First comes first, but everyone else suffers

York Press: Traffic on Lendal Bridge, before the restrictions were introduced Traffic on Lendal Bridge, before the restrictions were introduced

The Press of December 18 reports a declaration from First Bus that the closure of Lendal Bridge has contributed to improved services and punctuality, resulting in a five per cent increase in passenger use since August.

Naturally, they are entitled to speculate on these encouraging figures, although it does not say in comparison with August last year or any other year.

Even if this is partially due to the bridge closure, it should be realised that the rest of the travelling public are paying dearly in consequence, denied the bridge access, using extra time and costs on diversionary routes and with frustration daily. Not forgetting the 26,000-plus who unsuspectingly crossed the bridge and have been fined.

First Bus users still have services not turning up as expected and frequent delays, especially involving the services affected by the routes now congested by transport using the alternatives Lendal Bridge.

J Beisly, Osprey Close, York.

 

• IT IS good news that five per cent more people have been using First buses in York since August (“Closure of bridge ‘a boost to buses’,” The Press, December 18), especially when there are mooted cuts to buses servicing outlying communities.

However, my critical faculties were aroused by the seemingly hand-in-glove response to the announcement by City of York Council, desperate as the council’s leading lights must be for any positive reaction to the trial closure of Lendal Bridge to private cars and delivery vehicles during the middle of the day.

I could not see any clarification in the reported announcement whether the five per cent increase was year-on-year, ie, compared with the same period in 2012 (was 2012 a good, average or bad year for bus use?), or in several earlier years; or was simply five per cent up on August 2013 and the preceding early summer months.

Someone please clarify this, as one would expect an increase in bus use, and indeed private car use, after the summer holidays and in the autumn run up to Christmas.

It is a pity to be so suspicious, but experience has taught us to be sceptical of announcements which appear to support anti-democratic actions.

Chris Mason, Hall Farm Close, Riccall, York.

 

• COULD James Alexander confirm or deny through the letters page whether a “deal” was struck with the new owners before the purchase of the old council offices, agreeing that Lendal Bridge would be closed to reduce the amount of traffic pollution in St Leonard’s Place?

To date, it appears that approx 26,000 “illegal” vehicles have crossed the bridge bringing their pollution with them, at a cost of approximately £1.5million in fines. It would seem that the council is happy enough to accept traffic pollution, provided they are handsomely rewarded.

As I mentioned in a previous letter, the closure of the bridge for six and a half hours is a farcical experiment when the council really wants to close it 24/7. What are they afraid of?

The publicity of the bridge closure is well known to the residents of York through The Press, but has now found fame on TV through BBC Look North.

In both instances, Coun Alexander has been conspicuous by his absence – “Teflon Tony” has nothing on our James.

Keith Thornton, De Grey Place, Bishopthorpe, York.

 

• I DO not agree with the closure of Lendal Bridge which is a major route through York, but I must admit that the congestion has very much improved.

My husband and I travelled from Monkgate to Bootham in record time, in the middle of the day. This reminded me of the times when traffic was at a minimum. There was no hold-up in Lord Mayor’s Walk or Gillygate.

It is not a route we take often, but previously it has taken about ten to 15 minutes, if not longer, to do the short journey.

Chris Brown, Linley Avenue, Haxby, York.

 

• JUDGING by opinions expressed in letters to The Press for many months, it seems that York citizens are becoming increasingly concerned about the way the city is governed.

The council leader, James Alexander, began his “rule” by trying to sell off the Union Terrace car park, ignoring a petition and many letters. It now looks as if he intends to finish by seeing the whole city become a suburb of Leeds. We should be very worried.

As for Coun Dave Merrett, he has received the boost he wanted to encourage him to ignore the wishes of the majority and proceed with his bridge closure. The apparent benefit to First will, no doubt, outweigh every other argument. It should not do so. The public consultation should be much wider than this and should be carefully studied.

Jean Frost, Heworth, York.

Comments (43)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

9:59am Sat 21 Dec 13

CaroleBaines says...

Do not include me in 'those who suffer' J Beisley - I think the bridge closure has created a rather lovely slice of tranquillity in the Museum St, Library area. I would also suggest the traffic situation is far from the meltdown some predicted and this is said as a car driver, before anyone jumps to conclusions!

The one area where the situation has NOT been well handled is the fines. Makes the city and council look foolish - 26,000 is ridiculous.
But let us not condemn the idea just because it has not been well handled.
Do not include me in 'those who suffer' J Beisley - I think the bridge closure has created a rather lovely slice of tranquillity in the Museum St, Library area. I would also suggest the traffic situation is far from the meltdown some predicted and this is said as a car driver, before anyone jumps to conclusions! The one area where the situation has NOT been well handled is the fines. Makes the city and council look foolish - 26,000 is ridiculous. But let us not condemn the idea just because it has not been well handled. CaroleBaines

10:37am Sat 21 Dec 13

Micklegate says...

CaroleBaines wrote:
Do not include me in 'those who suffer' J Beisley - I think the bridge closure has created a rather lovely slice of tranquillity in the Museum St, Library area. I would also suggest the traffic situation is far from the meltdown some predicted and this is said as a car driver, before anyone jumps to conclusions!

The one area where the situation has NOT been well handled is the fines. Makes the city and council look foolish - 26,000 is ridiculous.
But let us not condemn the idea just because it has not been well handled.
'Tranquility' - yes!!L Sadly it is the town centre though and shops are wanting to do a crazy thing called have customers so they can earn a living. Instead motorists are told yet again that they are not wanted by York and are going elsewhere.
[quote][p][bold]CaroleBaines[/bold] wrote: Do not include me in 'those who suffer' J Beisley - I think the bridge closure has created a rather lovely slice of tranquillity in the Museum St, Library area. I would also suggest the traffic situation is far from the meltdown some predicted and this is said as a car driver, before anyone jumps to conclusions! The one area where the situation has NOT been well handled is the fines. Makes the city and council look foolish - 26,000 is ridiculous. But let us not condemn the idea just because it has not been well handled.[/p][/quote]'Tranquility' - yes!!L Sadly it is the town centre though and shops are wanting to do a crazy thing called have customers so they can earn a living. Instead motorists are told yet again that they are not wanted by York and are going elsewhere. Micklegate

11:00am Sat 21 Dec 13

CaroleBaines says...

Micklegate wrote:
CaroleBaines wrote:
Do not include me in 'those who suffer' J Beisley - I think the bridge closure has created a rather lovely slice of tranquillity in the Museum St, Library area. I would also suggest the traffic situation is far from the meltdown some predicted and this is said as a car driver, before anyone jumps to conclusions!

The one area where the situation has NOT been well handled is the fines. Makes the city and council look foolish - 26,000 is ridiculous.
But let us not condemn the idea just because it has not been well handled.
'Tranquility' - yes!!L Sadly it is the town centre though and shops are wanting to do a crazy thing called have customers so they can earn a living. Instead motorists are told yet again that they are not wanted by York and are going elsewhere.
With respect, that is one view. Others might argue the centre is more attractive and so encourages more visitors. I know walking by queuing traffic around that area is a bit grim outside closure times.

Then there is the bigger picture. York has dreadful traffic, we cannot build more roads due to its historic status, certainly not slam through the middle. So alternatives must be found. Whilst traders might like a dual carriageway to their shop doors, they must recognise their voice is not the only one in this city.
[quote][p][bold]Micklegate[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]CaroleBaines[/bold] wrote: Do not include me in 'those who suffer' J Beisley - I think the bridge closure has created a rather lovely slice of tranquillity in the Museum St, Library area. I would also suggest the traffic situation is far from the meltdown some predicted and this is said as a car driver, before anyone jumps to conclusions! The one area where the situation has NOT been well handled is the fines. Makes the city and council look foolish - 26,000 is ridiculous. But let us not condemn the idea just because it has not been well handled.[/p][/quote]'Tranquility' - yes!!L Sadly it is the town centre though and shops are wanting to do a crazy thing called have customers so they can earn a living. Instead motorists are told yet again that they are not wanted by York and are going elsewhere.[/p][/quote]With respect, that is one view. Others might argue the centre is more attractive and so encourages more visitors. I know walking by queuing traffic around that area is a bit grim outside closure times. Then there is the bigger picture. York has dreadful traffic, we cannot build more roads due to its historic status, certainly not slam through the middle. So alternatives must be found. Whilst traders might like a dual carriageway to their shop doors, they must recognise their voice is not the only one in this city. CaroleBaines

11:15am Sat 21 Dec 13

Mulgrave says...

CaroleBaines wrote:
Do not include me in 'those who suffer' J Beisley - I think the bridge closure has created a rather lovely slice of tranquillity in the Museum St, Library area. I would also suggest the traffic situation is far from the meltdown some predicted and this is said as a car driver, before anyone jumps to conclusions!

The one area where the situation has NOT been well handled is the fines. Makes the city and council look foolish - 26,000 is ridiculous.
But let us not condemn the idea just because it has not been well handled.
I thought there always was such a place in this locality - the Museum Gardens.

When you think about it peoples views on their environment are very subjective, after being brought up in a cul-de-sac and owning a house in one myself for a couple of years, over the following thirty five years my homes have been alongside main roads and bus routes. Just as, for me, a residential street can be too quiet, a city centre can be too "tranquil", I thought we had a reasonable balance in York before the closure, for others it needs to go much further.

