Bridge closure ‘an act of courage’

Bridge closure ‘an act of courage’

Bridge closure ‘an act of courage’

First published in Letters by

IN The Press of March 20 there was a lot of criticism of City of York Council, including another letter complaining about the restrictions on Lendal Bridge and the subsequent fines.

The restrictions have been a trial and, as often happens when something is introduced, mistakes have been made.

However, I commend the council for their courage in conducting this trial.

The more cars there are, the more dangerous, polluted and grid-locked the streets become for all of us, citizens and visitors.

For example, children are driven to school because parents fear for their safety in heavy traffic. This leads to even heavier traffic – a vicious circle.

York wants to attract more visitors, more business. Every visitor, every resident, every trader should have equal rights and restrictions appropriate to their situation and in tune with the conservation of our uniquely lovely York.

How will all this be possible if all choose to use a private car?

Compare the space taken up by a pedestrian, a cyclist with that of someone in even the smallest car.

Let us treasure a city in which it is a privilege to live.

Rose Berl, De Little Court, Vine Street, York.

Comments (31)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

12:46pm Sat 22 Mar 14

wallman says...

Rose it wasent a trial it was conman merits idea to put more cars on less roads, raise money and him to look good in people's eyes like you who are easily conned
Rose it wasent a trial it was conman merits idea to put more cars on less roads, raise money and him to look good in people's eyes like you who are easily conned wallman
  • Score: 2075

1:04pm Sat 22 Mar 14

Yorkieand says...

wallman wrote:
Rose it wasent a trial it was conman merits idea to put more cars on less roads, raise money and him to look good in people's eyes like you who are easily conned
She wasn't conned, don't be so patronising. There are people in this city of ours that have the sense to realise we can't go on putting ever more motor vehicles onto our narrow streets. Rose is one of them,

I hope the bridge ban becomes permament.
[quote][p][bold]wallman[/bold] wrote: Rose it wasent a trial it was conman merits idea to put more cars on less roads, raise money and him to look good in people's eyes like you who are easily conned[/p][/quote]She wasn't conned, don't be so patronising. There are people in this city of ours that have the sense to realise we can't go on putting ever more motor vehicles onto our narrow streets. Rose is one of them, I hope the bridge ban becomes permament. Yorkieand
  • Score: -1557

1:17pm Sat 22 Mar 14

yorkandproud says...

Rose, Rose,Rose. Without getting into the Lendal Bridge saga, this council are not courageous. They are actually a disgrace to this city, where we are " privileged to live" , as you describe it, with their hair brained ill thought out ideas. Then to say that parents take their children to school by car because they fear for the safety in heavy traffic , is total rubbish. The majority take their kids to school by car because they are too idle to walk them there. Simple as that. Your letter has contradictions, like saying streets are dangerous and gridlocked. It can't be both. You can't be run over by a car that isn't moving. I know everyone is entitled to their opinion, but ............
Rose, Rose,Rose. Without getting into the Lendal Bridge saga, this council are not courageous. They are actually a disgrace to this city, where we are " privileged to live" , as you describe it, with their hair brained ill thought out ideas. Then to say that parents take their children to school by car because they fear for the safety in heavy traffic , is total rubbish. The majority take their kids to school by car because they are too idle to walk them there. Simple as that. Your letter has contradictions, like saying streets are dangerous and gridlocked. It can't be both. You can't be run over by a car that isn't moving. I know everyone is entitled to their opinion, but ............ yorkandproud
  • Score: 3622

1:48pm Sat 22 Mar 14

Pinza-C55 says...

"Compare the space taken up by a pedestrian, a cyclist with that of someone in even the smallest car.

Let us treasure a city in which it is a privilege to live."

I am solely a pedestrian - I neither drive, cycle or travel by bus. The bridge restrictions have neither increased nor decreased my quality of life by a single iota, so Rose does not speak for me.

As for "Let us treasure a city in which it is a privilege to live."
Nonsense.
I happen to live here. It has it's good points and bad points, the same as anywhere else.
"Compare the space taken up by a pedestrian, a cyclist with that of someone in even the smallest car. Let us treasure a city in which it is a privilege to live." I am solely a pedestrian - I neither drive, cycle or travel by bus. The bridge restrictions have neither increased nor decreased my quality of life by a single iota, so Rose does not speak for me. As for "Let us treasure a city in which it is a privilege to live." Nonsense. I happen to live here. It has it's good points and bad points, the same as anywhere else. Pinza-C55
  • Score: 1757

2:23pm Sat 22 Mar 14

last of the mandms says...

i don't understand the logic in closing Lendal bridge, it is on the peripheral of the town centre so is not a natural walkway to or from anywhere, Lendal to Rougier street is not a well worn path I would guess. However Ouse Bridge is ( a natural walkway) and I would suspect that the closure of this bridge would have improved the pedestrian experience in York by a great deal more than the closure of Lendal. Any improvement to the pedestrian experience anyway is completely negated by the continued pressence of bus and taxi. A courageous decision would have been to ban all motor traffic.
i don't understand the logic in closing Lendal bridge, it is on the peripheral of the town centre so is not a natural walkway to or from anywhere, Lendal to Rougier street is not a well worn path I would guess. However Ouse Bridge is ( a natural walkway) and I would suspect that the closure of this bridge would have improved the pedestrian experience in York by a great deal more than the closure of Lendal. Any improvement to the pedestrian experience anyway is completely negated by the continued pressence of bus and taxi. A courageous decision would have been to ban all motor traffic. last of the mandms
  • Score: 464

3:12pm Sat 22 Mar 14

WhyEver says...

The trial will only have been worthwhile if the aims were clear and the results are used properly. In this case, the Council set unclear aims and we are still waiting for the full results. The data published so far shows that private traffic has been pushed elsewhere in the City, and bus times have got better in some areas and worse in others.

