Should we pay to drive in York?

York Press: Chris Gorman, left, and Paul Hepworth Chris Gorman, left, and Paul Hepworth

IT’S a debate which is set to split the city – should congestion charges be brought in on the streets of York?

Every person in the city can now have their say on whether introducing a London-style tax on drivers who want to use their vehicles in the heart of York would prevent our roads becoming choked with gridlock.

A huge public consultation exercise seeking residents’ views on a range of traffic issues – including congestion charging and a levy on workplace parking – has been launched by City of York Council.

But would these measures succeed, or will they simply hit motorists and businesses in the pocket? Today, The Press invites the case for and against congestion charges – now it’s up to you.

Chris Gorman's argument

“If they go ahead, these measures could have a crippling effect on the many small businesses which give York so much of its character and tourist appeal.

“Implemented individually, both a congestion charge and a workplace parking levy would prove highly detrimental to York’s business community. Enforced together, the results could be catastrophic and lead to an exodus of small firms from the city.

“A congestion charge might persuade some commuters to leave the car at home and use public transport. However, it will unfairly penalise the many small firms which have to use vehicles in the course of their work. And with much smaller profit margins than larger companies, many employers would struggle to reimburse shift workers and commuters from the countryside who are unable to use public transport.

“The workplace parking levy proposal is troubling. This is basically a stealth tax on businesses’ own parking spaces – it’s the equivalent of charging people for parking on their driveways – and, again, it would have a disproportionate effect on small firms. As well as stripping even more money from businesses, it could have the knock-on effect of exacerbating parking problems by taking workers’ cars off private car parks and on to residential streets and side roads.

“These proposals couldn’t come at a worse time for smaller firms, which are still struggling with the recession and facing a highly uncertain future.”

* Chris Gorman is a spokesman for the Forum of Private Business, which represents more than 25,000 small businesses across the UK and also acts as a support and lobby group.

Paul Hepworth's argument

“In the long-term, I believe congestion charging in York is something which HAS to happen.

“The city has been at the forefront of staving off gridlock for some years by encouraging things like car-sharing, short-term car hire, Park&Ride services and installing priority measures for public transport.

“We also have the grant from the Department for Transport’s Cycling England offshoot to enable the completion of York’s cycling network.

“So we have led the way on a lot of things and even people who live in the suburbs are now leaving their cars in the garage and travelling into town by other means, which has made a big difference.

“But we still only have finite road space and, as we cannot build ourselves out of congestion, we have to find alternatives to car usage and encourage people to use them.

“Space needs to be freed up for essential road-users and, quite frankly, if there is not enough of a voluntary switch away from short-distance commuting, politicians may have to look at bringing in the stick rather than the carrot.

“There have been problems with polls on this issue in places like Manchester where people have voted with vested interests, but congestion charging can work and has to work. It’s happening in other cities, not just York.

"Not only would I welcome it, I believe it is inevitable that it will be introduced."

* Paul Hepworth is the North Yorkshire spokesman for the national cyclists' organisation CTC.

Comments (92)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

11:18am Sat 13 Feb 10

RingoStarr says...

Well, I suppose they have to fund the multi-million pound fiasco of the new Council's H.Q. somehow.
Well, I suppose they have to fund the multi-million pound fiasco of the new Council's H.Q. somehow. RingoStarr

11:22am Sat 13 Feb 10

addynuff says...

it is no wonder that some people are pushed past their limit and end up taking an axe or shotgun to otherwise innocent bystanders when notions such as this are proposed.just the sight of hepworth is enough to blow my fuses and why, as a council tax paying resident who pays for road fund licences for a car and a motorbike plus insurances ,should i have another tax imposed on me.is hepworth so sad a man that he has to find ways of tormenting people with his nonsensical drive.
it is no wonder that some people are pushed past their limit and end up taking an axe or shotgun to otherwise innocent bystanders when notions such as this are proposed.just the sight of hepworth is enough to blow my fuses and why, as a council tax paying resident who pays for road fund licences for a car and a motorbike plus insurances ,should i have another tax imposed on me.is hepworth so sad a man that he has to find ways of tormenting people with his nonsensical drive. addynuff

11:24am Sat 13 Feb 10

Viper_7 says...

It's not a debate or poll, it will happen.

Just another back door tax.
It's not a debate or poll, it will happen. Just another back door tax. Viper_7

11:40am Sat 13 Feb 10

Zebedee says...

I wondered when this would be raised. It will happen, probably at the same time as introducing a 20 mph speed limit. Tourists will disappear in great numbers but the powers that be don't seem to care. This can only be considered if an excellent public transport service is introduced first. CoYC shouldn't waste money on public consultation. The majority will be against but they'll introduce it anyway. Democracy rules!
I wondered when this would be raised. It will happen, probably at the same time as introducing a 20 mph speed limit. Tourists will disappear in great numbers but the powers that be don't seem to care. This can only be considered if an excellent public transport service is introduced first. CoYC shouldn't waste money on public consultation. The majority will be against but they'll introduce it anyway. Democracy rules! Zebedee

12:00pm Sat 13 Feb 10

TooRad says...

Being an unpaid spokesperson for the the council whose words are often lifted straight from council policy, if Paul says he believes it is inevitable, then it is inevitable. He has insider knowledge, being best of buddies with Stevey.
.
This ain't no consultation, it's an icebreaker to get us used to the idea, which is already decided upon.
.
Hello ghost town!
Being an unpaid spokesperson for the the council whose words are often lifted straight from council policy, if Paul says he believes it is inevitable, then it is inevitable. He has insider knowledge, being best of buddies with Stevey. . This ain't no consultation, it's an icebreaker to get us used to the idea, which is already decided upon. . Hello ghost town! TooRad

12:02pm Sat 13 Feb 10

voiceoreason says...

Let's make this quite clear. This is York Labour Party policy, not the Council.

All of you so looking forward to the next election remember York Labour Party willl

a) Introduce Congestion Charging
b) Introduse 20 mph limits across the city
Let's make this quite clear. This is York Labour Party policy, not the Council. All of you so looking forward to the next election remember York Labour Party willl a) Introduce Congestion Charging b) Introduse 20 mph limits across the city voiceoreason

12:03pm Sat 13 Feb 10

LibDem says...

If such a scheme were to be introduced then the income could only be used to fund transport improvements (not other projects such as the new HQ, which in any event is self funding as the rents that the Council currently pay will disappear).
One of the faults in the congestion charging argument is that the fewer vehicles that pass any charging boundary then the less income is generated. So the more effective the scheme is in combating congestion the less money there is to spend on bus services, improving the ring road etc.
An automated country wide charging scheme to replace VED, where you pay more to drive at busy times of the day may be worth considering.
For York to go it alone would be highly damaging to our economy and would drive customers and jobs to the towns and City's which are our competitors.
If such a scheme were to be introduced then the income could only be used to fund transport improvements (not other projects such as the new HQ, which in any event is self funding as the rents that the Council currently pay will disappear). One of the faults in the congestion charging argument is that the fewer vehicles that pass any charging boundary then the less income is generated. So the more effective the scheme is in combating congestion the less money there is to spend on bus services, improving the ring road etc. An automated country wide charging scheme to replace VED, where you pay more to drive at busy times of the day may be worth considering. For York to go it alone would be highly damaging to our economy and would drive customers and jobs to the towns and City's which are our competitors. LibDem

12:06pm Sat 13 Feb 10

The Cat Amongst The Pigeons says...

Ridiculous idea!
Ridiculous idea! The Cat Amongst The Pigeons

12:09pm Sat 13 Feb 10

leninwasright says...

Zebedee wrote:
I wondered when this would be raised. It will happen, probably at the same time as introducing a 20 mph speed limit. Tourists will disappear in great numbers but the powers that be don't seem to care. This can only be considered if an excellent public transport service is introduced first. CoYC shouldn't waste money on public consultation. The majority will be against but they'll introduce it anyway. Democracy rules!
Given the opprobrium heaped on tourists in these posts I would have thought that many would be happy to see them deterred. As for public transport, the main problem for it at the moment is congestion caused by cars ! I find the buses pretty good on the whole. It's no good waiting for consensus on these issues, cars are a bl00dy nuisance and should be barred from cities like York wherever possible. It's quite clear that the historic core cannot handle private vehicular traffic, except for those of residents and deliveries before a stipulated time they should be banned.
[quote][p][bold]Zebedee[/bold] wrote: I wondered when this would be raised. It will happen, probably at the same time as introducing a 20 mph speed limit. Tourists will disappear in great numbers but the powers that be don't seem to care. This can only be considered if an excellent public transport service is introduced first. CoYC shouldn't waste money on public consultation. The majority will be against but they'll introduce it anyway. Democracy rules![/p][/quote]Given the opprobrium heaped on tourists in these posts I would have thought that many would be happy to see them deterred. As for public transport, the main problem for it at the moment is congestion caused by cars ! I find the buses pretty good on the whole. It's no good waiting for consensus on these issues, cars are a bl00dy nuisance and should be barred from cities like York wherever possible. It's quite clear that the historic core cannot handle private vehicular traffic, except for those of residents and deliveries before a stipulated time they should be banned. leninwasright

12:12pm Sat 13 Feb 10

leninwasright says...

leninwasright wrote:
Zebedee wrote: I wondered when this would be raised. It will happen, probably at the same time as introducing a 20 mph speed limit. Tourists will disappear in great numbers but the powers that be don't seem to care. This can only be considered if an excellent public transport service is introduced first. CoYC shouldn't waste money on public consultation. The majority will be against but they'll introduce it anyway. Democracy rules!
Given the opprobrium heaped on tourists in these posts I would have thought that many would be happy to see them deterred. As for public transport, the main problem for it at the moment is congestion caused by cars ! I find the buses pretty good on the whole. It's no good waiting for consensus on these issues, cars are a bl00dy nuisance and should be barred from cities like York wherever possible. It's quite clear that the historic core cannot handle private vehicular traffic, except for those of residents and deliveries before a stipulated time they should be banned.
Apologies; there should have been a semi-colon after "traffic" and not a comma.
[quote][p][bold]leninwasright[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Zebedee[/bold] wrote: I wondered when this would be raised. It will happen, probably at the same time as introducing a 20 mph speed limit. Tourists will disappear in great numbers but the powers that be don't seem to care. This can only be considered if an excellent public transport service is introduced first. CoYC shouldn't waste money on public consultation. The majority will be against but they'll introduce it anyway. Democracy rules![/p][/quote]Given the opprobrium heaped on tourists in these posts I would have thought that many would be happy to see them deterred. As for public transport, the main problem for it at the moment is congestion caused by cars ! I find the buses pretty good on the whole. It's no good waiting for consensus on these issues, cars are a bl00dy nuisance and should be barred from cities like York wherever possible. It's quite clear that the historic core cannot handle private vehicular traffic, except for those of residents and deliveries before a stipulated time they should be banned.[/p][/quote]Apologies; there should have been a semi-colon after "traffic" and not a comma. leninwasright

12:12pm Sat 13 Feb 10

mack says...

If they decide to bring in congestion charging, lets have a level playing field.

Cyclist not to be totally exempt from any congestion charge.

Compulsory cycling proficiency tests for cyclists.

Compulsory insurance ( at least 3rd party) for cyclists.

Compulsory certificated annual roadworthiness testing of cycles.

Compulsory registration of cyclists which obliges them to wear a number when riding/pushing their cycle. Law-breaking cyclists will then be identifiable and traceable just as motorists and motor cyclists are.

Cyclists to be charged park their cycles in designated cycle parks outside the central access only zone i.e.riding or pushing of cycles through these areas to be an offence.


