Clifton Green junction troubles 'were not foreseen'

TRANSPORT chiefs did not predict the traffic problems caused by a controversial York cycling scheme when it was designed, a report revealed today.

A City of York Council task group has analysed snags surrounding the Water End cycle initiative, which saw a cycling lane introduced at Clifton Green junction last year.

People living nearby claim motorists searching for different routes have turned their streets into “rat runs”.

The report claims that, while the scheme has met its aim of encouraging more cyclists to use the route, it also meant levels of traffic using Westminster Road and The Avenue soared and “these consequences were unforeseen”.

The group has now recommended council officers urgently draw up proposals to reduce the number of cars using these streets and use the lessons learned from the Water End project when planning future transport schemes.

Since the cycle lane was brought in, residents in Westminster Road and The Avenue have appealed for their streets to be closed to through traffic.

But the report, which will go before the authority’s executive next week, said this would cause substantial congestion at Water End.

“As a consequence of the Water End highway project, traffic levels in Westminster Road and The Avenue have increased substantially,” said the report. “These consequences were unforeseen during the testing of the future traffic flows, which did not include Westminster Road, The Avenue or other side streets.

“The consequences were also unforeseen by the large number of agencies, councillors and residents who were consulted about the proposals.”

The group says the effect on nearby side streets should be considered when junctions need to be improved in future.

It says the council’s current policy of only reviewing new road schemes after a year should be changed, so they can be looked at again after three months if there are problems or if ward councillors request it.

Comments (38)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

9:06am Wed 30 Jun 10

GemmasPress says...

Not forseen? Couldnt have been more obvious! Absolutely idiotic to not have forseen this. Perhaps had they consulted the community it would have been considered.

Lots of comments predicted!
Not forseen? Couldnt have been more obvious! Absolutely idiotic to not have forseen this. Perhaps had they consulted the community it would have been considered. Lots of comments predicted! GemmasPress
  • Score: 0

9:09am Wed 30 Jun 10

the commentator says...

OMG! All they had to do was listen to us, the public that pay their wages, who could have and no doubt did tell them exactly what would happen! This is an outrage! How much will they now spend on meeting and planning and then implementation to sort it out? What a joke.
OMG! All they had to do was listen to us, the public that pay their wages, who could have and no doubt did tell them exactly what would happen! This is an outrage! How much will they now spend on meeting and planning and then implementation to sort it out? What a joke. the commentator
  • Score: 0

9:10am Wed 30 Jun 10

Minsterview says...

This seesm to be the opinion of 4 Councillors and is referring to the level of "diversion" of traffic through Westminster Road. As has previosuly been commented in these columns, the number of vehicles using that short cut is tiny by comparison with similar streets elsewhere.
Don't spend any more money changing the arrangements again.
This seesm to be the opinion of 4 Councillors and is referring to the level of "diversion" of traffic through Westminster Road. As has previosuly been commented in these columns, the number of vehicles using that short cut is tiny by comparison with similar streets elsewhere. Don't spend any more money changing the arrangements again. Minsterview
  • Score: 0

9:12am Wed 30 Jun 10

Rodent says...

Nor could these so-called traffic experts in the Council be bothered to use their Saturn traffic modelling software properly. They were too stupid or lazy to model the impact on side roads. If people that incompetent worked for me I'd sack the lot of them.
Nor could these so-called traffic experts in the Council be bothered to use their Saturn traffic modelling software properly. They were too stupid or lazy to model the impact on side roads. If people that incompetent worked for me I'd sack the lot of them. Rodent
  • Score: 0

9:19am Wed 30 Jun 10

douglas craig says...

Rodent wrote:
Nor could these so-called traffic experts in the Council be bothered to use their Saturn traffic modelling software properly. They were too stupid or lazy to model the impact on side roads. If people that incompetent worked for me I'd sack the lot of them.
Here here. And some folks wonder why the council gets slated on here pretty much ALL the time.
[quote][p][bold]Rodent[/bold] wrote: Nor could these so-called traffic experts in the Council be bothered to use their Saturn traffic modelling software properly. They were too stupid or lazy to model the impact on side roads. If people that incompetent worked for me I'd sack the lot of them.[/p][/quote]Here here. And some folks wonder why the council gets slated on here pretty much ALL the time. douglas craig
  • Score: 0

9:53am Wed 30 Jun 10

wobblesofpedallingplks says...

All of the above is absolutely spot on - except York should spend, or rather waste, more money by reinstating the original layout.

I dont use the rat runs but my south to north run is now via the city centre because even that is so much faster - but just what York is trying to discourage.

By the way, I did spot 1 cyclist on the new track about three weeks ago.
All of the above is absolutely spot on - except York should spend, or rather waste, more money by reinstating the original layout. I dont use the rat runs but my south to north run is now via the city centre because even that is so much faster - but just what York is trying to discourage. By the way, I did spot 1 cyclist on the new track about three weeks ago. wobblesofpedallingplks
  • Score: 0

10:20am Wed 30 Jun 10

moneyforwhat says...

wobblesofpedallingpl
ks
wrote:
All of the above is absolutely spot on - except York should spend, or rather waste, more money by reinstating the original layout. I dont use the rat runs but my south to north run is now via the city centre because even that is so much faster - but just what York is trying to discourage. By the way, I did spot 1 cyclist on the new track about three weeks ago.
you said it!...and for the larger majority most people will strongly agree with you. So many of the arguments revolving around this have been well discussed on the forum many times now...what I should like to see being brought in to the equation now is some accountability for a vast waste of money. In essence I think accountability should be a keyword where all public spending is concerned, and as Rodent rightly remarked if people so incompetent were in your employ you would be making the decision to make your disatisfaction known and terminating employment.
[quote][p][bold]wobblesofpedallingpl ks[/bold] wrote: All of the above is absolutely spot on - except York should spend, or rather waste, more money by reinstating the original layout. I dont use the rat runs but my south to north run is now via the city centre because even that is so much faster - but just what York is trying to discourage. By the way, I did spot 1 cyclist on the new track about three weeks ago.[/p][/quote]you said it!...and for the larger majority most people will strongly agree with you. So many of the arguments revolving around this have been well discussed on the forum many times now...what I should like to see being brought in to the equation now is some accountability for a vast waste of money. In essence I think accountability should be a keyword where all public spending is concerned, and as Rodent rightly remarked if people so incompetent were in your employ you would be making the decision to make your disatisfaction known and terminating employment. moneyforwhat
  • Score: 0

10:40am Wed 30 Jun 10

pedalling paul says...