I'd expect the final report to say about the same, the trial closure has not made any improvement to York as a whole.
The trial will only have been worthwhile if the aims were clear and the results are used properly. In this case, the Council set unclear aims and we are still waiting for the full results. The data published so far shows that private traffic has been pushed elsewhere in the City, and bus times have got better in some areas and worse in others. I'd expect the final report to say about the same, the trial closure has not made any improvement to York as a whole. WhyEver
  • Score: 17

3:38pm Sat 22 Mar 14

far2bizzy says...

WhyEver wrote:
The trial will only have been worthwhile if the aims were clear and the results are used properly. In this case, the Council set unclear aims and we are still waiting for the full results. The data published so far shows that private traffic has been pushed elsewhere in the City, and bus times have got better in some areas and worse in others.

I'd expect the final report to say about the same, the trial closure has not made any improvement to York as a whole.
The purpose of the exercise (as stated in the little leaflet I got through my door) is to improve the environment around and in front of the Minster. There can be little doubt that the reduction in traffic in this area has achieved this. You are right that the traffic, and its attendant pollution, has been pushed elsewhere (but without causing the predicted ‘gridlock’) and bus times have got both better and worse. However, since Armageddon has not descended on us, I would suggest that there’s a very good argument for keeping it closed.
[quote][p][bold]WhyEver[/bold] wrote: The trial will only have been worthwhile if the aims were clear and the results are used properly. In this case, the Council set unclear aims and we are still waiting for the full results. The data published so far shows that private traffic has been pushed elsewhere in the City, and bus times have got better in some areas and worse in others. I'd expect the final report to say about the same, the trial closure has not made any improvement to York as a whole.[/p][/quote]The purpose of the exercise (as stated in the little leaflet I got through my door) is to improve the environment around and in front of the Minster. There can be little doubt that the reduction in traffic in this area has achieved this. You are right that the traffic, and its attendant pollution, has been pushed elsewhere (but without causing the predicted ‘gridlock’) and bus times have got both better and worse. However, since Armageddon has not descended on us, I would suggest that there’s a very good argument for keeping it closed. far2bizzy
  • Score: -1817

5:35pm Sat 22 Mar 14

old_geezer says...

last of the mandms wrote:
i don't understand the logic in closing Lendal bridge, it is on the peripheral of the town centre so is not a natural walkway to or from anywhere, Lendal to Rougier street is not a well worn path I would guess. However Ouse Bridge is ( a natural walkway) and I would suspect that the closure of this bridge would have improved the pedestrian experience in York by a great deal more than the closure of Lendal. Any improvement to the pedestrian experience anyway is completely negated by the continued pressence of bus and taxi. A courageous decision would have been to ban all motor traffic.
Not a natural walkway to or from anywhere???? Why then are the pavements so crowded as I unnaturally walk to and fro?
[quote][p][bold]last of the mandms[/bold] wrote: i don't understand the logic in closing Lendal bridge, it is on the peripheral of the town centre so is not a natural walkway to or from anywhere, Lendal to Rougier street is not a well worn path I would guess. However Ouse Bridge is ( a natural walkway) and I would suspect that the closure of this bridge would have improved the pedestrian experience in York by a great deal more than the closure of Lendal. Any improvement to the pedestrian experience anyway is completely negated by the continued pressence of bus and taxi. A courageous decision would have been to ban all motor traffic.[/p][/quote]Not a natural walkway to or from anywhere???? Why then are the pavements so crowded as I unnaturally walk to and fro? old_geezer
  • Score: -3

5:59pm Sat 22 Mar 14

last of the mandms says...

old_geezer wrote:
last of the mandms wrote:
i don't understand the logic in closing Lendal bridge, it is on the peripheral of the town centre so is not a natural walkway to or from anywhere, Lendal to Rougier street is not a well worn path I would guess. However Ouse Bridge is ( a natural walkway) and I would suspect that the closure of this bridge would have improved the pedestrian experience in York by a great deal more than the closure of Lendal. Any improvement to the pedestrian experience anyway is completely negated by the continued pressence of bus and taxi. A courageous decision would have been to ban all motor traffic.
Not a natural walkway to or from anywhere???? Why then are the pavements so crowded as I unnaturally walk to and fro?
Fair point and perhaps on re-reading my original comment clarity wasn't it's strongest suite. The point(s) I was trying to make were
1) Because Ouse Bridge leads more directly into the foot streets and because Nessgate Coney street are a bottle neck for both traffic and pedestrians,then if any bridge would have benefited from closure it was this one.
2) The courageous decision would have been to to ban all traffic thus making Lendal or Ouse bridges (go on pick your favourite) into a pedestrian friendly area and not as it has turned out a place for the nimbler amongst us to play Taxi Bus dodgems.
I would suggest that on Lendal Bridge the main congestion (pedestrian wise) is from Lendal to Museum Gardens or Rougier Street to Station Rise. If it is dry tomorrow will try an unatural stroll down there and if I am wrong a heartfelt apology will follow.
[quote][p][bold]old_geezer[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]last of the mandms[/bold] wrote: i don't understand the logic in closing Lendal bridge, it is on the peripheral of the town centre so is not a natural walkway to or from anywhere, Lendal to Rougier street is not a well worn path I would guess. However Ouse Bridge is ( a natural walkway) and I would suspect that the closure of this bridge would have improved the pedestrian experience in York by a great deal more than the closure of Lendal. Any improvement to the pedestrian experience anyway is completely negated by the continued pressence of bus and taxi. A courageous decision would have been to ban all motor traffic.[/p][/quote]Not a natural walkway to or from anywhere???? Why then are the pavements so crowded as I unnaturally walk to and fro?[/p][/quote]Fair point and perhaps on re-reading my original comment clarity wasn't it's strongest suite. The point(s) I was trying to make were 1) Because Ouse Bridge leads more directly into the foot streets and because Nessgate Coney street are a bottle neck for both traffic and pedestrians,then if any bridge would have benefited from closure it was this one. 2) The courageous decision would have been to to ban all traffic thus making Lendal or Ouse bridges (go on pick your favourite) into a pedestrian friendly area and not as it has turned out a place for the nimbler amongst us to play Taxi Bus dodgems. I would suggest that on Lendal Bridge the main congestion (pedestrian wise) is from Lendal to Museum Gardens or Rougier Street to Station Rise. If it is dry tomorrow will try an unatural stroll down there and if I am wrong a heartfelt apology will follow. last of the mandms
  • Score: 4

6:47pm Sat 22 Mar 14

strangebuttrue? says...

