Debate continues over Lendal Bridge trial

York Press: Buses crossing Lendal Bridge last month Buses crossing Lendal Bridge last month

Thank you for making an FOI request to get emails concerning the Lendal Bridge “trial” (Lendal Bridge – the secret files, February 27).

On September 13 I was caught by a camera on Lendal Bridge. I paid the fine, but after seeing a large temporary sign in Monkgate for a cycling event warning of the changes at Lendal Bridge, I realised the changes could have been better advertised than they had been when I drove across.

I decided to make an appeal and wrote describing the warning sign in Monkgate.

I continued: “I rarely drive over Lendal Bridge, and on 26/09/13 was caught by your camera. After receiving the notice, I walked on the bridge to see how I had missed your signs. I thought the left-hand sign at the south end of the bridge could be concealed by a bus; and that the sign on the pedestrian crossing was too small.

“I hope that you will look kindly on my appeal as I understand that the changes are a trial. I think the signage needs more thought.”

I received the reply: “We are currently reviewing what further signing/information can be provided ... Additional signing has recently been installed with further signs to go up shortly.”

My appeal was turned down, even though the comments supported my argument.

Today I have read in the Press that last September Coun Merrett said one of the signs notifying drivers of the trial, in Station Rise, “feels very confusing” and that he had been “disappointed at the initial high level” of fines.

I want a refund. I hope others will ask for theirs too.

Stephen Gavin River Bank, Chestnut Court, The Old Village, Huntington, York.

 

• Oh what a glorious thing to be City of York Council, with nearly £1.3 million in fines from motorists crossing Lendal Bridge.

They must be rubbing their hands together, and I never, ever trust anyone who makes as many hand gestures as Coun Dave Merrett did on Look North on Thursday. It was not an experiment, it was a way to fill the council coffers!

So if, as Coun Merrett states, it makes bus journey times quicker by closing Lendal Bridge, why haven’t they also applied the same to Skeldergate Bridge and Castle Mills Bridge?

So, City of York Council, what is going to happen to the money raised? Are we going to have all the potholes repaired, all the salt bins replaced/and or refilled?

Oh, and this might be a little too much to hope for, instead of squeezing York residents out of more money (which most of us can’t afford) would it be too much to ask that the rise in council tax be held over until next year, or better still a slight reduction for every one?

I won’t hold my breath.

C Henson, Ullswater, York.

 

• Well, at last the six-month trial over the restrictions of the Lendal Bridge closure has come to an end and it is now time for York council to consider what further measures to adopt in the future.

I understand that thousands of fixed penalty notices have been issued to unsuspecting motorists, most of whom seem to be visitors to the city.

I fully understand the concerns of city-centre shopkeepers, who feel that their livelihoods are being affected.

I can speak from experience in that a similar fixed-penalty notice issued, in my opinion, unfairly by Portsmouth council has ensured that I will never visit that city again, and can only assume that people caught in a similar situation in York will feel the same.

I would advise the council to think very hard as to their future options, because I am sure, like me, many people have long memories and seldom forgive.

Paul Tutill, Danby Cottages, Thornton-le-Clay.

 

• In 2010 York, like all local authorities, was asked by central Government to prepare a third Local Transport Plan.

York’s LTP3, as now known, covers the period 2011 to 2031 and plans to further reduce demand for private car use.

This sensibly recognises that, without restraint, the number of local car journeys could double or treble within coming decades. The impact of this upon servicing, deliveries, public transport, blue-badge holders and essential private car use would be devastating.

By giving more priority to these latter users, and encouraging car sharing, cycling and walking, we might avoid Carmageddon for our descendants. LTP3 was endorsed by the then ruling Liberal Democrat party. Its detail included the closure to private cars of one of the central river crossings.

This strategy was inherited by the Labour group when it took control.

Your FOI exposure of internal council emails (Lendal Bridge – the secret files, February 27) has generated many predictable comments. Most disappointing for me is the revelation that incorrect legal advice was received on a “yellow card” system. Had this been implemented, it would have reduced the extent of fines to that preferred by Coun Merrett, as expressed in his Look North interview.

I hope that the evaluation process will confirm the wisdom of the closure decision, and I look forward to making many a pleasant daytime crossing of Lendal Bridge on foot, bus and bike.

Paul Hepworth, Windmill Rise, York.

 

• I expect the whingers will win over Lendal Bridge, but before they do could I just say how grateful I am for the benefits the closure has brought to my part of town.

Gillygate has been so much more pleasant a place to walk along, quieter, cleaner, much easier to cross.

The bus service has improved noticeably. For a few months, as a member of those despised groups, pedestrians and bus users, I’ve felt that someone actually cared about my comfort.

I’d like to make two points. If the signage is up to national standards, as has been claimed, then the number of people not seeing it suggests either that the national standards are not good enough or a large number of drivers are not paying attention.

Finally, if York suffered a plague of locusts, how many people would write to you suggesting it was because of the closure of Lendal Bridge?

Ann Holt, Portland Street (off Gillygate), York.

