Closure has been good for this city

Closure has been good for this city

Closure has been good for this city

First published in Letters by

THE most remarkable aspect of the limited closure of Lendal Bridge is not the improved safety for pedestrians and cyclists, the creation of a more pleasant environment, or the reduction of air and noise pollution – it is the constant complaints from some, but by no means all, drivers.

How inconvenienced they are, how much longer their journeys take, how their rights should take priority over everyone else’s. And they’re expected to pay fines too – outrageous!

As a city-centre resident and pedestrian, I say that the closure of Lendal Bridge has been a great success. I hope it becomes permanent.

We all have to share the roads and the environment, and nobody has an overriding right to drive and pollute wherever and whenever they wish, particularly not in a city centre like York’s.

Traffic and pollution levels around Gillygate, Bootham, St Leonards, Museum Street and Lendal Bridge itself were at saturation point. I am proud it is a Labour administration that has had the courage and vision to tackle the issue.

The Lendal Bridge initiative is good for the environment, good for residents and visitors, and a greener more attractive York is good for business too.

Colin Hall, Tower Place, York.

Comments (31)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

1:12pm Wed 26 Mar 14

Yorkieand says...

You'll get a few going with that letter Colin. I, however, am 100% in agreement with you!
You'll get a few going with that letter Colin. I, however, am 100% in agreement with you! Yorkieand
  • Score: -1087

1:12pm Wed 26 Mar 14

WhyEver says...

Headline should read "Closure has been good for part of the City". We do not all live in the city centre, and moving the traffic to our areas is causing us increased costs, congestion and danger.

This closure is bad for the City as a whole and has been mismanaged throughout by the council.
Headline should read "Closure has been good for part of the City". We do not all live in the city centre, and moving the traffic to our areas is causing us increased costs, congestion and danger. This closure is bad for the City as a whole and has been mismanaged throughout by the council. WhyEver
  • Score: 3329

1:24pm Wed 26 Mar 14

CaroleBaines says...

I love it and was walking down Lendal yesterday and heard someone commenting how much pleasanter York is to visit now because of it (true). Yes, I think it has been badly managed, but that does not mean the idea is unsound.

Just my opinion to which I am entitled before the name calling starts.
I love it and was walking down Lendal yesterday and heard someone commenting how much pleasanter York is to visit now because of it (true). Yes, I think it has been badly managed, but that does not mean the idea is unsound. Just my opinion to which I am entitled before the name calling starts. CaroleBaines
  • Score: -242

1:40pm Wed 26 Mar 14

redjan says...

Rubbish !!! utter rubbish
Rubbish !!! utter rubbish redjan
  • Score: 1820

2:09pm Wed 26 Mar 14

pedalling paul says...

I enjoy pedalling over the bridge in the daytime now. The experimental closure to private cars might make some owners realise that they have allowed themselves to become over dependant on this mode of transport.

Buying a car does not buy an entitlement to an open road or to parking provision at one's destination. Use a car by all means when neccessary, but at the same time please consider whether some of journeys eg short local ones could be made by other means.

Lifestyle decisions eg where to live, work and send your kids to school, which are based on car use, creates significant adverse consequences for those who have no choice but to use a motor vehicle.

Thankfully, upcoming generations may be more attuned to the need to car share, or to use other transport choices for at least some local journeys.
I enjoy pedalling over the bridge in the daytime now. The experimental closure to private cars might make some owners realise that they have allowed themselves to become over dependant on this mode of transport. Buying a car does not buy an entitlement to an open road or to parking provision at one's destination. Use a car by all means when neccessary, but at the same time please consider whether some of journeys eg short local ones could be made by other means. Lifestyle decisions eg where to live, work and send your kids to school, which are based on car use, creates significant adverse consequences for those who have no choice but to use a motor vehicle. Thankfully, upcoming generations may be more attuned to the need to car share, or to use other transport choices for at least some local journeys. pedalling paul
  • Score: -692

3:46pm Wed 26 Mar 14

Dr Robert says...

Yet another misguided labour voter pokes his head above the parapet.
Yet another misguided labour voter pokes his head above the parapet. Dr Robert
  • Score: 2884

3:54pm Wed 26 Mar 14

BL2 says...

The only this it is good for is Lendal Bridge, it's caused problems everywhere else!
The only this it is good for is Lendal Bridge, it's caused problems everywhere else! BL2
  • Score: 2673

4:04pm Wed 26 Mar 14

YOUWILLDOASISAY says...

Colin Hall, IVORY Tower Place, York.
I say that the closure of Lendal Bridge has been a great success.