This letter is misleading on many of its points but then this seems to be a recurring theme regarding this bridge closure from the council secret emails to the score changer who alters the scores on this site.

"The more cars there are, the more dangerous, polluted and grid-locked the streets become for all of us, citizens and visitors".

Not so according to council figures there is less volume of traffic in the city now than in 2002. Yet since 2005, without any increase in the volume of traffic pollution has gone up by as much as 48% and more generally 33%.

I would suggest that it is schemes just like closing Lendal Bridge, I include road closures additional traffic lights and narrowing of roads with bus and cycle lanes introduced since 2005, that have driven up pollution. In their attempts to bully drivers out of vehicles by corralling them into ever decreasing spaces then holding them up at traffic lights to create the illusion of increase volume of traffic they have actually created the most polluting driving conditions imaginable so the council only have themselves to blame.

“York wants to attract more visitors, more business.”

So when the visitors get here we fine then in their hundreds, if not thousands, and they take to social media to get their revenge further damaging York’s reputation as a tourist friendly city. Business is saying it has been damaging.

Some need to wake up and realise that none of this is a good thing for York.

As for York’s residents, well they are just left with extended journey times and more congestion and pollution in other areas.

“Compare the space taken up by a pedestrian, a cyclist with that of someone in even the smallest car.”

Take into account all of the almost empty bus and cycle lanes in and around the city and the closed roads only usable by cyclist and some by buses and I think the balance on this may not be quite so cut and dried.

“I commend the council for their courage in conducting this trial.”

Was it not revealed in the secret emails that councillors wanted to spread this around between so it could not be attributed to any one of them? Very courageous!!

“The restrictions have been a trial”

Then why are restrictions still in place after the trial has ended? As with so many of these schemes they seem to me more like a conditioning period where it is put in against the wishes of the majority and then the implementers sit back and hope all of the fuss dies down and people forget just how miserable their new lives have become. Then the council can go back to blaming drivers for their inconsiderate use of vehicles for the pollution and congestion in the city much as they do now.
This letter is misleading on many of its points but then this seems to be a recurring theme regarding this bridge closure from the council secret emails to the score changer who alters the scores on this site. "The more cars there are, the more dangerous, polluted and grid-locked the streets become for all of us, citizens and visitors". Not so according to council figures there is less volume of traffic in the city now than in 2002. Yet since 2005, without any increase in the volume of traffic pollution has gone up by as much as 48% and more generally 33%. I would suggest that it is schemes just like closing Lendal Bridge, I include road closures additional traffic lights and narrowing of roads with bus and cycle lanes introduced since 2005, that have driven up pollution. In their attempts to bully drivers out of vehicles by corralling them into ever decreasing spaces then holding them up at traffic lights to create the illusion of increase volume of traffic they have actually created the most polluting driving conditions imaginable so the council only have themselves to blame. “York wants to attract more visitors, more business.” So when the visitors get here we fine then in their hundreds, if not thousands, and they take to social media to get their revenge further damaging York’s reputation as a tourist friendly city. Business is saying it has been damaging. Some need to wake up and realise that none of this is a good thing for York. As for York’s residents, well they are just left with extended journey times and more congestion and pollution in other areas. “Compare the space taken up by a pedestrian, a cyclist with that of someone in even the smallest car.” Take into account all of the almost empty bus and cycle lanes in and around the city and the closed roads only usable by cyclist and some by buses and I think the balance on this may not be quite so cut and dried. “I commend the council for their courage in conducting this trial.” Was it not revealed in the secret emails that councillors wanted to spread this around between so it could not be attributed to any one of them? Very courageous!! “The restrictions have been a trial” Then why are restrictions still in place after the trial has ended? As with so many of these schemes they seem to me more like a conditioning period where it is put in against the wishes of the majority and then the implementers sit back and hope all of the fuss dies down and people forget just how miserable their new lives have become. Then the council can go back to blaming drivers for their inconsiderate use of vehicles for the pollution and congestion in the city much as they do now. strangebuttrue?
  • Score: 2474

8:04pm Sat 22 Mar 14

Pinza-C55 says...

old_geezer wrote:
last of the mandms wrote:
i don't understand the logic in closing Lendal bridge, it is on the peripheral of the town centre so is not a natural walkway to or from anywhere, Lendal to Rougier street is not a well worn path I would guess. However Ouse Bridge is ( a natural walkway) and I would suspect that the closure of this bridge would have improved the pedestrian experience in York by a great deal more than the closure of Lendal. Any improvement to the pedestrian experience anyway is completely negated by the continued pressence of bus and taxi. A courageous decision would have been to ban all motor traffic.
Not a natural walkway to or from anywhere???? Why then are the pavements so crowded as I unnaturally walk to and fro?
Try walking like this.
https://www.youtube.
com/watch?v=iV2ViNJF
ZC8
[quote][p][bold]old_geezer[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]last of the mandms[/bold] wrote: i don't understand the logic in closing Lendal bridge, it is on the peripheral of the town centre so is not a natural walkway to or from anywhere, Lendal to Rougier street is not a well worn path I would guess. However Ouse Bridge is ( a natural walkway) and I would suspect that the closure of this bridge would have improved the pedestrian experience in York by a great deal more than the closure of Lendal. Any improvement to the pedestrian experience anyway is completely negated by the continued pressence of bus and taxi. A courageous decision would have been to ban all motor traffic.[/p][/quote]Not a natural walkway to or from anywhere???? Why then are the pavements so crowded as I unnaturally walk to and fro?[/p][/quote]Try walking like this. https://www.youtube. com/watch?v=iV2ViNJF ZC8 Pinza-C55
  • Score: -3

9:11pm Sat 22 Mar 14

inthesticks says...