Comments (20)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

12:25pm Sat 1 Mar 14

LibDem says...

Paul Hepworth is being disingenuous in referring to the 2010 LTP.

While it is true that the plan envisaged, in the medium term, the trial closure of OUSE bridge (not Lendal bridge) this was to be after improvements had been made to other parts of the road network most notably the northern ring road.

3 new park and ride sites would have been working by then.

Ouse bridge was selected for a possible trial because it carries many more bus services than Lendal bridge and, of course, it is not part of the inner ring road.

The Labour administration closed the wrong bridge, in the wrong year and used the wrong method of enforcement.

They put back the cause of pedestrianisation, by a decade at least, by failing to consult properly and making schoolboy errors in the type and quality of the signage used.

The ANPR cameras should be switched off immediately..
Paul Hepworth is being disingenuous in referring to the 2010 LTP. While it is true that the plan envisaged, in the medium term, the trial closure of OUSE bridge (not Lendal bridge) this was to be after improvements had been made to other parts of the road network most notably the northern ring road. 3 new park and ride sites would have been working by then. Ouse bridge was selected for a possible trial because it carries many more bus services than Lendal bridge and, of course, it is not part of the inner ring road. The Labour administration closed the wrong bridge, in the wrong year and used the wrong method of enforcement. They put back the cause of pedestrianisation, by a decade at least, by failing to consult properly and making schoolboy errors in the type and quality of the signage used. The ANPR cameras should be switched off immediately.. LibDem
  • Score: -60

1:08pm Sat 1 Mar 14

Mulgrave says...

I would suggest to Ann Holt that the fair way to proceed is evaluate the opinions of those who feel benefit from the restriction and those who claim otherwise. To call those who hold valid views opposing something "whingers" is childish, and infers the user sees their needs and opinions as more valid and special than those of others. For everyone who says the environment near their home is nicer, I expect there will be another who says theirs is worse, and they should be heard.
I would suggest to Ann Holt that the fair way to proceed is evaluate the opinions of those who feel benefit from the restriction and those who claim otherwise. To call those who hold valid views opposing something "whingers" is childish, and infers the user sees their needs and opinions as more valid and special than those of others. For everyone who says the environment near their home is nicer, I expect there will be another who says theirs is worse, and they should be heard. Mulgrave
  • Score: 57

3:31pm Sat 1 Mar 14

pedalling paul says...

If readers helped contribute to the traffic reduction sought by LTP3, the A1237 might never need to be altered.
If readers helped contribute to the traffic reduction sought by LTP3, the A1237 might never need to be altered. pedalling paul
  • Score: -125

4:50pm Sat 1 Mar 14

strangebuttrue? says...

I note Paul makes reference to one comment from the article exposing the secrets known within the council about the closure and forgot to mention the others. A quick reminder of just some below: -

- Three-quarters of people surveyed think the trial has damaged York.

- One official said “the unfortunate truth” of the trial is that cutting city-centre traffic will do little to reduce air pollution, a key reason given for the restrictions.

- Council bosses were unhappy that an amnesty from fines during the first week of the trial became public knowledge.

- The Council was warned last July the scheme was likely to go over-budget, but an official suggested the precise amount of Government funding should be blurred.

- In one exchange, deputy council leader Tracey Simpson-Laing told colleagues to “shut down” an email discussion detailing concerns over the trial, in case it had to be later released under freedom of information laws.

These appears to show that people within the council were trying to mislead and hide facts from residents and the public generally and not just, as Paul makes out, that poor old Mr Merrett was mislead by someone else.
I note Paul makes reference to one comment from the article exposing the secrets known within the council about the closure and forgot to mention the others. A quick reminder of just some below: - - Three-quarters of people surveyed think the trial has damaged York. - One official said “the unfortunate truth” of the trial is that cutting city-centre traffic will do little to reduce air pollution, a key reason given for the restrictions. - Council bosses were unhappy that an amnesty from fines during the first week of the trial became public knowledge. - The Council was warned last July the scheme was likely to go over-budget, but an official suggested the precise amount of Government funding should be blurred. - In one exchange, deputy council leader Tracey Simpson-Laing told colleagues to “shut down” an email discussion detailing concerns over the trial, in case it had to be later released under freedom of information laws. These appears to show that people within the council were trying to mislead and hide facts from residents and the public generally and not just, as Paul makes out, that poor old Mr Merrett was mislead by someone else. strangebuttrue?
  • Score: -30

5:01pm Sat 1 Mar 14

strangebuttrue? says...

I see the score adjuster is active right now I got - 29 in 5 mins and Paul went from - to +25 in the same time frame.
I see the score adjuster is active right now I got - 29 in 5 mins and Paul went from - to +25 in the same time frame. strangebuttrue?
  • Score: 52

6:25pm Sat 1 Mar 14

strangebuttrue? says...

pedalling paul wrote:
If readers helped contribute to the traffic reduction sought by LTP3, the A1237 might never need to be altered.
Is that the plan which says? :-

"Peak period traffic levels have been stable since 2006"
"bus patronage remaining stable"
"The ‘Hierarchy of Transport Users’ principle first identified in LTP1 continues to underpin the objectives in this plan. This policy has the needs of pedestrians at the top of the ranking and car borne commuters at the bottom".
"Plans for the future.
- Reduced Car Traffic in City Centre
- Review inner ring road operation.
- Public transport only route over Ouse Bridge
- Improve Station to Minster route
- Remove through traffic from Gillygate, St Leonard’s Place and Lendal Bridge"
The same report that then appears to bang on about how much it has done for cyclists not pedestrians and how it is and is going to prioritise busses or in other words slow down cars even more.

