wondered when the Press would open the comments thread. Ok, off you all go!
Wondered when the Press would open the comments thread. Ok, off you all go! York2000
  • Score: 24

12:14pm Wed 6 Aug 14

The Analyst says...

Yet again, Y.C.C fail the community it is meant to serve.

I have zero confidence in this council, absolutely ZERO confidence!

Not only have they failed us, the residents of this wonderful city, but also damaged the city's reputation far and wide.

They have consistently wasted money with their ideas, disregarding what the citizens of York actually want in the process, but continue to do this on a repeated basis.

I promise you now, not only will I be voting to get you out Labour, but I will never vote for you again!
Yet again, Y.C.C fail the community it is meant to serve. I have zero confidence in this council, absolutely ZERO confidence! Not only have they failed us, the residents of this wonderful city, but also damaged the city's reputation far and wide. They have consistently wasted money with their ideas, disregarding what the citizens of York actually want in the process, but continue to do this on a repeated basis. I promise you now, not only will I be voting to get you out Labour, but I will never vote for you again! The Analyst
  • Score: -53

12:17pm Wed 6 Aug 14

Ichabod76 says...

York2000 wrote:
Wondered when the Press would open the comments thread. Ok, off you all go!
Boo hoo
you don't all agree with my left wing views so you're not allowed to comment.
[quote][p][bold]York2000[/bold] wrote: Wondered when the Press would open the comments thread. Ok, off you all go![/p][/quote]Boo hoo you don't all agree with my left wing views so you're not allowed to comment. Ichabod76
  • Score: -21

12:22pm Wed 6 Aug 14

RingoStarr says...

Wonder if Harpo Marx....oops, Cllr. Levene will resign now?
Wonder if Harpo Marx....oops, Cllr. Levene will resign now? RingoStarr
  • Score: -17

12:23pm Wed 6 Aug 14

R'Carlos says...

The York City Council has finally admitted that they broke the law regarding the Lendal Bridge debacle.
All the cabinet are liable, and should be sent on trial, the sent to gaol.
Their political dreams have gone in a puff of smoke.
Alexander, Merriett, Simpson must face the music, and take their punishment.
They a totally disgrace, and let down York and its residents, and the Labour Party locally.
Roll on May 2015 when they will disappear from the political scene, locally and nationally.
The York City Council has finally admitted that they broke the law regarding the Lendal Bridge debacle. All the cabinet are liable, and should be sent on trial, the sent to gaol. Their political dreams have gone in a puff of smoke. Alexander, Merriett, Simpson must face the music, and take their punishment. They a totally disgrace, and let down York and its residents, and the Labour Party locally. Roll on May 2015 when they will disappear from the political scene, locally and nationally. R'Carlos
  • Score: -28

12:28pm Wed 6 Aug 14

again says...

Should those who did cross either wilfully or by failure to observe road signs get a refund I suggest that everyone who abided by the law as it appeared and did NOT cross Lendal Bridge when instructed not to do so should be paid compensation for the inconvenience caused.

After all, they behaved rather better than the crossers and should be given recognition for that.
Should those who did cross either wilfully or by failure to observe road signs get a refund I suggest that everyone who abided by the law as it appeared and did NOT cross Lendal Bridge when instructed not to do so should be paid compensation for the inconvenience caused. After all, they behaved rather better than the crossers and should be given recognition for that. again
  • Score: 37

12:28pm Wed 6 Aug 14

Anna Gramme says...

What nonsense. The bridge was closed; through lack of attention, arrogance or stupidity 60,000 drivers in eight months broke the rules and were fined. The city council should be able to decide how to manage the city, including traffic, rightly or wrongly, and be accountable to the electorate for those decisions at the appropriate time. This mess is caused by twerps like Eric Pickles interfering with local government. Little surprise that finding good candidates for local office is so difficult. I don't and have never worked in local government. It's a hiding to nothing.
What nonsense. The bridge was closed; through lack of attention, arrogance or stupidity 60,000 drivers in eight months broke the rules and were fined. The city council should be able to decide how to manage the city, including traffic, rightly or wrongly, and be accountable to the electorate for those decisions at the appropriate time. This mess is caused by twerps like Eric Pickles interfering with local government. Little surprise that finding good candidates for local office is so difficult. I don't and have never worked in local government. It's a hiding to nothing. Anna Gramme
  • Score: 23

12:29pm Wed 6 Aug 14

Anna Gramme says...

RingoStarr wrote:
Wonder if Harpo Marx....oops, Cllr. Levene will resign now?
Careful.
[quote][p][bold]RingoStarr[/bold] wrote: Wonder if Harpo Marx....oops, Cllr. Levene will resign now?[/p][/quote]Careful. Anna Gramme
  • Score: 10

12:30pm Wed 6 Aug 14

eeoodares says...

York2000 wrote:
Wondered when the Press would open the comments thread. Ok, off you all go!
Is there a reason you do not like freedom of speech, or do you have a vested interest in people not commenting on this debacle?
[quote][p][bold]York2000[/bold] wrote: Wondered when the Press would open the comments thread. Ok, off you all go![/p][/quote]Is there a reason you do not like freedom of speech, or do you have a vested interest in people not commenting on this debacle? eeoodares
  • Score: -11

12:30pm Wed 6 Aug 14

Anna Gramme says...

R'Carlos wrote:
The York City Council has finally admitted that they broke the law regarding the Lendal Bridge debacle.
All the cabinet are liable, and should be sent on trial, the sent to gaol.
Their political dreams have gone in a puff of smoke.
Alexander, Merriett, Simpson must face the music, and take their punishment.
They a totally disgrace, and let down York and its residents, and the Labour Party locally.
Roll on May 2015 when they will disappear from the political scene, locally and nationally.
To be replaced by what ? Eric Pickles. Ho ho ho.
[quote][p][bold]R'Carlos[/bold] wrote: The York City Council has finally admitted that they broke the law regarding the Lendal Bridge debacle. All the cabinet are liable, and should be sent on trial, the sent to gaol. Their political dreams have gone in a puff of smoke. Alexander, Merriett, Simpson must face the music, and take their punishment. They a totally disgrace, and let down York and its residents, and the Labour Party locally. Roll on May 2015 when they will disappear from the political scene, locally and nationally.[/p][/quote]To be replaced by what ? Eric Pickles. Ho ho ho. Anna Gramme
  • Score: 1

12:41pm Wed 6 Aug 14

York2000 says...

eeoodares No vested interest for me, the bridge closure was ridiculous. However you lot have turned the Press comments threads into a joke.
eeoodares No vested interest for me, the bridge closure was ridiculous. However you lot have turned the Press comments threads into a joke. York2000
  • Score: 26

12:45pm Wed 6 Aug 14

Dave Ruddock says...

ad the Pantomime Labor Council continue with this debacle, The City of York trying its best to attract shops, employment, visitors, and the Persons in (So Called) Authority, doing their best to ruin York,s good reputation. They have disgraced the City,s name and for reasons unknown to the Human Race, fail to grasp what they have done....
ad the Pantomime Labor Council continue with this debacle, The City of York trying its best to attract shops, employment, visitors, and the Persons in (So Called) Authority, doing their best to ruin York,s good reputation. They have disgraced the City,s name and for reasons unknown to the Human Race, fail to grasp what they have done.... Dave Ruddock
  • Score: -8

1:17pm Wed 6 Aug 14

ColdAsChristmas says...

So, who's head has fallen as a result of this mess? CoYC would not listen to the public. We pay some massive salaries for Council head of departments and for what? If it were for lousy advice they would be at the top of their game.
We are not in the top 5 of the Cr*p Towns list for no reason!
(And yes, I know York is a City, just like Hull who came top in the previous edition)
We need to be run by people who care about the City, rather than the size of their salary and redundancy package!
So, who's head has fallen as a result of this mess? CoYC would not listen to the public. We pay some massive salaries for Council head of departments and for what? If it were for lousy advice they would be at the top of their game. We are not in the top 5 of the Cr*p Towns list for no reason! (And yes, I know York is a City, just like Hull who came top in the previous edition) We need to be run by people who care about the City, rather than the size of their salary and redundancy package! ColdAsChristmas
  • Score: -11

1:17pm Wed 6 Aug 14

SRT_CM says...

Anna Gramme wrote:
What nonsense. The bridge was closed; through lack of attention, arrogance or stupidity 60,000 drivers in eight months broke the rules and were fined. The city council should be able to decide how to manage the city, including traffic, rightly or wrongly, and be accountable to the electorate for those decisions at the appropriate time. This mess is caused by twerps like Eric Pickles interfering with local government. Little surprise that finding good candidates for local office is so difficult. I don't and have never worked in local government. It's a hiding to nothing.
"The bridge was closed; through lack of attention, arrogance or stupidity 60,000 drivers in eight months broke the rules and were fined..."

...or unclear and illegal signage. You missed that one off.
[quote][p][bold]Anna Gramme[/bold] wrote: What nonsense. The bridge was closed; through lack of attention, arrogance or stupidity 60,000 drivers in eight months broke the rules and were fined. The city council should be able to decide how to manage the city, including traffic, rightly or wrongly, and be accountable to the electorate for those decisions at the appropriate time. This mess is caused by twerps like Eric Pickles interfering with local government. Little surprise that finding good candidates for local office is so difficult. I don't and have never worked in local government. It's a hiding to nothing.[/p][/quote]"The bridge was closed; through lack of attention, arrogance or stupidity 60,000 drivers in eight months broke the rules and were fined..." ...or unclear and illegal signage. You missed that one off. SRT_CM
  • Score: 15

1:31pm Wed 6 Aug 14

Cheeky face says...

again wrote:
Should those who did cross either wilfully or by failure to observe road signs get a refund I suggest that everyone who abided by the law as it appeared and did NOT cross Lendal Bridge when instructed not to do so should be paid compensation for the inconvenience caused.

After all, they behaved rather better than the crossers and should be given recognition for that.
Quite right. What about the care firm who needed de-tours to reach patients needing essential domestic deeds. Invalids being inconvenienced, care workers spending too long on journeys etc.

Council staff who misbehaved were told off; do they get that black mark erased?

And what about the government fund of £50000; don't they need at least an apology!
[quote][p][bold]again[/bold] wrote: Should those who did cross either wilfully or by failure to observe road signs get a refund I suggest that everyone who abided by the law as it appeared and did NOT cross Lendal Bridge when instructed not to do so should be paid compensation for the inconvenience caused. After all, they behaved rather better than the crossers and should be given recognition for that.[/p][/quote]Quite right. What about the care firm who needed de-tours to reach patients needing essential domestic deeds. Invalids being inconvenienced, care workers spending too long on journeys etc. Council staff who misbehaved were told off; do they get that black mark erased? And what about the government fund of £50000; don't they need at least an apology! Cheeky face
  • Score: -13

1:34pm Wed 6 Aug 14

eeoodares says...

York2000 wrote:
eeoodares No vested interest for me, the bridge closure was ridiculous. However you lot have turned the Press comments threads into a joke.
If that is the way you feel, it would raise the question why you keep commenting on articles? These articles demonstrate the incompetence of our Councillors and yet you seem surprised every time that the people of York (who will suffer the financial burden and the cuts in services for years to come) should wish to comment on these clowns.

So it begs the question are you taking part in a discussion that you believe is laughable?
[quote][p][bold]York2000[/bold] wrote: eeoodares No vested interest for me, the bridge closure was ridiculous. However you lot have turned the Press comments threads into a joke.[/p][/quote]If that is the way you feel, it would raise the question why you keep commenting on articles? These articles demonstrate the incompetence of our Councillors and yet you seem surprised every time that the people of York (who will suffer the financial burden and the cuts in services for years to come) should wish to comment on these clowns. So it begs the question are you taking part in a discussion that you believe is laughable? eeoodares
  • Score: -12

1:39pm Wed 6 Aug 14

eeoodares says...

Anna Gramme wrote:
What nonsense. The bridge was closed; through lack of attention, arrogance or stupidity 60,000 drivers in eight months broke the rules and were fined. The city council should be able to decide how to manage the city, including traffic, rightly or wrongly, and be accountable to the electorate for those decisions at the appropriate time. This mess is caused by twerps like Eric Pickles interfering with local government. Little surprise that finding good candidates for local office is so difficult. I don't and have never worked in local government. It's a hiding to nothing.
Did you actually write: .....'The city council should be able to decide how to manage the city, including traffic, rightly or wrongly'.... Do you actually mean that an elected individual should be able to to whatever they want, even if it is not legal, and then suffer no consequences other than losing office at the next election? Wow!!!
[quote][p][bold]Anna Gramme[/bold] wrote: What nonsense. The bridge was closed; through lack of attention, arrogance or stupidity 60,000 drivers in eight months broke the rules and were fined. The city council should be able to decide how to manage the city, including traffic, rightly or wrongly, and be accountable to the electorate for those decisions at the appropriate time. This mess is caused by twerps like Eric Pickles interfering with local government. Little surprise that finding good candidates for local office is so difficult. I don't and have never worked in local government. It's a hiding to nothing.[/p][/quote]Did you actually write: .....'The city council should be able to decide how to manage the city, including traffic, rightly or wrongly'.... Do you actually mean that an elected individual should be able to to whatever they want, even if it is not legal, and then suffer no consequences other than losing office at the next election? Wow!!! eeoodares
  • Score: 19

1:40pm Wed 6 Aug 14

Cheeky face says...

If those with PCNS are only refunded the amount paid if these motorists know about it, that may only be 5% in a gradual way . What if people hear about it in 2017( when they return to York); could the sue the council.

Coppergate signage has been wrong since 1960s; a fact Bill wooley ofCofYcouncil knew when he spoke to the police years ago.

Dave Merritt agreed the signs were misleading in Dec 2013.

Signs did not meet the regs 2002/traffic manual until mid Jan, 2014.

Daily Mail and Yorkshire Post got reports/articles last week.

How many more will follow.

Moral of the story; GET IT RIGHT FIRST TIME.
If those with PCNS are only refunded the amount paid if these motorists know about it, that may only be 5% in a gradual way . What if people hear about it in 2017( when they return to York); could the sue the council. Coppergate signage has been wrong since 1960s; a fact Bill wooley ofCofYcouncil knew when he spoke to the police years ago. Dave Merritt agreed the signs were misleading in Dec 2013. Signs did not meet the regs 2002/traffic manual until mid Jan, 2014. Daily Mail and Yorkshire Post got reports/articles last week. How many more will follow. Moral of the story; GET IT RIGHT FIRST TIME. Cheeky face
  • Score: -12

1:44pm Wed 6 Aug 14

Cheeky face says...

eeoodares wrote:
York2000 wrote:
eeoodares No vested interest for me, the bridge closure was ridiculous. However you lot have turned the Press comments threads into a joke.
If that is the way you feel, it would raise the question why you keep commenting on articles? These articles demonstrate the incompetence of our Councillors and yet you seem surprised every time that the people of York (who will suffer the financial burden and the cuts in services for years to come) should wish to comment on these clowns.

So it begs the question are you taking part in a discussion that you believe is laughable?
Agreed.

It is difficult to challenge the current employees/councillor
s on Coppergate because that was a prohibited motor vehicle scheme which started in the 1960s.
[quote][p][bold]eeoodares[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]York2000[/bold] wrote: eeoodares No vested interest for me, the bridge closure was ridiculous. However you lot have turned the Press comments threads into a joke.[/p][/quote]If that is the way you feel, it would raise the question why you keep commenting on articles? These articles demonstrate the incompetence of our Councillors and yet you seem surprised every time that the people of York (who will suffer the financial burden and the cuts in services for years to come) should wish to comment on these clowns. So it begs the question are you taking part in a discussion that you believe is laughable?[/p][/quote]Agreed. It is difficult to challenge the current employees/councillor s on Coppergate because that was a prohibited motor vehicle scheme which started in the 1960s. Cheeky face
  • Score: -12

1:57pm Wed 6 Aug 14

bill bailey says...

I understand the administration of the fines was carried out buy a company outside of York , that incudes Coppergate as well, the usual commission for handling such fines is usually 30% therefore if the fines are repaid the York Tax Payer will be out of pocket. as the company will also be involved in the repayments it could be therefore every fine that was handled by the outside management company they would be paid in the region of 50% of each fine making the loss the council / tax payer of approximately in excess of £1 million. If I am wrong, then im asking the York council to publish the total costings for the scheme that went so badly wrong , I mean all costings including road signs publicity labour costs involving staff overtime payments EVERYTHING, Giving the tax payer the chance to audit the accounts this will show us the true liability to the citizens Of YORK
I understand the administration of the fines was carried out buy a company outside of York , that incudes Coppergate as well, the usual commission for handling such fines is usually 30% therefore if the fines are repaid the York Tax Payer will be out of pocket. as the company will also be involved in the repayments it could be therefore every fine that was handled by the outside management company they would be paid in the region of 50% of each fine making the loss the council / tax payer of approximately in excess of £1 million. If I am wrong, then im asking the York council to publish the total costings for the scheme that went so badly wrong , I mean all costings including road signs publicity labour costs involving staff overtime payments EVERYTHING, Giving the tax payer the chance to audit the accounts this will show us the true liability to the citizens Of YORK bill bailey
  • Score: 9

2:14pm Wed 6 Aug 14

walpole says...

When you board a plane, you expect the captain to have done his calculation and to get enough fuel to fly to his destination. If he does not, and his plane has to land half way, it cost his airline money, he cause inconvenience to his passengers and then he get the sack.
So why is this group of incompetent leaders of the council still in office????
When you board a plane, you expect the captain to have done his calculation and to get enough fuel to fly to his destination. If he does not, and his plane has to land half way, it cost his airline money, he cause inconvenience to his passengers and then he get the sack. So why is this group of incompetent leaders of the council still in office???? walpole
  • Score: -4

2:17pm Wed 6 Aug 14

razor08 says...

I see no mention of the Coppergate legal case why ?
How do I claim costs for all the extra mileage I did to avoid Lendal bridge and the time spent in long traffic delays on Foss Islands Road (but theses didn't exist according to Merritt talking to Harry on Look North) who should I approach at the council.
I see no mention of the Coppergate legal case why ? How do I claim costs for all the extra mileage I did to avoid Lendal bridge and the time spent in long traffic delays on Foss Islands Road (but theses didn't exist according to Merritt talking to Harry on Look North) who should I approach at the council. razor08
  • Score: -7

2:32pm Wed 6 Aug 14

archieboldthe2nd says...

bill bailey wrote:
I understand the administration of the fines was carried out buy a company outside of York , that incudes Coppergate as well, the usual commission for handling such fines is usually 30% therefore if the fines are repaid the York Tax Payer will be out of pocket. as the company will also be involved in the repayments it could be therefore every fine that was handled by the outside management company they would be paid in the region of 50% of each fine making the loss the council / tax payer of approximately in excess of £1 million. If I am wrong, then im asking the York council to publish the total costings for the scheme that went so badly wrong , I mean all costings including road signs publicity labour costs involving staff overtime payments EVERYTHING, Giving the tax payer the chance to audit the accounts this will show us the true liability to the citizens Of YORK
Well the original budget was around 400K I think... The overspend meant that it was at around £800k last I heard (prob more now they have removed all the signs etc). Now add in the legal costs (which I honestly believe will be more then the 15k reported) and the administration cost as you mention above... you are looking at a very large cost for an experiment many didn't want and what certainly wasn't required.. Say its a total of 1.5m wasted (min!) in the world of York council that is a lot of money that could have been put to better use... As well as the £500k for twentyisplenty... How anyone in york can stand and defend these people is beyond me.. if a company director wasted 2m on a sh@t investment they would be sacked.. these lot just carry on smiling and digging in... All we hear about is how the council are short of cash and services have to be cut yet they feel the need to waste so much...