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

Colin Hall, IVORY Tower Place, York.
The Lendal Bridge initiative is good for the environment.

• Council official Simon Parrett told Coun Merrett in December: “On the air quality side, it is an unfortunate truth that even removing quite large volumes of traffic would have little impact on overall air quality.”

Colin Hall, IVORY Tower Place, York.
Good for residents and visitors, and a greener more attractive York is good for business too.

• Coun Alexander suggested Coun Merrett should not do a TV interview about the scheme and another cabinet member should step in, saying: “I would try and share it out – we can’t have the scheme look attached to myself or Dave personally”.

(So good for residents, visitors and business, that key figures wish to distance themselves).

• Officials admitted feedback from a survey on the trial, collated in December and showing 75 per cent believed it had “a negative or very negative impact” on York, was “very disappointing”, and also suggested expected improvements to bus times were not being seen.

(So good for residents and visitors then, NO).

Link:
http://www.yorkpress
.co.uk/news/11041085
.Lendal_Bridge_secre
ts_revealed/
Colin, you are entitled to your views, but even you are at odds with the councils communicated information as reported Thursday 27th February 2014.

At no point within this comment do I express my personal opinion, it is all Colin and the Council, interesting though it is.
Colin Hall, IVORY Tower Place, York. I say that the closure of Lendal Bridge has been a great success. • Three-quarters of people surveyed think the trial has damaged York. Colin Hall, IVORY Tower Place, York. The Lendal Bridge initiative is good for the environment. • Council official Simon Parrett told Coun Merrett in December: “On the air quality side, it is an unfortunate truth that even removing quite large volumes of traffic would have little impact on overall air quality.” Colin Hall, IVORY Tower Place, York. Good for residents and visitors, and a greener more attractive York is good for business too. • Coun Alexander suggested Coun Merrett should not do a TV interview about the scheme and another cabinet member should step in, saying: “I would try and share it out – we can’t have the scheme look attached to myself or Dave personally”. (So good for residents, visitors and business, that key figures wish to distance themselves). • Officials admitted feedback from a survey on the trial, collated in December and showing 75 per cent believed it had “a negative or very negative impact” on York, was “very disappointing”, and also suggested expected improvements to bus times were not being seen. (So good for residents and visitors then, NO). Link: http://www.yorkpress .co.uk/news/11041085 .Lendal_Bridge_secre ts_revealed/ Colin, you are entitled to your views, but even you are at odds with the councils communicated information as reported Thursday 27th February 2014. At no point within this comment do I express my personal opinion, it is all Colin and the Council, interesting though it is. YOUWILLDOASISAY
  • Score: 3636

4:51pm Wed 26 Mar 14

Platform3 says...

Colin Hall's letter is correct in one respect - "we all have to share the roads and the environment". Whilst correspondents supporting the closure are in a minority many of those few fall into the trap of assuming that those who oppose the closure want a laissez-faire approach to traffic management.

Nothing could be further from the truth. The overriding objection to the closure of Lendal Bridge is that it is a wholly inappropriate piece of roadway to close. It is the fault of no one that the medieval street pattern of this city has brought the ring road so close to the city centre. However, it is not slap bang in the centre. In the 1950's there was a plan to have a dual carriageway type inner ring road (similar to ones subsequently developed in cities like Chester and Norwich). That proposal was rejected save for a very short distance over Castle Mills so we are now having to live with that decision. As has been proven through the experiment the closure has only resulted in traffic conditions becoming worse elsewhere.

I read somewhere of a suggestion that the Councillors in favour of the closure were making a brave decision. There is a fine line between being brave and being reckless. Lord Cardigan thought he was brave when leading the Charge of the Light Brigade - history has shown otherwise. A truly brave decision will be to hold up your hands and admit the experiment has not worked.