All new charges to at least cover the admin costs or add a bit on as another stealth tax for the city coffers.
If they decide to bring in congestion charging, lets have a level playing field. Cyclist not to be totally exempt from any congestion charge. Compulsory cycling proficiency tests for cyclists. Compulsory insurance ( at least 3rd party) for cyclists. Compulsory certificated annual roadworthiness testing of cycles. Compulsory registration of cyclists which obliges them to wear a number when riding/pushing their cycle. Law-breaking cyclists will then be identifiable and traceable just as motorists and motor cyclists are. Cyclists to be charged park their cycles in designated cycle parks outside the central access only zone i.e.riding or pushing of cycles through these areas to be an offence. All new charges to at least cover the admin costs or add a bit on as another stealth tax for the city coffers. mack

12:16pm Sat 13 Feb 10

bloodaxe says...

voiceoreason wrote:
Let's make this quite clear. This is York Labour Party policy, not the Council. All of you so looking forward to the next election remember York Labour Party willl a) Introduce Congestion Charging b) Introduse 20 mph limits across the city
Vote Labour.
[quote][p][bold]voiceoreason[/bold] wrote: Let's make this quite clear. This is York Labour Party policy, not the Council. All of you so looking forward to the next election remember York Labour Party willl a) Introduce Congestion Charging b) Introduse 20 mph limits across the city[/p][/quote]Vote Labour. bloodaxe

12:21pm Sat 13 Feb 10

TooRad says...

mack wrote:
If they decide to bring in congestion charging, lets have a level playing field.

Cyclist not to be totally exempt from any congestion charge.

Compulsory cycling proficiency tests for cyclists.

Compulsory insurance ( at least 3rd party) for cyclists.

Compulsory certificated annual roadworthiness testing of cycles.

Compulsory registration of cyclists which obliges them to wear a number when riding/pushing their cycle. Law-breaking cyclists will then be identifiable and traceable just as motorists and motor cyclists are.

Cyclists to be charged park their cycles in designated cycle parks outside the central access only zone i.e.riding or pushing of cycles through these areas to be an offence.


All new charges to at least cover the admin costs or add a bit on as another stealth tax for the city coffers.
I can't decide whether this is lame trolling or the blitherings of an imbecile.
Anyone?
[quote][p][bold]mack[/bold] wrote: If they decide to bring in congestion charging, lets have a level playing field. Cyclist not to be totally exempt from any congestion charge. Compulsory cycling proficiency tests for cyclists. Compulsory insurance ( at least 3rd party) for cyclists. Compulsory certificated annual roadworthiness testing of cycles. Compulsory registration of cyclists which obliges them to wear a number when riding/pushing their cycle. Law-breaking cyclists will then be identifiable and traceable just as motorists and motor cyclists are. Cyclists to be charged park their cycles in designated cycle parks outside the central access only zone i.e.riding or pushing of cycles through these areas to be an offence. All new charges to at least cover the admin costs or add a bit on as another stealth tax for the city coffers.[/p][/quote]I can't decide whether this is lame trolling or the blitherings of an imbecile. Anyone? TooRad

12:25pm Sat 13 Feb 10

Rhino's Wellies says...

TooRad wrote:
mack wrote:
If they decide to bring in congestion charging, lets have a level playing field.

Cyclist not to be totally exempt from any congestion charge.

Compulsory cycling proficiency tests for cyclists.

Compulsory insurance ( at least 3rd party) for cyclists.

Compulsory certificated annual roadworthiness testing of cycles.

Compulsory registration of cyclists which obliges them to wear a number when riding/pushing their cycle. Law-breaking cyclists will then be identifiable and traceable just as motorists and motor cyclists are.

Cyclists to be charged park their cycles in designated cycle parks outside the central access only zone i.e.riding or pushing of cycles through these areas to be an offence.


All new charges to at least cover the admin costs or add a bit on as another stealth tax for the city coffers.
I can't decide whether this is lame trolling or the blitherings of an imbecile.
Anyone?
It's a bloody good idea. I'm sick to death of moronic cyclists. They ride and text, have no lights, ride on the pavement, no lights, ignore red lights and zebra crossings, leave their bike in the middle of the path, give croggies and leave half of them chained to railings. And Pedalling Paul likes them apparently
[quote][p][bold]TooRad[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]mack[/bold] wrote: If they decide to bring in congestion charging, lets have a level playing field. Cyclist not to be totally exempt from any congestion charge. Compulsory cycling proficiency tests for cyclists. Compulsory insurance ( at least 3rd party) for cyclists. Compulsory certificated annual roadworthiness testing of cycles. Compulsory registration of cyclists which obliges them to wear a number when riding/pushing their cycle. Law-breaking cyclists will then be identifiable and traceable just as motorists and motor cyclists are. Cyclists to be charged park their cycles in designated cycle parks outside the central access only zone i.e.riding or pushing of cycles through these areas to be an offence. All new charges to at least cover the admin costs or add a bit on as another stealth tax for the city coffers.[/p][/quote]I can't decide whether this is lame trolling or the blitherings of an imbecile. Anyone?[/p][/quote]It's a bloody good idea. I'm sick to death of moronic cyclists. They ride and text, have no lights, ride on the pavement, no lights, ignore red lights and zebra crossings, leave their bike in the middle of the path, give croggies and leave half of them chained to railings. And Pedalling Paul likes them apparently Rhino's Wellies

12:26pm Sat 13 Feb 10

The Cat Amongst The Pigeons says...

I recently gave up my job to start my own small business which involves driving around York. If the congestion charge is introduced I'll be ruined! I'm sure I am not alone.
I recently gave up my job to start my own small business which involves driving around York. If the congestion charge is introduced I'll be ruined! I'm sure I am not alone. The Cat Amongst The Pigeons

12:26pm Sat 13 Feb 10

bloodaxe says...

Where exactly would you want to be able to drive in the city centre ? Most of the parking is outside the walls and park-and-ride takes up a huge amount of visitor parking anyway. Driving in the centre when you can't park on the streets makes little sense. I don't buy into this argument that reducing traffic hurts trade in the town centre. Leeds makes more of an effort to be pedestrian-friendly than York and that hasn't exactly damaged its economy.
Where exactly would you want to be able to drive in the city centre ? Most of the parking is outside the walls and park-and-ride takes up a huge amount of visitor parking anyway. Driving in the centre when you can't park on the streets makes little sense. I don't buy into this argument that reducing traffic hurts trade in the town centre. Leeds makes more of an effort to be pedestrian-friendly than York and that hasn't exactly damaged its economy. bloodaxe

12:32pm Sat 13 Feb 10

TooRad says...

Rhino's Wellies wrote:
TooRad wrote:
mack wrote:
If they decide to bring in congestion charging, lets have a level playing field.

Cyclist not to be totally exempt from any congestion charge.

Compulsory cycling proficiency tests for cyclists.

Compulsory insurance ( at least 3rd party) for cyclists.

Compulsory certificated annual roadworthiness testing of cycles.

Compulsory registration of cyclists which obliges them to wear a number when riding/pushing their cycle. Law-breaking cyclists will then be identifiable and traceable just as motorists and motor cyclists are.

Cyclists to be charged park their cycles in designated cycle parks outside the central access only zone i.e.riding or pushing of cycles through these areas to be an offence.


All new charges to at least cover the admin costs or add a bit on as another stealth tax for the city coffers.
I can't decide whether this is lame trolling or the blitherings of an imbecile.
Anyone?
It's a bloody good idea. I'm sick to death of moronic cyclists. They ride and text, have no lights, ride on the pavement, no lights, ignore red lights and zebra crossings, leave their bike in the middle of the path, give croggies and leave half of them chained to railings. And Pedalling Paul likes them apparently
But they don't cause congestion.
Which is what this is all about.
[quote][p][bold]Rhino's Wellies[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]TooRad[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]mack[/bold] wrote: If they decide to bring in congestion charging, lets have a level playing field. Cyclist not to be totally exempt from any congestion charge. Compulsory cycling proficiency tests for cyclists. Compulsory insurance ( at least 3rd party) for cyclists. Compulsory certificated annual roadworthiness testing of cycles. Compulsory registration of cyclists which obliges them to wear a number when riding/pushing their cycle. Law-breaking cyclists will then be identifiable and traceable just as motorists and motor cyclists are. Cyclists to be charged park their cycles in designated cycle parks outside the central access only zone i.e.riding or pushing of cycles through these areas to be an offence. All new charges to at least cover the admin costs or add a bit on as another stealth tax for the city coffers.[/p][/quote]I can't decide whether this is lame trolling or the blitherings of an imbecile. Anyone?[/p][/quote]It's a bloody good idea. I'm sick to death of moronic cyclists. They ride and text, have no lights, ride on the pavement, no lights, ignore red lights and zebra crossings, leave their bike in the middle of the path, give croggies and leave half of them chained to railings. And Pedalling Paul likes them apparently[/p][/quote]But they don't cause congestion. Which is what this is all about. TooRad

12:43pm Sat 13 Feb 10

Get-a-grip says...

If they bring in congestion charges York will be a ghost town frequented by very few tourists and pedalling pillocks with bedpans on their heads.

Won't bother me much, I prefer to shop anywhere other than the city centre.
If they bring in congestion charges York will be a ghost town frequented by very few tourists and pedalling pillocks with bedpans on their heads. Won't bother me much, I prefer to shop anywhere other than the city centre. Get-a-grip

12:48pm Sat 13 Feb 10

voiceofreality says...

the shops aren't good enough for any one to want to pay to go into town! they will just go elsewhere and then town will shut down! its that simple.
the shops aren't good enough for any one to want to pay to go into town! they will just go elsewhere and then town will shut down! its that simple. voiceofreality

12:52pm Sat 13 Feb 10

Older Sometimes Wiser says...

TooRad wrote:
mack wrote:
If they decide to bring in congestion charging, lets have a level playing field.

Cyclist not to be totally exempt from any congestion charge.

Compulsory cycling proficiency tests for cyclists.

Compulsory insurance ( at least 3rd party) for cyclists.

Compulsory certificated annual roadworthiness testing of cycles.

Compulsory registration of cyclists which obliges them to wear a number when riding/pushing their cycle. Law-breaking cyclists will then be identifiable and traceable just as motorists and motor cyclists are.

Cyclists to be charged park their cycles in designated cycle parks outside the central access only zone i.e.riding or pushing of cycles through these areas to be an offence.


All new charges to at least cover the admin costs or add a bit on as another stealth tax for the city coffers.
I can't decide whether this is lame trolling or the blitherings of an imbecile.
Anyone?
Check out the definition of IRONY if and when you next visit a Library, or you could check the meaning on line!
[quote][p][bold]TooRad[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]mack[/bold] wrote: If they decide to bring in congestion charging, lets have a level playing field. Cyclist not to be totally exempt from any congestion charge. Compulsory cycling proficiency tests for cyclists. Compulsory insurance ( at least 3rd party) for cyclists. Compulsory certificated annual roadworthiness testing of cycles. Compulsory registration of cyclists which obliges them to wear a number when riding/pushing their cycle. Law-breaking cyclists will then be identifiable and traceable just as motorists and motor cyclists are. Cyclists to be charged park their cycles in designated cycle parks outside the central access only zone i.e.riding or pushing of cycles through these areas to be an offence. All new charges to at least cover the admin costs or add a bit on as another stealth tax for the city coffers.[/p][/quote]I can't decide whether this is lame trolling or the blitherings of an imbecile. Anyone?[/p][/quote]Check out the definition of IRONY if and when you next visit a Library, or you could check the meaning on line! Older Sometimes Wiser

1:03pm Sat 13 Feb 10

King Edward says...

YES to the charge, two bands, one for CofYC council tax payers and one 50% higher for non CofYC council tax payers! I run a small business and we don't take work in York because it takes too long to get to and from jobs. Like London business will add the cost to their bill so it doesn't cost business in reality.
YES to the charge, two bands, one for CofYC council tax payers and one 50% higher for non CofYC council tax payers! I run a small business and we don't take work in York because it takes too long to get to and from jobs. Like London business will add the cost to their bill so it doesn't cost business in reality. King Edward

1:04pm Sat 13 Feb 10

Taken for a Mug says...

I will vote for anyone who shoves this idea as far up a certain unelected persons backside.
I will vote for anyone who shoves this idea as far up a certain unelected persons backside. Taken for a Mug

1:16pm Sat 13 Feb 10

Clive Dunn says...

Yeah, great idea. Introduce congestion charges and I'll just do my shopping online, York businesses will go under and I'll look forward to the inevitable Press wailing and gnashing of teeth "Oh where did it all go wrong! The internet is killing local trade!".

