Level crossing stupidity...

[PhilJ W]

7 minutes ago, martin_wynne said:

 

Why not have both?

 

The alternative was built to replace the footpath in question because the original footpath couldn't be upgraded. As it turned out most of the objectors never used the footpath anyway.

[PhilJ W]

5 minutes ago, Hobby said:

 

There are some places that can't be without major modifications, but there are "ways and means" if the willingness is there. You don't have to butcher them. Also you've taken my comment to extremes, I didn't suggest them to be made fully accessible, just more than they are at the moment. If you look there are very few NT houses where there is access to more than the ground floor for anyone in a wheelchair, and those that are already had a lift installed by their previous owners.

 

As an example of lateral thinking we go to Germany regularly and one place, which was definitely the equivalent of a Grade 1 listed building, had taken two small rooms which were in the same place on the ground and first floors (they were storage rooms if I remember rightly) and a lift had been placed in the rooms to allow access to the upper floor, the doors were left in place so if you walked down the corridor you wouldn't know. I wouldn't call that "butchered", would you?

I visited a castle in the Black Forest that had raised timber walkways to access the walls. It was explained to me that it also prevented too many feet eroding the stonework.

[martin_wynne]

7 minutes ago, PhilJ W said:

As it turned out most of the objectors never used the footpath anyway.

 

Does that matter? Most of these ways are ancient routes that have existed for hundreds of years. You don't have to use them to appreciate their existence and not want to see them wiped out.

 

Martin.

[Wickham Green too]

45 minutes ago, Hobby said:

... I didn't suggest them to be made fully accessible, just more than they are at the moment. ...

Sounds like we need a definition of 'accessible' that isn't 'fully accessible' ........................... answers on a postcard ...............

[SM42]

Close the foot crossing, but you can guarantee that it will still be used by those who find it easier to vandalise a fence so they don't gave to walk an extra 500yds and *anyway the old route is more convenient even if you do have to squeeze through a gap in the fence, walk over ballast and squeeze through another gap.

 

Oh yes far easier than the safer alternative 

 

Andy

 

*sarcasm mode turned on at this point

Edited July 29 by SM42

[corneliuslundie]

There is also the attitude of the local authority to take into account, and many now do not have conservation specialists. Around here any change to a, listed building, even a Grade II house, is verboten - even to replacing leaking 1930s windows at the rear of an early 19th century property owned by a neighbour. Yet 12 years ago we were offered a grant by the then conservation officer towards replacing our front windows with something more appropriate than  the plastic double glazing we still have.

(I am not a conservation expert but I worked with the Institute of Historic Building Conservation for a good number of years so I have an idea how things should work).

Jonathan

[corneliuslundie]

"you can guarantee that it will still be used by those who find it easier to vandalise a fence"

Remember this is south Wales.

Jonathan

[SM42]

1 minute ago, corneliuslundie said:

"you can guarantee that it will still be used by those who find it easier to vandalise a fence"

Remember this is south Wales.

Jonathan

 

It doesn't matter where it is. 

 

In Aylesbury there  is a good example too 

 The road bridge next to the crossing is too easy. No we'll go through the fence instead. 

 

Even when people get bowled it still goes on because of the " I'm not stupid enough to get squished" attitude people seem to have. 

 

Bad things always happen to other people it seems

 

Andy

[corneliuslundie]

"fully accessible"

Impossible in mid Wales unless you are going to flatten all the hills.

And just as applicable in the towns as in the countryside.

 

The top of the hill is about 1 in 5.

Jonathan

[Hobby]

23 minutes ago, Wickham Green too said:

Sounds like we need a definition of 'accessible' that isn't 'fully accessible' ........................... answers on a postcard ...............

 

The definition is "reasonable adjustments" should be made. As I said there are times when it's simply not possible and the acts reflect that. You are trying to make more out of it than there is.

 

Section highlighted for Jonathan's comment above.

Edited July 29 by Hobby

[GrumpyPenguin]

It looks like thread drift has reached the shores of disabled access.

 

Mrs Grumpy is registered disabled and her mobility can be anything from using a stick, two sticks, walker or wheelchair - this varies from day to day.

 

Mrs Grumpy has a pragmatic veiw of her access and realises that not every building/public area can be adapted for disabled people.

She does however expect reasonable efforts to be made to help her quality in life.

 

Bear in mind that any one of us could effectively end up in a wheelchair tomorrow because of a life changing accident or illness.

[Wickham Green too]

Sounds like we need a definition who's definition of 'reasonable' we're going to take ........................... answers on a postcard ...............

 

I think as bit of string's 4'7'' long - you may chose to differ.

