Daily Photo: 28/12/09 – Greenwich Park

A photo of Greenwich Park I took recently. Did anyone get a new camera for Christmas? You’re more than welcome to contribute any snaps around Greenwich to the Daily Photo section by emailing rob@greenwich.co.uk

Daily Photo: 24/12/09 – Happy Christmas

Many thanks to Cllr Mary Mills for sending me this wonderful photo of, I think, workers at the old gas works in Greenwich who put together this Christmas image of Santa in his own aeroplane.

Merry Christmas to all our readers – posting will be light and sporadic throughout next week and hopefully we will be back at full steam in the New Year.

Daily Photo: 23/12/09 – Bandstand in the Thawing Snow

The bandstand in Greenwich Park, taken earlier this week.

Daily Photo 22/12/09: Number 16′s Advent Window

Robert Gray’s Number 16 B&B took part in the Greenwich Advent Windows event on the 16th December, naturally, and I took this pic of the “window” being put up the day before.

Town Centre Pedestrianisation: Modest Benefits, Big Drawbacks

The council’s plan to pedestrianise part of Greenwich Town Centre, being consulted on now, is one of those things which looks, at first glance, worth having. But any close examination of the proposals shows them to be damaging, if not indeed unworkable.

No-one, of course, can be happy with the present situation in the town centre – and the new proposal is not without merits. But on balance, what’s proposed is appreciably worse than now.

The suggested changes will only remove traffic from a relatively small part of the centre. But they will impose extra traffic on the rest of the centre – and across a far wider area. Most options proposed will also devastate Greenwich’s bus service, hardly conducive to a car-free future. The only one which doesn’t do this will, as the council admits, lead to extra congestion.

The main beneficiaries, as the council explicitly states in its Greenwich Time advert, will be tourists (“the millions who will visit Greenwich in 2012, and in the years to come”) and the businesses that serve them. The main victims will be local residents and non-tourist businesses.

The consultation

The consultation is in the very finest traditions of Greenwich Council – a loaded questionnaire; a short deadline for replies (15 January); a public exhibition lasting all of three days, tucked away in a room down a back corridor of a building accessed via a path leading off a side street; and no data to back up their claims. They say some of the pedestrianisation options would “reduce overall congestion and pollution,” but the people at the exhibition admit that no modelling has in fact been done on how the proposals will affect traffic flows. If you do want to go, today is the last day of the exhibition and you have until 8pm. Or you can respond online.

The proposals

The easiest way to understand what’s proposed is to look at the maps in the consultation booklet, downloadable here. But here’s my summary of it.

The plans would pedestrianise the College Approach and King William Walk parts of the one-way system. Traffic travelling east from Creek Road to Romney Road would go the other way round the town centre – that is, turning right into Greenwich Church Street then left into Nelson Road, which would become two-way.

There are two options for what happens to traffic going west after it leaves Nelson Road. In option 1, it would turn right into Greenwich Church Street, which would also become two-way. This option would almost certainly lead to enormous traffic congestion at the junction by St Alfege Church and is thus, as one of the officers admitted to me at the exhibition, probably “unworkable.”

Option 2, which the council appears to prefer, is turning the whole of west Greenwich into a giant gyratory system. Greenwich High Road (between the town centre and the North Pole pub) would become one-way, westbound-only. The whole of Norman Road would become one-way, northbound-only. Creek Road (between the top of Norman Road and the town centre) would become one-way, eastbound-only.

Under this option, westbound traffic from Romney Road/ Nelson Road to Creek Road would use Greenwich High Road as far as the North Pole, then turn right into Norman Road, then left into Creek Road.

No traffic would be able to approach Greenwich on Greenwich High Road. Everyone coming from Greenwich South Street, or the lower reaches of Greenwich High Road, would have to go all the way round via Norman Road and Creek Road.

All this, it seems to me, would have the following – positive and negative – consequences.

Advantage: a traffic-free King William Walk and College Approach.

This would make it easier for people to get from the market to the naval college and Cutty Sark. King William Walk and College Approach are the least well used parts of the town centre by pedestrians at the moment, because there are few shops along them. However,

council officials talk lyrically of creating new promenading areas along these streets, with their buildings (currently mostly residential) turned into new shops and restaurants.

Advantage: some widening of pavements elsewhere.

Notably along Greenwich High Road between the station and town centre.

Disadvantage: traffic would increase substantially in the parts of the town centre that most pedestrians actually use.

