Comments on: Going for a spin over Lendal Bridge /2

By: Carol

Carol — Thu, 12 Dec 2013 20:15:08 +0000

While I appreciate the huge problems this causes for the taxpayers of York I fail to see any benefits to visitors. ‘Come to York and pay £30/60/90 for the privilege’ is not conducive to anyone, the visitor attractions are already quite expensive without the added highway robbery for anyone innocently using the inner ring road to get from the north to the south side of the river. I can vouch for quite a few people who will not be visiting again and certainly one frequent visitor in the process of setting up a business who will taking his clients elsewhere.

By: YorkStories

YorkStories — Fri, 15 Nov 2013 20:55:02 +0000

Thanks for your comment Kelly. I don’t think it’s fair on you at all, and the increased fuel costs is something I was wondering about too.

By: Kelly

Kelly — Wed, 13 Nov 2013 20:45:21 +0000

I am a nurse living in North York and working in West York, the fastest (approx 25 mins) and most fuel-economical route for me is to go via Lendal Bridge, due to shift start/finish times I now have to go via the Barbican and through Foss Islands or Heworth/Tang Hall. It now takes me nearly an hour and most of this is the congestion at Blossom Street/Skeldergate Bridge/Walmgate Bar. The petrol stations must be selling more! The only plus is that the buses through my village seem to be running on time for once.

By: YorkStories

YorkStories — Tue, 03 Sep 2013 20:52:31 +0000

I’m glad you mentioned the suggestion I’ve also seen that it may end up being a 7am-7pm ban - and if so it’s hard to see how the current trial will provide relevant information. There are so many aspects of it which don’t make sense, which is why I feel I’ve turned from being open-minded when it was first suggested to feeling completely cynical about it all.

Thanks for your comment and insight. I really am interested in how other people are seeing all this, and also in the impact it’s having on other roads. The impression I’m getting from Press comments and Twitter is that other roads are more congested. Which means York residents have more pollution outside their homes.

By: Gwen Swinburn

Gwen Swinburn — Mon, 02 Sep 2013 21:25:45 +0000

Lisa

Your comments are measured and thoughtful as always. Thank you.
It seems to me that so much of this upset could have been avoided if the City Council had been open and said they were going to trial closure anyway but that they would work with the citizens on monitoring criteria and success and fail targets. If we as a community had contributed to these measures and targets, and if the council had opened a new portal where we could all see the trends in the metrics and give open comments- I can’t help but feel that this would have made the whole exercise more palatable.

Like you I don’t need to drive across the bridge often, and in my heart of hearts I would like it to work - but not at the expense of the residential areas where York taxpayers live.

Without proper published metrics I am afraid I have lost confidence and trust in the Council to deliver a fair resolution to this trial.

I agree with the growing sentiment that the council is prioritising visitors against us residents, seen also in the recent no alcohol zone where street drinking is now pushed out to the residential areas, especially the social housing estates.

So I feel that the Council could have saved themselves a lot of hassle if they had engaged properly, worked WITH citizens to set up performance metrics BEFORE the trial started. But we are where we are and I fear that the commentators are right, whatever the result of the 10.30 - 5.00 trial, the 7-7 plan will be implemented. Now, I bet you are all thinking, if they want to do a 7-7 ban, then why pilot a 10.30 -5? We know the answer:(