Safe Access for residents to Hemel Hempstead Station
56 Comments
K
Kerry Marsh
16 hr ago
This back gate has been accessible to local residents for over 35 years and for us is the safest way to reach the station rather than via the narrow pathway under the railway tunnel on the London road.
J
James Ravenscroft
16 hr ago
Completely disagree that this is an unsafe route for travel. Other routes at the rear of the access are treacherous. There has been no communication or consultation offered, with little to no notice period on implementation.
S
Simon Allsop
17 hr ago
I have two boys that go to college in Watford, platform 1 is fenced off from the fast train. The tunnel where the pathway thins against the A4251 is dangerous.
G
grace deane
17 hr ago
Very inconvenient to close it
A
Annabel Gordon-Liddle
17 hr ago
Agree with keeping this open as London Road is dangerous under the bridge and the ‘safety reason’ has not been explained. In five plus years I’ve been using this no issues at all.
S
Stuart Liddle
17 hr ago
The suggested alternative route is unsafe: no lighting down path, unsuitable for pushchairs, busy major road to cross twice, narrow footpath under bridge. This route is dangerous and people will get hurt at some point.
L
Lauren Whiteman
17 hr ago
Closing the back entrance to Hemel station isn’t just inconvenient — it’s unsafe. Without it, we’re forced onto a poorly lit underpass and an isolated path just to reach the main road, then through a tunnel with a dangerously narrow or non‑existent pavement where traffic passes inches away from pedestrians. There has been no consultation which is completely unfair.
K
Kelly Ravenscroft
17 hr ago
Safe, direct and quick access to the train station for residents. Used daily for the work commute.
N
Natalie H
17 hr ago
Featured
I strongly oppose the proposal to close the rear gate. I fail to see how the proposed alternative route is genuinely considered safer. If there is evidence to support this, it certainly has not been shared with those that will be most affected. The decision feels as though it’s been made from behind a desk, without proper understanding of how passengers actually use the station every day.
If safety is the justification, the decision makers should publish the evidence and risk assessment.
P
Paul Whiteman
17 hr ago
Featured
The rear access is very important to rail users and those transmitting through.
There had been no consultation with the wider community and I would like to know what safety issues have been found.
The rear access had been in place for a significant period of time - with no issues I know of.
I’m going to ask our local councillor Hugo Hardy to take this up.
A
Anne Werbicki
18 hr ago
Featured
I need this back entrance for weekly access to rail station using a SAFE route. Alternative route is not safe and takes much longer which means I would have to use my car to get to the station. Others on my road would have to do the same, adding to the already congested traffic in the area.
P
Ptole Walters
18 hr ago
Featured
Crossing the main road and walking along a very narrow pavement to get to the front of the station presents a significant danger to passengers which is currently avoided by using the back of the station .
T
Tania Steven-Jennings
18 hr ago
We use the gate on a daily basis for London commute
A
Ashfia Tough
18 hr ago
The road is too dangerous to cross without a pass
J
Joan Higham
19 hr ago
What specific safety concerns have resulted in the decision to permanently close the gate?
Why is permanent closure considered the only solution?
Were alternative measures considered, such as improved fencing, CCTV, enhanced lighting, repairs or revised access controls?
Was an Equality Impact Assessment undertaken to consider the effect on disabled passengers, parents with young children, elderly residents and those who rely on walking and public transport?
What consultation with residents?
A
Alfred Smith
19 hr ago
Featured
The alternative route is not suitable for travel, in the winter months it is unstable and slippery, creating great risk for elderly people and children and many more demographics. The path has no streetlights during the winter, combined with the condition of the path, this is very dangerous. There has been no incidents in the last 35 years so unsure why it is suddenly a problem. Closing the gate permanently could lead to people jumping over the fence which is a great risk or damaging property
This back gate has been accessible to local residents for over 35 years and for us is the safest way to reach the station rather than via the narrow pathway under the railway tunnel on the London road.
Completely disagree that this is an unsafe route for travel. Other routes at the rear of the access are treacherous. There has been no communication or consultation offered, with little to no notice period on implementation.
I have two boys that go to college in Watford, platform 1 is fenced off from the fast train. The tunnel where the pathway thins against the A4251 is dangerous.
Very inconvenient to close it
Agree with keeping this open as London Road is dangerous under the bridge and the ‘safety reason’ has not been explained. In five plus years I’ve been using this no issues at all.
The suggested alternative route is unsafe: no lighting down path, unsuitable for pushchairs, busy major road to cross twice, narrow footpath under bridge. This route is dangerous and people will get hurt at some point.
Closing the back entrance to Hemel station isn’t just inconvenient — it’s unsafe. Without it, we’re forced onto a poorly lit underpass and an isolated path just to reach the main road, then through a tunnel with a dangerously narrow or non‑existent pavement where traffic passes inches away from pedestrians. There has been no consultation which is completely unfair.
Safe, direct and quick access to the train station for residents. Used daily for the work commute.
I strongly oppose the proposal to close the rear gate. I fail to see how the proposed alternative route is genuinely considered safer. If there is evidence to support this, it certainly has not been shared with those that will be most affected. The decision feels as though it’s been made from behind a desk, without proper understanding of how passengers actually use the station every day. If safety is the justification, the decision makers should publish the evidence and risk assessment.
The rear access is very important to rail users and those transmitting through. There had been no consultation with the wider community and I would like to know what safety issues have been found. The rear access had been in place for a significant period of time - with no issues I know of. I’m going to ask our local councillor Hugo Hardy to take this up.
I need this back entrance for weekly access to rail station using a SAFE route. Alternative route is not safe and takes much longer which means I would have to use my car to get to the station. Others on my road would have to do the same, adding to the already congested traffic in the area.
Crossing the main road and walking along a very narrow pavement to get to the front of the station presents a significant danger to passengers which is currently avoided by using the back of the station .
We use the gate on a daily basis for London commute
The road is too dangerous to cross without a pass
What specific safety concerns have resulted in the decision to permanently close the gate? Why is permanent closure considered the only solution? Were alternative measures considered, such as improved fencing, CCTV, enhanced lighting, repairs or revised access controls? Was an Equality Impact Assessment undertaken to consider the effect on disabled passengers, parents with young children, elderly residents and those who rely on walking and public transport? What consultation with residents?
The alternative route is not suitable for travel, in the winter months it is unstable and slippery, creating great risk for elderly people and children and many more demographics. The path has no streetlights during the winter, combined with the condition of the path, this is very dangerous. There has been no incidents in the last 35 years so unsure why it is suddenly a problem. Closing the gate permanently could lead to people jumping over the fence which is a great risk or damaging property