Neither of the town centre’s main shopping streets (Greenwich Church Street and Nelson Road) would be pedestrianised. Traffic on Nelson Road would almost double, since it now becomes two-way (it wouldn’t quite double, since traffic from, say, Creek Road to Greenwich High Road would no longer need to go round the one-way system.)

Traffic on Greenwich Church Street would double under Option 1 and increase somewhat under Option 2 (because of journeys into the residential streets of West Greenwich, see below.)

There would probably also be serious congestion on Greenwich Church Street – right in the heart of the town centre – as two lanes of eastbound traffic narrow down into one to pass along Nelson Road.

Disadvantage: pedestrianisation is no panacea.

Pedestrianised streets can be bleak, particularly at night. Pedestrianisation would probably lead to a rise in Greenwich’s already growing problem of drunken anti-social behaviour.

Disadvantage: bus services would be devastated.

Assuming, as we probably should, that option 1 is a nonstarter, under option 2 more than100,000 bus passengers a day on all seven routes passing through Greenwich would suffer disruption. Many would suffer massive disruption.

- The 199 (coming from Catford and Lewisham) would simply no longer be able to serve Greenwich town centre at all – the closest it could get would be the railway station. It would have to turn right from South Street into Greenwich High Road, then into Norman Road and then pick up its old route at Creek Road, skipping the centre. Alternatively, it would have to make a double loop of Greenwich, adding perhaps 20 minutes to the journey time.

- The pedestrianisation would swallow up the current terminus for the 129 and 286. The people at the exhibition had no idea where these buses would turn round under the new scheme. They too might not be able to serve central Greenwich at all.

- The 180 from Lewisham and 386 from Blackheath would be able to reach the town centre, but would have to make a huge detour via the station, Norman Road and Creek Road, adding at least another ten minutes to their journeys (probably far longer in the peak) and at least doubling the journey time from Lewisham to central Greenwich. If the 199 did not do a double loop, the frequency of service from Lewisham to central Greenwich would also be halved.

- The eastbound 177 would have to make a similar lengthy detour and would no longer be able to serve the railway station.

- The westbound 188 would also have to make a lengthy detour via Greenwich High Road and Norman Road.

- There is currently a bus lane eastbound along Greenwich High Road which significantly speeds buses. However, there will be no bus lane along Norman Road, the proposed eastbound diversionary route, meaning even slower journeys for bus passengers.

- There would be enormous confusion generally among passengers. Many passengers (particularly those travelling to Creek Road and Greenwich High Road) would be faced with longer walks to or from their nearest bus stops.

One possibility to address most of these problems is the council’s option 2b, which puts an eastbound bus contraflow lane along Greenwich High Road (between the North Pole and the town centre) and a westbound contraflow lane along Creek Road (between the town centre and Norman Road.)

However, this would, the council admits, result in “additional traffic congestion” because buses turning right at St Alfege Church and stopping on Nelson Road to pick up passengers would significantly slow down the traffic flow through the town centre, causing major jams. It would also preclude the pavement improvements.

Disadvantage: traffic and pollution would be spread over a wider area.

Even if the total number of vehicles does not change, most drivers coming from the east and south will have to use more roads and drive significantly further to pass through the area. This means more pollution for everyone, and more traffic for many.

On Greenwich High Road, for instance, there may no longer be any eastbound traffic – but that will be more than made up for by a significant increase in the amount of westbound traffic. All the westbound traffic which currently uses Creek Road, as well as High Road’s current westbound traffic, will have to pass along here. Norman Road will also see much more traffic. Residents of Roan Street, Randall Place, Straightsmouth and the Tarves Way/ Haddo Street estates will effectively find themselves in the middle of a giant roundabout.

There will also be traffic jams in new places: for example, at either end of Norman Road.

Disadvantage: many local journeys will become very long and convoluted.

It will no longer be possible to approach Royal Hill or Stockwell Street/ Crooms Hill from the west – or leave them if you are going east. To reach these streets from central London, or leave them towards east Greenwich, you will have to go round via Norman Road, Creek Road and the town centre (getting caught in all the traffic congestion on the way.) It will become much more difficult to drive to Somerfield or the cinema. There is an option 2a allowing two-way movement on the High Road (as far as Stockwell Street) which would mitigate this.

Disadvantage: more rat-running.