If the closure is permanent, the comparison between now and the recent past will fade, and the legacy will be the established footstreets and the bridge with vehicles of all sizes passing with sufficient frequency and speed to confine pedestrians to a footpath just the same as many other roads. This isn't really good enough, possibly a single lane with traffic control and wider pavements would at least give something tangible to show for it. Before someone says there is too much traffic - I agree; CoYC vehicles, Royal Mail, blue light vehicles doing a sandwich run, and completely unrestricted use by taxis.
[quote][p][bold]CaroleBaines[/bold] wrote: Do not include me in 'those who suffer' J Beisley - I think the bridge closure has created a rather lovely slice of tranquillity in the Museum St, Library area. I would also suggest the traffic situation is far from the meltdown some predicted and this is said as a car driver, before anyone jumps to conclusions! The one area where the situation has NOT been well handled is the fines. Makes the city and council look foolish - 26,000 is ridiculous. But let us not condemn the idea just because it has not been well handled.[/p][/quote]I thought there always was such a place in this locality - the Museum Gardens. When you think about it peoples views on their environment are very subjective, after being brought up in a cul-de-sac and owning a house in one myself for a couple of years, over the following thirty five years my homes have been alongside main roads and bus routes. Just as, for me, a residential street can be too quiet, a city centre can be too "tranquil", I thought we had a reasonable balance in York before the closure, for others it needs to go much further. If the closure is permanent, the comparison between now and the recent past will fade, and the legacy will be the established footstreets and the bridge with vehicles of all sizes passing with sufficient frequency and speed to confine pedestrians to a footpath just the same as many other roads. This isn't really good enough, possibly a single lane with traffic control and wider pavements would at least give something tangible to show for it. Before someone says there is too much traffic - I agree; CoYC vehicles, Royal Mail, blue light vehicles doing a sandwich run, and completely unrestricted use by taxis. Mulgrave

11:19am Sat 21 Dec 13

Stevie D says...

Despite asking several times, I have still not had a single good answer as to why the bridge closure is affecting city centre trade. Why would anyone who is coming shopping into the city centre need (or want!) to drive over Lendal Bridge? There are car parks on either side of the river that are far better located for whichever side of town you've come from than you'll get by driving across the bridge!
Despite asking several times, I have still not had a single good answer as to why the bridge closure is affecting city centre trade. Why would anyone who is coming shopping into the city centre need (or want!) to drive over Lendal Bridge? There are car parks on either side of the river that are far better located for whichever side of town you've come from than you'll get by driving across the bridge! Stevie D

11:28am Sat 21 Dec 13

Jonthan says...

Micklegate wrote:
CaroleBaines wrote:
Do not include me in 'those who suffer' J Beisley - I think the bridge closure has created a rather lovely slice of tranquillity in the Museum St, Library area. I would also suggest the traffic situation is far from the meltdown some predicted and this is said as a car driver, before anyone jumps to conclusions!

The one area where the situation has NOT been well handled is the fines. Makes the city and council look foolish - 26,000 is ridiculous.
But let us not condemn the idea just because it has not been well handled.
'Tranquility' - yes!!L Sadly it is the town centre though and shops are wanting to do a crazy thing called have customers so they can earn a living. Instead motorists are told yet again that they are not wanted by York and are going elsewhere.
I wonder what the right wing nutters will have to say when the Christmas shopping figures for York are produced in a few weeks time.
If the figures are bad, they will say it is because of the bridge restrictions and demand Dave Merrett's head on a plate.

But if, as I suspect, we have a bumper Christmas, the same people will say the credit lies elsewhere.
[quote][p][bold]Micklegate[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]CaroleBaines[/bold] wrote: Do not include me in 'those who suffer' J Beisley - I think the bridge closure has created a rather lovely slice of tranquillity in the Museum St, Library area. I would also suggest the traffic situation is far from the meltdown some predicted and this is said as a car driver, before anyone jumps to conclusions! The one area where the situation has NOT been well handled is the fines. Makes the city and council look foolish - 26,000 is ridiculous. But let us not condemn the idea just because it has not been well handled.[/p][/quote]'Tranquility' - yes!!L Sadly it is the town centre though and shops are wanting to do a crazy thing called have customers so they can earn a living. Instead motorists are told yet again that they are not wanted by York and are going elsewhere.[/p][/quote]I wonder what the right wing nutters will have to say when the Christmas shopping figures for York are produced in a few weeks time. If the figures are bad, they will say it is because of the bridge restrictions and demand Dave Merrett's head on a plate. But if, as I suspect, we have a bumper Christmas, the same people will say the credit lies elsewhere. Jonthan

11:43am Sat 21 Dec 13

Mulgrave says...

Stevie D wrote:
Despite asking several times, I have still not had a single good answer as to why the bridge closure is affecting city centre trade. Why would anyone who is coming shopping into the city centre need (or want!) to drive over Lendal Bridge? There are car parks on either side of the river that are far better located for whichever side of town you've come from than you'll get by driving across the bridge!
It may be perception rather than reality. I wouldn't advocate re-opening footstreets to cars, but I would not now buy anything I could not carry, as even though I believe I could, for example, collect a TV from Richer Sounds if I checked out the hours and the route, I just treat the whole centre as "no access" by car.
[quote][p][bold]Stevie D[/bold] wrote: Despite asking several times, I have still not had a single good answer as to why the bridge closure is affecting city centre trade. Why would anyone who is coming shopping into the city centre need (or want!) to drive over Lendal Bridge? There are car parks on either side of the river that are far better located for whichever side of town you've come from than you'll get by driving across the bridge![/p][/quote]It may be perception rather than reality. I wouldn't advocate re-opening footstreets to cars, but I would not now buy anything I could not carry, as even though I believe I could, for example, collect a TV from Richer Sounds if I checked out the hours and the route, I just treat the whole centre as "no access" by car. Mulgrave

12:21pm Sat 21 Dec 13

Oaklands Resident says...

I just don't get the "sea of tranquillity" quote. It is not like the foot-streets. Large numbers of vehicles continue to use Lendal Bridge. Some at significantly higher speeds than previously; hardly a recipe for quiet contemplation.

Elsewhere - mainly as a result of the improving economy - comparative high streets are reporting a 10% increase in trade compared to 2012. In York - other than during the recent festivals - shopper numbers are down by as much as 18%.

The reason that over 80% of residents (not just traders) are saying that the restrictions should be lifted is the increased traffic congestion on other routes such as Fulford Road and Clifton Bridge while the total fined, in Coppergate and on Lendal, has now reached 45,000.

A visitor economy like Yorks depends on its reputation and that has been damaged by the crude way in which these restrictions were imposed, advertised and enforced.

Expect the main effects on the retail economy to be felt in late January and February.
I just don't get the "sea of tranquillity" quote. It is not like the foot-streets. Large numbers of vehicles continue to use Lendal Bridge. Some at significantly higher speeds than previously; hardly a recipe for quiet contemplation. Elsewhere - mainly as a result of the improving economy - comparative high streets are reporting a 10% increase in trade compared to 2012. In York - other than during the recent festivals - shopper numbers are down by as much as 18%. The reason that over 80% of residents (not just traders) are saying that the restrictions should be lifted is the increased traffic congestion on other routes such as Fulford Road and Clifton Bridge while the total fined, in Coppergate and on Lendal, has now reached 45,000. A visitor economy like Yorks depends on its reputation and that has been damaged by the crude way in which these restrictions were imposed, advertised and enforced. Expect the main effects on the retail economy to be felt in late January and February. Oaklands Resident

12:31pm Sat 21 Dec 13

pedalling paul says...

Still too many contributors who are only concerned about the ease with which they can presently use private cars, to get around. Some car journeys are essential. Many are optional and car owners could choose to mix their travel choices for at least some journeys. Even car sharing has a part to play.

Try looking beyond the next elections, and beyond some of your lifetimes ie the same 20-30 year timescales that professional transport planners must consider and advise on.

If we don't break the vicious transport circle now, then our descendants will most assuredly inherit a totally gridlocked city.......

Copenhagen...a majority of travel by bus, bike metro etc. It can be achieved in York. Local politicians of all parties can help by not currying favour with car users at election time.
Still too many contributors who are only concerned about the ease with which they can presently use private cars, to get around. Some car journeys are essential. Many are optional and car owners could choose to mix their travel choices for at least some journeys. Even car sharing has a part to play. Try looking beyond the next elections, and beyond some of your lifetimes ie the same 20-30 year timescales that professional transport planners must consider and advise on. If we don't break the vicious transport circle now, then our descendants will most assuredly inherit a totally gridlocked city....... Copenhagen...a majority of travel by bus, bike metro etc. It can be achieved in York. Local politicians of all parties can help by not currying favour with car users at election time. pedalling paul

12:37pm Sat 21 Dec 13

strangebuttrue? says...

You see how quickly people forget how things were before the closure of the bridge. Almost every trip I make in York now is like driving in the rush hour - which I don't. The outer ring road is almost a no go area the only place that is quieter than before is Lendal Bridge. (particularly during the traffic light failure this week) Good for the residents of Lendal Bridge because they don't have to sit in their homes all day breathing in the pollution created by the congestion in the lightly populated areas such as the Leeman Road area and around Clifton bridge. Still I suppose that a few more deaths from what was recently described in an EU report as the silent killer is a small price to pay for the peace of mind of the residents of Lendal Bridge and the fulfilment of the dogma driven policies of the minority. Mind you what else would you expect from a council who proclaim to have reduced traffic levels to lower than those in 2002 but have increased pollution by up to 48% in doing so?
You see how quickly people forget how things were before the closure of the bridge. Almost every trip I make in York now is like driving in the rush hour - which I don't. The outer ring road is almost a no go area the only place that is quieter than before is Lendal Bridge. (particularly during the traffic light failure this week) Good for the residents of Lendal Bridge because they don't have to sit in their homes all day breathing in the pollution created by the congestion in the lightly populated areas such as the Leeman Road area and around Clifton bridge. Still I suppose that a few more deaths from what was recently described in an EU report as the silent killer is a small price to pay for the peace of mind of the residents of Lendal Bridge and the fulfilment of the dogma driven policies of the minority. Mind you what else would you expect from a council who proclaim to have reduced traffic levels to lower than those in 2002 but have increased pollution by up to 48% in doing so? strangebuttrue?

