Jump to content

Recommended Posts

....seems like a really bad idea as I always see lots of Charter kids taking refuge halfway across the road - does anyone know why the council want to/need to remove this? I am not sure about anyone else but their new consultation documents seem to be very light of reasons why they need to make changes like this - there is never any explanation.

 

https://southwarknews.co.uk/area/dulwich/dulwich-residents-warn-removing-traffic-island-could-endanger-pedestrians/

https://consultations.southwark.gov.uk/environment-leisure/dulwich-village-phase-3-design/supporting_documents/Red Post Hill Junction Consultation Plan.pdf

 

I also think that's a very bad decision. If they are removing it, they need to replace with a zebra crossing. Childrens' safety has to be paramount

 

I don't think they've used the right photo - that's a junction with lights. The island is outside of the station entrance

Edited by Jules-and-Boo

I am pretty sure they are referring to the refuge at the crossroads junction not outside the station so the photo is right - see the consultation document - the refuges have been removed from the schematic and it says: EXISTING TRAFFIC ISLAND TO BE REMOVED FROM ALL FOUR ARMS (caps because I copied from the doc ;-))

https://consultations.southwark.gov.uk/environment-leisure/dulwich-village-phase-3-design/supporting_documents/Red Post Hill Junction Consultation Plan.pdf

 

I think they are doing it because they are trying to improve the flow of traffic from Dulwich Village and increase/advance the cycle stoplines - at the moment it is pretty much one lane northbound on Dulwich Village as you approach the junction due to the cycle wands and that is what has been causing the congestion backing up through Dulwich Village (and pollution outside Hamlets). They also want to put "new advanced cycle stoplines" in place and I suspect both of these have come at the cost to pedestrians - which is ludicrous given the number of children and adults that use that junction given it's proximity to both the station and Charter - at every light phase you see people using the refuge.

@Jules-and-Boo  its not the Island by the station entrance that's proposed to be removed, its the ones on the 4 arm crossing at RPH, Dulwich Village and Village way / EDG that are light controlled crossings.   My understanding is that the islands are being removed to facilitate a right turn lane on Dulwich Village into EDG.

Edited by northernmonkey

I'm going to object on the bases that removing street space and streets for living and streets for people is contrary to the councils stated plans to ban cars and enforce active travel.

This flies in the face of their green credentials too and it must be stopped.

Makes a total mockery of the low traffic neighbourhood schemes nearby.

I think what has happened is the cycle wands on Dulwich Village northbound have been creating tailbacks through the village since they went in as it reduces the northbound to one lane and the long tailbacks through the Village (especially at weekends) is not good but again, pedestrians come bottom of the pile when it comes to protection etc.

 

All the council are doing is trying to fix a problem of their making and it is ludicrous that the refuge is being removed, especially as the new lane will create an increased frequency of cars turning right.

 

The council seem to be losing all sense of reality.

  • 3 weeks later...

Yes, they messed up that junction when they put the cycle wands a few years ago.

And they still plan to retain them even though very few cyclists use that junction going North bound. None of the other arms at this junction have cycle wands 
They are getting rid of all the pedestrian refuges so that will mean reworking the traffic signals that are located there. More expense!

Many more cyclists go North via Greendale from Townley Road. It's much safer.

Terrible idea, this cross-road is heavily pedestrianised during the school run. This from the council who advocate 'active travel'. I walk this way most days and the islands are a safe zone for pedestrians. Removing them is extraordinarily foolish and dangerous. 

Junction planning by this council has been awful for years, with Townley - EDG being the worse and most messed around of the bunch - still at least the planner did well out of their mess.

One does wonder how connected our councillors are to the local area as they make truly bizarre decisions that anyone who knows the area would consider utterly daft. The removal of these pedestrian refuges is really ludicrous and will reduce safety for pedestrians significantly.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • I think you can write to your local council to get the street cleaned more regularly. Also the may put more posters up to remind ppl to do clean up 
    • Absolutely right.  The other issue is that rescue centres like Celia Hammond make it nearly impossible to adopt a kitten or cat that desperately needs a home. I know many many people who have tried to adopt and have been refused, and only one couple who have been deemed to have a good enough home. The reasons people have been refused have been that they aren't in a position to take two kittens - unless it's changed recently you weren't considered unless you took 2 as cats  wouldn't be homed without a companion. But lots of people can't afford to feed and insure 2 pets. Another reason I've heard several times is that the potential adoptee lives on a road, not an A road or the south circular but just a road. But what is the other option they're looking for? A country estate? Another reason a couple of friends have been refused is that they have jobs and Celia Hammond said that they were looking for people who were at home all day . So again, what are they looking for? People who can afford not to work?  We are told 'adopt don't shop' but out of the many many families or individuals I know who have tried to give a loving home to a kitten / cat literally only a couple have been accepted, so have ended up buying a kitten. People who have had cats all their lives and adore cats. Of course it's important that adoptees are vetted but it's problematic that cat charities are deciding that a cat / kitten without a home would rather live in a cage at a rescue centre than with a loving person who has a job or lives on a road or cannot afford to pay for the upkeep of more than one pet. My friend has recently tried for months to adopt kittens or cats through various centres and although she was prepared to take two, was rejected by all rescue centres  as she lives on a (quiet) residential road in ED and doesn't work from home every day. She works from home 3 days a week. It's insane.   
    • Most owners do.  Beyond getting it off you chest, or shoe, you won't change a thing by posting here 
    • Kartuli is my favourite window - looking so beautiful! 
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...