There is no wonder you are a big supporter Paul.
[quote][p][bold]pedalling paul [/bold] wrote: If readers helped contribute to the traffic reduction sought by LTP3, the A1237 might never need to be altered.[/p][/quote]Is that the plan which says? :- "Peak period traffic levels have been stable since 2006" "bus patronage remaining stable" "The ‘Hierarchy of Transport Users’ principle first identified in LTP1 continues to underpin the objectives in this plan. This policy has the needs of pedestrians at the top of the ranking and car borne commuters at the bottom". "Plans for the future. - Reduced Car Traffic in City Centre - Review inner ring road operation. - Public transport only route over Ouse Bridge - Improve Station to Minster route - Remove through traffic from Gillygate, St Leonard’s Place and Lendal Bridge" The same report that then appears to bang on about how much it has done for cyclists not pedestrians and how it is and is going to prioritise busses or in other words slow down cars even more. There is no wonder you are a big supporter Paul. strangebuttrue?
  • Score: 5

6:27pm Sat 1 Mar 14

strangebuttrue? says...

And by the way the alteration of the A1237 is a key part of the strategy.
And by the way the alteration of the A1237 is a key part of the strategy. strangebuttrue?
  • Score: 14

7:56pm Sat 1 Mar 14

ColdAsChristmas says...

Lendal Bridge Gate, reminds me of Climategate! Perhaps there will be a few leaks while the panic e-mail dumping is gong on?
The fines may still need to be paid back, now that should be interesting!
Lendal Bridge Gate, reminds me of Climategate! Perhaps there will be a few leaks while the panic e-mail dumping is gong on? The fines may still need to be paid back, now that should be interesting! ColdAsChristmas
  • Score: 0

10:46pm Sat 1 Mar 14

wallman says...

evaluate the data? its already been decided the bridge will shut 7till 7
evaluate the data? its already been decided the bridge will shut 7till 7 wallman
  • Score: -1

2:37am Sun 2 Mar 14

Magicman! says...

“I rarely drive over Lendal Bridge, and on 26/09/13 was caught by your camera. After receiving the notice, I walked on the bridge to see how I had missed your signs. I thought the left-hand sign at the south end of the bridge could be concealed by a bus; and that the sign on the pedestrian crossing was too small.

- Stephen Gavin River Bank, Chestnut Court, The Old Village

.... Since you were mlooking at signs, did you look down at the same time... to see the really thick white line between the two lanes of traffic, and the really big bold letters that read BUS LANE by any chance??

In addition, each sign on the approach to Lendal bridge also has a pictogram of a camera. That doesn't mean there might be people taking photos on the bridge, it means there is likely to be some form of camera-based law enforcement in place.

The fact you missed BOTH of these and then drove over the bridge just adds further weight to Ann Holt's point:
the number of people not seeing it suggests either that the national standards are not good enough or a large number of drivers are not paying attention

And it is true that driver don't pay attention... on Friday I watched in awe as a car emerged from Leeman Road at the traffic lights, and went STRAIGHT ACROSS the junction and ignored the road markings showing they were going the wrong way... what would have happened if a bus carrying standing passengers had come around the blind bend? people could have had serious injuries or worse, and all through the actions of a car driver not observing the signage that is put up. If a driver isn't going to look at the signage or road markings, then they might as well drive onto the A64 at Billbrough Top and turn right - see how long they last.
[quote]“I rarely drive over Lendal Bridge, and on 26/09/13 was caught by your camera. After receiving the notice, I walked on the bridge to see how I had missed your signs. I thought the left-hand sign at the south end of the bridge could be concealed by a bus; and that the sign on the pedestrian crossing was too small. [/quote] - Stephen Gavin River Bank, Chestnut Court, The Old Village .... Since you were mlooking at signs, did you look down at the same time... to see the really thick white line between the two lanes of traffic, and the really big bold letters that read BUS LANE by any chance?? In addition, each sign on the approach to Lendal bridge also has a pictogram of a camera. That doesn't mean there might be people taking photos on the bridge, it means there is likely to be some form of camera-based law enforcement in place. The fact you missed BOTH of these and then drove over the bridge just adds further weight to Ann Holt's point: [quote]the number of people not seeing it suggests either that the national standards are not good enough or a large number of drivers are not paying attention[/quote] And it is true that driver don't pay attention... on Friday I watched in awe as a car emerged from Leeman Road at the traffic lights, and went STRAIGHT ACROSS the junction and ignored the road markings showing they were going the wrong way... what would have happened if a bus carrying standing passengers had come around the blind bend? people could have had serious injuries or worse, and all through the actions of a car driver not observing the signage that is put up. If a driver isn't going to look at the signage or road markings, then they might as well drive onto the A64 at Billbrough Top and turn right - see how long they last. Magicman!
  • Score: 4

2:40am Sun 2 Mar 14

Magicman! says...