......but on the positive side, there is a separate report to Councillors which evaluates the cycle traffic counter loops that are installed in a city- wide cordon.
These are indicating significant increases in the uptake of cycling across the city. This includes the existing Water End section of the future orbital cycle route. Further plans are now being developed to link both ends of Water End with the Crichton Avenue and Hobmoor cycle routes respectively, to complete more of the "ring." Doubtless this will increase cycling further. as will the planned VAT increases which will impact on fuel charges.

Some commentators see what they choose to see. The official electronic "counters" will tell the true picture.
......but on the positive side, there is a separate report to Councillors which evaluates the cycle traffic counter loops that are installed in a city- wide cordon. These are indicating significant increases in the uptake of cycling across the city. This includes the existing Water End section of the future orbital cycle route. Further plans are now being developed to link both ends of Water End with the Crichton Avenue and Hobmoor cycle routes respectively, to complete more of the "ring." Doubtless this will increase cycling further. as will the planned VAT increases which will impact on fuel charges. Some commentators see what they choose to see. The official electronic "counters" will tell the true picture. pedalling paul
  • Score: 0

11:12am Wed 30 Jun 10

billy shears says...

"Some commentators see what they choose to see."

Yes Paul they do, you being one of them. The work they did at Clifton Green was complete and utter overkill for the sake of a few cyclists that use it every day.
"Some commentators see what they choose to see." Yes Paul they do, you being one of them. The work they did at Clifton Green was complete and utter overkill for the sake of a few cyclists that use it every day. billy shears
  • Score: 0

11:23am Wed 30 Jun 10

D_Dutch says...

Ok, this story gets raised nearly every week, and every week people seem to get it wrong.
.
Using these couple of roads as a 'rat-run' (although like many other commentators - if it's public highway, i'm entitled to use it!) only became apparent because of the diversion which was set up due to the burst water main which happened while building the scheme. In an unlucky coincidence, the speed humps on the rat-run had been removed due to work ongoing at the school, so cars diverted onto these roads suddenly realised they were a good shortcut.
.
If this scheme had never been built, and the left filter lane still existed to turn up the A19, and the water main had burst at any other time in the future, this 'rat-run' would have still been discovered and become widely used.
.
Yes, it happened WHILE the scheme was being built. But not BECAUSE of the scheme.
Ok, this story gets raised nearly every week, and every week people seem to get it wrong. . Using these couple of roads as a 'rat-run' (although like many other commentators - if it's public highway, i'm entitled to use it!) only became apparent because of the diversion which was set up due to the burst water main which happened while building the scheme. In an unlucky coincidence, the speed humps on the rat-run had been removed due to work ongoing at the school, so cars diverted onto these roads suddenly realised they were a good shortcut. . If this scheme had never been built, and the left filter lane still existed to turn up the A19, and the water main had burst at any other time in the future, this 'rat-run' would have still been discovered and become widely used. . Yes, it happened WHILE the scheme was being built. But not BECAUSE of the scheme. D_Dutch
  • Score: 0

11:36am Wed 30 Jun 10

peepod says...

And yet this was classed as a success a couple of weeks ago! Surly the council planning team use a standard project management methodology which would include a risk assessment of the proposal. The risk of reducing the road from 2 lanes to 1 lane… let me go and ask my 5 year old son!
And yet this was classed as a success a couple of weeks ago! Surly the council planning team use a standard project management methodology which would include a risk assessment of the proposal. The risk of reducing the road from 2 lanes to 1 lane… let me go and ask my 5 year old son! peepod
  • Score: 0

11:43am Wed 30 Jun 10

douglas craig says...

peepod wrote:
And yet this was classed as a success a couple of weeks ago! Surly the council planning team use a standard project management methodology which would include a risk assessment of the proposal. The risk of reducing the road from 2 lanes to 1 lane… let me go and ask my 5 year old son!
Don't forget though the council make it up as they go along.
[quote][p][bold]peepod[/bold] wrote: And yet this was classed as a success a couple of weeks ago! Surly the council planning team use a standard project management methodology which would include a risk assessment of the proposal. The risk of reducing the road from 2 lanes to 1 lane… let me go and ask my 5 year old son![/p][/quote]Don't forget though the council make it up as they go along. douglas craig
  • Score: 0

12:43pm Wed 30 Jun 10

yawn.. says...

wish they'd just fix this goddamned success of theirs, put it back to pretty much as it was before.
wish they'd just fix this goddamned success of theirs, put it back to pretty much as it was before. yawn..
  • Score: 0

1:22pm Wed 30 Jun 10

yorkdweller says...

Used the Clifton Green junction at afternoon peak time yesterday, was very quick and free of congestion for me and my fellow cyclists, Thanks CoYC.
Used the Clifton Green junction at afternoon peak time yesterday, was very quick and free of congestion for me and my fellow cyclists, Thanks CoYC. yorkdweller
  • Score: 0

1:38pm Wed 30 Jun 10

Zebedee says...