And don't talk to me about public transport in York. First are an absolute joke, I've lost count of the times I've waited at a bus stop for over half an hour, no buses whatsoever, so I've gone home, got the car and driven into town instead. In first gear, as fast as possible, and running over as many dolphins as I can, because I care about the environmental impact as much as First York care about publishing a bus timetable they can stick to.
Yeah, great idea. Introduce congestion charges and I'll just do my shopping online, York businesses will go under and I'll look forward to the inevitable Press wailing and gnashing of teeth "Oh where did it all go wrong! The internet is killing local trade!". And don't talk to me about public transport in York. First are an absolute joke, I've lost count of the times I've waited at a bus stop for over half an hour, no buses whatsoever, so I've gone home, got the car and driven into town instead. In first gear, as fast as possible, and running over as many dolphins as I can, because I care about the environmental impact as much as First York care about publishing a bus timetable they can stick to. Clive Dunn

1:17pm Sat 13 Feb 10

Taken for a Mug says...

This was how the vote went in Manchester over congestion charging.

Bolton
Yes 20,529
No 76,910

Bury
Yes16,563
No 64,001

Manchester
Yes 43,593
No 113,064

Oldham
Yes 17,571
No 68,884

Rochdale
Yes 17,333
No 61,686

Salford
Yes 14,603
No 79,326

Stockport
Yes 24,090
No 103,706

Tameside
Yes 16,323
No 83,105

Trafford
Yes 20,445
No 83,568

Wigan
Yes 27,810
No 78,565
This was how the vote went in Manchester over congestion charging. Bolton Yes 20,529 No 76,910 Bury Yes16,563 No 64,001 Manchester Yes 43,593 No 113,064 Oldham Yes 17,571 No 68,884 Rochdale Yes 17,333 No 61,686 Salford Yes 14,603 No 79,326 Stockport Yes 24,090 No 103,706 Tameside Yes 16,323 No 83,105 Trafford Yes 20,445 No 83,568 Wigan Yes 27,810 No 78,565 Taken for a Mug

1:19pm Sat 13 Feb 10

Rhino's Wellies says...

Clive Dunn wrote:
Yeah, great idea. Introduce congestion charges and I'll just do my shopping online, York businesses will go under and I'll look forward to the inevitable Press wailing and gnashing of teeth "Oh where did it all go wrong! The internet is killing local trade!".

And don't talk to me about public transport in York. First are an absolute joke, I've lost count of the times I've waited at a bus stop for over half an hour, no buses whatsoever, so I've gone home, got the car and driven into town instead. In first gear, as fast as possible, and running over as many dolphins as I can, because I care about the environmental impact as much as First York care about publishing a bus timetable they can stick to.
I've no idea if they stick to all of the timetables as I need to be 9ft tall to read some of them they're that high up.
[quote][p][bold]Clive Dunn[/bold] wrote: Yeah, great idea. Introduce congestion charges and I'll just do my shopping online, York businesses will go under and I'll look forward to the inevitable Press wailing and gnashing of teeth "Oh where did it all go wrong! The internet is killing local trade!". And don't talk to me about public transport in York. First are an absolute joke, I've lost count of the times I've waited at a bus stop for over half an hour, no buses whatsoever, so I've gone home, got the car and driven into town instead. In first gear, as fast as possible, and running over as many dolphins as I can, because I care about the environmental impact as much as First York care about publishing a bus timetable they can stick to.[/p][/quote]I've no idea if they stick to all of the timetables as I need to be 9ft tall to read some of them they're that high up. Rhino's Wellies

1:43pm Sat 13 Feb 10

AngryandFrustrated says...

And what about us poor sods that live within the city centre and who have to drive out of York to go to work in the morning and have to drive into York after work at night?How much is it going cost us? I have to commute and have to have my car with me for most of the working week because the public transport links, whilst adequate, do not fit in with the nature of my job.

The Council need to be very careful not to penalise the thousands of voters that are in a similar position.
And what about us poor sods that live within the city centre and who have to drive out of York to go to work in the morning and have to drive into York after work at night?How much is it going cost us? I have to commute and have to have my car with me for most of the working week because the public transport links, whilst adequate, do not fit in with the nature of my job. The Council need to be very careful not to penalise the thousands of voters that are in a similar position. AngryandFrustrated

1:50pm Sat 13 Feb 10

monkeyhanger says...

I think people give cyclists a hard time,how else would little chavs get to town to shoplift and the unemployable get to sign on.So come on tax payers let chip in some more,and while were at it, dont think bendy buses are large enough for the three people that ride on them.Triple buses would be roomier and totally block the streets,the cyclists can use the pavements everyones happy.Cars should be parked at home and car tax sould be raised to at least £1000 pounds or car drivers pay cyclists directly for the good the are doing.
I think people give cyclists a hard time,how else would little chavs get to town to shoplift and the unemployable get to sign on.So come on tax payers let chip in some more,and while were at it, dont think bendy buses are large enough for the three people that ride on them.Triple buses would be roomier and totally block the streets,the cyclists can use the pavements everyones happy.Cars should be parked at home and car tax sould be raised to at least £1000 pounds or car drivers pay cyclists directly for the good the are doing. monkeyhanger

3:51pm Sat 13 Feb 10

KarenWhite1978 says...

Taken for a Mug wrote:
This was how the vote went in Manchester over congestion charging. Bolton Yes 20,529 No 76,910 Bury Yes16,563 No 64,001 Manchester Yes 43,593 No 113,064 Oldham Yes 17,571 No 68,884 Rochdale Yes 17,333 No 61,686 Salford Yes 14,603 No 79,326 Stockport Yes 24,090 No 103,706 Tameside Yes 16,323 No 83,105 Trafford Yes 20,445 No 83,568 Wigan Yes 27,810 No 78,565
I thought the thorough rejection of the charge by the Manchester area was one of the best news stories of the last few years, the driving majority standing up against the lazy green minority.
[quote][p][bold]Taken for a Mug[/bold] wrote: This was how the vote went in Manchester over congestion charging. Bolton Yes 20,529 No 76,910 Bury Yes16,563 No 64,001 Manchester Yes 43,593 No 113,064 Oldham Yes 17,571 No 68,884 Rochdale Yes 17,333 No 61,686 Salford Yes 14,603 No 79,326 Stockport Yes 24,090 No 103,706 Tameside Yes 16,323 No 83,105 Trafford Yes 20,445 No 83,568 Wigan Yes 27,810 No 78,565[/p][/quote]I thought the thorough rejection of the charge by the Manchester area was one of the best news stories of the last few years, the driving majority standing up against the lazy green minority. KarenWhite1978

5:24pm Sat 13 Feb 10

Highwayman says...

The one thing York has always lacked is a vision and statesman to take that vision forward. In the Press on the same day you can read of some councillor wanting to attract new business while another supports congestion charges. One says we can’t afford to make the northern bypass dual carriageway and another says something must be done to relieve gridlock. Without this vision industries move on and we become increasingly dependant on Tourism. Why debate congestion charges why not debate the future of York where congestion charges are but one aspect?
The one thing York has always lacked is a vision and statesman to take that vision forward. In the Press on the same day you can read of some councillor wanting to attract new business while another supports congestion charges. One says we can’t afford to make the northern bypass dual carriageway and another says something must be done to relieve gridlock. Without this vision industries move on and we become increasingly dependant on Tourism. Why debate congestion charges why not debate the future of York where congestion charges are but one aspect? Highwayman

5:24pm Sat 13 Feb 10

again says...

IIRC the cost of motoring is at its lowest for decades and congestion is the inevitable result.

Blaming cyclists is just the mindless stupidity of the foolish.
IIRC the cost of motoring is at its lowest for decades and congestion is the inevitable result. Blaming cyclists is just the mindless stupidity of the foolish. again

5:24pm Sat 13 Feb 10

Wrangle says...

For god sake can it get worse? Hepworth, just...... go away
For god sake can it get worse? Hepworth, just...... go away Wrangle

5:57pm Sat 13 Feb 10

Yorkshire Volunteer says...

As a pedestrian in York I have been more often almost run over by cyclists than by cars. Drivers I fins are more considerate and alert to the risks but cyclists (generalisation coming up - there are great exceptions) seem to exude some dort of eco-superiority over every other road user, barging over red lights, crossings being used by pedestrians and cutting up cars. WEhen challenged it is unusual not to learn some new and vulgar four letter word uttered with self rightious rage.

..... and no, I diont drive a car in York, I use the bus.

(I like the suggestion above of them all being insured, having numbers and passing tests etc)
As a pedestrian in York I have been more often almost run over by cyclists than by cars. Drivers I fins are more considerate and alert to the risks but cyclists (generalisation coming up - there are great exceptions) seem to exude some dort of eco-superiority over every other road user, barging over red lights, crossings being used by pedestrians and cutting up cars. WEhen challenged it is unusual not to learn some new and vulgar four letter word uttered with self rightious rage. ..... and no, I diont drive a car in York, I use the bus. (I like the suggestion above of them all being insured, having numbers and passing tests etc) Yorkshire Volunteer

6:07pm Sat 13 Feb 10

the butler says...

Only school and hospital zones would be better served by a 20mph limit, The bus system has to be upgraded to improved delivery times, modifying bus capacities to suit the traffic; A general 20mph within the city bounderies would be a backward step to improved mobility, besides being stupid...
Only school and hospital zones would be better served by a 20mph limit, The bus system has to be upgraded to improved delivery times, modifying bus capacities to suit the traffic; A general 20mph within the city bounderies would be a backward step to improved mobility, besides being stupid... the butler

6:14pm Sat 13 Feb 10

TooRad says...

Vote NO for congestion charging in York
Vote NO for congestion charging in York TooRad

7:39pm Sat 13 Feb 10

mystic_genius says...

Highwayman wrote:
The one thing York has always lacked is a vision and statesman to take that vision forward. In the Press on the same day you can read of some councillor wanting to attract new business while another supports congestion charges. One says we can’t afford to make the northern bypass dual carriageway and another says something must be done to relieve gridlock. Without this vision industries move on and we become increasingly dependant on Tourism. Why debate congestion charges why not debate the future of York where congestion charges are but one aspect?
Excellent in theory.
`
In practice, however, councils are fluent in nature and usually not round long enough to make any meaningful difference in the long term. Either they inherit a badly run council, and try and turn it round (which is unpopular), or they inherit an OKish council and do their best to isolate all voters.
`
Any policy implimented for the long term just gets cut short by the next administration coming in. If meaningful change is to happen in any local authority, then all residents need to voice their concerns, then the parties work to those concerns, together. But that'll never happen, so as a result, the whole point of a local government is somewhat pointless. Still. Think of what would happen if council employees where employed by the real world...now there's a worrying thought...
[quote][p][bold]Highwayman[/bold] wrote: The one thing York has always lacked is a vision and statesman to take that vision forward. In the Press on the same day you can read of some councillor wanting to attract new business while another supports congestion charges. One says we can’t afford to make the northern bypass dual carriageway and another says something must be done to relieve gridlock. Without this vision industries move on and we become increasingly dependant on Tourism. Why debate congestion charges why not debate the future of York where congestion charges are but one aspect?[/p][/quote]Excellent in theory. ` In practice, however, councils are fluent in nature and usually not round long enough to make any meaningful difference in the long term. Either they inherit a badly run council, and try and turn it round (which is unpopular), or they inherit an OKish council and do their best to isolate all voters. ` Any policy implimented for the long term just gets cut short by the next administration coming in. If meaningful change is to happen in any local authority, then all residents need to voice their concerns, then the parties work to those concerns, together. But that'll never happen, so as a result, the whole point of a local government is somewhat pointless. Still. Think of what would happen if council employees where employed by the real world...now there's a worrying thought... mystic_genius

8:48pm Sat 13 Feb 10

Silver says...