3:22pm Sat 21 Dec 13

AnotherPointofView says...

CaroleBaines wrote:
Do not include me in 'those who suffer' J Beisley - I think the bridge closure has created a rather lovely slice of tranquillity in the Museum St, Library area. I would also suggest the traffic situation is far from the meltdown some predicted and this is said as a car driver, before anyone jumps to conclusions! The one area where the situation has NOT been well handled is the fines. Makes the city and council look foolish - 26,000 is ridiculous. But let us not condemn the idea just because it has not been well handled.
Don't condemn the idea just because it's not well handled? I condemn the idea becuase it's a BAD idea in the first place!

I do also condemn it because it has been handled appallingly.
[quote][p][bold]CaroleBaines[/bold] wrote: Do not include me in 'those who suffer' J Beisley - I think the bridge closure has created a rather lovely slice of tranquillity in the Museum St, Library area. I would also suggest the traffic situation is far from the meltdown some predicted and this is said as a car driver, before anyone jumps to conclusions! The one area where the situation has NOT been well handled is the fines. Makes the city and council look foolish - 26,000 is ridiculous. But let us not condemn the idea just because it has not been well handled.[/p][/quote]Don't condemn the idea just because it's not well handled? I condemn the idea becuase it's a BAD idea in the first place! I do also condemn it because it has been handled appallingly. AnotherPointofView

3:57pm Sat 21 Dec 13

CaroleBaines says...

AnotherPointofView wrote:
CaroleBaines wrote:
Do not include me in 'those who suffer' J Beisley - I think the bridge closure has created a rather lovely slice of tranquillity in the Museum St, Library area. I would also suggest the traffic situation is far from the meltdown some predicted and this is said as a car driver, before anyone jumps to conclusions! The one area where the situation has NOT been well handled is the fines. Makes the city and council look foolish - 26,000 is ridiculous. But let us not condemn the idea just because it has not been well handled.
Don't condemn the idea just because it's not well handled? I condemn the idea becuase it's a BAD idea in the first place!

I do also condemn it because it has been handled appallingly.
In your opinion. I speak for myself, I do not assume everyone thinks as I do!! That is the difference, in my opinion. Some share that, some do not - but I can live with that!
[quote][p][bold]AnotherPointofView[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]CaroleBaines[/bold] wrote: Do not include me in 'those who suffer' J Beisley - I think the bridge closure has created a rather lovely slice of tranquillity in the Museum St, Library area. I would also suggest the traffic situation is far from the meltdown some predicted and this is said as a car driver, before anyone jumps to conclusions! The one area where the situation has NOT been well handled is the fines. Makes the city and council look foolish - 26,000 is ridiculous. But let us not condemn the idea just because it has not been well handled.[/p][/quote]Don't condemn the idea just because it's not well handled? I condemn the idea becuase it's a BAD idea in the first place! I do also condemn it because it has been handled appallingly.[/p][/quote]In your opinion. I speak for myself, I do not assume everyone thinks as I do!! That is the difference, in my opinion. Some share that, some do not - but I can live with that! CaroleBaines

4:50pm Sat 21 Dec 13

CHISSY1 says...

Is this the Lendal bridge in York ?
Is this the Lendal bridge in York ? CHISSY1

6:16pm Sat 21 Dec 13

roobarb85 says...

OK CoYC has handled the bridge closure terribly. It's easy to make the re-open it now argument.

But please, think a little deeper. I've just returned from Xmas shopping in town - and the town centre was crowded and shops full of stock despite the fact that deliveries and car access in that area is hugely restricted. So, it must be possible for businesses to get stock and for shoppers to get to an area largely unavailable to motor traffic.

I don't think many people are clamouring for the reopening of Deangate and Coney Street to normal traffic - but I'm sure there were similar cries of doom when Cllr Cowen put forward his footstreet idea.

The retail world is changing - and cities like York will have to change too. If a way can be found to increase pedestrian/cycled/pu
blic transport access to the CBD whilst maintaining required traffic flow around the city then York will have shown the way again, just like it did with footstreets

It's just a shame that whilst the Lendal Bridge closure is an interesting idea it's been executed appallingly.
OK CoYC has handled the bridge closure terribly. It's easy to make the re-open it now argument. But please, think a little deeper. I've just returned from Xmas shopping in town - and the town centre was crowded and shops full of stock despite the fact that deliveries and car access in that area is hugely restricted. So, it must be possible for businesses to get stock and for shoppers to get to an area largely unavailable to motor traffic. I don't think many people are clamouring for the reopening of Deangate and Coney Street to normal traffic - but I'm sure there were similar cries of doom when Cllr Cowen put forward his footstreet idea. The retail world is changing - and cities like York will have to change too. If a way can be found to increase pedestrian/cycled/pu blic transport access to the CBD whilst maintaining required traffic flow around the city then York will have shown the way again, just like it did with footstreets It's just a shame that whilst the Lendal Bridge closure is an interesting idea it's been executed appallingly. roobarb85

6:20pm Sat 21 Dec 13

ozo_born_and_bred says...

Stevie D wrote:
Despite asking several times, I have still not had a single good answer as to why the bridge closure is affecting city centre trade. Why would anyone who is coming shopping into the city centre need (or want!) to drive over Lendal Bridge? There are car parks on either side of the river that are far better located for whichever side of town you've come from than you'll get by driving across the bridge!
I totally agree with you...
[quote][p][bold]Stevie D[/bold] wrote: Despite asking several times, I have still not had a single good answer as to why the bridge closure is affecting city centre trade. Why would anyone who is coming shopping into the city centre need (or want!) to drive over Lendal Bridge? There are car parks on either side of the river that are far better located for whichever side of town you've come from than you'll get by driving across the bridge![/p][/quote]I totally agree with you... ozo_born_and_bred

10:22pm Sat 21 Dec 13

bolero says...

pedalling paul wrote:
Still too many contributors who are only concerned about the ease with which they can presently use private cars, to get around. Some car journeys are essential. Many are optional and car owners could choose to mix their travel choices for at least some journeys. Even car sharing has a part to play.

Try looking beyond the next elections, and beyond some of your lifetimes ie the same 20-30 year timescales that professional transport planners must consider and advise on.

If we don't break the vicious transport circle now, then our descendants will most assuredly inherit a totally gridlocked city.......

Copenhagen...a majority of travel by bus, bike metro etc. It can be achieved in York. Local politicians of all parties can help by not currying favour with car users at election time.
Do we now know who is manipulating the voting figures?
[quote][p][bold]pedalling paul [/bold] wrote: Still too many contributors who are only concerned about the ease with which they can presently use private cars, to get around. Some car journeys are essential. Many are optional and car owners could choose to mix their travel choices for at least some journeys. Even car sharing has a part to play. Try looking beyond the next elections, and beyond some of your lifetimes ie the same 20-30 year timescales that professional transport planners must consider and advise on. If we don't break the vicious transport circle now, then our descendants will most assuredly inherit a totally gridlocked city....... Copenhagen...a majority of travel by bus, bike metro etc. It can be achieved in York. Local politicians of all parties can help by not currying favour with car users at election time.[/p][/quote]Do we now know who is manipulating the voting figures? bolero

2:20am Sun 22 Dec 13

Magicman! says...

Micklegate wrote:
CaroleBaines wrote:
Do not include me in 'those who suffer' J Beisley - I think the bridge closure has created a rather lovely slice of tranquillity in the Museum St, Library area. I would also suggest the traffic situation is far from the meltdown some predicted and this is said as a car driver, before anyone jumps to conclusions!

The one area where the situation has NOT been well handled is the fines. Makes the city and council look foolish - 26,000 is ridiculous.
But let us not condemn the idea just because it has not been well handled.
'Tranquility' - yes!!L Sadly it is the town centre though and shops are wanting to do a crazy thing called have customers so they can earn a living. Instead motorists are told yet again that they are not wanted by York and are going elsewhere.
If by 'not wanted' you mean cars which have originated from beyond the outer ring road, come into the city centre to cross around it for no good reason (ie not delivering anything) and then go back out to near/beyond the outer ring road at another part of the city, then yes such vehicles are not wanted.... people visiting the city can drive right up to St Georges Field/Tower car parks, or Union Terrace, or Nunnery Lane, depending their entry point in the city.

The idea behind the bridge closure is good, but the execution of it has been poorly done.
[quote][p][bold]Micklegate[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]CaroleBaines[/bold] wrote: Do not include me in 'those who suffer' J Beisley - I think the bridge closure has created a rather lovely slice of tranquillity in the Museum St, Library area. I would also suggest the traffic situation is far from the meltdown some predicted and this is said as a car driver, before anyone jumps to conclusions! The one area where the situation has NOT been well handled is the fines. Makes the city and council look foolish - 26,000 is ridiculous. But let us not condemn the idea just because it has not been well handled.[/p][/quote]'Tranquility' - yes!!L Sadly it is the town centre though and shops are wanting to do a crazy thing called have customers so they can earn a living. Instead motorists are told yet again that they are not wanted by York and are going elsewhere.[/p][/quote]If by 'not wanted' you mean cars which have originated from beyond the outer ring road, come into the city centre to cross around it for no good reason (ie not delivering anything) and then go back out to near/beyond the outer ring road at another part of the city, then yes such vehicles are not wanted.... people visiting the city can drive right up to St Georges Field/Tower car parks, or Union Terrace, or Nunnery Lane, depending their entry point in the city. The idea behind the bridge closure is good, but the execution of it has been poorly done. Magicman!

