Comments on: London 2012 Is Listening

By: Indigo

Indigo — Mon, 30 Nov 2009 19:26:29 +0000

Sophie, the equestrian cross-country course at the 2012 Olympics is supposed to be 6.2km. See for instance

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard-olympics/article-23538726-greenwich-park-and-a-lesson-from-china.do

In the 2008 Olympics, at Beas River (Hong Kong), the course was shorter because everyone was worried about the effect of the heat and high humidity on the horses. The equestrian cross country course length for the 2008 Olympics was, I understand, the shortest in history: at 4.5km.

By: Sophie

Sophie — Mon, 30 Nov 2009 14:36:00 +0000

Does anyone know what the distance of the cross country course will be as i can not seem to find it anywhere and i need it for an assignment i am writting. anyone? thanks

By: GORN61

GORN61 — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 09:55:20 +0000

On which note, perhaps the “if it saves one child” crowd should join the NOGOE bandwagon? After all, the congestion caused by closing that road (which will be substantial!) might delay an ambulance attending to an injured child.
“How many must die for the Olympics?”

By: GORN61

GORN61 — Tue, 03 Nov 2009 14:41:47 +0000

Edward –
The plans I saw last Saturday show Charlton Way (the road immediately to the south of the park) closed between Shooters Hill Road (the A2) and Maze Hill from 6th July to 3rd August.

By: Edward.A.Newson

Edward.A.Newson — Tue, 03 Nov 2009 11:31:26 +0000

Its one thing to continually harp on about the ancient aspects of the park, that I do agree with, but should we not also be looking at the impact on the present, ie the traffic and access to the events within the park.

We have two roads that service both the local citizens and those that work within central London, that sandwich the park. Both are constantly jammed with traffic both going East and west past the gates of the park.

So who is going to be given priority through the period of the Olympics, I suspect certainly not the locals, as in the same way we have been rough shod over the whole affair!!.

By: PJ

PJ — Sun, 01 Nov 2009 15:46:11 +0000

“We cannot give absolute guarantees at this stage because of security assessments and other considerations, but this is our aim”………………… if this event goes ahead just be warned…………..be wary of these snake oil salesmen………remember Tim Hadway was involved in submitting a bid on the wrong scale of map – which of course has now been excused as a “Printers’ error”……..

By: steve

steve — Fri, 30 Oct 2009 17:31:18 +0000

Bring on the games… bring on the games!

By: Indigo

Indigo — Fri, 30 Oct 2009 17:00:41 +0000

“On the issue of Park closure we’ve reduced this to around four weeks. We cannot give absolute guarantees at this stage because of security assessments and other considerations, but this is our aim.”

No guarantees, only an “aim”, so the four week closure is purely aspirational. And therefore meaningless.

Please, people, use your heads – only Tinkerbell or the genie in Aladdin’s lamp could construct a 23,000-seat stadium and an Olympic cross-country course in the time LOCOG seem to be allowing for this. (The cross-country course for the Beijing Olympics took YEARS to prepare.)

I had a light-bulb moment recently about this “aim” of only four weeks closure of the Park. LOCOG’s cunning plan is to do most of the construction at night – am I right?

Still complete silence from LOCOG on the subject of the protected species in the Park. Where is the bat survey that LOCOG’s scoping report said would be carried out this summer?

By: Last Day To Visit London 2012 “Shop” | Greenwich.co.uk

Last Day To Visit London 2012 “Shop” | Greenwich.co.uk — Fri, 30 Oct 2009 16:36:31 +0000

[...] also a dedicated website and earlier this week, London 2012 equestrian chief, Tim Hadaway, penned an article for Greenwich.co.uk – comes as LOCOG prepare to put forward a formal planning application to Greenwich [...]

By: GORN61

GORN61 — Fri, 30 Oct 2009 13:32:16 +0000

Bob – if you get bored by hearing opinions that are different to yours, or questions that you already know the answers to, then just don’t read other posts. That way you perhaps won’t mistake questions for opposition.

James – thanks for the pointer. I’m working my way through that lot now, but it’s hard to find answers to my questions in them so far, because so much of the brochure is spin rather than genuine facts. The section that purports to lsit the benefits to Greenwich residents is a good example – none of it is about the benefits of the horsey events in the park.

It’s quite telling that to find a quote from a “local resident” supporting the development, they had to go to Lewisham!