Now before the pedalling crew pipe up and say the time bomb is coming, and we need to sort out traffic and car fumes and eat brown rice… this experiment was not to improve air quality.. Traffic was never going to improve by shutting a leg of the inner ring road, and while everyone harped on about how pleasant it was with not cars… there was still loads of busses and taxis there!! And the key thing is roads are not meant to be enjoyed.. they are a mechanism for getting from a to b… This just like coppergate and the new mobile parking bank cctv van are simply money making schemes to fund this lots further poor investments… charging people to recycle their bins? Nah I’ll just put it in land fill then…

I don’t believe in any political party I just know morons when I see them…
[quote][p][bold]bill bailey[/bold] wrote: I understand the administration of the fines was carried out buy a company outside of York , that incudes Coppergate as well, the usual commission for handling such fines is usually 30% therefore if the fines are repaid the York Tax Payer will be out of pocket. as the company will also be involved in the repayments it could be therefore every fine that was handled by the outside management company they would be paid in the region of 50% of each fine making the loss the council / tax payer of approximately in excess of £1 million. If I am wrong, then im asking the York council to publish the total costings for the scheme that went so badly wrong , I mean all costings including road signs publicity labour costs involving staff overtime payments EVERYTHING, Giving the tax payer the chance to audit the accounts this will show us the true liability to the citizens Of YORK[/p][/quote]Well the original budget was around 400K I think... The overspend meant that it was at around £800k last I heard (prob more now they have removed all the signs etc). Now add in the legal costs (which I honestly believe will be more then the 15k reported) and the administration cost as you mention above... you are looking at a very large cost for an experiment many didn't want and what certainly wasn't required.. Say its a total of 1.5m wasted (min!) in the world of York council that is a lot of money that could have been put to better use... As well as the £500k for twentyisplenty... How anyone in york can stand and defend these people is beyond me.. if a company director wasted 2m on a sh@t investment they would be sacked.. these lot just carry on smiling and digging in... All we hear about is how the council are short of cash and services have to be cut yet they feel the need to waste so much... Now before the pedalling crew pipe up and say the time bomb is coming, and we need to sort out traffic and car fumes and eat brown rice… this experiment was not to improve air quality.. Traffic was never going to improve by shutting a leg of the inner ring road, and while everyone harped on about how pleasant it was with not cars… there was still loads of busses and taxis there!! And the key thing is roads are not meant to be enjoyed.. they are a mechanism for getting from a to b… This just like coppergate and the new mobile parking bank cctv van are simply money making schemes to fund this lots further poor investments… charging people to recycle their bins? Nah I’ll just put it in land fill then… I don’t believe in any political party I just know morons when I see them… archieboldthe2nd
  • Score: 6

3:05pm Wed 6 Aug 14

Kevin Turvey says...

So by logic if the council have decided against a legal challenge and started proceedings to offer the money back to victims of the extortion undertaken inthier name then they acted illegally and against their legal advice received.

Now is the time for the calling in of the responsibility card for those individuals making these overriding decisions at the time.

All named individuals irrespective of party political status or council employment should be disciplined within the relevant procedures.

Let’s just see how transparent this elected council can be shall we!

I can’t wait to see the published information.

I may be waiting with baited breathe.

I’ll give you a few clues:
James ‘let me a tenner’ Alexander
Dave ‘make me up a legal argument’ Merret
Tracy ‘simply wrong in any public office position’ Simply Laing.

All should be sacked and also any council employee who rolled over to their cause without robust documented warnings.
So by logic if the council have decided against a legal challenge and started proceedings to offer the money back to victims of the extortion undertaken inthier name then they acted illegally and against their legal advice received. Now is the time for the calling in of the responsibility card for those individuals making these overriding decisions at the time. All named individuals irrespective of party political status or council employment should be disciplined within the relevant procedures. Let’s just see how transparent this elected council can be shall we! I can’t wait to see the published information. I may be waiting with baited breathe. I’ll give you a few clues: James ‘let me a tenner’ Alexander Dave ‘make me up a legal argument’ Merret Tracy ‘simply wrong in any public office position’ Simply Laing. All should be sacked and also any council employee who rolled over to their cause without robust documented warnings. Kevin Turvey
  • Score: -11

3:05pm Wed 6 Aug 14

tobefair says...

Do I remember correctly? Councillor Merrett said if the Lendal Bridge experiment was found to be illegal then he would resign.
The traffic commissioner found that the issuing of fines for crossing Lendal Bridge was illegal. City of York Council initially challenged the ruling and Councillor Merrett hung on to his job supposedly pending the result of the challenge. Now CYC have dropped the challenge and so it is unlikely a result will ever be forthcoming. Is this just a ploy by the Labour group to save Councillor Merrett's neck?
Do I remember correctly? Councillor Merrett said if the Lendal Bridge experiment was found to be illegal then he would resign. The traffic commissioner found that the issuing of fines for crossing Lendal Bridge was illegal. City of York Council initially challenged the ruling and Councillor Merrett hung on to his job supposedly pending the result of the challenge. Now CYC have dropped the challenge and so it is unlikely a result will ever be forthcoming. Is this just a ploy by the Labour group to save Councillor Merrett's neck? tobefair
  • Score: -5

3:50pm Wed 6 Aug 14

mel_drew says...

tobefair wrote:
Do I remember correctly? Councillor Merrett said if the Lendal Bridge experiment was found to be illegal then he would resign.
The traffic commissioner found that the issuing of fines for crossing Lendal Bridge was illegal. City of York Council initially challenged the ruling and Councillor Merrett hung on to his job supposedly pending the result of the challenge. Now CYC have dropped the challenge and so it is unlikely a result will ever be forthcoming. Is this just a ploy by the Labour group to save Councillor Merrett's neck?
In my simplistic way, I'm thinking that the abandonment of the challenge means that the traffic commissioners decision stands. The issuing of fines was illegal. That is the unchallenged fact. There is no other result to be awaited. No other result to be forthcome. Merretts position is now untenable, apart from the fact that I can't remember if his meaning was to resign as a councillor, or merely from his position in Traffic. Maybe his movement to Environment or whatever was intended to protect him from his own rash promise when the thingy hits the fan - as it now seems to be doing. Hopefully the voters will rid York of his incompetence next year, although I won't bet on it.
[quote][p][bold]tobefair[/bold] wrote: Do I remember correctly? Councillor Merrett said if the Lendal Bridge experiment was found to be illegal then he would resign. The traffic commissioner found that the issuing of fines for crossing Lendal Bridge was illegal. City of York Council initially challenged the ruling and Councillor Merrett hung on to his job supposedly pending the result of the challenge. Now CYC have dropped the challenge and so it is unlikely a result will ever be forthcoming. Is this just a ploy by the Labour group to save Councillor Merrett's neck?[/p][/quote]In my simplistic way, I'm thinking that the abandonment of the challenge means that the traffic commissioners decision stands. The issuing of fines was illegal. That is the unchallenged fact. There is no other result to be awaited. No other result to be forthcome. Merretts position is now untenable, apart from the fact that I can't remember if his meaning was to resign as a councillor, or merely from his position in Traffic. Maybe his movement to Environment or whatever was intended to protect him from his own rash promise when the thingy hits the fan - as it now seems to be doing. Hopefully the voters will rid York of his incompetence next year, although I won't bet on it. mel_drew
  • Score: -8

4:16pm Wed 6 Aug 14

non pedalling pete says...

mel_drew wrote:
tobefair wrote:
Do I remember correctly? Councillor Merrett said if the Lendal Bridge experiment was found to be illegal then he would resign.
The traffic commissioner found that the issuing of fines for crossing Lendal Bridge was illegal. City of York Council initially challenged the ruling and Councillor Merrett hung on to his job supposedly pending the result of the challenge. Now CYC have dropped the challenge and so it is unlikely a result will ever be forthcoming. Is this just a ploy by the Labour group to save Councillor Merrett's neck?
In my simplistic way, I'm thinking that the abandonment of the challenge means that the traffic commissioners decision stands. The issuing of fines was illegal. That is the unchallenged fact. There is no other result to be awaited. No other result to be forthcome. Merretts position is now untenable, apart from the fact that I can't remember if his meaning was to resign as a councillor, or merely from his position in Traffic. Maybe his movement to Environment or whatever was intended to protect him from his own rash promise when the thingy hits the fan - as it now seems to be doing. Hopefully the voters will rid York of his incompetence next year, although I won't bet on it.
Unfortunately I am guilty of helping to vote "no merit" dave on to the councill but I will be voting to get him off it come may 2015
[quote][p][bold]mel_drew[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]tobefair[/bold] wrote: Do I remember correctly? Councillor Merrett said if the Lendal Bridge experiment was found to be illegal then he would resign. The traffic commissioner found that the issuing of fines for crossing Lendal Bridge was illegal. City of York Council initially challenged the ruling and Councillor Merrett hung on to his job supposedly pending the result of the challenge. Now CYC have dropped the challenge and so it is unlikely a result will ever be forthcoming. Is this just a ploy by the Labour group to save Councillor Merrett's neck?[/p][/quote]In my simplistic way, I'm thinking that the abandonment of the challenge means that the traffic commissioners decision stands. The issuing of fines was illegal. That is the unchallenged fact. There is no other result to be awaited. No other result to be forthcome. Merretts position is now untenable, apart from the fact that I can't remember if his meaning was to resign as a councillor, or merely from his position in Traffic. Maybe his movement to Environment or whatever was intended to protect him from his own rash promise when the thingy hits the fan - as it now seems to be doing. Hopefully the voters will rid York of his incompetence next year, although I won't bet on it.[/p][/quote]Unfortunately I am guilty of helping to vote "no merit" dave on to the councill but I will be voting to get him off it come may 2015 non pedalling pete
  • Score: -13

4:48pm Wed 6 Aug 14

York1234 says...

Don't forget its not just Councillors who were responsible. The senior officers are paid £50k and the ADs even more. They are supposed to advise and guide. They need to be held to account too.

Did anyone foi for emails from officers to find out who supported this idea?
Don't forget its not just Councillors who were responsible. The senior officers are paid £50k and the ADs even more. They are supposed to advise and guide. They need to be held to account too. Did anyone foi for emails from officers to find out who supported this idea? York1234
  • Score: -11

5:06pm Wed 6 Aug 14

Caecilius says...

SRT_CM wrote:
Anna Gramme wrote:
What nonsense. The bridge was closed; through lack of attention, arrogance or stupidity 60,000 drivers in eight months broke the rules and were fined. The city council should be able to decide how to manage the city, including traffic, rightly or wrongly, and be accountable to the electorate for those decisions at the appropriate time. This mess is caused by twerps like Eric Pickles interfering with local government. Little surprise that finding good candidates for local office is so difficult. I don't and have never worked in local government. It's a hiding to nothing.
"The bridge was closed; through lack of attention, arrogance or stupidity 60,000 drivers in eight months broke the rules and were fined..."

...or unclear and illegal signage. You missed that one off.
It was only "unclear" to people with defective eyesight who shouldn't be behind the wheel in the first place. The vast majority of those who broke the restriction either weren't paying attention or made a deliberate decision to flout it, as they habitually flout so many others. Witness all the wails of "nobody ever said there was a penalty!".
[quote][p][bold]SRT_CM[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Anna Gramme[/bold] wrote: What nonsense. The bridge was closed; through lack of attention, arrogance or stupidity 60,000 drivers in eight months broke the rules and were fined. The city council should be able to decide how to manage the city, including traffic, rightly or wrongly, and be accountable to the electorate for those decisions at the appropriate time. This mess is caused by twerps like Eric Pickles interfering with local government. Little surprise that finding good candidates for local office is so difficult. I don't and have never worked in local government. It's a hiding to nothing.[/p][/quote]"The bridge was closed; through lack of attention, arrogance or stupidity 60,000 drivers in eight months broke the rules and were fined..." ...or unclear and illegal signage. You missed that one off.[/p][/quote]It was only "unclear" to people with defective eyesight who shouldn't be behind the wheel in the first place. The vast majority of those who broke the restriction either weren't paying attention or made a deliberate decision to flout it, as they habitually flout so many others. Witness all the wails of "nobody ever said there was a penalty!". Caecilius
  • Score: -16

6:25pm Wed 6 Aug 14

Cheeky face says...

bill bailey wrote:
I understand the administration of the fines was carried out buy a company outside of York , that incudes Coppergate as well, the usual commission for handling such fines is usually 30% therefore if the fines are repaid the York Tax Payer will be out of pocket. as the company will also be involved in the repayments it could be therefore every fine that was handled by the outside management company they would be paid in the region of 50% of each fine making the loss the council / tax payer of approximately in excess of £1 million. If I am wrong, then im asking the York council to publish the total costings for the scheme that went so badly wrong , I mean all costings including road signs publicity labour costs involving staff overtime payments EVERYTHING, Giving the tax payer the chance to audit the accounts this will show us the true liability to the citizens Of YORK
Repayment by internet banking is much cheaper than cheques; but in any event York Taxpayers/business rate payers bear most of the cost of refunds.

If refunds are not for everyone at this stage and then there is a change of policy to give in on full refunds admin will become cumbersome and more costly. What will the rest of the UK think, particularly those who "coughed up", if they were to listen to local opinions on this site,in the Press and on the radio stations?
[quote][p][bold]bill bailey[/bold] wrote: I understand the administration of the fines was carried out buy a company outside of York , that incudes Coppergate as well, the usual commission for handling such fines is usually 30% therefore if the fines are repaid the York Tax Payer will be out of pocket. as the company will also be involved in the repayments it could be therefore every fine that was handled by the outside management company they would be paid in the region of 50% of each fine making the loss the council / tax payer of approximately in excess of £1 million. If I am wrong, then im asking the York council to publish the total costings for the scheme that went so badly wrong , I mean all costings including road signs publicity labour costs involving staff overtime payments EVERYTHING, Giving the tax payer the chance to audit the accounts this will show us the true liability to the citizens Of YORK[/p][/quote]Repayment by internet banking is much cheaper than cheques; but in any event York Taxpayers/business rate payers bear most of the cost of refunds. If refunds are not for everyone at this stage and then there is a change of policy to give in on full refunds admin will become cumbersome and more costly. What will the rest of the UK think, particularly those who "coughed up", if they were to listen to local opinions on this site,in the Press and on the radio stations? Cheeky face
  • Score: -14

6:30pm Wed 6 Aug 14

Cheeky face says...

razor08 wrote:
I see no mention of the Coppergate legal case why ?
How do I claim costs for all the extra mileage I did to avoid Lendal bridge and the time spent in long traffic delays on Foss Islands Road (but theses didn't exist according to Merritt talking to Harry on Look North) who should I approach at the council.
The no comment by the council on Coppergate is because it is on ice awaiting the verdict on the appeal. They seem to give me spurious answers on my repeated questions.

Traffic Penalty Tribunal and DfT have been informed of council's actions.

Extra milage is probably not claimable , but I understand your concerns.
[quote][p][bold]razor08[/bold] wrote: I see no mention of the Coppergate legal case why ? How do I claim costs for all the extra mileage I did to avoid Lendal bridge and the time spent in long traffic delays on Foss Islands Road (but theses didn't exist according to Merritt talking to Harry on Look North) who should I approach at the council.[/p][/quote]The no comment by the council on Coppergate is because it is on ice awaiting the verdict on the appeal. They seem to give me spurious answers on my repeated questions. Traffic Penalty Tribunal and DfT have been informed of council's actions. Extra milage is probably not claimable , but I understand your concerns. Cheeky face
  • Score: -16

6:41pm Wed 6 Aug 14

Cheeky face says...

Caecilius wrote:
SRT_CM wrote:
Anna Gramme wrote:
What nonsense. The bridge was closed; through lack of attention, arrogance or stupidity 60,000 drivers in eight months broke the rules and were fined. The city council should be able to decide how to manage the city, including traffic, rightly or wrongly, and be accountable to the electorate for those decisions at the appropriate time. This mess is caused by twerps like Eric Pickles interfering with local government. Little surprise that finding good candidates for local office is so difficult. I don't and have never worked in local government. It's a hiding to nothing.
"The bridge was closed; through lack of attention, arrogance or stupidity 60,000 drivers in eight months broke the rules and were fined..."

...or unclear and illegal signage. You missed that one off.
It was only "unclear" to people with defective eyesight who shouldn't be behind the wheel in the first place. The vast majority of those who broke the restriction either weren't paying attention or made a deliberate decision to flout it, as they habitually flout so many others. Witness all the wails of "nobody ever said there was a penalty!".
The signs were wrong/stupidly placed until mid Jan 20104; and visitors were uncertain on what "restricted access" meant, and did not know where L:endal Bridge was.

The adjudicator looked at PCNs of lots of provincial schemes; and visited York because of the excess number of PCNS re Lendal Bridge.

I know of a motorist who ignored all letters re an alleged transgression- he knew it was wrong,(being an ex traffic cop might have helped).
[quote][p][bold]Caecilius[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]SRT_CM[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Anna Gramme[/bold] wrote: What nonsense. The bridge was closed; through lack of attention, arrogance or stupidity 60,000 drivers in eight months broke the rules and were fined. The city council should be able to decide how to manage the city, including traffic, rightly or wrongly, and be accountable to the electorate for those decisions at the appropriate time. This mess is caused by twerps like Eric Pickles interfering with local government. Little surprise that finding good candidates for local office is so difficult. I don't and have never worked in local government. It's a hiding to nothing.[/p][/quote]"The bridge was closed; through lack of attention, arrogance or stupidity 60,000 drivers in eight months broke the rules and were fined..." ...or unclear and illegal signage. You missed that one off.[/p][/quote]It was only "unclear" to people with defective eyesight who shouldn't be behind the wheel in the first place. The vast majority of those who broke the restriction either weren't paying attention or made a deliberate decision to flout it, as they habitually flout so many others. Witness all the wails of "nobody ever said there was a penalty!".[/p][/quote]The signs were wrong/stupidly placed until mid Jan 20104; and visitors were uncertain on what "restricted access" meant, and did not know where L:endal Bridge was. The adjudicator looked at PCNs of lots of provincial schemes; and visited York because of the excess number of PCNS re Lendal Bridge. I know of a motorist who ignored all letters re an alleged transgression- he knew it was wrong,(being an ex traffic cop might have helped). Cheeky face
  • Score: -13

7:10pm Wed 6 Aug 14

julia brica says...

