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.
totally agree
Another factor not mentioned above is the fact that a 2-lane one-way system in Norman Road would prevent cyclists using the Ha’penny Hatch (the only quiet route into the borough) to get to West Greenwich without first going round the houses via the Mitre public house. And then, having blocked access to cyclists they come up with a cycle contraflow (option 2c) which starts magically at a point on Greenwich High Road – where the plans prevent cyclists from actually reaching. Man at the Devonport ”consultation” admitted that the Ha’penny Hatch had not been taken into account – and indeed, if you look at the street plans displaying the various schemes, they have used an out of date map which doesn’t actually have the Ha’penny Hatch there at all. So the consultation has actually hidden a transport link – a green transport link – into the borough. Bikes are part of the solution, not something that should be pushed out of the way.
I agree that this is another half-baked idea from the officers in Woolwich who seem to have no idea how the transport system in Greenwich works. Once again an idea is being proposed to help the tourists (and Olympics traffic) at the expense of the residents. The two biggest problems with these proposals are the disruption to the bus services and the increased rat-running.
Option 2B is the only one which would allow normal bus routes but it is unlikely to be adopted if it causes more congestion in the centre. This means that elderly people living in the sheltered housing on the High Road returning from Lewisham would have a longer walk home from the station bus stop. Patient transport and emergency services would similarly have to take lengthy detours if the High Road becomes one-way.
Rat -running is already a serious problem and these proposals would add to it. Drivers from the A2 or Lewisham heading east in the evening rush hour will be tempted to cut through residential streets to get to Crooms Hill or to Greenwich Park . The humps and 20mph speed limit are not a deterrent and I’ve seen vans racing each other either side of Gloucester Circus to get to Crooms Hill. This is an accident waiting to happen.
The Greenwich Society has mailed its members for their opinions before it makes comment. I say leave things as they are.
This is not going to be good news for the people that live in the middle of the proposed gyratory. It will make access to our parking spots a big nuisance. There is only one access point from the gyratory to any given parking spot within it due to the fact that this barrier prevents traffic though flow:
http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?hl=en-GB&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=London+SE10+9JE,+United+Kingdom&ll=51.479923,-0.013261&spn=0,359.995188&t=h&z=18&layer=c&cbll=51.479884,-0.013392&panoid=_wfag2FsKpJ4uFB1tWOuJw&cbp=12,261.13,,0,3.39
I see that the pedestrianised area will allow residents driving access. I suggest that the residents within the gyratory get residents only access too and that this barrier is removed so that we can access our parking spaces without always having to go the long way around, sitting in traffic. Im sure if they can make this work in the pedestrianised area, they can make this work for us too.
Living just off Norman Road, I will suffer more noise and pollution. There will probably be a reduced incentive for the regeneration of Deptford Creek. I know that there were plans for a foot bridge to the Laban centre from Norman Road. See Pic below. Im guessing the council didn’t consider this if they didn’t even consider the existing ha’penny bridge. What does Lewisham Council on the other side of the Creek think about this? Do they know that access into their borough by foot or cycle is potentially being compromised? What benefits will this bring to Norman Road? How will the light industries on Norman Road cope with the gridlock traffic that at the moment they can bypass?
http://media.photobucket.com/image/BuildingPics290108003/luke82/BuildingPics290108003.jpg
This is all bad news and I don’t think that the benefits to the wider Greenwich community compensate for this. In fact I think the benefits are minimal to the people of Greenwich. If this is primarily for the benefit of the Olympics then make it a temporary pedestrianisation – for the Olympics. That’s a reasonable compromise that our friends in Woolwich could propose.
I disagree. The current gyratory is a race track in the middle of a world heritage site and pedestrianisation of a large section of Greenwich town centre is long over due. Greenwich was not designed for the car and the atmostphere in the town centre would be improved for shoppers, cyclists and tourists all of whom are far more important to the small businesses of Greenwich than the through traffic.
That said, having been to the exhibition, I do not think a new, larger gyratory is the best solution.
Two lanes of one-way traffic on the proposed new gyratory will make it far less friendly for cyclist and pedestrians not withstanding pottential cycle paths and wider pavements.
It would be far simpler to make Nelson Road two way as planned but with traffic running in both directions to and from Creek Road. Clossing off access to Greenwich Church Street to all traffic except busses would be much simpler.
It would also solve a number of problems with the prossed scheme and still allow the pedestrianisation of a large part of Greenwich.
The 199 bus could to continue to follow its current route and Greenwich High Road / Greenwich Church Street would become a traffic free area where the bus stops could be placed. The 188 bus would have to make a small detour to reach Greenwich High Road but this would have the advantage of alowing it to also serve Greenwich Station.
If Nevada Street was closed to cars by the park gates rat-running though the residential streets would be prevented while allowing better access for cyclists coming from the south to Greenwich Foot Tunnel.
Whenever there have been road works that has caused traffic to back up into West greenwich the rat running by drivers trying to get to the park has been terrible. If Nevada Street is not closed this situation would lead to deaths. The speed at which people drive through Circus Street and Gloucester Circus is incredible.