[The Stationmaster]

20 hours ago, corneliuslundie said:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cxe2r3mj03vo

I have not heard of crossings being closed like this before but I may just be ignorant.

Jonathan

It has happened but sometimes it has meant the construction of either diversions of the path to an existing bridge or provision of a footbridge (usually at great expense).   Over the years many, usually little used, foot crossings have been removed from high speed (100mph and over) lines along with occupation and accommodation crossings

[SM42]

6 minutes ago, The Stationmaster said:

It has happened but sometimes it has meant the construction of either diversions of the path to an existing bridge or provision of a footbridge (usually at great expense).   Over the years many, usually little used, foot crossings have been removed from high speed (100mph and over) lines along with occupation and accommodation crossings

 

There is a campaign that has been going for many years to close foot crossings where an alternative is available or indeed not bridge can be installed. 

 

Off the top of my head I can list the following over the last 20 years,  (some came with the introduction of new trains or service frequency, otherwise because it was an easy safety win)

 

Mackadown Lane, Bham, footbridge built.*

 

Bickenhill ( near NEC) new footbridge ( a neighbour objected to the bridge as it would spoil the view (the electricity pylon didn't apparently!))*

 

Bradnocks Marsh, near NEC diversion nearby road bridge?

 

Wooton Green, ( Hampton in Arden) diversion via nearby road bridge 

 

Sweetpool Lane, Hagley, ( site of at least one fatality  intentional) bridge installed. 

 

Brickfields Crossing, Worcester, diversion via nearby road bridge. 

 

Griffin Lane Aylesbury, diversion via road bridge adjacent

 

There are also numerous sleeping dogs ( User Worked Crossings) that have fallen out of use but still remain as rights of way, that are being extinguished where possible. 

 

Thus it is not unusual for crossings to be closed on safety grounds. Frequent abuse by users makes a better case for closure, but is not a prerequisite. 

 

Andy

 

* these bridges were built with a view to crossing a possible 4 track formation in the future between Coventry and Birmingham. 

[Hobby]

39 minutes ago, Wickham Green too said:

Sounds like we need a definition who's definition of 'reasonable' we're going to take ........................... answers on a postcard ...............

 

Why have you repeated yourself? If you looked it up you will see it's regulated well and it's not as vague as you keep making it out to be. 

[corneliuslundie]

It wasn't the actual closure I felt to be odd but the apparent immediate action by the council with apparently no consultation etc. Of course there may have been and the timescale is longer than the news item suggested. It was also the fact that it is apparently already closed which I found odd.

Jonathan

[martin_wynne]

23 minutes ago, corneliuslundie said:

It wasn't the actual closure I felt to be odd but the apparent immediate action by the council with apparently no consultation etc. Of course there may have been and the timescale is longer than the news item suggested. It was also the fact that it is apparently already closed which I found odd.

Jonathan

 

It may be a Temporary Emergency Closure on grounds of public safety. To be followed up with the proper legal Closure Order in due course. Or maybe not -- sometimes temporary closure notices go on being renewed every 6 months for ever.

 

[Michael Hodgson]

2 hours ago, corneliuslundie said:

"fully accessible"

Impossible in mid Wales unless you are going to flatten all the hills.

 

That would be a good idea.  Perhaps get the Senedd to pass a bill to that effect?

[Jeremy Cumberland]

This doesn't look like it is an historic route. Looking at maps on NLS, the path on the north side of the line looks like it was built at the same time as the adjacent railway works in 1899, although before this there had been a different path heading north east, and presumably used by a different group of people (the current path serves people coming from the west). The path looks like it served the saw mill, and later the coal and brick works, on the south side of the line. There is no suggestion of a footpath on the south side until the 1938 survey. It is shown as a public right of way on the 1972 one inch map, which is the earliest OS map of the area to show rights of way.

 

The path is probably largely used now by dog walkers and others going to and from The Warren, an area of woodland south of the town. There is a nearby road bridge over the line, but it is a single track lane with blind bends and no pavements, and I expect there will be local discussion about whether this really is a safer route.

[Reorte]

1 hour ago, SM42 said:

Bickenhill ( near NEC) new footbridge ( a neighbour objected to the bridge as it would spoil the view (the electricity pylon didn't apparently!))*

How do you know they're happy with the pylon? Making one mess doesn't mean it's fine to make more!

