York bridge could be demolished to make way for bus station (From York Press)

colette says...
6:18pm Mon 3 Sep 12

"And the Selby bus stops at Piccadilly and then goes through Coppergate and Clifford Street - an interchange would give such buses the opportunity to go through to the railway station.” - and go where from there? Down Nunnery Lane? Along Rougier Street? I can foresee a load more traffic jams in York city centre!

Report this post »

Zetkin says...
6:20pm Mon 3 Sep 12

Hope this comes to pass.

Report this post »

rothko says...
6:26pm Mon 3 Sep 12

I like this idea, shows real vision rather than short termism to win votes.

Report this post »

lezyork1966 says...
6:30pm Mon 3 Sep 12

first i thought this a daft idea, but with the bridge gone, you would have more space and width to shuttle traffic through, the station carpark can be moved more towards holgate bridge, the first platrom at that side could be removed as that platform is little used, taxis can stay more or less the same, it may have some good points...

Report this post »

DeeJaiEss says...
6:50pm Mon 3 Sep 12

With the right amount of thought (and possibly a heck of a lot of money), this could solve a gap in York's transportation system. York has been missing a bus station for so long - this link-up with the station could give the local economy a bit of a lift.

Report this post »

PinzaC55 says...
7:01pm Mon 3 Sep 12

York Press last week "York Council 6 million debt".
This story "the multi-million pound proposal".
I sometimes feel I have wandered into a parallel Universe living in York.

Report this post »

Barstool Knowall says...
7:18pm Mon 3 Sep 12

Great Idea!! First mooted about 30 odd years ago when the trackwork at the old station was removed and the bridge no longer served any purpose.
Of course since the council short sightedly reinforced it with concrete to stop it collapsing under the weight of traffic about 15 years ago it will now be a whole lot harder, and more expensive to demolish.

Report this post »

Buzz Light-year says...
7:19pm Mon 3 Sep 12

Ah! So that's why Sour Grapes was in the news with his 3 buses video.
He was politicking.

Previously a champion of public transport, now attempting to stir up bad feeling just prior to the roll out of new ticketing ideas and the bus station idea in order to rubbish the other party.

Petty and pointless.

Report this post »

thewold says...
7:40pm Mon 3 Sep 12

An interchange is only as good as the proportion of bus routes using it - some won't have space in the timetable to extend without using an extra bus, and the 6 would have to either avoid it (at least in rush hour) or be split in the city (ie no longer run from Stonebow to the hospital & Clifton)

Report this post »

GooseTrackLane says...
8:00pm Mon 3 Sep 12

By the time this happens we will be commuting into York on our hoverboards.

Report this post »

bagnall1928@yahoo.com says...
8:01pm Mon 3 Sep 12

Where will the traffic flow whilst this is undertaken, buses certainly cant use Micklegate.
With all the usual stops,starts and delays due to the weather or strikes etc. it could completely disrupt York centre and its station. All preparation would have to be in place to make it work

Report this post »

yorkshirelad says...
8:32pm Mon 3 Sep 12

rothko wrote:
I like this idea, shows real vision rather than short termism to win votes.

Yep...me too.

York does need long term vision though anything new does get the grumps going.

Report this post »

DeeJaiEss says...
9:04pm Mon 3 Sep 12

GooseTrackLane wrote:
By the time this happens we will be commuting into York on our hoverboards.

Ha, indeed.

Especially if York Civic Trust gets on the case!

Report this post »

matroom says...
9:26pm Mon 3 Sep 12

Dave merit is a clown. End of !!

Report this post »

Hoofarted says...
9:27pm Mon 3 Sep 12

A council with vision and putting the people first. Good work Dave!

Report this post »

GuyWithCommonSense says...
10:46pm Mon 3 Sep 12

What a waste of money. York is a tiny city really, everywhere is connected ENOUGH. Having a bus station there will mean more traffic lights and blossom street/nunnery lane already have pretty bad traffic during the day.

I will genuinely be saddened if this goes ahead, not needed at all! Also, bus stations always look tacky, dirty mini industrial estates. Do we really want that to be tourists first impression of York? This is probably only happening to create more money for the private bus companies in York. complete bull.

Oh, and before any of you start judging me, I'm 19 and am constantly travelling around all parts of York using public transport and driving but mostly cycling as it's quickest.

Report this post »

scootert5 says...
2:36am Tue 4 Sep 12

I know an ideal place to build a bus station..on the arc light centre!

Report this post »

york_chap says...
7:30am Tue 4 Sep 12

This might be a good idea if it were to lead to a better distribution of buses across the city. The current set up of 10 buses an hour in some suburbs and only 1 or 2 per hour in others doesn't encourage people to use public transport.

Report this post »

Kevin Turvey says...
7:42am Tue 4 Sep 12

Never happen:
1. No money for it.
2. There are parts of the city walls under the bridge that are listed so would have to stay or be very expensively moved!

Report this post »

Kevin Turvey says...
7:52am Tue 4 Sep 12

As I stated above a listed building extract below, also the city walls there are also a Scheduled monument!

York council pipe dream land again making 'plans'

Extract from listing:
Listing Text
YORK

SE5951NE CITY WALLS
1112-1/15/7 City Wall from Baile Hill to Barker
14/06/54 Tower
(Formerly Listed as:
The City Walls)
(Formerly Listed as:
Micklegate Bar)
(Formerly Listed as:
Barker Tower and North Street
Postern)

GV I

Includes: Barker Tower and North Street Postern NORTH STREET.
Includes: Victoria Bar NUNNERY LANE.
Includes: Micklegate Bar MICKLEGATE.
Defensive walls, towers, gates and gatehouses between Baile
Hill and Barker Tower including Baile Hill Tower,
****-daughter Tower and 15 intermediate towers, in addition
to the 3 main towers.
Walls 1250-60 and 1330-40; major restoration of 1831-32. Walls
breached for railway arches in 1839, 1845, 1874 and 1876,
latter rebuilt 1965. Baile Hill Tower 1878 when walls adjacent
to Skeldergate Bridge (qv) were demolished. ****-daughter
Tower 1330-40, remodelled 1645. Victoria Bar constructed 1838,
foot arches added 1864 and 1877. Micklegate Bar mid C14
incorporating early C12 gate; barbican removed 1826, inner
side remodelled by Peter Atkinson jnr. 1827; foot arches 1827
and 1863; figures carved in 1950 by R Ridley; restoration and
repairs of 1952 and 1968. North Street Postern rebuilt 1840.
Barker Tower early C14, re-roofed in C17, altered 1840,
restored 1970.
All structures of magnesian limestone ashlar except for
walkway partly carried on wall of orange-brown brick and
Victoria Bar steps of orange brick with stone treads and
cast-iron balustrade and handrail. Barker Tower has plain
tiled conical roof with overhanging eaves.

EXTERIOR: wall strengthened by squat weathered buttresses on
high bases. Wallwalk paved with stone flags edged with
chamfered coping stones; parapet part crenellated, part plain
and pierced by musket loops, with sloped coping. Towers are
semicircular, rectangular or half-hexagonal, on battered,
weathered and double chamfered plinths; some have cruciform
slits with or without oillets, some chamfered doorways with
shouldered or flat lintels, others no openings; crenellated
parapets are unpierced. Baile Hill Tower octagonal on plan;
****-daughter Tower irregular circle on plan; Barker Tower
circular on plan.

Baile Hill Tower: 2 storeys with embattled parapet. Flight of

steps to wallwalk passes through tower from foot of rampart,
through arched doorway with stilted 2-centred head. Other
openings are 3 slit lights in chamfered openings and 2 arrow
slits with oillets, one blocked.

Victoria Bar: semicircular carriage arch of 2 chamfered orders
flanked by single chamfered pedestrian arches. Incised stone
above central arch reads: Victoria Bar erected by Public
Subscription under the direction of The City Commissioners
AD1836 George Hudson Esq Lord Mayor.

Micklegate Bar: 4-storey 3-bay front: outer bays in form of
pilaster buttresses with battered bases rising into 2-storey
embattled bartizans with cruciform arrow slits. Semicircular
carriage arch incorporating portcullis slot, of 2 stepped
orders of gritstone voussoirs. First stage has narrow vertical
light over arch: in buttresses shoulder-headed doorways
originally to barbican walkway, all in chamfered openings.
Second stage has similar central light flanked by cruciform
arrow slits with oillets. Third floor has two vertical lights.
Bartizans joined by embattled parapet over lion's head
gargoyle in centre: some merlons pierced by cruciform slits.
Heraldry includes carved plaque commemorating restoration of
1727, with shield of arms of Lord Mayor Sir John Lister Kaye;
two shields of the Arms of the City of York: the Plantagenet
Royal Arms beneath a crested helm. Inner side: carriage arch
as on outer side. Each upper storey has two square-headed
windows of two pointed lights in chamfered surrounds. Corbel
course beneath plain parapet steps up over top floor windows.
Shield of Tudor Royal Arms between first floor windows.
INTERIOR: portcullis remains are stored on the first floor.

North Street Postern: rebuilt length of wall contains
4-centred carriage arch between pointed side arches of
gritstone voussoirs, all chamfered.