Rather than go all the way round via Greenwich High Road and Norman Road, many rush-hour drivers driving up through Greenwich Park would instead cut through the back streets of west Greenwich, such as Circus Street and Gloucester Circus. The proposals contain nothing to prevent this. The convoluted journeys for local residents will also lead to significantly more rat-running by locals.

Disadvantage: more traffic through the Park and over the Heath.

It is likely that rather than brave the new gyratory, some traffic will divert to the A2 – further increasing congestion on this route – or come through the park, perhaps rat-running through residential streets as before.

Conclusion

Unsatisfactory as it is, the status quo remains the least worst option. The latest proposal seems yet another of the council’s ill-thought-out Olympic-related schemes. Its benefits are modest and its drawbacks far greater.

Daily Photo: 18/12/09 – Parakeet in Diamond Terrace

Following yesterdays photo of a robin in East Greenwich Pleasaunce, Diana Gardiner has very kindly sent in this photo of a colourful parakeet in Diamond Terrace. Thanks, Diana!

Daily Photo: 17/12/09 – A robin in the pleasaunce

A robin flew into the cafe in East Greenwich Pleasaunce and landed on one of the shelves of wooden toys. Cafe manager, Lizzie Cooper, grabbed her camera and took this picture.

Greenwich Council Meeting 16/12/09: Roadworks, Foot Tunnel, John Roan School & Charlton Lido

Greenwich Council has said it wants to join a scheme which will enable it to co-ordinate roadworks in the borough, after a year which has seen serious disruption on Greenwich roads.

Works by Southern Gas Networks and Thames Water have caused traffic to grind to a halt through Greenwich town centre, while Charlton and Blackheath have also been seriously affected by a water main replacement programme.

The issue was highlighted by greenwich.co.uk’s Andrew Gilligan in November after it emerged the council had not joined a Transport for London scheme, under which utilities have to get permits from local authorities before they dig up roads.

Deputy leader Peter Brooks told last night’s Greenwich Council meeting he wanted the borough to join the programme.

In a written answer to Liberal Democrat councillor Brian Woodcraft, who asked why Greenwich was not part of the scheme, he said: “I am very keen for Greenwich to participate in this scheme, and I hope the trial will be expanded for us to be able to do so very soon.”

However, he not answer why the council had not joined the scheme, and Cllr Woodcraft did not press him on the issue.

Lewisham and Bromley councils are involved in the TfL programme, which is due to come into force next year.

Greenwich Foot Tunnel

A petition signed by 1,000 users of Greenwich foot tunnel demanding that closures be kept to a minimum when it is refurbished was presented to the council by Liberal Democrat member Paul Webbewood.

The river crossing, together with its sister tunnel at Woolwich, is due to be refurbished by 2012, with regular users fearing lengthy closures.

Council leader Chris Roberts told the meeting a contractor had been appointed to carry out the works.

“We’re discussing what work needs to be done and what the hours will be,” he said.

“Then we can advise residents and businesses on arrangements for both tunnels.”

John Roan School

Greenwich Council confirmed it would respect John Roan School governors’ decision not to move to a new site on Greenwich Peninsula.

Blackheath Westcombe Conservative councillor Alex Wilson asked if a timetable had been set out for works to improve John Roan’s existing sites on Maze Hill and Westcombe Park Road.

But children’s services cabinet member Jackie Smith said the proposals were still in the “developmental stage”.

“It is too early to be definitive about completion dates, but will will want to ensure that the project is progressed as quickly as practicable.”

Charlton Lido

Conservative leader Spencer Drury criticised the council for not giving an update on works at Charlton Lido, which is being converted into a diving centre.

Earlier this year his party colleague, Kidbrooke with Hornfair councillor Graeme Coombes, presented a 222-strong petitioning demanding the reopening of the lido for the summer season.

It had been closed in anticipation of leasing the lido out to private firm Open Waters Investments, which is due to re-open the pool by summer 2012.

But the lease was not signed until 14 August, leaving the lido empty for the summer.

Responding to the petition, the council said it would have taken leisure operator GLL two weeks to mobilise its staff, and that opening hours at another centre would have to be cut to staff Charlton Lido.

Cllr Drury called the reply “disappointing”. “I hoped there would have been an update on whether work has started,” he told the meeting.

But Olympics and culture cabinet member John Fahy said he saw no reason to doubt that the revamped lido would open on time.

New Trees in Greenwich

If you think your street would benefit from having some new trees, then Greenwich Council wants to hear from you.

