Traffic island returns (From Echo)
Get involved: send your pictures, video, news and views by texting ECHONEWS to 80360, or email us »
Southend traffic island returns
3:10pm Wednesday 6th March 2013 in Local News
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)
Nebs
says...
3:28pm Wed 6 Mar 13
Is someone having a laugh.
It's a traffic island ffs. Why will it cost £50,000?
marshman
says...
3:34pm Wed 6 Mar 13
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.
GrumpyofLeigh
says...
3:47pm Wed 6 Mar 13
Carnabackable
says...
4:08pm Wed 6 Mar 13
Shoebury_Cyclist
says...
4:20pm Wed 6 Mar 13
GrumpyofLeigh wrote:No, because I opposed the building of the cycle path right from the beginning. There was nothing wrong with what was already there.
Can we blame Shoebury-Cyclist for its removal?
GrumpyofLeigh
says...
4:41pm Wed 6 Mar 13
I hate the police
says...
4:47pm Wed 6 Mar 13
Cosmo Spring
says...
5:08pm Wed 6 Mar 13
Siraton
says...
5:16pm Wed 6 Mar 13
Southend65
says...
5:24pm Wed 6 Mar 13
£50k for a traffic island? You're having a giraffe.
firedog
says...
5:26pm Wed 6 Mar 13
Cosmo Spring wrote:No its not a desert island.
when are they planting the palm trees on it?
marshman
says...
5:31pm Wed 6 Mar 13
I hate the police wrote: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.
£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.
Broadwaywatch
says...
5:51pm Wed 6 Mar 13
Nebs wrote:I ask the same question
£50,000
Is someone having a laugh.
It's a traffic island ffs. Why will it cost £50,000?
Broadwaywatch
says...
5:51pm Wed 6 Mar 13
Nebs wrote:I ask the same question
£50,000
Is someone having a laugh.
It's a traffic island ffs. Why will it cost £50,000?
saarfender
says...
5:59pm Wed 6 Mar 13
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.)
goalbird
says...
11:34pm Wed 6 Mar 13
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
supershrimper
says...
7:42am Thu 7 Mar 13
Shoebury_Cyclist
says...
7:49am Thu 7 Mar 13
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.
Nebs
says...
9:09am Thu 7 Mar 13
Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:As always you are absolutely right.
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.
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.
Ian P
says...
9:36am Thu 7 Mar 13
Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:I assume by "There was nothing wrong with what was already there" you meant the pavement! LOL
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.
Shoebury_Cyclist
says...
9:47am Thu 7 Mar 13
Ian P wrote: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 wrote:I assume by "There was nothing wrong with what was already there" you meant the pavement! LOL
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.
Ian P
says...
12:36pm Thu 7 Mar 13
Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:Hook, line and sinker every time guaranteed.
Ian P wrote: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 wrote:I assume by "There was nothing wrong with what was already there" you meant the pavement! LOLGrumpyofLeigh 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.
Red Under Your Bed
says...
1:00pm Thu 7 Mar 13
Ian P wrote:How do you know it aint you whats being played for a mug?
Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:Hook, line and sinker every time guaranteed.
Ian P wrote: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 wrote:I assume by "There was nothing wrong with what was already there" you meant the pavement! LOLGrumpyofLeigh 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.
Alekhine
says...
4:02pm Thu 7 Mar 13
The_masked_avenger
says...
4:52pm Thu 7 Mar 13
Ciaran mc
says...
4:54pm Thu 7 Mar 13
joe2345
says...
7:21pm Thu 7 Mar 13
Nebs wrote: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.
£50,000
Is someone having a laugh.
It's a traffic island ffs. Why will it cost £50,000?
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???
Keptquiettillnow
says...
7:33pm Thu 7 Mar 13
Or simply close the road to motorised traffic if its causing that much trouble.
GrumpyofLeigh says...
3:26pm Wed 6 Mar 13
And are we expected to think that because the funding comes from "central Government" we aren't actually paying for it?