2:25am Sun 22 Dec 13

Magicman! says...

Mulgrave wrote:
Stevie D wrote:
Despite asking several times, I have still not had a single good answer as to why the bridge closure is affecting city centre trade. Why would anyone who is coming shopping into the city centre need (or want!) to drive over Lendal Bridge? There are car parks on either side of the river that are far better located for whichever side of town you've come from than you'll get by driving across the bridge!
It may be perception rather than reality. I wouldn't advocate re-opening footstreets to cars, but I would not now buy anything I could not carry, as even though I believe I could, for example, collect a TV from Richer Sounds if I checked out the hours and the route, I just treat the whole centre as "no access" by car.
There are other people who can't go an collect a big TV from Richer Sounds either, because they haven't got a car! If you're going to give the entire city centre a status of being a 'no go area' just because one road has been closed and you can't drive right up to the front door, and end up driving much further to other towns/cities for the same shops, then more fool you.
[quote][p][bold]Mulgrave[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Stevie D[/bold] wrote: Despite asking several times, I have still not had a single good answer as to why the bridge closure is affecting city centre trade. Why would anyone who is coming shopping into the city centre need (or want!) to drive over Lendal Bridge? There are car parks on either side of the river that are far better located for whichever side of town you've come from than you'll get by driving across the bridge![/p][/quote]It may be perception rather than reality. I wouldn't advocate re-opening footstreets to cars, but I would not now buy anything I could not carry, as even though I believe I could, for example, collect a TV from Richer Sounds if I checked out the hours and the route, I just treat the whole centre as "no access" by car.[/p][/quote]There are other people who can't go an collect a big TV from Richer Sounds either, because they haven't got a car! If you're going to give the entire city centre a status of being a 'no go area' just because one road has been closed and you can't drive right up to the front door, and end up driving much further to other towns/cities for the same shops, then more fool you. Magicman!

2:46am Sun 22 Dec 13

Magicman! says...

roobarb85 wrote:
OK CoYC has handled the bridge closure terribly. It's easy to make the re-open it now argument.

But please, think a little deeper. I've just returned from Xmas shopping in town - and the town centre was crowded and shops full of stock despite the fact that deliveries and car access in that area is hugely restricted. So, it must be possible for businesses to get stock and for shoppers to get to an area largely unavailable to motor traffic.

I don't think many people are clamouring for the reopening of Deangate and Coney Street to normal traffic - but I'm sure there were similar cries of doom when Cllr Cowen put forward his footstreet idea.

The retail world is changing - and cities like York will have to change too. If a way can be found to increase pedestrian/cycled/pu

blic transport access to the CBD whilst maintaining required traffic flow around the city then York will have shown the way again, just like it did with footstreets

It's just a shame that whilst the Lendal Bridge closure is an interesting idea it's been executed appallingly.
Indeed.... Think for a minute about what Museum Street was like before: for most of the day there was a solid line of traffic from the Duncombe Place traffic lights to at least Lendal Bridge, if not round to Station Avenue - and on fridays from 3pm that queue started to extend right past the train station, through Blossom Street, and along both Holgate and The Mount (sometimes as far back as Knavesmire gates) - and I know because I went that way to and from college every day for 2 years....
Now what sort of image does that present to the visitor to York, the affluent Londoner who has heard of York but never visited before, the American visiting for a few days who might return with his family later in the year, etc, if as soon as they step outside the train station they see a solid line of cars? and that as they are walking along "the tourist mile" from the station to the Minster that they are constantly walking alongside bumper to bumper traffic? Even on a TV show in the 1990's where Victoria Wood did some travelling by train, she went for a wander around York and then said to camera that the city was heavy with pollution and was causing breathing difficulties, the city streets were just choked with cars everywhere - and that was a national TV programme.

The key problem, what everything boils down to, is that there are far too many vehicles for too little road space. The city centre in its current setup is now at full capacity - opening Lendal Bridge just shifts the same queue of bumper-to-bumper traffic right into the heart of the city centre instead of on Water End or Foss Islands, it doesn't get rid of the source of the problem.... and I find it quite funny that a person can be sitting in their single-occupancy car in a traffic queue, heading to a city centre destination, and complain about the traffic congestion as if they are having absolutely no part to play in it!!
Other cities have gridlocked traffic at certain times of the day - Lancaster for example has it along the A683 Morcambe Road, this is because it's the only main road on the north side of the river - but in general other places are working to move their traffic congestion OUT of the central areas, even in Birmingham! The reason why First York buses are still getting delayed is in a large way due to the fact that vehicle drivers are simply diverting around the bridge closure using city central roads rather than either going out of the centre entirely or using a different mode of transport.
Whilst the closure has put a bit more traffic around the FIshergate Gyratory, traffic congestion on Fulford Road itself cannot in any way be linked to the bridge closure:- the primary source of the congestion is the traffic lights at the junction with Heslington Lane, but then the problem is exaccerbated by both Fishergate and Cemetary Road (of which after 4pm both carry similar levels of traffic) converge onto just a single outbound lane on Fulford Road.... it's like trying to push two inner tubes inside a tyre.
[quote][p][bold]roobarb85[/bold] wrote: OK CoYC has handled the bridge closure terribly. It's easy to make the re-open it now argument. But please, think a little deeper. I've just returned from Xmas shopping in town - and the town centre was crowded and shops full of stock despite the fact that deliveries and car access in that area is hugely restricted. So, it must be possible for businesses to get stock and for shoppers to get to an area largely unavailable to motor traffic. I don't think many people are clamouring for the reopening of Deangate and Coney Street to normal traffic - but I'm sure there were similar cries of doom when Cllr Cowen put forward his footstreet idea. The retail world is changing - and cities like York will have to change too. If a way can be found to increase pedestrian/cycled/pu blic transport access to the CBD whilst maintaining required traffic flow around the city then York will have shown the way again, just like it did with footstreets It's just a shame that whilst the Lendal Bridge closure is an interesting idea it's been executed appallingly.[/p][/quote]Indeed.... Think for a minute about what Museum Street was like before: for most of the day there was a solid line of traffic from the Duncombe Place traffic lights to at least Lendal Bridge, if not round to Station Avenue - and on fridays from 3pm that queue started to extend right past the train station, through Blossom Street, and along both Holgate and The Mount (sometimes as far back as Knavesmire gates) - and I know because I went that way to and from college every day for 2 years.... Now what sort of image does that present to the visitor to York, the affluent Londoner who has heard of York but never visited before, the American visiting for a few days who might return with his family later in the year, etc, if as soon as they step outside the train station they see a solid line of cars? and that as they are walking along "the tourist mile" from the station to the Minster that they are constantly walking alongside bumper to bumper traffic? Even on a TV show in the 1990's where Victoria Wood did some travelling by train, she went for a wander around York and then said to camera that the city was heavy with pollution and was causing breathing difficulties, the city streets were just choked with cars everywhere - and that was a national TV programme. The key problem, what everything boils down to, is that there are far too many vehicles for too little road space. The city centre in its current setup is now at full capacity - opening Lendal Bridge just shifts the same queue of bumper-to-bumper traffic right into the heart of the city centre instead of on Water End or Foss Islands, it doesn't get rid of the source of the problem.... and I find it quite funny that a person can be sitting in their single-occupancy car in a traffic queue, heading to a city centre destination, and complain about the traffic congestion as if they are having absolutely no part to play in it!! Other cities have gridlocked traffic at certain times of the day - Lancaster for example has it along the A683 Morcambe Road, this is because it's the only main road on the north side of the river - but in general other places are working to move their traffic congestion OUT of the central areas, even in Birmingham! The reason why First York buses are still getting delayed is in a large way due to the fact that vehicle drivers are simply diverting around the bridge closure using city central roads rather than either going out of the centre entirely or using a different mode of transport. Whilst the closure has put a bit more traffic around the FIshergate Gyratory, traffic congestion on Fulford Road itself cannot in any way be linked to the bridge closure:- the primary source of the congestion is the traffic lights at the junction with Heslington Lane, but then the problem is exaccerbated by both Fishergate and Cemetary Road (of which after 4pm both carry similar levels of traffic) converge onto just a single outbound lane on Fulford Road.... it's like trying to push two inner tubes inside a tyre. Magicman!

9:27am Sun 22 Dec 13

Fat Harry says...

You'd think from much if the foregoing that motorists were the immense majority. They're not, they're just very loud.
You'd think from much if the foregoing that motorists were the immense majority. They're not, they're just very loud. Fat Harry

9:31am Sun 22 Dec 13

Mulgrave says...

Magicman! wrote:
Mulgrave wrote:
Stevie D wrote:
Despite asking several times, I have still not had a single good answer as to why the bridge closure is affecting city centre trade. Why would anyone who is coming shopping into the city centre need (or want!) to drive over Lendal Bridge? There are car parks on either side of the river that are far better located for whichever side of town you've come from than you'll get by driving across the bridge!
It may be perception rather than reality. I wouldn't advocate re-opening footstreets to cars, but I would not now buy anything I could not carry, as even though I believe I could, for example, collect a TV from Richer Sounds if I checked out the hours and the route, I just treat the whole centre as "no access" by car.
There are other people who can't go an collect a big TV from Richer Sounds either, because they haven't got a car! If you're going to give the entire city centre a status of being a 'no go area' just because one road has been closed and you can't drive right up to the front door, and end up driving much further to other towns/cities for the same shops, then more fool you.
You are putting words in my mouth Magicman, I was referring to my perception of the core city centre, which I haven't driven in for thirty odd years, and am no longer sure where you can or can't drive - and when, and no longer have much inclination to do so, and why others may have formed a negative perception of the wider area following the Lendal Bridge restrictions.