Barker Tower: 2 storeys on battered base: conical roof broken
by barge- boarded gable with 1-light attic window in quoined
opening. Ground floor door beneath outside stairs to first
floor has one chamfered jamb with run-out stop. Other openings
are vestigial cruciform arrow slits with oillets and two
inserted 1-pane windows. First floor doorway has plain lintel.
Embrasures of original embattled parapet converted to 1-pane
windows by altered roof: two 2x6-pane Yorkshire sashes
inserted in C18.
INTERIOR: original ground floor openings are splayed with
shouldered rere-arches recessed beneath 2-centred arches: 3
survive, 2 altered.
(An Inventory of the Historical Monuments in the City of York:
The Defences: HMSO: 1972-: 90-107).

Listing NGR: SE5968351630

Source: English Heritage

Listing Text
YORK

SE5951NE CITY WALLS
1112-1/15/7 City Wall from Baile Hill to Barker
14/06/54 Tower
(Formerly Listed as:
The City Walls)
(Formerly Listed as:
Micklegate Bar)
(Formerly Listed as:
Barker Tower and North Street
Postern)

GV I

Includes: Barker Tower and North Street Postern NORTH STREET.
Includes: Victoria Bar NUNNERY LANE.
Includes: Micklegate Bar MICKLEGATE.
Defensive walls, towers, gates and gatehouses between Baile
Hill and Barker Tower including Baile Hill Tower,
****-daughter Tower and 15 intermediate towers, in addition
to the 3 main towers.
Walls 1250-60 and 1330-40; major restoration of 1831-32. Walls
breached for railway arches in 1839, 1845, 1874 and 1876,
latter rebuilt 1965. Baile Hill Tower 1878 when walls adjacent
to Skeldergate Bridge (qv) were demolished. ****-daughter
Tower 1330-40, remodelled 1645. Victoria Bar constructed 1838,
foot arches added 1864 and 1877. Micklegate Bar mid C14
incorporating early C12 gate; barbican removed 1826, inner
side remodelled by Peter Atkinson jnr. 1827; foot arches 1827
and 1863; figures carved in 1950 by R Ridley; restoration and
repairs of 1952 and 1968. North Street Postern rebuilt 1840.
Barker Tower early C14, re-roofed in C17, altered 1840,
restored 1970.
All structures of magnesian limestone ashlar except for
walkway partly carried on wall of orange-brown brick and
Victoria Bar steps of orange brick with stone treads and
cast-iron balustrade and handrail. Barker Tower has plain
tiled conical roof with overhanging eaves.

EXTERIOR: wall strengthened by squat weathered buttresses on
high bases. Wallwalk paved with stone flags edged with
chamfered coping stones; parapet part crenellated, part plain
and pierced by musket loops, with sloped coping. Towers are
semicircular, rectangular or half-hexagonal, on battered,
weathered and double chamfered plinths; some have cruciform
slits with or without oillets, some chamfered doorways with
shouldered or flat lintels, others no openings; crenellated
parapets are unpierced. Baile Hill Tower octagonal on plan;
****-daughter Tower irregular circle on plan; Barker Tower
circular on plan.

Baile Hill Tower: 2 storeys with embattled parapet. Flight of

steps to wallwalk passes through tower from foot of rampart,
through arched doorway with stilted 2-centred head. Other
openings are 3 slit lights in chamfered openings and 2 arrow
slits with oillets, one blocked.

Victoria Bar: semicircular carriage arch of 2 chamfered orders
flanked by single chamfered pedestrian arches. Incised stone
above central arch reads: Victoria Bar erected by Public
Subscription under the direction of The City Commissioners
AD1836 George Hudson Esq Lord Mayor.

Micklegate Bar: 4-storey 3-bay front: outer bays in form of
pilaster buttresses with battered bases rising into 2-storey
embattled bartizans with cruciform arrow slits. Semicircular
carriage arch incorporating portcullis slot, of 2 stepped
orders of gritstone voussoirs. First stage has narrow vertical
light over arch: in buttresses shoulder-headed doorways
originally to barbican walkway, all in chamfered openings.
Second stage has similar central light flanked by cruciform
arrow slits with oillets. Third floor has two vertical lights.
Bartizans joined by embattled parapet over lion's head
gargoyle in centre: some merlons pierced by cruciform slits.
Heraldry includes carved plaque commemorating restoration of
1727, with shield of arms of Lord Mayor Sir John Lister Kaye;
two shields of the Arms of the City of York: the Plantagenet
Royal Arms beneath a crested helm. Inner side: carriage arch
as on outer side. Each upper storey has two square-headed
windows of two pointed lights in chamfered surrounds. Corbel
course beneath plain parapet steps up over top floor windows.
Shield of Tudor Royal Arms between first floor windows.
INTERIOR: portcullis remains are stored on the first floor.

North Street Postern: rebuilt length of wall contains
4-centred carriage arch between pointed side arches of
gritstone voussoirs, all chamfered.

Barker Tower: 2 storeys on battered base: conical roof broken
by barge- boarded gable with 1-light attic window in quoined
opening. Ground floor door beneath outside stairs to first
floor has one chamfered jamb with run-out stop. Other openings
are vestigial cruciform arrow slits with oillets and two
inserted 1-pane windows. First floor doorway has plain lintel.
Embrasures of original embattled parapet converted to 1-pane
windows by altered roof: two 2x6-pane Yorkshire sashes
inserted in C18.
INTERIOR: original ground floor openings are splayed with
shouldered rere-arches recessed beneath 2-centred arches: 3
survive, 2 altered.
(An Inventory of the Historical Monuments in the City of York:
The Defences: HMSO: 1972-: 90-107).

Listing NGR: SE5968351630

Source: English Heritage

Listing Text
YORK

SE5951NE CITY WALLS
1112-1/15/7 City Wall from Baile Hill to Barker
14/06/54 Tower
(Formerly Listed as:
The City Walls)
(Formerly Listed as:
Micklegate Bar)
(Formerly Listed as:
Barker Tower and North Street
Postern)

GV I

Includes: Barker Tower and North Street Postern NORTH STREET.
Includes: Victoria Bar NUNNERY LANE.
Includes: Micklegate Bar MICKLEGATE.
Defensive walls, towers, gates and gatehouses between Baile
Hill and Barker Tower including Baile Hill Tower,
****-daughter Tower and 15 intermediate towers, in addition
to the 3 main towers.
Walls 1250-60 and 1330-40; major restoration of 1831-32. Walls
breached for railway arches in 1839, 1845, 1874 and 1876,
latter rebuilt 1965. Baile Hill Tower 1878 when walls adjacent
to Skeldergate Bridge (qv) were demolished. ****-daughter
Tower 1330-40, remodelled 1645. Victoria Bar constructed 1838,
foot arches added 1864 and 1877. Micklegate Bar mid C14
incorporating early C12 gate; barbican removed 1826, inner
side remodelled by Peter Atkinson jnr. 1827; foot arches 1827
and 1863; figures carved in 1950 by R Ridley; restoration and
repairs of 1952 and 1968. North Street Postern rebuilt 1840.
Barker Tower early C14, re-roofed in C17, altered 1840,
restored 1970.
All structures of magnesian limestone ashlar except for
walkway partly carried on wall of orange-brown brick and
Victoria Bar steps of orange brick with stone treads and
cast-iron balustrade and handrail. Barker Tower has plain
tiled conical roof with overhanging eaves.

EXTERIOR: wall strengthened by squat weathered buttresses on
high bases. Wallwalk paved with stone flags edged with
chamfered coping stones; parapet part crenellated, part plain
and pierced by musket loops, with sloped coping. Towers are
semicircular, rectangular or half-hexagonal, on battered,
weathered and double chamfered plinths; some have cruciform
slits with or without oillets, some chamfered doorways with
shouldered or flat lintels, others no openings; crenellated
parapets are unpierced. Baile Hill Tower octagonal on plan;
****-daughter Tower irregular circle on plan; Barker Tower
circular on plan.

Baile Hill Tower: 2 storeys with embattled parapet. Flight of

steps to wallwalk passes through tower from foot of rampart,
through arched doorway with stilted 2-centred head. Other
openings are 3 slit lights in chamfered openings and 2 arrow
slits with oillets, one blocked.

Victoria Bar: semicircular carriage arch of 2 chamfered orders
flanked by single chamfered pedestrian arches. Incised stone
above central arch reads: Victoria Bar erected by Public
Subscription under the direction of The City Commissioners
AD1836 George Hudson Esq Lord Mayor.

