Pedestrian crossings are expected to appear early next year in Elm Grove after residents called for action to make the road safer.
Elm Grove resident Michelle Patel asked when work on crossings, speed regulation and “greening” would start when Brighton and Hove City Council’s Transport and Sustainability Committee met on Tuesday (26 March).
Ms Patel previously urged councillors to focus on road safety and speeding, particularly in the area around Elm Grove Primary School, in September 2022.
The call for action came about because residents feared the potential effects of more traffic being pushed on to “boundary roads” should the Hanover and Tarner low-traffic neighbourhood project go ahead.
However, this scheme was scrapped last year.
Ms Patel was part of group that held a workshop with other Elm Grove residents to identify priorities before addressing councillors at Hove Town Hall.
Those priorities included safe crossings, slower traffic, more plants, trees and greening, better street furniture, resurfacing and better rubbish collection.
Labour councillor Trevor Muten, who chairs the council’s Transport and Sustainability Committee, said that two sites were approved for “infrastructure improvements” in December.
A pedestrian crossing is due to replace the current “pedestrian refuge island” close to the corner of Hampden Road and De Montfort Road.
A similar crossing upgrade is also planned by the corner of Bonchurch Road.
Councillor Muten said that officials were also looking into installing a “sustainable drainage system” to help deal with “surface run off”.
Design work is starting this spring, with consultation on the concept designs expected in the summer, and construction is expected to take place in early 2025.
Elm Grove is not that busy and the school already has a dedicated crossing.
Every time there’s a proposal that restricts cars – every time! – you comment on it and say it’s being imposed by a mafia council (your word) without consultation.
Here’s a proposal that’s a direct result of a consultation with local people and you’re against that because, to paraphrase, you know better.
Elm Grove is pretty busy actually; particularly because it’s the main bypass to get from East to North and West to North, and vice versa.
Great, they still get the improvements and the low traffic neighbourhood plan falls through, even though most of the money would have gone to to those “ring roads”. The power of misinformation. Well done.
Not aimed at this publication specifically btw, more to those who made unsubstantiated claims and statements about the LTN, upto and including conspiracy theories.
Yeah. I was shocked by how big the ‘vote green – be gammon’ brigade is in Hanover. So many people virtue signalling their environmentally friendly credentials but, when push came to shove, felt that green policies should only apply to other people and they should not be inconvenienced by perhaps not driving as much locally.
It was unintentionally hilarious how so many of them would happily drive around the (internal and boundary) roads with wild abandon one minute and then suddenly really care about the traffic on the boundary roads and disabled people all of a sudden. Unfortunately mandatory irony awareness training can’t just be hoisted on people so maybe it’s a lost cause.
Granted the council were foolishly overconfident after only initially engaging with one side of the debate. The scheme had loads of issues but did improve. There were some very justified concerns around businesses in the area. However, so many people just set themselves against it and were never going to accept it in any form. They seemed to think their anger trumped measured concern about traffic from others. Pro-rata anger levels are not really a healthy decision shaping metric.
LTN’s are a far from perfect and are unfortunately a blunt instrument. Local authorities have very few tools in their armory to deliver on statutory responsibilities around air quality etc however. The mountain of evidence supporting the benefits of well designed LTN’s is growing all the time. Unfortunately its not possible to have a sensible, open minded debate about traffic management on museli mountain.
I think that’s a pretty balanced argument made, Bubba. LTNs are again one of those things that do need careful consideration about their effectiveness and their impact. They are not something I’ve read up into a huge deal of detail, but I suspect they will have their justifiable benefits and downsides, and the arguments may as well end up being where the balance lies. I often miss the opportunity to have amicable discourse with people about Brighton; it’s very easy to just slip into ad hominem.
They need to get rid of the parking bays on the road and put it back to how it was before. It’s gridlocked now so I don’t know who they think is able to speed lol
I agree with you, the road feels narrow for the amount of traffic that flows through it.
It’s dangerous BECAUSE it’s choked up with obstacles. It’s too narrow, parked cars everywhere and swerving islands doesn’t help safety. Just make it wider and clearer and watch the safety issues go away
Much too intelligent!
There is a balance to be made. Have you heard of the Peltzman Effect? That’s the counter argument.
I agree but if this was implemented the 20mph speed limit would need to be enforced in elm grove abd surrounding rat runs. High traffic volumes can be an issue at certain times but speeding traffic occurs all the time.
I’m shocked. You’re saying something positive! And yes, you are indeed right, pedestrians are the most vulnerable things on the road, and should have plenty of ways to cross safely.