Should we pay to drive in York? (From York Press)
Get in touch: send your photos, videos, news & views by texting YORK to 80360 or send an email»
News coverage for York, Ryedale, East Yorkshire, Harrogate and Selby.
Popular topics: Community Stadium | York Wheel | Germany Beck | ftr | Queen's visit
Should we pay to drive in York?
11:11am Saturday 13th February 2010 in
-
- By Mark Stead » mark.stead@thepress.co.uk
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)
addynuff
says...
11:22am Sat 13 Feb 10
Viper_7
says...
11:24am Sat 13 Feb 10
Just another back door tax.
Zebedee
says...
11:40am Sat 13 Feb 10
TooRad
says...
12:00pm Sat 13 Feb 10
.
This ain't no consultation, it's an icebreaker to get us used to the idea, which is already decided upon.
.
Hello ghost town!
voiceoreason
says...
12:02pm Sat 13 Feb 10
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
LibDem
says...
12:03pm Sat 13 Feb 10
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.
The Cat Amongst The Pigeons
says...
12:06pm Sat 13 Feb 10
leninwasright
says...
12:09pm Sat 13 Feb 10
Zebedee wrote: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.
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!
leninwasright
says...
12:12pm Sat 13 Feb 10
leninwasright wrote:Apologies; there should have been a semi-colon after "traffic" and not a comma.
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.
mack
says...
12:12pm Sat 13 Feb 10
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.
bloodaxe
says...
12:16pm Sat 13 Feb 10
voiceoreason wrote:Vote Labour.
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
TooRad
says...
12:21pm Sat 13 Feb 10
mack wrote:I can't decide whether this is lame trolling or the blitherings of an imbecile.
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.
Anyone?
Rhino's Wellies
says...
12:25pm Sat 13 Feb 10
TooRad wrote: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
mack wrote:I can't decide whether this is lame trolling or the blitherings of an imbecile.
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.
Anyone?
The Cat Amongst The Pigeons
says...
12:26pm Sat 13 Feb 10
bloodaxe
says...
12:26pm Sat 13 Feb 10
TooRad
says...
12:32pm Sat 13 Feb 10
Rhino's Wellies wrote:But they don't cause congestion.
TooRad wrote: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
mack wrote:I can't decide whether this is lame trolling or the blitherings of an imbecile.
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.
Anyone?
Which is what this is all about.
Get-a-grip
says...
12:43pm Sat 13 Feb 10
Won't bother me much, I prefer to shop anywhere other than the city centre.
voiceofreality
says...
12:48pm Sat 13 Feb 10
Older Sometimes Wiser
says...
12:52pm Sat 13 Feb 10
TooRad wrote:Check out the definition of IRONY if and when you next visit a Library, or you could check the meaning on line!
mack wrote:I can't decide whether this is lame trolling or the blitherings of an imbecile.
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.
Anyone?
King Edward
says...
1:03pm Sat 13 Feb 10
Taken for a Mug
says...
1:04pm Sat 13 Feb 10
Clive Dunn
says...
1:16pm Sat 13 Feb 10
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.
Taken for a Mug
says...
1:17pm Sat 13 Feb 10
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
Rhino's Wellies
says...
1:19pm Sat 13 Feb 10
Clive Dunn wrote: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.
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.
AngryandFrustrated
says...
1:43pm Sat 13 Feb 10
The Council need to be very careful not to penalise the thousands of voters that are in a similar position.
monkeyhanger
says...
1:50pm Sat 13 Feb 10
KarenWhite1978
says...
3:51pm Sat 13 Feb 10
Taken for a Mug wrote: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.
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
Highwayman
says...
5:24pm Sat 13 Feb 10
again
says...
5:24pm Sat 13 Feb 10
Blaming cyclists is just the mindless stupidity of the foolish.
Wrangle
says...
5:24pm Sat 13 Feb 10
Yorkshire Volunteer
says...
5:57pm Sat 13 Feb 10
..... 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)
the butler
says...
6:07pm Sat 13 Feb 10
TooRad
says...
6:14pm Sat 13 Feb 10
mystic_genius
says...
7:39pm Sat 13 Feb 10
Highwayman wrote:Excellent in theory.
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?
`
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...
Silver
says...
8:48pm Sat 13 Feb 10
humpty numpty
says...
9:04pm Sat 13 Feb 10
mockaroundtheclock
says...
9:20pm Sat 13 Feb 10
Having said that, congestion charge for York is stupid idea.
ak7274
says...
9:28pm Sat 13 Feb 10
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.
Get-a-grip
says...
10:14pm Sat 13 Feb 10
Rhino's Wellies
says...
11:47pm Sat 13 Feb 10
It's like getting Karen Bulmer to talk about an alcohol ban
BL2
says...
1:42am Sun 14 Feb 10
moneyforwhat
says...
2:58am Sun 14 Feb 10
mockaroundtheclock wrote: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.
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.
Sawday2
says...
9:11am Sun 14 Feb 10
cobra45
says...
9:49am Sun 14 Feb 10
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.
Theendoftheworld
says...
10:10am Sun 14 Feb 10
sheps lad
says...
10:31am Sun 14 Feb 10
moneyforwhat
says...
11:03am Sun 14 Feb 10
sheps lad wrote: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.
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.