By all means close a bridge but make it Ouse Bridge. The pedestrian footfall is greater than Lendal Bridge. The environmental benefits will be greater - particularly around Ousegate and Nessgate - and the impact on traffic circulating around the city will be far less.
Colin Hall's letter is correct in one respect - "we all have to share the roads and the environment". Whilst correspondents supporting the closure are in a minority many of those few fall into the trap of assuming that those who oppose the closure want a laissez-faire approach to traffic management. Nothing could be further from the truth. The overriding objection to the closure of Lendal Bridge is that it is a wholly inappropriate piece of roadway to close. It is the fault of no one that the medieval street pattern of this city has brought the ring road so close to the city centre. However, it is not slap bang in the centre. In the 1950's there was a plan to have a dual carriageway type inner ring road (similar to ones subsequently developed in cities like Chester and Norwich). That proposal was rejected save for a very short distance over Castle Mills so we are now having to live with that decision. As has been proven through the experiment the closure has only resulted in traffic conditions becoming worse elsewhere. I read somewhere of a suggestion that the Councillors in favour of the closure were making a brave decision. There is a fine line between being brave and being reckless. Lord Cardigan thought he was brave when leading the Charge of the Light Brigade - history has shown otherwise. A truly brave decision will be to hold up your hands and admit the experiment has not worked. By all means close a bridge but make it Ouse Bridge. The pedestrian footfall is greater than Lendal Bridge. The environmental benefits will be greater - particularly around Ousegate and Nessgate - and the impact on traffic circulating around the city will be far less. Platform3
  • Score: 1147

4:56pm Wed 26 Mar 14

roadwars says...

Colin Hall says, "We all have to share the roads and the environment"
As long as we don't need to share them with cars...
Colin Hall says, "We all have to share the roads and the environment" As long as we don't need to share them with cars... roadwars
  • Score: -28

5:26pm Wed 26 Mar 14

Ichabod76 says...

I am proud it is a Labour administration that has had the courage and vision to tackle the issue.

Almost looks like Tracey Simpson-Laing wrote this herself !
surely they wouldn't would they ?
I am proud it is a Labour administration that has had the courage and vision to tackle the issue. Almost looks like Tracey Simpson-Laing wrote this herself ! surely they wouldn't would they ? Ichabod76
  • Score: 1234

5:29pm Wed 26 Mar 14

old_geezer says...

I'm also okay with the Lendal Bridge closure, but given that this was/is a trial, what about trialling Ouse Bridge - applying all the lessons about signage, yellow warning for first offence, maybe two warnings for out-of-town residents.
I'm also okay with the Lendal Bridge closure, but given that this was/is a trial, what about trialling Ouse Bridge - applying all the lessons about signage, yellow warning for first offence, maybe two warnings for out-of-town residents. old_geezer
  • Score: -368

5:30pm Wed 26 Mar 14

ColdAsChristmas says...

I think Colin is having a laugh! Surely he can't be serious?
I think Colin is having a laugh! Surely he can't be serious? ColdAsChristmas
  • Score: -270

5:38pm Wed 26 Mar 14

Lance Corporal Jones says...

Yorkieand wrote:
You'll get a few going with that letter Colin. I, however, am 100% in agreement with you!
"Don't Panic", "Don't Panic", You'll get a few going with that letter Colin "Don't Panic".
[quote][p][bold]Yorkieand[/bold] wrote: You'll get a few going with that letter Colin. I, however, am 100% in agreement with you![/p][/quote]"Don't Panic", "Don't Panic", You'll get a few going with that letter Colin "Don't Panic". Lance Corporal Jones
  • Score: -306

5:43pm Wed 26 Mar 14

MorkofYork says...

It's good for that small area but not the rest of the city or the huge number of visitors getting fined. If the council had more credible plans than just bullying drivers out of their cars they'd get more support.

There's too much talk of open and closed with not enough talk about what we can do to solve the problems it creates, if we can agree that it is actually better without the traffic.
It's good for that small area but not the rest of the city or the huge number of visitors getting fined. If the council had more credible plans than just bullying drivers out of their cars they'd get more support. There's too much talk of open and closed with not enough talk about what we can do to solve the problems it creates, if we can agree that it is actually better without the traffic. MorkofYork
  • Score: 616

5:52pm Wed 26 Mar 14

Lance Corporal Jones says...

Ichabod76 wrote:
I am proud it is a Labour administration that has had the courage and vision to tackle the issue.

Almost looks like Tracey Simpson-Laing wrote this herself !
surely they wouldn't would they ?
They would do anything it takes because "They Don't Like It Up EM" no matter how self inflicted the stupidity.
[quote][p][bold]Ichabod76[/bold] wrote: I am proud it is a Labour administration that has had the courage and vision to tackle the issue. Almost looks like Tracey Simpson-Laing wrote this herself ! surely they wouldn't would they ?[/p][/quote]They would do anything it takes because "They Don't Like It Up EM" no matter how self inflicted the stupidity. Lance Corporal Jones
  • Score: -126

6:01pm Wed 26 Mar 14

couldn't care less says...

It's great watching you lot bleat and cry over the bridge.
I do hope it's permanent it may just kill a few of you off.
It's great watching you lot bleat and cry over the bridge. I do hope it's permanent it may just kill a few of you off. couldn't care less
  • Score: -94

6:34pm Wed 26 Mar 14

Igiveinthen says...