Micklegate Bar: 4-storey 3-bay front: outer bays in form of
pilaster buttresses with battered bases rising into 2-storey
embattled bartizans with cruciform arrow slits. Semicircular
carriage arch incorporating portcullis slot, of 2 stepped
orders of gritstone voussoirs. First stage has narrow vertical
light over arch: in buttresses shoulder-headed doorways
originally to barbican walkway, all in chamfered openings.
Second stage has similar central light flanked by cruciform
arrow slits with oillets. Third floor has two vertical lights.
Bartizans joined by embattled parapet over lion's head
gargoyle in centre: some merlons pierced by cruciform slits.
Heraldry includes carved plaque commemorating restoration of
1727, with shield of arms of Lord Mayor Sir John Lister Kaye;
two shields of the Arms of the City of York: the Plantagenet
Royal Arms beneath a crested helm. Inner side: carriage arch
as on outer side. Each upper storey has two square-headed
windows of two pointed lights in chamfered surrounds. Corbel
course beneath plain parapet steps up over top floor windows.
Shield of Tudor Royal Arms between first floor windows.
INTERIOR: portcullis remains are stored on the first floor.

North Street Postern: rebuilt length of wall contains
4-centred carriage arch between pointed side arches of
gritstone voussoirs, all chamfered.

Barker Tower: 2 storeys on battered base: conical roof broken
by barge- boarded gable with 1-light attic window in quoined
opening. Ground floor door beneath outside stairs to first
floor has one chamfered jamb with run-out stop. Other openings
are vestigial cruciform arrow slits with oillets and two
inserted 1-pane windows. First floor doorway has plain lintel.
Embrasures of original embattled parapet converted to 1-pane
windows by altered roof: two 2x6-pane Yorkshire sashes
inserted in C18.
INTERIOR: original ground floor openings are splayed with
shouldered rere-arches recessed beneath 2-centred arches: 3
survive, 2 altered.
(An Inventory of the Historical Monuments in the City of York:
The Defences: HMSO: 1972-: 90-107).

Listing NGR: SE5968351630

Source: English Heritage

As I stated above a listed building extract below, also the city walls there are also a Scheduled monument! York council pipe dream land again making 'plans' Extract from listing: Listing Text YORK SE5951NE CITY WALLS 1112-1/15/7 City Wall from Baile Hill to Barker 14/06/54 Tower (Formerly Listed as: The City Walls) (Formerly Listed as: Micklegate Bar) (Formerly Listed as: Barker Tower and North Street Postern) GV I Includes: Barker Tower and North Street Postern NORTH STREET. Includes: Victoria Bar NUNNERY LANE. Includes: Micklegate Bar MICKLEGATE. Defensive walls, towers, gates and gatehouses between Baile Hill and Barker Tower including Baile Hill Tower, ****-daughter Tower and 15 intermediate towers, in addition to the 3 main towers. Walls 1250-60 and 1330-40; major restoration of 1831-32. Walls breached for railway arches in 1839, 1845, 1874 and 1876, latter rebuilt 1965. Baile Hill Tower 1878 when walls adjacent to Skeldergate Bridge (qv) were demolished. ****-daughter Tower 1330-40, remodelled 1645. Victoria Bar constructed 1838, foot arches added 1864 and 1877. Micklegate Bar mid C14 incorporating early C12 gate; barbican removed 1826, inner side remodelled by Peter Atkinson jnr. 1827; foot arches 1827 and 1863; figures carved in 1950 by R Ridley; restoration and repairs of 1952 and 1968. North Street Postern rebuilt 1840. Barker Tower early C14, re-roofed in C17, altered 1840, restored 1970. All structures of magnesian limestone ashlar except for walkway partly carried on wall of orange-brown brick and Victoria Bar steps of orange brick with stone treads and cast-iron balustrade and handrail. Barker Tower has plain tiled conical roof with overhanging eaves. EXTERIOR: wall strengthened by squat weathered buttresses on high bases. Wallwalk paved with stone flags edged with chamfered coping stones; parapet part crenellated, part plain and pierced by musket loops, with sloped coping. Towers are semicircular, rectangular or half-hexagonal, on battered, weathered and double chamfered plinths; some have cruciform slits with or without oillets, some chamfered doorways with shouldered or flat lintels, others no openings; crenellated parapets are unpierced. Baile Hill Tower octagonal on plan; ****-daughter Tower irregular circle on plan; Barker Tower circular on plan. Baile Hill Tower: 2 storeys with embattled parapet. Flight of steps to wallwalk passes through tower from foot of rampart, through arched doorway with stilted 2-centred head. Other openings are 3 slit lights in chamfered openings and 2 arrow slits with oillets, one blocked. Victoria Bar: semicircular carriage arch of 2 chamfered orders flanked by single chamfered pedestrian arches. Incised stone above central arch reads: Victoria Bar erected by Public Subscription under the direction of The City Commissioners AD1836 George Hudson Esq Lord Mayor. Micklegate Bar: 4-storey 3-bay front: outer bays in form of pilaster buttresses with battered bases rising into 2-storey embattled bartizans with cruciform arrow slits. Semicircular carriage arch incorporating portcullis slot, of 2 stepped orders of gritstone voussoirs. First stage has narrow vertical light over arch: in buttresses shoulder-headed doorways originally to barbican walkway, all in chamfered openings. Second stage has similar central light flanked by cruciform arrow slits with oillets. Third floor has two vertical lights. Bartizans joined by embattled parapet over lion's head gargoyle in centre: some merlons pierced by cruciform slits. Heraldry includes carved plaque commemorating restoration of 1727, with shield of arms of Lord Mayor Sir John Lister Kaye; two shields of the Arms of the City of York: the Plantagenet Royal Arms beneath a crested helm. Inner side: carriage arch as on outer side. Each upper storey has two square-headed windows of two pointed lights in chamfered surrounds. Corbel course beneath plain parapet steps up over top floor windows. Shield of Tudor Royal Arms between first floor windows. INTERIOR: portcullis remains are stored on the first floor. North Street Postern: rebuilt length of wall contains 4-centred carriage arch between pointed side arches of gritstone voussoirs, all chamfered. Barker Tower: 2 storeys on battered base: conical roof broken by barge- boarded gable with 1-light attic window in quoined opening. Ground floor door beneath outside stairs to first floor has one chamfered jamb with run-out stop. Other openings are vestigial cruciform arrow slits with oillets and two inserted 1-pane windows. First floor doorway has plain lintel. Embrasures of original embattled parapet converted to 1-pane windows by altered roof: two 2x6-pane Yorkshire sashes inserted in C18. INTERIOR: original ground floor openings are splayed with shouldered rere-arches recessed beneath 2-centred arches: 3 survive, 2 altered. (An Inventory of the Historical Monuments in the City of York: The Defences: HMSO: 1972-: 90-107). Listing NGR: SE5968351630 Source: English Heritage Listing Text YORK SE5951NE CITY WALLS 1112-1/15/7 City Wall from Baile Hill to Barker 14/06/54 Tower (Formerly Listed as: The City Walls) (Formerly Listed as: Micklegate Bar) (Formerly Listed as: Barker Tower and North Street Postern) GV I Includes: Barker Tower and North Street Postern NORTH STREET. Includes: Victoria Bar NUNNERY LANE. Includes: Micklegate Bar MICKLEGATE. Defensive walls, towers, gates and gatehouses between Baile Hill and Barker Tower including Baile Hill Tower, ****-daughter Tower and 15 intermediate towers, in addition to the 3 main towers. Walls 1250-60 and 1330-40; major restoration of 1831-32. Walls breached for railway arches in 1839, 1845, 1874 and 1876, latter rebuilt 1965. Baile Hill Tower 1878 when walls adjacent to Skeldergate Bridge (qv) were demolished. ****-daughter Tower 1330-40, remodelled 1645. Victoria Bar constructed 1838, foot arches added 1864 and 1877. Micklegate Bar mid C14 incorporating early C12 gate; barbican removed 1826, inner side remodelled by Peter Atkinson jnr. 1827; foot arches 1827 and 1863; figures carved in 1950 by R Ridley; restoration and repairs of 1952 and 1968. North Street Postern rebuilt 1840. Barker Tower early C14, re-roofed in C17, altered 1840, restored 1970. All structures of magnesian limestone ashlar except for walkway partly carried on wall of orange-brown brick and Victoria Bar steps of orange brick with stone treads and cast-iron balustrade and handrail. Barker Tower has plain tiled conical roof with overhanging eaves. EXTERIOR: wall strengthened by squat weathered buttresses on high bases. Wallwalk paved with stone flags edged with chamfered coping stones; parapet part crenellated, part plain and pierced by musket loops, with sloped coping. Towers are semicircular, rectangular or half-hexagonal, on battered, weathered and double chamfered plinths; some have cruciform slits with or without oillets, some chamfered doorways with shouldered or flat lintels, others no openings; crenellated parapets are unpierced. Baile Hill Tower octagonal on plan; ****-daughter Tower irregular circle on plan; Barker Tower circular on plan. Baile Hill Tower: 2 storeys with embattled parapet. Flight of steps to wallwalk passes through tower from foot of rampart, through arched doorway with stilted 2-centred head. Other openings are 3 slit lights in chamfered openings and 2 arrow slits with oillets, one blocked. Victoria Bar: semicircular carriage arch of 2 chamfered orders flanked by single chamfered pedestrian arches. Incised stone above central arch reads: Victoria Bar erected by Public Subscription under the direction of The City Commissioners AD1836 George Hudson Esq Lord Mayor. Micklegate Bar: 4-storey 3-bay front: outer bays in form of pilaster buttresses with battered bases rising into 2-storey embattled bartizans with cruciform arrow slits. Semicircular carriage arch incorporating portcullis slot, of 2 stepped orders of gritstone voussoirs. First stage has narrow vertical light over arch: in buttresses shoulder-headed doorways originally to barbican walkway, all in chamfered openings. Second stage has similar central light flanked by cruciform arrow slits with oillets. Third floor has two vertical lights. Bartizans joined by embattled parapet over lion's head gargoyle in centre: some merlons pierced by cruciform slits. Heraldry includes carved plaque commemorating restoration of 1727, with shield of arms of Lord Mayor Sir John Lister Kaye; two shields of the Arms of the City of York: the Plantagenet Royal Arms beneath a crested helm. Inner side: carriage arch as on outer side. Each upper storey has two square-headed windows of two pointed lights in chamfered surrounds. Corbel course beneath plain parapet steps up over top floor windows. Shield of Tudor Royal Arms between first floor windows. INTERIOR: portcullis remains are stored on the first floor. North Street Postern: rebuilt length of wall contains 4-centred carriage arch between pointed side arches of gritstone voussoirs, all chamfered. Barker Tower: 2 storeys on battered base: conical roof broken by barge- boarded gable with 1-light attic window in quoined opening. Ground floor door beneath outside stairs to first floor has one chamfered jamb with run-out stop. Other openings are vestigial cruciform arrow slits with oillets and two inserted 1-pane windows. First floor doorway has plain lintel. Embrasures of original embattled parapet converted to 1-pane windows by altered roof: two 2x6-pane Yorkshire sashes inserted in C18. INTERIOR: original ground floor openings are splayed with shouldered rere-arches recessed beneath 2-centred arches: 3 survive, 2 altered. (An Inventory of the Historical Monuments in the City of York: The Defences: HMSO: 1972-: 90-107). Listing NGR: SE5968351630 Source: English Heritage Listing Text YORK SE5951NE CITY WALLS 1112-1/15/7 City Wall from Baile Hill to Barker 14/06/54 Tower (Formerly Listed as: The City Walls) (Formerly Listed as: Micklegate Bar) (Formerly Listed as: Barker Tower and North Street Postern) GV I Includes: Barker Tower and North Street Postern NORTH STREET. Includes: Victoria Bar NUNNERY LANE. Includes: Micklegate Bar MICKLEGATE. Defensive walls, towers, gates and gatehouses between Baile Hill and Barker Tower including Baile Hill Tower, ****-daughter Tower and 15 intermediate towers, in addition to the 3 main towers. Walls 1250-60 and 1330-40; major restoration of 1831-32. Walls breached for railway arches in 1839, 1845, 1874 and 1876, latter rebuilt 1965. Baile Hill Tower 1878 when walls adjacent to Skeldergate Bridge (qv) were demolished. ****-daughter Tower 1330-40, remodelled 1645. Victoria Bar constructed 1838, foot arches added 1864 and 1877. Micklegate Bar mid C14 incorporating early C12 gate; barbican removed 1826, inner side remodelled by Peter Atkinson jnr. 1827; foot arches 1827 and 1863; figures carved in 1950 by R Ridley; restoration and repairs of 1952 and 1968. North Street Postern rebuilt 1840. Barker Tower early C14, re-roofed in C17, altered 1840, restored 1970. All structures of magnesian limestone ashlar except for walkway partly carried on wall of orange-brown brick and Victoria Bar steps of orange brick with stone treads and cast-iron balustrade and handrail. Barker Tower has plain tiled conical roof with overhanging eaves. EXTERIOR: wall strengthened by squat weathered buttresses on high bases. Wallwalk paved with stone flags edged with chamfered coping stones; parapet part crenellated, part plain and pierced by musket loops, with sloped coping. Towers are semicircular, rectangular or half-hexagonal, on battered, weathered and double chamfered plinths; some have cruciform slits with or without oillets, some chamfered doorways with shouldered or flat lintels, others no openings; crenellated parapets are unpierced. Baile Hill Tower octagonal on plan; ****-daughter Tower irregular circle on plan; Barker Tower circular on plan. Baile Hill Tower: 2 storeys with embattled parapet. Flight of steps to wallwalk passes through tower from foot of rampart, through arched doorway with stilted 2-centred head. Other openings are 3 slit lights in chamfered openings and 2 arrow slits with oillets, one blocked. Victoria Bar: semicircular carriage arch of 2 chamfered orders flanked by single chamfered pedestrian arches. Incised stone above central arch reads: Victoria Bar erected by Public Subscription under the direction of The City Commissioners AD1836 George Hudson Esq Lord Mayor. Micklegate Bar: 4-storey 3-bay front: outer bays in form of pilaster buttresses with battered bases rising into 2-storey embattled bartizans with cruciform arrow slits. Semicircular carriage arch incorporating portcullis slot, of 2 stepped orders of gritstone voussoirs. First stage has narrow vertical light over arch: in buttresses shoulder-headed doorways originally to barbican walkway, all in chamfered openings. Second stage has similar central light flanked by cruciform arrow slits with oillets. Third floor has two vertical lights. Bartizans joined by embattled parapet over lion's head gargoyle in centre: some merlons pierced by cruciform slits. Heraldry includes carved plaque commemorating restoration of 1727, with shield of arms of Lord Mayor Sir John Lister Kaye; two shields of the Arms of the City of York: the Plantagenet Royal Arms beneath a crested helm. Inner side: carriage arch as on outer side. Each upper storey has two square-headed windows of two pointed lights in chamfered surrounds. Corbel course beneath plain parapet steps up over top floor windows. Shield of Tudor Royal Arms between first floor windows. INTERIOR: portcullis remains are stored on the first floor. North Street Postern: rebuilt length of wall contains 4-centred carriage arch between pointed side arches of gritstone voussoirs, all chamfered. Barker Tower: 2 storeys on battered base: conical roof broken by barge- boarded gable with 1-light attic window in quoined opening. Ground floor door beneath outside stairs to first floor has one chamfered jamb with run-out stop. Other openings are vestigial cruciform arrow slits with oillets and two inserted 1-pane windows. First floor doorway has plain lintel. Embrasures of original embattled parapet converted to 1-pane windows by altered roof: two 2x6-pane Yorkshire sashes inserted in C18. INTERIOR: original ground floor openings are splayed with shouldered rere-arches recessed beneath 2-centred arches: 3 survive, 2 altered. (An Inventory of the Historical Monuments in the City of York: The Defences: HMSO: 1972-: 90-107). Listing NGR: SE5968351630 Source: English Heritage Kevin Turvey