You live in Vine Street. You can walk everywhere in York. I did when I lived centrally. People who live in the subs and outskirts are the ones affected by extra traffic.
You live in Vine Street. You can walk everywhere in York. I did when I lived centrally. People who live in the subs and outskirts are the ones affected by extra traffic. inthesticks
  • Score: 17

12:05am Sun 23 Mar 14

jay, york says...

inthesticks wrote:
You live in Vine Street. You can walk everywhere in York. I did when I lived centrally. People who live in the subs and outskirts are the ones affected by extra traffic.
She is also a mate of the council!
[quote][p][bold]inthesticks[/bold] wrote: You live in Vine Street. You can walk everywhere in York. I did when I lived centrally. People who live in the subs and outskirts are the ones affected by extra traffic.[/p][/quote]She is also a mate of the council! jay, york
  • Score: -23

12:18am Sun 23 Mar 14

Badgers Drift says...

jay, york wrote:
inthesticks wrote: You live in Vine Street. You can walk everywhere in York. I did when I lived centrally. People who live in the subs and outskirts are the ones affected by extra traffic.
She is also a mate of the council!
Aren't all of the few supporters ?
[quote][p][bold]jay, york[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]inthesticks[/bold] wrote: You live in Vine Street. You can walk everywhere in York. I did when I lived centrally. People who live in the subs and outskirts are the ones affected by extra traffic.[/p][/quote]She is also a mate of the council![/p][/quote]Aren't all of the few supporters ? Badgers Drift
  • Score: -27

7:53am Sun 23 Mar 14

Igiveinthen says...

Rose Berl, De Little Court, Vine Street, York, thinks its a courageous decision the CoYC made in restricting traffic use over Lendal Bridge, and she and others like her expound the improvements made to their lives by those restrictions.
I note she lives in Vine Street, so does not need a car, or even a cycle to access the city, as she is in walking distance so to speak, I myself live in walking distance of the city and the restrictions over the said bridge do not affect me in any way.
Instead of a 'courageous decision' I would call it a 'selfish decision' that only panders to a small minority of people like Rose who live in close proximity to the city centre, and who now say how it has improved their quality of life! - I do not count myself as one these - so how selfish is that!.
No thought has been given to those workers who genuinely need to cross the city using motorised transport, by that I mean delivery drivers, care workers, trades people both employed and self employed etc., who now have to take a longer circuitous route around the city on roads that are now at saturation point because the road infrastructure, and I mean the A1237 in particular, was never designed to cope with all the traffic levels now having to use it.
So Rose I think you and others like you, including all your council friends are selfish and you think nothing about the misery you are causing to others by the diabolical bridge restrictions.
Rose Berl, De Little Court, Vine Street, York, thinks its a courageous decision the CoYC made in restricting traffic use over Lendal Bridge, and she and others like her expound the improvements made to their lives by those restrictions. I note she lives in Vine Street, so does not need a car, or even a cycle to access the city, as she is in walking distance so to speak, I myself live in walking distance of the city and the restrictions over the said bridge do not affect me in any way. Instead of a 'courageous decision' I would call it a 'selfish decision' that only panders to a small minority of people like Rose who live in close proximity to the city centre, and who now say how it has improved their quality of life! - I do not count myself as one these - so how selfish is that!. No thought has been given to those workers who genuinely need to cross the city using motorised transport, by that I mean delivery drivers, care workers, trades people both employed and self employed etc., who now have to take a longer circuitous route around the city on roads that are now at saturation point because the road infrastructure, and I mean the A1237 in particular, was never designed to cope with all the traffic levels now having to use it. So Rose I think you and others like you, including all your council friends are selfish and you think nothing about the misery you are causing to others by the diabolical bridge restrictions. Igiveinthen
  • Score: -27

7:58am Sun 23 Mar 14

Igiveinthen says...

Igiveinthen wrote:
Rose Berl, De Little Court, Vine Street, York, thinks its a courageous decision the CoYC made in restricting traffic use over Lendal Bridge, and she and others like her expound the improvements made to their lives by those restrictions.
I note she lives in Vine Street, so does not need a car, or even a cycle to access the city, as she is in walking distance so to speak, I myself live in walking distance of the city and the restrictions over the said bridge do not affect me in any way.
Instead of a 'courageous decision' I would call it a 'selfish decision' that only panders to a small minority of people like Rose who live in close proximity to the city centre, and who now say how it has improved their quality of life! - I do not count myself as one these - so how selfish is that!.
No thought has been given to those workers who genuinely need to cross the city using motorised transport, by that I mean delivery drivers, care workers, trades people both employed and self employed etc., who now have to take a longer circuitous route around the city on roads that are now at saturation point because the road infrastructure, and I mean the A1237 in particular, was never designed to cope with all the traffic levels now having to use it.
So Rose I think you and others like you, including all your council friends are selfish and you think nothing about the misery you are causing to others by the diabolical bridge restrictions.
I should have added another point, that some streets and roads in York that used to be relatively quiet as far as vehicle usage goes have seen an increase, so much for making roads safer Rose!
[quote][p][bold]Igiveinthen[/bold] wrote: Rose Berl, De Little Court, Vine Street, York, thinks its a courageous decision the CoYC made in restricting traffic use over Lendal Bridge, and she and others like her expound the improvements made to their lives by those restrictions. I note she lives in Vine Street, so does not need a car, or even a cycle to access the city, as she is in walking distance so to speak, I myself live in walking distance of the city and the restrictions over the said bridge do not affect me in any way. Instead of a 'courageous decision' I would call it a 'selfish decision' that only panders to a small minority of people like Rose who live in close proximity to the city centre, and who now say how it has improved their quality of life! - I do not count myself as one these - so how selfish is that!. No thought has been given to those workers who genuinely need to cross the city using motorised transport, by that I mean delivery drivers, care workers, trades people both employed and self employed etc., who now have to take a longer circuitous route around the city on roads that are now at saturation point because the road infrastructure, and I mean the A1237 in particular, was never designed to cope with all the traffic levels now having to use it. So Rose I think you and others like you, including all your council friends are selfish and you think nothing about the misery you are causing to others by the diabolical bridge restrictions.[/p][/quote]I should have added another point, that some streets and roads in York that used to be relatively quiet as far as vehicle usage goes have seen an increase, so much for making roads safer Rose! Igiveinthen
  • Score: 689