Too many assume it is not possible to hold a wider view on an issue above their own personal circumstances, I have very rarely driven over Lendal in recent years, and when I have it has been to perform a "taxi" service for others, having a home near to Skeldergate Bridge I don't need to. Spending a good deal of time in other towns and cities anyway, York always does have to compete; both with them and online retailing.
[quote][p][bold]Magicman![/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mulgrave[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Stevie D[/bold] wrote: Despite asking several times, I have still not had a single good answer as to why the bridge closure is affecting city centre trade. Why would anyone who is coming shopping into the city centre need (or want!) to drive over Lendal Bridge? There are car parks on either side of the river that are far better located for whichever side of town you've come from than you'll get by driving across the bridge![/p][/quote]It may be perception rather than reality. I wouldn't advocate re-opening footstreets to cars, but I would not now buy anything I could not carry, as even though I believe I could, for example, collect a TV from Richer Sounds if I checked out the hours and the route, I just treat the whole centre as "no access" by car.[/p][/quote]There are other people who can't go an collect a big TV from Richer Sounds either, because they haven't got a car! If you're going to give the entire city centre a status of being a 'no go area' just because one road has been closed and you can't drive right up to the front door, and end up driving much further to other towns/cities for the same shops, then more fool you.[/p][/quote]You are putting words in my mouth Magicman, I was referring to my perception of the core city centre, which I haven't driven in for thirty odd years, and am no longer sure where you can or can't drive - and when, and no longer have much inclination to do so, and why others may have formed a negative perception of the wider area following the Lendal Bridge restrictions. Too many assume it is not possible to hold a wider view on an issue above their own personal circumstances, I have very rarely driven over Lendal in recent years, and when I have it has been to perform a "taxi" service for others, having a home near to Skeldergate Bridge I don't need to. Spending a good deal of time in other towns and cities anyway, York always does have to compete; both with them and online retailing. Mulgrave

10:54am Sun 22 Dec 13

NoNewsIsGoodNews says...

CHISSY1 wrote:
Is this the Lendal bridge in York ?
No, it's the one in Selby near your house.
[quote][p][bold]CHISSY1[/bold] wrote: Is this the Lendal bridge in York ?[/p][/quote]No, it's the one in Selby near your house. NoNewsIsGoodNews

11:56am Sun 22 Dec 13

CaroleBaines says...

Fat Harry wrote:
You'd think from much if the foregoing that motorists were the immense majority. They're not, they're just very loud.
I am a motorist, but I still think the closure is a good idea. This 'them and us' pattern which these forums seems to suggest is, I suspect, something of a myth.
[quote][p][bold]Fat Harry[/bold] wrote: You'd think from much if the foregoing that motorists were the immense majority. They're not, they're just very loud.[/p][/quote]I am a motorist, but I still think the closure is a good idea. This 'them and us' pattern which these forums seems to suggest is, I suspect, something of a myth. CaroleBaines

1:54pm Sun 22 Dec 13

Lunatic says...

Stevie D wrote:
Despite asking several times, I have still not had a single good answer as to why the bridge closure is affecting city centre trade. Why would anyone who is coming shopping into the city centre need (or want!) to drive over Lendal Bridge? There are car parks on either side of the river that are far better located for whichever side of town you've come from than you'll get by driving across the bridge!
The fact of the matter is that it isn't the bridge closure that's affecting trade.

What most people seem to be forgetting is that last year there was a concerted local drive of Christmas promotions running from November onwards which improved last years figures. As far as I've seen, no such similar project is ongoing this year. Logically, that seems to be the obvious reason.

Lendal Bridge appears to have had little actual impact on York. Lib Dem Cllr Nigel Ayre (vocally opposed to the closure) was posting stats on his Twitter account about traffic elsewhere in the city. Between 11am-5pm he was showing a 15% increase in traffic along Foss Islands, which he stated equated to about 200 cars. That's about 33 cars every hour, or roughly one every two minutes. I've seen people exclaiming that this is the most badly afflicted area since the change, and as we can see (from the opposition's own stats) it's made hardly any difference at all.

And that pretty much correlates with my experiences driving.

I'm against the closure. But it hasn't been the huge disaster most are painting it out to be.
[quote][p][bold]Stevie D[/bold] wrote: Despite asking several times, I have still not had a single good answer as to why the bridge closure is affecting city centre trade. Why would anyone who is coming shopping into the city centre need (or want!) to drive over Lendal Bridge? There are car parks on either side of the river that are far better located for whichever side of town you've come from than you'll get by driving across the bridge![/p][/quote]The fact of the matter is that it isn't the bridge closure that's affecting trade. What most people seem to be forgetting is that last year there was a concerted local drive of Christmas promotions running from November onwards which improved last years figures. As far as I've seen, no such similar project is ongoing this year. Logically, that seems to be the obvious reason. Lendal Bridge appears to have had little actual impact on York. Lib Dem Cllr Nigel Ayre (vocally opposed to the closure) was posting stats on his Twitter account about traffic elsewhere in the city. Between 11am-5pm he was showing a 15% increase in traffic along Foss Islands, which he stated equated to about 200 cars. That's about 33 cars every hour, or roughly one every two minutes. I've seen people exclaiming that this is the most badly afflicted area since the change, and as we can see (from the opposition's own stats) it's made hardly any difference at all. And that pretty much correlates with my experiences driving. I'm against the closure. But it hasn't been the huge disaster most are painting it out to be. Lunatic

7:01pm Sun 22 Dec 13

CHISSY1 says...

NoNewsIsGoodNews wrote:
CHISSY1 wrote:
Is this the Lendal bridge in York ?
No, it's the one in Selby near your house.
I dont live in Selby.
[quote][p][bold]NoNewsIsGoodNews[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]CHISSY1[/bold] wrote: Is this the Lendal bridge in York ?[/p][/quote]No, it's the one in Selby near your house.[/p][/quote]I dont live in Selby. CHISSY1

7:46pm Sun 22 Dec 13

YOUWILLDOASISAY says...

Fat Harry wrote:
You'd think from much if the foregoing that motorists were the immense majority. They're not, they're just very loud.
The main reason for motorists being loud might be one of the following:

1. More households with cars than without cars.
2. More motorists than bus users.
3. More motorists than pedestrians.
4. More motorists than cyclists.

The evidence is all around and very hard to miss. I would suggest there is a very quiet but massively influential number of motorists that equates to a massive and influential majority patiently waiting in the wings for the right time to make their opinions heard.

You might do better to claim there were more kite flyers than cyclists.
[quote][p][bold]Fat Harry[/bold] wrote: You'd think from much if the foregoing that motorists were the immense majority. They're not, they're just very loud.[/p][/quote]The main reason for motorists being loud might be one of the following: 1. More households with cars than without cars. 2. More motorists than bus users. 3. More motorists than pedestrians. 4. More motorists than cyclists. The evidence is all around and very hard to miss. I would suggest there is a very quiet but massively influential number of motorists that equates to a massive and influential majority patiently waiting in the wings for the right time to make their opinions heard. You might do better to claim there were more kite flyers than cyclists. YOUWILLDOASISAY

9:28pm Sun 22 Dec 13

Buzzz Light-year says...

Before I say this, please remember I'm against the bridge closure. It's equivalent to bricking up your windows and taking the batteries out of the remote. The bridge was built for a reason to serve a purpose. It's a stupid waste of engineering and raw materials.

BUT... have to say this -
The "vocal majority" argument is flawed.
More doesn't equate to better.
Millions of people eat McD's but it doesn't make it food.

More can't justify itself. More can be the problem. E.G. population out of control. Or too many cars to fit the roadspace.

Maybe the reason motorists are loud is because they've confused tax with the retail model and the rights that brings and thus suffer from the delusion that paying VED entitles them to tell everyone else what to do?

Bus drivers and taxi drivers are motorists. They can use the bridge.
Before I say this, please remember I'm against the bridge closure. It's equivalent to bricking up your windows and taking the batteries out of the remote. The bridge was built for a reason to serve a purpose. It's a stupid waste of engineering and raw materials. BUT... have to say this - The "vocal majority" argument is flawed. More doesn't equate to better. Millions of people eat McD's but it doesn't make it food. More can't justify itself. More can be the problem. E.G. population out of control. Or too many cars to fit the roadspace. Maybe the reason motorists are loud is because they've confused tax with the retail model and the rights that brings and thus suffer from the delusion that paying VED entitles them to tell everyone else what to do? Bus drivers and taxi drivers are motorists. They can use the bridge. Buzzz Light-year

11:47pm Sun 22 Dec 13

tweedwarrior says...

You will do as I say - I am confused by your comment above "more motorists than pedestrians" are you saying more people own cars than have legs?
You will do as I say - I am confused by your comment above "more motorists than pedestrians" are you saying more people own cars than have legs? tweedwarrior

11:54pm Sun 22 Dec 13

YOUWILLDOASISAY says...

tweedwarrior wrote:
You will do as I say - I am confused by your comment above "more motorists than pedestrians" are you saying more people own cars than have legs?
Take a look around you will see more cars than pedestrians with some exception like city centres and school leaving times.

As a physical number there are more people than cars that does not make them pedestrians unless of course they are travelling on foot.
[quote][p][bold]tweedwarrior[/bold] wrote: You will do as I say - I am confused by your comment above "more motorists than pedestrians" are you saying more people own cars than have legs?[/p][/quote]Take a look around you will see more cars than pedestrians with some exception like city centres and school leaving times. As a physical number there are more people than cars that does not make them pedestrians unless of course they are travelling on foot. YOUWILLDOASISAY

11:56pm Sun 22 Dec 13

tweedwarrior says...