Report this post »

Kevin Turvey says...
8:04am Tue 4 Sep 12

Scheduled Monuments (England)
Legacy UID: YO 30

Reference: 1004910
Name: CITY WALLS, GATES, POSTERNS (NOT INCLUDING THE SECTION FROM BOOTHAM BAR TO MONK BAR, N OF THE MINSTER, NOW PART OF NATIONAL MONUMENT NO 13280), MOATS, MOUNDS, BAYLE (OR BAILE) HILL, ST LEONARD'S HOSPITAL AND MERCHANT TAYLOR'S HALL, ALDWARK

Information taken from
http://magic.defra.g
ov.uk/website/magic/

Report this post »

roskoboskovic says...
8:34am Tue 4 Sep 12

why does some muppet always have to post such a massive piece.you must have a lot of time on your hands mr.turvey.even if at first glance these proposals may seem sensible and good for the city don t forget that this is york and if it can be cocked up it will be.

Report this post »

arg says...
9:03am Tue 4 Sep 12

To the 19 yr old athlete: wait until you can't walk far; can't afford taxis; and have to take the 5 or 6 to the station, with baggage.

Report this post »

Oncebitten says...
9:12am Tue 4 Sep 12

Mr Turvey...I miss the point of all your very good copy and pasting!! I understood in the first posting that part of the walls are preserved...

Don't believe a city should be looking to place a bus station in the centre...I cannot see any point in this most buses pass through the city....so if necessary to have a bus station(graveyard I like to call them) then outside is the place....an idea that's creates noise and pollution in the city centre seems bonkers to me.

Report this post »

Hoofarted says...
9:24am Tue 4 Sep 12

Main transport hub = York Station. Most people use Taxi's or Cars collecting them to and from this heavily congested Hub. With the Taxi's, private car's, Buses and everyday traffic passing the Station, it creates ridiculous congestion that spreads to all the city. So, a dedicated Bus station should reduce traffic from the Station front and offer another alternative to citizens and visitors by reducing the traffic.

Report this post »

GuyWithCommonSense says...
9:39am Tue 4 Sep 12

Arg, most buses go via the station anyway, it would hardly make a difference...

Report this post »

lokifromyork says...
9:41am Tue 4 Sep 12

I am all for improvement and I know that this is just a proposal but given that the CYC is looking at a £6m over spend and has to/is making cuts in its spending. Surely it is better for the CC to sort out what money it is spending (overspend) and get its books in order before it looks at spending Millions on taking out a bridge in the heart of York?
Are we not trying to teach our kids how to look after money and not get into debt in this so called double dip recession?