Rose Berl, De Little Court, Vine Street, York, thought it was a courageous decision the CoYC made in restricting traffic use over Lendal Bridge, and she and others like her e.g. Colin Hall who thinks it's been good for the City, expound the improvements made to their lives by those restrictions.
Rose Berl lives in Vine Street, Colin Hall lives in the City and neither need a car, or even a cycle to access the city, both are 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, but I do not gloat about it.
Instead of a 'courageous decision' or 'being good for the city' I would call it a complete and utter selfish decision that only panders to a small minority of people like Rose and Colin who live in close proximity to the city centre, and who both say how it has improved their quality of life! - I do not count myself as one these - so how selfish is that!.
And now we hear from those in agreement who think its fantastic to cycle or walk over the bridge now as though it were paved with flowers and it had constant blue sky above it!
No thought whatever 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 due to the restrictions in place.
So Rose and Colin I think the both of 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.
This is not progress, it's a stupid idea that has been implemented without thought of the consequences to others and has been badly managed from day one.
Rose Berl, De Little Court, Vine Street, York, thought it was a courageous decision the CoYC made in restricting traffic use over Lendal Bridge, and she and others like her e.g. Colin Hall who thinks it's been good for the City, expound the improvements made to their lives by those restrictions. Rose Berl lives in Vine Street, Colin Hall lives in the City and neither need a car, or even a cycle to access the city, both are 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, but I do not gloat about it. Instead of a 'courageous decision' or 'being good for the city' I would call it a complete and utter selfish decision that only panders to a small minority of people like Rose and Colin who live in close proximity to the city centre, and who both say how it has improved their quality of life! - I do not count myself as one these - so how selfish is that!. And now we hear from those in agreement who think its fantastic to cycle or walk over the bridge now as though it were paved with flowers and it had constant blue sky above it! No thought whatever 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 due to the restrictions in place. So Rose and Colin I think the both of 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. This is not progress, it's a stupid idea that has been implemented without thought of the consequences to others and has been badly managed from day one. Igiveinthen
  • Score: 896

6:36pm Wed 26 Mar 14

wallman says...

pedalling paul wrote:
I enjoy pedalling over the bridge in the daytime now. The experimental closure to private cars might make some owners realise that they have allowed themselves to become over dependant on this mode of transport.

Buying a car does not buy an entitlement to an open road or to parking provision at one's destination. Use a car by all means when neccessary, but at the same time please consider whether some of journeys eg short local ones could be made by other means.

Lifestyle decisions eg where to live, work and send your kids to school, which are based on car use, creates significant adverse consequences for those who have no choice but to use a motor vehicle.

Thankfully, upcoming generations may be more attuned to the need to car share, or to use other transport choices for at least some local journeys.
it must be lovely pp being perfect like you, as I have said before you have my disability and I will love to ride your bike. As long as people like you can cross the bridge on a bike or walking dosent matter about the rest of us who need a car to get about York which is my city as well
[quote][p][bold]pedalling paul [/bold] wrote: I enjoy pedalling over the bridge in the daytime now. The experimental closure to private cars might make some owners realise that they have allowed themselves to become over dependant on this mode of transport. Buying a car does not buy an entitlement to an open road or to parking provision at one's destination. Use a car by all means when neccessary, but at the same time please consider whether some of journeys eg short local ones could be made by other means. Lifestyle decisions eg where to live, work and send your kids to school, which are based on car use, creates significant adverse consequences for those who have no choice but to use a motor vehicle. Thankfully, upcoming generations may be more attuned to the need to car share, or to use other transport choices for at least some local journeys.[/p][/quote]it must be lovely pp being perfect like you, as I have said before you have my disability and I will love to ride your bike. As long as people like you can cross the bridge on a bike or walking dosent matter about the rest of us who need a car to get about York which is my city as well wallman
  • Score: -374

6:49pm Wed 26 Mar 14

Pinza-C55 says...

pedalling paul wrote:
I enjoy pedalling over the bridge in the daytime now. The experimental closure to private cars might make some owners realise that they have allowed themselves to become over dependant on this mode of transport.

Buying a car does not buy an entitlement to an open road or to parking provision at one's destination. Use a car by all means when neccessary, but at the same time please consider whether some of journeys eg short local ones could be made by other means.

Lifestyle decisions eg where to live, work and send your kids to school, which are based on car use, creates significant adverse consequences for those who have no choice but to use a motor vehicle.