 

I do get extremely annoyed about people who dismiss "spoiling the view." The aesthetic nature of our surroundings is massively important for a good quality of life, it's just inconveniently impossible to quantify in any meaningful sense. Not saying that it has to overrule all other considerations of course, but considering what a devastatingly negative impact numerous physical changes to those surroundings have had and look certain to continue to have on my mental health I don't have a lot of sympathy for those who regard it as of little importance. On any individual thing it often is of little impact in the grand scheme of things - sometimes that'll be used to justify it, but big impacts are very often made up by a lot of little ones.

Edited July 29 by Reorte

[Reorte]

2 hours ago, GrumpyPenguin said:

It looks like thread drift has reached the shores of disabled access.

 

Mrs Grumpy is registered disabled and her mobility can be anything from using a stick, two sticks, walker or wheelchair - this varies from day to day.

 

Mrs Grumpy has a pragmatic veiw of her access and realises that not every building/public area can be adapted for disabled people.

She does however expect reasonable efforts to be made to help her quality in life.

 

Bear in mind that any one of us could effectively end up in a wheelchair tomorrow because of a life changing accident or illness.

I sometimes try to avoid that subject pretty much for your final point - it boils down to "how would I feel if I ended up in that situation?" There's quite a bit that I don't like done in the name of accessibility but I don't feel I should condemn anything that I might feel quite strongly about in the other direction if I needed it, and I can't say for sure just what I would think then.

[SM42]

18 minutes ago, Reorte said:

How do you know they're happy with the pylon? Making one mess doesn't mean it's fine to make more!

 

I do get extremely annoyed about people who dismiss "spoiling the view." The aesthetic nature of our surroundings is massively important for a good quality of life, it's just inconveniently impossible to quantify in any meaningful sense. Not saying that it has to overrule all other considerations of course, but considering what a devastatingly negative impact numerous physical changes to those surroundings have had and look certain to continue to have on my mental health I don't have a lot of sympathy for those who regard it as of little importance. On any individual thing it often is of little impact in the grand scheme of things - sometimes that'll be used to justify it, but big impacts are very often made up by a lot of little ones.

 

I don't obviously, but a dark green footbridge that was barely visible through  the trees  to me pales into insignificance compared to the whopping great monument to electricity generation that would be directly behind it in line of sight.

 

The location  also had an electrified railway next door and was under the approaches to BHX to contend with

 

I accept we are  all different but I don't think from a strictly planning point of view, spoiling the visual amenity would be  a strong argument to use..

 

Andy

[Reorte]

36 minutes ago, SM42 said:

 

I don't obviously, but a dark green footbridge that was barely visible through  the trees  to me pales into insignificance compared to the whopping great monument to electricity generation that would be directly behind it in line of sight.

 

The location  also had an electrified railway next door and was under the approaches to BHX to contend with

Well without knowing the location myself it's hard to say for certain (there are definitely plenty of places where I'd think it makes no difference), but I'd much rather we had a tendency to improve rather than the reverse.

Quote

I accept we are  all different but I don't think from a strictly planning point of view, spoiling the visual amenity would be  a strong argument to use..

That's what the system is, and I disagree very strongly with it, and regard it as having enabled a lot of pretty unforgivable destruction; at any rate personally I more and more find that the practical upsides are outweighed by the ever decreasing downsides on my ability to enjoy life.

Edited July 29 by Reorte

[Hobby]

56 minutes ago, Reorte said:

There's quite a bit that I don't like done in the name of accessibility 

 

It's an interesting point and I genuinely wonder what sort of things you are thinking about?

 

I've found that when something makes the headlines regarding accessibility it's usually because a reasonable request for access has been ignored for whatever reason and publicity is the last resort. Access to disabled spaces on buses is a good example.

 

Mrs Hobby, like Mrs Grumpy, is pragmatic about things and doesn't expect the world to stop just to suit her. The problem is that a large number of able bodied people think the world revolves around them and cause disabled people a lot of problems. Misuse of disabled bays and blue badges is an easy example. If people thought more about those around them life for disabled people would be a lot less strained. Luckily there are still lots of nice people who make up for the idiots (stronger words are available!).

[SM42]

Visual amenity is in my opinion always a weak argument, unless of course the planning authority are using it against you or for their own agenda. 

 

( e.g. in my home town a 1960s office block was demolished as it was ugly ( and the council refused any attempts to improve it visually)  and out of keeping, even though it was surrounded by 1960s architecture. The late 1800s church is the most out of place architecturally in the immediate area )

 

The built environment is an important amenity and its look for a location even more so, however there have to be,  as with everything,   limits. 

 

In this case a relatively hidden ( in the busy brutal background) extra bit of infrastructure, built in green especially for the surprisingly rural looking  location, or the greater public safety good. 

 

Someone will always be disappointed of aggreived regardless. 

 

Andy