Mulgrave wrote:
I would suggest to Ann Holt that the fair way to proceed is evaluate the opinions of those who feel benefit from the restriction and those who claim otherwise. To call those who hold valid views opposing something "whingers" is childish, and infers the user sees their needs and opinions as more valid and special than those of others. For everyone who says the environment near their home is nicer, I expect there will be another who says theirs is worse, and they should be heard.
"infers the user sees their needs and opinions as more valid and special than those of others"

... but are you not, in your comments saying the bridge should be reopened to private motorists, doing exactly the same thing??
[quote][p][bold]Mulgrave[/bold] wrote: I would suggest to Ann Holt that the fair way to proceed is evaluate the opinions of those who feel benefit from the restriction and those who claim otherwise. To call those who hold valid views opposing something "whingers" is childish, and infers the user sees their needs and opinions as more valid and special than those of others. For everyone who says the environment near their home is nicer, I expect there will be another who says theirs is worse, and they should be heard.[/p][/quote]"infers the user sees their needs and opinions as more valid and special than those of others" ... but are you not, in your comments saying the bridge should be reopened to private motorists, doing exactly the same thing?? Magicman!
  • Score: 1

2:41am Sun 2 Mar 14

Magicman! says...

pedalling paul wrote:
If readers helped contribute to the traffic reduction sought by LTP3, the A1237 might never need to be altered.
Can't agree with that. Some journeys do have to be made by car, and by having a much improved A1237 that would then take most of the traffic OUT of the city centre that is causing so much congestion at present.
[quote][p][bold]pedalling paul [/bold] wrote: If readers helped contribute to the traffic reduction sought by LTP3, the A1237 might never need to be altered.[/p][/quote]Can't agree with that. Some journeys do have to be made by car, and by having a much improved A1237 that would then take most of the traffic OUT of the city centre that is causing so much congestion at present. Magicman!
  • Score: 8

2:46am Sun 2 Mar 14

Magicman! says...

strangebuttrue? wrote:
pedalling paul wrote:
If readers helped contribute to the traffic reduction sought by LTP3, the A1237 might never need to be altered.
Is that the plan which says? :-

"Peak period traffic levels have been stable since 2006"
"bus patronage remaining stable"
"The ‘Hierarchy of Transport Users’ principle first identified in LTP1 continues to underpin the objectives in this plan. This policy has the needs of pedestrians at the top of the ranking and car borne commuters at the bottom".
"Plans for the future.
- Reduced Car Traffic in City Centre
- Review inner ring road operation.
- Public transport only route over Ouse Bridge
- Improve Station to Minster route
- Remove through traffic from Gillygate, St Leonard’s Place and Lendal Bridge"
The same report that then appears to bang on about how much it has done for cyclists not pedestrians and how it is and is going to prioritise busses or in other words slow down cars even more.

There is no wonder you are a big supporter Paul.
Have you not thought the point marked "Review Inner Ring Road operation", might refer to a restructuring of junctions, rationalisation, making the best possible use of capacity and getting rid of 'duplicate' uses of roads (ie cars coming from Tower Street to Skeldergate Bridge having to cross Castle Mills Bridge twice) in addition to possibly getting rid of some traffic lights that only cause extra congestion in favour of self-regulating roundabouts to create the end result of traffic moving more smoothly around the outer edge of the city centre instead of going through the city centre itself...??
[quote][p][bold]strangebuttrue?[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]pedalling paul [/bold] wrote: If readers helped contribute to the traffic reduction sought by LTP3, the A1237 might never need to be altered.[/p][/quote]Is that the plan which says? :- "Peak period traffic levels have been stable since 2006" "bus patronage remaining stable" "The ‘Hierarchy of Transport Users’ principle first identified in LTP1 continues to underpin the objectives in this plan. This policy has the needs of pedestrians at the top of the ranking and car borne commuters at the bottom". "Plans for the future. - Reduced Car Traffic in City Centre - Review inner ring road operation. - Public transport only route over Ouse Bridge - Improve Station to Minster route - Remove through traffic from Gillygate, St Leonard’s Place and Lendal Bridge" The same report that then appears to bang on about how much it has done for cyclists not pedestrians and how it is and is going to prioritise busses or in other words slow down cars even more. There is no wonder you are a big supporter Paul.[/p][/quote]Have you not thought the point marked "Review Inner Ring Road operation", might refer to a restructuring of junctions, rationalisation, making the best possible use of capacity and getting rid of 'duplicate' uses of roads (ie cars coming from Tower Street to Skeldergate Bridge having to cross Castle Mills Bridge twice) in addition to possibly getting rid of some traffic lights that only cause extra congestion in favour of self-regulating roundabouts to create the end result of traffic moving more smoothly around the outer edge of the city centre instead of going through the city centre itself...?? Magicman!
  • Score: 6

9:18am Sun 2 Mar 14

AnotherPointofView says...

