Car park size reduced

The Council, has decided to remove 100 car parking spaces from the Marygate car park. The spaces are those located near to the railway line.

The Council says that, by removing this row of parked cars, pedestrians and cyclists will be able to “social distance” more easily.

That may be so but there are other “pinch points” on this route not least the relatively narrow tunnel under the railway line which links to Bootham Terrace.

What is surprising about this and other ideas aimed at countering virus risks is that it has taken the authority as long as 10 weeks to bring them forward.

It then makes a unheralded announcement without any consultation.

The car park is likely to become progressively busier as shoppers and workers return to the beleaguered City centre.

The lack of an holistic plan to sustain the local economy is becoming a real worry for some businesses.

9 thoughts on “Car park size reduced

  1. Clive Matthews says:

    As a York resident who uses this route regularly I make the following comments. This is a very popular walking and cycling route to the City and hospital, more so since improvements to Scarborough Rail Bridge. The long fenced in section alongside the car park is no more than 2 metres wide. It was congested prior to lockdown. It does not allow social distancing due to it’s constraints. The tunnel you mention does allow distancing, it’s short and easy to wait for others to clear it. CYC have coned off by my count 70 spaces of Marygate Car Park to allow much needed space to this route. This is temporary to deal with an emergency. Currently, space is not an issue in the car park.
    Looking to the future, our Government have told UK LAs to improve facilities for pedestrians and cyclists. Their reasoning is that the benefits of future social distancing and improved air quality will protect us from further problems in the future. Of course, not everyone can or will cycle. Currently around 11% of York commuters and shoppers cycle and a similar number walk. The signs are that this will increase. Every person who chooses active travel benefits the entire community, better air, improved health, less congestion and increased spend in local shops (according to various studies).
    Please support active travel in York. It will take some space away from cars, but it will also make more space for those who must drive.

    • There is an alternative which loses only one car parking space but allows cyclists to use the car park roads.
      The tunnel is 2 metres wide and has obstructed sight lines.
      The path is partly impeded by overgrowth. Trimming that hedge back should be the first step.

      • Clive Matthews says:

        I certainly agree that a permanent solution could be achieved without the loss of many spaces. I however have concerns about using the car park roads, particularly for children. Reversing vehicles do not always see small ones. Certainly the trimming of hedges here and in many other areas would be a benefit. I note that the first 5 car parking spaces are shorter than the rest. I believe that they are the correct length. If the low barrier was straightened along the length of the car park, it would offer better space to peds and cyclists without loosing a single parking space.
        I believe we should embrace increased active travel, it offers so many benefits to our City and to commerce, see; https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/509587/value-of-cycling.pdf
        This shouldn’t be at the cost of other transport users. The carrot is surprisingly juicy!

        • Cyclist, pedestrians and vehicles mingle at the southern end of the bridge, (Station short stay car park) without mishap although turnover is higher than at Marygate.
          Simplest & quickest solution is simply to take out the section of fence opposite the northern bridge cycle lane exit (and cut the hedge!). Some pedestrian are already hoping over the fence and walking through the car park.

          • Clive Matthews says:

            All true, but, cycling through the short stay carpark is not for the faint hearted. It is not somewhere that would encourage family cycling. It is not a ‘good practice’ example worth carrying forward. Where ever motor vehicles mix with pedestrians and bicycles, cyclists and pedestrians are placed at some risk. Segregation simply removes this risk. It can’t be always achieved. Here it will be.

  2. John Bibby says:

    Looking forward, can we consider a two storey car park here.?
    Then we can have
    1. Less parking at the station and a REAL bus interchange at Platform 3
    2. Level rooftop access to Scarborough Bridge

    • Possibly although multi storey car parks are every expensive (in excess of £10 million). Council is already committed to borrowing to fund a £560 million capital; programme. It will hit its borrowing ceiling sooner rather than later as a result of the pandemic.

  3. Nicola Normandale says:

    How do you think the motorists are going to get to their shops without needing paths they can socially distance on – fly? People will not drive to the city and park if they don’t feel they can then get around safely.

    As for the argument that the tunnel is a bottleneck, it’s a very short bottleneck. 200m is a very long one.

    • As and when the shops reopen people will be able to walk through the Museum Gardens.

      Alternative social distancing solution (for pedestrians/cyclist moving north from the bridge) involves the loss of only one parking space.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.