Southend traffic island returns

3:10pm Wednesday 6th March 2013 in News

Resident Trevor Bell at the site of the traffic islands. Resident Trevor Bell at the site of the traffic islands.

A TRAFFIC island Southend Council scrapped only four years ago is being reinstated at a cost of £50,000.

The island, on the junction of Shorefield Road and the Western Esplanade, is to be returned after fears grew for the safety of pedestrians crossing the busy junction.

But some are concerned that Southend Council is “throwing money” at a self-made problem. The traffic island was taken away in 2009 to make way for a cycle path along the sea front.

Trevor Bell, 67, who lives near the junction, said: “I could never understand why the council took it away in the first place. Cars drive over the reservation and right into oncoming traffic. It’s an accident waiting to happen.”

Suzi Hawkins, chairwoman of South Westcliff Community Group believes there are better ways to tackle the problem. She said: “The council should get down there and watch it [cars crossing the island section] as opposed to just putting the bollards in. They need to look at it, not just throw money at it."

The Echo understands funding for the island will come from a sum the council was allocated from central government for integrated transport schemes and needs to be spent on safety improvement works.

Southend Council’s Zulfiqar Ali, responsible for highways said: “The proposed changes, which include realigning the kerbs and installation of a new pedestrian island, are designed to improve road safety and enable safer turning movements for traffic, reducing conflict between pedestrians and vehicles.”

Comments (29)

3:26pm Wed 6 Mar 13

GrumpyofLeigh says...

You couldn't make it up.
And are we expected to think that because the funding comes from "central Government" we aren't actually paying for it?
You couldn't make it up. And are we expected to think that because the funding comes from "central Government" we aren't actually paying for it? GrumpyofLeigh

3:28pm Wed 6 Mar 13

Nebs says...

£50,000
Is someone having a laugh.
It's a traffic island ffs. Why will it cost £50,000?
£50,000 Is someone having a laugh. It's a traffic island ffs. Why will it cost £50,000? Nebs

3:34pm Wed 6 Mar 13

marshman says...

This perfectly illustrates why SBC is in such a dire financial mess.

They get rid of something everyone uses, replace it with something nobody wants, wait a few years, then waste £50k upwards putting it back to how it was before they messed about with it in the first place. Vic Circus next? Maybe the Short Street junction? Sea front crossings definitely (before someone's killed by their incompetence).

Repeat this catalogue of errors a thousand times over and you start to see the bigger picture. The leader of the council should immediately resign, all lead members should be publicly flogged and residents should get a chance to throw rotten eggs at the heads of all departments.

P ups and breweries come to mind.
This perfectly illustrates why SBC is in such a dire financial mess. They get rid of something everyone uses, replace it with something nobody wants, wait a few years, then waste £50k upwards putting it back to how it was before they messed about with it in the first place. Vic Circus next? Maybe the Short Street junction? Sea front crossings definitely (before someone's killed by their incompetence). Repeat this catalogue of errors a thousand times over and you start to see the bigger picture. The leader of the council should immediately resign, all lead members should be publicly flogged and residents should get a chance to throw rotten eggs at the heads of all departments. P ups and breweries come to mind. marshman

3:47pm Wed 6 Mar 13

GrumpyofLeigh says...

Can we blame Shoebury-Cyclist for its removal?
Can we blame Shoebury-Cyclist for its removal? GrumpyofLeigh

4:08pm Wed 6 Mar 13

Carnabackable says...

Pay for it, with the spy car fines, that way it's free...
Pay for it, with the spy car fines, that way it's free... Carnabackable

4:20pm Wed 6 Mar 13

Shoebury_Cyclist says...

GrumpyofLeigh wrote:
Can we blame Shoebury-Cyclist for its removal?
No, because I opposed the building of the cycle path right from the beginning. There was nothing wrong with what was already there.
[quote][p][bold]GrumpyofLeigh[/bold] wrote: Can we blame Shoebury-Cyclist for its removal?[/p][/quote]No, because I opposed the building of the cycle path right from the beginning. There was nothing wrong with what was already there. Shoebury_Cyclist

4:41pm Wed 6 Mar 13

GrumpyofLeigh says...

Only joking, S-C
Only joking, S-C GrumpyofLeigh

4:47pm Wed 6 Mar 13

I hate the police says...