Magicman! wrote:
“I rarely drive over Lendal Bridge, and on 26/09/13 was caught by your camera. After receiving the notice, I walked on the bridge to see how I had missed your signs. I thought the left-hand sign at the south end of the bridge could be concealed by a bus; and that the sign on the pedestrian crossing was too small.

- Stephen Gavin River Bank, Chestnut Court, The Old Village

.... Since you were mlooking at signs, did you look down at the same time... to see the really thick white line between the two lanes of traffic, and the really big bold letters that read BUS LANE by any chance??

In addition, each sign on the approach to Lendal bridge also has a pictogram of a camera. That doesn't mean there might be people taking photos on the bridge, it means there is likely to be some form of camera-based law enforcement in place.

The fact you missed BOTH of these and then drove over the bridge just adds further weight to Ann Holt's point:
the number of people not seeing it suggests either that the national standards are not good enough or a large number of drivers are not paying attention

And it is true that driver don't pay attention... on Friday I watched in awe as a car emerged from Leeman Road at the traffic lights, and went STRAIGHT ACROSS the junction and ignored the road markings showing they were going the wrong way... what would have happened if a bus carrying standing passengers had come around the blind bend? people could have had serious injuries or worse, and all through the actions of a car driver not observing the signage that is put up. If a driver isn't going to look at the signage or road markings, then they might as well drive onto the A64 at Billbrough Top and turn right - see how long they last.
The big bold letters were put on later.
[quote][p][bold]Magicman![/bold] wrote: [quote]“I rarely drive over Lendal Bridge, and on 26/09/13 was caught by your camera. After receiving the notice, I walked on the bridge to see how I had missed your signs. I thought the left-hand sign at the south end of the bridge could be concealed by a bus; and that the sign on the pedestrian crossing was too small. [/quote] - Stephen Gavin River Bank, Chestnut Court, The Old Village .... Since you were mlooking at signs, did you look down at the same time... to see the really thick white line between the two lanes of traffic, and the really big bold letters that read BUS LANE by any chance?? In addition, each sign on the approach to Lendal bridge also has a pictogram of a camera. That doesn't mean there might be people taking photos on the bridge, it means there is likely to be some form of camera-based law enforcement in place. The fact you missed BOTH of these and then drove over the bridge just adds further weight to Ann Holt's point: [quote]the number of people not seeing it suggests either that the national standards are not good enough or a large number of drivers are not paying attention[/quote] And it is true that driver don't pay attention... on Friday I watched in awe as a car emerged from Leeman Road at the traffic lights, and went STRAIGHT ACROSS the junction and ignored the road markings showing they were going the wrong way... what would have happened if a bus carrying standing passengers had come around the blind bend? people could have had serious injuries or worse, and all through the actions of a car driver not observing the signage that is put up. If a driver isn't going to look at the signage or road markings, then they might as well drive onto the A64 at Billbrough Top and turn right - see how long they last.[/p][/quote]The big bold letters were put on later. AnotherPointofView
  • Score: 2

9:58am Sun 2 Mar 14

AnotherPointofView says...

Ann Holt, of Portland Street. You don't live off the Gillygate I drive down most days which, during the bridge closure times is still full of traffic. The road which has been most affected by the closure is Bootham. The traffic on Bootham is less, as those who previously turned right into Exhibition Square have nowhere to go.

Driving along Gillygate, I find that it is still full of traffic along it's entire length. It can't get any fuller than that! You will of course find traffic along your road will increase shortly as the roadworks down Portland Street will soon finish and those on the school run will make your afternoons much worse than they are now.
Ann Holt, of Portland Street. You don't live off the Gillygate I drive down most days which, during the bridge closure times is still full of traffic. The road which has been most affected by the closure is Bootham. The traffic on Bootham is less, as those who previously turned right into Exhibition Square have nowhere to go. Driving along Gillygate, I find that it is still full of traffic along it's entire length. It can't get any fuller than that! You will of course find traffic along your road will increase shortly as the roadworks down Portland Street will soon finish and those on the school run will make your afternoons much worse than they are now. AnotherPointofView
  • Score: 1

10:06am Sun 2 Mar 14

Mulgrave says...

Magicman! wrote:
Mulgrave wrote:
I would suggest to Ann Holt that the fair way to proceed is evaluate the opinions of those who feel benefit from the restriction and those who claim otherwise. To call those who hold valid views opposing something "whingers" is childish, and infers the user sees their needs and opinions as more valid and special than those of others. For everyone who says the environment near their home is nicer, I expect there will be another who says theirs is worse, and they should be heard.
"infers the user sees their needs and opinions as more valid and special than those of others"

... but are you not, in your comments saying the bridge should be reopened to private motorists, doing exactly the same thing??
Opinions stated either for or against would carry the same weight, but adding epithets such as whinger, or, from the other "side" zealot for example, would "infer the user sees .....etc". I don't actually say "the bridge should be reopened to private motorists", but I have plenty to say on the subject:- I see absolutely no distinction in so called private cars or cars used as taxis or private hire vehicles in the way they operate in York (ie it is the type/purpose of the journey that is more relevant), and I think it is shameful "public" vehicles such as non emergency transfer ambulances are denied access, and the line that the bridge is now aligned to the footstreets is ludicrous as it stands. If you are going to have a restriction, I have advocated LESS traffic, and a single lane across the bridge. Rather than a large LED version of the correct legal traffic sign I suggested near the start of the trial, there is a portable dot matrix sign complete with arrow that appears to be suggesting drivers divert TO the bridge.