9:03am Sun 23 Mar 14

far2bizzy says...

Badgers Drift wrote:
jay, york wrote:
inthesticks wrote: You live in Vine Street. You can walk everywhere in York. I did when I lived centrally. People who live in the subs and outskirts are the ones affected by extra traffic.
She is also a mate of the council!
Aren't all of the few supporters ?
No.

I am strongly in favour of the closure and the only time I have ever met a councillor is on my doorstep and I have never voted Labour in my life.
But I have lived in this city for over 60 years and am extremely fond of it. I know what it was like before the foot-streets, I know what it is like now and I have the vision to imagine what it could be like in the future if traffic were removed from the Minster area. Implementing this proposal can only make the city more attractive and in doing so will bring more people here to live and work.

Yes some businesses may suffer, but businesses come and businesses go. Some will not be suited to the new conditions, they may die or move out, but, believe me, there will be just as many willing to move in and take their place.

The majority of people who are against the closure have no real concern about the future of the city per se, they are simply finding that their personal life is in some way impacted by it and want to have a shout about it.
[quote][p][bold]Badgers Drift[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]jay, york[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]inthesticks[/bold] wrote: You live in Vine Street. You can walk everywhere in York. I did when I lived centrally. People who live in the subs and outskirts are the ones affected by extra traffic.[/p][/quote]She is also a mate of the council![/p][/quote]Aren't all of the few supporters ?[/p][/quote]No. I am strongly in favour of the closure and the only time I have ever met a councillor is on my doorstep and I have never voted Labour in my life. But I have lived in this city for over 60 years and am extremely fond of it. I know what it was like before the foot-streets, I know what it is like now and I have the vision to imagine what it could be like in the future if traffic were removed from the Minster area. Implementing this proposal can only make the city more attractive and in doing so will bring more people here to live and work. Yes some businesses may suffer, but businesses come and businesses go. Some will not be suited to the new conditions, they may die or move out, but, believe me, there will be just as many willing to move in and take their place. The majority of people who are against the closure have no real concern about the future of the city per se, they are simply finding that their personal life is in some way impacted by it and want to have a shout about it. far2bizzy
  • Score: -654

10:35am Sun 23 Mar 14

non pedalling pete says...

Busy time for the score adjuster
Busy time for the score adjuster non pedalling pete
  • Score: 5476

11:52am Sun 23 Mar 14

imassey says...

far2bizzy wrote:
Badgers Drift wrote:
jay, york wrote:
inthesticks wrote: You live in Vine Street. You can walk everywhere in York. I did when I lived centrally. People who live in the subs and outskirts are the ones affected by extra traffic.
She is also a mate of the council!
Aren't all of the few supporters ?
No.

I am strongly in favour of the closure and the only time I have ever met a councillor is on my doorstep and I have never voted Labour in my life.
But I have lived in this city for over 60 years and am extremely fond of it. I know what it was like before the foot-streets, I know what it is like now and I have the vision to imagine what it could be like in the future if traffic were removed from the Minster area. Implementing this proposal can only make the city more attractive and in doing so will bring more people here to live and work.

Yes some businesses may suffer, but businesses come and businesses go. Some will not be suited to the new conditions, they may die or move out, but, believe me, there will be just as many willing to move in and take their place.

The majority of people who are against the closure have no real concern about the future of the city per se, they are simply finding that their personal life is in some way impacted by it and want to have a shout about it.
Hear hear.
[quote][p][bold]far2bizzy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Badgers Drift[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]jay, york[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]inthesticks[/bold] wrote: You live in Vine Street. You can walk everywhere in York. I did when I lived centrally. People who live in the subs and outskirts are the ones affected by extra traffic.[/p][/quote]She is also a mate of the council![/p][/quote]Aren't all of the few supporters ?[/p][/quote]No. I am strongly in favour of the closure and the only time I have ever met a councillor is on my doorstep and I have never voted Labour in my life. But I have lived in this city for over 60 years and am extremely fond of it. I know what it was like before the foot-streets, I know what it is like now and I have the vision to imagine what it could be like in the future if traffic were removed from the Minster area. Implementing this proposal can only make the city more attractive and in doing so will bring more people here to live and work. Yes some businesses may suffer, but businesses come and businesses go. Some will not be suited to the new conditions, they may die or move out, but, believe me, there will be just as many willing to move in and take their place. The majority of people who are against the closure have no real concern about the future of the city per se, they are simply finding that their personal life is in some way impacted by it and want to have a shout about it.[/p][/quote]Hear hear. imassey
  • Score: -931

12:50pm Sun 23 Mar 14

Pinza-C55 says...

far2bizzy wrote:
Badgers Drift wrote:
jay, york wrote:
inthesticks wrote: You live in Vine Street. You can walk everywhere in York. I did when I lived centrally. People who live in the subs and outskirts are the ones affected by extra traffic.
She is also a mate of the council!
Aren't all of the few supporters ?
No.

