It’s worth looking at the other threads linked above. If memory serves, there is information there on why Lewisham road engineers say a crossing there is not possible. You’ll need to make strong counter arguments to persuade them to review this.
I moved here only a year ago and Chris did send some other links that I am now reading…
Hi, I’ve come a bit late to this conversation but I would support this too. We really do need one there. Traffic is increasing all the time. Try Councillor Chris Best. She is on the SEE3 team and might be able to help. Good luck.
I believe that this was previously rejected due to the limited sight lines of drivers (from the side approaching the underpass from the south circular). From my understanding, a driver approaching from that direction at a point near a potential crossing, such as outside Finches bike shop, would be travelling at speed and not be able to see the crossing, which could cause an accident if a pedestrian was using the crossing. As such, it would be negligent for the council to encourage crossing at that point, so will not install a crossing.
Please someone correct me on the above as this is from memory from previous posts on this or the forum not to be named.
In my opinion, the cars legally parked on the Finches side of the street cause the visual obstruction for the drivers, so moving the legal parking from the Finches side of the road to the station/Forest Hill Cars side could solve this. This would however mean that loading for the shops and disabled access to the shops would then be from “wrong” side of the road, BUT there would be a signed crossing point that could be installed to facilitate access to the shops.
I’d love to hear why this would not work from someone with a greater knowledge of urban planning than me (as I have none).
Bear in mind that the previous denials were before the 20MPH speed limit that now applies there. There is no reasonable claim that cars wouldn’t be able to see a crossing IF they are adhering to the speed limit. I cross there every day and am amazed there isn’t a crossing say, directly outside the foot tunnel. Every time a train pulls in going towards Sydenham, dozens of people come out of the station entrance and half attempt to cross the road there.
I agree, having a pedestrian crossing opposite the tunnel does not pose any risks IF drivers stick to 20mph legal limit and if to put a warning sign 100 metres before which will say CAUTION, PEDESTRIAN CROSING AHEAD. SLOW DOWN.
I live in the City Walk development right opposite the station on this section of Perry Vale, and daily witness crap driving, crap parking, and frankly also crap attempts at risky road-crossing.
The parking issue reduces sight lines in itself, particularly when there’s an event at my old friends (they are definitely not my friends) JK Banquets. In my opinion this needs to be a red route, but I expect the likelihood of that ever happening is slim because of all the businesses that require parking. Buses and coaches and lorries add to the fun when stuff like the attached happens:
The parking problems on that stretch of Perry Vale really do need to be addressed. Even the legal parking can cause bottlenecks. I wonder if we can get the council to review it again. I personally feel that their traffic calming measures put in a few years ago, including widening the pavements and putting in that table, were misguided.
I’d also like to see Clarkes Coaches banned from using this route as a shortcut to their depot at Bell Green, mainly because their driving is often appalling and at times terrifying.
They’re frequent offenders down Cranston. Unfortuantely the weight limit only applies (tho is never enforced) to goods vehicles and not passenger vehicles as they took great delight in telling me when I complained once after two of their coaches trying to pass each other totally blocked the road.
Isn’t Perry Vale part of an alternate route for vehicles too high for the bridge? That’s a problem too.
Not that I’m aware of. The only really large vehicles I regularly see on Perry Vale (apart from the red bus service) are Clarkes Coaches. Their depot is before the bridge and easily accessible via Sydenham Road.
But it would be possible to divert them down Westbourne Drive. It is fairly rare for this to be necessary as the bridge is 4.6m high which is good enough for double decker buses.
That’s the sign I was thinking of. Thanks Michael.
Sorry, I was thinking of the bridge at Bell Green.
Can we get that bloody sign fixed, by the way? It’s always going off and a couple of weeks ago I had to reassure a German coach driver that it really was 4.5m and not too small for his coach.
There have been a few petitions in the past, but not since the 20mph zone. I think it would be an excellent idea to create this now, especially with elections on the way.
In fact it seems like such a good idea - I’ve decided to start one today on behalf of the Forest Hill Society.
For the moment, can I get feedback on this petition before we start signing up support?
The petition would be presented to the Full Council after the council elections in May.
Be interesting to see if this changes anyones minds one the matter.
I was under the impression that previous calls for this were based on the road not having the appropriate line of sight to safely install such crossings. Unless of course you were to place the lights / stop lines, further back.
If the crossings on the other side of the track are anything to go by, I would think at very best it will be a mixed result of people willing to wait or walk to a crossing .
Out of interest @Michael, where on the road would you put the crossing?
Personally I would think anything further than 10-15ft from the exit of the station would discourage a lot of people from using it. Genuinely.
The analysis of this location for a crossing was based on a speed limit of 30mph, at 20mph it should be possible to place traffic lights in this location, in fact numerous sets of roadworks have proved that traffic lights can be placed in this location.
I agree that the best place for the crossing is somewhere between the underpass and the station entrance/exit.
Yup I agree re the crossings which have been there as a temp measure. Although that was a bit further down, and highlighted some peoples lack of interest in crossing “safely”.
Problem having a crossing anywhere near the station entrance, is it would also require zig-zags, which would encroach on the existing parking for the local businesses.
Having previously been unconvinced that a crossing would work in that location, I found the temporary lights worked well, both as a pedestrian and a driver.