Report this post »

The Great Buda says...
9:59am Tue 4 Sep 12

Great idea, wrong location.

Report this post »

Zetkin says...
10:02am Tue 4 Sep 12

Whatever the sheme's merits (or otherwise), council finance and debt is not the issue, as made crystal clear in the article:

"He said the scheme might form part of a major capital programme bid for funding from a devolved transport fund which the Government was proposing to set up. “It’s a very expensive proposal, which we couldn’t fund ourselves,” he said."

I'm not sure why some people think the listed status of the nearby walls makes the scheme impossible. George Stephenson House is just as close and got through the planning process easily enough.

Report this post »

Jazzper says...
10:03am Tue 4 Sep 12

matroom wrote:
Dave merit is a clown. End of !!

He certainly looks like one....this idea and the money wasted in 'looking at it' will never get off the ground, unlike Mr Merret who has been elevated to dizzy heights by The Press on this photo

Report this post »

oldgoat says...
10:12am Tue 4 Sep 12

@Kevin Turvey.....
Instead of wasting space and energy with a badly formatted ramble from the listings, you could give us the highlights?

Queen Street bridge is far newer than the City Walls anyway, and accomodates nothing more than a useless arch from the old railway terminus. removing the bridge would be of no consequence, other than a significant disruption of a major arterial route through the city.

It sounds a good idea, especially, @PinzaC55, as (read the article!) there would be no cost to the council....

Report this post »

Yeahbutno says...
10:13am Tue 4 Sep 12

How many times has the entrance/exit to the station been altered in the last few years? Its currently worse than ever, especuially getting out via the "loop" at busy times.

So, I'd have to say that the chances of getting this, much bigger, project right are fairly minimal.

Report this post »

lis0r says...
10:18am Tue 4 Sep 12

****-daughter?

Report this post »

Saywhat says...
10:33am Tue 4 Sep 12

Why do we actually 'need' a bus station. Most buses go past the train station anyway, so what's the point of building a bus station next to it.
Use the money for an indoor-open-all-year
-round Ice Skating Rink on the outskirts instead.

Report this post »

LibDem says...
10:52am Tue 4 Sep 12

This story was first published in April (http://tinyurl.com/
Queen-Street-York). At that time there was no mention of a bus station at this precise location as the illustrations show.

Demolition of the bridge actually produces very little in the way of additional carrigeway space and certainly not enough to accommodate a bus station.

The City walls are protected as an historic monument and the Railway Station is itself Listed, meaning that what you can do in the area is limited.

If the Council hopes to bid successfully for government funding to pay for this project - which will cost around £10 million - then they will be in competition with themselves (northern by pass improvements etc), as well as other local authorities, for what is likely to be a relatively small pot of money.

Some of the other problems to be overcome would be the attitude of the rail franchise holder to losing some of their car park, the fate of the taxi ranks not to mention the reaction of the public to Labours plan to remove private transport (cars) from this section of the inner ring road.

All a bit of kite flying at this stage I'm afraid.

Report this post »

Ignatius Lumpopo says...
11:20am Tue 4 Sep 12

Keep the Queen Street bridge and send buses from the north and east along the front of the new council offices (past the railway war memorial), under it and into the present car park/new bus station area: that'll give three points of access to the bus station.

Report this post »

YSTClinguist says...
11:52am Tue 4 Sep 12

Do we really need a bus station in a city of this size? If there is less personal vehicles in the centre then the buses travelling through as it is aren't a problem. We don't really need somewhere for buses to stop for any length of time.

With the mainly unsubsidised service I think you'll find there's a lot of people who won't use the already existing buses for a number of reasons. With 'transportation' coming of the working class in York out to Selby, Tadcaster and Malton, plus the likely changes in collection of Council Tax come mid April, the workers who clean buildings, run tills, and assorted other minimum wage jobs will struggle to live or travel into York. A bus station will seem like a giant white elephant to them.

Report this post »

was york now rotherham says...
12:05pm Tue 4 Sep 12

Have cyc realy thought this through or are they dreaming, i have lived in most parts of yorkshire over my life and i could not even think on how this would work just look at the size of the one's in Leeds,Rotherham,Shef
field all these have seperate bus stations and they are big but if they want a interchanges then the ones at Hull,Barnsley and Doncaster all have theirs linked to railstation, and the size of the Doncaster one only works is because you have it incorperated in with the Frenchgate Shopping Centreand the one at Barnsley is about the size of York station and it's carpark's behind it on Leeman road and thats at a guess and Hulls is just well huge i would be well suprised if this ever went through

Report this post »

lowbeam says...
12:16pm Tue 4 Sep 12

This crops up every ten years or so,it has never happened and i suspect it never will,not in my life time anyway.
Look forward to seeing this subject again around 2022..

Report this post »

Platform9 says...
12:55pm Tue 4 Sep 12

I'm surprised no-ones commented on whats happening on the other side of the wall (the new council offices?) - nice new access link open to a waiting bus stop

Report this post »

BertieBrompton says...
1:00pm Tue 4 Sep 12

Is he cheating for Movember already?!

Report this post »

Stevie D says...
1:08pm Tue 4 Sep 12

A bus station close to the railway station would (theoretically) be a huge advantage to York, both for residents and visitors, and much better than the current mish-mash of routes running from different stops across the city centre. The problem is that it's unlikely to result in much practical benefit, for the simple reason of congestion.

Yes, I'm sure East Yorkshire would like to extend their routes that currently stop at the war memorial, and First might do the same with the 6 and the 9, but for most of the other routes that don't come near the station, it's just too far through a congested city centre. The extra 10 minutes each way that you would need to allow from Piccadilly or Exhibition Square would mean that Arriva, Transdev, Reliance and Stephensons would each need at least one extra bus just to keep the current frequencies. Are those routes going to see enough extra passengers travelling to pay for an extra vehicle and an extra driver? Almost certainly not. So, as much as it's a great idea in theory, until the city's traffic problems can be sorted out so that buses can get to the station hub in the same time that they currently need to get to Piccadilly/Ex Square, it's not going to be anywhere near as useful as it should be.

Report this post »

P3TER1 says...
2:25pm Tue 4 Sep 12

"Traffic which currently uses the bridge to progress along the inner ring road would use a new road at the lower level, with a junction allowing buses to access the interchange." This would create more traffic. Build the bus station but then build a flyover road so traffic flow is not reduced by another junction. Too many junctions in York operate independently and are not synchronised with each other on major routes to help the flow of traffic.

Report this post »

helzwash says...
2:41pm Tue 4 Sep 12

It's a good idea - Hull had a bus station built in recent years and I have to say, it is actually amazing.

However York is too small to host one I think. Most bus routes pass through the station anyway, to increase some bus routes to then include the station would just increase traffic significantly - even with it's own junction to access it.

And Traffic whilst they build this would just be unbearable - I know it's a petty argument but it really is a key link into and out of York.

I think we're too as a town to have one, I mean we're a big town for many things but in terams of actual space - I can't see it working.

Report this post »

Scarlet Pimpernel says...
3:14pm Tue 4 Sep 12

LibDem is right, it's kite flying and a distraction from the disasterous Labour mismanagement of the Council.

* Union Terrace Car Park sell off (aborted).
* Beckfield Lane tip closure.
* Litter bins.
* Care cuts.
* Housebuilding stopped through AH policy.
* Ruth Potter quits cabinet
* Sandy Fraser quits cabinet
* Lynn Jeffries leaves Labour
* Coun Crisp 'rotten apple' tweet
* Coun Crisp late disclosure of freebies
*Coun Crisp's conflict of interest with son a Blackpool Council official

It goes on and on...... !!!!!

Report this post »

Scarlet Pimpernel says...
3:19pm Tue 4 Sep 12

Sorry, forgot these:-

* MX2 'cut and shut' planning report
* LDF withdrawn at a cost of £1.1m
* Council offices completion date - delayed ?
* Open plan office proposals for 5-year old James Street Eco Centre to cost over £100,000 just to make it similar to West Offices (watch out for the expose coming soon)

Anymore, anyone ?

Report this post »

Garrowby Turnoff says...
3:36pm Tue 4 Sep 12

Addressing the farcical Tea Garden exit to the main concourse would be a good start. Why is this so difficult to correct?

Report this post »

Pedro says...
3:41pm Tue 4 Sep 12

We have lived without a bus station for this long. Why not live without one forever.

Report this post »

PKH says...
4:17pm Tue 4 Sep 12

Scarlet Pimpernel wrote:
Sorry, forgot these:-

* MX2 'cut and shut' planning report
* LDF withdrawn at a cost of £1.1m
* Council offices completion date - delayed ?
* Open plan office proposals for 5-year old James Street Eco Centre to cost over £100,000 just to make it similar to West Offices (watch out for the expose coming soon)

Anymore, anyone ?

The LDF which was created pretty much under the LibDem watch was heavily criticised by the government inspector as being not fit for purpose. It needed a major re-work to get it passed the inspector, so there was little option but to withdraw it. So on this one I would blame the LibDems.

