nimby?
This forum is all about local issues - perhaps it should only be people outside the area who are able to comment.

My observations concern a busy pedestrian crossing point - all those who use the station from Perry Vale North area will cross here; any one wanting to catch the bus south will have to cross here; all the new residents in the new apartments will need to cross here.

There currently is a crossing point and pedestrian island.
The new plans indicate no designated crossing point at all.

The road will be narrowed, but the purpose of that is to move the junction with Hindsley's place further forward. Why? Because the new flats will obscure the oncoming traffic. The plans show a 'garden' (=ivy plus low maintenance shrubs) where the pavement currently is, so this land has been sold, but sure, I doubt if this was the driving factor - the council simply did not think it through imo and the apartments should have been built further back.

Crossing a busy road is not such a big issue for 80% of us, but the visually impaired, disabled, elderly, people with children, prams, shopping etc etc cant just shoot across, and it is disgusting that the council simply do not give a monkeys about these minorities.

Pedestrian islands allow you to tackle the problem one stream at a time. They are a good thing.

PS To keep this strictly on topic:
They should make this diversion permanent.

lol what is it with 3 lettered user names and pointless posts...

Eh

Perryman , I agree 100%. It would be great if Perry Vale from Waldenshaw Road was Pedestrianised. Think Cafe's with chairs outside.
Motorists can go down Sunderland Road or others to get on S Circular.
It amazes me some mornings at about 8.30 to see traffic backed up to Dacres Road or even further.

Waldenshaw runs off London Road, not Perry Vale ?

Sunderland road is a totally residential street,as is Church Rise, and Westbourne, with less access to anywhere else, so surely that makes no sense. Dont think the businesses would like that too much.

Did you mean Waldram Cresent maybe? Or Waldram Park Road ?

The A205 is sadly the most suitable road for the volume of traffic. The layout is questionable in places, but all in all, I dont think sending the traffic round the houses, to have a cafe in a pedestrian haven is the answer.

It could be made a one-way street permanently and narowed to one lane. Then it would not need a central reservation.

Has anyone asked the residents of Westbourne Drive what they think of all the additional traffic? And do you think they would like it to be permanent?

surely a simple Pelican Crossing in front of Forest Hill Central is the answer?

Zebra crossing would be more than enough I would have thought.
However I can be 99% sure most commuters would still just walk across the road.

On a far more constructive note, not to have a crossing of some kind is very stupid. If / when someone is knocked down in the future, there will be an enquiry, then lots of money spent and road closure to correct what was omitted first time around.

I think you need to have at least one person killed before you can get a crossing!

Oi!! my username is my initials!! I could of had outrageousrentboy, but i went for something a little more conservative!!

The traffic management people are reluctant to put zebra crossings on roads like PV in the immediate vicinity of national rail stations, because at peak times there's a long and steady stream of people and traffic will never get the chance to advance without breaking the law, causing back-ups. Plus, realistically you'd need two, and that would be a nightmare.

At least, this is what they said at Hornsey, where I used to live, and I can see the argument. I'm not that anti-car!

When the traffic is backed up on Perry Vale in the morning, crossing is easy. But as mentioned earlier, you have to think of the vulnerable in society who I imagine will not be too pleased at having to shuffle across a blind curve with boy racers burning through...

Good points Baboonery.
Also many drivers do not seem to recognise zebra crossings as legitimate crossings any more - even outside schools - they routinely honk their horns at the car that has just stopped/those that are crossing.

Another reason I like the pedestrian islands is that they do not back down in the 'whose road is it anyway' argument.
Cars are always having 'debates' with the islands along Perry Vale, and hopefully it is just the drivers' attitude that is lost.

If there is no longer room for an island, then the only other thing most drivers stop at is a red light (as in traffic light, not district). Since it has no other lights to synchronise with, a pelican crossing could be set to a near instantaneous response and be a useful crossing aid for all, and encourage pedestrians to stay on the pavement either side.

Other things that would help imo would be to include the Road in the 20mph zone (like we were offered oh so tantalisingly just a few years ago), and more speed tables rather than pimples (that achieve nothing).

Where was the public debate when they were deciding the new road changes/crossing facilities?

I thought I would post regarding the permanent layout of the road following the reconstruction work.

Mick Hepworth has been kind enough to put together the following information.
From what I can picture it sounds like an improvement of sorts at least.

Hope it answers a few questions though, so once again, thanks Mick.

Ha, ha - straighter road means I can go faster, see lemmings, er sorry, pedestrians earlier - Ya hey!!! Pedal to the metal!!!!

(Sorry, I really ought to go and take my pills now.....)

Who is going to volunteer to have an accident so that we get a crossing?

Haha thats harsh, but im sure someone will offer themselves up, once drunks start staggering home to Forest Hill Central

That is good news.
Er, but by moving the road as described, the corner will in fact become considerably sharper: the inner edge of the bend is being moved further in.
Plus with the apartments built on this previously unoccupied corner, visibility can only decrease for those crossing at the underpass.

We had a safe crossing point with a pedestrian island. This is being removed. Mick Hepworth is being deliberately misleading and obtuse to suggest this is an improvement.

OK so those walking from further south have options as long as they are aware of the crossing disaster that awaits further ahead.
But what of those travelling from the underpass to the south going bus stop? They will have to walk south, cross then walk back north again to the bus stop.
Likewise all those walking to the large Perry vale North area presumably will not feel put out that they can no longer use the footpath shortcut.
And not forgetting all the new residents, who will also be forced ~70 feet South before crossing and going north ~100 feet.

I personally would assume that no-one will use the crossing at Church Rise, as I've not ever seen anyone use it to date.

Mick Hepworth's points are flaccid, and if he were made to cross Perry Vale at this narrow section by the underpass 10 times a day, he'd soon realise that he did not have a leg to stand on. (see what I did then?)