If we were all rich and we had recovered from the recession I think the congestion charge would be ok. Unluckily we are just coming out of recession and are far from affluent. We have to get jobs and stability first, this charge isn't going to help us do that, it's obvious it's going to drain us that little bit more. So lets just ignore this idea and anyone proposing it must be a lunatic. This way we can identify and section them for the benefit of all.
If we were all rich and we had recovered from the recession I think the congestion charge would be ok. Unluckily we are just coming out of recession and are far from affluent. We have to get jobs and stability first, this charge isn't going to help us do that, it's obvious it's going to drain us that little bit more. So lets just ignore this idea and anyone proposing it must be a lunatic. This way we can identify and section them for the benefit of all. Silver

9:04pm Sat 13 Feb 10

humpty numpty says...

anyone agree that peddlin looks like madge off prisoner cell block H?
anyone agree that peddlin looks like madge off prisoner cell block H? humpty numpty

9:20pm Sat 13 Feb 10

mockaroundtheclock says...

As a cyclist I really wish we had a better spokesman than the relentles and antagonistic Paul Hepworth.

Having said that, congestion charge for York is stupid idea.
As a cyclist I really wish we had a better spokesman than the relentles and antagonistic Paul Hepworth. Having said that, congestion charge for York is stupid idea. mockaroundtheclock

9:28pm Sat 13 Feb 10

ak7274 says...

No to the idiotic idea. Absolutely not. at the risk of looking as though I am sitting on the fence. Shove the idea right where the Sun don't shine.
Looking at the Photo of Mr Hepworth, i can only conclude that cycling is bad for your health.
For the love of all things sane , have a proper consultation with ALL the public and not Mr Hepworth and a band of one trick ponies.
Congestion charges are not inevitable. We are in the depths of recession and some berk decides it's a good idea to make us pay more. If I owned a shop in Town I would be seriously thinking about closing it if Puddled Paul gets HIS way.
Message for the rest of the Council. "DON'T EVEN THINK ABOUT IT" There is precious little enterprise in this City without making punitive charges.
Better still wake up and find a workable alternative.
No to the idiotic idea. Absolutely not. at the risk of looking as though I am sitting on the fence. Shove the idea right where the Sun don't shine. Looking at the Photo of Mr Hepworth, i can only conclude that cycling is bad for your health. For the love of all things sane , have a proper consultation with ALL the public and not Mr Hepworth and a band of one trick ponies. Congestion charges are not inevitable. We are in the depths of recession and some berk decides it's a good idea to make us pay more. If I owned a shop in Town I would be seriously thinking about closing it if Puddled Paul gets HIS way. Message for the rest of the Council. "DON'T EVEN THINK ABOUT IT" There is precious little enterprise in this City without making punitive charges. Better still wake up and find a workable alternative. ak7274

10:14pm Sat 13 Feb 10

Get-a-grip says...

Now we know what the pedalling pillock looks like, I for one will be looking out for him wobbling through traffic lights at red and cycling on the pavement.
Now we know what the pedalling pillock looks like, I for one will be looking out for him wobbling through traffic lights at red and cycling on the pavement. Get-a-grip

11:47pm Sat 13 Feb 10

Rhino's Wellies says...

Why are the Press so obsessed with this Hepworth berk? Everyone on on here has the same opinion about him so why do the Press and the council constantly seek his views?

It's like getting Karen Bulmer to talk about an alcohol ban
Why are the Press so obsessed with this Hepworth berk? Everyone on on here has the same opinion about him so why do the Press and the council constantly seek his views? It's like getting Karen Bulmer to talk about an alcohol ban Rhino's Wellies

1:42am Sun 14 Feb 10

BL2 says...

Well I've just filled in the "consultation" on the York Gov website and as usual it's a load of rubbish ... "choose from what we want to do, not what you want us to do..."
Well I've just filled in the "consultation" on the York Gov website and as usual it's a load of rubbish ... "choose from what we want to do, not what you want us to do..." BL2

2:58am Sun 14 Feb 10

moneyforwhat says...

mockaroundtheclock wrote:
As a cyclist I really wish we had a better spokesman than the relentles and antagonistic Paul Hepworth. Having said that, congestion charge for York is stupid idea.
quite why this chap has taken it upon himself to be the voice of the cycle is beyond most peoples comprehension. There was a super person who was unfortunate enough to have a brain. That person criticised the mess that is Clifton Green, and then gave up. York was a beautiful city. The heritage it was fortunate enough to have, should have provided for the most exciting and healthy economy. To have what York had and let it go is unforgiveable. The city should have capitalised on it's beauty and been promoted on it's history. People like old, quirky and unique. (I do not refer to an individual). So called improvements are invariably ugly. How did that building manage to happen at Lord Mayors Walk/Gillygate. It looks like the porthole to the end of the world. There are some noteable exceptions (NRM for example) but looking at it overall why would anyone get excited about coming here - you can sit in a cafe anywhere and you can see cycles anywhere. The polo theory has extended to the point where even the outer is dissolving. The extreme promotion of the cycle will not resolve the finances of the city.
[quote][p][bold]mockaroundtheclock[/bold] wrote: As a cyclist I really wish we had a better spokesman than the relentles and antagonistic Paul Hepworth. Having said that, congestion charge for York is stupid idea.[/p][/quote]quite why this chap has taken it upon himself to be the voice of the cycle is beyond most peoples comprehension. There was a super person who was unfortunate enough to have a brain. That person criticised the mess that is Clifton Green, and then gave up. York was a beautiful city. The heritage it was fortunate enough to have, should have provided for the most exciting and healthy economy. To have what York had and let it go is unforgiveable. The city should have capitalised on it's beauty and been promoted on it's history. People like old, quirky and unique. (I do not refer to an individual). So called improvements are invariably ugly. How did that building manage to happen at Lord Mayors Walk/Gillygate. It looks like the porthole to the end of the world. There are some noteable exceptions (NRM for example) but looking at it overall why would anyone get excited about coming here - you can sit in a cafe anywhere and you can see cycles anywhere. The polo theory has extended to the point where even the outer is dissolving. The extreme promotion of the cycle will not resolve the finances of the city. moneyforwhat

9:11am Sun 14 Feb 10

Sawday2 says...

WHy not just charge cyclists and make the place safer for pedestrians and rivers alike. Ten we could loose the cycle lanes, or chicanes as I like to call them, and make the roads wide enough for buses, delivery vans and cars.
WHy not just charge cyclists and make the place safer for pedestrians and rivers alike. Ten we could loose the cycle lanes, or chicanes as I like to call them, and make the roads wide enough for buses, delivery vans and cars. Sawday2

9:49am Sun 14 Feb 10

cobra45 says...

If we have to pay to drive in York.
People will do more shopping out of Town. York town center will become a Ghost town.
More shops will close.
Shop are closing every Day in York due to high rents etc. So charging to Drive in to York would only make things worse.
If we have to pay to drive in York. People will do more shopping out of Town. York town center will become a Ghost town. More shops will close. Shop are closing every Day in York due to high rents etc. So charging to Drive in to York would only make things worse. cobra45

10:10am Sun 14 Feb 10

Theendoftheworld says...

What you people don't understand is that piddling Paul and his minions do not care about the city, about pollution, about closing shops, about dwindling trade, about anything in fact that does not include cycling. They have one-track minds and the track is of the cycling kind!
What you people don't understand is that piddling Paul and his minions do not care about the city, about pollution, about closing shops, about dwindling trade, about anything in fact that does not include cycling. They have one-track minds and the track is of the cycling kind! Theendoftheworld

10:31am Sun 14 Feb 10

sheps lad says...

Strange how a debate about congestion charging has developed into the usual rants about cycling/cyclists. York a cycling city?.Seems like an anti cycling city to me.
Strange how a debate about congestion charging has developed into the usual rants about cycling/cyclists. York a cycling city?.Seems like an anti cycling city to me. sheps lad

11:03am Sun 14 Feb 10

moneyforwhat says...

sheps lad wrote:
Strange how a debate about congestion charging has developed into the usual rants about cycling/cyclists. York a cycling city?.Seems like an anti cycling city to me.
can someone not get a large hammer and try to drive home a point (not a lame attempt at a pun). Cycles are not the be all and end all of York and will not on it's own merits be a solution to finances. It is eating up money and is not paying anything back. I am all for a better environment but York presently is declining so fast and the debate and issues concerning cycles is not going to improve it. Money is tight and there are more needs than the next cycle stategy. Thinking must go way beyond this or there will be no environment on an immeditate level. This spokesman is a retired person and has time on his hands (firstly to cycle and secondly to drive people nuts on here). It's not realistic. He should take up residence deep in W Yorkshire on them there hills and try a cycle worship group there. York has latched on to being flat - let's face it, it has little else.
[quote][p][bold]sheps lad[/bold] wrote: Strange how a debate about congestion charging has developed into the usual rants about cycling/cyclists. York a cycling city?.Seems like an anti cycling city to me.[/p][/quote]can someone not get a large hammer and try to drive home a point (not a lame attempt at a pun). Cycles are not the be all and end all of York and will not on it's own merits be a solution to finances. It is eating up money and is not paying anything back. I am all for a better environment but York presently is declining so fast and the debate and issues concerning cycles is not going to improve it. Money is tight and there are more needs than the next cycle stategy. Thinking must go way beyond this or there will be no environment on an immeditate level. This spokesman is a retired person and has time on his hands (firstly to cycle and secondly to drive people nuts on here). It's not realistic. He should take up residence deep in W Yorkshire on them there hills and try a cycle worship group there. York has latched on to being flat - let's face it, it has little else. moneyforwhat

11:15am Sun 14 Feb 10

RingoStarr says...

moneyforwhat wrote:
sheps lad wrote: Strange how a debate about congestion charging has developed into the usual rants about cycling/cyclists. York a cycling city?.Seems like an anti cycling city to me.
can someone not get a large hammer and try to drive home a point (not a lame attempt at a pun). Cycles are not the be all and end all of York and will not on it's own merits be a solution to finances. It is eating up money and is not paying anything back. I am all for a better environment but York presently is declining so fast and the debate and issues concerning cycles is not going to improve it. Money is tight and there are more needs than the next cycle stategy. Thinking must go way beyond this or there will be no environment on an immeditate level. This spokesman is a retired person and has time on his hands (firstly to cycle and secondly to drive people nuts on here). It's not realistic. He should take up residence deep in W Yorkshire on them there hills and try a cycle worship group there. York has latched on to being flat - let's face it, it has little else.
Hear, hear!
[quote][p][bold]moneyforwhat[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]sheps lad[/bold] wrote: Strange how a debate about congestion charging has developed into the usual rants about cycling/cyclists. York a cycling city?.Seems like an anti cycling city to me.[/p][/quote]can someone not get a large hammer and try to drive home a point (not a lame attempt at a pun). Cycles are not the be all and end all of York and will not on it's own merits be a solution to finances. It is eating up money and is not paying anything back. I am all for a better environment but York presently is declining so fast and the debate and issues concerning cycles is not going to improve it. Money is tight and there are more needs than the next cycle stategy. Thinking must go way beyond this or there will be no environment on an immeditate level. This spokesman is a retired person and has time on his hands (firstly to cycle and secondly to drive people nuts on here). It's not realistic. He should take up residence deep in W Yorkshire on them there hills and try a cycle worship group there. York has latched on to being flat - let's face it, it has little else.[/p][/quote]Hear, hear! RingoStarr

11:40am Sun 14 Feb 10

Rhino's Wellies says...

Right, enough is enough now. PLEASE can we just ignore the biking berk and he might go away.

He's just a troll who makes comments to wind people up and it's working.
Right, enough is enough now. PLEASE can we just ignore the biking berk and he might go away. He's just a troll who makes comments to wind people up and it's working. Rhino's Wellies

11:56am Sun 14 Feb 10

Bishlad says...

Congeation Charges will arrive in York.
How such charges will affect the economy of the city is quite a mystery. Most of the traffic is moving through the City to the outskirts, in the main to avoid congestion on the ring road.

I don't want parking charges but folks they are inevitable so get used to it.