Report this post »

PKH says...
4:20pm Tue 4 Sep 12

Garrowby Turnoff wrote:
Addressing the farcical Tea Garden exit to the main concourse would be a good start. Why is this so difficult to correct?

Because the traffic experts rely on theoretical computer models which takes no account of common sense and human behaviour.

Report this post »

Terry3 says...
4:37pm Tue 4 Sep 12

Well said Mr Turvey, at least we can see that you really care about this.. for me, I say leave well enough alone.. I was born and raised in Holgate, watched the railway station and the Nunnery burn whilst the Queen St bridge survived.
What will happen to the vista of the beautiful sweep of the Bar Walls when the bridge is removed?
Leave this area alone..York is an ancient city, and the Queen St walls are a major drawcard for the tourists.
There is nowhere in York proper that is out of reasonable walking distance anyway.

Report this post »

PositiveFootball says...
4:57pm Tue 4 Sep 12

No mention of consulting the residents on Queen Street!

Report this post »

ouseswimmer says...
4:58pm Tue 4 Sep 12

If they knock the wall down too then they'll have lots more space!

Report this post »

PinzaC55 says...
5:06pm Tue 4 Sep 12

"Coun Merrett added original proposals to build a new access road from the Queen Street bridge into the proposed York Central redevelopment site had been abandoned some time ago."

How much money was wasted on those abandoned proposals and how much money will be wasted on this?

Report this post »

Caecilius says...
5:15pm Tue 4 Sep 12

Terry3 wrote:
Well said Mr Turvey, at least we can see that you really care about this.. for me, I say leave well enough alone.. I was born and raised in Holgate, watched the railway station and the Nunnery burn whilst the Queen St bridge survived. What will happen to the vista of the beautiful sweep of the Bar Walls when the bridge is removed? Leave this area alone..York is an ancient city, and the Queen St walls are a major drawcard for the tourists. There is nowhere in York proper that is out of reasonable walking distance anyway.

So it would make perfect sense to ban private vehicles within the city walls, unless they're owned by people who actually live there.

Report this post »

TERRIER3 says...
5:17pm Tue 4 Sep 12

GuyWithCommonSense wrote:
What a waste of money. York is a tiny city really, everywhere is connected ENOUGH. Having a bus station there will mean more traffic lights and blossom street/nunnery lane already have pretty bad traffic during the day.

I will genuinely be saddened if this goes ahead, not needed at all! Also, bus stations always look tacky, dirty mini industrial estates. Do we really want that to be tourists first impression of York? This is probably only happening to create more money for the private bus companies in York. complete bull.

Oh, and before any of you start judging me, I'm 19 and am constantly travelling around all parts of York using public transport and driving but mostly cycling as it's quickest.

how would the bus companys make more money because the council built a bus station? are you saying that all the buses that go to the station at the moment would somehow make more money because there is a new bus station...please explain cos you have got me with that one?

Report this post »

TERRIER3 says...
5:20pm Tue 4 Sep 12

york_chap wrote:
This might be a good idea if it were to lead to a better distribution of buses across the city. The current set up of 10 buses an hour in some suburbs and only 1 or 2 per hour in others doesn't encourage people to use public transport.

the ones that only have 1 or 2 an hour are because nobody used them in the first place, the routes where there is a bus every 10 mins is because lots of people use them, although i must admit the 10 service should be every 20 mins like it used to be, its standing room only a lot of the time....

Report this post »

Bloater says...
5:31pm Tue 4 Sep 12

The bridge no longer serves a useful purpose. It is an eyesore, will be expensive to maintain in years to come, and if it were not there nobody would be suggesting putting one in. Unfortunately, removing it will not only cost a lot of money but the process will cause enormous disruption to traffic in the city for many weeks.
Sooner or later it will have to be done, so why not plan now, and think of the positive value to be gained from its passing?

Report this post »

york_chap says...
6:06pm Tue 4 Sep 12

BertieBrompton wrote:
Is he cheating for Movember already?!

The 1980's have clearly just arrived in Cllr. Dave land. Hurrah!

Report this post »

RoseD says...
6:08pm Tue 4 Sep 12

PinzaC55 wrote:
York Press last week "York Council 6 million debt". This story "the multi-million pound proposal". I sometimes feel I have wandered into a parallel Universe living in York.

*cue Twilight Zone music*

Report this post »

PinzaC55 says...
6:13pm Tue 4 Sep 12

Just wondering , since the arch in the wall gave access to the original railway station, does this have anything to do with giving the council a nice new access road into their car park?

Report this post »

PKH says...
7:16pm Tue 4 Sep 12

TERRIER3 wrote:

york_chap wrote:
This might be a good idea if it were to lead to a better distribution of buses across the city. The current set up of 10 buses an hour in some suburbs and only 1 or 2 per hour in others doesn't encourage people to use public transport.
the ones that only have 1 or 2 an hour are because nobody used them in the first place, the routes where there is a bus every 10 mins is because lots of people use them, although i must admit the 10 service should be every 20 mins like it used to be, its standing room only a lot of the time....

One of the reason nobody uses them is that even if there is only 2 a hour, it is not unusual to see 2 or 3 in convoy, meaning people could have had to wait well over a hour for a bus, I am sure if they were more reliable more people would use the buses.

Report this post »

pedalling paul says...
7:29pm Tue 4 Sep 12

At Leeds, the existing station frontage was given over to a public transport interchange, while a new car served entrance was created elsewhere.
If York Central kicks off, might there be scopo to do a similar split, using with the "Leeman Road/NRM " side of the station site?

Report this post »

oldgoat says...
8:53pm Tue 4 Sep 12

Scarlet Pimpernel wrote:
Sorry, forgot these:-

* MX2 'cut and shut' planning report
* LDF withdrawn at a cost of £1.1m
* Council offices completion date - delayed ?
* Open plan office proposals for 5-year old James Street Eco Centre to cost over £100,000 just to make it similar to West Offices (watch out for the expose coming soon)

Anymore, anyone ?

Um, how is the 'delayed' completion of the Council offices the fault of anyone other than the builders?
They always end up months behind, when the sub contractor messes up or stuff turns up a week late......

Report this post »

Scarlet Pimpernel says...
10:51pm Tue 4 Sep 12

oldgoat wrote:

Scarlet Pimpernel wrote:
Sorry, forgot these:-

* MX2 'cut and shut' planning report
* LDF withdrawn at a cost of £1.1m
* Council offices completion date - delayed ?
* Open plan office proposals for 5-year old James Street Eco Centre to cost over £100,000 just to make it similar to West Offices (watch out for the expose coming soon)

Anymore, anyone ?
Um, how is the 'delayed' completion of the Council offices the fault of anyone other than the builders?
They always end up months behind, when the sub contractor messes up or stuff turns up a week late......

Some delays are caused by clients; who either can't make decisions quickly enough, or change their minds. If delays are by the contractor then there are usually no cost consequences. We will have to wait and see what the causes of the delays are, and if the budget is not exceeded...... ? !!!

Report this post »

Daley Mayall says...
11:36pm Tue 4 Sep 12

I'll only believe something like this will happen when the proposed community stadium at Monks Cross finally gets built.

Report this post »

Jiffy says...
12:14pm Wed 5 Sep 12

"At Leeds, the existing station frontage was given over to a public transport interchange, while a new car served entrance was created elsewhere.
If York Central kicks off, might there be scopo to do a similar split, using with the "Leeman Road/NRM " side of the station site" Pedalling Paul:

Firstly, York Central will never happen but if it were to, what a great idea to channel all non bus vehicles though an alledgedly already over polluted residential area with 2 low bridges.
Do you intend redirecting the dangerous & speeding bendy park & ride buses all take a different route other than Leeman Rd to get to their destinations, then great but how about the buses needed by many residents in the area to get them about would theses services be stopped?
Better still, why not abandon all vehicles at clifton bridge, turn all housing & the flood plain into a car park & everybody must cycle if they wish to go any further. Happy!!!
And how about the people who live on Queen Street, must they no longer be able to have cars but have to live next to a stinking polluting noisy bus station
Try thinking about residential areas other than just your own before making such comments - Leeds had no such issues York has and funnelling yet more traffic onto an already busy residential road is not the answer!

Report this post »

emmab809 says...
1:46pm Wed 5 Sep 12

no need for this ridicoulus idea of a bus station most buses pass through the station and if they dont they go onto rougier street i rely on oublic transport because dont drive and it is horrendous as it is

Report this post »

emmab809 says...
2:18pm Wed 5 Sep 12

emmab809 wrote:
no need for this ridicoulus idea of a bus station most buses pass through the station and if they dont they go onto rougier street i rely on oublic transport because dont drive and it is horrendous as it is

public

Report this post »

bagnall1928@yahoo.com says...
6:22pm Wed 5 Sep 12

York has always had traffic congestion problems at peak times, race meetings, etc.
Traffic flows even if slowly at times.
Perhaps staggering start and leaving times at the big firms might help.
Even a 15 minute difference might help. My family lived on Blossom Street in the 1930s and worked there too, there was always a build up at work starting and leaving times, plus race meetings etc.
If there was a cut through from holgate in some way it might help.
What of some of the railway lines near the carriage works on Poppleton Road area. they lead into York I think.
With some thought and consultation it shouldnt be beyond the bounds of
probability to find enough land to create a new road into the area near to the station.