I am strongly in favour of the closure and the only time I have ever met a councillor is on my doorstep and I have never voted Labour in my life.
But I have lived in this city for over 60 years and am extremely fond of it. I know what it was like before the foot-streets, I know what it is like now and I have the vision to imagine what it could be like in the future if traffic were removed from the Minster area. Implementing this proposal can only make the city more attractive and in doing so will bring more people here to live and work.

Yes some businesses may suffer, but businesses come and businesses go. Some will not be suited to the new conditions, they may die or move out, but, believe me, there will be just as many willing to move in and take their place.

The majority of people who are against the closure have no real concern about the future of the city per se, they are simply finding that their personal life is in some way impacted by it and want to have a shout about it.
"No. I am strongly in favour of the closure and the only time I have ever met a councillor is on my doorstep"
So despite being "fond of the city"and living here for 60 years you have never felt inclined to be part of the decision making process for the city you are fond of?
"I know what it was like before the foot-streets"
So do I. So does anyone over about 30.
" I have the vision to imagine what it could be like in the future if traffic were removed from the Minster area."
Why the minster? And would that include bicycles?
" believe me, there will be just as many willing to move in and take their place."
I don't believe you. That's your own personal opinion and is no more valid than my personal opinion or anyone else's.
"The majority of people who are against the closure have no real concern about the future of the city per se, they are simply finding that their personal life is in some way impacted by it and want to have a shout about it."
Again, that is your own personal opinion based on your own biases.
I live very close to the bridge and neither drive, cycle or use the bus so the closure does not impact me in any way yet I am opposed to it. I am also concerned about the future of the city.
[quote][p][bold]far2bizzy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Badgers Drift[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]jay, york[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]inthesticks[/bold] wrote: You live in Vine Street. You can walk everywhere in York. I did when I lived centrally. People who live in the subs and outskirts are the ones affected by extra traffic.[/p][/quote]She is also a mate of the council![/p][/quote]Aren't all of the few supporters ?[/p][/quote]No. I am strongly in favour of the closure and the only time I have ever met a councillor is on my doorstep and I have never voted Labour in my life. But I have lived in this city for over 60 years and am extremely fond of it. I know what it was like before the foot-streets, I know what it is like now and I have the vision to imagine what it could be like in the future if traffic were removed from the Minster area. Implementing this proposal can only make the city more attractive and in doing so will bring more people here to live and work. Yes some businesses may suffer, but businesses come and businesses go. Some will not be suited to the new conditions, they may die or move out, but, believe me, there will be just as many willing to move in and take their place. The majority of people who are against the closure have no real concern about the future of the city per se, they are simply finding that their personal life is in some way impacted by it and want to have a shout about it.[/p][/quote]"No. I am strongly in favour of the closure and the only time I have ever met a councillor is on my doorstep" So despite being "fond of the city"and living here for 60 years you have never felt inclined to be part of the decision making process for the city you are fond of? "I know what it was like before the foot-streets" So do I. So does anyone over about 30. " I have the vision to imagine what it could be like in the future if traffic were removed from the Minster area." Why the minster? And would that include bicycles? " believe me, there will be just as many willing to move in and take their place." I don't believe you. That's your own personal opinion and is no more valid than my personal opinion or anyone else's. "The majority of people who are against the closure have no real concern about the future of the city per se, they are simply finding that their personal life is in some way impacted by it and want to have a shout about it." Again, that is your own personal opinion based on your own biases. I live very close to the bridge and neither drive, cycle or use the bus so the closure does not impact me in any way yet I am opposed to it. I am also concerned about the future of the city. Pinza-C55
  • Score: 1610

3:23pm Sun 23 Mar 14

AnotherPointofView says...

If the council want to do something courageous, they would admit their mistake and re-open the bridge.

Actually I would accept it if they just said that the data is such that there is no real improvement in bus times etc, there is no overall improvement in air quality (it has moved elsewhere), congestion has moved elsewhere, for the sake of York we will open the bridge.

Don't forget councillors, the local election is now just over twelve months away........
If the council want to do something courageous, they would admit their mistake and re-open the bridge. Actually I would accept it if they just said that the data is such that there is no real improvement in bus times etc, there is no overall improvement in air quality (it has moved elsewhere), congestion has moved elsewhere, for the sake of York we will open the bridge. Don't forget councillors, the local election is now just over twelve months away........ AnotherPointofView
  • Score: 64

5:27pm Sun 23 Mar 14

peter123456 says...

So in 10 years time the council will have to close all bridges in York due to a 20% increase in Cars, Homes and population increase in York. Probable by then they will also charge us a congestion charge to drive around the ring road. Or maybe I will be wrong and they will charge cyclists to ride on the roads as they will be a ban on cars altogether due to the pollution caused by driving around at 10MPH by then.
So in 10 years time the council will have to close all bridges in York due to a 20% increase in Cars, Homes and population increase in York. Probable by then they will also charge us a congestion charge to drive around the ring road. Or maybe I will be wrong and they will charge cyclists to ride on the roads as they will be a ban on cars altogether due to the pollution caused by driving around at 10MPH by then. peter123456
  • Score: 5

8:42pm Sun 23 Mar 14

inthesticks says...