I would love to see Merritt back on TV in front of Harry Grayshon again explaining his present position regarding his previous position.
Why bother Dave just do what you promised RESIGN.
I would love to see Merritt back on TV in front of Harry Grayshon again explaining his present position regarding his previous position. Why bother Dave just do what you promised RESIGN. julia brica
  • Score: -13

7:33pm Wed 6 Aug 14

Tricky Dickie says...

Caecilius wrote:
SRT_CM wrote:
Anna Gramme wrote:
What nonsense. The bridge was closed; through lack of attention, arrogance or stupidity 60,000 drivers in eight months broke the rules and were fined. The city council should be able to decide how to manage the city, including traffic, rightly or wrongly, and be accountable to the electorate for those decisions at the appropriate time. This mess is caused by twerps like Eric Pickles interfering with local government. Little surprise that finding good candidates for local office is so difficult. I don't and have never worked in local government. It's a hiding to nothing.
"The bridge was closed; through lack of attention, arrogance or stupidity 60,000 drivers in eight months broke the rules and were fined..."

...or unclear and illegal signage. You missed that one off.
It was only "unclear" to people with defective eyesight who shouldn't be behind the wheel in the first place. The vast majority of those who broke the restriction either weren't paying attention or made a deliberate decision to flout it, as they habitually flout so many others. Witness all the wails of "nobody ever said there was a penalty!".
All hail Caecilius, who apparently has been given the gift of insight in to everybodies lives. We all thought the problem that caused 60,000 drivers (mainly out of towners) to erroneously cross Lendal Bridge was the ill thought out trial, and incomprehensible signage. Turns out we were hosting a 9 month meeting of the blind drivers association. Who'd have thunk it?
[quote][p][bold]Caecilius[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]SRT_CM[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Anna Gramme[/bold] wrote: What nonsense. The bridge was closed; through lack of attention, arrogance or stupidity 60,000 drivers in eight months broke the rules and were fined. The city council should be able to decide how to manage the city, including traffic, rightly or wrongly, and be accountable to the electorate for those decisions at the appropriate time. This mess is caused by twerps like Eric Pickles interfering with local government. Little surprise that finding good candidates for local office is so difficult. I don't and have never worked in local government. It's a hiding to nothing.[/p][/quote]"The bridge was closed; through lack of attention, arrogance or stupidity 60,000 drivers in eight months broke the rules and were fined..." ...or unclear and illegal signage. You missed that one off.[/p][/quote]It was only "unclear" to people with defective eyesight who shouldn't be behind the wheel in the first place. The vast majority of those who broke the restriction either weren't paying attention or made a deliberate decision to flout it, as they habitually flout so many others. Witness all the wails of "nobody ever said there was a penalty!".[/p][/quote]All hail Caecilius, who apparently has been given the gift of insight in to everybodies lives. We all thought the problem that caused 60,000 drivers (mainly out of towners) to erroneously cross Lendal Bridge was the ill thought out trial, and incomprehensible signage. Turns out we were hosting a 9 month meeting of the blind drivers association. Who'd have thunk it? Tricky Dickie
  • Score: -11

7:38pm Wed 6 Aug 14

Jack Ham says...

What is there left to say about this sad, sorry fiasco?

Unwanted, unnecessary and ultimately unlawful.

Regardless of all their other failings, the secrecy, vanity projects, de-selections and incompetence this will be the legacy of York Labour Party.

Many good Labour members knew it was wrong. Many tried to speak out and were silenced by the elite and Cabinet Cabal.

The whole party will now pay the price.

The Lendal Bridge story is already national news. It's not over yet. In years to come it will become a case study for politics students and Alexander, Merrett, England, Crisp, Simpson-Laing will have their names in the history books.....but not in the way they had hoped for.
What is there left to say about this sad, sorry fiasco? Unwanted, unnecessary and ultimately unlawful. Regardless of all their other failings, the secrecy, vanity projects, de-selections and incompetence this will be the legacy of York Labour Party. Many good Labour members knew it was wrong. Many tried to speak out and were silenced by the elite and Cabinet Cabal. The whole party will now pay the price. The Lendal Bridge story is already national news. It's not over yet. In years to come it will become a case study for politics students and Alexander, Merrett, England, Crisp, Simpson-Laing will have their names in the history books.....but not in the way they had hoped for. Jack Ham
  • Score: -13

7:46pm Wed 6 Aug 14

notpedallingpaul says...

archieboldthe2nd wrote:
Finally!!!!! Right now PP will you apologise to everyone for being categorically wrong saying "lets wait until the legal review has been undertaken". I tried to tell you at the time an expert in the field is never proven wrong in court! The council have simply just wasted a further 15k!!! This could have surly been used to balance the bin books? Or maybe provide new sports fields? or even to construct a new pointless cycle lane on a road? Or even contributed to another pointless green bus that could take another 3 cars off the road... But no they pressed ahead with it...

I await your defence of your beloved council and its logic..

Ps good to be back...
Don't forget this man has been unmasked and is really Paul Hepworth, as if we didn't know anyway.
[quote][p][bold]archieboldthe2nd[/bold] wrote: Finally!!!!! Right now PP will you apologise to everyone for being categorically wrong saying "lets wait until the legal review has been undertaken". I tried to tell you at the time an expert in the field is never proven wrong in court! The council have simply just wasted a further 15k!!! This could have surly been used to balance the bin books? Or maybe provide new sports fields? or even to construct a new pointless cycle lane on a road? Or even contributed to another pointless green bus that could take another 3 cars off the road... But no they pressed ahead with it... I await your defence of your beloved council and its logic.. Ps good to be back...[/p][/quote]Don't forget this man has been unmasked and is really Paul Hepworth, as if we didn't know anyway. notpedallingpaul
  • Score: -14

7:50pm Wed 6 Aug 14

notpedallingpaul says...

Anna Gramme wrote:
What nonsense. The bridge was closed; through lack of attention, arrogance or stupidity 60,000 drivers in eight months broke the rules and were fined. The city council should be able to decide how to manage the city, including traffic, rightly or wrongly, and be accountable to the electorate for those decisions at the appropriate time. This mess is caused by twerps like Eric Pickles interfering with local government. Little surprise that finding good candidates for local office is so difficult. I don't and have never worked in local government. It's a hiding to nothing.
Your not...........are you........dare I say it PH?
[quote][p][bold]Anna Gramme[/bold] wrote: What nonsense. The bridge was closed; through lack of attention, arrogance or stupidity 60,000 drivers in eight months broke the rules and were fined. The city council should be able to decide how to manage the city, including traffic, rightly or wrongly, and be accountable to the electorate for those decisions at the appropriate time. This mess is caused by twerps like Eric Pickles interfering with local government. Little surprise that finding good candidates for local office is so difficult. I don't and have never worked in local government. It's a hiding to nothing.[/p][/quote]Your not...........are you........dare I say it PH? notpedallingpaul
  • Score: -12

8:02pm Wed 6 Aug 14

notpedallingpaul says...

Caecilius wrote:
SRT_CM wrote:
Anna Gramme wrote:
What nonsense. The bridge was closed; through lack of attention, arrogance or stupidity 60,000 drivers in eight months broke the rules and were fined. The city council should be able to decide how to manage the city, including traffic, rightly or wrongly, and be accountable to the electorate for those decisions at the appropriate time. This mess is caused by twerps like Eric Pickles interfering with local government. Little surprise that finding good candidates for local office is so difficult. I don't and have never worked in local government. It's a hiding to nothing.
"The bridge was closed; through lack of attention, arrogance or stupidity 60,000 drivers in eight months broke the rules and were fined..."

...or unclear and illegal signage. You missed that one off.
It was only "unclear" to people with defective eyesight who shouldn't be behind the wheel in the first place. The vast majority of those who broke the restriction either weren't paying attention or made a deliberate decision to flout it, as they habitually flout so many others. Witness all the wails of "nobody ever said there was a penalty!".
Cripes not that old excuse again and again and again, your as bad that other chap, what's his name pedallingpaulhepwort
h!
[quote][p][bold]Caecilius[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]SRT_CM[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Anna Gramme[/bold] wrote: What nonsense. The bridge was closed; through lack of attention, arrogance or stupidity 60,000 drivers in eight months broke the rules and were fined. The city council should be able to decide how to manage the city, including traffic, rightly or wrongly, and be accountable to the electorate for those decisions at the appropriate time. This mess is caused by twerps like Eric Pickles interfering with local government. Little surprise that finding good candidates for local office is so difficult. I don't and have never worked in local government. It's a hiding to nothing.[/p][/quote]"The bridge was closed; through lack of attention, arrogance or stupidity 60,000 drivers in eight months broke the rules and were fined..." ...or unclear and illegal signage. You missed that one off.[/p][/quote]It was only "unclear" to people with defective eyesight who shouldn't be behind the wheel in the first place. The vast majority of those who broke the restriction either weren't paying attention or made a deliberate decision to flout it, as they habitually flout so many others. Witness all the wails of "nobody ever said there was a penalty!".[/p][/quote]Cripes not that old excuse again and again and again, your as bad that other chap, what's his name pedallingpaulhepwort h! notpedallingpaul
  • Score: -13

8:35pm Wed 6 Aug 14

bjb says...

So come the next election and tis shower of morons get voted off, which shower of morons should replace them? The shower of morons the Labour council replaced or the shower of morons before them. I am sure that all you council lords on here with your multiple logins will be rubbing your hands and saying ' please let it be me and my wonderful party', then when it happens all the hate and vitriol aimed at today's administration will be targeted at you. Be very careful what you wish for.
So come the next election and tis shower of morons get voted off, which shower of morons should replace them? The shower of morons the Labour council replaced or the shower of morons before them. I am sure that all you council lords on here with your multiple logins will be rubbing your hands and saying ' please let it be me and my wonderful party', then when it happens all the hate and vitriol aimed at today's administration will be targeted at you. Be very careful what you wish for. bjb
  • Score: 6

8:43pm Wed 6 Aug 14

Jack Ham says...

notpedallingpaul wrote:
Anna Gramme wrote:
What nonsense. The bridge was closed; through lack of attention, arrogance or stupidity 60,000 drivers in eight months broke the rules and were fined. The city council should be able to decide how to manage the city, including traffic, rightly or wrongly, and be accountable to the electorate for those decisions at the appropriate time. This mess is caused by twerps like Eric Pickles interfering with local government. Little surprise that finding good candidates for local office is so difficult. I don't and have never worked in local government. It's a hiding to nothing.
Your not...........are you........dare I say it PH?
I doubt it. Sounds like the well known Councillor Sonja Crisp who usually uses a variety or Nordic nicknames. This one, along with york2000 started posting just as Bloodaxe and Hoofhearted disappeared.
[quote][p][bold]notpedallingpaul[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Anna Gramme[/bold] wrote: What nonsense. The bridge was closed; through lack of attention, arrogance or stupidity 60,000 drivers in eight months broke the rules and were fined. The city council should be able to decide how to manage the city, including traffic, rightly or wrongly, and be accountable to the electorate for those decisions at the appropriate time. This mess is caused by twerps like Eric Pickles interfering with local government. Little surprise that finding good candidates for local office is so difficult. I don't and have never worked in local government. It's a hiding to nothing.[/p][/quote]Your not...........are you........dare I say it PH?[/p][/quote]I doubt it. Sounds like the well known Councillor Sonja Crisp who usually uses a variety or Nordic nicknames. This one, along with york2000 started posting just as Bloodaxe and Hoofhearted disappeared. Jack Ham
  • Score: -12

8:59pm Wed 6 Aug 14

notpedallingpaul says...

bjb wrote:
So come the next election and tis shower of morons get voted off, which shower of morons should replace them? The shower of morons the Labour council replaced or the shower of morons before them. I am sure that all you council lords on here with your multiple logins will be rubbing your hands and saying ' please let it be me and my wonderful party', then when it happens all the hate and vitriol aimed at today's administration will be targeted at you. Be very careful what you wish for.
That's quite true, it's what politics is all about, but be it granted that next May we are rid of this troublesome council, we have to give whoever takes the tiller a chance, until of course we don't like what they do or there are incompetent councillors making stupid decisions, and then it will start all over again, that's politics folks!
[quote][p][bold]bjb[/bold] wrote: So come the next election and tis shower of morons get voted off, which shower of morons should replace them? The shower of morons the Labour council replaced or the shower of morons before them. I am sure that all you council lords on here with your multiple logins will be rubbing your hands and saying ' please let it be me and my wonderful party', then when it happens all the hate and vitriol aimed at today's administration will be targeted at you. Be very careful what you wish for.[/p][/quote]That's quite true, it's what politics is all about, but be it granted that next May we are rid of this troublesome council, we have to give whoever takes the tiller a chance, until of course we don't like what they do or there are incompetent councillors making stupid decisions, and then it will start all over again, that's politics folks! notpedallingpaul
  • Score: -11

10:28pm Wed 6 Aug 14

notpedallingpaul says...

Norman Van Hoogstraten wrote:
When is James Alexander going to stand down? Either his own party are going to blow him out or the public will vote him out. He has made mistake after mistake. Why doesn't he do the right thing and go?

Simpson Laing is another one. Totally out of touch with local residents.

Time for change now before these jokers embarrass this city any more than they already have done.
Considering your a wind-up merchant you do have some support, which is totaly amazing!
[quote][p][bold]Norman Van Hoogstraten[/bold] wrote: When is James Alexander going to stand down? Either his own party are going to blow him out or the public will vote him out. He has made mistake after mistake. Why doesn't he do the right thing and go? Simpson Laing is another one. Totally out of touch with local residents. Time for change now before these jokers embarrass this city any more than they already have done.[/p][/quote]Considering your a wind-up merchant you do have some support, which is totaly amazing! notpedallingpaul
  • Score: -16

10:58pm Wed 6 Aug 14

jay, york says...

Jack Ham wrote:
notpedallingpaul wrote:
Anna Gramme wrote: What nonsense. The bridge was closed; through lack of attention, arrogance or stupidity 60,000 drivers in eight months broke the rules and were fined. The city council should be able to decide how to manage the city, including traffic, rightly or wrongly, and be accountable to the electorate for those decisions at the appropriate time. This mess is caused by twerps like Eric Pickles interfering with local government. Little surprise that finding good candidates for local office is so difficult. I don't and have never worked in local government. It's a hiding to nothing.
Your not...........are you........dare I say it PH?
I doubt it. Sounds like the well known Councillor Sonja Crisp who usually uses a variety or Nordic nicknames. This one, along with york2000 started posting just as Bloodaxe and Hoofhearted disappeared.
Its akways the language and the tone that gives it away - see hoofy has been let out again
[quote][p][bold]Jack Ham[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]notpedallingpaul[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Anna Gramme[/bold] wrote: What nonsense. The bridge was closed; through lack of attention, arrogance or stupidity 60,000 drivers in eight months broke the rules and were fined. The city council should be able to decide how to manage the city, including traffic, rightly or wrongly, and be accountable to the electorate for those decisions at the appropriate time. This mess is caused by twerps like Eric Pickles interfering with local government. Little surprise that finding good candidates for local office is so difficult. I don't and have never worked in local government. It's a hiding to nothing.[/p][/quote]Your not...........are you........dare I say it PH?[/p][/quote]I doubt it. Sounds like the well known Councillor Sonja Crisp who usually uses a variety or Nordic nicknames. This one, along with york2000 started posting just as Bloodaxe and Hoofhearted disappeared.[/p][/quote]Its akways the language and the tone that gives it away - see hoofy has been let out again jay, york
  • Score: -13

11:18pm Wed 6 Aug 14

Silver says...

julia brica wrote:
I would love to see Merritt back on TV in front of Harry Grayshon again explaining his present position regarding his previous position.
Why bother Dave just do what you promised RESIGN.
And this is why no one believes politicians anymore. They make a statement and then they don't honor it. We the public are clamoring for individuals to actually make a difference and stand by their word. They are afraid to do it. I'm now an ex labour voter. I can't vote Tory, Lib Dems have lost my vote so I'm stuck with independants.
[quote][p][bold]julia brica[/bold] wrote: I would love to see Merritt back on TV in front of Harry Grayshon again explaining his present position regarding his previous position. Why bother Dave just do what you promised RESIGN.[/p][/quote]And this is why no one believes politicians anymore. They make a statement and then they don't honor it. We the public are clamoring for individuals to actually make a difference and stand by their word. They are afraid to do it. I'm now an ex labour voter. I can't vote Tory, Lib Dems have lost my vote so I'm stuck with independants. Silver
  • Score: -12

11:45pm Wed 6 Aug 14

AnotherPointofView says...

Silver wrote:
julia brica wrote:
I would love to see Merritt back on TV in front of Harry Grayshon again explaining his present position regarding his previous position.
Why bother Dave just do what you promised RESIGN.
And this is why no one believes politicians anymore. They make a statement and then they don't honor it. We the public are clamoring for individuals to actually make a difference and stand by their word. They are afraid to do it. I'm now an ex labour voter. I can't vote Tory, Lib Dems have lost my vote so I'm stuck with independants.
I'm all for the independents. At least they care about York, unlike Alexander ,no-Merret and Simply-wrong.
[quote][p][bold]Silver[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]julia brica[/bold] wrote: I would love to see Merritt back on TV in front of Harry Grayshon again explaining his present position regarding his previous position. Why bother Dave just do what you promised RESIGN.[/p][/quote]And this is why no one believes politicians anymore. They make a statement and then they don't honor it. We the public are clamoring for individuals to actually make a difference and stand by their word. They are afraid to do it. I'm now an ex labour voter. I can't vote Tory, Lib Dems have lost my vote so I'm stuck with independants.[/p][/quote]I'm all for the independents. At least they care about York, unlike Alexander ,no-Merret and Simply-wrong. AnotherPointofView
  • Score: -12

8:41am Thu 7 Aug 14

pedalling paul says...