Typical public sector incompetence. Had this been a private company people would have lost their jobs. I'm waiting .........
And as for PP - what are you on? We all know you love bikes but didn't realise you are also blind and senseless. You can find something postive out of this debacle? I want what you're drinking!
Typical public sector incompetence. Had this been a private company people would have lost their jobs. I'm waiting ......... And as for PP - what are you on? We all know you love bikes but didn't realise you are also blind and senseless. You can find something postive out of this debacle? I want what you're drinking! Zebedee
  • Score: 0

1:52pm Wed 30 Jun 10

Wayne Carr says...

pedalling paul wrote:
The official electronic "counters" will tell the true picture.

You could just imagine PP cycling round in circles just to get the figures up on these electronic counters!
pedalling paul wrote: The official electronic "counters" will tell the true picture. You could just imagine PP cycling round in circles just to get the figures up on these electronic counters! Wayne Carr
  • Score: 0

2:18pm Wed 30 Jun 10

inthesticks says...

If these so called Transport chiefs couldn`t predict the chaos this would cause then i think they should do the decent thing and resign. I don`t know how they have got the nerve to admit that this was unforeseen. What a shower of incompetent numpties!
And as for PP - do you just thrive on winding up hard working people who may not be lucky/unlucky enough to live close enough to work to cycle? Many hundreds come to York from outlying villages and towns.
I will look out for a cyclist wearing blinkers and see if i can`t find a nice big puddle to drive through.
Democracy is supposed to represent the majority, not just half a dozen Lycra clad authoritarian loonies like you.
If these so called Transport chiefs couldn`t predict the chaos this would cause then i think they should do the decent thing and resign. I don`t know how they have got the nerve to admit that this was unforeseen. What a shower of incompetent numpties! And as for PP - do you just thrive on winding up hard working people who may not be lucky/unlucky enough to live close enough to work to cycle? Many hundreds come to York from outlying villages and towns. I will look out for a cyclist wearing blinkers and see if i can`t find a nice big puddle to drive through. Democracy is supposed to represent the majority, not just half a dozen Lycra clad authoritarian loonies like you. inthesticks
  • Score: 0

3:09pm Wed 30 Jun 10

evelyn_trent says...

yorkdweller wrote:
Used the Clifton Green junction at afternoon peak time yesterday, was very quick and free of congestion for me and my fellow cyclists, Thanks CoYC.
And precisely how many fellow cyclists were there? And how many bus passengers, delivery drivers, car -drivers and car- passengers were held up? This unbelievably stupid scheme might benefit a few people doing journeys by bicycle but what about the rest of us? I'm hardly likely to cycle to the airport, am I? Or try a return journey to Harrogate for the evening? We don't all live our lives within cycling distance of where we live...
[quote][p][bold]yorkdweller[/bold] wrote: Used the Clifton Green junction at afternoon peak time yesterday, was very quick and free of congestion for me and my fellow cyclists, Thanks CoYC.[/p][/quote]And precisely how many fellow cyclists were there? And how many bus passengers, delivery drivers, car -drivers and car- passengers were held up? This unbelievably stupid scheme might benefit a few people doing journeys by bicycle but what about the rest of us? I'm hardly likely to cycle to the airport, am I? Or try a return journey to Harrogate for the evening? We don't all live our lives within cycling distance of where we live... evelyn_trent
  • Score: 0

3:29pm Wed 30 Jun 10

hifive says...

evelyn_trent wrote:
yorkdweller wrote: Used the Clifton Green junction at afternoon peak time yesterday, was very quick and free of congestion for me and my fellow cyclists, Thanks CoYC.
And precisely how many fellow cyclists were there? And how many bus passengers, delivery drivers, car -drivers and car- passengers were held up? This unbelievably stupid scheme might benefit a few people doing journeys by bicycle but what about the rest of us? I'm hardly likely to cycle to the airport, am I? Or try a return journey to Harrogate for the evening? We don't all live our lives within cycling distance of where we live...
Don't interrogate someone just because they find the route to be satisfactory! Jeez....weak shot! Clearly there's enough people who think it's a disaster to side with. Don't tar all cyclists with the PP brush!
[quote][p][bold]evelyn_trent[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]yorkdweller[/bold] wrote: Used the Clifton Green junction at afternoon peak time yesterday, was very quick and free of congestion for me and my fellow cyclists, Thanks CoYC.[/p][/quote]And precisely how many fellow cyclists were there? And how many bus passengers, delivery drivers, car -drivers and car- passengers were held up? This unbelievably stupid scheme might benefit a few people doing journeys by bicycle but what about the rest of us? I'm hardly likely to cycle to the airport, am I? Or try a return journey to Harrogate for the evening? We don't all live our lives within cycling distance of where we live...[/p][/quote]Don't interrogate someone just because they find the route to be satisfactory! Jeez....weak shot! Clearly there's enough people who think it's a disaster to side with. Don't tar all cyclists with the PP brush! hifive
  • Score: 0

3:43pm Wed 30 Jun 10

BL2 says...

These are indicating significant increases in the uptake of cycling across the city. This includes the existing Water End section of the future orbital cycle route.


Over what period? Could this be something to do with the nice weather getting people out cycling perchance?
[quote]These are indicating significant increases in the uptake of cycling across the city. This includes the existing Water End section of the future orbital cycle route. [/quote] Over what period? Could this be something to do with the nice weather getting people out cycling perchance? BL2
  • Score: 0

3:58pm Wed 30 Jun 10

holyroller says...

Are these the same Transport Chiefs who oversaw the junction at A64/A1237 which doesn't recognise when there is or isn't traffic and has managed to lengthen tailbacks rather than cut them? The same ones who approved the ridiculous and confusing bus lane over cycle lane Fulford Road layout where the most numerous vehicles (cars) are provided for least and the rest is pretty much impossible to understand.

I'll also guess that it's the same Transport Chiefs about to meddle with the Blossom Street Nunnery Lane junction too.

I'm all for making cycling safer and easier for all but you put cyclists at risk with ill thought measures like the Gillygate cycle lane, or actually hamper journey times by placing the cycle path on the pavement so cyclists must stop at every side road rather than ride on through with the cars on the carriageway then I firmly believe you put everybody at risk.