Igiveinthen wrote:
Rose Berl, De Little Court, Vine Street, York, thinks its a courageous decision the CoYC made in restricting traffic use over Lendal Bridge, and she and others like her expound the improvements made to their lives by those restrictions.
I note she lives in Vine Street, so does not need a car, or even a cycle to access the city, as she is in walking distance so to speak, I myself live in walking distance of the city and the restrictions over the said bridge do not affect me in any way.
Instead of a 'courageous decision' I would call it a 'selfish decision' that only panders to a small minority of people like Rose who live in close proximity to the city centre, and who now say how it has improved their quality of life! - I do not count myself as one these - so how selfish is that!.
No thought has been given to those workers who genuinely need to cross the city using motorised transport, by that I mean delivery drivers, care workers, trades people both employed and self employed etc., who now have to take a longer circuitous route around the city on roads that are now at saturation point because the road infrastructure, and I mean the A1237 in particular, was never designed to cope with all the traffic levels now having to use it.
So Rose I think you and others like you, including all your council friends are selfish and you think nothing about the misery you are causing to others by the diabolical bridge restrictions.
Never mind the North South divide; here we now have a City and Outer York divide. All made possible by a Cabinet who live in the city and their policies which benefit those in the centre.
We all pay council tax and we all have a democratic right, despite a certain Cllr (soon to be unelected I suspect) on here trying her best to make out those who don`t agree are all mentally deranged. As the rest of us are aware, the reason we disagree is something we call democracy; so sad to see a so called Labour Cllr not having a grasp of it.
Decision meeting 6th May at 5:30pm. (Yes, hard for most of public to attend as the majority have to work) The George Hudson Board Room - 1st Floor West Offices. Details and full agenda published 5 days before on COYC website (by law). Very unfortunate that only 1 person can speak for or against.
[quote][p][bold]Igiveinthen[/bold] wrote: Rose Berl, De Little Court, Vine Street, York, thinks its a courageous decision the CoYC made in restricting traffic use over Lendal Bridge, and she and others like her expound the improvements made to their lives by those restrictions. I note she lives in Vine Street, so does not need a car, or even a cycle to access the city, as she is in walking distance so to speak, I myself live in walking distance of the city and the restrictions over the said bridge do not affect me in any way. Instead of a 'courageous decision' I would call it a 'selfish decision' that only panders to a small minority of people like Rose who live in close proximity to the city centre, and who now say how it has improved their quality of life! - I do not count myself as one these - so how selfish is that!. No thought has been given to those workers who genuinely need to cross the city using motorised transport, by that I mean delivery drivers, care workers, trades people both employed and self employed etc., who now have to take a longer circuitous route around the city on roads that are now at saturation point because the road infrastructure, and I mean the A1237 in particular, was never designed to cope with all the traffic levels now having to use it. So Rose I think you and others like you, including all your council friends are selfish and you think nothing about the misery you are causing to others by the diabolical bridge restrictions.[/p][/quote]Never mind the North South divide; here we now have a City and Outer York divide. All made possible by a Cabinet who live in the city and their policies which benefit those in the centre. We all pay council tax and we all have a democratic right, despite a certain Cllr (soon to be unelected I suspect) on here trying her best to make out those who don`t agree are all mentally deranged. As the rest of us are aware, the reason we disagree is something we call democracy; so sad to see a so called Labour Cllr not having a grasp of it. Decision meeting 6th May at 5:30pm. (Yes, hard for most of public to attend as the majority have to work) The George Hudson Board Room - 1st Floor West Offices. Details and full agenda published 5 days before on COYC website (by law). Very unfortunate that only 1 person can speak for or against. inthesticks
  • Score: 14096

7:07am Mon 24 Mar 14

Igiveinthen says...

I called the decision to restrict traffic over the bridge a "selfish decision" as it discriminates against those who have a genuine need to cross the city in pursuance of their work etc., further to that comment another thought occurred, if the CoYC were genuine in their concern over congestion, air quality etc., then why not introduce a "congestion charge" that covers the city centre, buses and emergency vehicles would be exempt, taxis and trades people who genuinely need to use city centre roads could have a lower rate applied to them, whilst all the rest us pay the full charge if we use these roads, then that would be a fairer system and would deter unnecessary journeys through the city - just a thought?
I called the decision to restrict traffic over the bridge a "selfish decision" as it discriminates against those who have a genuine need to cross the city in pursuance of their work etc., further to that comment another thought occurred, if the CoYC were genuine in their concern over congestion, air quality etc., then why not introduce a "congestion charge" that covers the city centre, buses and emergency vehicles would be exempt, taxis and trades people who genuinely need to use city centre roads could have a lower rate applied to them, whilst all the rest us pay the full charge if we use these roads, then that would be a fairer system and would deter unnecessary journeys through the city - just a thought? Igiveinthen
  • Score: 5

9:35am Mon 24 Mar 14

pedalling paul says...

Still too many commentators thinking about the ease (or lack of it) with which they make their car journeys today. A few enlightened ones who can take a realistic look into the future, and understand the need to take measures now, that will avoid carmageddon for our descendants........
Still too many commentators thinking about the ease (or lack of it) with which they make their car journeys today. A few enlightened ones who can take a realistic look into the future, and understand the need to take measures now, that will avoid carmageddon for our descendants........ pedalling paul
  • Score: -16

10:08am Mon 24 Mar 14

Igiveinthen says...

pedalling paul wrote:
Still too many commentators thinking about the ease (or lack of it) with which they make their car journeys today. A few enlightened ones who can take a realistic look into the future, and understand the need to take measures now, that will avoid carmageddon for our descendants........
You really are a sad person Paul, despite the fact that other commentators suggest other options on how to reduce unnecessary journeys by car through the city, you still criticise their efforts and predict doom, gloom and despondency for the future.
Unfortunately for you there are many others like me who try to see the other person’s point of view and don’t expect them - as you do - to have a narrow minded vision of the future.
[quote][p][bold]pedalling paul [/bold] wrote: Still too many commentators thinking about the ease (or lack of it) with which they make their car journeys today. A few enlightened ones who can take a realistic look into the future, and understand the need to take measures now, that will avoid carmageddon for our descendants........[/p][/quote]You really are a sad person Paul, despite the fact that other commentators suggest other options on how to reduce unnecessary journeys by car through the city, you still criticise their efforts and predict doom, gloom and despondency for the future. Unfortunately for you there are many others like me who try to see the other person’s point of view and don’t expect them - as you do - to have a narrow minded vision of the future. Igiveinthen
  • Score: 11

4:37pm Mon 24 Mar 14

greenmonkey says...

However, since Armageddon has not descended on us, I would suggest that there’s a very good argument for keeping it closed.

