Caution needed on Lendal Bridge ban

When this particular idea (one of a number down the years) was first mooted in 2011, I made generally positive noises, but with some notes of caution. Now it’s back and due for a trial this summer I’m still prepared to be open-minded, but if anything I feel a little more cautious than before.

Part of the reason lies not in the proposals but in the words council leaders used to introduce them. Apart from the appalling phrase “public realm”, which means nothing to most people outside local government, I was struck by their suggestion that this scheme was designed to make the city centre more amenable to pedestrians.

As a pedestrian myself, I’d just point out that this proposal would not remove all vehicles from the bridge; buses and taxis would remain. We won’t know until the trial whether traffic levels will drop elsewhere in the city centre or drivers will simply use other routes.

Furthermore, part of the idea is that the remaining vehicles would be able to “run more freely”, to quote a bus company boss. You might find it odd that council bosses are happy to let some vehicles run more freely in one part of the city while extolling the virtues of slowing other vehicles down in other areas, but I’ll return to that issue.

For the time being, suffice it to say that while removing a large proportion of the traffic might have many benefits, including better air quality, it won’t create an entirely pedestrian-friendly environment on the bridge itself.

After all, one of the benefits of congestion is that it often brings traffic to a complete halt, which in my view is preferable for those intent on crossing a road than even slow-moving vehicles.

I can understand politicians accentuating the positive points in their plans rather than simply saying they’re going to ban private vehicles (which, let’s be honest, is what’s proposed), but I hope they won’t start believing their own publicity and thinking they’re doing great things for pedestrians.

If they want to help pedestrians – and I think they should – they should pay some attention to existing crossings and traffic lights, including those where the signals are unclear or there seems little time to cross.

I believe they should also create more city-centre spaces where visitors and locals alike are confident they can wander freely without fear of being confronted by cars, delivery vans, buses, taxis, bicycles and even skateboards.

This could be done in a few relatively small areas. I happen to think Fossgate would be a good candidate for this – but Lendal Bridge clearly would not, so I don’t oppose allowing buses and taxis there.

It may also be that shifting most vehicles from the bridge would make travel more pleasant and safer for cyclists, so that’s another good reason for the trial.

But it must be a genuine one, in which the council takes notice of the changes’ impact (including possible traffic problems elsewhere in York) and the consultation responses, rather than simply claiming they support what’s already been decided.

It’s no accident that previous schemes mooted for Lendal Bridge came to nothing; the issues became too complicated and controversial. Our leaders should proceed like good drivers using the bridge – with caution.

• SINCE I’ve mentioned consultation on transport issues, I find myself almost inevitably returning to the council’s ongoing campaign to impose blanket 20mph zones on the city.

To briefly reiterate my position, I have no problem with using speed limit cuts where appropriate to address identifiable safety problems, or where residents have asked for them. But to impose them on a city-wide basis without either evidence of a city-wide safety problem or popular support seems to me entirely wrong.

The council is supposed to be contacting people in parts of west York about the next stage of the process, so please make sure you respond, whatever your views.

Don’t allow apathy to dictate how this ends.