Cyclists stop looking for danger believing the cycle lane to be impenetrable ( it's not necessary for them to have even heard of the Highway Code) and after being 'held up' by cyclists along major routes there's no wonder that drivers take any opportunity to pass them when they can even when the opportunity isn't a safe one.

Presumably there's some funding going to the council to foster this cycling city but it's really not working. But then why bother? Cycling is the fastest way across the city by far.

What would really make the roads safer for all are measures like red light cameras since Bootham, Micklegate and Walmgate bars are all death traps for people driving through on red. Policing box junctions would also help rather than seeing as I did the other morning a Police Astra sitting in the box for 2 cycles of the lights.

By the way, the numbers of cyclists always rise with the temperature.

Regards,

A Pedestrian, Cyclist, Motorcyclist, Car and Van driver.
Are these the same Transport Chiefs who oversaw the junction at A64/A1237 which doesn't recognise when there is or isn't traffic and has managed to lengthen tailbacks rather than cut them? The same ones who approved the ridiculous and confusing bus lane over cycle lane Fulford Road layout where the most numerous vehicles (cars) are provided for least and the rest is pretty much impossible to understand. I'll also guess that it's the same Transport Chiefs about to meddle with the Blossom Street Nunnery Lane junction too. I'm all for making cycling safer and easier for all but you put cyclists at risk with ill thought measures like the Gillygate cycle lane, or actually hamper journey times by placing the cycle path on the pavement so cyclists must stop at every side road rather than ride on through with the cars on the carriageway then I firmly believe you put everybody at risk. Cyclists stop looking for danger believing the cycle lane to be impenetrable ( it's not necessary for them to have even heard of the Highway Code) and after being 'held up' by cyclists along major routes there's no wonder that drivers take any opportunity to pass them when they can even when the opportunity isn't a safe one. Presumably there's some funding going to the council to foster this cycling city but it's really not working. But then why bother? Cycling is the fastest way across the city by far. What would really make the roads safer for all are measures like red light cameras since Bootham, Micklegate and Walmgate bars are all death traps for people driving through on red. Policing box junctions would also help rather than seeing as I did the other morning a Police Astra sitting in the box for 2 cycles of the lights. By the way, the numbers of cyclists always rise with the temperature. Regards, A Pedestrian, Cyclist, Motorcyclist, Car and Van driver. holyroller
  • Score: 0

4:06pm Wed 30 Jun 10

evelyn_trent says...

hifive wrote:
evelyn_trent wrote:
yorkdweller wrote: Used the Clifton Green junction at afternoon peak time yesterday, was very quick and free of congestion for me and my fellow cyclists, Thanks CoYC.
And precisely how many fellow cyclists were there? And how many bus passengers, delivery drivers, car -drivers and car- passengers were held up? This unbelievably stupid scheme might benefit a few people doing journeys by bicycle but what about the rest of us? I'm hardly likely to cycle to the airport, am I? Or try a return journey to Harrogate for the evening? We don't all live our lives within cycling distance of where we live...
Don't interrogate someone just because they find the route to be satisfactory! Jeez....weak shot! Clearly there's enough people who think it's a disaster to side with. Don't tar all cyclists with the PP brush!
Sorry! Yet I AM a cyclist...!
[quote][p][bold]hifive[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]evelyn_trent[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]yorkdweller[/bold] wrote: Used the Clifton Green junction at afternoon peak time yesterday, was very quick and free of congestion for me and my fellow cyclists, Thanks CoYC.[/p][/quote]And precisely how many fellow cyclists were there? And how many bus passengers, delivery drivers, car -drivers and car- passengers were held up? This unbelievably stupid scheme might benefit a few people doing journeys by bicycle but what about the rest of us? I'm hardly likely to cycle to the airport, am I? Or try a return journey to Harrogate for the evening? We don't all live our lives within cycling distance of where we live...[/p][/quote]Don't interrogate someone just because they find the route to be satisfactory! Jeez....weak shot! Clearly there's enough people who think it's a disaster to side with. Don't tar all cyclists with the PP brush![/p][/quote]Sorry! Yet I AM a cyclist...! evelyn_trent
  • Score: 0

4:24pm Wed 30 Jun 10

pedalling paul says...

Holyroller may be unaware that the A64 is a trunk road managed by the Highways Agency. The A123 was dwesigned by NYCC, adopted by the Highways Agency then detrunked and handed to CoYC. The latter have no funding pot to increase its vehicle capacity.
For those commentators who live in the sticks and believe that they must use a car. You have the option of using Park & Ride. If you need to access the centre by car at peak times, then please appreciate that those who choose to walk, cycle or use the bus for shorter trips, are helping you to make your car journey more easily.
Holyroller may be unaware that the A64 is a trunk road managed by the Highways Agency. The A123 was dwesigned by NYCC, adopted by the Highways Agency then detrunked and handed to CoYC. The latter have no funding pot to increase its vehicle capacity. For those commentators who live in the sticks and believe that they must use a car. You have the option of using Park & Ride. If you need to access the centre by car at peak times, then please appreciate that those who choose to walk, cycle or use the bus for shorter trips, are helping you to make your car journey more easily. pedalling paul
  • Score: 0

4:47pm Wed 30 Jun 10

holyroller says...

pedalling paul wrote:
Holyroller may be unaware that the A64 is a trunk road managed by the Highways Agency. The A123 was dwesigned by NYCC, adopted by the Highways Agency then detrunked and handed to CoYC. The latter have no funding pot to increase its vehicle capacity.
For those commentators who live in the sticks and believe that they must use a car. You have the option of using Park & Ride. If you need to access the centre by car at peak times, then please appreciate that those who choose to walk, cycle or use the bus for shorter trips, are helping you to make your car journey more easily.
Thank you for that clarification Pedalling Paul.