Thankfully, upcoming generations may be more attuned to the need to car share, or to use other transport choices for at least some local journeys.
Some would say you have become over dependent on your own chosen form of transport and indeed have a morbid obsession with it? I sometimes wonder what it would be like to talk to you in a pub and have to constantly steer the conversation away from bicycles?
[quote][p][bold]pedalling paul [/bold] wrote: I enjoy pedalling over the bridge in the daytime now. The experimental closure to private cars might make some owners realise that they have allowed themselves to become over dependant on this mode of transport. Buying a car does not buy an entitlement to an open road or to parking provision at one's destination. Use a car by all means when neccessary, but at the same time please consider whether some of journeys eg short local ones could be made by other means. Lifestyle decisions eg where to live, work and send your kids to school, which are based on car use, creates significant adverse consequences for those who have no choice but to use a motor vehicle. Thankfully, upcoming generations may be more attuned to the need to car share, or to use other transport choices for at least some local journeys.[/p][/quote]Some would say you have become over dependent on your own chosen form of transport and indeed have a morbid obsession with it? I sometimes wonder what it would be like to talk to you in a pub and have to constantly steer the conversation away from bicycles? Pinza-C55
  • Score: -351

7:29pm Wed 26 Mar 14

Buzzz Light-year says...

By all means close a bridge but make it Ouse Bridge

No!
Don't close any bridges. If they have to invent schemes and close roads then ok, but not bridges. Bridges are facilitators, they facilitate transport and communication between the two sides of the city which are split by the river.

Closing a bridge for whatever reason is an insult to the engineers who built it.
Imagine if they decided we weren't allowed web access between the hours of 10.30-5? All that skill and technological innovation for what? What an insult to the boffins!
What if only bus drivers, cyclists, taxi drivers, Royal Mail drivers and council binmen were the only people allowed Statin drugs? What an insult to the chemists!
[quote]By all means close a bridge but make it Ouse Bridge[/quote] No! Don't close any bridges. If they have to invent schemes and close roads then ok, but not bridges. Bridges are facilitators, they facilitate transport and communication between the two sides of the city which are split by the river. Closing a bridge for whatever reason is an insult to the engineers who built it. Imagine if they decided we weren't allowed web access between the hours of 10.30-5? All that skill and technological innovation for what? What an insult to the boffins! What if only bus drivers, cyclists, taxi drivers, Royal Mail drivers and council binmen were the only people allowed Statin drugs? What an insult to the chemists! Buzzz Light-year
  • Score: -304

8:17pm Wed 26 Mar 14

Mulgrave says...

pedalling paul wrote:
I enjoy pedalling over the bridge in the daytime now. The experimental closure to private cars might make some owners realise that they have allowed themselves to become over dependant on this mode of transport.

Buying a car does not buy an entitlement to an open road or to parking provision at one's destination. Use a car by all means when neccessary, but at the same time please consider whether some of journeys eg short local ones could be made by other means.

Lifestyle decisions eg where to live, work and send your kids to school, which are based on car use, creates significant adverse consequences for those who have no choice but to use a motor vehicle.

Thankfully, upcoming generations may be more attuned to the need to car share, or to use other transport choices for at least some local journeys.
What is the point of introducing the topic of car sharing, which is a good idea, into a discussion about the Lendal Bridge restriction? Also, why is it so difficult to understand that a "private" car and a car with a CoYC issued "private hire" plate are doing the same job, the only difference being that a private car doesn't have any emissions when not being used by its driver, but an "empty" private hire vehicle crossing the sacred bridge does.

I have no real need to cross the bridge at all, but would have had far more respect for a trial that WAS based on occupancy/importance of the journey, rather than what has been cobbled together with bans on mopeds, blue badges and patient transport ambulances.
[quote][p][bold]pedalling paul [/bold] wrote: I enjoy pedalling over the bridge in the daytime now. The experimental closure to private cars might make some owners realise that they have allowed themselves to become over dependant on this mode of transport. Buying a car does not buy an entitlement to an open road or to parking provision at one's destination. Use a car by all means when neccessary, but at the same time please consider whether some of journeys eg short local ones could be made by other means. Lifestyle decisions eg where to live, work and send your kids to school, which are based on car use, creates significant adverse consequences for those who have no choice but to use a motor vehicle. Thankfully, upcoming generations may be more attuned to the need to car share, or to use other transport choices for at least some local journeys.[/p][/quote]What is the point of introducing the topic of car sharing, which is a good idea, into a discussion about the Lendal Bridge restriction? Also, why is it so difficult to understand that a "private" car and a car with a CoYC issued "private hire" plate are doing the same job, the only difference being that a private car doesn't have any emissions when not being used by its driver, but an "empty" private hire vehicle crossing the sacred bridge does. I have no real need to cross the bridge at all, but would have had far more respect for a trial that WAS based on occupancy/importance of the journey, rather than what has been cobbled together with bans on mopeds, blue badges and patient transport ambulances. Mulgrave
  • Score: -222

8:26pm Wed 26 Mar 14

Igiveinthen says...