Some of the options proposed (e.g. Option 2A or 2C, not 2B) may improve traffic flows but clearly there would be winners and losers in terms of local access. But the big problem as I see it is that the bus stop currently on King William Walk, would disappear. This stop is often occupied by more than one bus and they tend to block traffic already.
Where are these buses going to stop in future? On Nelson Road (which would definitely be obstructive)?
Andrew, the results of the consultation were due to be release on 16th Feb. I emailed the Council on 17th to find out the initial results and have had no response to my request.
I have since sent another request to find out what is happening and received a receipt informing me that the point of contact’s mailbox is full.
Have you any further information on these proposals?
Dear Mr Acty,
Request for information RFI/01950
I refer to your email dated 22nd February 2010 in which you asked:
~
Following on from my email dated 17 Feb 2010, can you please provide a response with regards to the Pedestrianisation of Greenwich Town Centre. As a concerned resident of Greenwich I am keen to find out what the initial findings of the Councils consultations are as the report was due to be published on 16 Feb 2010. Can you please provide the recommendations that were made following this consultation, along with an update on the future plans for this project I would be grateful.
~
The initial consultation process has confirmed that almost 90% of those who replied support the principle of improving the town centre environment.
Further, nearly 80 % agree that pedestrianisation of College Approach, King William Walk (part) and Greenwich Church Street (part) is an appropriate way forward.
Of those who support pedestrianisation around 70% prefer the gyratory concept to the idea of a T junction at Nelson Road/Greenwich Church Street.
Following these returns officers are developing more detailed plans about how best to design a gyratory scheme incorporating the views and opinions expressed, it is anticipated that a further consultation will take place on this more detailed proposal in the summer of this year.
Yours sincerely,
Sinéad Cuffy-Dillon.
Freedom of Information
London Borough of Greenwich
look at any pedestrianised town centres (Woolwich, Lewisham, Datford) they all become no-go-areas one the shops close- don’t miss the public consultation and do not allow these planning barbarians to destroy the town Centre –
My own concern is a significant increase in ‘rat running’ in the narrow roads around Circus Street. Current. speed restrictions are already ignored – essentially late afternoons onwards – surprising that there have been no serious incidents already. Increasingly the area is home to families with young children and my fear is for them as they grow up and become more independent and adventurous.
It would be more appropriate to make Circus Street one way from Brand Street to Greenwich South Street thereby cutting off the ‘rat run’ in the evenings. Further it amazes me that Gloucester Circus continues to be a ‘free for all’ traffic island. Surely ‘keep to the left ‘ would be safer.
@DAVID LONGHURST
There are loads of residents who ‘suffer’ from rat-running – around Trafalgar Road, Humber Road, Westcomebe Park Road to name but three. And there are families and young children everywhere! – jeez – NIMBYISM at its worst.
Why should your precious road be protected so that everyone else has to sit in traffic jams? I support the plans – if they prove to ease congestion. If speed restrictions are ignored (which they pretty much are everywhere – 20mph zone??) then maybe something should be done about that instead.
As a Deptford resident who’s child crosses Norman Road every day to get to school – along with parents and children from at least 4 primary schools and 3 secondary schools – I was shocked and dismayed by this proposal. Many of my complaints have already been picked up by others – but I would like to raise one incredible development.
I wrote to councillors and to the council to object and was ultimately refered to a man called Brian Hanson whose title is ‘L B Greenwich Commission Director’ and whose employer is Hyder Consulting – the people who will, most likely, be invoved in building the gyratory system. At best – this is the tail wagging the dog, at worst, well, you fill in the blanks. Mr Hanson patronisingly told me that I had probably only seen the old plans (let me tell you – it isn’t that straight forward finding the relevent place to comment online) and that most of my complaints had been covered by recent updates – though he fails to answer any of my complaints specifically.
Most of the parents at my daughter’s school had not heard of these plans as of the 12th of July 2010 and at tleast 90% live right in the middle of the scheme. Funny that. Those that support the scheme support the lovely-ness of small respite of pedestrian area – the beneficiaries of which seem to be tourists, residents of that small area and patrons of Rhodes Bakery… While the regular folks like me who take their kids to school, ride their cycles to work or take buses have been completely left out of the equation. I guess that makes me a Nimby… go figure…
@RUSSELL
Hardly NIMBYISM. The roads mentioned would see an INCREASE in rat running (as happens whenever South Street is closed). The congestion would only be eased in an area which is non residential. Basically local tax payers would suffer so that non tax payers could benefit.
Dear Andrew
If you think Greenwich Councl’s consultations are rigged you should have a butchers at East Hampshire District Council’s efforts to double the size of Whitehill Bordon with 4-5000 houses by calling it an eco-town- in reality a stitch up to maximise profits on an MoD land sell off. All on speculative aspiration with the help of highly paid consultants of course. They falsely claim ‘community support’ just to tick that box, but we know most people in the town are opposed. See http://www.baaga.co.uk for more info.