Children....children
........tch....tch..
.! Let us recall that closure to private cars of one of York's three central bridges, was a plank of York's current Local Transport Plan 3 (2011-2031), which was prepared by Officers in accordance with Whitehall guidance, and signed off in 2010 by the then ruling LibDems.
Somewhere along the way,the initial recommendation of Ouse Bridge changed to Lendal Bridge. I'm not sure why, and perhaps someone can tell us.
What is certain, is that without the radical measures already taken under the two previous LTP's, when Dave Merrett was in the driving seat as Council Leader, York would already be experiencing gridlock. It's due to his previous leadership on this issue that we have managed to stablise peak car use in recent years. But the gridlock threat has only receded for some years. It's not gone away and is re-emerging with York's ongoing economic development.
We don't have elastic roads, and bleating by some politicians that "traffic must flow" presumably regardless of how much there may be, will not change the long term threat one iota. I'm reminded of the scene in "Time Bandits" where a couple are bickering, completely oblivious to the fact that a giant has loomed over the horizon and is about to trample them out of existence.
Fillibustering tactics like calling decision in for scrutiny, is as bad as gerrymandering a Cabinet agenda so that fracking gets the lions share of discussion time. Councillors of all parties need to realise that the transport timebomb under York continues to tick. Time to get behind the suggested Congestion commission. Make it happen and stick with its outcomes. These will very likely reflect the strategy of LTP3 which seeks to futher reduce private car dependancy.
A mix of travel alternatives include bus, car sharing, walking, cycling, train, city centre short term car hire. Many suburban residents are car owners but prefer to get the bike out of the garage for a daily commute. Residents of some outlying villages eg Poppleton, now have the option of cycling to a Park & Ride, and taking the bus. Or of driving to the P&R and cycling or bussing in. On-road priority measures for the most efficient users of road space, will underpin this.
Antri-car? No, it's designed to help those who need to use a motor vehicle rather than those who simply want to.
Children....children ........tch....tch.. .! Let us recall that closure to private cars of one of York's three central bridges, was a plank of York's current Local Transport Plan 3 (2011-2031), which was prepared by Officers in accordance with Whitehall guidance, and signed off in 2010 by the then ruling LibDems. Somewhere along the way,the initial recommendation of Ouse Bridge changed to Lendal Bridge. I'm not sure why, and perhaps someone can tell us. What is certain, is that without the radical measures already taken under the two previous LTP's, when Dave Merrett was in the driving seat as Council Leader, York would already be experiencing gridlock. It's due to his previous leadership on this issue that we have managed to stablise peak car use in recent years. But the gridlock threat has only receded for some years. It's not gone away and is re-emerging with York's ongoing economic development. We don't have elastic roads, and bleating by some politicians that "traffic must flow" presumably regardless of how much there may be, will not change the long term threat one iota. I'm reminded of the scene in "Time Bandits" where a couple are bickering, completely oblivious to the fact that a giant has loomed over the horizon and is about to trample them out of existence. Fillibustering tactics like calling decision in for scrutiny, is as bad as gerrymandering a Cabinet agenda so that fracking gets the lions share of discussion time. Councillors of all parties need to realise that the transport timebomb under York continues to tick. Time to get behind the suggested Congestion commission. Make it happen and stick with its outcomes. These will very likely reflect the strategy of LTP3 which seeks to futher reduce private car dependancy. A mix of travel alternatives include bus, car sharing, walking, cycling, train, city centre short term car hire. Many suburban residents are car owners but prefer to get the bike out of the garage for a daily commute. Residents of some outlying villages eg Poppleton, now have the option of cycling to a Park & Ride, and taking the bus. Or of driving to the P&R and cycling or bussing in. On-road priority measures for the most efficient users of road space, will underpin this. Antri-car? No, it's designed to help those who need to use a motor vehicle rather than those who simply want to. pedalling paul
  • Score: -16

8:57am Thu 7 Aug 14

Ichabod76 says...

Haddie Nuff says...
will you be addressing this today Paul ?

pedalling paul wrote:
Oh dear PH, you seem to have stirred up a hornet's nest.........but identity confusion still seems to reign in the mind of some contributors.
Seems as if CTC are also confused as their annual report quite clearly states "Paul Hepworth has maintained a watching brief on local
media, and responded on our behalf to cycling related issues that have
arisen being a prolific correspondent in the “Letters” page and as
“Pedalling Paul” on website of the York Press."
Haddie Nuff says... will you be addressing this today Paul ? [quote][p][bold]pedalling paul wrote: Oh dear PH, you seem to have stirred up a hornet's nest.........but identity confusion still seems to reign in the mind of some contributors. Seems as if CTC are also confused as their annual report quite clearly states "Paul Hepworth has maintained a watching brief on local media, and responded on our behalf to cycling related issues that have arisen being a prolific correspondent in the “Letters” page and as “Pedalling Paul” on website of the York Press."[/p][/quote] Ichabod76
  • Score: -16

9:14am Thu 7 Aug 14

Frank Pizzaface says...

Pedalling Paul, take your lord and master Alexander and clear off out of York for ever
Pedalling Paul, take your lord and master Alexander and clear off out of York for ever Frank Pizzaface
  • Score: -12

10:19am Thu 7 Aug 14

Tricky Dickie says...

pedalling paul wrote:
Children....children

........tch....tch..

.! Let us recall that closure to private cars of one of York's three central bridges, was a plank of York's current Local Transport Plan 3 (2011-2031), which was prepared by Officers in accordance with Whitehall guidance, and signed off in 2010 by the then ruling LibDems.
Somewhere along the way,the initial recommendation of Ouse Bridge changed to Lendal Bridge. I'm not sure why, and perhaps someone can tell us.
What is certain, is that without the radical measures already taken under the two previous LTP's, when Dave Merrett was in the driving seat as Council Leader, York would already be experiencing gridlock. It's due to his previous leadership on this issue that we have managed to stablise peak car use in recent years. But the gridlock threat has only receded for some years. It's not gone away and is re-emerging with York's ongoing economic development.
We don't have elastic roads, and bleating by some politicians that "traffic must flow" presumably regardless of how much there may be, will not change the long term threat one iota. I'm reminded of the scene in "Time Bandits" where a couple are bickering, completely oblivious to the fact that a giant has loomed over the horizon and is about to trample them out of existence.
Fillibustering tactics like calling decision in for scrutiny, is as bad as gerrymandering a Cabinet agenda so that fracking gets the lions share of discussion time. Councillors of all parties need to realise that the transport timebomb under York continues to tick. Time to get behind the suggested Congestion commission. Make it happen and stick with its outcomes. These will very likely reflect the strategy of LTP3 which seeks to futher reduce private car dependancy.
A mix of travel alternatives include bus, car sharing, walking, cycling, train, city centre short term car hire. Many suburban residents are car owners but prefer to get the bike out of the garage for a daily commute. Residents of some outlying villages eg Poppleton, now have the option of cycling to a Park & Ride, and taking the bus. Or of driving to the P&R and cycling or bussing in. On-road priority measures for the most efficient users of road space, will underpin this.
Antri-car? No, it's designed to help those who need to use a motor vehicle rather than those who simply want to.
Paul, from your opening sentence I presume that you feel that you've lost the argument, and therefore can now only rely on insulting the majority of residents of the city to massage your ego?

While there may be a section of the community that are rabid petrol heads, the majority of the population understand the issues that a city of York's character has with traffic. Given viable alternatives to the car most people will use them when it is appropriate to do so. However, the moment you start to bully people based on dogma (as happened with Lendal Bridge) they will dig there heals in and you will, as we've seen, reap the whirlwind of public opinion. It's human nature, and anybody who thought they could pass down these types of missives from on high without consequence was naive in the extreme.

While some of DMs actions MAY have gone someway to tackling elements of York's traffic problems, it is disingenuous to suggest that his "radical measures" have been responsible for staving off the gridlock, when there have been so many external influences (recession, lowering of wages in real terms, increase in fuel costs, shift of industry and shopping out of the city to the outskirts, York's increasing role as a commuter town for Leeds etc.) that have also played a part. In fact the stats (often quoted on these pages) suggest that DMs actions may have actually made the situation worse. Echoing your method of using film as an allegory, can I suggest that DM may actually be more like Hong Kong Phooey, who seemingly solved the crime and earned the plaudits, when infact it was actually Spot the cat that did all the work.
[quote][p][bold]pedalling paul [/bold] wrote: Children....children ........tch....tch.. .! Let us recall that closure to private cars of one of York's three central bridges, was a plank of York's current Local Transport Plan 3 (2011-2031), which was prepared by Officers in accordance with Whitehall guidance, and signed off in 2010 by the then ruling LibDems. Somewhere along the way,the initial recommendation of Ouse Bridge changed to Lendal Bridge. I'm not sure why, and perhaps someone can tell us. What is certain, is that without the radical measures already taken under the two previous LTP's, when Dave Merrett was in the driving seat as Council Leader, York would already be experiencing gridlock. It's due to his previous leadership on this issue that we have managed to stablise peak car use in recent years. But the gridlock threat has only receded for some years. It's not gone away and is re-emerging with York's ongoing economic development. We don't have elastic roads, and bleating by some politicians that "traffic must flow" presumably regardless of how much there may be, will not change the long term threat one iota. I'm reminded of the scene in "Time Bandits" where a couple are bickering, completely oblivious to the fact that a giant has loomed over the horizon and is about to trample them out of existence. Fillibustering tactics like calling decision in for scrutiny, is as bad as gerrymandering a Cabinet agenda so that fracking gets the lions share of discussion time. Councillors of all parties need to realise that the transport timebomb under York continues to tick. Time to get behind the suggested Congestion commission. Make it happen and stick with its outcomes. These will very likely reflect the strategy of LTP3 which seeks to futher reduce private car dependancy. A mix of travel alternatives include bus, car sharing, walking, cycling, train, city centre short term car hire. Many suburban residents are car owners but prefer to get the bike out of the garage for a daily commute. Residents of some outlying villages eg Poppleton, now have the option of cycling to a Park & Ride, and taking the bus. Or of driving to the P&R and cycling or bussing in. On-road priority measures for the most efficient users of road space, will underpin this. Antri-car? No, it's designed to help those who need to use a motor vehicle rather than those who simply want to.[/p][/quote]Paul, from your opening sentence I presume that you feel that you've lost the argument, and therefore can now only rely on insulting the majority of residents of the city to massage your ego? While there may be a section of the community that are rabid petrol heads, the majority of the population understand the issues that a city of York's character has with traffic. Given viable alternatives to the car most people will use them when it is appropriate to do so. However, the moment you start to bully people based on dogma (as happened with Lendal Bridge) they will dig there heals in and you will, as we've seen, reap the whirlwind of public opinion. It's human nature, and anybody who thought they could pass down these types of missives from on high without consequence was naive in the extreme. While some of DMs actions MAY have gone someway to tackling elements of York's traffic problems, it is disingenuous to suggest that his "radical measures" have been responsible for staving off the gridlock, when there have been so many external influences (recession, lowering of wages in real terms, increase in fuel costs, shift of industry and shopping out of the city to the outskirts, York's increasing role as a commuter town for Leeds etc.) that have also played a part. In fact the stats (often quoted on these pages) suggest that DMs actions may have actually made the situation worse. Echoing your method of using film as an allegory, can I suggest that DM may actually be more like Hong Kong Phooey, who seemingly solved the crime and earned the plaudits, when infact it was actually Spot the cat that did all the work. Tricky Dickie
  • Score: -11

10:56am Thu 7 Aug 14

BethFoxhunter96 says...

Peddling Paul, you seem to give very reasonable and comprehensive answers and don't give in the bickering and name-calling like the blob og Daily Mail lovers here.

However I would like to ask you where you think personal freedoms comes into the equation. I think I am far more anti-car than you are, but I do think people need to have a right and responsibility to choose their mode of transport. Where in your opinion do rights to choose fit with the needs of the city to limit car use, limit pollution etc? This question is thrown out to everyone - where does one set of rights start and the next begin? In terms of closing the bridge (which was a great idea in my opinion, made city centre so much nicer to be) that's the crux of the debate. What can and should the Council do vs what can motorists expect to be able to do?
Peddling Paul, you seem to give very reasonable and comprehensive answers and don't give in the bickering and name-calling like the blob og Daily Mail lovers here. However I would like to ask you where you think personal freedoms comes into the equation. I think I am far more anti-car than you are, but I do think people need to have a right and responsibility to choose their mode of transport. Where in your opinion do rights to choose fit with the needs of the city to limit car use, limit pollution etc? This question is thrown out to everyone - where does one set of rights start and the next begin? In terms of closing the bridge (which was a great idea in my opinion, made city centre so much nicer to be) that's the crux of the debate. What can and should the Council do vs what can motorists expect to be able to do? BethFoxhunter96
  • Score: 12

12:28pm Thu 7 Aug 14

archieboldthe2nd says...

BethFoxhunter96 wrote:
Peddling Paul, you seem to give very reasonable and comprehensive answers and don't give in the bickering and name-calling like the blob og Daily Mail lovers here. However I would like to ask you where you think personal freedoms comes into the equation. I think I am far more anti-car than you are, but I do think people need to have a right and responsibility to choose their mode of transport. Where in your opinion do rights to choose fit with the needs of the city to limit car use, limit pollution etc? This question is thrown out to everyone - where does one set of rights start and the next begin? In terms of closing the bridge (which was a great idea in my opinion, made city centre so much nicer to be) that's the crux of the debate. What can and should the Council do vs what can motorists expect to be able to do?
Let me sum this up. People have a right to take the quickest and cheapest method of transport to get to a destination. This is usually a car due to the expensive and unreliable bus services. Yes some people will cycle like our beloved paul.

If however the council came up with a radical plan of how to create a quicker method of travelling not using the roads (like a rail link!) then people may see that as a better option. After all you are not stuck in traffic or stopping every 300 yards... it would also remove more busses from the road delaying the "gridlock" bomb??!!!. But as it stands our council think more busses less cars which as you alluded to doesn’t change peoples attitude. In fact look at the green busses.. I’d argue that these are causing more issues as i've never seen one with more then 4 people on.

As for taking people away from car use and using other methods. I'm curious as to why York was better with the bridge shut to cars? or private ones anyway.... after all its a major taxi and bus route so at any time there was always traffic running on it? And to argue it some more if the council wanted to encourage public transport use why allow taxi's over it? If people are using taxis then they are going against the cities plan to get everyone onto a bus and to plant pretty flowers everywhere.

I'd also like to add these people are not daily mail readers... We just have our own mind... Paul saying it was a key transport plan and it reduced traffic is proven wrong by the actual findings of the closure... As was the improvement in air quality? It was simply a waste of money that along with the new p&r centres could have actually contributed to a bigger and better solution to our little problem.

I'm not sure how many times i will have to say it but to reduce traffic you need to take vehicles off the road.. the only way to do that is to follow other cities and create outskirt train stations. By adding more busses you are adding to the carnage.. For example 3 times this week a bendy p&r bus has jumped the lights heading to blossom street from the station... This is not only dangerous and nearly caused an accident but it also prevented the micklegate traffic from moving. Now that then caused a further back log down micklegate... So are busses really the solution to yorks traffic problem? I doubt it.. They cause mayhem... Should everyone cycle? No... So unless a cheaper and quicker method is available to the public nothing will change.
[quote][p][bold]BethFoxhunter96[/bold] wrote: Peddling Paul, you seem to give very reasonable and comprehensive answers and don't give in the bickering and name-calling like the blob og Daily Mail lovers here. However I would like to ask you where you think personal freedoms comes into the equation. I think I am far more anti-car than you are, but I do think people need to have a right and responsibility to choose their mode of transport. Where in your opinion do rights to choose fit with the needs of the city to limit car use, limit pollution etc? This question is thrown out to everyone - where does one set of rights start and the next begin? In terms of closing the bridge (which was a great idea in my opinion, made city centre so much nicer to be) that's the crux of the debate. What can and should the Council do vs what can motorists expect to be able to do?[/p][/quote]Let me sum this up. People have a right to take the quickest and cheapest method of transport to get to a destination. This is usually a car due to the expensive and unreliable bus services. Yes some people will cycle like our beloved paul. If however the council came up with a radical plan of how to create a quicker method of travelling not using the roads (like a rail link!) then people may see that as a better option. After all you are not stuck in traffic or stopping every 300 yards... it would also remove more busses from the road delaying the "gridlock" bomb??!!!. But as it stands our council think more busses less cars which as you alluded to doesn’t change peoples attitude. In fact look at the green busses.. I’d argue that these are causing more issues as i've never seen one with more then 4 people on. As for taking people away from car use and using other methods. I'm curious as to why York was better with the bridge shut to cars? or private ones anyway.... after all its a major taxi and bus route so at any time there was always traffic running on it? And to argue it some more if the council wanted to encourage public transport use why allow taxi's over it? If people are using taxis then they are going against the cities plan to get everyone onto a bus and to plant pretty flowers everywhere. I'd also like to add these people are not daily mail readers... We just have our own mind... Paul saying it was a key transport plan and it reduced traffic is proven wrong by the actual findings of the closure... As was the improvement in air quality? It was simply a waste of money that along with the new p&r centres could have actually contributed to a bigger and better solution to our little problem. I'm not sure how many times i will have to say it but to reduce traffic you need to take vehicles off the road.. the only way to do that is to follow other cities and create outskirt train stations. By adding more busses you are adding to the carnage.. For example 3 times this week a bendy p&r bus has jumped the lights heading to blossom street from the station... This is not only dangerous and nearly caused an accident but it also prevented the micklegate traffic from moving. Now that then caused a further back log down micklegate... So are busses really the solution to yorks traffic problem? I doubt it.. They cause mayhem... Should everyone cycle? No... So unless a cheaper and quicker method is available to the public nothing will change. archieboldthe2nd
  • Score: -12

4:08pm Thu 7 Aug 14

pedalling paul says...

Suburban residents who insist on making short distance, single occupancy car commutes, and parents who choose to live asccross the City from their kids school and ferries them there daily by car, are peventing public transport from operating as efficiently as it should. Time to turn this viscious circle into virtuous one.....by congestion charging if all else fails.
Suburban residents who insist on making short distance, single occupancy car commutes, and parents who choose to live asccross the City from their kids school and ferries them there daily by car, are peventing public transport from operating as efficiently as it should. Time to turn this viscious circle into virtuous one.....by congestion charging if all else fails. pedalling paul
  • Score: -9

4:36pm Thu 7 Aug 14

notpedallingpaul says...

pedalling paul wrote:
Suburban residents who insist on making short distance, single occupancy car commutes, and parents who choose to live asccross the City from their kids school and ferries them there daily by car, are peventing public transport from operating as efficiently as it should. Time to turn this viscious circle into virtuous one.....by congestion charging if all else fails.
I've got to hand it to you Mr Paul Hepworth, you have a canny nack of high jacking the original thread of an article - i.e. Lendal Bridge challenge dropped - and turning it to your pet ranting about car usage, but that's you to 't', if I lived where you live - Windmill Rise - I would use my car to get into town and I would be on my own to boot, I certainly do not think that any of your rantings are the out pouring of a virtuous person, simply one who thinks the world should be as Mr Paul Hepworth says.
[quote][p][bold]pedalling paul [/bold] wrote: Suburban residents who insist on making short distance, single occupancy car commutes, and parents who choose to live asccross the City from their kids school and ferries them there daily by car, are peventing public transport from operating as efficiently as it should. Time to turn this viscious circle into virtuous one.....by congestion charging if all else fails.[/p][/quote]I've got to hand it to you Mr Paul Hepworth, you have a canny nack of high jacking the original thread of an article - i.e. Lendal Bridge challenge dropped - and turning it to your pet ranting about car usage, but that's you to 't', if I lived where you live - Windmill Rise - I would use my car to get into town and I would be on my own to boot, I certainly do not think that any of your rantings are the out pouring of a virtuous person, simply one who thinks the world should be as Mr Paul Hepworth says. notpedallingpaul
  • Score: -13

5:05pm Thu 7 Aug 14

Cheeky face says...

archieboldthe2nd wrote:
BethFoxhunter96 wrote:
Peddling Paul, you seem to give very reasonable and comprehensive answers and don't give in the bickering and name-calling like the blob og Daily Mail lovers here. However I would like to ask you where you think personal freedoms comes into the equation. I think I am far more anti-car than you are, but I do think people need to have a right and responsibility to choose their mode of transport. Where in your opinion do rights to choose fit with the needs of the city to limit car use, limit pollution etc? This question is thrown out to everyone - where does one set of rights start and the next begin? In terms of closing the bridge (which was a great idea in my opinion, made city centre so much nicer to be) that's the crux of the debate. What can and should the Council do vs what can motorists expect to be able to do?
Let me sum this up. People have a right to take the quickest and cheapest method of transport to get to a destination. This is usually a car due to the expensive and unreliable bus services. Yes some people will cycle like our beloved paul.