Mulgrave wrote:
pedalling paul wrote:
I enjoy pedalling over the bridge in the daytime now. The experimental closure to private cars might make some owners realise that they have allowed themselves to become over dependant on this mode of transport.

Buying a car does not buy an entitlement to an open road or to parking provision at one's destination. Use a car by all means when neccessary, but at the same time please consider whether some of journeys eg short local ones could be made by other means.

Lifestyle decisions eg where to live, work and send your kids to school, which are based on car use, creates significant adverse consequences for those who have no choice but to use a motor vehicle.

Thankfully, upcoming generations may be more attuned to the need to car share, or to use other transport choices for at least some local journeys.
What is the point of introducing the topic of car sharing, which is a good idea, into a discussion about the Lendal Bridge restriction? Also, why is it so difficult to understand that a "private" car and a car with a CoYC issued "private hire" plate are doing the same job, the only difference being that a private car doesn't have any emissions when not being used by its driver, but an "empty" private hire vehicle crossing the sacred bridge does.

I have no real need to cross the bridge at all, but would have had far more respect for a trial that WAS based on occupancy/importance of the journey, rather than what has been cobbled together with bans on mopeds, blue badges and patient transport ambulances.
Yes and can I add that the exemption for taxis, works very well for the taxi drivers even when they are not working, they can drive over the bridge with impunity, the ANPR camera can't tell the difference between a taxi working and a taxi being used for pleasure, so in essence the bridge restrictions do not affect taxi drivers one iota.
[quote][p][bold]Mulgrave[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]pedalling paul [/bold] wrote: I enjoy pedalling over the bridge in the daytime now. The experimental closure to private cars might make some owners realise that they have allowed themselves to become over dependant on this mode of transport. Buying a car does not buy an entitlement to an open road or to parking provision at one's destination. Use a car by all means when neccessary, but at the same time please consider whether some of journeys eg short local ones could be made by other means. Lifestyle decisions eg where to live, work and send your kids to school, which are based on car use, creates significant adverse consequences for those who have no choice but to use a motor vehicle. Thankfully, upcoming generations may be more attuned to the need to car share, or to use other transport choices for at least some local journeys.[/p][/quote]What is the point of introducing the topic of car sharing, which is a good idea, into a discussion about the Lendal Bridge restriction? Also, why is it so difficult to understand that a "private" car and a car with a CoYC issued "private hire" plate are doing the same job, the only difference being that a private car doesn't have any emissions when not being used by its driver, but an "empty" private hire vehicle crossing the sacred bridge does. I have no real need to cross the bridge at all, but would have had far more respect for a trial that WAS based on occupancy/importance of the journey, rather than what has been cobbled together with bans on mopeds, blue badges and patient transport ambulances.[/p][/quote]Yes and can I add that the exemption for taxis, works very well for the taxi drivers even when they are not working, they can drive over the bridge with impunity, the ANPR camera can't tell the difference between a taxi working and a taxi being used for pleasure, so in essence the bridge restrictions do not affect taxi drivers one iota. Igiveinthen
  • Score: -92

8:30pm Wed 26 Mar 14

courier46 says...

Colin,the minority can have there say but in this country i believe the majority normally gets the decision.Unfortunatl
ey for the residents of York this council do what they want and not the majority want.
Colin,the minority can have there say but in this country i believe the majority normally gets the decision.Unfortunatl ey for the residents of York this council do what they want and not the majority want. courier46
  • Score: -55

8:54pm Wed 26 Mar 14

geoff tibletts says...

Ichabod76 wrote:
I am proud it is a Labour administration that has had the courage and vision to tackle the issue.