However, I wasn't suggesting that capacity be increased, I was suggesting that perhaps was local 'Transport Chiefs' that redesigned the junction in question so that now it holds traffic up rather than encouraging traffic flow. I found this to my cost yesterday when I realised that even when there are no vehicles either on or approaching this junction from the 1237 or the A64 it's possible to be stopped by every set of traffic lights in turn. No need to increase capacity, just manage existing capacity properly.

As I state, I'm all for cycling, walking and motorcycling rather than using cars I just disagree with designing for the minority at the expense of the majority, it doesn't foster mutual respect, only animosity and in many cases danger.

I particularly look forward to the pilot scheme which York CC signed up to where Motorcycles share bus lanes and ASL's. Perhaps Ccylists will be safer when motorcycles can slow down the buses and taxis which currently pose the worst danger for cyclists imv.
[quote][p][bold]pedalling paul [/bold] wrote: Holyroller may be unaware that the A64 is a trunk road managed by the Highways Agency. The A123 was dwesigned by NYCC, adopted by the Highways Agency then detrunked and handed to CoYC. The latter have no funding pot to increase its vehicle capacity. For those commentators who live in the sticks and believe that they must use a car. You have the option of using Park & Ride. If you need to access the centre by car at peak times, then please appreciate that those who choose to walk, cycle or use the bus for shorter trips, are helping you to make your car journey more easily.[/p][/quote]Thank you for that clarification Pedalling Paul. However, I wasn't suggesting that capacity be increased, I was suggesting that perhaps was local 'Transport Chiefs' that redesigned the junction in question so that now it holds traffic up rather than encouraging traffic flow. I found this to my cost yesterday when I realised that even when there are no vehicles either on or approaching this junction from the 1237 or the A64 it's possible to be stopped by every set of traffic lights in turn. No need to increase capacity, just manage existing capacity properly. As I state, I'm all for cycling, walking and motorcycling rather than using cars I just disagree with designing for the minority at the expense of the majority, it doesn't foster mutual respect, only animosity and in many cases danger. I particularly look forward to the pilot scheme which York CC signed up to where Motorcycles share bus lanes and ASL's. Perhaps Ccylists will be safer when motorcycles can slow down the buses and taxis which currently pose the worst danger for cyclists imv. holyroller
  • Score: 0

5:04pm Wed 30 Jun 10

Victor Smythe says...

Rodent wrote:
Nor could these so-called traffic experts in the Council be bothered to use their Saturn traffic modelling software properly. They were too stupid or lazy to model the impact on side roads. If people that incompetent worked for me I'd sack the lot of them.
Agreed... ...maybe they were bowing down to the cycling mob.

Either way they should be named. shamed and sacked.

The next question is were the proposals for the Micklegate junction modelled? If so, let's know the results, if not......
[quote][p][bold]Rodent[/bold] wrote: Nor could these so-called traffic experts in the Council be bothered to use their Saturn traffic modelling software properly. They were too stupid or lazy to model the impact on side roads. If people that incompetent worked for me I'd sack the lot of them.[/p][/quote]Agreed... ...maybe they were bowing down to the cycling mob. Either way they should be named. shamed and sacked. The next question is were the proposals for the Micklegate junction modelled? If so, let's know the results, if not...... Victor Smythe
  • Score: 0

5:33pm Wed 30 Jun 10

Lizzie Browning says...

If people were using all these new cycle lanes and York truly looked the Cycle City the council pretends it to be, then fine. As it is, they are creating chaos for the sake of it. Its like something out of Yes Minister, we have the safest cycle routes in the world, Mr Speaker, mainly because nobody uses them!
If people were using all these new cycle lanes and York truly looked the Cycle City the council pretends it to be, then fine. As it is, they are creating chaos for the sake of it. Its like something out of Yes Minister, we have the safest cycle routes in the world, Mr Speaker, mainly because nobody uses them! Lizzie Browning
  • Score: 0

6:09pm Wed 30 Jun 10

Guy Fawkes says...

TRANSPORT chiefs did not predict the traffic problems caused by a controversial York cycling scheme when it was designed...


No! Really? Well bugger me with a bicycle clip! Whoever would have guessed?
[quote]TRANSPORT chiefs did not predict the traffic problems caused by a controversial York cycling scheme when it was designed...[/quote] No! Really? Well bugger me with a bicycle clip! Whoever would have guessed? Guy Fawkes
  • Score: 0

6:29pm Wed 30 Jun 10

moneyforwhat says...

Guy Fawkes wrote:
TRANSPORT chiefs did not predict the traffic problems caused by a controversial York cycling scheme when it was designed...
No! Really? Well bugger me with a bicycle clip! Whoever would have guessed?
worthy of Stephen Fry ...brilliant
[quote][p][bold]Guy Fawkes[/bold] wrote: [quote]TRANSPORT chiefs did not predict the traffic problems caused by a controversial York cycling scheme when it was designed...[/quote] No! Really? Well bugger me with a bicycle clip! Whoever would have guessed?[/p][/quote]worthy of Stephen Fry ...brilliant moneyforwhat
  • Score: 0

10:50pm Wed 30 Jun 10

King Edward says...