£50,000. So this is what we pay for right? We are bascially being taught by the council again to look right, go to the middle, look left and then cross. SC I learnt this when I was 5 years old. But thanks very much for teaching me again. Forever young.
£50,000. So this is what we pay for right? We are bascially being taught by the council again to look right, go to the middle, look left and then cross. SC I learnt this when I was 5 years old. But thanks very much for teaching me again. Forever young. I hate the police

5:08pm Wed 6 Mar 13

Cosmo Spring says...

when are they planting the palm trees on it?
when are they planting the palm trees on it? Cosmo Spring

5:16pm Wed 6 Mar 13

Siraton says...

Coming up to using up the budget by any chance?
Coming up to using up the budget by any chance? Siraton

5:24pm Wed 6 Mar 13

Southend65 says...

No wonder SBC are in a mess.

£50k for a traffic island? You're having a giraffe.
No wonder SBC are in a mess. £50k for a traffic island? You're having a giraffe. Southend65

5:26pm Wed 6 Mar 13

firedog says...

Cosmo Spring wrote:
when are they planting the palm trees on it?
No its not a desert island.
[quote][p][bold]Cosmo Spring[/bold] wrote: when are they planting the palm trees on it?[/p][/quote]No its not a desert island. firedog

5:31pm Wed 6 Mar 13

marshman says...

I hate the police wrote:
£50,000. So this is what we pay for right? We are bascially being taught by the council again to look right, go to the middle, look left and then cross. SC I learnt this when I was 5 years old. But thanks very much for teaching me again. Forever young.
They don't teach it to the kids anymore. Partly because of the cuts, but mostly because the majority of the kids don't understand English.
[quote][p][bold]I hate the police[/bold] wrote: £50,000. So this is what we pay for right? We are bascially being taught by the council again to look right, go to the middle, look left and then cross. SC I learnt this when I was 5 years old. But thanks very much for teaching me again. Forever young.[/p][/quote]They don't teach it to the kids anymore. Partly because of the cuts, but mostly because the majority of the kids don't understand English. marshman

5:51pm Wed 6 Mar 13

Broadwaywatch says...

Nebs wrote:
£50,000
Is someone having a laugh.
It's a traffic island ffs. Why will it cost £50,000?
I ask the same question
[quote][p][bold]Nebs[/bold] wrote: £50,000 Is someone having a laugh. It's a traffic island ffs. Why will it cost £50,000?[/p][/quote]I ask the same question Broadwaywatch

5:51pm Wed 6 Mar 13

Broadwaywatch says...

Nebs wrote:
£50,000
Is someone having a laugh.
It's a traffic island ffs. Why will it cost £50,000?
I ask the same question
[quote][p][bold]Nebs[/bold] wrote: £50,000 Is someone having a laugh. It's a traffic island ffs. Why will it cost £50,000?[/p][/quote]I ask the same question Broadwaywatch

5:59pm Wed 6 Mar 13

saarfender says...

Bearing in mind that the dangerous cycle track has HGV tyre marks on it from vehicles that have to make a wide swing in order to get into Shorefield Road, by re-instating the traffic island will those same vehicles now have to make a wider swing and so drive over the cycle path more often?

If they do then they will be damaging the path (it's not designed for heavy traffic), and also putting cyclists at risk... cyclists that are using the path to avoid any danger from traffic!

(by narrowing the road to build that path they took away the road space that the big vehicles needed. The safety audit of the cycle track has a photograph of these tyre marks on the track, and comments about them.)
Bearing in mind that the dangerous cycle track has HGV tyre marks on it from vehicles that have to make a wide swing in order to get into Shorefield Road, by re-instating the traffic island will those same vehicles now have to make a wider swing and so drive over the cycle path more often? If they do then they will be damaging the path (it's not designed for heavy traffic), and also putting cyclists at risk... cyclists that are using the path to avoid any danger from traffic! (by narrowing the road to build that path they took away the road space that the big vehicles needed. The safety audit of the cycle track has a photograph of these tyre marks on the track, and comments about them.) saarfender

11:34pm Wed 6 Mar 13

goalbird says...

Is the work being carried out W & H!!
If so it will take months hence the cost.
The money would have been better spent on the cancelled Airshow. After all the cost of the works is not much less than half the councils cancelled support of the Airshow
Is the work being carried out W & H!! If so it will take months hence the cost. The money would have been better spent on the cancelled Airshow. After all the cost of the works is not much less than half the councils cancelled support of the Airshow goalbird

7:42am Thu 7 Mar 13

supershrimper says...