With less traffic on the roads of York buses will be able to run more efficiently and on time, as to cycles...........rea
lly don't care.
Congeation Charges will arrive in York. How such charges will affect the economy of the city is quite a mystery. Most of the traffic is moving through the City to the outskirts, in the main to avoid congestion on the ring road. I don't want parking charges but folks they are inevitable so get used to it. With less traffic on the roads of York buses will be able to run more efficiently and on time, as to cycles...........rea lly don't care. Bishlad

12:54pm Sun 14 Feb 10

again says...

sheps lad wrote:
Strange how a debate about congestion charging has developed into the usual rants about cycling/cyclists. York a cycling city?.Seems like an anti cycling city to me.
Yes, I'm just waiting for someone to tell me that cyclists are the Taliban in disguise, that's when they are not eating babies!
[quote][p][bold]sheps lad[/bold] wrote: Strange how a debate about congestion charging has developed into the usual rants about cycling/cyclists. York a cycling city?.Seems like an anti cycling city to me.[/p][/quote]Yes, I'm just waiting for someone to tell me that cyclists are the Taliban in disguise, that's when they are not eating babies! again

2:30pm Sun 14 Feb 10

tcrown says...

As someone who works in the heritage industry in York, congestion charging worries me. It will put tourists off coming to York if they can't drive in and that will hit not only my own industry, but also shops, hotels, bars etc. I also use my car to commute as it is the only viable transport for me given childcare and work commitments. I would struggle if I had to pay a congestion charge on top of VED and fuel tax. I think I am already taxed enough to drive my car. Another point is that I believe York is too small a city for congestion charging.
As someone who works in the heritage industry in York, congestion charging worries me. It will put tourists off coming to York if they can't drive in and that will hit not only my own industry, but also shops, hotels, bars etc. I also use my car to commute as it is the only viable transport for me given childcare and work commitments. I would struggle if I had to pay a congestion charge on top of VED and fuel tax. I think I am already taxed enough to drive my car. Another point is that I believe York is too small a city for congestion charging. tcrown

2:40pm Sun 14 Feb 10

Karate Frank says...

LibDem wrote:
If such a scheme were to be introduced then the income could only be used to fund transport improvements (not other projects such as the new HQ, which in any event is self funding as the rents that the Council currently pay will disappear). One of the faults in the congestion charging argument is that the fewer vehicles that pass any charging boundary then the less income is generated. So the more effective the scheme is in combating congestion the less money there is to spend on bus services, improving the ring road etc. An automated country wide charging scheme to replace VED, where you pay more to drive at busy times of the day may be worth considering. For York to go it alone would be highly damaging to our economy and would drive customers and jobs to the towns and City's which are our competitors.
Transport improvements? Ha, what a joke. Do you mean "improvements" like the fiasco outside York Station, or perhaps "improvements" like the abortion that is Clifton Green? It would just be another hefty tax for York Council to waste.
[quote][p][bold]LibDem[/bold] wrote: If such a scheme were to be introduced then the income could only be used to fund transport improvements (not other projects such as the new HQ, which in any event is self funding as the rents that the Council currently pay will disappear). One of the faults in the congestion charging argument is that the fewer vehicles that pass any charging boundary then the less income is generated. So the more effective the scheme is in combating congestion the less money there is to spend on bus services, improving the ring road etc. An automated country wide charging scheme to replace VED, where you pay more to drive at busy times of the day may be worth considering. For York to go it alone would be highly damaging to our economy and would drive customers and jobs to the towns and City's which are our competitors.[/p][/quote]Transport improvements? Ha, what a joke. Do you mean "improvements" like the fiasco outside York Station, or perhaps "improvements" like the abortion that is Clifton Green? It would just be another hefty tax for York Council to waste. Karate Frank

3:52pm Sun 14 Feb 10

moneyforwhat says...

Yorkshire Volunteer wrote:
As a pedestrian in York I have been more often almost run over by cyclists than by cars. Drivers I fins are more considerate and alert to the risks but cyclists (generalisation coming up - there are great exceptions) seem to exude some dort of eco-superiority over every other road user, barging over red lights, crossings being used by pedestrians and cutting up cars. WEhen challenged it is unusual not to learn some new and vulgar four letter word uttered with self rightious rage. ..... and no, I diont drive a car in York, I use the bus. (I like the suggestion above of them all being insured, having numbers and passing tests etc)
I echo your remarks. I am more pedestrian than anything else. Walking is a healthy way to get about when you are able to and have the time, and sadly too many cyclists are the equivalent of the old style roadhog. Of course there are notable exceptions and anyone who just gets on with it and does it well without bleating that they are saving the universe is a wonderful human being. We know that there is a problem with cars, we also know that there will be a huge problem with gas supplies within the next 5-10 years. Infrastructure of water and all the essentials needs attention and a new radical approach which will need financing. This is not going to be achieved on the cycle.
I walk as I love to, I used to cycle but an accident (it wasn't a car!!!) left me a bit fragile and it was more important to be mobile on my feet. I drive occasionally, but not into York. I occasionally use a bus.
Cyclists should be insured and identifiable and proficient as road users (can a pedestrian have the footpath back please) and a very easy solution to reducing car numbers is to ensure that the standard of driving is much higher than many can ever achieve. A stiffer test on the actual driving rather than increasing any of the written test should be encouraged, and a re-test say every three years with a renewable licence should sort out the doddery, inept and unskilled.
[quote][p][bold]Yorkshire Volunteer[/bold] wrote: As a pedestrian in York I have been more often almost run over by cyclists than by cars. Drivers I fins are more considerate and alert to the risks but cyclists (generalisation coming up - there are great exceptions) seem to exude some dort of eco-superiority over every other road user, barging over red lights, crossings being used by pedestrians and cutting up cars. WEhen challenged it is unusual not to learn some new and vulgar four letter word uttered with self rightious rage. ..... and no, I diont drive a car in York, I use the bus. (I like the suggestion above of them all being insured, having numbers and passing tests etc)[/p][/quote]I echo your remarks. I am more pedestrian than anything else. Walking is a healthy way to get about when you are able to and have the time, and sadly too many cyclists are the equivalent of the old style roadhog. Of course there are notable exceptions and anyone who just gets on with it and does it well without bleating that they are saving the universe is a wonderful human being. We know that there is a problem with cars, we also know that there will be a huge problem with gas supplies within the next 5-10 years. Infrastructure of water and all the essentials needs attention and a new radical approach which will need financing. This is not going to be achieved on the cycle. I walk as I love to, I used to cycle but an accident (it wasn't a car!!!) left me a bit fragile and it was more important to be mobile on my feet. I drive occasionally, but not into York. I occasionally use a bus. Cyclists should be insured and identifiable and proficient as road users (can a pedestrian have the footpath back please) and a very easy solution to reducing car numbers is to ensure that the standard of driving is much higher than many can ever achieve. A stiffer test on the actual driving rather than increasing any of the written test should be encouraged, and a re-test say every three years with a renewable licence should sort out the doddery, inept and unskilled. moneyforwhat

4:50pm Sun 14 Feb 10

Garrowby Turnoff says...

At work we're in and out of York several times a week. It's not congested after "rush-hour" and the improvement would hardly be noticeable most days as traffic is light compared with say, Leeds.
Is this just Press talk on a slow day?
At work we're in and out of York several times a week. It's not congested after "rush-hour" and the improvement would hardly be noticeable most days as traffic is light compared with say, Leeds. Is this just Press talk on a slow day? Garrowby Turnoff

6:45pm Sun 14 Feb 10

bloodaxe says...

moneyforwhat wrote:
mockaroundtheclock wrote: As a cyclist I really wish we had a better spokesman than the relentles and antagonistic Paul Hepworth. Having said that, congestion charge for York is stupid idea.
quite why this chap has taken it upon himself to be the voice of the cycle is beyond most peoples comprehension. There was a super person who was unfortunate enough to have a brain. That person criticised the mess that is Clifton Green, and then gave up. York was a beautiful city. The heritage it was fortunate enough to have, should have provided for the most exciting and healthy economy. To have what York had and let it go is unforgiveable. The city should have capitalised on it's beauty and been promoted on it's history. People like old, quirky and unique. (I do not refer to an individual). So called improvements are invariably ugly. How did that building manage to happen at Lord Mayors Walk/Gillygate. It looks like the porthole to the end of the world. There are some noteable exceptions (NRM for example) but looking at it overall why would anyone get excited about coming here - you can sit in a cafe anywhere and you can see cycles anywhere. The polo theory has extended to the point where even the outer is dissolving. The extreme promotion of the cycle will not resolve the finances of the city.
1. York is a beautiful city.
2. It has a healthy economy, compared with most places. Certainly in the top 10% in the UK.
3. NRM is a shed.
4. York St John is terrific.
[quote][p][bold]moneyforwhat[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]mockaroundtheclock[/bold] wrote: As a cyclist I really wish we had a better spokesman than the relentles and antagonistic Paul Hepworth. Having said that, congestion charge for York is stupid idea.[/p][/quote]quite why this chap has taken it upon himself to be the voice of the cycle is beyond most peoples comprehension. There was a super person who was unfortunate enough to have a brain. That person criticised the mess that is Clifton Green, and then gave up. York was a beautiful city. The heritage it was fortunate enough to have, should have provided for the most exciting and healthy economy. To have what York had and let it go is unforgiveable. The city should have capitalised on it's beauty and been promoted on it's history. People like old, quirky and unique. (I do not refer to an individual). So called improvements are invariably ugly. How did that building manage to happen at Lord Mayors Walk/Gillygate. It looks like the porthole to the end of the world. There are some noteable exceptions (NRM for example) but looking at it overall why would anyone get excited about coming here - you can sit in a cafe anywhere and you can see cycles anywhere. The polo theory has extended to the point where even the outer is dissolving. The extreme promotion of the cycle will not resolve the finances of the city.[/p][/quote]1. York is a beautiful city. 2. It has a healthy economy, compared with most places. Certainly in the top 10% in the UK. 3. NRM is a shed. 4. York St John is terrific. bloodaxe

6:59pm Sun 14 Feb 10

Silver says...

sheps lad wrote:
Strange how a debate about congestion charging has developed into the usual rants about cycling/cyclists. York a cycling city?.Seems like an anti cycling city to me.
It's actually anti pedalling paul. I don't really mind cyclists and admit it's a good thing. But do you remember when you were young like 17 and one of your friends bought their first car. Always a battered beaten up thing and they thought it was the best thing on the road and wouldn't shut up about it? So when they're a fully grown individual you think they're a t*sser.
[quote][p][bold]sheps lad[/bold] wrote: Strange how a debate about congestion charging has developed into the usual rants about cycling/cyclists. York a cycling city?.Seems like an anti cycling city to me.[/p][/quote]It's actually anti pedalling paul. I don't really mind cyclists and admit it's a good thing. But do you remember when you were young like 17 and one of your friends bought their first car. Always a battered beaten up thing and they thought it was the best thing on the road and wouldn't shut up about it? So when they're a fully grown individual you think they're a t*sser. Silver

7:01pm Sun 14 Feb 10

Haxbyite says...

I wonder how it will affect somebody like me - partially disabled, living in the City centre and needing a car.

Am I going to be 'taxed' for living in the City and having to use a car? Am I going to be charged again each time I come back into the City after visiting somebody?

It doesn't really matter what we think about an additional charge because it will happen. It's how the Government, both local and central, operate. They have to get money from somewhere so they just come up with another stealth tax.
I wonder how it will affect somebody like me - partially disabled, living in the City centre and needing a car. Am I going to be 'taxed' for living in the City and having to use a car? Am I going to be charged again each time I come back into the City after visiting somebody? It doesn't really matter what we think about an additional charge because it will happen. It's how the Government, both local and central, operate. They have to get money from somewhere so they just come up with another stealth tax. Haxbyite

7:30pm Sun 14 Feb 10

richard22 says...

Whilst I appreciate the problems with cars in York, irresponsible cyclists are also a problem (I am a cyclist myself) & I do believe they should have basic insurance and some kind of registration. On a more personal note I live out of town, however York is our nearest shopping town and railway station. Will I have to pay a congestion charge to catch a train (we have no bus service other than the National Express service at 0900 to york and back after 1800hrs). This means I will purchase more on-line and use the car instead of the train. Whilst I like the park & ride, it lets itself down, once on the bus it is stuck in the traffic so are you going to sit on a bus in traffic or stay in your car? If you want it to work the bus needs priority lanes all the way into York.

If this comes in then we shall probably only come into places like Monks Cross & Clifton Moor rather than the center where we support local business at the moment.
Whilst I appreciate the problems with cars in York, irresponsible cyclists are also a problem (I am a cyclist myself) & I do believe they should have basic insurance and some kind of registration. On a more personal note I live out of town, however York is our nearest shopping town and railway station. Will I have to pay a congestion charge to catch a train (we have no bus service other than the National Express service at 0900 to york and back after 1800hrs). This means I will purchase more on-line and use the car instead of the train. Whilst I like the park & ride, it lets itself down, once on the bus it is stuck in the traffic so are you going to sit on a bus in traffic or stay in your car? If you want it to work the bus needs priority lanes all the way into York. If this comes in then we shall probably only come into places like Monks Cross & Clifton Moor rather than the center where we support local business at the moment. richard22

7:58pm Sun 14 Feb 10

moneyforwhat says...

bloodaxe wrote:
moneyforwhat wrote:
mockaroundtheclock wrote: As a cyclist I really wish we had a better spokesman than the relentles and antagonistic Paul Hepworth. Having said that, congestion charge for York is stupid idea.
quite why this chap has taken it upon himself to be the voice of the cycle is beyond most peoples comprehension. There was a super person who was unfortunate enough to have a brain. That person criticised the mess that is Clifton Green, and then gave up. York was a beautiful city. The heritage it was fortunate enough to have, should have provided for the most exciting and healthy economy. To have what York had and let it go is unforgiveable. The city should have capitalised on it's beauty and been promoted on it's history. People like old, quirky and unique. (I do not refer to an individual). So called improvements are invariably ugly. How did that building manage to happen at Lord Mayors Walk/Gillygate. It looks like the porthole to the end of the world. There are some noteable exceptions (NRM for example) but looking at it overall why would anyone get excited about coming here - you can sit in a cafe anywhere and you can see cycles anywhere. The polo theory has extended to the point where even the outer is dissolving. The extreme promotion of the cycle will not resolve the finances of the city.
1. York is a beautiful city. 2. It has a healthy economy, compared with most places. Certainly in the top 10% in the UK. 3. NRM is a shed. 4. York St John is terrific.
not understanding what point you are trying to raise. But
1. York was an even more beautiful city and is being defiled
2. I do not know why you feel this is pertinant. Ask all the people who are losing their jobs and take a stroll down somewhere like Goodramgate on an evening and view all the empty eating establishments - that's wealth? A survey put out to York businesses would surely reveal a lack of confidence
3. NRM a shed? - but a very wonderful attraction and reflects York heritage
4. The old York St John is beautiful beyond expression, so why did it have a carbunkle attached to it. Last time I had a wander down Gillygate a visitor asked for directions and said he didn't remember going passed a prison!
[quote][p][bold]bloodaxe[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]moneyforwhat[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]mockaroundtheclock[/bold] wrote: As a cyclist I really wish we had a better spokesman than the relentles and antagonistic Paul Hepworth. Having said that, congestion charge for York is stupid idea.[/p][/quote]quite why this chap has taken it upon himself to be the voice of the cycle is beyond most peoples comprehension. There was a super person who was unfortunate enough to have a brain. That person criticised the mess that is Clifton Green, and then gave up. York was a beautiful city. The heritage it was fortunate enough to have, should have provided for the most exciting and healthy economy. To have what York had and let it go is unforgiveable. The city should have capitalised on it's beauty and been promoted on it's history. People like old, quirky and unique. (I do not refer to an individual). So called improvements are invariably ugly. How did that building manage to happen at Lord Mayors Walk/Gillygate. It looks like the porthole to the end of the world. There are some noteable exceptions (NRM for example) but looking at it overall why would anyone get excited about coming here - you can sit in a cafe anywhere and you can see cycles anywhere. The polo theory has extended to the point where even the outer is dissolving. The extreme promotion of the cycle will not resolve the finances of the city.[/p][/quote]1. York is a beautiful city. 2. It has a healthy economy, compared with most places. Certainly in the top 10% in the UK. 3. NRM is a shed. 4. York St John is terrific.[/p][/quote]not understanding what point you are trying to raise. But 1. York was an even more beautiful city and is being defiled 2. I do not know why you feel this is pertinant. Ask all the people who are losing their jobs and take a stroll down somewhere like Goodramgate on an evening and view all the empty eating establishments - that's wealth? A survey put out to York businesses would surely reveal a lack of confidence 3. NRM a shed? - but a very wonderful attraction and reflects York heritage 4. The old York St John is beautiful beyond expression, so why did it have a carbunkle attached to it. Last time I had a wander down Gillygate a visitor asked for directions and said he didn't remember going passed a prison! moneyforwhat

8:15pm Sun 14 Feb 10

fenderbassman says...

RingoStarr wrote:
Well, I suppose they have to fund the multi-million pound fiasco of the new Council's H.Q. somehow.
york council should pay any congestion charge that is introduced, lets face they are the idiots who have created it! i dont think they realise when delibrately cause a hold up their beloved buses also get stuck in the jam,and as for pandering to cyclist, they are about 40yrs out date, York WAS a cycling city then!god how did we manage? no cycle paths and no outer ring to keep traffic out of town?but the carriage works, rowntrees armstrongs to name a few had more cyclists on one shift than the whole of York sees in a fortnight!
[quote][p][bold]RingoStarr[/bold] wrote: Well, I suppose they have to fund the multi-million pound fiasco of the new Council's H.Q. somehow.[/p][/quote]york council should pay any congestion charge that is introduced, lets face they are the idiots who have created it! i dont think they realise when delibrately cause a hold up their beloved buses also get stuck in the jam,and as for pandering to cyclist, they are about 40yrs out date, York WAS a cycling city then!god how did we manage? no cycle paths and no outer ring to keep traffic out of town?but the carriage works, rowntrees armstrongs to name a few had more cyclists on one shift than the whole of York sees in a fortnight! fenderbassman

8:17pm Sun 14 Feb 10

fenderbassman says...

RingoStarr wrote:
Well, I suppose they have to fund the multi-million pound fiasco of the new Council's H.Q. somehow.
york council should pay any congestion charge that is introduced, lets face they are the idiots who have created it! i dont think they realise when delibrately cause a hold up their beloved buses also get stuck in the jam,and as for pandering to cyclist, they are about 40yrs out date, York WAS a cycling city then!god how did we manage? no cycle paths and no outer ring to keep traffic out of town?but the carriage works, rowntrees armstrongs to name a few had more cyclists on one shift than the whole of York sees in a fortnight!
[quote][p][bold]RingoStarr[/bold] wrote: Well, I suppose they have to fund the multi-million pound fiasco of the new Council's H.Q. somehow.[/p][/quote]york council should pay any congestion charge that is introduced, lets face they are the idiots who have created it! i dont think they realise when delibrately cause a hold up their beloved buses also get stuck in the jam,and as for pandering to cyclist, they are about 40yrs out date, York WAS a cycling city then!god how did we manage? no cycle paths and no outer ring to keep traffic out of town?but the carriage works, rowntrees armstrongs to name a few had more cyclists on one shift than the whole of York sees in a fortnight! fenderbassman

8:19pm Sun 14 Feb 10

fenderbassman says...

RingoStarr wrote:
Well, I suppose they have to fund the multi-million pound fiasco of the new Council's H.Q. somehow.
york council should pay any congestion charge that is introduced, lets face they are the idiots who have created it! i dont think they realise when delibrately cause a hold up their beloved buses also get stuck in the jam,and as for pandering to cyclist, they are about 40yrs out date, York WAS a cycling city then!god how did we manage? no cycle paths and no outer ring to keep traffic out of town?but the carriage works, rowntrees armstrongs to name a few had more cyclists on one shift than the whole of York sees in a fortnight!
[quote][p][bold]RingoStarr[/bold] wrote: Well, I suppose they have to fund the multi-million pound fiasco of the new Council's H.Q. somehow.[/p][/quote]york council should pay any congestion charge that is introduced, lets face they are the idiots who have created it! i dont think they realise when delibrately cause a hold up their beloved buses also get stuck in the jam,and as for pandering to cyclist, they are about 40yrs out date, York WAS a cycling city then!god how did we manage? no cycle paths and no outer ring to keep traffic out of town?but the carriage works, rowntrees armstrongs to name a few had more cyclists on one shift than the whole of York sees in a fortnight! fenderbassman

11:09pm Sun 14 Feb 10

Rhino's Wellies says...

Instead of a congestion charge how about fining cyclists / motorists for driving on the pavement, no lights, jumping red lights, using mobiles etc?

We could then pack Waller, Reid and Galloway off to Siberia on a one way trip.

Job done
Instead of a congestion charge how about fining cyclists / motorists for driving on the pavement, no lights, jumping red lights, using mobiles etc? We could then pack Waller, Reid and Galloway off to Siberia on a one way trip. Job done Rhino's Wellies

11:31pm Sun 14 Feb 10

Lady Muck of NP says...

Yet another tax.
Yet another tax. Lady Muck of NP

11:34pm Sun 14 Feb 10

moneyforwhat says...

Rhino's Wellies wrote:
Instead of a congestion charge how about fining cyclists / motorists for driving on the pavement, no lights, jumping red lights, using mobiles etc? We could then pack Waller, Reid and Galloway off to Siberia on a one way trip. Job done
just fabulous - do you think that could be extended to include one more individual (he who shall not be named)
[quote][p][bold]Rhino's Wellies[/bold] wrote: Instead of a congestion charge how about fining cyclists / motorists for driving on the pavement, no lights, jumping red lights, using mobiles etc? We could then pack Waller, Reid and Galloway off to Siberia on a one way trip. Job done[/p][/quote]just fabulous - do you think that could be extended to include one more individual (he who shall not be named) moneyforwhat

12:43am Mon 15 Feb 10

Rhino's Wellies says...

moneyforwhat wrote:
Rhino's Wellies wrote:
Instead of a congestion charge how about fining cyclists / motorists for driving on the pavement, no lights, jumping red lights, using mobiles etc? We could then pack Waller, Reid and Galloway off to Siberia on a one way trip. Job done
just fabulous - do you think that could be extended to include one more individual (he who shall not be named)
No, that's not very nice. The poor Siberians suffer enough with snowstorms without sending him
[quote][p][bold]moneyforwhat[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Rhino's Wellies[/bold] wrote: Instead of a congestion charge how about fining cyclists / motorists for driving on the pavement, no lights, jumping red lights, using mobiles etc? We could then pack Waller, Reid and Galloway off to Siberia on a one way trip. Job done[/p][/quote]just fabulous - do you think that could be extended to include one more individual (he who shall not be named)[/p][/quote]No, that's not very nice. The poor Siberians suffer enough with snowstorms without sending him Rhino's Wellies

9:42am Mon 15 Feb 10

sheps lad says...

Rhino's Wellies-12:43am get to bed lad you need your sleep!!
Rhino's Wellies-12:43am get to bed lad you need your sleep!! sheps lad

9:47am Mon 15 Feb 10

York Fox says...

Did anyone else notice that the major roads into York and the inner ring road were almost empty today? Do more to stop parents driving little Jemima and Tarquin to school only a mile away; dual the northern ring road; reduce bus fares. Then I will consider it as an option if it is still needed, which I doubt it would be. Until then it's just a joke of an idea!
Did anyone else notice that the major roads into York and the inner ring road were almost empty today? Do more to stop parents driving little Jemima and Tarquin to school only a mile away; dual the northern ring road; reduce bus fares. Then I will consider it as an option if it is still needed, which I doubt it would be. Until then it's just a joke of an idea! York Fox

9:50am Mon 15 Feb 10

meme says...

