Lendal Bridge fines can keep city moving

Lendal Bridge fines can keep city moving

Lendal Bridge fines can keep city moving

Published in Letters by

YOUR headline news (The Press, April 2) “Lendal Bridge fines ‘wrong’ says inspector,” appears to me to be misleading, especially when you take into account the smiling faces of Coun Steward and Coun Reid, on a background picture of a traffic-free Lendal Bridge.

They obviously think they have scored a political goal.

When your readers look at the main article (of the same edition, on page five) I ask residents of York, which would they prefer? A bus stuck (or three buses) in a traffic queue or being able to get about the city, to do what they are there for, and that is to transport the residents of York from A to B according to a published timetable.

I can see that mistakes regarding signage have been made in the implementation of the scheme, but can anybody tell me of a new road traffic scheme (albeit experimental) that does not run into teething problems.

A main responsibility of a motorist is be aware of traffic signs.

The law on any given aspect can be interpreted by different people in different ways (and that takes into account Government inspectors/adjudicators).

Always remember the police evidence and the coroners’ comments at the original Hillsborough inquiry/inquests and what is happening now, some 25 years after that disastrous and appalling disaster.

Howard Perry, St James Place, Dringhouses, York.

Comments (7)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

1:04pm Wed 9 Apr 14

Tiv says...

its rather sad you reference Hillsborough in your letter on a botched, illegal traffic scheme. There is no reason or need to connect either and is rather disrespectful of the victims & their families of the Hillsborough tragedy.
its rather sad you reference Hillsborough in your letter on a botched, illegal traffic scheme. There is no reason or need to connect either and is rather disrespectful of the victims & their families of the Hillsborough tragedy. Tiv
  • Score: -25

4:43pm Wed 9 Apr 14

Alan Waters says...

Green Wave Reid probably doesn't know why she's smiling in the first place.
As for Steward, he's the main reason Little Jimmy should stand aside and let someone else run the Labour Party in York, otherwise, that's what's waiting to take his seat at the head of the table.
Green Wave Reid probably doesn't know why she's smiling in the first place. As for Steward, he's the main reason Little Jimmy should stand aside and let someone else run the Labour Party in York, otherwise, that's what's waiting to take his seat at the head of the table. Alan Waters
  • Score: -11

9:40pm Wed 9 Apr 14

AnotherPointofView says...

Mr Perry, it's not about whether York's buses should be stuck in queues in traffic congestion or not. With or without Lendal Bridge closure, buses still get stuck in traffic queues.

The issue has arisen because this council wanted to close a major section of the inner ring road without providing any alternative route. The reasons for doing this varied throughout but bus punctuality was one of the issues.

From the reports so far, some buses were quicker and some buses were slower - they got caught in the extra congestion elsewhere around York caused by the bridge closure - something that was entirely predictable.
Mr Perry, it's not about whether York's buses should be stuck in queues in traffic congestion or not. With or without Lendal Bridge closure, buses still get stuck in traffic queues. The issue has arisen because this council wanted to close a major section of the inner ring road without providing any alternative route. The reasons for doing this varied throughout but bus punctuality was one of the issues. From the reports so far, some buses were quicker and some buses were slower - they got caught in the extra congestion elsewhere around York caused by the bridge closure - something that was entirely predictable. AnotherPointofView
  • Score: -11

5:32am Thu 10 Apr 14

Magicman! says...

I ask residents of York, which would they prefer? A bus stuck (or three buses) in a traffic queue or being able to get about the city, to do what they are there for, and that is to transport the residents of York from A to B according to a published timetable.

Certain commentors on here would answer and say "get rid of buses so there's more room for cars"... unfortunately it's their (very loud) voices that have forced the council's hand in all this, rather than such people accepting the fact they either weren't driving well enough to see a sign, or saw the sign and ignored it.

Any traffic planner worth their salt knows buses always take priority over cars due to their more efficient use of road space.... so getting those moving in the mst efficient manner is the key aim.
[quote]I ask residents of York, which would they prefer? A bus stuck (or three buses) in a traffic queue or being able to get about the city, to do what they are there for, and that is to transport the residents of York from A to B according to a published timetable. [/quote] Certain commentors on here would answer and say "get rid of buses so there's more room for cars"... unfortunately it's their (very loud) voices that have forced the council's hand in all this, rather than such people accepting the fact they either weren't driving well enough to see a sign, or saw the sign and ignored it. Any traffic planner worth their salt knows buses always take priority over cars due to their more efficient use of road space.... so getting those moving in the mst efficient manner is the key aim. Magicman!
  • Score: 14

7:25am Thu 10 Apr 14

anistasia says...