If however the council came up with a radical plan of how to create a quicker method of travelling not using the roads (like a rail link!) then people may see that as a better option. After all you are not stuck in traffic or stopping every 300 yards... it would also remove more busses from the road delaying the "gridlock" bomb??!!!. But as it stands our council think more busses less cars which as you alluded to doesn’t change peoples attitude. In fact look at the green busses.. I’d argue that these are causing more issues as i've never seen one with more then 4 people on.

As for taking people away from car use and using other methods. I'm curious as to why York was better with the bridge shut to cars? or private ones anyway.... after all its a major taxi and bus route so at any time there was always traffic running on it? And to argue it some more if the council wanted to encourage public transport use why allow taxi's over it? If people are using taxis then they are going against the cities plan to get everyone onto a bus and to plant pretty flowers everywhere.

I'd also like to add these people are not daily mail readers... We just have our own mind... Paul saying it was a key transport plan and it reduced traffic is proven wrong by the actual findings of the closure... As was the improvement in air quality? It was simply a waste of money that along with the new p&r centres could have actually contributed to a bigger and better solution to our little problem.

I'm not sure how many times i will have to say it but to reduce traffic you need to take vehicles off the road.. the only way to do that is to follow other cities and create outskirt train stations. By adding more busses you are adding to the carnage.. For example 3 times this week a bendy p&r bus has jumped the lights heading to blossom street from the station... This is not only dangerous and nearly caused an accident but it also prevented the micklegate traffic from moving. Now that then caused a further back log down micklegate... So are busses really the solution to yorks traffic problem? I doubt it.. They cause mayhem... Should everyone cycle? No... So unless a cheaper and quicker method is available to the public nothing will change.
Good response. Pand R is too dear at the moment. If car is the most economic form of transport and the best option for the motorist for each journey they know what to do.

The refunds is the subject actually, and all getting automatic refunds will draw a line under it now. What will happen if a solicitor who had a PCN finds out in 10 years he could have had a refund; and he has time on his hands! He could crucify the council; but by then you could have new leaders!
[quote][p][bold]archieboldthe2nd[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]BethFoxhunter96[/bold] wrote: Peddling Paul, you seem to give very reasonable and comprehensive answers and don't give in the bickering and name-calling like the blob og Daily Mail lovers here. However I would like to ask you where you think personal freedoms comes into the equation. I think I am far more anti-car than you are, but I do think people need to have a right and responsibility to choose their mode of transport. Where in your opinion do rights to choose fit with the needs of the city to limit car use, limit pollution etc? This question is thrown out to everyone - where does one set of rights start and the next begin? In terms of closing the bridge (which was a great idea in my opinion, made city centre so much nicer to be) that's the crux of the debate. What can and should the Council do vs what can motorists expect to be able to do?[/p][/quote]Let me sum this up. People have a right to take the quickest and cheapest method of transport to get to a destination. This is usually a car due to the expensive and unreliable bus services. Yes some people will cycle like our beloved paul. If however the council came up with a radical plan of how to create a quicker method of travelling not using the roads (like a rail link!) then people may see that as a better option. After all you are not stuck in traffic or stopping every 300 yards... it would also remove more busses from the road delaying the "gridlock" bomb??!!!. But as it stands our council think more busses less cars which as you alluded to doesn’t change peoples attitude. In fact look at the green busses.. I’d argue that these are causing more issues as i've never seen one with more then 4 people on. As for taking people away from car use and using other methods. I'm curious as to why York was better with the bridge shut to cars? or private ones anyway.... after all its a major taxi and bus route so at any time there was always traffic running on it? And to argue it some more if the council wanted to encourage public transport use why allow taxi's over it? If people are using taxis then they are going against the cities plan to get everyone onto a bus and to plant pretty flowers everywhere. I'd also like to add these people are not daily mail readers... We just have our own mind... Paul saying it was a key transport plan and it reduced traffic is proven wrong by the actual findings of the closure... As was the improvement in air quality? It was simply a waste of money that along with the new p&r centres could have actually contributed to a bigger and better solution to our little problem. I'm not sure how many times i will have to say it but to reduce traffic you need to take vehicles off the road.. the only way to do that is to follow other cities and create outskirt train stations. By adding more busses you are adding to the carnage.. For example 3 times this week a bendy p&r bus has jumped the lights heading to blossom street from the station... This is not only dangerous and nearly caused an accident but it also prevented the micklegate traffic from moving. Now that then caused a further back log down micklegate... So are busses really the solution to yorks traffic problem? I doubt it.. They cause mayhem... Should everyone cycle? No... So unless a cheaper and quicker method is available to the public nothing will change.[/p][/quote]Good response. Pand R is too dear at the moment. If car is the most economic form of transport and the best option for the motorist for each journey they know what to do. The refunds is the subject actually, and all getting automatic refunds will draw a line under it now. What will happen if a solicitor who had a PCN finds out in 10 years he could have had a refund; and he has time on his hands! He could crucify the council; but by then you could have new leaders! Cheeky face
  • Score: -16

5:11pm Thu 7 Aug 14

Cheeky face says...

notpedallingpaul wrote:
pedalling paul wrote:
Suburban residents who insist on making short distance, single occupancy car commutes, and parents who choose to live asccross the City from their kids school and ferries them there daily by car, are peventing public transport from operating as efficiently as it should. Time to turn this viscious circle into virtuous one.....by congestion charging if all else fails.
I've got to hand it to you Mr Paul Hepworth, you have a canny nack of high jacking the original thread of an article - i.e. Lendal Bridge challenge dropped - and turning it to your pet ranting about car usage, but that's you to 't', if I lived where you live - Windmill Rise - I would use my car to get into town and I would be on my own to boot, I certainly do not think that any of your rantings are the out pouring of a virtuous person, simply one who thinks the world should be as Mr Paul Hepworth says.
Noted. Schooling and home locality choice is nothing to do with Windmill Rise residents.

Let's stick to the refund policy.
[quote][p][bold]notpedallingpaul[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]pedalling paul [/bold] wrote: Suburban residents who insist on making short distance, single occupancy car commutes, and parents who choose to live asccross the City from their kids school and ferries them there daily by car, are peventing public transport from operating as efficiently as it should. Time to turn this viscious circle into virtuous one.....by congestion charging if all else fails.[/p][/quote]I've got to hand it to you Mr Paul Hepworth, you have a canny nack of high jacking the original thread of an article - i.e. Lendal Bridge challenge dropped - and turning it to your pet ranting about car usage, but that's you to 't', if I lived where you live - Windmill Rise - I would use my car to get into town and I would be on my own to boot, I certainly do not think that any of your rantings are the out pouring of a virtuous person, simply one who thinks the world should be as Mr Paul Hepworth says.[/p][/quote]Noted. Schooling and home locality choice is nothing to do with Windmill Rise residents. Let's stick to the refund policy. Cheeky face
  • Score: -22

6:20pm Thu 7 Aug 14

notpedallingpaul says...

Cheeky face wrote:
notpedallingpaul wrote:
pedalling paul wrote:
Suburban residents who insist on making short distance, single occupancy car commutes, and parents who choose to live asccross the City from their kids school and ferries them there daily by car, are peventing public transport from operating as efficiently as it should. Time to turn this viscious circle into virtuous one.....by congestion charging if all else fails.
I've got to hand it to you Mr Paul Hepworth, you have a canny nack of high jacking the original thread of an article - i.e. Lendal Bridge challenge dropped - and turning it to your pet ranting about car usage, but that's you to 't', if I lived where you live - Windmill Rise - I would use my car to get into town and I would be on my own to boot, I certainly do not think that any of your rantings are the out pouring of a virtuous person, simply one who thinks the world should be as Mr Paul Hepworth says.
Noted. Schooling and home locality choice is nothing to do with Windmill Rise residents.

Let's stick to the refund policy.
Nothing less than a full refund for everyone will suffice, and it should not be a requirement that they have to apply, for their money, it should be refunded automatically, along with a letter of apology from the leaders of this council.
[quote][p][bold]Cheeky face[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]notpedallingpaul[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]pedalling paul [/bold] wrote: Suburban residents who insist on making short distance, single occupancy car commutes, and parents who choose to live asccross the City from their kids school and ferries them there daily by car, are peventing public transport from operating as efficiently as it should. Time to turn this viscious circle into virtuous one.....by congestion charging if all else fails.[/p][/quote]I've got to hand it to you Mr Paul Hepworth, you have a canny nack of high jacking the original thread of an article - i.e. Lendal Bridge challenge dropped - and turning it to your pet ranting about car usage, but that's you to 't', if I lived where you live - Windmill Rise - I would use my car to get into town and I would be on my own to boot, I certainly do not think that any of your rantings are the out pouring of a virtuous person, simply one who thinks the world should be as Mr Paul Hepworth says.[/p][/quote]Noted. Schooling and home locality choice is nothing to do with Windmill Rise residents. Let's stick to the refund policy.[/p][/quote]Nothing less than a full refund for everyone will suffice, and it should not be a requirement that they have to apply, for their money, it should be refunded automatically, along with a letter of apology from the leaders of this council. notpedallingpaul
  • Score: -15

6:59pm Thu 7 Aug 14

bjb says...

I reckon between now and the 2015 national and local elections, the Press should require all current councillors and candidates should have to post comments under their own names. That should seriously reduce the number of commenters and see if they have the guts to post the drivel that appears on this service on a daily basis. I would guess they would probably cheat that system just as they do the current one.
I reckon between now and the 2015 national and local elections, the Press should require all current councillors and candidates should have to post comments under their own names. That should seriously reduce the number of commenters and see if they have the guts to post the drivel that appears on this service on a daily basis. I would guess they would probably cheat that system just as they do the current one. bjb
  • Score: -13

8:16pm Thu 7 Aug 14

JasBro says...

pedalling paul wrote:
Children....children

........tch....tch..

.! Let us recall that closure to private cars of one of York's three central bridges, was a plank of York's current Local Transport Plan 3 (2011-2031), which was prepared by Officers in accordance with Whitehall guidance, and signed off in 2010 by the then ruling LibDems.
Somewhere along the way,the initial recommendation of Ouse Bridge changed to Lendal Bridge. I'm not sure why, and perhaps someone can tell us.
What is certain, is that without the radical measures already taken under the two previous LTP's, when Dave Merrett was in the driving seat as Council Leader, York would already be experiencing gridlock. It's due to his previous leadership on this issue that we have managed to stablise peak car use in recent years. But the gridlock threat has only receded for some years. It's not gone away and is re-emerging with York's ongoing economic development.
We don't have elastic roads, and bleating by some politicians that "traffic must flow" presumably regardless of how much there may be, will not change the long term threat one iota. I'm reminded of the scene in "Time Bandits" where a couple are bickering, completely oblivious to the fact that a giant has loomed over the horizon and is about to trample them out of existence.
Fillibustering tactics like calling decision in for scrutiny, is as bad as gerrymandering a Cabinet agenda so that fracking gets the lions share of discussion time. Councillors of all parties need to realise that the transport timebomb under York continues to tick. Time to get behind the suggested Congestion commission. Make it happen and stick with its outcomes. These will very likely reflect the strategy of LTP3 which seeks to futher reduce private car dependancy.
A mix of travel alternatives include bus, car sharing, walking, cycling, train, city centre short term car hire. Many suburban residents are car owners but prefer to get the bike out of the garage for a daily commute. Residents of some outlying villages eg Poppleton, now have the option of cycling to a Park & Ride, and taking the bus. Or of driving to the P&R and cycling or bussing in. On-road priority measures for the most efficient users of road space, will underpin this.
Antri-car? No, it's designed to help those who need to use a motor vehicle rather than those who simply want to.
The statistics prove that you are wrong.

Mr Merrett only succeeded in creating more congestion and more pollution, which I'm sure most would agree is not a good thing.

As for the reason behind changing the closure from Ouse Bridge, which might have made more sense, to Lendal Bridge, which made no sense at all, as it is part of the ring road, there were two main reasons that I know of.

First, there was the idea of creating a less traffic intensive entrance into the city from the railway station, particularly for tourists. This was flawed partly because a railway station is by it's nature a transport hub, and also because a pedestrian/cycle bridge across to Museum Gardens would have been a much better solution.

Secondly, there was the idea of developing the area under the Queen Street bridge, though this was always seen by many as being overly ambitious and expensive, and has now been dropped.

When the idea of closing a city centre bridge was being considered, it is obvious from some of the documents I've seen that there were some significant political efforts to over emphasise the benefits of closing Lendal Bridge, and down play the disadvantages. In my opinion the facts and figures were manipulated, to put it bluntly the councillors and even the council officers lied.

I pointed out the inconsistencies in the "evidence" to all parties concerned, but of course they already knew it, and were only interested in covering it up.

Unfortunately, this whole fiasco has set back progressive transport policies by decades, it's also set back York's reputation, the credibility of the Local Transport Plan & Low Emission Strategy, the Labour party, and particularly Mr Merrett.

It's all a bit sad, but in many ways very predictable. The lack of honesty, transparency and consultation were major failings.

Obviously the fines should all be repaid, with good grace and an apology to those concerned. The fines were illegally charged, so morally speaking what other choice is there?
[quote][p][bold]pedalling paul [/bold] wrote: Children....children ........tch....tch.. .! Let us recall that closure to private cars of one of York's three central bridges, was a plank of York's current Local Transport Plan 3 (2011-2031), which was prepared by Officers in accordance with Whitehall guidance, and signed off in 2010 by the then ruling LibDems. Somewhere along the way,the initial recommendation of Ouse Bridge changed to Lendal Bridge. I'm not sure why, and perhaps someone can tell us. What is certain, is that without the radical measures already taken under the two previous LTP's, when Dave Merrett was in the driving seat as Council Leader, York would already be experiencing gridlock. It's due to his previous leadership on this issue that we have managed to stablise peak car use in recent years. But the gridlock threat has only receded for some years. It's not gone away and is re-emerging with York's ongoing economic development. We don't have elastic roads, and bleating by some politicians that "traffic must flow" presumably regardless of how much there may be, will not change the long term threat one iota. I'm reminded of the scene in "Time Bandits" where a couple are bickering, completely oblivious to the fact that a giant has loomed over the horizon and is about to trample them out of existence. Fillibustering tactics like calling decision in for scrutiny, is as bad as gerrymandering a Cabinet agenda so that fracking gets the lions share of discussion time. Councillors of all parties need to realise that the transport timebomb under York continues to tick. Time to get behind the suggested Congestion commission. Make it happen and stick with its outcomes. These will very likely reflect the strategy of LTP3 which seeks to futher reduce private car dependancy. A mix of travel alternatives include bus, car sharing, walking, cycling, train, city centre short term car hire. Many suburban residents are car owners but prefer to get the bike out of the garage for a daily commute. Residents of some outlying villages eg Poppleton, now have the option of cycling to a Park & Ride, and taking the bus. Or of driving to the P&R and cycling or bussing in. On-road priority measures for the most efficient users of road space, will underpin this. Antri-car? No, it's designed to help those who need to use a motor vehicle rather than those who simply want to.[/p][/quote]The statistics prove that you are wrong. Mr Merrett only succeeded in creating more congestion and more pollution, which I'm sure most would agree is not a good thing. As for the reason behind changing the closure from Ouse Bridge, which might have made more sense, to Lendal Bridge, which made no sense at all, as it is part of the ring road, there were two main reasons that I know of. First, there was the idea of creating a less traffic intensive entrance into the city from the railway station, particularly for tourists. This was flawed partly because a railway station is by it's nature a transport hub, and also because a pedestrian/cycle bridge across to Museum Gardens would have been a much better solution. Secondly, there was the idea of developing the area under the Queen Street bridge, though this was always seen by many as being overly ambitious and expensive, and has now been dropped. When the idea of closing a city centre bridge was being considered, it is obvious from some of the documents I've seen that there were some significant political efforts to over emphasise the benefits of closing Lendal Bridge, and down play the disadvantages. In my opinion the facts and figures were manipulated, to put it bluntly the councillors and even the council officers lied. I pointed out the inconsistencies in the "evidence" to all parties concerned, but of course they already knew it, and were only interested in covering it up. Unfortunately, this whole fiasco has set back progressive transport policies by decades, it's also set back York's reputation, the credibility of the Local Transport Plan & Low Emission Strategy, the Labour party, and particularly Mr Merrett. It's all a bit sad, but in many ways very predictable. The lack of honesty, transparency and consultation were major failings. Obviously the fines should all be repaid, with good grace and an apology to those concerned. The fines were illegally charged, so morally speaking what other choice is there? JasBro
  • Score: -10

9:17pm Thu 7 Aug 14

notpedallingpaul says...

bjb wrote:
I reckon between now and the 2015 national and local elections, the Press should require all current councillors and candidates should have to post comments under their own names. That should seriously reduce the number of commenters and see if they have the guts to post the drivel that appears on this service on a daily basis. I would guess they would probably cheat that system just as they do the current one.
A good example is Paul Hepworth posing as pedallingpaul.
[quote][p][bold]bjb[/bold] wrote: I reckon between now and the 2015 national and local elections, the Press should require all current councillors and candidates should have to post comments under their own names. That should seriously reduce the number of commenters and see if they have the guts to post the drivel that appears on this service on a daily basis. I would guess they would probably cheat that system just as they do the current one.[/p][/quote]A good example is Paul Hepworth posing as pedallingpaul. notpedallingpaul
  • Score: -13

9:20pm Thu 7 Aug 14

Littleladykatie says...