"The more cars there are, the more dangerous, polluted and grid-locked the streets become for all of us, citizens and visitors".

"Not so according to council figures there is less volume of traffic in the city now than in 2002. Yet since 2005, without any increase in the volume of traffic pollution has gone up by as much as 48% and more generally 33%."
What this ignores is 'peak spreading' - volume of traffic at peak hour may be down - in part due to longer delays from more trying to join the network from new developments, but that peak also exists over a longer period of time. Combine this with a shift to more diesel cars (more PM10s, but less Carbon dioxide) and you have part of the reason for worse pollution. It is actually at an annual average which is having health impacts for people living along main roads, and in places like Rougier St is at the level where it is deemed a danger to health to stand there for an hour.
However, since Armageddon has not descended on us, I would suggest that there’s a very good argument for keeping it closed. "The more cars there are, the more dangerous, polluted and grid-locked the streets become for all of us, citizens and visitors". "Not so according to council figures there is less volume of traffic in the city now than in 2002. Yet since 2005, without any increase in the volume of traffic pollution has gone up by as much as 48% and more generally 33%." What this ignores is 'peak spreading' - volume of traffic at peak hour may be down - in part due to longer delays from more trying to join the network from new developments, but that peak also exists over a longer period of time. Combine this with a shift to more diesel cars (more PM10s, but less Carbon dioxide) and you have part of the reason for worse pollution. It is actually at an annual average which is having health impacts for people living along main roads, and in places like Rougier St is at the level where it is deemed a danger to health to stand there for an hour. greenmonkey
  • Score: -6

5:19pm Mon 24 Mar 14

Pinza-C55 says...

greenmonkey wrote:
However, since Armageddon has not descended on us, I would suggest that there’s a very good argument for keeping it closed.

"The more cars there are, the more dangerous, polluted and grid-locked the streets become for all of us, citizens and visitors".

"Not so according to council figures there is less volume of traffic in the city now than in 2002. Yet since 2005, without any increase in the volume of traffic pollution has gone up by as much as 48% and more generally 33%."
What this ignores is 'peak spreading' - volume of traffic at peak hour may be down - in part due to longer delays from more trying to join the network from new developments, but that peak also exists over a longer period of time. Combine this with a shift to more diesel cars (more PM10s, but less Carbon dioxide) and you have part of the reason for worse pollution. It is actually at an annual average which is having health impacts for people living along main roads, and in places like Rougier St is at the level where it is deemed a danger to health to stand there for an hour.
"What this ignores is 'peak spreading' - volume of traffic at peak hour may be down - in part due to longer delays from more trying to join the network from new developments, but that peak also exists over a longer period of time. Combine this with a shift to more diesel cars (more PM10s, but less Carbon dioxide) and you have part of the reason for worse pollution. It is actually at an annual average which is having health impacts for people living along main roads, and in places like Rougier St is at the level where it is deemed a danger to health to stand there for an hour".

Can you link us to detailed studies proving this or do we just have to take your word for it ?
[quote][p][bold]greenmonkey[/bold] wrote: However, since Armageddon has not descended on us, I would suggest that there’s a very good argument for keeping it closed. "The more cars there are, the more dangerous, polluted and grid-locked the streets become for all of us, citizens and visitors". "Not so according to council figures there is less volume of traffic in the city now than in 2002. Yet since 2005, without any increase in the volume of traffic pollution has gone up by as much as 48% and more generally 33%." What this ignores is 'peak spreading' - volume of traffic at peak hour may be down - in part due to longer delays from more trying to join the network from new developments, but that peak also exists over a longer period of time. Combine this with a shift to more diesel cars (more PM10s, but less Carbon dioxide) and you have part of the reason for worse pollution. It is actually at an annual average which is having health impacts for people living along main roads, and in places like Rougier St is at the level where it is deemed a danger to health to stand there for an hour.[/p][/quote]"What this ignores is 'peak spreading' - volume of traffic at peak hour may be down - in part due to longer delays from more trying to join the network from new developments, but that peak also exists over a longer period of time. Combine this with a shift to more diesel cars (more PM10s, but less Carbon dioxide) and you have part of the reason for worse pollution. It is actually at an annual average which is having health impacts for people living along main roads, and in places like Rougier St is at the level where it is deemed a danger to health to stand there for an hour". Can you link us to detailed studies proving this or do we just have to take your word for it ? Pinza-C55
  • Score: 4

6:38pm Mon 24 Mar 14

Badgers Drift says...

Today's posts still awaiting the mark down moron.
Today's posts still awaiting the mark down moron. Badgers Drift
  • Score: 4

12:30am Tue 25 Mar 14

AnotherPointofView says...

pedalling paul wrote:
Still too many commentators thinking about the ease (or lack of it) with which they make their car journeys today. A few enlightened ones who can take a realistic look into the future, and understand the need to take measures now, that will avoid carmageddon for our descendants........
What? A letter that didn't include the word "gridlock". You were doing so well until you got to "carmageddon".
[quote][p][bold]pedalling paul [/bold] wrote: Still too many commentators thinking about the ease (or lack of it) with which they make their car journeys today. A few enlightened ones who can take a realistic look into the future, and understand the need to take measures now, that will avoid carmageddon for our descendants........[/p][/quote]What? A letter that didn't include the word "gridlock". You were doing so well until you got to "carmageddon". AnotherPointofView
  • Score: 1

6:29am Tue 25 Mar 14

Igiveinthen says...

Badgers Drift wrote:
Today's posts still awaiting the mark down moron.
He/she/it is very busy marking down those that agree with the objectors against the use of the 'Monk Stray' as a camping site during TdF week.
[quote][p][bold]Badgers Drift[/bold] wrote: Today's posts still awaiting the mark down moron.[/p][/quote]He/she/it is very busy marking down those that agree with the objectors against the use of the 'Monk Stray' as a camping site during TdF week. Igiveinthen
  • Score: 2

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

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