Blind Jack of Knaresborough would have seen them! I wish I worked for the council, then I could do less work, make a mess with no recourse, get paid more than most, lots of sick days and holidays all paid, and finish with a pension better than the private sector. Wait for the knee-jerk reaction from some job for life council employees trying to convince us that managers work them till their fingers bleed for bread and water, and as for asking for a day off....!!!!
Blind Jack of Knaresborough would have seen them! I wish I worked for the council, then I could do less work, make a mess with no recourse, get paid more than most, lots of sick days and holidays all paid, and finish with a pension better than the private sector. Wait for the knee-jerk reaction from some job for life council employees trying to convince us that managers work them till their fingers bleed for bread and water, and as for asking for a day off....!!!! King Edward
  • Score: 0

12:26am Thu 1 Jul 10

inthesticks says...

pedalling paul wrote:
Holyroller may be unaware that the A64 is a trunk road managed by the Highways Agency. The A123 was dwesigned by NYCC, adopted by the Highways Agency then detrunked and handed to CoYC. The latter have no funding pot to increase its vehicle capacity.
For those commentators who live in the sticks and believe that they must use a car. You have the option of using Park & Ride. If you need to access the centre by car at peak times, then please appreciate that those who choose to walk, cycle or use the bus for shorter trips, are helping you to make your car journey more easily.
Why would I add another £10 a week onto my travel costs as once I get to the P & R site i`m nearly there.
[quote][p][bold]pedalling paul [/bold] wrote: Holyroller may be unaware that the A64 is a trunk road managed by the Highways Agency. The A123 was dwesigned by NYCC, adopted by the Highways Agency then detrunked and handed to CoYC. The latter have no funding pot to increase its vehicle capacity. For those commentators who live in the sticks and believe that they must use a car. You have the option of using Park & Ride. If you need to access the centre by car at peak times, then please appreciate that those who choose to walk, cycle or use the bus for shorter trips, are helping you to make your car journey more easily.[/p][/quote]Why would I add another £10 a week onto my travel costs as once I get to the P & R site i`m nearly there. inthesticks
  • Score: 0

5:55am Thu 1 Jul 10

Caecilius says...

inthesticks wrote:
pedalling paul wrote: Holyroller may be unaware that the A64 is a trunk road managed by the Highways Agency. The A123 was dwesigned by NYCC, adopted by the Highways Agency then detrunked and handed to CoYC. The latter have no funding pot to increase its vehicle capacity. For those commentators who live in the sticks and believe that they must use a car. You have the option of using Park & Ride. If you need to access the centre by car at peak times, then please appreciate that those who choose to walk, cycle or use the bus for shorter trips, are helping you to make your car journey more easily.
Why would I add another £10 a week onto my travel costs as once I get to the P & R site i`m nearly there.
That's fine, then. The trade-off that you accept for saving the £10 is the need to sit in queues of traffic caused by all the other motorists who prefer to save the £10, too. It's your choice.
[quote][p][bold]inthesticks[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]pedalling paul [/bold] wrote: Holyroller may be unaware that the A64 is a trunk road managed by the Highways Agency. The A123 was dwesigned by NYCC, adopted by the Highways Agency then detrunked and handed to CoYC. The latter have no funding pot to increase its vehicle capacity. For those commentators who live in the sticks and believe that they must use a car. You have the option of using Park & Ride. If you need to access the centre by car at peak times, then please appreciate that those who choose to walk, cycle or use the bus for shorter trips, are helping you to make your car journey more easily.[/p][/quote]Why would I add another £10 a week onto my travel costs as once I get to the P & R site i`m nearly there.[/p][/quote]That's fine, then. The trade-off that you accept for saving the £10 is the need to sit in queues of traffic caused by all the other motorists who prefer to save the £10, too. It's your choice. Caecilius
  • Score: 0

8:18am Thu 1 Jul 10

yorkdweller says...

Caecilius wrote:
inthesticks wrote:
pedalling paul wrote: Holyroller may be unaware that the A64 is a trunk road managed by the Highways Agency. The A123 was dwesigned by NYCC, adopted by the Highways Agency then detrunked and handed to CoYC. The latter have no funding pot to increase its vehicle capacity. For those commentators who live in the sticks and believe that they must use a car. You have the option of using Park & Ride. If you need to access the centre by car at peak times, then please appreciate that those who choose to walk, cycle or use the bus for shorter trips, are helping you to make your car journey more easily.
Why would I add another £10 a week onto my travel costs as once I get to the P & R site i`m nearly there.
That's fine, then. The trade-off that you accept for saving the £10 is the need to sit in queues of traffic caused by all the other motorists who prefer to save the £10, too. It's your choice.
Well said..! Sooner or later you people have to realise that congestion only exists because of YOU. I know that the alternatives may hit you in the pocket but we all have to pay the price i.e. higher housing costs to live within a short distance of work. And for all those who say they need to drive, well I need to eat but I still have to pay for food..!

I’m sick of moaning motorists, the only way the government will get you out of your car is to give you a financial incentive i.e. make you pay a lot more to use your car.
[quote][p][bold]Caecilius[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]inthesticks[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]pedalling paul [/bold] wrote: Holyroller may be unaware that the A64 is a trunk road managed by the Highways Agency. The A123 was dwesigned by NYCC, adopted by the Highways Agency then detrunked and handed to CoYC. The latter have no funding pot to increase its vehicle capacity. For those commentators who live in the sticks and believe that they must use a car. You have the option of using Park & Ride. If you need to access the centre by car at peak times, then please appreciate that those who choose to walk, cycle or use the bus for shorter trips, are helping you to make your car journey more easily.[/p][/quote]Why would I add another £10 a week onto my travel costs as once I get to the P & R site i`m nearly there.[/p][/quote]That's fine, then. The trade-off that you accept for saving the £10 is the need to sit in queues of traffic caused by all the other motorists who prefer to save the £10, too. It's your choice.[/p][/quote]Well said..! Sooner or later you people have to realise that congestion only exists because of YOU. I know that the alternatives may hit you in the pocket but we all have to pay the price i.e. higher housing costs to live within a short distance of work. And for all those who say they need to drive, well I need to eat but I still have to pay for food..! I’m sick of moaning motorists, the only way the government will get you out of your car is to give you a financial incentive i.e. make you pay a lot more to use your car. yorkdweller
  • Score: 0

8:43am Thu 1 Jul 10

colingreen says...

The bike lane is particularly bad at the Clifton Green end.