Make room for more cars get rid of the empty open top buses you see often in the city driving round some with around 5 people on.
Make room for more cars get rid of the empty open top buses you see often in the city driving round some with around 5 people on. anistasia
  • Score: -15

9:27am Thu 10 Apr 14

the original Homer says...

Mr Perry's letter focuses on the signage and quite rightly makes the point that teething problems can occur with new schemes.

However, the adjudicator took this into account, and acknowledged they had been improved. The signage wasn't the basis of his judgement hat the fines were illegal.

The fundamental issue was that the Council allowed all sorts of exemptions, such as their own vans, and that stopped the scheme being a bone-fide bus lane. That meant they couldn't use CCTV and they couldn't issue fines.

The broader issue of easing congestion does need addressing, and that may still involve restrictions and bus lanes. However, unless the whole of the inner City is made car free, there will need to be an inner City loop open to all traffic. Partial closures simply funnel traffic into a bottle neck.

As far as giving buses priority over cars, that is a general principle which works, but it can't be applied blindly. There are a finite number of roads and bridges which all need to flow as efficiently as possible. Pushing 3 roads full of cars into 2 roads may make one empty, but it is inefficiently empty as it isn't moving enough traffic. The other 2 become much worse and the result is that the overall position is worse, not better.

I am a big fan of P&R and cycling, but I also drive 30000 miles a year. York needs long-term vision and a joined-up scheme, not piecemeal patches.
Mr Perry's letter focuses on the signage and quite rightly makes the point that teething problems can occur with new schemes. However, the adjudicator took this into account, and acknowledged they had been improved. The signage wasn't the basis of his judgement hat the fines were illegal. The fundamental issue was that the Council allowed all sorts of exemptions, such as their own vans, and that stopped the scheme being a bone-fide bus lane. That meant they couldn't use CCTV and they couldn't issue fines. The broader issue of easing congestion does need addressing, and that may still involve restrictions and bus lanes. However, unless the whole of the inner City is made car free, there will need to be an inner City loop open to all traffic. Partial closures simply funnel traffic into a bottle neck. As far as giving buses priority over cars, that is a general principle which works, but it can't be applied blindly. There are a finite number of roads and bridges which all need to flow as efficiently as possible. Pushing 3 roads full of cars into 2 roads may make one empty, but it is inefficiently empty as it isn't moving enough traffic. The other 2 become much worse and the result is that the overall position is worse, not better. I am a big fan of P&R and cycling, but I also drive 30000 miles a year. York needs long-term vision and a joined-up scheme, not piecemeal patches. the original Homer
  • Score: 3

9:30am Thu 10 Apr 14

AnotherPointofView says...

Magicman! wrote:
I ask residents of York, which would they prefer? A bus stuck (or three buses) in a traffic queue or being able to get about the city, to do what they are there for, and that is to transport the residents of York from A to B according to a published timetable.

Certain commentors on here would answer and say "get rid of buses so there's more room for cars"... unfortunately it's their (very loud) voices that have forced the council's hand in all this, rather than such people accepting the fact they either weren't driving well enough to see a sign, or saw the sign and ignored it.

Any traffic planner worth their salt knows buses always take priority over cars due to their more efficient use of road space.... so getting those moving in the mst efficient manner is the key aim.
Getting buses moving may be a laudable aim but closing Lendal Bridge didn't do that. Some buses were better and some worse because they were stuck in the congestion elsewhere caused by the closure!
[quote][p][bold]Magicman![/bold] wrote: [quote]I ask residents of York, which would they prefer? A bus stuck (or three buses) in a traffic queue or being able to get about the city, to do what they are there for, and that is to transport the residents of York from A to B according to a published timetable. [/quote] Certain commentors on here would answer and say "get rid of buses so there's more room for cars"... unfortunately it's their (very loud) voices that have forced the council's hand in all this, rather than such people accepting the fact they either weren't driving well enough to see a sign, or saw the sign and ignored it. Any traffic planner worth their salt knows buses always take priority over cars due to their more efficient use of road space.... so getting those moving in the mst efficient manner is the key aim.[/p][/quote]Getting buses moving may be a laudable aim but closing Lendal Bridge didn't do that. Some buses were better and some worse because they were stuck in the congestion elsewhere caused by the closure! AnotherPointofView
  • Score: 4

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