BethFoxhunter96 wrote:
Peddling Paul, you seem to give very reasonable and comprehensive answers and don't give in the bickering and name-calling like the blob og Daily Mail lovers here.

However I would like to ask you where you think personal freedoms comes into the equation. I think I am far more anti-car than you are, but I do think people need to have a right and responsibility to choose their mode of transport. Where in your opinion do rights to choose fit with the needs of the city to limit car use, limit pollution etc? This question is thrown out to everyone - where does one set of rights start and the next begin? In terms of closing the bridge (which was a great idea in my opinion, made city centre so much nicer to be) that's the crux of the debate. What can and should the Council do vs what can motorists expect to be able to do?
I refer to the "...and don't give in to bickering and name-calling like the blob og Daily Mail lovers here" comment. A little bit narrow minded and ignorant to label and to stereotype people like that, wouldn't you say? Not to mention offensive. What does that kind of comment say about you?
[quote][p][bold]BethFoxhunter96[/bold] wrote: Peddling Paul, you seem to give very reasonable and comprehensive answers and don't give in the bickering and name-calling like the blob og Daily Mail lovers here. However I would like to ask you where you think personal freedoms comes into the equation. I think I am far more anti-car than you are, but I do think people need to have a right and responsibility to choose their mode of transport. Where in your opinion do rights to choose fit with the needs of the city to limit car use, limit pollution etc? This question is thrown out to everyone - where does one set of rights start and the next begin? In terms of closing the bridge (which was a great idea in my opinion, made city centre so much nicer to be) that's the crux of the debate. What can and should the Council do vs what can motorists expect to be able to do?[/p][/quote]I refer to the "...and don't give in to bickering and name-calling like the blob og Daily Mail lovers here" comment. A little bit narrow minded and ignorant to label and to stereotype people like that, wouldn't you say? Not to mention offensive. What does that kind of comment say about you? Littleladykatie
  • Score: -14

10:16pm Thu 7 Aug 14

jay, york says...

pedalling paul wrote:
Children....children ........tch....tch.. .! Let us recall that closure to private cars of one of York's three central bridges, was a plank of York's current Local Transport Plan 3 (2011-2031), which was prepared by Officers in accordance with Whitehall guidance, and signed off in 2010 by the then ruling LibDems. Somewhere along the way,the initial recommendation of Ouse Bridge changed to Lendal Bridge. I'm not sure why, and perhaps someone can tell us. What is certain, is that without the radical measures already taken under the two previous LTP's, when Dave Merrett was in the driving seat as Council Leader, York would already be experiencing gridlock. It's due to his previous leadership on this issue that we have managed to stablise peak car use in recent years. But the gridlock threat has only receded for some years. It's not gone away and is re-emerging with York's ongoing economic development. We don't have elastic roads, and bleating by some politicians that "traffic must flow" presumably regardless of how much there may be, will not change the long term threat one iota. I'm reminded of the scene in "Time Bandits" where a couple are bickering, completely oblivious to the fact that a giant has loomed over the horizon and is about to trample them out of existence. Fillibustering tactics like calling decision in for scrutiny, is as bad as gerrymandering a Cabinet agenda so that fracking gets the lions share of discussion time. Councillors of all parties need to realise that the transport timebomb under York continues to tick. Time to get behind the suggested Congestion commission. Make it happen and stick with its outcomes. These will very likely reflect the strategy of LTP3 which seeks to futher reduce private car dependancy. A mix of travel alternatives include bus, car sharing, walking, cycling, train, city centre short term car hire. Many suburban residents are car owners but prefer to get the bike out of the garage for a daily commute. Residents of some outlying villages eg Poppleton, now have the option of cycling to a Park & Ride, and taking the bus. Or of driving to the P&R and cycling or bussing in. On-road priority measures for the most efficient users of road space, will underpin this. Antri-car? No, it's designed to help those who need to use a motor vehicle rather than those who simply want to.
you are pathetic
[quote][p][bold]pedalling paul [/bold] wrote: Children....children ........tch....tch.. .! Let us recall that closure to private cars of one of York's three central bridges, was a plank of York's current Local Transport Plan 3 (2011-2031), which was prepared by Officers in accordance with Whitehall guidance, and signed off in 2010 by the then ruling LibDems. Somewhere along the way,the initial recommendation of Ouse Bridge changed to Lendal Bridge. I'm not sure why, and perhaps someone can tell us. What is certain, is that without the radical measures already taken under the two previous LTP's, when Dave Merrett was in the driving seat as Council Leader, York would already be experiencing gridlock. It's due to his previous leadership on this issue that we have managed to stablise peak car use in recent years. But the gridlock threat has only receded for some years. It's not gone away and is re-emerging with York's ongoing economic development. We don't have elastic roads, and bleating by some politicians that "traffic must flow" presumably regardless of how much there may be, will not change the long term threat one iota. I'm reminded of the scene in "Time Bandits" where a couple are bickering, completely oblivious to the fact that a giant has loomed over the horizon and is about to trample them out of existence. Fillibustering tactics like calling decision in for scrutiny, is as bad as gerrymandering a Cabinet agenda so that fracking gets the lions share of discussion time. Councillors of all parties need to realise that the transport timebomb under York continues to tick. Time to get behind the suggested Congestion commission. Make it happen and stick with its outcomes. These will very likely reflect the strategy of LTP3 which seeks to futher reduce private car dependancy. A mix of travel alternatives include bus, car sharing, walking, cycling, train, city centre short term car hire. Many suburban residents are car owners but prefer to get the bike out of the garage for a daily commute. Residents of some outlying villages eg Poppleton, now have the option of cycling to a Park & Ride, and taking the bus. Or of driving to the P&R and cycling or bussing in. On-road priority measures for the most efficient users of road space, will underpin this. Antri-car? No, it's designed to help those who need to use a motor vehicle rather than those who simply want to.[/p][/quote]you are pathetic jay, york
  • Score: -17

10:20pm Thu 7 Aug 14

jay, york says...

JasBro wrote:
pedalling paul wrote: Children....children ........tch....tch.. .! Let us recall that closure to private cars of one of York's three central bridges, was a plank of York's current Local Transport Plan 3 (2011-2031), which was prepared by Officers in accordance with Whitehall guidance, and signed off in 2010 by the then ruling LibDems. Somewhere along the way,the initial recommendation of Ouse Bridge changed to Lendal Bridge. I'm not sure why, and perhaps someone can tell us. What is certain, is that without the radical measures already taken under the two previous LTP's, when Dave Merrett was in the driving seat as Council Leader, York would already be experiencing gridlock. It's due to his previous leadership on this issue that we have managed to stablise peak car use in recent years. But the gridlock threat has only receded for some years. It's not gone away and is re-emerging with York's ongoing economic development. We don't have elastic roads, and bleating by some politicians that "traffic must flow" presumably regardless of how much there may be, will not change the long term threat one iota. I'm reminded of the scene in "Time Bandits" where a couple are bickering, completely oblivious to the fact that a giant has loomed over the horizon and is about to trample them out of existence. Fillibustering tactics like calling decision in for scrutiny, is as bad as gerrymandering a Cabinet agenda so that fracking gets the lions share of discussion time. Councillors of all parties need to realise that the transport timebomb under York continues to tick. Time to get behind the suggested Congestion commission. Make it happen and stick with its outcomes. These will very likely reflect the strategy of LTP3 which seeks to futher reduce private car dependancy. A mix of travel alternatives include bus, car sharing, walking, cycling, train, city centre short term car hire. Many suburban residents are car owners but prefer to get the bike out of the garage for a daily commute. Residents of some outlying villages eg Poppleton, now have the option of cycling to a Park & Ride, and taking the bus. Or of driving to the P&R and cycling or bussing in. On-road priority measures for the most efficient users of road space, will underpin this. Antri-car? No, it's designed to help those who need to use a motor vehicle rather than those who simply want to.
The statistics prove that you are wrong. Mr Merrett only succeeded in creating more congestion and more pollution, which I'm sure most would agree is not a good thing. As for the reason behind changing the closure from Ouse Bridge, which might have made more sense, to Lendal Bridge, which made no sense at all, as it is part of the ring road, there were two main reasons that I know of. First, there was the idea of creating a less traffic intensive entrance into the city from the railway station, particularly for tourists. This was flawed partly because a railway station is by it's nature a transport hub, and also because a pedestrian/cycle bridge across to Museum Gardens would have been a much better solution. Secondly, there was the idea of developing the area under the Queen Street bridge, though this was always seen by many as being overly ambitious and expensive, and has now been dropped. When the idea of closing a city centre bridge was being considered, it is obvious from some of the documents I've seen that there were some significant political efforts to over emphasise the benefits of closing Lendal Bridge, and down play the disadvantages. In my opinion the facts and figures were manipulated, to put it bluntly the councillors and even the council officers lied. I pointed out the inconsistencies in the "evidence" to all parties concerned, but of course they already knew it, and were only interested in covering it up. Unfortunately, this whole fiasco has set back progressive transport policies by decades, it's also set back York's reputation, the credibility of the Local Transport Plan & Low Emission Strategy, the Labour party, and particularly Mr Merrett. It's all a bit sad, but in many ways very predictable. The lack of honesty, transparency and consultation were major failings. Obviously the fines should all be repaid, with good grace and an apology to those concerned. The fines were illegally charged, so morally speaking what other choice is there?
very very well said
[quote][p][bold]JasBro[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]pedalling paul [/bold] wrote: Children....children ........tch....tch.. .! Let us recall that closure to private cars of one of York's three central bridges, was a plank of York's current Local Transport Plan 3 (2011-2031), which was prepared by Officers in accordance with Whitehall guidance, and signed off in 2010 by the then ruling LibDems. Somewhere along the way,the initial recommendation of Ouse Bridge changed to Lendal Bridge. I'm not sure why, and perhaps someone can tell us. What is certain, is that without the radical measures already taken under the two previous LTP's, when Dave Merrett was in the driving seat as Council Leader, York would already be experiencing gridlock. It's due to his previous leadership on this issue that we have managed to stablise peak car use in recent years. But the gridlock threat has only receded for some years. It's not gone away and is re-emerging with York's ongoing economic development. We don't have elastic roads, and bleating by some politicians that "traffic must flow" presumably regardless of how much there may be, will not change the long term threat one iota. I'm reminded of the scene in "Time Bandits" where a couple are bickering, completely oblivious to the fact that a giant has loomed over the horizon and is about to trample them out of existence. Fillibustering tactics like calling decision in for scrutiny, is as bad as gerrymandering a Cabinet agenda so that fracking gets the lions share of discussion time. Councillors of all parties need to realise that the transport timebomb under York continues to tick. Time to get behind the suggested Congestion commission. Make it happen and stick with its outcomes. These will very likely reflect the strategy of LTP3 which seeks to futher reduce private car dependancy. A mix of travel alternatives include bus, car sharing, walking, cycling, train, city centre short term car hire. Many suburban residents are car owners but prefer to get the bike out of the garage for a daily commute. Residents of some outlying villages eg Poppleton, now have the option of cycling to a Park & Ride, and taking the bus. Or of driving to the P&R and cycling or bussing in. On-road priority measures for the most efficient users of road space, will underpin this. Antri-car? No, it's designed to help those who need to use a motor vehicle rather than those who simply want to.[/p][/quote]The statistics prove that you are wrong. Mr Merrett only succeeded in creating more congestion and more pollution, which I'm sure most would agree is not a good thing. As for the reason behind changing the closure from Ouse Bridge, which might have made more sense, to Lendal Bridge, which made no sense at all, as it is part of the ring road, there were two main reasons that I know of. First, there was the idea of creating a less traffic intensive entrance into the city from the railway station, particularly for tourists. This was flawed partly because a railway station is by it's nature a transport hub, and also because a pedestrian/cycle bridge across to Museum Gardens would have been a much better solution. Secondly, there was the idea of developing the area under the Queen Street bridge, though this was always seen by many as being overly ambitious and expensive, and has now been dropped. When the idea of closing a city centre bridge was being considered, it is obvious from some of the documents I've seen that there were some significant political efforts to over emphasise the benefits of closing Lendal Bridge, and down play the disadvantages. In my opinion the facts and figures were manipulated, to put it bluntly the councillors and even the council officers lied. I pointed out the inconsistencies in the "evidence" to all parties concerned, but of course they already knew it, and were only interested in covering it up. Unfortunately, this whole fiasco has set back progressive transport policies by decades, it's also set back York's reputation, the credibility of the Local Transport Plan & Low Emission Strategy, the Labour party, and particularly Mr Merrett. It's all a bit sad, but in many ways very predictable. The lack of honesty, transparency and consultation were major failings. Obviously the fines should all be repaid, with good grace and an apology to those concerned. The fines were illegally charged, so morally speaking what other choice is there?[/p][/quote]very very well said jay, york
  • Score: -14

10:26am Fri 8 Aug 14

wildthing666 says...

The other two party's are calling for it to go in front of another committee, just how corrupt are they, all those fined should be asking for interest on their fines as well, maybe the WONGA interest rate.
In the end if they get demands for the fines plus interest they will only pay the fines back it would take court action to get the interest
The other two party's are calling for it to go in front of another committee, just how corrupt are they, all those fined should be asking for interest on their fines as well, maybe the WONGA interest rate. In the end if they get demands for the fines plus interest they will only pay the fines back it would take court action to get the interest wildthing666
  • Score: -14

1:36pm Fri 8 Aug 14

archieboldthe2nd says...

pedalling paul wrote:
Suburban residents who insist on making short distance, single occupancy car commutes, and parents who choose to live asccross the City from their kids school and ferries them there daily by car, are peventing public transport from operating as efficiently as it should. Time to turn this viscious circle into virtuous one.....by congestion charging if all else fails.
Yes paul... the busses are sh@t and expensive all because people have kids... Most busses i see are single occupancey? taxis are too? as for choosing a school nowadays Paul you are placed where there is space...

Paul we are all already charged for driving around York.. speed cameras in sneaky areas offering no benefit to safety (slamming the breaks on isnt safe btw), the school safety car that is no where near schools... so yes Paul lets add a congestion charge and make the fat cat council even richer to waste money while normal people suffer for simply using the most efficient method of travelling for a journey!!! That way they can also ruin the entire city centre trade and we can all use monks x and the designer outlet..

Paul you are so stupid sometimes it even surprises me... If you were born 100 years earlier and in Germany the 2nd world war would have been about forcing everyone to use a bike and those who didn’t would be killed... you are that single minded. So why dont you, beth, york2000 and all the other labour councillors on here stop taking everyone for idiots and clear off this site so we can all actually have a decent debate rather then it turning into how good labour are and how nice bike seats smell...
[quote][p][bold]pedalling paul [/bold] wrote: Suburban residents who insist on making short distance, single occupancy car commutes, and parents who choose to live asccross the City from their kids school and ferries them there daily by car, are peventing public transport from operating as efficiently as it should. Time to turn this viscious circle into virtuous one.....by congestion charging if all else fails.[/p][/quote]Yes paul... the busses are sh@t and expensive all because people have kids... Most busses i see are single occupancey? taxis are too? as for choosing a school nowadays Paul you are placed where there is space... Paul we are all already charged for driving around York.. speed cameras in sneaky areas offering no benefit to safety (slamming the breaks on isnt safe btw), the school safety car that is no where near schools... so yes Paul lets add a congestion charge and make the fat cat council even richer to waste money while normal people suffer for simply using the most efficient method of travelling for a journey!!! That way they can also ruin the entire city centre trade and we can all use monks x and the designer outlet.. Paul you are so stupid sometimes it even surprises me... If you were born 100 years earlier and in Germany the 2nd world war would have been about forcing everyone to use a bike and those who didn’t would be killed... you are that single minded. So why dont you, beth, york2000 and all the other labour councillors on here stop taking everyone for idiots and clear off this site so we can all actually have a decent debate rather then it turning into how good labour are and how nice bike seats smell... archieboldthe2nd
  • Score: -13

2:57pm Fri 8 Aug 14

Cheeky face says...

notpedallingpaul wrote:
Cheeky face wrote:
notpedallingpaul wrote:
pedalling paul wrote:
Suburban residents who insist on making short distance, single occupancy car commutes, and parents who choose to live asccross the City from their kids school and ferries them there daily by car, are peventing public transport from operating as efficiently as it should. Time to turn this viscious circle into virtuous one.....by congestion charging if all else fails.
I've got to hand it to you Mr Paul Hepworth, you have a canny nack of high jacking the original thread of an article - i.e. Lendal Bridge challenge dropped - and turning it to your pet ranting about car usage, but that's you to 't', if I lived where you live - Windmill Rise - I would use my car to get into town and I would be on my own to boot, I certainly do not think that any of your rantings are the out pouring of a virtuous person, simply one who thinks the world should be as Mr Paul Hepworth says.
Noted. Schooling and home locality choice is nothing to do with Windmill Rise residents.

Let's stick to the refund policy.
Nothing less than a full refund for everyone will suffice, and it should not be a requirement that they have to apply, for their money, it should be refunded automatically, along with a letter of apology from the leaders of this council.
Exactly.