Almost looks like Tracey Simpson-Laing wrote this herself !
surely they wouldn't would they ?
Nothing would surprise me about this lot in charge
[quote][p][bold]Ichabod76[/bold] wrote: I am proud it is a Labour administration that has had the courage and vision to tackle the issue. Almost looks like Tracey Simpson-Laing wrote this herself ! surely they wouldn't would they ?[/p][/quote]Nothing would surprise me about this lot in charge geoff tibletts
  • Score: -23

10:25pm Wed 26 Mar 14

jay, york says...

pedalling paul wrote:
I enjoy pedalling over the bridge in the daytime now. The experimental closure to private cars might make some owners realise that they have allowed themselves to become over dependant on this mode of transport. Buying a car does not buy an entitlement to an open road or to parking provision at one's destination. Use a car by all means when neccessary, but at the same time please consider whether some of journeys eg short local ones could be made by other means. Lifestyle decisions eg where to live, work and send your kids to school, which are based on car use, creates significant adverse consequences for those who have no choice but to use a motor vehicle. Thankfully, upcoming generations may be more attuned to the need to car share, or to use other transport choices for at least some local journeys.
PP you may have just missed something here - but the Lendal Bridge closure is not just to private cars. It is to disabled people, people who use their vehicles for business - eg.carers, doctors, delvivery drivers with supplies for city centre businesses, coaches bringing visitors from out of York. Why do you think it is all about private cars? Take your blinkers off and open your eyes. But I suppose if you are happy cycling over the bridge in the daytime it is all worthwhile - I think most would call it cloud cuckoo land.
[quote][p][bold]pedalling paul [/bold] wrote: I enjoy pedalling over the bridge in the daytime now. The experimental closure to private cars might make some owners realise that they have allowed themselves to become over dependant on this mode of transport. Buying a car does not buy an entitlement to an open road or to parking provision at one's destination. Use a car by all means when neccessary, but at the same time please consider whether some of journeys eg short local ones could be made by other means. Lifestyle decisions eg where to live, work and send your kids to school, which are based on car use, creates significant adverse consequences for those who have no choice but to use a motor vehicle. Thankfully, upcoming generations may be more attuned to the need to car share, or to use other transport choices for at least some local journeys.[/p][/quote]PP you may have just missed something here - but the Lendal Bridge closure is not just to private cars. It is to disabled people, people who use their vehicles for business - eg.carers, doctors, delvivery drivers with supplies for city centre businesses, coaches bringing visitors from out of York. Why do you think it is all about private cars? Take your blinkers off and open your eyes. But I suppose if you are happy cycling over the bridge in the daytime it is all worthwhile - I think most would call it cloud cuckoo land. jay, york
  • Score: -38

10:32pm Wed 26 Mar 14

jay, york says...

Igiveinthen wrote:
Rose Berl, De Little Court, Vine Street, York, thought it was a courageous decision the CoYC made in restricting traffic use over Lendal Bridge, and she and others like her e.g. Colin Hall who thinks it's been good for the City, expound the improvements made to their lives by those restrictions. Rose Berl lives in Vine Street, Colin Hall lives in the City and neither need a car, or even a cycle to access the city, both are 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, but I do not gloat about it. Instead of a 'courageous decision' or 'being good for the city' I would call it a complete and utter selfish decision that only panders to a small minority of people like Rose and Colin who live in close proximity to the city centre, and who both say how it has improved their quality of life! - I do not count myself as one these - so how selfish is that!. And now we hear from those in agreement who think its fantastic to cycle or walk over the bridge now as though it were paved with flowers and it had constant blue sky above it! No thought whatever 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 due to the restrictions in place. So Rose and Colin I think the both of 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. This is not progress, it's a stupid idea that has been implemented without thought of the consequences to others and has been badly managed from day one.
Very well said indeed!
[quote][p][bold]Igiveinthen[/bold] wrote: Rose Berl, De Little Court, Vine Street, York, thought it was a courageous decision the CoYC made in restricting traffic use over Lendal Bridge, and she and others like her e.g. Colin Hall who thinks it's been good for the City, expound the improvements made to their lives by those restrictions. Rose Berl lives in Vine Street, Colin Hall lives in the City and neither need a car, or even a cycle to access the city, both are 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, but I do not gloat about it. Instead of a 'courageous decision' or 'being good for the city' I would call it a complete and utter selfish decision that only panders to a small minority of people like Rose and Colin who live in close proximity to the city centre, and who both say how it has improved their quality of life! - I do not count myself as one these - so how selfish is that!. And now we hear from those in agreement who think its fantastic to cycle or walk over the bridge now as though it were paved with flowers and it had constant blue sky above it! No thought whatever 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 due to the restrictions in place. So Rose and Colin I think the both of 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. This is not progress, it's a stupid idea that has been implemented without thought of the consequences to others and has been badly managed from day one.[/p][/quote]Very well said indeed! jay, york
  • Score: -90

11:36pm Wed 26 Mar 14

AnotherPointofView says...