Within the walls alone I think a charge would be fine BUT this is within the ring road which is looney.
Plus YCC are thinking of introducing a tax to park at work...Think of the implications of that
London is our capital and is unique. York is a little City competing with lots of towns/cities nearby and to do this on our own would be economic madness.If you want to take the City back 30 years then bring in these charges as cyclists will not keep York alive economically.
If York is as bad as everyone says how come it only takes me approx 20 minutes to drive around the ring road to work and on weekends I always find it reasonably easy to drive to town.This is economic madness and typical of some politicians desire to make headlines without thinking thro the long term impacts
Why oh why do we haveto have these potential moronic issues brought up time and time again by the do gooding cycling community backedup by mad politicians
Within the walls alone I think a charge would be fine BUT this is within the ring road which is looney. Plus YCC are thinking of introducing a tax to park at work...Think of the implications of that London is our capital and is unique. York is a little City competing with lots of towns/cities nearby and to do this on our own would be economic madness.If you want to take the City back 30 years then bring in these charges as cyclists will not keep York alive economically. If York is as bad as everyone says how come it only takes me approx 20 minutes to drive around the ring road to work and on weekends I always find it reasonably easy to drive to town.This is economic madness and typical of some politicians desire to make headlines without thinking thro the long term impacts Why oh why do we haveto have these potential moronic issues brought up time and time again by the do gooding cycling community backedup by mad politicians meme

1:02pm Mon 15 Feb 10

Caecilius says...

Oh, dear. The usual kneejerk rants from the hard of understanding who can't grasp, or just refuse to accept, that congestion is caused by themselves and by all the other people who opt to drive motor vehicles into York.

It's got nothing to do with cyclists. Like the man says, the amount of space on the road network is finite. As the number of vehicles using it keeps increasing, it fills up and drivers end up sitting in worse and worse traffic jams until eventually there's a permanent log-jam. You can stick your head in the sand if you like but that's how it is. Whether the answer is congestion charging is debatable but if your response to the question is just to have another go at cyclists, then I'm afraid it makes you look a bit thick.
Oh, dear. The usual kneejerk rants from the hard of understanding who can't grasp, or just refuse to accept, that congestion is caused by themselves and by all the other people who opt to drive motor vehicles into York. It's got nothing to do with cyclists. Like the man says, the amount of space on the road network is finite. As the number of vehicles using it keeps increasing, it fills up and drivers end up sitting in worse and worse traffic jams until eventually there's a permanent log-jam. You can stick your head in the sand if you like but that's how it is. Whether the answer is congestion charging is debatable but if your response to the question is just to have another go at cyclists, then I'm afraid it makes you look a bit thick. Caecilius

1:59pm Mon 15 Feb 10

again says...

It's always easier to target a vulnerable minority than it is to think.

The great majority of cyclists are also drivers and pedestrians and not part of some conspiracy to change society by subversive means.

Those who descend to juvenile personal abuse in this debate merely discredit themselves rather than the target of their ranting. They need to grow up.
It's always easier to target a vulnerable minority than it is to think. The great majority of cyclists are also drivers and pedestrians and not part of some conspiracy to change society by subversive means. Those who descend to juvenile personal abuse in this debate merely discredit themselves rather than the target of their ranting. They need to grow up. again

2:02pm Mon 15 Feb 10

stevie55 says...

a lot of the congestion is caused by the council anyway, first of all by very inefficent trafic lights, reducing flow, second by stupid road changes ie clifton green cycle lane, and the utter mess at york station, many buses especially ftr and park and ride bendy ones taking more than ther fair share of road in places ie blossom street and town centre. also increasing park and rides only increases congestion by the huge amount of buses in the centre often with next to no passengers on apart from peak times. what is needed is a proper traffic management of the traffic lights and more thought about bus routes and costs,
a lot of the congestion is caused by the council anyway, first of all by very inefficent trafic lights, reducing flow, second by stupid road changes ie clifton green cycle lane, and the utter mess at york station, many buses especially ftr and park and ride bendy ones taking more than ther fair share of road in places ie blossom street and town centre. also increasing park and rides only increases congestion by the huge amount of buses in the centre often with next to no passengers on apart from peak times. what is needed is a proper traffic management of the traffic lights and more thought about bus routes and costs, stevie55

2:05pm Mon 15 Feb 10

Exiled Tyke says...

The Con-charge debate rears it's ugly head again.

In Manchester the adverts and other media framed their questions in such a way that there was only a 'yes' answer possible.

The Manchester con-charge would have covered the entire city out to the M60 motorway and cost me up to £5 a day just to go to work.

The 'stick' was that the charge would not have paid for the 'carrot' of new buses, trains, trams & road improvements but was to pay for the £1.4bn loan and would have taken 30+ years to pay back.

Many businesses in Manchester said they would relocate out of Manchester if the charge came in and the Manchester economy would (probably) have been big enough to withstand the losses, but York is too small to sustain the losses to business that a Con-charge would result in.

Find some other way to solve the so-called congestion problem - getting rid of bus lanes would be a good start.
The Con-charge debate rears it's ugly head again. In Manchester the adverts and other media framed their questions in such a way that there was only a 'yes' answer possible. The Manchester con-charge would have covered the entire city out to the M60 motorway and cost me up to £5 a day just to go to work. The 'stick' was that the charge would not have paid for the 'carrot' of new buses, trains, trams & road improvements but was to pay for the £1.4bn loan and would have taken 30+ years to pay back. Many businesses in Manchester said they would relocate out of Manchester if the charge came in and the Manchester economy would (probably) have been big enough to withstand the losses, but York is too small to sustain the losses to business that a Con-charge would result in. Find some other way to solve the so-called congestion problem - getting rid of bus lanes would be a good start. Exiled Tyke

2:57pm Mon 15 Feb 10

JohnBall says...

The motoring lobby is unable to see beyond the 'right to drive' dogma, is unable to see that reducing traffic in the city centre allows improved access for buses leading to better services. It also makes the city more pedestrian freindly benefitting shops, bars and restaurants. and in the end it helps reduce our carbon footprint and allows us to dig up the car parks and plant trees and flowers - which should really annoy the more fanatical among the said lobby.
The motoring lobby is unable to see beyond the 'right to drive' dogma, is unable to see that reducing traffic in the city centre allows improved access for buses leading to better services. It also makes the city more pedestrian freindly benefitting shops, bars and restaurants. and in the end it helps reduce our carbon footprint and allows us to dig up the car parks and plant trees and flowers - which should really annoy the more fanatical among the said lobby. JohnBall

3:46pm Mon 15 Feb 10

Sawday2 says...

JohnBall wrote:
The motoring lobby is unable to see beyond the 'right to drive' dogma, is unable to see that reducing traffic in the city centre allows improved access for buses leading to better services. It also makes the city more pedestrian freindly benefitting shops, bars and restaurants. and in the end it helps reduce our carbon footprint and allows us to dig up the car parks and plant trees and flowers - which should really annoy the more fanatical among the said lobby.
Correct me if I'm wrong but aren't all the Park n' Ride services (barring Designer Outlet) all within the ring road? So are we going to be charged for getting to these services?
[quote][p][bold]JohnBall[/bold] wrote: The motoring lobby is unable to see beyond the 'right to drive' dogma, is unable to see that reducing traffic in the city centre allows improved access for buses leading to better services. It also makes the city more pedestrian freindly benefitting shops, bars and restaurants. and in the end it helps reduce our carbon footprint and allows us to dig up the car parks and plant trees and flowers - which should really annoy the more fanatical among the said lobby.[/p][/quote]Correct me if I'm wrong but aren't all the Park n' Ride services (barring Designer Outlet) all within the ring road? So are we going to be charged for getting to these services? Sawday2

5:18pm Mon 15 Feb 10

moneyforwhat says...

JohnBall wrote:
The motoring lobby is unable to see beyond the 'right to drive' dogma, is unable to see that reducing traffic in the city centre allows improved access for buses leading to better services. It also makes the city more pedestrian freindly benefitting shops, bars and restaurants. and in the end it helps reduce our carbon footprint and allows us to dig up the car parks and plant trees and flowers - which should really annoy the more fanatical among the said lobby.
dear God in heaven please let them understand that there is no money in planting flowers in former car parks - it ain't going to happen. York has spent an unrealistic amount of money on tubs of flowers all over the place. Whilst I dare not say money which would have been better spent on roads, I will say better spent on footpaths so that they are not hazardous, except for the cycles of course. How disabled, the blind and so on cope with them I don't know. Half term this week - no traffic to speak of. No 'rush hour'. And hats off to fenderbassman - the sight of all those men coming out of BREL carriageworks was incredible. Dad was one of them, said there were two minor mishaps in all those years - and that without any help from the Health and Safety elves
[quote][p][bold]JohnBall[/bold] wrote: The motoring lobby is unable to see beyond the 'right to drive' dogma, is unable to see that reducing traffic in the city centre allows improved access for buses leading to better services. It also makes the city more pedestrian freindly benefitting shops, bars and restaurants. and in the end it helps reduce our carbon footprint and allows us to dig up the car parks and plant trees and flowers - which should really annoy the more fanatical among the said lobby.[/p][/quote]dear God in heaven please let them understand that there is no money in planting flowers in former car parks - it ain't going to happen. York has spent an unrealistic amount of money on tubs of flowers all over the place. Whilst I dare not say money which would have been better spent on roads, I will say better spent on footpaths so that they are not hazardous, except for the cycles of course. How disabled, the blind and so on cope with them I don't know. Half term this week - no traffic to speak of. No 'rush hour'. And hats off to fenderbassman - the sight of all those men coming out of BREL carriageworks was incredible. Dad was one of them, said there were two minor mishaps in all those years - and that without any help from the Health and Safety elves moneyforwhat

5:37pm Mon 15 Feb 10

meme says...

Why is a congestion charge going to help shops etc which are mainly inside the City walls?The charge will be inside the ring road which will immediatly drive people to out of town centres such as harrogate/Leeds/Easi
ngwold/ Thirsk Pock who must all be praying York introduces this madcap idea.
This is nothing to do with the cycling lobby some of whose ideas i support such as seaprating completly cars/bikes/pedestria
ns and fining those who transgress into others space; its political correctness gone mad. There are many more things that need sorting before this is number 1 issue on the agenda so concentrate on attracting more people to York NOT trying to drive them away.
We are not UK's capital city That was years ago. We compete with others who will be more than happy to profit from Yorks unfortuante decision making process
Why is a congestion charge going to help shops etc which are mainly inside the City walls?The charge will be inside the ring road which will immediatly drive people to out of town centres such as harrogate/Leeds/Easi ngwold/ Thirsk Pock who must all be praying York introduces this madcap idea. This is nothing to do with the cycling lobby some of whose ideas i support such as seaprating completly cars/bikes/pedestria ns and fining those who transgress into others space; its political correctness gone mad. There are many more things that need sorting before this is number 1 issue on the agenda so concentrate on attracting more people to York NOT trying to drive them away. We are not UK's capital city That was years ago. We compete with others who will be more than happy to profit from Yorks unfortuante decision making process meme

6:24pm Mon 15 Feb 10

Yorkie Girl says...

If the council introduce congestion charges it will result in more cars been forced to go from A to B via the ring road. Now I'm not sure how the councillors of York travel, but I know that the ring road is congested enough without all the city traffic joining it. Maybe they should try and sort out that problem first!

Oh and Clive Dunn...I take my hat off to you, if you were up for election, you'd get my vote!!!
If the council introduce congestion charges it will result in more cars been forced to go from A to B via the ring road. Now I'm not sure how the councillors of York travel, but I know that the ring road is congested enough without all the city traffic joining it. Maybe they should try and sort out that problem first! Oh and Clive Dunn...I take my hat off to you, if you were up for election, you'd get my vote!!! Yorkie Girl

7:07pm Mon 15 Feb 10

freerad says...

probably a silly point to make, BUT...

IF it's everyone within the ring road doesn't that mean that people who live in places such as chapelfields, acomb, knapton, badger hill, huntington, new earswick etc will have to pay to leave and re-enter the ring road? IE I live in acomb, and work in harrogate. I LEAVE York to go to work and don't get charged, but go back into the ring road (to go home) and then get stiffed for the privelige. Also aren't all the shops (monks cross and clifton moor) all within the ringroad? so the only winners are people who live outside the ring road going to the designer outlet....
probably a silly point to make, BUT... IF it's everyone within the ring road doesn't that mean that people who live in places such as chapelfields, acomb, knapton, badger hill, huntington, new earswick etc will have to pay to leave and re-enter the ring road? IE I live in acomb, and work in harrogate. I LEAVE York to go to work and don't get charged, but go back into the ring road (to go home) and then get stiffed for the privelige. Also aren't all the shops (monks cross and clifton moor) all within the ringroad? so the only winners are people who live outside the ring road going to the designer outlet.... freerad

7:53pm Mon 15 Feb 10

Cost Accountant says...

