London SE1 community website

Elephant & Castle Northern Roundabout - latest plans

Join in these discussions today! Log in or register.
Pages:  Previous1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 ...LastNext
Current: 4 of 22
Thursday 27 February 2014 10.20am
I agree wholeheartedly with Perronetonian. (or he agrees with me...whichever way you prefer). It is really stupid to cancel the subways. Look at those that go under Hyde Park from Park Lane. They are broad, clean, light and above all safe. The traffic at the southern roundabout may be ok for cyclists, but it's still quite hairy for pedestrians. As Perronetonian says, no one is going to get mown down by traffic in the underpasses. They could have a glass atrium where the Faraday Memorial is, which would lighten the tunnels, and they could branch off in a logical way rather than the present labyrinthine arrangement. Having lots of traffic lights and pedestrian crossways winking away do not beautify the area, and traffic screeching to a halt and restarting is harmful to the environment.
Thursday 27 February 2014 10.40am
I'm sure their value is understood but obviously it's a lot cheaper just to fill them in and be damned.
Thursday 27 February 2014 10.52am
Tolstoy wrote:
I'm sure their value is understood but obviously it's a lot cheaper just to fill them in and be damned.

You must be kidding, it will cost millions to fill them in! Far cheaper to leave them open.

In my opinion subways belong in the 20th century along with the Aylesbury estate... Subways have their place around motorways and the like, but in urban renewal of a run down area they should go (unless they are kept purely as museum pieces).
Thursday 27 February 2014 11.13am
If they were to be re-configured as appears to be the need, I'd still say it's the cheaper option to fill them in.
Thursday 27 February 2014 1.19pm
I say fill them in and preferably entomb the heroin dealers that infest them at the same time.
Thursday 27 February 2014 2.13pm
The heroin dealers won't find somewhere else?
Thursday 27 February 2014 2.50pm
They absolutely will. Preferably far away. They certainly won't be tolerated in the new shopping areas and I doubt they'd carry on around The Elephant without the subways to shelter them.
Friday 28 February 2014 6.46pm
It is quite sweet the attachment some people have to the subways and there are some fair points about improving the lighting etc.

But frankly subways are all a bit passe and they are symptomatic of the old Elephant that represented crime, rubbish, vandalism etc.

I have also not seen a compelling case against the changes at the southern roundabout - which is a vast improvement. It has not had an impact on safety which seems to be the big argument from the Save our Subways group. The proposals represents a shift to a more open, modern use of space and am a little bit bemused why some people are against this?
Friday 28 February 2014 8.17pm
ElephantSupporter wrote:
It is quite sweet the attachment some people have to the subways and there are some fair points about improving the lighting etc.

But frankly subways are all a bit passe and they are symptomatic of the old Elephant that represented crime, rubbish, vandalism etc.


I have also not seen a compelling case against the changes at the southern roundabout - which is a vast improvement. It has not had an impact on safety which seems to be the big argument from the Save our Subways group. The proposals represents a shift to a more open, modern use of space and am a little bit bemused why some people are against this?

You sound like a developer and have about the same local knowledge.
Friday 28 February 2014 10.12pm
Good to know Jackie and I are on the same wave length!

It's fascinating that almost all the opposition to the subways is justified here or elsewhere on two arguments: that they're revolting (be it smell, appearance and users) and that they're an antiquated form of urban transport infrastructure.

The railway viaducts that criss cross SE1 were poised for removal in the 1940s (read the London Plan for descriptions about the blight they inflicted on the landscape), the Euston Arch, St Pancras Railway Station. Yet thankfully not all of these were destroyed in the name of fashionable progress.

Subways at the Elephant have made good sense for 113 years at this junction. With expected growth in the users of the junction destroying space, primarily in the name of cleanliness and modernity, seems bafflingly stupid to those of us who can see beyond the grime of neglect and who know removing shelters for homeless people doesn't prevent people being homeless. The grime and neglect could very easily be fixed. Just look at the railway arches and the role they play today or even St Pancras Railway Station! Our subways would be a darn sight cheaper and quicker to improve than that outmoded dilapidated superfluous and embarrassing blight of Victorian pomposity (as it appeared to the mainstream in the 1960s).

Let's not let Cllr Peter John and TfL bring the wrecking ball to a piece of urban infrastructure that has so much more potential in it to keep pedestrians moving safely. With the proposed plan pollution will increase from the longer ringer road and extra stop-starts, and while users / residents here might not be able to smell it all, what they can is definitely not so healthy for you as the aromas some complain about in the subways right now.

More at www.saveoursubways.org and spread the word of this serious threat. Please sign up there in support and prevent the junction being bodged by Cllr Peter John and TfL.
Pages:  Previous1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 ...LastNext
Current: 4 of 22

To post a message, please log in or register..
Keep up with SE1 news

We have three email newsletters for you to choose from:

We are part of
Independent Community News Network
Email newsletter

For the latest local news and events direct to your inbox every Monday, you need our weekly email newsletter SE1 Direct.

7,000+ locals read it every week. Can you afford to miss out?

Read the latest issue before signing up

Also on the forum
Views expressed in this discussion forum are those of the contributors and may not reflect the editorial policy of this website. Please read our terms and conditions