In front of Homestead Park it actually goes through the waiting area of the crossing. Several times as I've been waiting at the crossing with children I've been shouted at by someone coming down the hill on a bike believing that we're in their way.

A little bit further on there is a blind corner at the bottom of the hill, where the bike and pedestrian lanes are squeezed into one meter of pavement. The bike lane then suddenly joins the road, sending cyclists up the inside of left turning traffic.

These sort of ill-designed bike lanes don't serve cyclists, pedestrians or drivers, they only cause irritation and accidents.

The police (actually CSOs) have been out on the corner of Westminster Road and Water End telling-off drivers who tear round the corner into Westminster Road.

Even if the problems caused by the bike lane were "unforseen" to the council, that is no reason why they can't put them right.
The bike lane is particularly bad at the Clifton Green end. In front of Homestead Park it actually goes through the waiting area of the crossing. Several times as I've been waiting at the crossing with children I've been shouted at by someone coming down the hill on a bike believing that we're in their way. A little bit further on there is a blind corner at the bottom of the hill, where the bike and pedestrian lanes are squeezed into one meter of pavement. The bike lane then suddenly joins the road, sending cyclists up the inside of left turning traffic. These sort of ill-designed bike lanes don't serve cyclists, pedestrians or drivers, they only cause irritation and accidents. The police (actually CSOs) have been out on the corner of Westminster Road and Water End telling-off drivers who tear round the corner into Westminster Road. Even if the problems caused by the bike lane were "unforseen" to the council, that is no reason why they can't put them right. colingreen
  • Score: 0

10:10am Thu 1 Jul 10

D_Dutch says...

Victor Smythe wrote:
Rodent wrote: Nor could these so-called traffic experts in the Council be bothered to use their Saturn traffic modelling software properly. They were too stupid or lazy to model the impact on side roads. If people that incompetent worked for me I'd sack the lot of them.
Agreed... ...maybe they were bowing down to the cycling mob. Either way they should be named. shamed and sacked. The next question is were the proposals for the Micklegate junction modelled? If so, let's know the results, if not......
I believe the Micklegate Junction was modelled. (That's probably why it keeps all of the traffic lanes on Blossom St.) If you wanna know the results, they're easy to find! - all this stuff's public: http://democracy.yor
k.gov.uk/ieListDocum
ents.aspx?CId=672&MI
d=4778&Ver=4
[quote][p][bold]Victor Smythe[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Rodent[/bold] wrote: Nor could these so-called traffic experts in the Council be bothered to use their Saturn traffic modelling software properly. They were too stupid or lazy to model the impact on side roads. If people that incompetent worked for me I'd sack the lot of them.[/p][/quote]Agreed... ...maybe they were bowing down to the cycling mob. Either way they should be named. shamed and sacked. The next question is were the proposals for the Micklegate junction modelled? If so, let's know the results, if not......[/p][/quote]I believe the Micklegate Junction was modelled. (That's probably why it keeps all of the traffic lanes on Blossom St.) If you wanna know the results, they're easy to find! - all this stuff's public: http://democracy.yor k.gov.uk/ieListDocum ents.aspx?CId=672&MI d=4778&Ver=4 D_Dutch
  • Score: 0

10:50am Thu 1 Jul 10

uriahh says...

Let us hope that the present financial crisis will lead to the long term delay, and possibly even cancellation, of the equally ridiculous, badly thought out and unworkable Poppleton P&R A59/Ring Road Roundabout scheme.

No doubt funds are already in place for the necessary modifications of the Rawcliffe Roundabout needed to correct similar past local road works mistakes - I hope so.

As to who is responsible for the ongoing series of road scheme disasters around York - YBC, HA, or NYCC? The local councillors and MP's should not let the civil servants and local government officers involved in all these organisations dilute or duck their responsibilities on the basis of "not my responsibility". Get them all in a room and grill them - not simply to find out what has gone wrong and to correct it, at least for the future on similar works, but also as part of the current desperately needed exercise required to clear out the excessive staffing and under-performance in the public services at middle and upper management levels.

What is needed is what Voltaire would have described as the Admiral Byng Management Motivation system (look it up on Google!). This is needed to effectively encourage better management performance within public services in the future in the real world and well away from the ivory towers and zones of non-accountability that too many are still able to exist in!
Let us hope that the present financial crisis will lead to the long term delay, and possibly even cancellation, of the equally ridiculous, badly thought out and unworkable Poppleton P&R A59/Ring Road Roundabout scheme. No doubt funds are already in place for the necessary modifications of the Rawcliffe Roundabout needed to correct similar past local road works mistakes - I hope so. As to who is responsible for the ongoing series of road scheme disasters around York - YBC, HA, or NYCC? The local councillors and MP's should not let the civil servants and local government officers involved in all these organisations dilute or duck their responsibilities on the basis of "not my responsibility". Get them all in a room and grill them - not simply to find out what has gone wrong and to correct it, at least for the future on similar works, but also as part of the current desperately needed exercise required to clear out the excessive staffing and under-performance in the public services at middle and upper management levels. What is needed is what Voltaire would have described as the Admiral Byng Management Motivation system (look it up on Google!). This is needed to effectively encourage better management performance within public services in the future in the real world and well away from the ivory towers and zones of non-accountability that too many are still able to exist in! uriahh
  • Score: 0

3:15pm Thu 1 Jul 10

SensibleSimon says...

I find it highly likely that bollards will be installed on Westminster road, thus increasing the amount of traffic, rather than doing something to remove or improve the problem at the lights.

That is the way of things in York. If you can't implement a good scheme first time without encountering unforeseen (yet, obvious) negative consequences, then keep adding to the problem til it is beyond rescue!!
I find it highly likely that bollards will be installed on Westminster road, thus increasing the amount of traffic, rather than doing something to remove or improve the problem at the lights. That is the way of things in York. If you can't implement a good scheme first time without encountering unforeseen (yet, obvious) negative consequences, then keep adding to the problem til it is beyond rescue!! SensibleSimon
  • Score: 0

9:55pm Thu 1 Jul 10

mockaroundtheclock says...