I am looking for a fair and robust evaluation, just as I would be in other areas such as 20mph limits, my main concern is that we won't get it.
[quote][p][bold]Magicman![/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mulgrave[/bold] wrote: I would suggest to Ann Holt that the fair way to proceed is evaluate the opinions of those who feel benefit from the restriction and those who claim otherwise. To call those who hold valid views opposing something "whingers" is childish, and infers the user sees their needs and opinions as more valid and special than those of others. For everyone who says the environment near their home is nicer, I expect there will be another who says theirs is worse, and they should be heard.[/p][/quote]"infers the user sees their needs and opinions as more valid and special than those of others" ... but are you not, in your comments saying the bridge should be reopened to private motorists, doing exactly the same thing??[/p][/quote]Opinions stated either for or against would carry the same weight, but adding epithets such as whinger, or, from the other "side" zealot for example, would "infer the user sees .....etc". I don't actually say "the bridge should be reopened to private motorists", but I have plenty to say on the subject:- I see absolutely no distinction in so called private cars or cars used as taxis or private hire vehicles in the way they operate in York (ie it is the type/purpose of the journey that is more relevant), and I think it is shameful "public" vehicles such as non emergency transfer ambulances are denied access, and the line that the bridge is now aligned to the footstreets is ludicrous as it stands. If you are going to have a restriction, I have advocated LESS traffic, and a single lane across the bridge. Rather than a large LED version of the correct legal traffic sign I suggested near the start of the trial, there is a portable dot matrix sign complete with arrow that appears to be suggesting drivers divert TO the bridge. I am looking for a fair and robust evaluation, just as I would be in other areas such as 20mph limits, my main concern is that we won't get it. Mulgrave
  • Score: 3

10:43am Sun 2 Mar 14

Pinza-C55 says...

I fail to understand how the bridge restrictions have "benefitted pedestrians"? I neither cycle nor drive and I can't remember when I last used a bus. As before, I walk over the bridge on the pavement and I have no ambition to walk along the centre of the road. There's less traffic but if I was run over by a bus or taxi it would be just as bad as if I was run over by a private car. I have a sensitive hooter and I cannot tell any difference in the quality of the air.
How have I benefitted?
I fail to understand how the bridge restrictions have "benefitted pedestrians"? I neither cycle nor drive and I can't remember when I last used a bus. As before, I walk over the bridge on the pavement and I have no ambition to walk along the centre of the road. There's less traffic but if I was run over by a bus or taxi it would be just as bad as if I was run over by a private car. I have a sensitive hooter and I cannot tell any difference in the quality of the air. How have I benefitted? Pinza-C55
  • Score: 3

12:19pm Sun 2 Mar 14

strangebuttrue? says...

Magicman! wrote:
strangebuttrue? wrote:
pedalling paul wrote:
If readers helped contribute to the traffic reduction sought by LTP3, the A1237 might never need to be altered.
Is that the plan which says? :-

"Peak period traffic levels have been stable since 2006"
"bus patronage remaining stable"
"The ‘Hierarchy of Transport Users’ principle first identified in LTP1 continues to underpin the objectives in this plan. This policy has the needs of pedestrians at the top of the ranking and car borne commuters at the bottom".
"Plans for the future.
- Reduced Car Traffic in City Centre
- Review inner ring road operation.
- Public transport only route over Ouse Bridge
- Improve Station to Minster route
- Remove through traffic from Gillygate, St Leonard’s Place and Lendal Bridge"
The same report that then appears to bang on about how much it has done for cyclists not pedestrians and how it is and is going to prioritise busses or in other words slow down cars even more.

There is no wonder you are a big supporter Paul.
Have you not thought the point marked "Review Inner Ring Road operation", might refer to a restructuring of junctions, rationalisation, making the best possible use of capacity and getting rid of 'duplicate' uses of roads (ie cars coming from Tower Street to Skeldergate Bridge having to cross Castle Mills Bridge twice) in addition to possibly getting rid of some traffic lights that only cause extra congestion in favour of self-regulating roundabouts to create the end result of traffic moving more smoothly around the outer edge of the city centre instead of going through the city centre itself...??
Well the report was written in 2011. Since then the review seems to have concluded that closing a part of the inner ring road (Lendal Bridge) was the answer. Far from removing traffic lights what we have seen is more traffic lights with more deliberate sequencing that causes more congestion just like the ones put in on the Tower Street/Fishergate Junction. I commented at the time that this would become a new council created pinch point and there we are - it is. Most days you now see queues forming on Tower Street as the lights change to red ever 4 vehicles or so dependant on if a vehicle is waiting to get off Fishergate or a pedestrian wants to use the crossing, which is most of the time, not one second is wasted between pressing the button or approaching the Fishergate light before the lights change stopping the main road hence the seldom before seem queues. This then leads to traffic being unable to get out of Piccadilly and queues forming down there to which many then decide to go up through the residential area, Mill Lane Margret Street, to get to Walmgate only to be given the same 4 cars at a time treatment at the Walmgate Lawrence Street lights creating queues all the way down Walmgate.