And, thinking about it, what if you add the cyclists, to the bus users, to the pedestrians? Might that be more than the number of motorists? Isn't that rather the crux of the argument?
And, thinking about it, what if you add the cyclists, to the bus users, to the pedestrians? Might that be more than the number of motorists? Isn't that rather the crux of the argument? tweedwarrior

12:08am Mon 23 Dec 13

YOUWILLDOASISAY says...

tweedwarrior wrote:
And, thinking about it, what if you add the cyclists, to the bus users, to the pedestrians? Might that be more than the number of motorists? Isn't that rather the crux of the argument?
I'm sure if we add all motorist groups together then you would likely add bus users to motorists (motorised transports).

Fat Harry suggests that motorists are a loud minority group clearly they are neither loud or a minority (crux).
[quote][p][bold]tweedwarrior[/bold] wrote: And, thinking about it, what if you add the cyclists, to the bus users, to the pedestrians? Might that be more than the number of motorists? Isn't that rather the crux of the argument?[/p][/quote]I'm sure if we add all motorist groups together then you would likely add bus users to motorists (motorised transports). Fat Harry suggests that motorists are a loud minority group clearly they are neither loud or a minority (crux). YOUWILLDOASISAY

9:04am Mon 23 Dec 13

CHISSY1 says...

Buzzz Light-year wrote:
Before I say this, please remember I'm against the bridge closure. It's equivalent to bricking up your windows and taking the batteries out of the remote. The bridge was built for a reason to serve a purpose. It's a stupid waste of engineering and raw materials.

BUT... have to say this -
The "vocal majority" argument is flawed.
More doesn't equate to better.
Millions of people eat McD's but it doesn't make it food.

More can't justify itself. More can be the problem. E.G. population out of control. Or too many cars to fit the roadspace.

Maybe the reason motorists are loud is because they've confused tax with the retail model and the rights that brings and thus suffer from the delusion that paying VED entitles them to tell everyone else what to do?

Bus drivers and taxi drivers are motorists. They can use the bridge.
Roll on 1st Jan,then there will be something to complain about.
[quote][p][bold]Buzzz Light-year[/bold] wrote: Before I say this, please remember I'm against the bridge closure. It's equivalent to bricking up your windows and taking the batteries out of the remote. The bridge was built for a reason to serve a purpose. It's a stupid waste of engineering and raw materials. BUT... have to say this - The "vocal majority" argument is flawed. More doesn't equate to better. Millions of people eat McD's but it doesn't make it food. More can't justify itself. More can be the problem. E.G. population out of control. Or too many cars to fit the roadspace. Maybe the reason motorists are loud is because they've confused tax with the retail model and the rights that brings and thus suffer from the delusion that paying VED entitles them to tell everyone else what to do? Bus drivers and taxi drivers are motorists. They can use the bridge.[/p][/quote]Roll on 1st Jan,then there will be something to complain about. CHISSY1

9:25am Mon 23 Dec 13

tweedwarrior says...

YOUWILLDOASISAY wrote:
tweedwarrior wrote:
And, thinking about it, what if you add the cyclists, to the bus users, to the pedestrians? Might that be more than the number of motorists? Isn't that rather the crux of the argument?
I'm sure if we add all motorist groups together then you would likely add bus users to motorists (motorised transports).

Fat Harry suggests that motorists are a loud minority group clearly they are neither loud or a minority (crux).
I'm now confused again. If some of the "motorists" are in the group benefitting from the closure (eg because they're bus users/ taxi drivers) then how can they "make their opinions heard" as their opinions would likely fall on both sides of the argument? If by "motorists" you mean car drivers, then frankly, I don't believe they are in the majority in York city centre.
[quote][p][bold]YOUWILLDOASISAY[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]tweedwarrior[/bold] wrote: And, thinking about it, what if you add the cyclists, to the bus users, to the pedestrians? Might that be more than the number of motorists? Isn't that rather the crux of the argument?[/p][/quote]I'm sure if we add all motorist groups together then you would likely add bus users to motorists (motorised transports). Fat Harry suggests that motorists are a loud minority group clearly they are neither loud or a minority (crux).[/p][/quote]I'm now confused again. If some of the "motorists" are in the group benefitting from the closure (eg because they're bus users/ taxi drivers) then how can they "make their opinions heard" as their opinions would likely fall on both sides of the argument? If by "motorists" you mean car drivers, then frankly, I don't believe they are in the majority in York city centre. tweedwarrior

9:26am Mon 23 Dec 13

far2bizzy says...

YOUWILLDOASISAY wrote:
Fat Harry wrote:
You'd think from much if the foregoing that motorists were the immense majority. They're not, they're just very loud.
The main reason for motorists being loud might be one of the following:

1. More households with cars than without cars.
2. More motorists than bus users.
3. More motorists than pedestrians.
4. More motorists than cyclists.

The evidence is all around and very hard to miss. I would suggest there is a very quiet but massively influential number of motorists that equates to a massive and influential majority patiently waiting in the wings for the right time to make their opinions heard.

You might do better to claim there were more kite flyers than cyclists.
Where do you get your facts from? Are there published figures on the numbers of people using each mode within the city? I’ve looked but cannot find any.
First Bus are claiming that there are 300,000 bus journeys made in the city each week. I find it hard to believe that there are more car journeys made.
[quote][p][bold]YOUWILLDOASISAY[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Fat Harry[/bold] wrote: You'd think from much if the foregoing that motorists were the immense majority. They're not, they're just very loud.[/p][/quote]The main reason for motorists being loud might be one of the following: 1. More households with cars than without cars. 2. More motorists than bus users. 3. More motorists than pedestrians. 4. More motorists than cyclists. The evidence is all around and very hard to miss. I would suggest there is a very quiet but massively influential number of motorists that equates to a massive and influential majority patiently waiting in the wings for the right time to make their opinions heard. You might do better to claim there were more kite flyers than cyclists.[/p][/quote]Where do you get your facts from? Are there published figures on the numbers of people using each mode within the city? I’ve looked but cannot find any. First Bus are claiming that there are 300,000 bus journeys made in the city each week. I find it hard to believe that there are more car journeys made. far2bizzy

12:08pm Mon 23 Dec 13

YOUWILLDOASISAY says...

far2bizzy wrote:
YOUWILLDOASISAY wrote:
Fat Harry wrote:
You'd think from much if the foregoing that motorists were the immense majority. They're not, they're just very loud.
The main reason for motorists being loud might be one of the following:

1. More households with cars than without cars.
2. More motorists than bus users.
3. More motorists than pedestrians.
4. More motorists than cyclists.

The evidence is all around and very hard to miss. I would suggest there is a very quiet but massively influential number of motorists that equates to a massive and influential majority patiently waiting in the wings for the right time to make their opinions heard.

You might do better to claim there were more kite flyers than cyclists.
Where do you get your facts from? Are there published figures on the numbers of people using each mode within the city? I’ve looked but cannot find any.
First Bus are claiming that there are 300,000 bus journeys made in the city each week. I find it hard to believe that there are more car journeys made.
A reasonable question.

Firstly I don't claim my comments as being based on facts, merely observation (The evidence is all around and very hard to miss.).

However your quote from First of 300,000 passengers per week is a clear indicator that supports what I have said.

Totally disregarding that over half of Yorks bus service is dedicated to park & ride and will be carrying a significant number of tourists (having just parked their cars) this is still only about 10% of the population using First bus.

Population circa 200,000.

Average daily passenger bus usage 42,850, assuming return journey = 21,425 discreet passengers.

21,425 discreet passengers is equal to about about 10% of the population leaving 90% using other means of transport.

When I walk I see more cars than cyclist or other pedestrians, when I cycle I see less pedestrians than cyclist but more cars. When I'm in the city centre I see more pedestrians as you would expect.

I maintain my response that motorists are not a minority.
[quote][p][bold]far2bizzy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]YOUWILLDOASISAY[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Fat Harry[/bold] wrote: You'd think from much if the foregoing that motorists were the immense majority. They're not, they're just very loud.[/p][/quote]The main reason for motorists being loud might be one of the following: 1. More households with cars than without cars. 2. More motorists than bus users. 3. More motorists than pedestrians. 4. More motorists than cyclists. The evidence is all around and very hard to miss. I would suggest there is a very quiet but massively influential number of motorists that equates to a massive and influential majority patiently waiting in the wings for the right time to make their opinions heard. You might do better to claim there were more kite flyers than cyclists.[/p][/quote]Where do you get your facts from? Are there published figures on the numbers of people using each mode within the city? I’ve looked but cannot find any. First Bus are claiming that there are 300,000 bus journeys made in the city each week. I find it hard to believe that there are more car journeys made.[/p][/quote]A reasonable question. Firstly I don't claim my comments as being based on facts, merely observation (The evidence is all around and very hard to miss.). However your quote from First of 300,000 passengers per week is a clear indicator that supports what I have said. Totally disregarding that over half of Yorks bus service is dedicated to park & ride and will be carrying a significant number of tourists (having just parked their cars) this is still only about 10% of the population using First bus. Population circa 200,000. Average daily passenger bus usage 42,850, assuming return journey = 21,425 discreet passengers. 21,425 discreet passengers is equal to about about 10% of the population leaving 90% using other means of transport. When I walk I see more cars than cyclist or other pedestrians, when I cycle I see less pedestrians than cyclist but more cars. When I'm in the city centre I see more pedestrians as you would expect. I maintain my response that motorists are not a minority. YOUWILLDOASISAY

12:23pm Mon 23 Dec 13

NoNewsIsGoodNews says...

