Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
PaulHarries

Pedestrian Crossing for Barton St Sainsbury's?

8 posts in this topic

Hi

Have just contacted Sainsbury's via their Email to try & get a pedestrian crossing near the Sainsbury's at India Rd junction.

Have had far too many near misses crossing the road there - I'm sure I'm not the only one.

Will let people know if I get a response. Will also bring it up at next BTNP meeting - maybe a petition is needed?

Thanks

Paul Harries

Remember - the Planning Officer told the Council Planning Committee that one wasn't needed because the footfall would be less than the India Pub!
(I still have the email, in case they say otherwise)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi

Had a reply from Sainsbury's - they're just saying that it's not their problem, that we should contact local planning agency & the Council.

Hmm - wonder if they'll listen when somebody gets knocked down? I've had a few near misses recently (Legs not so good having to walk with a stick).

Thanks

Paul Harries

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's wonderful how the local authority always has plenty of money for stupid projects - just have a good look at King Edward's Avenue for a gobsmackingly badly designed layout that certainly doesn't add to the safety of cyclists - but never for things that local people actually want.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi

In this case, Kay, seems more of a done deal between the planning office & the developer before the public planning committee meeting (I was there).

Thanks

Paul Harries

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 23/02/2015 at 6:26 PM, Kay Powell said:

It's wonderful how the local authority always has plenty of money for stupid projects - just have a good look at King Edward's Avenue for a gobsmackingly badly designed layout that certainly doesn't add to the safety of cyclists - but never for things that local people actually want.

 

Add to that the bicycle lane put in at the lower end of Barton Street, where they 'consulted' 200 households, and got about six responses, most of which were against the proposal, but they went ahead with it anyway.

And my personal favourite, of course, the 'Asda corner' at the end of one-way Charles Street, where I complained that removal of DYLs up to a few feet from the corner on the Widden Street side had led to tall vans being parked there continuously, turning it into a blind spot for cyclists using the Asda pedestrian entrance from the Widden side, and cars coming out of Charles Street, and not expecting anything on the road approaching from the other side. The council's brilliant solution was to extend the one-way system past the corner and up to the Napier Street junction. It seemed like what Chris Townley, the county council's engineer, was really saying was, 'Be careful what you ask for..' That is ,ask for a junction (effectively) to be made safer for cyclists, and you might find yourself not being able to use the junction at all, but have to go around the block to the other end of Charles Street. He also said this change would free up more parking, which does seem to be a pre-occupation of the council.

In the event, the extension included a 'No Entry' sign with 'except for bicycles' beneath it, and no more parking was created, and it cost over £5,000 for the consultation and work, for something that made no difference whatsoever. Usman Bhaimia thought it was a 'great idea', but he never elaborated on what was so great about it.

 

There just one thing, though, as Columbo would say. I asked Ismael Rhyman (co-incidentally, at the Street Reps meeting where he let on about a meeting which turned out to be the infamous 'Crunch' meeting of the partnership), about Section 106 money resulting from the Sainsbury's development which could be used to build a crossing. He said that this would only be forthcoming in the event of a 'new build', and that the India House was only being 'renovated'. But I have a distinct recollection of the public house being reduced to a pile of rubble. Is my memory faulty about this?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Sainsbury's is definitely new build, albeit in exactly the same style as the building that it replaced. It would be just another example of a council employee lying to get you off his back. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've been thinking for a while now, as I drive past the new Sainsbury's, and newer Biedronki, that despite claims by the county council that there are fewer people trying to cross the road there than when the former was a public house, I'm seeing a lot more people hovering on the kerbside, waiting for traffic to pass so they can get across. I was wondering if it mightn't be worth reminding the council that Section 106 money was due, and should be used for a crossing that would pretty much put the kybosh on Biedronki and all the delivery lorries (including an artic) that park on the pavement in spite of DYLs, when what should happen this afternoon?

What happened is that the council have sent out the line repainters to do all the lines between Sainsbury's/Biedronki and the lights by Machine Mart. But have they repainted every line? No, they have missed the outer of the two lines outside Biedronki. Now, it's not illegal to be parked on that pavement, certainly not as illegal as it was before, and as the council never said 'boo!' back then, they're unlikely to do anything now.

I've asked them what motivated them to do this? If I don't get an answer, I'll start asking them what consultation was conducted before they took this step to encourage more stationary vehicles to clutter up a key junction on a route children and parents use to walk to the nearby school?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I had this response from Glos Roads the next morning:

'Hi, Good Morning. Thank you for your Tweet, just to advise we will be returning to site to reinstate the DYL's here.'

When I checked, the second line was already laid down. I'd like to believe that was always the intention, because it would have been ludicrous to dilute parking restrictions at that section. Then again, so was the 'shared space' at Kimbrose Way, made more so by a 'crossing' that was supposed to be just as 'shared', but no motorist would dare go over while a pedestrian was on it, which was most of the time during daylight.

No answer from the county council, so I expect the delivery lorries to carry on using the pavement. I'm going to carry on asking about the Section 106 money. Any suggestions about what to use it for are welcome. I'd plump for a real community noticeboard outside Sainsbury's, as Barton doesn't have one, unlike Tredworth, but if others speak up for the crossing..?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0