Then take a look at the new traffic lights at the Fulford roundabout. it was said at the time that this would relive the dangerous queues forming on the A64. Not so - according to one correspondent the dangerous queues trying to leave the A64 and get into York are now even longer and even more dangerous not to mention the obvious danger of the new layout which I believe has already caused accident. It would seem that the councils determination to rid the city of cars no know bounds and they are prepared to endanger life to meet their objective.

Then take the Boroughbridge Road Beckfield Lane Junction. This was a roundabout and worked perfectly well at most times of day. The council took out the roundabout and installed it's favourite anti car weapon traffic lights. It is a rare occasion that you get past this junction without being subject to a lengthy delay where nothing at all moves. This then results in standing traffic at this junction all day every day where when it was a roundabout the only queues you found here were at peak times with outbound traffic being unable to get onto the ring road due to the totally inadequately sized and designed (built up in the centre so you cannot see what is coming) roundabout at the ring road.

I realise that some of my examples are not part of the inner ring road but I think this demonstrates the councils obvious anti car thinking. The report, written for the Lib Dems puts cars at the bottom of the list of priorities but I believe that this has been taken much further by the current council. I believe for this council the rid the centre of York begins at the Welcome to York signs (or not if you are in a car) on the far edges of York.

The next plan is to cause more congestion on the A19 Fulford Road having somewhat failed in creating as big a problem as they would have liked with their bus lanes due to an unfortunate accident caused by their pervious meddling having to be reversed. They have now have gained pinch point funding to "improve" this road. In the request for funding it is clearly stated that they intend to create a pinch point around the entrance to the designer Outlet P&R. Let's have a look at some quotes from the fund request: -

"Equality Analysis - will improve public transport therefore benefitting non car owning user groups."
"During peak periods any queuing traffic would be stored upstream of the AQMA". An area which had to be declared an AQMA in 2010. Now correct me if I am wrong but did this not follow the changes made by the council which overnight saw queues created on the A19 both inbound and worse outbound following their deliberate meddling and the installation of new traffic lights? So now they want to back the queues they have created up to the outskirts of York by coincidence (I think not) will that not lead to it queuing around the entrance to the P&R. Goodness knows what the knock on effect will be at the roundabouts or light controlled junctions as they now are. I would suggest even more congestion and danger.

I could go on but fear I will have bored most to sleep by now.

I can only imagine that most residents would wish your suggested thinking was how the council worked but I am afraid they have proven that they are doing exactly the opposite.
[quote][p][bold]Magicman![/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]strangebuttrue?[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]pedalling paul [/bold] wrote: If readers helped contribute to the traffic reduction sought by LTP3, the A1237 might never need to be altered.[/p][/quote]Is that the plan which says? :- "Peak period traffic levels have been stable since 2006" "bus patronage remaining stable" "The ‘Hierarchy of Transport Users’ principle first identified in LTP1 continues to underpin the objectives in this plan. This policy has the needs of pedestrians at the top of the ranking and car borne commuters at the bottom". "Plans for the future. - Reduced Car Traffic in City Centre - Review inner ring road operation. - Public transport only route over Ouse Bridge - Improve Station to Minster route - Remove through traffic from Gillygate, St Leonard’s Place and Lendal Bridge" The same report that then appears to bang on about how much it has done for cyclists not pedestrians and how it is and is going to prioritise busses or in other words slow down cars even more. There is no wonder you are a big supporter Paul.[/p][/quote]Have you not thought the point marked "Review Inner Ring Road operation", might refer to a restructuring of junctions, rationalisation, making the best possible use of capacity and getting rid of 'duplicate' uses of roads (ie cars coming from Tower Street to Skeldergate Bridge having to cross Castle Mills Bridge twice) in addition to possibly getting rid of some traffic lights that only cause extra congestion in favour of self-regulating roundabouts to create the end result of traffic moving more smoothly around the outer edge of the city centre instead of going through the city centre itself...??[/p][/quote]Well the report was written in 2011. Since then the review seems to have concluded that closing a part of the inner ring road (Lendal Bridge) was the answer. Far from removing traffic lights what we have seen is more traffic lights with more deliberate sequencing that causes more congestion just like the ones put in on the Tower Street/Fishergate Junction. I commented at the time that this would become a new council created pinch point and there we are - it is. Most days you now see queues forming on Tower Street as the lights change to red ever 4 vehicles or so dependant on if a vehicle is waiting to get off Fishergate or a pedestrian wants to use the crossing, which is most of the time, not one second is wasted between pressing the button or approaching the Fishergate light before the lights change stopping the main road hence the seldom before seem queues. This then leads to traffic being unable to get out of Piccadilly and queues forming down there to which many then decide to go up through the residential area, Mill Lane Margret Street, to get to Walmgate only to be given the same 4 cars at a time treatment at the Walmgate Lawrence Street lights creating queues all the way down Walmgate. Then take a look at the new traffic lights at the Fulford roundabout. it was said at the time that this would relive the dangerous queues forming on the A64. Not so - according to one correspondent the dangerous queues trying to leave the A64 and get into York are now even longer and even more dangerous not to mention the obvious danger of the new layout which I believe has already caused accident. It would seem that the councils determination to rid the city of cars no know bounds and they are prepared to endanger life to meet their objective. Then take the Boroughbridge Road Beckfield Lane Junction. This was a roundabout and worked perfectly well at most times of day. The council took out the roundabout and installed it's favourite anti car weapon traffic lights. It is a rare occasion that you get past this junction without being subject to a lengthy delay where nothing at all moves. This then results in standing traffic at this junction all day every day where when it was a roundabout the only queues you found here were at peak times with outbound traffic being unable to get onto the ring road due to the totally inadequately sized and designed (built up in the centre so you cannot see what is coming) roundabout at the ring road. I realise that some of my examples are not part of the inner ring road but I think this demonstrates the councils obvious anti car thinking. The report, written for the Lib Dems puts cars at the bottom of the list of priorities but I believe that this has been taken much further by the current council. I believe for this council the rid the centre of York begins at the Welcome to York signs (or not if you are in a car) on the far edges of York. The next plan is to cause more congestion on the A19 Fulford Road having somewhat failed in creating as big a problem as they would have liked with their bus lanes due to an unfortunate accident caused by their pervious meddling having to be reversed. They have now have gained pinch point funding to "improve" this road. In the request for funding it is clearly stated that they intend to create a pinch point around the entrance to the designer Outlet P&R. Let's have a look at some quotes from the fund request: - "Equality Analysis - will improve public transport therefore benefitting non car owning user groups." "During peak periods any queuing traffic would be stored upstream of the AQMA". An area which had to be declared an AQMA in 2010. Now correct me if I am wrong but did this not follow the changes made by the council which overnight saw queues created on the A19 both inbound and worse outbound following their deliberate meddling and the installation of new traffic lights? So now they want to back the queues they have created up to the outskirts of York by coincidence (I think not) will that not lead to it queuing around the entrance to the P&R. Goodness knows what the knock on effect will be at the roundabouts or light controlled junctions as they now are. I would suggest even more congestion and danger. I could go on but fear I will have bored most to sleep by now. I can only imagine that most residents would wish your suggested thinking was how the council worked but I am afraid they have proven that they are doing exactly the opposite. strangebuttrue?
  • Score: 3

2:41pm Sun 2 Mar 14

AnotherPointofView says...

strangebuttrue? Interesting reading and no, I didn't fall asleep. I'll second you for a place on the council next year!

On the ring road at A59/A1237 roundabout. The queues are also artificially long. When you (finally) get to the front of the queue you realise that for most of the time the roadworks have been there, there is only one lane onto the roundabout, when it would be perfectly acceptable to have had two lanes. Ok, sometimes one is a must depending on what is being worked on. Having two lanes means that almost twice as many cars can enter the roundabout and the queues would be a lot smaller than at present.
strangebuttrue? Interesting reading and no, I didn't fall asleep. I'll second you for a place on the council next year! On the ring road at A59/A1237 roundabout. The queues are also artificially long. When you (finally) get to the front of the queue you realise that for most of the time the roadworks have been there, there is only one lane onto the roundabout, when it would be perfectly acceptable to have had two lanes. Ok, sometimes one is a must depending on what is being worked on. Having two lanes means that almost twice as many cars can enter the roundabout and the queues would be a lot smaller than at present. AnotherPointofView
  • Score: 7

7:12am Tue 4 Mar 14

pedalling paul says...

It used to be said that the rail industry consisted of 52 million experts, and 186,000 people who earned a living from it.
Maybe the same logic applies to transport planning in the eyes of many commentators, who seem to regard driving restrictions as an attack on their personal liberty . But do please remember that when you have succumbed to sexed up TV car ads, you've not bought the open road that they all feature. Nor do you get the gorgeous blond in the passenger seat . Would I get one if I bought a tandem? Now there 's a thought.
It used to be said that the rail industry consisted of 52 million experts, and 186,000 people who earned a living from it. Maybe the same logic applies to transport planning in the eyes of many commentators, who seem to regard driving restrictions as an attack on their personal liberty . But do please remember that when you have succumbed to sexed up TV car ads, you've not bought the open road that they all feature. Nor do you get the gorgeous blond in the passenger seat . Would I get one if I bought a tandem? Now there 's a thought. pedalling paul
  • Score: -3

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