Queen Street bridge worries (From York Press)

A very large and extensive railway station was constructed without any disturbance to the city walls so why should a comparatively small bus station have any effect. It's obviously the most sensible place for a much needed bus station so let's have it. Surely its positioning would not preclude buses from stopping at other convenient points throughout the city so what's the problem?

Mr Beisley need not worry. The removal and replacement of London Bridge in 1973 was a much more daunting task and was achieved without undue problems.

The area available for development is much more extensive than the land immediately below the Queen Street bridge.

Jezreel wrote:
Mr Beisley need not worry. The removal and replacement of London Bridge in 1973 was a much more daunting task and was achieved without undue problems.

The area available for development is much more extensive than the land immediately below the Queen Street bridge.

It might be more extensive but I still think the amount of room available will not be enough for a bus station to take all the bus services that travel in both directions past the station leaving them enough room to manoeuvre, let alone re-route the ones which don't currently pass the station.

PKH wrote:

Jezreel wrote: Mr Beisley need not worry. The removal and replacement of London Bridge in 1973 was a much more daunting task and was achieved without undue problems. The area available for development is much more extensive than the land immediately below the Queen Street bridge.

It might be more extensive but I still think the amount of room available will not be enough for a bus station to take all the bus services that travel in both directions past the station leaving them enough room to manoeuvre, let alone re-route the ones which don't currently pass the station.

Shall we let the experts and professionals make a judgement on this.

bolero wrote:
A very large and extensive railway station was constructed without any disturbance to the city walls so why should a comparatively small bus station have any effect. It's obviously the most sensible place for a much needed bus station so let's have it. Surely its positioning would not preclude buses from stopping at other convenient points throughout the city so what's the problem?

Might usefully help the present East Coast trains team to retain the franchise, when it's back up for grabs.

Evidence of liaison with the Local Authority to promote transport integration, might help fend off the likes of First and Virgin.

Bolton has just acquired a similar transport "hub". Why shouldn't we?

bolero wrote:

PKH wrote:

Jezreel wrote: Mr Beisley need not worry. The removal and replacement of London Bridge in 1973 was a much more daunting task and was achieved without undue problems. The area available for development is much more extensive than the land immediately below the Queen Street bridge.

It might be more extensive but I still think the amount of room available will not be enough for a bus station to take all the bus services that travel in both directions past the station leaving them enough room to manoeuvre, let alone re-route the ones which don't currently pass the station.

Shall we let the experts and professionals make a judgement on this.

Professionals and experts never ruin townscapes? Never have their own agendas and motivations?

I walked along the walls from Micklegate to Lendal Bridge today and I have to say, there isn't much room.

I also like the sweep down into the front-of-station area - you get a feel for how majestic the Station Hotel area must have been. But in fairness, that is maybe just me.

pedalling paul wrote:

bolero wrote:
A very large and extensive railway station was constructed without any disturbance to the city walls so why should a comparatively small bus station have any effect. It's obviously the most sensible place for a much needed bus station so let's have it. Surely its positioning would not preclude buses from stopping at other convenient points throughout the city so what's the problem?

Might usefully help the present East Coast trains team to retain the franchise, when it's back up for grabs.

Evidence of liaison with the Local Authority to promote transport integration, might help fend off the likes of First and Virgin.

Bolton has just acquired a similar transport "hub". Why shouldn't we?

Just a couple of points....... "East Coast" is not currently a franchised Train Operating Company, but part of Directly Operated Railways, which is a government-owned company running the train services because National Express couldn't keep up the payments they had promised by having the highest bid for the franchise, and so DOR took over running the trains until such a time as the route could strategically be re-franchised.

Richard Branson has stated that Virgin Trains is no longer going to be bidding for railway franchises. And credit to First, they have done a good job with Transpennine Express - if they operated buses the same was as they do trains then it'd be a pleasure to have their buses in the city. The main drawback for Transpennine Express is the fact the trains are only 3 coaches long, the blame for which lies solely at the feet of the DfT who got Firstgroup's application for 4-coach trains and said "no".

--

The current land around the Queen Street bridge is potentially quite large if some currently under-used warehouse/industrial type buildings are removed. Whilst the water tank originally used for filling steam engines might have listed status on it, the old buildings that look like they might have once been goods sheds are not listed and could be demolished to make a large open space. At the back end of the car park closer to Holgate Bridge, parking could be extended to 2 floors similar to what the hospital has, so as to free up more space at the front end without reducing parking capacity. Removal of the bridge would remove the narrow street beside the bridge on the Blossom Street side of the bridge, and would also get rid of the 1st floor suspended walkway to the WMC which currently restricts the height of vehicles passing underneath (which is why raceday buses for Royal Ascot at York were only single deckers hired in from Manchester instead of the normal double deckers). In addition, a bus station on the site would remove the current bus stops from outside the station and so would allow the road carriageway to be put closer to the city walls and allow the space outside the station to be allocated for taxi parking and possibly with a few cycle racks too.

During works, traffic would need to be directed along Nunnery Lane and over Skeldergate Bridge - so to facilitate traffic movement, the best idea would then be to restrict access to Clifford Street/Tower Street, Ousegate and Rougier Street to just public transport only (with private traffic from Leeman Road given either left turn or right turn options only at the gyratory, no straight-ahead to rougier street) so that the traffic lights by the obelisk at St Georges Field can be given a much longer amount of green time. In addition, traffic restrictions into Piccadilly from Fishergate would be advantageous in this manner (with such traffic instead directed onto Paragon Street, Foss Islands Road and Navigation Street (or allow cars to turn left at Walmgate Bar) so that only buses such as the 415, 42, 44, 35 and 36 would need to use that semi-roundabout at St Georges Field to turn around to get to Piccadilly