Your final point Mr Hall about being good for business is rubbish. This closure has NOT been good for business, it's been a disaster.

What tosh your letter is, it just looks as it's come from Labour HQ PR dept.
Your final point Mr Hall about being good for business is rubbish. This closure has NOT been good for business, it's been a disaster. What tosh your letter is, it just looks as it's come from Labour HQ PR dept. AnotherPointofView
  • Score: -82

12:05am Thu 27 Mar 14

Badgers Drift says...

Another Labour shill !
Another Labour shill ! Badgers Drift
  • Score: -29

9:51am Thu 27 Mar 14

garethjv says...

Platform3 wrote:
Colin Hall's letter is correct in one respect - "we all have to share the roads and the environment". Whilst correspondents supporting the closure are in a minority many of those few fall into the trap of assuming that those who oppose the closure want a laissez-faire approach to traffic management.

Nothing could be further from the truth. The overriding objection to the closure of Lendal Bridge is that it is a wholly inappropriate piece of roadway to close. It is the fault of no one that the medieval street pattern of this city has brought the ring road so close to the city centre. However, it is not slap bang in the centre. In the 1950's there was a plan to have a dual carriageway type inner ring road (similar to ones subsequently developed in cities like Chester and Norwich). That proposal was rejected save for a very short distance over Castle Mills so we are now having to live with that decision. As has been proven through the experiment the closure has only resulted in traffic conditions becoming worse elsewhere.

I read somewhere of a suggestion that the Councillors in favour of the closure were making a brave decision. There is a fine line between being brave and being reckless. Lord Cardigan thought he was brave when leading the Charge of the Light Brigade - history has shown otherwise. A truly brave decision will be to hold up your hands and admit the experiment has not worked.

By all means close a bridge but make it Ouse Bridge. The pedestrian footfall is greater than Lendal Bridge. The environmental benefits will be greater - particularly around Ousegate and Nessgate - and the impact on traffic circulating around the city will be far less.
You raise a good point about Ouse Bridge. The problem is, the council might now decide to close this after closing Lendal!
I totally disagree with Colin Hall concerning the closure of Lendal, and I don't even have a car. I have found the closure of the bridge a real worry when I have visitors and I want to make sure they don't go away from York with an unexpected fine waiting for them on their doorstep.
[quote][p][bold]Platform3[/bold] wrote: Colin Hall's letter is correct in one respect - "we all have to share the roads and the environment". Whilst correspondents supporting the closure are in a minority many of those few fall into the trap of assuming that those who oppose the closure want a laissez-faire approach to traffic management. Nothing could be further from the truth. The overriding objection to the closure of Lendal Bridge is that it is a wholly inappropriate piece of roadway to close. It is the fault of no one that the medieval street pattern of this city has brought the ring road so close to the city centre. However, it is not slap bang in the centre. In the 1950's there was a plan to have a dual carriageway type inner ring road (similar to ones subsequently developed in cities like Chester and Norwich). That proposal was rejected save for a very short distance over Castle Mills so we are now having to live with that decision. As has been proven through the experiment the closure has only resulted in traffic conditions becoming worse elsewhere. I read somewhere of a suggestion that the Councillors in favour of the closure were making a brave decision. There is a fine line between being brave and being reckless. Lord Cardigan thought he was brave when leading the Charge of the Light Brigade - history has shown otherwise. A truly brave decision will be to hold up your hands and admit the experiment has not worked. By all means close a bridge but make it Ouse Bridge. The pedestrian footfall is greater than Lendal Bridge. The environmental benefits will be greater - particularly around Ousegate and Nessgate - and the impact on traffic circulating around the city will be far less.[/p][/quote]You raise a good point about Ouse Bridge. The problem is, the council might now decide to close this after closing Lendal! I totally disagree with Colin Hall concerning the closure of Lendal, and I don't even have a car. I have found the closure of the bridge a real worry when I have visitors and I want to make sure they don't go away from York with an unexpected fine waiting for them on their doorstep. garethjv
  • Score: 1

2:53pm Thu 27 Mar 14

inthesticks says...

As Igiveinthen has so rightly pointed out, another letter in favour by someone who lives close to the city centre. Of course it`s better for them, it`s unfortunately much worse for the majority who don`t.
As Igiveinthen has so rightly pointed out, another letter in favour by someone who lives close to the city centre. Of course it`s better for them, it`s unfortunately much worse for the majority who don`t. inthesticks
  • 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