Meh and double MEH!
Meh and double MEH! mockaroundtheclock
  • Score: 0

4:06pm Tue 6 Jul 10

mystic_genius says...

yorkdweller wrote:
Caecilius wrote:
inthesticks wrote:
pedalling paul wrote: Holyroller may be unaware that the A64 is a trunk road managed by the Highways Agency. The A123 was dwesigned by NYCC, adopted by the Highways Agency then detrunked and handed to CoYC. The latter have no funding pot to increase its vehicle capacity. For those commentators who live in the sticks and believe that they must use a car. You have the option of using Park & Ride. If you need to access the centre by car at peak times, then please appreciate that those who choose to walk, cycle or use the bus for shorter trips, are helping you to make your car journey more easily.
Why would I add another £10 a week onto my travel costs as once I get to the P & R site i`m nearly there.
That's fine, then. The trade-off that you accept for saving the £10 is the need to sit in queues of traffic caused by all the other motorists who prefer to save the £10, too. It's your choice.
Well said..! Sooner or later you people have to realise that congestion only exists because of YOU. I know that the alternatives may hit you in the pocket but we all have to pay the price i.e. higher housing costs to live within a short distance of work. And for all those who say they need to drive, well I need to eat but I still have to pay for food..! I’m sick of moaning motorists, the only way the government will get you out of your car is to give you a financial incentive i.e. make you pay a lot more to use your car.
Your argument is flawed.
`
You need to eat and pay for food. Yeah...
`
I need to drive, and pay for fuel. And insurance. And tax. And MOT. And maintenance...not really the same thing. And also, if you pay for food, you probably expect food. Not to pay to be in a queue to get food.
`
Disagree with your final comment too. The only way to get people out of their cars is to make getting to work easier. I live in Brayton, so public transport to work is either an hour on the bus (to York, which is useless, as I work at Monks Cross), or a 20min walk to station, then half hour to York (which is useless as I work at Monks Cross). My working day is already 11 hours (door to door) when driving, I don't fancy rounding it up to 13hours.
`
And because "I don't fancy" it, that means I must pay and put up with it. I know that. But the problem is, I think, is that the money I pay does not go towards alleviating the situation. It (normally) goes towards making the problem worse. Regardless of the cost of public transport, people (especially in York with such a high commuter population in 'the sticks'), people will always need to drive...it's the only practical way.
`
I would like to see alternative schemes proposed. More working from home. More car sharing encouraged. More roads built. Use of the river for transportation to the city centre. Yes, even more cycle lanes in the right places. Flexible working made law for all. Buses made free (or substantially cheaper). Hell, if they wanted cars out of the CC so much, why not just close the public car parks!?
`
The council (and government) have a one-pronged attack...at the motorists. Yes, I know I am the problem. But so is everyone else. And with a multi-facetted approach we could clear more cars from the road. But CYC has just one target - destroy the car. And that simply won't work.
[quote][p][bold]yorkdweller[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Caecilius[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]inthesticks[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]pedalling paul [/bold] wrote: Holyroller may be unaware that the A64 is a trunk road managed by the Highways Agency. The A123 was dwesigned by NYCC, adopted by the Highways Agency then detrunked and handed to CoYC. The latter have no funding pot to increase its vehicle capacity. For those commentators who live in the sticks and believe that they must use a car. You have the option of using Park & Ride. If you need to access the centre by car at peak times, then please appreciate that those who choose to walk, cycle or use the bus for shorter trips, are helping you to make your car journey more easily.[/p][/quote]Why would I add another £10 a week onto my travel costs as once I get to the P & R site i`m nearly there.[/p][/quote]That's fine, then. The trade-off that you accept for saving the £10 is the need to sit in queues of traffic caused by all the other motorists who prefer to save the £10, too. It's your choice.[/p][/quote]Well said..! Sooner or later you people have to realise that congestion only exists because of YOU. I know that the alternatives may hit you in the pocket but we all have to pay the price i.e. higher housing costs to live within a short distance of work. And for all those who say they need to drive, well I need to eat but I still have to pay for food..! I’m sick of moaning motorists, the only way the government will get you out of your car is to give you a financial incentive i.e. make you pay a lot more to use your car.[/p][/quote]Your argument is flawed. ` You need to eat and pay for food. Yeah... ` I need to drive, and pay for fuel. And insurance. And tax. And MOT. And maintenance...not really the same thing. And also, if you pay for food, you probably expect food. Not to pay to be in a queue to get food. ` Disagree with your final comment too. The only way to get people out of their cars is to make getting to work easier. I live in Brayton, so public transport to work is either an hour on the bus (to York, which is useless, as I work at Monks Cross), or a 20min walk to station, then half hour to York (which is useless as I work at Monks Cross). My working day is already 11 hours (door to door) when driving, I don't fancy rounding it up to 13hours. ` And because "I don't fancy" it, that means I must pay and put up with it. I know that. But the problem is, I think, is that the money I pay does not go towards alleviating the situation. It (normally) goes towards making the problem worse. Regardless of the cost of public transport, people (especially in York with such a high commuter population in 'the sticks'), people will always need to drive...it's the only practical way. ` I would like to see alternative schemes proposed. More working from home. More car sharing encouraged. More roads built. Use of the river for transportation to the city centre. Yes, even more cycle lanes in the right places. Flexible working made law for all. Buses made free (or substantially cheaper). Hell, if they wanted cars out of the CC so much, why not just close the public car parks!? ` The council (and government) have a one-pronged attack...at the motorists. Yes, I know I am the problem. But so is everyone else. And with a multi-facetted approach we could clear more cars from the road. But CYC has just one target - destroy the car. And that simply won't work. mystic_genius
  • Score: 0

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

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

I agree