CHISSY1 wrote:
Buzzz Light-year wrote:
Before I say this, please remember I'm against the bridge closure. It's equivalent to bricking up your windows and taking the batteries out of the remote. The bridge was built for a reason to serve a purpose. It's a stupid waste of engineering and raw materials.

BUT... have to say this -
The "vocal majority" argument is flawed.
More doesn't equate to better.
Millions of people eat McD's but it doesn't make it food.

More can't justify itself. More can be the problem. E.G. population out of control. Or too many cars to fit the roadspace.

Maybe the reason motorists are loud is because they've confused tax with the retail model and the rights that brings and thus suffer from the delusion that paying VED entitles them to tell everyone else what to do?

Bus drivers and taxi drivers are motorists. They can use the bridge.
Roll on 1st Jan,then there will be something to complain about.
Why, is it your new years resolution to comment on more stories?
[quote][p][bold]CHISSY1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Buzzz Light-year[/bold] wrote: Before I say this, please remember I'm against the bridge closure. It's equivalent to bricking up your windows and taking the batteries out of the remote. The bridge was built for a reason to serve a purpose. It's a stupid waste of engineering and raw materials. BUT... have to say this - The "vocal majority" argument is flawed. More doesn't equate to better. Millions of people eat McD's but it doesn't make it food. More can't justify itself. More can be the problem. E.G. population out of control. Or too many cars to fit the roadspace. Maybe the reason motorists are loud is because they've confused tax with the retail model and the rights that brings and thus suffer from the delusion that paying VED entitles them to tell everyone else what to do? Bus drivers and taxi drivers are motorists. They can use the bridge.[/p][/quote]Roll on 1st Jan,then there will be something to complain about.[/p][/quote]Why, is it your new years resolution to comment on more stories? NoNewsIsGoodNews

12:23pm Mon 23 Dec 13

dctyke says...

How many people drive across the river to 'shop' in york? All of us who live in the area know it's a mad thing to attempt. Those on one side of the river use parking their side and vice versa. The guy in the perfume shop is stupid if he thinks not being able to drive across the bridge affects his trade. I must say it's lovely to walk in the area now, the air is so cleaner and you can actually hear birds singing. I say keep the restrictions in place! As for the perfume shop, worry more about Monks Cross...............
............
How many people drive across the river to 'shop' in york? All of us who live in the area know it's a mad thing to attempt. Those on one side of the river use parking their side and vice versa. The guy in the perfume shop is stupid if he thinks not being able to drive across the bridge affects his trade. I must say it's lovely to walk in the area now, the air is so cleaner and you can actually hear birds singing. I say keep the restrictions in place! As for the perfume shop, worry more about Monks Cross............... ............ dctyke

12:34pm Mon 23 Dec 13

CHISSY1 says...

NoNewsIsGoodNews wrote:
CHISSY1 wrote:
Buzzz Light-year wrote:
Before I say this, please remember I'm against the bridge closure. It's equivalent to bricking up your windows and taking the batteries out of the remote. The bridge was built for a reason to serve a purpose. It's a stupid waste of engineering and raw materials.

BUT... have to say this -
The "vocal majority" argument is flawed.
More doesn't equate to better.
Millions of people eat McD's but it doesn't make it food.

More can't justify itself. More can be the problem. E.G. population out of control. Or too many cars to fit the roadspace.

Maybe the reason motorists are loud is because they've confused tax with the retail model and the rights that brings and thus suffer from the delusion that paying VED entitles them to tell everyone else what to do?

Bus drivers and taxi drivers are motorists. They can use the bridge.
Roll on 1st Jan,then there will be something to complain about.
Why, is it your new years resolution to comment on more stories?
I comment on a wide range of stories as it is,unlike some on here who keep banging on about the same thing.
[quote][p][bold]NoNewsIsGoodNews[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]CHISSY1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Buzzz Light-year[/bold] wrote: Before I say this, please remember I'm against the bridge closure. It's equivalent to bricking up your windows and taking the batteries out of the remote. The bridge was built for a reason to serve a purpose. It's a stupid waste of engineering and raw materials. BUT... have to say this - The "vocal majority" argument is flawed. More doesn't equate to better. Millions of people eat McD's but it doesn't make it food. More can't justify itself. More can be the problem. E.G. population out of control. Or too many cars to fit the roadspace. Maybe the reason motorists are loud is because they've confused tax with the retail model and the rights that brings and thus suffer from the delusion that paying VED entitles them to tell everyone else what to do? Bus drivers and taxi drivers are motorists. They can use the bridge.[/p][/quote]Roll on 1st Jan,then there will be something to complain about.[/p][/quote]Why, is it your new years resolution to comment on more stories?[/p][/quote]I comment on a wide range of stories as it is,unlike some on here who keep banging on about the same thing. CHISSY1

1:23pm Mon 23 Dec 13

asd says...

We know its going to be a toll bridge its plain to see. The excuss for pollution is rubbish, as more pollution is now generated due to gridlock in other parts of York. Im not a right ringer but this clown in charge of council does not listen. Him and Galloway are similar, very up themselfs and they know best. York needs a non-mainstream or indipendents in control as domocracy just gets steamrollered otherwise in York.
We know its going to be a toll bridge its plain to see. The excuss for pollution is rubbish, as more pollution is now generated due to gridlock in other parts of York. Im not a right ringer but this clown in charge of council does not listen. Him and Galloway are similar, very up themselfs and they know best. York needs a non-mainstream or indipendents in control as domocracy just gets steamrollered otherwise in York. asd

3:45pm Mon 23 Dec 13

Junior123 says...

I see that there has been no reply from the Councillors on the question posed on the letters page re COULD James Alexander confirm or deny through the letters page whether a “deal” was struck with the new owners before the purchase of the old council offices, agreeing that Lendal Bridge would be closed to reduce the amount of traffic pollution in St Leonard’s Place? I wonder why?????
I see that there has been no reply from the Councillors on the question posed on the letters page re COULD James Alexander confirm or deny through the letters page whether a “deal” was struck with the new owners before the purchase of the old council offices, agreeing that Lendal Bridge would be closed to reduce the amount of traffic pollution in St Leonard’s Place? I wonder why????? Junior123

2:01am Tue 24 Dec 13

Magicman! says...

YOUWILLDOASISAY wrote:
far2bizzy wrote:
YOUWILLDOASISAY wrote:
Fat Harry wrote:
You'd think from much if the foregoing that motorists were the immense majority. They're not, they're just very loud.
The main reason for motorists being loud might be one of the following:

1. More households with cars than without cars.
2. More motorists than bus users.
3. More motorists than pedestrians.
4. More motorists than cyclists.

The evidence is all around and very hard to miss. I would suggest there is a very quiet but massively influential number of motorists that equates to a massive and influential majority patiently waiting in the wings for the right time to make their opinions heard.

You might do better to claim there were more kite flyers than cyclists.
Where do you get your facts from? Are there published figures on the numbers of people using each mode within the city? I’ve looked but cannot find any.
First Bus are claiming that there are 300,000 bus journeys made in the city each week. I find it hard to believe that there are more car journeys made.
A reasonable question.

Firstly I don't claim my comments as being based on facts, merely observation (The evidence is all around and very hard to miss.).

However your quote from First of 300,000 passengers per week is a clear indicator that supports what I have said.

Totally disregarding that over half of Yorks bus service is dedicated to park & ride and will be carrying a significant number of tourists (having just parked their cars) this is still only about 10% of the population using First bus.

Population circa 200,000.

Average daily passenger bus usage 42,850, assuming return journey = 21,425 discreet passengers.

21,425 discreet passengers is equal to about about 10% of the population leaving 90% using other means of transport.

When I walk I see more cars than cyclist or other pedestrians, when I cycle I see less pedestrians than cyclist but more cars. When I'm in the city centre I see more pedestrians as you would expect.

I maintain my response that motorists are not a minority.
Indeed, motorists are not a minority... however, a slice of that road of road users are particularly vocal and vociferous about anything that takes away "their road". The Water End saga springs to mind, with a number of people complaining about it even through they didn't actually drive along there regularly, and others making up exaggerated claims about queue lengths to try and reclaim what they saw as "stolen road space". It is that very vocal minority that are the ones any local authority would worry about - as its those ones who would start physical protests outside town halls, marching along roads to stop everybody else who's trying to make a journey just to say that reducing road capacity in one area is wrong; and more often than not you tend to find it's those ones who are in fact the worse drivers, especially when it comes to interactions with more vulnerable road users such as pedestrians and cyclists... wheras the quiet majority of motorists just go about their own buisness, might have the odd grumble to themselves, but carry on and try to make their journey better by either planning a good route to avoid the worst roads or worst times - and in general its those ones who are more likely to hang back and allow pedestrians to cross the road or another road user to turn across their path.