The council is spending £4.8m on planting 2,012 trees in the borough to mark the Olympics, with planting due to take place next winter.

In response to a public question from the Greenwich Environment Forum’s Anna Townend, Olympics and culture cabinet member John Fahy told the meeting the council was looking for places to put the trees in.

“We’ve been consulting with residents for a number of weeks, particularly at our Great Get-Together events,” he said.

Cllr Fahy added that he did not think that a new woodland would be created with the trees.

Daily Photo: 16/12/09 – London Eye Pod

Nick Davison, who works at the University of Greenwich, kindly sent in this photo of a London Eye pod being taken up the Thames today.

Nick Raynsford – Nobody Likes a Bad Loser

WHEN you’re in an argument with someone, there are two clear signs that they’re losing. The first is when they resort to abuse – and the second is when they have to distort your case to buttress their own.

In their battle to knock down Greenwich Market, Nick Raynsford MP, the Greenwich Society and the forces of development did both those things – and did, indeed, lose. So it’s rather encouraging to see them reprising exactly the same tactics over the Greenwich Park Olympics.

In an article for this website last week, Mr Raynsford accused Nogoe, the anti-Olympics group, of “scaremongering” and a “complete misrepresentation of the facts.” His evidence? A poster they issued, with a picture of the open area in front of the National Maritime Museum, and beneath it the statement that “this will be a no go area in 2012 for several months.”

It is actually Mr Raynsford who is distorting the facts here. As last week’s planning application confirms, the area depicted in Nogoe’s poster will indeed be closed – for eight months.

Mr Raynsford attacks Nogoe for “continuing to perpetuate the myth that the park would be closed in a BBC report in October this year, when a spokeswoman said it would be ‘socially and morally wrong’ for the park to be closed, despite knowing that this would not be the case.”

The actual BBC report quotes Nogoe’s spokeswoman as saying that it would be socially and morally wrong to close the park during the games. And as last week’s planning application confirms, it will indeed be closed during the games.

The outline facts of the Park’s closure are actually quite uncontested. They have been established everywhere outside the mind of Nick Raynsford for more than a year now. And what the further details published last week show is that, far from “scaremongering,” Nogoe have significantly understated the problems the Olympics will cause.

Forty-two thousand vehicle movements in the park, including more than 6,000 lorry movements; five years of works, starting next spring; the park sliced up with fences for most if not all of that time; full restoration of the park only in 2015. And the more I pore through the planning documents, the more horrors emerge – details to follow.

What other distortions have the pro-Games forces been guilty of? Mr Raynsford describes one survey showing an improbable 85% support for the Games as “independent polling.” Actually, it was a voodoo poll. It was market research, not done to the standards of a professional opinion pollster. It was carried out for Locog, and it was packed with questions so comically loaded that 85% must in fact have been a very disappointing result.

Locog, in another of last week’s ripostes, claimed that “all work related to the Games will be completed by November 2012,” other than the acid grass restoration programme by 2015. Not true: the “amenity grassland” across much of the park will be fenced off until spring 2013.

They also say that the extent of tree pruning will be “minimal” and “routine.” I think the trees which will suffer a “removal of branches to the main stem” might quarrel with that.

In this debate and others Nick Raynsford, in particular, is in danger of becoming ridiculous. Not long ago, he was quoted as saying that he had “no doubt” that the redevelopment of Greenwich Market would succeed on appeal and would be built. The proposal was in breach of so many council and Government planning policies, and its rejection by councillors was so comprehensive, that it in fact seems rather unlikely to win an appeal, or to be built in its current form.

Economics have also turned against the development. At the same meeting that councillors refused the market redevelopment, centred around a huge new hotel, they approved a large new hotel on Greenwich High Road. They’re also currently considering another hotel proposal – the conversion of the upper floors of the Trafalgar pub. So any new hotel in the market now faces even greater challenges to its commercial viability.

Mr Raynsford’s instinct for distortion was also on hand over the market, with a claim that opponents had said Turnpin Lane would be destroyed. Nobody had said anything of the sort, of course. In psychoanalysis, this sort of behaviour is known as “Freudian projection” – when you project on to others the faults and flaws you sense in yourself.

Mr Raynsford may be able to inhabit his own private fantasy world for the majority of the parliamentary term. But with no more than six months before he must face his voters, it seems a rather unwise place for him to be at the moment.

Next Page »