Report this post »

GuyWithCommonSense says...
7:42pm Wed 5 Sep 12

TERRIER3 wrote:

GuyWithCommonSense wrote:
What a waste of money. York is a tiny city really, everywhere is connected ENOUGH. Having a bus station there will mean more traffic lights and blossom street/nunnery lane already have pretty bad traffic during the day.

I will genuinely be saddened if this goes ahead, not needed at all! Also, bus stations always look tacky, dirty mini industrial estates. Do we really want that to be tourists first impression of York? This is probably only happening to create more money for the private bus companies in York. complete bull.

Oh, and before any of you start judging me, I'm 19 and am constantly travelling around all parts of York using public transport and driving but mostly cycling as it's quickest.
how would the bus companys make more money because the council built a bus station? are you saying that all the buses that go to the station at the moment would somehow make more money because there is a new bus station...please explain cos you have got me with that one?

Well I hardly see a central bus station losing the likes of 'First York' any money... It would obviously increase the number of visitors coming into York station using the bus instead of getting a lift/taxi (which I'm not saying is an overly bad thing regarding the environment etc...) which I'm sure could potentially have a knock on affect to the public somehow in other areas (ie, taxi fares rising)

Still, my main points are as follows;

1: A bus station would be extremely 'Ugly' in such a beautiful city.

2:There's no real demand for a bus station as 90% of buses go to the station/Station Rise/Rougier St anyway... all within a few moments walk

Report this post »

GuyWithCommonSense says...
7:44pm Wed 5 Sep 12

helzwash wrote:
It's a good idea - Hull had a bus station built in recent years and I have to say, it is actually amazing.

However York is too small to host one I think. Most bus routes pass through the station anyway, to increase some bus routes to then include the station would just increase traffic significantly - even with it's own junction to access it.

And Traffic whilst they build this would just be unbearable - I know it's a petty argument but it really is a key link into and out of York.

I think we're too as a town to have one, I mean we're a big town for many things but in terams of actual space - I can't see it working.

Thank you! It's good to see somebody else who realises this...

Report this post »

voodoocol says...
11:00pm Wed 5 Sep 12

1. There is not enough room for a bus station here even without the bridge.
2. The surrounding road network would be crippled during any building work.
3. The surrounding road network would be crippled after any building work.
4. It would look awful, and destroy the first impression of York which is fairly amazing compared that of most "city" centre rail stations.

Terrible idea, however laudable the intent may be.

Report this post »

PinzaC55 says...
11:36pm Wed 5 Sep 12

I'm not sure the intent is actually laudable. Instead of doing the things they are supposed to do - emptying bins and keeping the streets clean - the council (and previous councils) seems to lurch from one grandiose scheme to another. Maybe they should get a hobby to while away the hours in their new offices? A train set maybe?

Report this post »

Magicman! says...
12:19am Thu 6 Sep 12

Bus stations DON'T have to be ugly. Go to Harrogate and take a look at their bus station.... and Harrogate town centre is tiny yet they managed to squeeze a bus station in that also has a layover space.

In York we currently have the East Yorkshire X46 and X4 routes which, after crossing Ouse Bridge, turn into Skeldergate, then wait for ages at the other end until somebody finally lets the bus pull out, so it turns right to the Nunnery Lane gyratory to head along Nunnery Lane and into Queen Street so as to be facing the right direction for the return working; in a similar manner, Transdev's Unibus route 44 terminates at the station but then has to go both ways along Nunnery Lane in order to turn around, and the time taken in so doing requires an extra bus on the route - with a bus station utilising sawtooth bays the buses can turn around at the station, thus saving about 8-10 minutes for the 44 and up to 15 minutes for the X4 and X46.
In current circumstances, Reliance services such as the 40 which terminate at Exhibition Square (and to a lesser extent the 30, and Stephensons' 31, but these use Leeman Road) and Arriva's 415/6 and 42 probably wouldn't be able to extend to the bus station and keep a reliabe service.... the reason is the same reason why the 16 terminates at Station Road: too many cars in the city centre. There was a proposal ages ago to make Lendal Bridge a bus only route - if this happened then Reliance would be able to extend to the bus station. Arriva's 415/6 is a regular service and so extending wouldn't put the timetable out of sequence, but as has been mentioned would likely require one additional vehicle and driver. But bear in mind that during the day there can be an Arriva 415/6 bus parked up in Piccadilly for up to 15 minutes between duties... and this is easily enough time to get to the station. The 42 also has a fair amount of waiting time at York.
The main issue though remains the sheer volume of car traffic coming right to the city walls. Why? why do these cars all have to come right into the city centre? One reason being the A1237 not allowing enough capacity for orbital journeys to take place between (as an example) Acomb and Monks Cross. But another reason being possible capacity reductions on other roads.... whilst not directly affecting the station area, reducing Field Lane in Heslington to one lane of traffic at Windmill Lane has no purpose but to reduce capacity, increase pollution, and cause annoyance - and there are likely other areas where similar setups are in place. We then have to think about other ways of distributing the traffic - the key distributor needs to be between the Tadcaster Road entrance to the city and the Fulford Road corridor. Nunnery Lane already is at capacity for a lot of the afternoon heading eastbound, and westbound is at capacity for most of the day... one cause of this is the junction with Clifford Street, as traffic lights have to go red because traffic is going in and out of Clifford Street having been or about to go through that area of the city centre and over Ouse Bridge: but what if we cut that route out? If you make Clifford Street an 'access only' road for deliveries and buses only (with rising bollards near the current pedestrian crossing, and then the traffic lane for clifford street at the castle mills junction being sensor controlled so it only changes when there is a vehicle waiting), you then push all that traffic through the Nunnery lane corridor and thus reduce the need for a red traffic light for vehicles coming off Skeldergate Bridge and heading to castle mills bridge (and if a Piccadilly redevelopment went ahead with a shopping mall that had parking on the roof, the castle car park would be closed and all car parking go to piccadilly) and so traffic would be more constant so queues would not be an issue as traffic would be more or less uninhibited from getting a green light to turn right at Blossom Street right the way through to the Barbican centre.
The only other idea is a new orbital road from somewhere like the Knavesmire over the river to Fulford Broadway, which isn't likely, but would give a route from taddy road right the way across to hull road and by extension Malton Road.

It is car traffic that is the main prohibiting factor to a bus station: to get a good sized bus station would reduce carriageway space, so ideally the road between the Blossom Street junction and Leeman Road needs to be for station access only, with traffic somehow directed into the car park in two lanes so a car from blossom street cannot go along and do a u-turn to get out to the leeman road end. There is currently a semi-abandoned warehouse type building behind the Bridge WMC which has little use but is taking up space that could be used for a 2-storey car park, which when built would shift car parking space a bit further back without reducing capacity. the the small industrial garage next to the bridge can be demolished to open the space up to fit a bus station in. The current road alignment only has the space between it and the city walls due to the requirement for bridge abutments - remove the bridge and theres no abutments so the road can be slewed closer to the walls (probably by up to 5 meters, take a look at how close the brick built bus shelter is to the city walls, as that would be the likely line the road could be built to). With buses using a seperate bus station, the bus stops outside the train station dissappear and the space can then be used by waiting taxis which would all park up on the station side of the road. It's not an impossible feat, but needs thinking through properly as part of a larger management system and not just a localised building project.

During the building a lot of bus routes would be disrupted, as there would be a period of at least a few days where the road has to be completely closed. Buses don't currently use Micklegate for two reasons: (1) size, double decker buses cannot fit; (2) revenue, as buses get more revenue serving the station than using micklegate. Given that full sized single deck buses did, until about 2008, use the arches at Castle Howard, single deck vehicle would, with great care, get through the arches at Micklegate bar - but traffic light phasing would have to be altered, taking time off Queen Street to extend the green time for Micklegate. Car parking on Micklegate could be staggered or moved to Tanner Row to free up road width on Micklegate (or if parking cannot be moved, have a one way system with traffic from Ouse Bridge going up Fetter Lane and Bishophill Junior then Priory Street to join Micklegate, with citybound traffic going straight down micklegate - and the bollard on Lower Priory Street could be temporarily removed to allow local access)... then First could borrow some ex-london bendybuses to replace double deckers on the 1 and 4 services temporarily whilst micklegate has to be used, whilst Coastliner double deckers would have to either terminate in York with passengers changing to single deckers for onward travel, or run via Skeldergate and Nunnery Lane (possibly with sensor-controlled temporary lights at the Skeldergate bridge end of Skeldergate so that when a bus is detected the lights let it pull out).

It's not impossible.