Sadly, this Lendal Bridge storyline has been hijacked by the former group of the two.
[quote][p][bold]YOUWILLDOASISAY[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]far2bizzy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]YOUWILLDOASISAY[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Fat Harry[/bold] wrote: You'd think from much if the foregoing that motorists were the immense majority. They're not, they're just very loud.[/p][/quote]The main reason for motorists being loud might be one of the following: 1. More households with cars than without cars. 2. More motorists than bus users. 3. More motorists than pedestrians. 4. More motorists than cyclists. The evidence is all around and very hard to miss. I would suggest there is a very quiet but massively influential number of motorists that equates to a massive and influential majority patiently waiting in the wings for the right time to make their opinions heard. You might do better to claim there were more kite flyers than cyclists.[/p][/quote]Where do you get your facts from? Are there published figures on the numbers of people using each mode within the city? I’ve looked but cannot find any. First Bus are claiming that there are 300,000 bus journeys made in the city each week. I find it hard to believe that there are more car journeys made.[/p][/quote]A reasonable question. Firstly I don't claim my comments as being based on facts, merely observation (The evidence is all around and very hard to miss.). However your quote from First of 300,000 passengers per week is a clear indicator that supports what I have said. Totally disregarding that over half of Yorks bus service is dedicated to park & ride and will be carrying a significant number of tourists (having just parked their cars) this is still only about 10% of the population using First bus. Population circa 200,000. Average daily passenger bus usage 42,850, assuming return journey = 21,425 discreet passengers. 21,425 discreet passengers is equal to about about 10% of the population leaving 90% using other means of transport. When I walk I see more cars than cyclist or other pedestrians, when I cycle I see less pedestrians than cyclist but more cars. When I'm in the city centre I see more pedestrians as you would expect. I maintain my response that motorists are not a minority.[/p][/quote]Indeed, motorists are not a minority... however, a slice of that road of road users are particularly vocal and vociferous about anything that takes away "their road". The Water End saga springs to mind, with a number of people complaining about it even through they didn't actually drive along there regularly, and others making up exaggerated claims about queue lengths to try and reclaim what they saw as "stolen road space". It is that very vocal minority that are the ones any local authority would worry about - as its those ones who would start physical protests outside town halls, marching along roads to stop everybody else who's trying to make a journey just to say that reducing road capacity in one area is wrong; and more often than not you tend to find it's those ones who are in fact the worse drivers, especially when it comes to interactions with more vulnerable road users such as pedestrians and cyclists... wheras the quiet majority of motorists just go about their own buisness, might have the odd grumble to themselves, but carry on and try to make their journey better by either planning a good route to avoid the worst roads or worst times - and in general its those ones who are more likely to hang back and allow pedestrians to cross the road or another road user to turn across their path. Sadly, this Lendal Bridge storyline has been hijacked by the former group of the two. Magicman!

2:29pm Tue 24 Dec 13

YOUWILLDOASISAY says...

Magicman! wrote:
YOUWILLDOASISAY wrote:
far2bizzy wrote:
YOUWILLDOASISAY wrote:
Fat Harry wrote:
You'd think from much if the foregoing that motorists were the immense majority. They're not, they're just very loud.
The main reason for motorists being loud might be one of the following:

1. More households with cars than without cars.
2. More motorists than bus users.
3. More motorists than pedestrians.
4. More motorists than cyclists.

The evidence is all around and very hard to miss. I would suggest there is a very quiet but massively influential number of motorists that equates to a massive and influential majority patiently waiting in the wings for the right time to make their opinions heard.

You might do better to claim there were more kite flyers than cyclists.
Where do you get your facts from? Are there published figures on the numbers of people using each mode within the city? I’ve looked but cannot find any.
First Bus are claiming that there are 300,000 bus journeys made in the city each week. I find it hard to believe that there are more car journeys made.
A reasonable question.

Firstly I don't claim my comments as being based on facts, merely observation (The evidence is all around and very hard to miss.).

However your quote from First of 300,000 passengers per week is a clear indicator that supports what I have said.

Totally disregarding that over half of Yorks bus service is dedicated to park & ride and will be carrying a significant number of tourists (having just parked their cars) this is still only about 10% of the population using First bus.

Population circa 200,000.

Average daily passenger bus usage 42,850, assuming return journey = 21,425 discreet passengers.

21,425 discreet passengers is equal to about about 10% of the population leaving 90% using other means of transport.

When I walk I see more cars than cyclist or other pedestrians, when I cycle I see less pedestrians than cyclist but more cars. When I'm in the city centre I see more pedestrians as you would expect.

I maintain my response that motorists are not a minority.
Indeed, motorists are not a minority... however, a slice of that road of road users are particularly vocal and vociferous about anything that takes away "their road". The Water End saga springs to mind, with a number of people complaining about it even through they didn't actually drive along there regularly, and others making up exaggerated claims about queue lengths to try and reclaim what they saw as "stolen road space". It is that very vocal minority that are the ones any local authority would worry about - as its those ones who would start physical protests outside town halls, marching along roads to stop everybody else who's trying to make a journey just to say that reducing road capacity in one area is wrong; and more often than not you tend to find it's those ones who are in fact the worse drivers, especially when it comes to interactions with more vulnerable road users such as pedestrians and cyclists... wheras the quiet majority of motorists just go about their own buisness, might have the odd grumble to themselves, but carry on and try to make their journey better by either planning a good route to avoid the worst roads or worst times - and in general its those ones who are more likely to hang back and allow pedestrians to cross the road or another road user to turn across their path.

Sadly, this Lendal Bridge storyline has been hijacked by the former group of the two.
A very interesting contribution which could be summarised as follows:

1. If your an objector then it is only valid if you have been directly affected.

2. If your an objector then your the ones who would start physical protests outside town halls, marching along roads.

3. If your an objector then more often than not you tend to find it's those who are in fact the worse drivers, especially when it comes to interactions with more vulnerable road users.

Some pretty outrageous claims in my opinion.

What kind of world would it be if only those directly affected had a voice.

I would suggest that your perceived risk for town hall protests are more likely to come from the quiet majority of motorists just going about their own business, having the odd grumble to themselves. They are the group for which you have no barometer and absolutely no indication of the strength of feeling. To suggest that suffering in silence is acceptable is a great folly as history often records.

I don't agree that the Lendal Bridge storyline has been hijacked by motorists, I think it is a representation of balance. I would add that the only evidence of the storyline being hijacked is the marking down of comments which is pointless and the product of paranoia and desperation.

I do agree that overstating queue lengths is not best practice, but equally poor practice would be to understate the facts. The councils credibility in presenting evidentially based facts is an area of real concern which has been echoed many times, often with good reason.
[quote][p][bold]Magicman![/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]YOUWILLDOASISAY[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]far2bizzy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]YOUWILLDOASISAY[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Fat Harry[/bold] wrote: You'd think from much if the foregoing that motorists were the immense majority. They're not, they're just very loud.[/p][/quote]The main reason for motorists being loud might be one of the following: 1. More households with cars than without cars. 2. More motorists than bus users. 3. More motorists than pedestrians. 4. More motorists than cyclists. The evidence is all around and very hard to miss. I would suggest there is a very quiet but massively influential number of motorists that equates to a massive and influential majority patiently waiting in the wings for the right time to make their opinions heard. You might do better to claim there were more kite flyers than cyclists.[/p][/quote]Where do you get your facts from? Are there published figures on the numbers of people using each mode within the city? I’ve looked but cannot find any. First Bus are claiming that there are 300,000 bus journeys made in the city each week. I find it hard to believe that there are more car journeys made.[/p][/quote]A reasonable question. Firstly I don't claim my comments as being based on facts, merely observation (The evidence is all around and very hard to miss.). However your quote from First of 300,000 passengers per week is a clear indicator that supports what I have said. Totally disregarding that over half of Yorks bus service is dedicated to park & ride and will be carrying a significant number of tourists (having just parked their cars) this is still only about 10% of the population using First bus. Population circa 200,000. Average daily passenger bus usage 42,850, assuming return journey = 21,425 discreet passengers. 21,425 discreet passengers is equal to about about 10% of the population leaving 90% using other means of transport. When I walk I see more cars than cyclist or other pedestrians, when I cycle I see less pedestrians than cyclist but more cars. When I'm in the city centre I see more pedestrians as you would expect. I maintain my response that motorists are not a minority.[/p][/quote]Indeed, motorists are not a minority... however, a slice of that road of road users are particularly vocal and vociferous about anything that takes away "their road". The Water End saga springs to mind, with a number of people complaining about it even through they didn't actually drive along there regularly, and others making up exaggerated claims about queue lengths to try and reclaim what they saw as "stolen road space". It is that very vocal minority that are the ones any local authority would worry about - as its those ones who would start physical protests outside town halls, marching along roads to stop everybody else who's trying to make a journey just to say that reducing road capacity in one area is wrong; and more often than not you tend to find it's those ones who are in fact the worse drivers, especially when it comes to interactions with more vulnerable road users such as pedestrians and cyclists... wheras the quiet majority of motorists just go about their own buisness, might have the odd grumble to themselves, but carry on and try to make their journey better by either planning a good route to avoid the worst roads or worst times - and in general its those ones who are more likely to hang back and allow pedestrians to cross the road or another road user to turn across their path. Sadly, this Lendal Bridge storyline has been hijacked by the former group of the two.[/p][/quote]A very interesting contribution which could be summarised as follows: 1. If your an objector then it is only valid if you have been directly affected. 2. If your an objector then your the ones who would start physical protests outside town halls, marching along roads. 3. If your an objector then more often than not you tend to find it's those who are in fact the worse drivers, especially when it comes to interactions with more vulnerable road users. Some pretty outrageous claims in my opinion. What kind of world would it be if only those directly affected had a voice. I would suggest that your perceived risk for town hall protests are more likely to come from the quiet majority of motorists just going about their own business, having the odd grumble to themselves. They are the group for which you have no barometer and absolutely no indication of the strength of feeling. To suggest that suffering in silence is acceptable is a great folly as history often records. I don't agree that the Lendal Bridge storyline has been hijacked by motorists, I think it is a representation of balance. I would add that the only evidence of the storyline being hijacked is the marking down of comments which is pointless and the product of paranoia and desperation. I do agree that overstating queue lengths is not best practice, but equally poor practice would be to understate the facts. The councils credibility in presenting evidentially based facts is an area of real concern which has been echoed many times, often with good reason. YOUWILLDOASISAY

7:38pm Sat 11 Jan 14

non pedalling pete says...

Minus 10026 for P.P??????
Minus 10026 for P.P?????? non pedalling pete

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