RingoStarr
says...
11:15am Sun 14 Feb 10
moneyforwhat wrote:Hear, hear!
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.
Rhino's Wellies
says...
11:40am Sun 14 Feb 10
He's just a troll who makes comments to wind people up and it's working.
Bishlad
says...
11:56am Sun 14 Feb 10
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.
again
says...
12:54pm Sun 14 Feb 10
sheps lad wrote: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!
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.
tcrown
says...
2:30pm Sun 14 Feb 10
Karate Frank
says...
2:40pm Sun 14 Feb 10
LibDem wrote: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.
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.
moneyforwhat
says...
3:52pm Sun 14 Feb 10
Yorkshire Volunteer wrote: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.
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 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.
Garrowby Turnoff
says...
4:50pm Sun 14 Feb 10
Is this just Press talk on a slow day?
bloodaxe
says...
6:45pm Sun 14 Feb 10
moneyforwhat wrote:1. York is a beautiful city.
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.
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.
Silver
says...
6:59pm Sun 14 Feb 10
sheps lad wrote: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.
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.
Haxbyite
says...
7:01pm Sun 14 Feb 10
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.
richard22
says...
7:30pm Sun 14 Feb 10
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.
moneyforwhat
says...
7:58pm Sun 14 Feb 10
bloodaxe wrote:not understanding what point you are trying to raise. But
moneyforwhat wrote: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.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 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!
fenderbassman
says...
8:15pm Sun 14 Feb 10
RingoStarr wrote: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!
Well, I suppose they have to fund the multi-million pound fiasco of the new Council's H.Q. somehow.
fenderbassman
says...
8:17pm Sun 14 Feb 10
RingoStarr wrote: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!
Well, I suppose they have to fund the multi-million pound fiasco of the new Council's H.Q. somehow.
fenderbassman
says...
8:19pm Sun 14 Feb 10
RingoStarr wrote: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!
Well, I suppose they have to fund the multi-million pound fiasco of the new Council's H.Q. somehow.
Rhino's Wellies
says...
11:09pm Sun 14 Feb 10
We could then pack Waller, Reid and Galloway off to Siberia on a one way trip.
Job done
Lady Muck of NP
says...
11:31pm Sun 14 Feb 10
moneyforwhat
says...
11:34pm Sun 14 Feb 10
Rhino's Wellies wrote:just fabulous - do you think that could be extended to include one more individual (he who shall not be named)
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
says...
12:43am Mon 15 Feb 10
moneyforwhat wrote:No, that's not very nice. The poor Siberians suffer enough with snowstorms without sending him
Rhino's Wellies wrote:just fabulous - do you think that could be extended to include one more individual (he who shall not be named)
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
sheps lad
says...
9:42am Mon 15 Feb 10
York Fox
says...
9:47am Mon 15 Feb 10
meme
says...
9:50am Mon 15 Feb 10
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
Caecilius
says...
1:02pm Mon 15 Feb 10
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.
again
says...
1:59pm Mon 15 Feb 10
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.
stevie55
says...
2:02pm Mon 15 Feb 10
Exiled Tyke
says...
2:05pm Mon 15 Feb 10
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.
JohnBall
says...
2:57pm Mon 15 Feb 10
Sawday2
says...
3:46pm Mon 15 Feb 10
JohnBall wrote: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?
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.
moneyforwhat
says...
5:18pm Mon 15 Feb 10
JohnBall wrote: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
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.
meme
says...
5:37pm Mon 15 Feb 10
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
Yorkie Girl
says...
6:24pm Mon 15 Feb 10
Oh and Clive Dunn...I take my hat off to you, if you were up for election, you'd get my vote!!!
freerad
says...
7:07pm Mon 15 Feb 10
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....
Cost Accountant
says...
7:53pm Mon 15 Feb 10
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
nowthen
says...
7:51pm Tue 16 Feb 10
MattRSJ
says...
12:04am Wed 17 Feb 10
retrorigg
says...
11:38am Wed 17 Feb 10
MattRSJ wrote:that says it all , totally agree
RIP York.
SensibleSimon
says...
4:06pm Wed 17 Feb 10
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.
tubbs
says...
9:10pm Wed 17 Feb 10
fenderbassman
says...
9:37pm Wed 17 Feb 10
Yorkie Girl
says...
1:19pm Thu 18 Feb 10
fenderbassman wrote:Where do I find this questionnaire?
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!
JohnBall
says...
7:27am Fri 19 Feb 10
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?
fenderbassman
says...
11:47pm Fri 19 Feb 10
JohnBall wrote:`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
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?
fenderbassman
says...
11:47pm Fri 19 Feb 10
JohnBall wrote:`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
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?
More News stories
- Man, 18, found unconscious dies in hospital
- York hotels are in demand
- 19 men fined for urinating in street
- Fisherman rescues friend from icy waters of Ouse
- Campus blaze still a mystery
- Theatre to stage Dance-A-Thon
- Soldiers’ 36-hour challenge to boost funds to help sick boy
- Student lets cost York £3m in council tax
- York bus firm sells vehicles to rival
- Archbishop's gay marriages view defended
Chris Gorman, left, and Paul Hepworth
Most popular
Local Information
Enter your postcode, town or place name
RingoStarr says...
11:18am Sat 13 Feb 10