I have advised James Alexander the same thing. He is still arrogant; and presumably the only boy scout in step. I am planning to contact Kersten England next week on this and the Coppergate prohibited motorists scheme, which is still wrong--- after 50 odd years!
[quote][p][bold]notpedallingpaul[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Cheeky face[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]notpedallingpaul[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]pedalling paul [/bold] wrote: Suburban residents who insist on making short distance, single occupancy car commutes, and parents who choose to live asccross the City from their kids school and ferries them there daily by car, are peventing public transport from operating as efficiently as it should. Time to turn this viscious circle into virtuous one.....by congestion charging if all else fails.[/p][/quote]I've got to hand it to you Mr Paul Hepworth, you have a canny nack of high jacking the original thread of an article - i.e. Lendal Bridge challenge dropped - and turning it to your pet ranting about car usage, but that's you to 't', if I lived where you live - Windmill Rise - I would use my car to get into town and I would be on my own to boot, I certainly do not think that any of your rantings are the out pouring of a virtuous person, simply one who thinks the world should be as Mr Paul Hepworth says.[/p][/quote]Noted. Schooling and home locality choice is nothing to do with Windmill Rise residents. Let's stick to the refund policy.[/p][/quote]Nothing less than a full refund for everyone will suffice, and it should not be a requirement that they have to apply, for their money, it should be refunded automatically, along with a letter of apology from the leaders of this council.[/p][/quote]Exactly. I have advised James Alexander the same thing. He is still arrogant; and presumably the only boy scout in step. I am planning to contact Kersten England next week on this and the Coppergate prohibited motorists scheme, which is still wrong--- after 50 odd years! Cheeky face
  • Score: -15

3:05pm Fri 8 Aug 14

Cheeky face says...

jay, york wrote:
JasBro wrote:
pedalling paul wrote: Children....children ........tch....tch.. .! Let us recall that closure to private cars of one of York's three central bridges, was a plank of York's current Local Transport Plan 3 (2011-2031), which was prepared by Officers in accordance with Whitehall guidance, and signed off in 2010 by the then ruling LibDems. Somewhere along the way,the initial recommendation of Ouse Bridge changed to Lendal Bridge. I'm not sure why, and perhaps someone can tell us. What is certain, is that without the radical measures already taken under the two previous LTP's, when Dave Merrett was in the driving seat as Council Leader, York would already be experiencing gridlock. It's due to his previous leadership on this issue that we have managed to stablise peak car use in recent years. But the gridlock threat has only receded for some years. It's not gone away and is re-emerging with York's ongoing economic development. We don't have elastic roads, and bleating by some politicians that "traffic must flow" presumably regardless of how much there may be, will not change the long term threat one iota. I'm reminded of the scene in "Time Bandits" where a couple are bickering, completely oblivious to the fact that a giant has loomed over the horizon and is about to trample them out of existence. Fillibustering tactics like calling decision in for scrutiny, is as bad as gerrymandering a Cabinet agenda so that fracking gets the lions share of discussion time. Councillors of all parties need to realise that the transport timebomb under York continues to tick. Time to get behind the suggested Congestion commission. Make it happen and stick with its outcomes. These will very likely reflect the strategy of LTP3 which seeks to futher reduce private car dependancy. A mix of travel alternatives include bus, car sharing, walking, cycling, train, city centre short term car hire. Many suburban residents are car owners but prefer to get the bike out of the garage for a daily commute. Residents of some outlying villages eg Poppleton, now have the option of cycling to a Park & Ride, and taking the bus. Or of driving to the P&R and cycling or bussing in. On-road priority measures for the most efficient users of road space, will underpin this. Antri-car? No, it's designed to help those who need to use a motor vehicle rather than those who simply want to.
The statistics prove that you are wrong. Mr Merrett only succeeded in creating more congestion and more pollution, which I'm sure most would agree is not a good thing. As for the reason behind changing the closure from Ouse Bridge, which might have made more sense, to Lendal Bridge, which made no sense at all, as it is part of the ring road, there were two main reasons that I know of. First, there was the idea of creating a less traffic intensive entrance into the city from the railway station, particularly for tourists. This was flawed partly because a railway station is by it's nature a transport hub, and also because a pedestrian/cycle bridge across to Museum Gardens would have been a much better solution. Secondly, there was the idea of developing the area under the Queen Street bridge, though this was always seen by many as being overly ambitious and expensive, and has now been dropped. When the idea of closing a city centre bridge was being considered, it is obvious from some of the documents I've seen that there were some significant political efforts to over emphasise the benefits of closing Lendal Bridge, and down play the disadvantages. In my opinion the facts and figures were manipulated, to put it bluntly the councillors and even the council officers lied. I pointed out the inconsistencies in the "evidence" to all parties concerned, but of course they already knew it, and were only interested in covering it up. Unfortunately, this whole fiasco has set back progressive transport policies by decades, it's also set back York's reputation, the credibility of the Local Transport Plan & Low Emission Strategy, the Labour party, and particularly Mr Merrett. It's all a bit sad, but in many ways very predictable. The lack of honesty, transparency and consultation were major failings. Obviously the fines should all be repaid, with good grace and an apology to those concerned. The fines were illegally charged, so morally speaking what other choice is there?
very very well said
Well said Jay. Only 4 four letter words from you; are you getting fed up?

The sale of the old council offices did create a strong rumour that the Bridge Closure would be arranged to allow quieter access to the site if a hotel chain was interested. I heard that at the Scarborough Cricket Festival last year.
[quote][p][bold]jay, york[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]JasBro[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]pedalling paul [/bold] wrote: Children....children ........tch....tch.. .! Let us recall that closure to private cars of one of York's three central bridges, was a plank of York's current Local Transport Plan 3 (2011-2031), which was prepared by Officers in accordance with Whitehall guidance, and signed off in 2010 by the then ruling LibDems. Somewhere along the way,the initial recommendation of Ouse Bridge changed to Lendal Bridge. I'm not sure why, and perhaps someone can tell us. What is certain, is that without the radical measures already taken under the two previous LTP's, when Dave Merrett was in the driving seat as Council Leader, York would already be experiencing gridlock. It's due to his previous leadership on this issue that we have managed to stablise peak car use in recent years. But the gridlock threat has only receded for some years. It's not gone away and is re-emerging with York's ongoing economic development. We don't have elastic roads, and bleating by some politicians that "traffic must flow" presumably regardless of how much there may be, will not change the long term threat one iota. I'm reminded of the scene in "Time Bandits" where a couple are bickering, completely oblivious to the fact that a giant has loomed over the horizon and is about to trample them out of existence. Fillibustering tactics like calling decision in for scrutiny, is as bad as gerrymandering a Cabinet agenda so that fracking gets the lions share of discussion time. Councillors of all parties need to realise that the transport timebomb under York continues to tick. Time to get behind the suggested Congestion commission. Make it happen and stick with its outcomes. These will very likely reflect the strategy of LTP3 which seeks to futher reduce private car dependancy. A mix of travel alternatives include bus, car sharing, walking, cycling, train, city centre short term car hire. Many suburban residents are car owners but prefer to get the bike out of the garage for a daily commute. Residents of some outlying villages eg Poppleton, now have the option of cycling to a Park & Ride, and taking the bus. Or of driving to the P&R and cycling or bussing in. On-road priority measures for the most efficient users of road space, will underpin this. Antri-car? No, it's designed to help those who need to use a motor vehicle rather than those who simply want to.[/p][/quote]The statistics prove that you are wrong. Mr Merrett only succeeded in creating more congestion and more pollution, which I'm sure most would agree is not a good thing. As for the reason behind changing the closure from Ouse Bridge, which might have made more sense, to Lendal Bridge, which made no sense at all, as it is part of the ring road, there were two main reasons that I know of. First, there was the idea of creating a less traffic intensive entrance into the city from the railway station, particularly for tourists. This was flawed partly because a railway station is by it's nature a transport hub, and also because a pedestrian/cycle bridge across to Museum Gardens would have been a much better solution. Secondly, there was the idea of developing the area under the Queen Street bridge, though this was always seen by many as being overly ambitious and expensive, and has now been dropped. When the idea of closing a city centre bridge was being considered, it is obvious from some of the documents I've seen that there were some significant political efforts to over emphasise the benefits of closing Lendal Bridge, and down play the disadvantages. In my opinion the facts and figures were manipulated, to put it bluntly the councillors and even the council officers lied. I pointed out the inconsistencies in the "evidence" to all parties concerned, but of course they already knew it, and were only interested in covering it up. Unfortunately, this whole fiasco has set back progressive transport policies by decades, it's also set back York's reputation, the credibility of the Local Transport Plan & Low Emission Strategy, the Labour party, and particularly Mr Merrett. It's all a bit sad, but in many ways very predictable. The lack of honesty, transparency and consultation were major failings. Obviously the fines should all be repaid, with good grace and an apology to those concerned. The fines were illegally charged, so morally speaking what other choice is there?[/p][/quote]very very well said[/p][/quote]Well said Jay. Only 4 four letter words from you; are you getting fed up? The sale of the old council offices did create a strong rumour that the Bridge Closure would be arranged to allow quieter access to the site if a hotel chain was interested. I heard that at the Scarborough Cricket Festival last year. Cheeky face
  • Score: -15

7:49pm Fri 8 Aug 14

BethFoxhunter96 says...

Obviously the fines should all be repaid, with good grace and an apology to those concerned. The fines were illegally charged, so morally speaking what other choice is there?


Agreed. No matter what everyone's views are on the policy issues, the implementation was awful and there is a great deal of pain caused for people. The sooner everyone is refunded the better, so the debate can return to cutting car use and improving (as everyone agrees) public transport to be the most economical form of transport. At the end of the day, I think people accept mistakes (albeit with a bloody nose at elections) but don't accept theft or unacceptance of mistakes.
[quote]Obviously the fines should all be repaid, with good grace and an apology to those concerned. The fines were illegally charged, so morally speaking what other choice is there?[/quote] Agreed. No matter what everyone's views are on the policy issues, the implementation was awful and there is a great deal of pain caused for people. The sooner everyone is refunded the better, so the debate can return to cutting car use and improving (as everyone agrees) public transport to be the most economical form of transport. At the end of the day, I think people accept mistakes (albeit with a bloody nose at elections) but don't accept theft or unacceptance of mistakes. BethFoxhunter96
  • Score: 4

7:53pm Fri 8 Aug 14

BethFoxhunter96 says...

Paul we are all already charged for driving around York.. speed cameras in sneaky areas offering no benefit to safety (slamming the breaks on isnt safe btw), the school safety car that is no where near schools... so yes Paul lets add a congestion charge and make the fat cat council even richer to waste money while normal people suffer for simply using the most efficient method of travelling for a journey!


Fines for law breaking can't be equated to payment for congestion charging.

I would agree with a congestion charge. There is a good park and ride. One that would be much, much better if there were fewer cars in the city centre. It works very well in London and the same arguments were made over and over.

For that to happen the P&R will have to be of the same standard as the underground of course... that will take lots of funding... ergo.. the congestion charge. Catch 22 or a perfect plan?
[quote]Paul we are all already charged for driving around York.. speed cameras in sneaky areas offering no benefit to safety (slamming the breaks on isnt safe btw), the school safety car that is no where near schools... so yes Paul lets add a congestion charge and make the fat cat council even richer to waste money while normal people suffer for simply using the most efficient method of travelling for a journey![/quote] Fines for law breaking can't be equated to payment for congestion charging. I would agree with a congestion charge. There is a good park and ride. One that would be much, much better if there were fewer cars in the city centre. It works very well in London and the same arguments were made over and over. For that to happen the P&R will have to be of the same standard as the underground of course... that will take lots of funding... ergo.. the congestion charge. Catch 22 or a perfect plan? BethFoxhunter96
  • Score: 12

8:09pm Fri 8 Aug 14

BethFoxhunter96 says...

So why dont you, beth, york2000 and all the other labour councillors on here stop taking everyone for idiots and clear off this site so we can all actually have a decent debate rather then it turning into how good labour are and how nice bike seats smell...


I only just spotted this. Are you suggesting I'm a labour councillor? lol... no, but thank you. AFAIK I'm illegible to stand until 31st August, and I wouldn't vote for labour anyway. Neo-liberal economics aren't my thing. But thanks, I guess... and apologies to any councillors labour or otherwise who got confused with me! Awks!!!

I'm not actually a member of any party, member of three youth parties though!
[quote]So why dont you, beth, york2000 and all the other labour councillors on here stop taking everyone for idiots and clear off this site so we can all actually have a decent debate rather then it turning into how good labour are and how nice bike seats smell...[/quote] I only just spotted this. Are you suggesting I'm a labour councillor? lol... no, but thank you. AFAIK I'm illegible to stand until 31st August, and I wouldn't vote for labour anyway. Neo-liberal economics aren't my thing. But thanks, I guess... and apologies to any councillors labour or otherwise who got confused with me! Awks!!! I'm not actually a member of any party, member of three youth parties though! BethFoxhunter96
  • Score: 18

8:32pm Fri 8 Aug 14

JasBro says...

BethFoxhunter96 wrote:
Paul we are all already charged for driving around York.. speed cameras in sneaky areas offering no benefit to safety (slamming the breaks on isnt safe btw), the school safety car that is no where near schools... so yes Paul lets add a congestion charge and make the fat cat council even richer to waste money while normal people suffer for simply using the most efficient method of travelling for a journey!


Fines for law breaking can't be equated to payment for congestion charging.

I would agree with a congestion charge. There is a good park and ride. One that would be much, much better if there were fewer cars in the city centre. It works very well in London and the same arguments were made over and over.

For that to happen the P&R will have to be of the same standard as the underground of course... that will take lots of funding... ergo.. the congestion charge. Catch 22 or a perfect plan?
I can see your point, but the trouble with P&R is that most of the sites are based near the outer ring road. Most people in York live between the outer ring road and the city centre, so we'd have to travel out, before we could travel back in again.

In other words P&R is a great idea for people visiting York from other areas, but not really an attractive proposition for the vast majority of York residents.
[quote][p][bold]BethFoxhunter96[/bold] wrote: [quote]Paul we are all already charged for driving around York.. speed cameras in sneaky areas offering no benefit to safety (slamming the breaks on isnt safe btw), the school safety car that is no where near schools... so yes Paul lets add a congestion charge and make the fat cat council even richer to waste money while normal people suffer for simply using the most efficient method of travelling for a journey![/quote] Fines for law breaking can't be equated to payment for congestion charging. I would agree with a congestion charge. There is a good park and ride. One that would be much, much better if there were fewer cars in the city centre. It works very well in London and the same arguments were made over and over. For that to happen the P&R will have to be of the same standard as the underground of course... that will take lots of funding... ergo.. the congestion charge. Catch 22 or a perfect plan?[/p][/quote]I can see your point, but the trouble with P&R is that most of the sites are based near the outer ring road. Most people in York live between the outer ring road and the city centre, so we'd have to travel out, before we could travel back in again. In other words P&R is a great idea for people visiting York from other areas, but not really an attractive proposition for the vast majority of York residents. JasBro
  • Score: -14

9:06pm Fri 8 Aug 14

notpedallingpaul says...

BethFoxhunter96 wrote:
Paul we are all already charged for driving around York.. speed cameras in sneaky areas offering no benefit to safety (slamming the breaks on isnt safe btw), the school safety car that is no where near schools... so yes Paul lets add a congestion charge and make the fat cat council even richer to waste money while normal people suffer for simply using the most efficient method of travelling for a journey!


Fines for law breaking can't be equated to payment for congestion charging.

I would agree with a congestion charge. There is a good park and ride. One that would be much, much better if there were fewer cars in the city centre. It works very well in London and the same arguments were made over and over.

For that to happen the P&R will have to be of the same standard as the underground of course... that will take lots of funding... ergo.. the congestion charge. Catch 22 or a perfect plan?
Not having any experience with congestion charging, what happens if you live within its catchment zone so to speak, how do you drive in and out from your home?
[quote][p][bold]BethFoxhunter96[/bold] wrote: [quote]Paul we are all already charged for driving around York.. speed cameras in sneaky areas offering no benefit to safety (slamming the breaks on isnt safe btw), the school safety car that is no where near schools... so yes Paul lets add a congestion charge and make the fat cat council even richer to waste money while normal people suffer for simply using the most efficient method of travelling for a journey![/quote] Fines for law breaking can't be equated to payment for congestion charging. I would agree with a congestion charge. There is a good park and ride. One that would be much, much better if there were fewer cars in the city centre. It works very well in London and the same arguments were made over and over. For that to happen the P&R will have to be of the same standard as the underground of course... that will take lots of funding... ergo.. the congestion charge. Catch 22 or a perfect plan?[/p][/quote]Not having any experience with congestion charging, what happens if you live within its catchment zone so to speak, how do you drive in and out from your home? notpedallingpaul
  • Score: 12

12:56pm Sat 9 Aug 14

Cheeky face says...

JasBro wrote:
BethFoxhunter96 wrote:
Paul we are all already charged for driving around York.. speed cameras in sneaky areas offering no benefit to safety (slamming the breaks on isnt safe btw), the school safety car that is no where near schools... so yes Paul lets add a congestion charge and make the fat cat council even richer to waste money while normal people suffer for simply using the most efficient method of travelling for a journey!


Fines for law breaking can't be equated to payment for congestion charging.

I would agree with a congestion charge. There is a good park and ride. One that would be much, much better if there were fewer cars in the city centre. It works very well in London and the same arguments were made over and over.

For that to happen the P&R will have to be of the same standard as the underground of course... that will take lots of funding... ergo.. the congestion charge. Catch 22 or a perfect plan?
I can see your point, but the trouble with P&R is that most of the sites are based near the outer ring road. Most people in York live between the outer ring road and the city centre, so we'd have to travel out, before we could travel back in again.

In other words P&R is a great idea for people visiting York from other areas, but not really an attractive proposition for the vast majority of York residents.
Quite right; some folk in Scarborough do drive out 1 mile to use P and R buses. In London it makes sense to do so if car parking plus train makes costs equate to financial savings on London parking fees, hassle/stress and congestion charge.

Incidentally does anyone know if the Poppleton Bar access from A59 has lights, and are they 24/7? This is assuming the access to Pand R is not integrated with the ring road/A59 roundabout.

Each day that passes I am even stronger on my view that all PCN payments MUST be returned. Similarly for Coppergate; but some fines at Coppergate were from the police, albeit in small numbers, in the 1980s; but Bill Wooly of the council did not totally like them.
[quote][p][bold]JasBro[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]BethFoxhunter96[/bold] wrote: [quote]Paul we are all already charged for driving around York.. speed cameras in sneaky areas offering no benefit to safety (slamming the breaks on isnt safe btw), the school safety car that is no where near schools... so yes Paul lets add a congestion charge and make the fat cat council even richer to waste money while normal people suffer for simply using the most efficient method of travelling for a journey![/quote] Fines for law breaking can't be equated to payment for congestion charging. I would agree with a congestion charge. There is a good park and ride. One that would be much, much better if there were fewer cars in the city centre. It works very well in London and the same arguments were made over and over. For that to happen the P&R will have to be of the same standard as the underground of course... that will take lots of funding... ergo.. the congestion charge. Catch 22 or a perfect plan?[/p][/quote]I can see your point, but the trouble with P&R is that most of the sites are based near the outer ring road. Most people in York live between the outer ring road and the city centre, so we'd have to travel out, before we could travel back in again. In other words P&R is a great idea for people visiting York from other areas, but not really an attractive proposition for the vast majority of York residents.[/p][/quote]Quite right; some folk in Scarborough do drive out 1 mile to use P and R buses. In London it makes sense to do so if car parking plus train makes costs equate to financial savings on London parking fees, hassle/stress and congestion charge. Incidentally does anyone know if the Poppleton Bar access from A59 has lights, and are they 24/7? This is assuming the access to Pand R is not integrated with the ring road/A59 roundabout. Each day that passes I am even stronger on my view that all PCN payments MUST be returned. Similarly for Coppergate; but some fines at Coppergate were from the police, albeit in small numbers, in the 1980s; but Bill Wooly of the council did not totally like them. Cheeky face
  • Score: -21

1:08pm Sat 9 Aug 14

Cheeky face says...

notpedallingpaul wrote:
BethFoxhunter96 wrote:
Paul we are all already charged for driving around York.. speed cameras in sneaky areas offering no benefit to safety (slamming the breaks on isnt safe btw), the school safety car that is no where near schools... so yes Paul lets add a congestion charge and make the fat cat council even richer to waste money while normal people suffer for simply using the most efficient method of travelling for a journey!


Fines for law breaking can't be equated to payment for congestion charging.

I would agree with a congestion charge. There is a good park and ride. One that would be much, much better if there were fewer cars in the city centre. It works very well in London and the same arguments were made over and over.