The Inner Ring Road, in most places, is too far in now and is bringing traffic too far into the historical city centre. Queen Street should be seen as a bus lane (station street in Leeds is pretty much), with traffic wanting to to from Acomb area to Wigginton Road area using Water End, with a re-aligned junction taking up a few meters of 'village green' at the underused side skewing Water End to be opposite Water Lane so both road go green together and thus doubling the green light time without extending red time for the A19 - then changing priorities so traffic goes straight onto Kingsway North using a one way system either side of the central grass (allowing lane 1 for car parking and lane 2 for traffic) and continuing into Burton green which is extended to connect onto Wigginton Road. Because Museum Street would be closed to traffic, there'd be less traffic backing up from Gillygate and Clarence street.... which could also become citybound only (only public transport being allowed to contraflow) and the same extending to Bootham with only buses and local residents going beyond the scarborough railway line... essentially it'd be a giant gyratory. That way you can sever off Museum Street and Queen Street from the inner ring road.

Bus stations DON'T have to be ugly. Go to Harrogate and take a look at their bus station.... and Harrogate town centre is tiny yet they managed to squeeze a bus station in that also has a layover space. In York we currently have the East Yorkshire X46 and X4 routes which, after crossing Ouse Bridge, turn into Skeldergate, then wait for ages at the other end until somebody finally lets the bus pull out, so it turns right to the Nunnery Lane gyratory to head along Nunnery Lane and into Queen Street so as to be facing the right direction for the return working; in a similar manner, Transdev's Unibus route 44 terminates at the station but then has to go both ways along Nunnery Lane in order to turn around, and the time taken in so doing requires an extra bus on the route - with a bus station utilising sawtooth bays the buses can turn around at the station, thus saving about 8-10 minutes for the 44 and up to 15 minutes for the X4 and X46. In current circumstances, Reliance services such as the 40 which terminate at Exhibition Square (and to a lesser extent the 30, and Stephensons' 31, but these use Leeman Road) and Arriva's 415/6 and 42 probably wouldn't be able to extend to the bus station and keep a reliabe service.... the reason is the same reason why the 16 terminates at Station Road: too many cars in the city centre. There was a proposal ages ago to make Lendal Bridge a bus only route - if this happened then Reliance would be able to extend to the bus station. Arriva's 415/6 is a regular service and so extending wouldn't put the timetable out of sequence, but as has been mentioned would likely require one additional vehicle and driver. But bear in mind that during the day there can be an Arriva 415/6 bus parked up in Piccadilly for up to 15 minutes between duties... and this is easily enough time to get to the station. The 42 also has a fair amount of waiting time at York. The main issue though remains the sheer volume of car traffic coming right to the city walls. Why? why do these cars all have to come right into the city centre? One reason being the A1237 not allowing enough capacity for orbital journeys to take place between (as an example) Acomb and Monks Cross. But another reason being possible capacity reductions on other roads.... whilst not directly affecting the station area, reducing Field Lane in Heslington to one lane of traffic at Windmill Lane has no purpose but to reduce capacity, increase pollution, and cause annoyance - and there are likely other areas where similar setups are in place. We then have to think about other ways of distributing the traffic - the key distributor needs to be between the Tadcaster Road entrance to the city and the Fulford Road corridor. Nunnery Lane already is at capacity for a lot of the afternoon heading eastbound, and westbound is at capacity for most of the day... one cause of this is the junction with Clifford Street, as traffic lights have to go red because traffic is going in and out of Clifford Street having been or about to go through that area of the city centre and over Ouse Bridge: but what if we cut that route out? If you make Clifford Street an 'access only' road for deliveries and buses only (with rising bollards near the current pedestrian crossing, and then the traffic lane for clifford street at the castle mills junction being sensor controlled so it only changes when there is a vehicle waiting), you then push all that traffic through the Nunnery lane corridor and thus reduce the need for a red traffic light for vehicles coming off Skeldergate Bridge and heading to castle mills bridge (and if a Piccadilly redevelopment went ahead with a shopping mall that had parking on the roof, the castle car park would be closed and all car parking go to piccadilly) and so traffic would be more constant so queues would not be an issue as traffic would be more or less uninhibited from getting a green light to turn right at Blossom Street right the way through to the Barbican centre. The only other idea is a new orbital road from somewhere like the Knavesmire over the river to Fulford Broadway, which isn't likely, but would give a route from taddy road right the way across to hull road and by extension Malton Road. It is car traffic that is the main prohibiting factor to a bus station: to get a good sized bus station would reduce carriageway space, so ideally the road between the Blossom Street junction and Leeman Road needs to be for station access only, with traffic somehow directed into the car park in two lanes so a car from blossom street cannot go along and do a u-turn to get out to the leeman road end. There is currently a semi-abandoned warehouse type building behind the Bridge WMC which has little use but is taking up space that could be used for a 2-storey car park, which when built would shift car parking space a bit further back without reducing capacity. the the small industrial garage next to the bridge can be demolished to open the space up to fit a bus station in. The current road alignment only has the space between it and the city walls due to the requirement for bridge abutments - remove the bridge and theres no abutments so the road can be slewed closer to the walls (probably by up to 5 meters, take a look at how close the brick built bus shelter is to the city walls, as that would be the likely line the road could be built to). With buses using a seperate bus station, the bus stops outside the train station dissappear and the space can then be used by waiting taxis which would all park up on the station side of the road. It's not an impossible feat, but needs thinking through properly as part of a larger management system and not just a localised building project. During the building a lot of bus routes would be disrupted, as there would be a period of at least a few days where the road has to be completely closed. Buses don't currently use Micklegate for two reasons: (1) size, double decker buses cannot fit; (2) revenue, as buses get more revenue serving the station than using micklegate. Given that full sized single deck buses did, until about 2008, use the arches at Castle Howard, single deck vehicle would, with great care, get through the arches at Micklegate bar - but traffic light phasing would have to be altered, taking time off Queen Street to extend the green time for Micklegate. Car parking on Micklegate could be staggered or moved to Tanner Row to free up road width on Micklegate (or if parking cannot be moved, have a one way system with traffic from Ouse Bridge going up Fetter Lane and Bishophill Junior then Priory Street to join Micklegate, with citybound traffic going straight down micklegate - and the bollard on Lower Priory Street could be temporarily removed to allow local access)... then First could borrow some ex-london bendybuses to replace double deckers on the 1 and 4 services temporarily whilst micklegate has to be used, whilst Coastliner double deckers would have to either terminate in York with passengers changing to single deckers for onward travel, or run via Skeldergate and Nunnery Lane (possibly with sensor-controlled temporary lights at the Skeldergate bridge end of Skeldergate so that when a bus is detected the lights let it pull out). It's not impossible. The Inner Ring Road, in most places, is too far in now and is bringing traffic too far into the historical city centre. Queen Street should be seen as a bus lane (station street in Leeds is pretty much), with traffic wanting to to from Acomb area to Wigginton Road area using Water End, with a re-aligned junction taking up a few meters of 'village green' at the underused side skewing Water End to be opposite Water Lane so both road go green together and thus doubling the green light time without extending red time for the A19 - then changing priorities so traffic goes straight onto Kingsway North using a one way system either side of the central grass (allowing lane 1 for car parking and lane 2 for traffic) and continuing into Burton green which is extended to connect onto Wigginton Road. Because Museum Street would be closed to traffic, there'd be less traffic backing up from Gillygate and Clarence street.... which could also become citybound only (only public transport being allowed to contraflow) and the same extending to Bootham with only buses and local residents going beyond the scarborough railway line... essentially it'd be a giant gyratory. That way you can sever off Museum Street and Queen Street from the inner ring road. Magicman!

Report this post »

Nobendy4me says...
4:46pm Thu 6 Sep 12

Isn't it time York considered the monorail?

Report this post »

Thunderblade says...
12:10am Fri 7 Sep 12

So if this was to come to fruition can you imagine the Scenario:-
Merrit will want to cover it in green tarmac, Simpson-Lang will be wanting 25% affordable housing on the the site, Semlyn will be arguing the buses must have a man with a red flag walking in front of them.

Report this post »

rodney'sdog says...
5:30pm Fri 7 Sep 12

What a **** idea. Destroy a massive porion of Yorks architectural heritage so we have a totally pointless bus station. This is York not Leeds or Manchester and we dont even have a bus service people can afford(therefore massively reduced off peak usage) to justify even thinking about this idea.
Another Carbuncle on the face of this marvellous City!

Report this post »

the butler says...
4:53am Sat 8 Sep 12

Why is it that no plan of timing, duration or where the materials will be stored while this weird plan is brought forward to actuality. Also the value in the ultimate use of this hairbrained scheme, I seem to be missing out on Councillor Merritt 's enthusiasm.

Report this post »

its-a-secret says...
2:42pm Sat 8 Sep 12

So another idea from City Of York Council, no doubt after spending millions of pounds on consultants, designers, inquiries, more consultants and probably a further inquiry they will decide its not going to work.
York doesnt have a real need for a Bus Station, it has no were viable to put one, nor do we have the infastructure to have one, maybe if they spent the money to improve the Public Transport in and around york then people would use the buses however whenever i see the buses they are usually only quarter full (if that)

Report this post »

@yorkpress

The Press, York

York bridge could be demolished to make way for bus station (From York Press)

News RSS Feed Send your news, pictures & videos

York's Queen Street bridge could be demolished to make way for bus station

click2find

Jobs

Dating

Homes

Cars

About cookies