No one seems to have mentioned the extra cost of say going to the hospital from the West side of the city without going through the centre. Yes you could use the ring road adding more congestion on that, not to mention the extra pollution with the extra mileage the car would be running.
Some older people can't easily use the park and ride to get into the city and are not disabled enough to qualify for a blue badge. Would they have to pay the charge?
With a pension increase this coming year of only 2.5% (or less) the thought of any extra charge does not bear thinking about
No one seems to have mentioned the extra cost of say going to the hospital from the West side of the city without going through the centre. Yes you could use the ring road adding more congestion on that, not to mention the extra pollution with the extra mileage the car would be running. Some older people can't easily use the park and ride to get into the city and are not disabled enough to qualify for a blue badge. Would they have to pay the charge? With a pension increase this coming year of only 2.5% (or less) the thought of any extra charge does not bear thinking about Cost Accountant

7:51pm Tue 16 Feb 10

nowthen says...

Don't forget; the council is elected by US to serve US. This is a democracy. We want our interests propagating not those of self serving councillors who have a cloud cuckoo land vision of some Viking/Medieval cycling, living museum city. If we don't like what they're pushing all we have to do is vote them OUT.
Don't forget; the council is elected by US to serve US. This is a democracy. We want our interests propagating not those of self serving councillors who have a cloud cuckoo land vision of some Viking/Medieval cycling, living museum city. If we don't like what they're pushing all we have to do is vote them OUT. nowthen

12:04am Wed 17 Feb 10

MattRSJ says...

RIP York.
RIP York. MattRSJ

11:38am Wed 17 Feb 10

retrorigg says...

MattRSJ wrote:
RIP York.
that says it all , totally agree
[quote][p][bold]MattRSJ[/bold] wrote: RIP York.[/p][/quote]that says it all , totally agree retrorigg

4:06pm Wed 17 Feb 10

SensibleSimon says...

Taxing things doesn't stop people doing them, it just makes money for the dictatorship.

If you truly and honestly believe that we shouldn't be driving in the City and it will be best for the majority if we don't do it anymore - just put up raising bollards everywhere and limit it to essential road users.

Or.... put it to a vote, not just a consultation that can be ignored, and let democracy give you the answer.

But wait!! Option one makes no money, and option two means you won't get your own way. And so we are moved onto option three. The people do as they are told, and pay for the privilege.

As for the consultation I received through my door yesterday.... it should be noted that of the 4 options given, only option 3 does not include the introduction of congestion charging and business parking tax. None of the options actually describe what the council intend to do with between £90m and £250m, and yet we're supposed to make a decision! They all seem the same basically, and none of them gives much more than a 10% reduction in estimated traffic increases. Accounting for the tendency of statistics being used to support the topic in questions, I would guess that the predicted increase of 28% is top end, while the predicted increase (after taking measures and spending £250m) of 16% is probably lowest estimate.... if 12% is the best they can do with 15 years and £250m, it all looks like a pretty big waste of time to me!

Next.
Taxing things doesn't stop people doing them, it just makes money for the dictatorship. If you truly and honestly believe that we shouldn't be driving in the City and it will be best for the majority if we don't do it anymore - just put up raising bollards everywhere and limit it to essential road users. Or.... put it to a vote, not just a consultation that can be ignored, and let democracy give you the answer. But wait!! Option one makes no money, and option two means you won't get your own way. And so we are moved onto option three. The people do as they are told, and pay for the privilege. As for the consultation I received through my door yesterday.... it should be noted that of the 4 options given, only option 3 does not include the introduction of congestion charging and business parking tax. None of the options actually describe what the council intend to do with between £90m and £250m, and yet we're supposed to make a decision! They all seem the same basically, and none of them gives much more than a 10% reduction in estimated traffic increases. Accounting for the tendency of statistics being used to support the topic in questions, I would guess that the predicted increase of 28% is top end, while the predicted increase (after taking measures and spending £250m) of 16% is probably lowest estimate.... if 12% is the best they can do with 15 years and £250m, it all looks like a pretty big waste of time to me! Next. SensibleSimon

9:10pm Wed 17 Feb 10

tubbs says...

if the council reopen the roads that they have closd and put back the roads they have made a **** up of, there wouldn't be any congestion, congestion is a man made problem made by york city council in order to rob tne motorist of more of their hard earned money.
if the council reopen the roads that they have closd and put back the roads they have made a **** up of, there wouldn't be any congestion, congestion is a man made problem made by york city council in order to rob tne motorist of more of their hard earned money. tubbs

9:37pm Wed 17 Feb 10

fenderbassman says...

york residents who oppose the congestion charge,( I think that will be the majority) must make sure they return the questionnaire , the anti car brigade and the hepworthites will only get their luddite views heard if only theirs are returned, and dont worry they will send theirs back, they are on a mission! nowts so sure! just think about all the idiotic traffic schemes york council has dreamt up in their anti car brigade headquarters, where the motto is "if theres no problem lets create one, and if there is one lets make it worse" let them know how we feel about being ripped off with yet another stealth tax!
york residents who oppose the congestion charge,( I think that will be the majority) must make sure they return the questionnaire , the anti car brigade and the hepworthites will only get their luddite views heard if only theirs are returned, and dont worry they will send theirs back, they are on a mission! nowts so sure! just think about all the idiotic traffic schemes york council has dreamt up in their anti car brigade headquarters, where the motto is "if theres no problem lets create one, and if there is one lets make it worse" let them know how we feel about being ripped off with yet another stealth tax! fenderbassman

1:19pm Thu 18 Feb 10

Yorkie Girl says...

fenderbassman wrote:
york residents who oppose the congestion charge,( I think that will be the majority) must make sure they return the questionnaire , the anti car brigade and the hepworthites will only get their luddite views heard if only theirs are returned, and dont worry they will send theirs back, they are on a mission! nowts so sure! just think about all the idiotic traffic schemes york council has dreamt up in their anti car brigade headquarters, where the motto is "if theres no problem lets create one, and if there is one lets make it worse" let them know how we feel about being ripped off with yet another stealth tax!
Where do I find this questionnaire?
[quote][p][bold]fenderbassman[/bold] wrote: york residents who oppose the congestion charge,( I think that will be the majority) must make sure they return the questionnaire , the anti car brigade and the hepworthites will only get their luddite views heard if only theirs are returned, and dont worry they will send theirs back, they are on a mission! nowts so sure! just think about all the idiotic traffic schemes york council has dreamt up in their anti car brigade headquarters, where the motto is "if theres no problem lets create one, and if there is one lets make it worse" let them know how we feel about being ripped off with yet another stealth tax![/p][/quote]Where do I find this questionnaire? Yorkie Girl

7:27am Fri 19 Feb 10

JohnBall says...

Anyone thinking shoppers might prefer Pocklington as alternatives to York (meme skelton above), should a congestion charge be applied: forget it. Pocklington is one gigantic free car park and because of that motorists drive round and round the Town looking out for spaces. The Town is gridlocked half the day and creates an unpleasant shopping environment - no pedestrian precinct except on market day when the Town is busy despite the loss of 100 parking spaces!

The centre of York could be as busy as Coney St. with half to three quarters of the cars discouraged from entering.

Why do people feel the need to take a ton of ugly metal with them every time they leave home?
Anyone thinking shoppers might prefer Pocklington as alternatives to York (meme skelton above), should a congestion charge be applied: forget it. Pocklington is one gigantic free car park and because of that motorists drive round and round the Town looking out for spaces. The Town is gridlocked half the day and creates an unpleasant shopping environment - no pedestrian precinct except on market day when the Town is busy despite the loss of 100 parking spaces! The centre of York could be as busy as Coney St. with half to three quarters of the cars discouraged from entering. Why do people feel the need to take a ton of ugly metal with them every time they leave home? JohnBall

11:47pm Fri 19 Feb 10

fenderbassman says...

JohnBall wrote:
Anyone thinking shoppers might prefer Pocklington as alternatives to York (meme skelton above), should a congestion charge be applied: forget it. Pocklington is one gigantic free car park and because of that motorists drive round and round the Town looking out for spaces. The Town is gridlocked half the day and creates an unpleasant shopping environment - no pedestrian precinct except on market day when the Town is busy despite the loss of 100 parking spaces!

The centre of York could be as busy as Coney St. with half to three quarters of the cars discouraged from entering.

Why do people feel the need to take a ton of ugly metal with them every time they leave home?
`ang on J B ! no one takes a ton of ugly metal in to York town centre ,its a restricted zone, only buses ,taxis and disabled vehicles only! its the major roads leading in to York that the council have really screwed up with usual cycle lanes, bus stops in the middle of the road, chicanes ,stupid traffic lights, ( who designed the b+q lights on hull road ? an alien?)this congestion creating exercise is self answering
[quote][p][bold]JohnBall[/bold] wrote: Anyone thinking shoppers might prefer Pocklington as alternatives to York (meme skelton above), should a congestion charge be applied: forget it. Pocklington is one gigantic free car park and because of that motorists drive round and round the Town looking out for spaces. The Town is gridlocked half the day and creates an unpleasant shopping environment - no pedestrian precinct except on market day when the Town is busy despite the loss of 100 parking spaces! The centre of York could be as busy as Coney St. with half to three quarters of the cars discouraged from entering. Why do people feel the need to take a ton of ugly metal with them every time they leave home?[/p][/quote]`ang on J B ! no one takes a ton of ugly metal in to York town centre ,its a restricted zone, only buses ,taxis and disabled vehicles only! its the major roads leading in to York that the council have really screwed up with usual cycle lanes, bus stops in the middle of the road, chicanes ,stupid traffic lights, ( who designed the b+q lights on hull road ? an alien?)this congestion creating exercise is self answering fenderbassman

11:47pm Fri 19 Feb 10

fenderbassman says...

JohnBall wrote:
Anyone thinking shoppers might prefer Pocklington as alternatives to York (meme skelton above), should a congestion charge be applied: forget it. Pocklington is one gigantic free car park and because of that motorists drive round and round the Town looking out for spaces. The Town is gridlocked half the day and creates an unpleasant shopping environment - no pedestrian precinct except on market day when the Town is busy despite the loss of 100 parking spaces!

The centre of York could be as busy as Coney St. with half to three quarters of the cars discouraged from entering.

Why do people feel the need to take a ton of ugly metal with them every time they leave home?
`ang on J B ! no one takes a ton of ugly metal in to York town centre ,its a restricted zone, only buses ,taxis and disabled vehicles only! its the major roads leading in to York that the council have really screwed up with usual cycle lanes, bus stops in the middle of the road, chicanes ,stupid traffic lights, ( who designed the b+q lights on hull road ? an alien?)this congestion creating exercise is self answering
[quote][p][bold]JohnBall[/bold] wrote: Anyone thinking shoppers might prefer Pocklington as alternatives to York (meme skelton above), should a congestion charge be applied: forget it. Pocklington is one gigantic free car park and because of that motorists drive round and round the Town looking out for spaces. The Town is gridlocked half the day and creates an unpleasant shopping environment - no pedestrian precinct except on market day when the Town is busy despite the loss of 100 parking spaces! The centre of York could be as busy as Coney St. with half to three quarters of the cars discouraged from entering. Why do people feel the need to take a ton of ugly metal with them every time they leave home?[/p][/quote]`ang on J B ! no one takes a ton of ugly metal in to York town centre ,its a restricted zone, only buses ,taxis and disabled vehicles only! its the major roads leading in to York that the council have really screwed up with usual cycle lanes, bus stops in the middle of the road, chicanes ,stupid traffic lights, ( who designed the b+q lights on hull road ? an alien?)this congestion creating exercise is self answering fenderbassman

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

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

I agree