For that to happen the P&R will have to be of the same standard as the underground of course... that will take lots of funding... ergo.. the congestion charge. Catch 22 or a perfect plan?
Not having any experience with congestion charging, what happens if you live within its catchment zone so to speak, how do you drive in and out from your home?
In London ,I believe, each council(33) sets their own residents tariff; and it can be complicated; e.g M25 is outside the congestion area, with the boundaries/curvature awry.. Not really proper to this article.

Does the council have a full analysis of what purpose were the motorists using York to drive through/across for all those who received a PCN. e.g Reps visiting re Insurance claims, family visiting hospital and relatives, tourists, racegoers, ALL from various areas of Britain.

The signs on the bridge were WRONG until mid Jan, 2014; apart from legalities, so full refunds are the correct option. Reckless locals who deserved a PCN because they knew not will be able to claim, or get an auto refund! LIFE, LIKE THE WEATHER, IS NEVER ALWAYS FAIR.
football supporters, carers,
[quote][p][bold]notpedallingpaul[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]BethFoxhunter96[/bold] wrote: [quote]Paul we are all already charged for driving around York.. speed cameras in sneaky areas offering no benefit to safety (slamming the breaks on isnt safe btw), the school safety car that is no where near schools... so yes Paul lets add a congestion charge and make the fat cat council even richer to waste money while normal people suffer for simply using the most efficient method of travelling for a journey![/quote] Fines for law breaking can't be equated to payment for congestion charging. I would agree with a congestion charge. There is a good park and ride. One that would be much, much better if there were fewer cars in the city centre. It works very well in London and the same arguments were made over and over. For that to happen the P&R will have to be of the same standard as the underground of course... that will take lots of funding... ergo.. the congestion charge. Catch 22 or a perfect plan?[/p][/quote]Not having any experience with congestion charging, what happens if you live within its catchment zone so to speak, how do you drive in and out from your home?[/p][/quote]In London ,I believe, each council(33) sets their own residents tariff; and it can be complicated; e.g M25 is outside the congestion area, with the boundaries/curvature awry.. Not really proper to this article. Does the council have a full analysis of what purpose were the motorists using York to drive through/across for all those who received a PCN. e.g Reps visiting re Insurance claims, family visiting hospital and relatives, tourists, racegoers, ALL from various areas of Britain. The signs on the bridge were WRONG until mid Jan, 2014; apart from legalities, so full refunds are the correct option. Reckless locals who deserved a PCN because they knew not will be able to claim, or get an auto refund! LIFE, LIKE THE WEATHER, IS NEVER ALWAYS FAIR. football supporters, carers, Cheeky face
  • Score: -19

6:41pm Sat 9 Aug 14

Cheeky face says...

Matthew Laverack has it spot on in to-day's letters page. Legal advice should have been sought in June 2013; and at the same time the council's transport planners should have been much more thorough on signage positioning, warning letter option, top-down legalese on the signs on the bridge itself which were wrong until mid Jan 2014, poor adhesion to the traffic regs/traffic manual, and listening and hearing to local motorists/businesses
. Do they know the problems they have put motorist's under?

The specific wording on independent legal advice is exactly as written by Matthew; so I believe, the £11k outlay was reckless.

I repeat, Coppergate prohibited motor vehicle scheme has been handled less well!

Are the failings in labour-controlled Calderdale, where a vote of no confidence had the councillors ejected, any worse than those of City of York council?

Ok, some of the transgressors deserved PCNs but the scheme was so blatantly flawed full automatic refunds NOW are the only real solution; otherwise it will run and run, and York's reputation will never heal!

The Aussie newspapers have this now- will they publish anything?
Matthew Laverack has it spot on in to-day's letters page. Legal advice should have been sought in June 2013; and at the same time the council's transport planners should have been much more thorough on signage positioning, warning letter option, top-down legalese on the signs on the bridge itself which were wrong until mid Jan 2014, poor adhesion to the traffic regs/traffic manual, and listening and hearing to local motorists/businesses . Do they know the problems they have put motorist's under? The specific wording on independent legal advice is exactly as written by Matthew; so I believe, the £11k outlay was reckless. I repeat, Coppergate prohibited motor vehicle scheme has been handled less well! Are the failings in labour-controlled Calderdale, where a vote of no confidence had the councillors ejected, any worse than those of City of York council? Ok, some of the transgressors deserved PCNs but the scheme was so blatantly flawed full automatic refunds NOW are the only real solution; otherwise it will run and run, and York's reputation will never heal! The Aussie newspapers have this now- will they publish anything? Cheeky face
  • Score: -22

1:01pm Sun 10 Aug 14

Badgers Drift says...

BethFoxhunter96 wrote:
So why dont you, beth, york2000 and all the other labour councillors on here stop taking everyone for idiots and clear off this site so we can all actually have a decent debate rather then it turning into how good labour are and how nice bike seats smell...
I only just spotted this. Are you suggesting I'm a labour councillor? lol... no, but thank you. AFAIK I'm illegible to stand until 31st August, and I wouldn't vote for labour anyway. Neo-liberal economics aren't my thing. But thanks, I guess... and apologies to any councillors labour or otherwise who got confused with me! Awks!!! I'm not actually a member of any party, member of three youth parties though!
Think you mean 'ineligible', although some of the stuff you write is hard to read or understand?!!! LOL

Never mind, when you grow up your spelling and understanding of the world will improve, bless.
[quote][p][bold]BethFoxhunter96[/bold] wrote: [quote]So why dont you, beth, york2000 and all the other labour councillors on here stop taking everyone for idiots and clear off this site so we can all actually have a decent debate rather then it turning into how good labour are and how nice bike seats smell...[/quote] I only just spotted this. Are you suggesting I'm a labour councillor? lol... no, but thank you. AFAIK I'm illegible to stand until 31st August, and I wouldn't vote for labour anyway. Neo-liberal economics aren't my thing. But thanks, I guess... and apologies to any councillors labour or otherwise who got confused with me! Awks!!! I'm not actually a member of any party, member of three youth parties though![/p][/quote]Think you mean 'ineligible', although some of the stuff you write is hard to read or understand?!!! LOL Never mind, when you grow up your spelling and understanding of the world will improve, bless. Badgers Drift
  • Score: -38

4:32pm Mon 11 Aug 14

archieboldthe2nd says...

BethFoxhunter96 wrote:
Paul we are all already charged for driving around York.. speed cameras in sneaky areas offering no benefit to safety (slamming the breaks on isnt safe btw), the school safety car that is no where near schools... so yes Paul lets add a congestion charge and make the fat cat council even richer to waste money while normal people suffer for simply using the most efficient method of travelling for a journey!
Fines for law breaking can't be equated to payment for congestion charging. I would agree with a congestion charge. There is a good park and ride. One that would be much, much better if there were fewer cars in the city centre. It works very well in London and the same arguments were made over and over. For that to happen the P&R will have to be of the same standard as the underground of course... that will take lots of funding... ergo.. the congestion charge. Catch 22 or a perfect plan?
I suggest you try telling that to the 40k of people done by lendal... If you are so naive to think that mobile speeding cameras save life’s think again. Yes you do break the law... but i'll use my example of travelling around 80mph on the a64 the other evening. does me going an extra 10mph on an empty dual carriageway incorporate any additional risk? no? so why do the police cash in on it? i'm all for h&s etc but reactive isn't the right way to do it... just like the parking van.. it would have been interesting if this camera sat there filming while one of its spotted hazards caused an accident... surly people should rightly ask why didn't they do something about it there and then rather then sending a fine 2 weeks later?

If you price the car out of peoples pocket they will simply cut corners and not pay breaking more laws. A congestion charge in york is a no go anyway. in fact i'd go as far to say its the most stupid idea i've heard on this site. you’d just move the traffic from the centre car parks to the outer walls roads which achieves f/a.... the point of the London one was to reduce traffic and reduce car use onto public transport. Now with the 1 bus provider we have thats not really an option now is it...

In an economic climate where we are meant to be helping the public the council seems hell bent on charging them more. If a car is the cheapest and fastest transport solution then dont shoot people for it... blame the council for blocking the roads with useless busses... Until a cheaper and faster alternative is around then it wont change... I.e build some f@ckin train links! with are a rail city! Destroy all the p&r and sort a station out for each area... now imagine how nice york would be with no double bendy busses.. umm... Oh and more people might actually use them as you aren't stuck waiting in traffic or stopping off every 300 yards.. just a daft thought though you know... 23m for p&r could have had it all up and running...
[quote][p][bold]BethFoxhunter96[/bold] wrote: [quote]Paul we are all already charged for driving around York.. speed cameras in sneaky areas offering no benefit to safety (slamming the breaks on isnt safe btw), the school safety car that is no where near schools... so yes Paul lets add a congestion charge and make the fat cat council even richer to waste money while normal people suffer for simply using the most efficient method of travelling for a journey![/quote] Fines for law breaking can't be equated to payment for congestion charging. I would agree with a congestion charge. There is a good park and ride. One that would be much, much better if there were fewer cars in the city centre. It works very well in London and the same arguments were made over and over. For that to happen the P&R will have to be of the same standard as the underground of course... that will take lots of funding... ergo.. the congestion charge. Catch 22 or a perfect plan?[/p][/quote]I suggest you try telling that to the 40k of people done by lendal... If you are so naive to think that mobile speeding cameras save life’s think again. Yes you do break the law... but i'll use my example of travelling around 80mph on the a64 the other evening. does me going an extra 10mph on an empty dual carriageway incorporate any additional risk? no? so why do the police cash in on it? i'm all for h&s etc but reactive isn't the right way to do it... just like the parking van.. it would have been interesting if this camera sat there filming while one of its spotted hazards caused an accident... surly people should rightly ask why didn't they do something about it there and then rather then sending a fine 2 weeks later? If you price the car out of peoples pocket they will simply cut corners and not pay breaking more laws. A congestion charge in york is a no go anyway. in fact i'd go as far to say its the most stupid idea i've heard on this site. you’d just move the traffic from the centre car parks to the outer walls roads which achieves f/a.... the point of the London one was to reduce traffic and reduce car use onto public transport. Now with the 1 bus provider we have thats not really an option now is it... In an economic climate where we are meant to be helping the public the council seems hell bent on charging them more. If a car is the cheapest and fastest transport solution then dont shoot people for it... blame the council for blocking the roads with useless busses... Until a cheaper and faster alternative is around then it wont change... I.e build some f@ckin train links! with are a rail city! Destroy all the p&r and sort a station out for each area... now imagine how nice york would be with no double bendy busses.. umm... Oh and more people might actually use them as you aren't stuck waiting in traffic or stopping off every 300 yards.. just a daft thought though you know... 23m for p&r could have had it all up and running... archieboldthe2nd
  • Score: -20

10:55pm Tue 12 Aug 14

jay, york says...

Cheeky face wrote:
jay, york wrote:
JasBro wrote:
pedalling paul wrote: Children....children ........tch....tch.. .! Let us recall that closure to private cars of one of York's three central bridges, was a plank of York's current Local Transport Plan 3 (2011-2031), which was prepared by Officers in accordance with Whitehall guidance, and signed off in 2010 by the then ruling LibDems. Somewhere along the way,the initial recommendation of Ouse Bridge changed to Lendal Bridge. I'm not sure why, and perhaps someone can tell us. What is certain, is that without the radical measures already taken under the two previous LTP's, when Dave Merrett was in the driving seat as Council Leader, York would already be experiencing gridlock. It's due to his previous leadership on this issue that we have managed to stablise peak car use in recent years. But the gridlock threat has only receded for some years. It's not gone away and is re-emerging with York's ongoing economic development. We don't have elastic roads, and bleating by some politicians that "traffic must flow" presumably regardless of how much there may be, will not change the long term threat one iota. I'm reminded of the scene in "Time Bandits" where a couple are bickering, completely oblivious to the fact that a giant has loomed over the horizon and is about to trample them out of existence. Fillibustering tactics like calling decision in for scrutiny, is as bad as gerrymandering a Cabinet agenda so that fracking gets the lions share of discussion time. Councillors of all parties need to realise that the transport timebomb under York continues to tick. Time to get behind the suggested Congestion commission. Make it happen and stick with its outcomes. These will very likely reflect the strategy of LTP3 which seeks to futher reduce private car dependancy. A mix of travel alternatives include bus, car sharing, walking, cycling, train, city centre short term car hire. Many suburban residents are car owners but prefer to get the bike out of the garage for a daily commute. Residents of some outlying villages eg Poppleton, now have the option of cycling to a Park & Ride, and taking the bus. Or of driving to the P&R and cycling or bussing in. On-road priority measures for the most efficient users of road space, will underpin this. Antri-car? No, it's designed to help those who need to use a motor vehicle rather than those who simply want to.
The statistics prove that you are wrong. Mr Merrett only succeeded in creating more congestion and more pollution, which I'm sure most would agree is not a good thing. As for the reason behind changing the closure from Ouse Bridge, which might have made more sense, to Lendal Bridge, which made no sense at all, as it is part of the ring road, there were two main reasons that I know of. First, there was the idea of creating a less traffic intensive entrance into the city from the railway station, particularly for tourists. This was flawed partly because a railway station is by it's nature a transport hub, and also because a pedestrian/cycle bridge across to Museum Gardens would have been a much better solution. Secondly, there was the idea of developing the area under the Queen Street bridge, though this was always seen by many as being overly ambitious and expensive, and has now been dropped. When the idea of closing a city centre bridge was being considered, it is obvious from some of the documents I've seen that there were some significant political efforts to over emphasise the benefits of closing Lendal Bridge, and down play the disadvantages. In my opinion the facts and figures were manipulated, to put it bluntly the councillors and even the council officers lied. I pointed out the inconsistencies in the "evidence" to all parties concerned, but of course they already knew it, and were only interested in covering it up. Unfortunately, this whole fiasco has set back progressive transport policies by decades, it's also set back York's reputation, the credibility of the Local Transport Plan & Low Emission Strategy, the Labour party, and particularly Mr Merrett. It's all a bit sad, but in many ways very predictable. The lack of honesty, transparency and consultation were major failings. Obviously the fines should all be repaid, with good grace and an apology to those concerned. The fines were illegally charged, so morally speaking what other choice is there?
very very well said
Well said Jay. Only 4 four letter words from you; are you getting fed up? The sale of the old council offices did create a strong rumour that the Bridge Closure would be arranged to allow quieter access to the site if a hotel chain was interested. I heard that at the Scarborough Cricket Festival last year.
Only 4 four letter words from you; are you getting fed up
Dont worry cheeky I am not getting fed up at all!
There are just times with this lot when it is probably better to say nothing. From what I know and understand, there are certain thing happening within York labour council that will shock absolutely everyone. Keep on doing what your do cheeky - as will we all x
[quote][p][bold]Cheeky face[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]jay, york[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]JasBro[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]pedalling paul [/bold] wrote: Children....children ........tch....tch.. .! Let us recall that closure to private cars of one of York's three central bridges, was a plank of York's current Local Transport Plan 3 (2011-2031), which was prepared by Officers in accordance with Whitehall guidance, and signed off in 2010 by the then ruling LibDems. Somewhere along the way,the initial recommendation of Ouse Bridge changed to Lendal Bridge. I'm not sure why, and perhaps someone can tell us. What is certain, is that without the radical measures already taken under the two previous LTP's, when Dave Merrett was in the driving seat as Council Leader, York would already be experiencing gridlock. It's due to his previous leadership on this issue that we have managed to stablise peak car use in recent years. But the gridlock threat has only receded for some years. It's not gone away and is re-emerging with York's ongoing economic development. We don't have elastic roads, and bleating by some politicians that "traffic must flow" presumably regardless of how much there may be, will not change the long term threat one iota. I'm reminded of the scene in "Time Bandits" where a couple are bickering, completely oblivious to the fact that a giant has loomed over the horizon and is about to trample them out of existence. Fillibustering tactics like calling decision in for scrutiny, is as bad as gerrymandering a Cabinet agenda so that fracking gets the lions share of discussion time. Councillors of all parties need to realise that the transport timebomb under York continues to tick. Time to get behind the suggested Congestion commission. Make it happen and stick with its outcomes. These will very likely reflect the strategy of LTP3 which seeks to futher reduce private car dependancy. A mix of travel alternatives include bus, car sharing, walking, cycling, train, city centre short term car hire. Many suburban residents are car owners but prefer to get the bike out of the garage for a daily commute. Residents of some outlying villages eg Poppleton, now have the option of cycling to a Park & Ride, and taking the bus. Or of driving to the P&R and cycling or bussing in. On-road priority measures for the most efficient users of road space, will underpin this. Antri-car? No, it's designed to help those who need to use a motor vehicle rather than those who simply want to.[/p][/quote]The statistics prove that you are wrong. Mr Merrett only succeeded in creating more congestion and more pollution, which I'm sure most would agree is not a good thing. As for the reason behind changing the closure from Ouse Bridge, which might have made more sense, to Lendal Bridge, which made no sense at all, as it is part of the ring road, there were two main reasons that I know of. First, there was the idea of creating a less traffic intensive entrance into the city from the railway station, particularly for tourists. This was flawed partly because a railway station is by it's nature a transport hub, and also because a pedestrian/cycle bridge across to Museum Gardens would have been a much better solution. Secondly, there was the idea of developing the area under the Queen Street bridge, though this was always seen by many as being overly ambitious and expensive, and has now been dropped. When the idea of closing a city centre bridge was being considered, it is obvious from some of the documents I've seen that there were some significant political efforts to over emphasise the benefits of closing Lendal Bridge, and down play the disadvantages. In my opinion the facts and figures were manipulated, to put it bluntly the councillors and even the council officers lied. I pointed out the inconsistencies in the "evidence" to all parties concerned, but of course they already knew it, and were only interested in covering it up. Unfortunately, this whole fiasco has set back progressive transport policies by decades, it's also set back York's reputation, the credibility of the Local Transport Plan & Low Emission Strategy, the Labour party, and particularly Mr Merrett. It's all a bit sad, but in many ways very predictable. The lack of honesty, transparency and consultation were major failings. Obviously the fines should all be repaid, with good grace and an apology to those concerned. The fines were illegally charged, so morally speaking what other choice is there?[/p][/quote]very very well said[/p][/quote]Well said Jay. Only 4 four letter words from you; are you getting fed up? The sale of the old council offices did create a strong rumour that the Bridge Closure would be arranged to allow quieter access to the site if a hotel chain was interested. I heard that at the Scarborough Cricket Festival last year.[/p][/quote]Only 4 four letter words from you; are you getting fed up Dont worry cheeky I am not getting fed up at all! There are just times with this lot when it is probably better to say nothing. From what I know and understand, there are certain thing happening within York labour council that will shock absolutely everyone. Keep on doing what your do cheeky - as will we all x jay, york
  • Score: -21

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

About cookies

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

I agree