Okay, they made a mistake in 2009 taking it away, but reinstating it is the correct decision.
Okay, they made a mistake in 2009 taking it away, but reinstating it is the correct decision. supershrimper

7:49am Thu 7 Mar 13

Shoebury_Cyclist says...

I'm struggling to see how this comes under 'integrated transport'. It seems to be just a flimsy excuse for Southend Council to dip into the integrated transport fund to carry out ordinary roadworks.

The integrated transport fund is there to encourage sustainable transport choices: low carbon alternatives to single occupancy car use, such as buses, cycling, trains etc.
I'm struggling to see how this comes under 'integrated transport'. It seems to be just a flimsy excuse for Southend Council to dip into the integrated transport fund to carry out ordinary roadworks. The integrated transport fund is there to encourage sustainable transport choices: low carbon alternatives to single occupancy car use, such as buses, cycling, trains etc. Shoebury_Cyclist

9:09am Thu 7 Mar 13

Nebs says...

Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:
I'm struggling to see how this comes under 'integrated transport'. It seems to be just a flimsy excuse for Southend Council to dip into the integrated transport fund to carry out ordinary roadworks.

The integrated transport fund is there to encourage sustainable transport choices: low carbon alternatives to single occupancy car use, such as buses, cycling, trains etc.
As always you are absolutely right.
Perhaps the money would have been better spent adjusting the car park charges, so as electric vehicles park free, low emissions get a 50 percent discount, and high emissions pay a premium.
[quote][p][bold]Shoebury_Cyclist[/bold] wrote: I'm struggling to see how this comes under 'integrated transport'. It seems to be just a flimsy excuse for Southend Council to dip into the integrated transport fund to carry out ordinary roadworks. The integrated transport fund is there to encourage sustainable transport choices: low carbon alternatives to single occupancy car use, such as buses, cycling, trains etc.[/p][/quote]As always you are absolutely right. Perhaps the money would have been better spent adjusting the car park charges, so as electric vehicles park free, low emissions get a 50 percent discount, and high emissions pay a premium. Nebs

9:36am Thu 7 Mar 13

Ian P says...

Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:
GrumpyofLeigh wrote: Can we blame Shoebury-Cyclist for its removal?
No, because I opposed the building of the cycle path right from the beginning. There was nothing wrong with what was already there.
I assume by "There was nothing wrong with what was already there" you meant the pavement! LOL
[quote][p][bold]Shoebury_Cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]GrumpyofLeigh[/bold] wrote: Can we blame Shoebury-Cyclist for its removal?[/p][/quote]No, because I opposed the building of the cycle path right from the beginning. There was nothing wrong with what was already there.[/p][/quote]I assume by "There was nothing wrong with what was already there" you meant the pavement! LOL Ian P

9:47am Thu 7 Mar 13

Shoebury_Cyclist says...

Ian P wrote:
Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:
GrumpyofLeigh wrote: Can we blame Shoebury-Cyclist for its removal?
No, because I opposed the building of the cycle path right from the beginning. There was nothing wrong with what was already there.
I assume by "There was nothing wrong with what was already there" you meant the pavement! LOL
No. There were perfectly good on-road cycle paths along both sides of Western Esplanade. They didn't reduce the road width, they traveled in the same direction as other traffic, they had priority at junctions, pedestrians didn't just walk into them without looking, and vehicles rarely parked in them.
[quote][p][bold]Ian P[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Shoebury_Cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]GrumpyofLeigh[/bold] wrote: Can we blame Shoebury-Cyclist for its removal?[/p][/quote]No, because I opposed the building of the cycle path right from the beginning. There was nothing wrong with what was already there.[/p][/quote]I assume by "There was nothing wrong with what was already there" you meant the pavement! LOL[/p][/quote]No. There were perfectly good on-road cycle paths along both sides of Western Esplanade. They didn't reduce the road width, they traveled in the same direction as other traffic, they had priority at junctions, pedestrians didn't just walk into them without looking, and vehicles rarely parked in them. Shoebury_Cyclist

12:36pm Thu 7 Mar 13

Ian P says...

Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:
Ian P wrote:
Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:
GrumpyofLeigh wrote: Can we blame Shoebury-Cyclist for its removal?
No, because I opposed the building of the cycle path right from the beginning. There was nothing wrong with what was already there.
I assume by "There was nothing wrong with what was already there" you meant the pavement! LOL
No. There were perfectly good on-road cycle paths along both sides of Western Esplanade. They didn't reduce the road width, they traveled in the same direction as other traffic, they had priority at junctions, pedestrians didn't just walk into them without looking, and vehicles rarely parked in them.
Hook, line and sinker every time guaranteed.
[quote][p][bold]Shoebury_Cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ian P[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Shoebury_Cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]GrumpyofLeigh[/bold] wrote: Can we blame Shoebury-Cyclist for its removal?[/p][/quote]No, because I opposed the building of the cycle path right from the beginning. There was nothing wrong with what was already there.[/p][/quote]I assume by "There was nothing wrong with what was already there" you meant the pavement! LOL[/p][/quote]No. There were perfectly good on-road cycle paths along both sides of Western Esplanade. They didn't reduce the road width, they traveled in the same direction as other traffic, they had priority at junctions, pedestrians didn't just walk into them without looking, and vehicles rarely parked in them.[/p][/quote]Hook, line and sinker every time guaranteed. Ian P

1:00pm Thu 7 Mar 13

Red Under Your Bed says...

Ian P wrote:
Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:
Ian P wrote:
Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:
GrumpyofLeigh wrote: Can we blame Shoebury-Cyclist for its removal?
No, because I opposed the building of the cycle path right from the beginning. There was nothing wrong with what was already there.
I assume by "There was nothing wrong with what was already there" you meant the pavement! LOL
No. There were perfectly good on-road cycle paths along both sides of Western Esplanade. They didn't reduce the road width, they traveled in the same direction as other traffic, they had priority at junctions, pedestrians didn't just walk into them without looking, and vehicles rarely parked in them.
Hook, line and sinker every time guaranteed.
How do you know it aint you whats being played for a mug?
[quote][p][bold]Ian P[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Shoebury_Cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ian P[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Shoebury_Cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]GrumpyofLeigh[/bold] wrote: Can we blame Shoebury-Cyclist for its removal?[/p][/quote]No, because I opposed the building of the cycle path right from the beginning. There was nothing wrong with what was already there.[/p][/quote]I assume by "There was nothing wrong with what was already there" you meant the pavement! LOL[/p][/quote]No. There were perfectly good on-road cycle paths along both sides of Western Esplanade. They didn't reduce the road width, they traveled in the same direction as other traffic, they had priority at junctions, pedestrians didn't just walk into them without looking, and vehicles rarely parked in them.[/p][/quote]Hook, line and sinker every time guaranteed.[/p][/quote]How do you know it aint you whats being played for a mug? Red Under Your Bed

4:02pm Thu 7 Mar 13

Alekhine says...

It looks like the dog is making good use of the hole.
It looks like the dog is making good use of the hole. Alekhine

4:52pm Thu 7 Mar 13

The_masked_avenger says...

I'll do it for £5000.
I'll do it for £5000. The_masked_avenger

4:54pm Thu 7 Mar 13

Ciaran mc says...

Its peanut butter jelly time
Its peanut butter jelly time Ciaran mc

7:21pm Thu 7 Mar 13

joe2345 says...

Nebs wrote:
£50,000
Is someone having a laugh.
It's a traffic island ffs. Why will it cost £50,000?
It is an absolute joke, are we sure the echo got it right and it wasn't meant to be £5000? That seems a bit more sensible.

I wonder who at the council thought this was a reasonable amount of money as doesn't it have to be approved by a Councillor over a certain amount???
[quote][p][bold]Nebs[/bold] wrote: £50,000 Is someone having a laugh. It's a traffic island ffs. Why will it cost £50,000?[/p][/quote]It is an absolute joke, are we sure the echo got it right and it wasn't meant to be £5000? That seems a bit more sensible. I wonder who at the council thought this was a reasonable amount of money as doesn't it have to be approved by a Councillor over a certain amount??? joe2345

7:33pm Thu 7 Mar 13

Keptquiettillnow says...

With all the austerity wouldn't two large concrete blocks do?
Or simply close the road to motorised traffic if its causing that much trouble.
With all the austerity wouldn't two large concrete blocks do? Or simply close the road to motorised traffic if its causing that much trouble. Keptquiettillnow

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree