The following article was posted by Cllr Matthew Pennycook on the Greenwich West Labour website and he has kindly allowed me to reproduce it here.
Last night West Greenwich residents held a meeting in the Prince of Greenwich public house to discuss traffic-calming measures and the Greenwich Town Centre (GTC) pedestrianisation proposals that will come before the Council’s Cabinet in the New Year. As local Councillors we were invited to come along to speak at the meeting.
Residents raised a variety of questions about traffic-calming measures that could be introduced to deal with the problems that already face residents in the West Greenwich Conservation Area. The potential impact of the GTC pedestrianisation proposals on nearby residential streets was also discussed.
As local representatives we apologised for any confusion that had arisen out of a small meeting Council officers held with key stakeholders and Resident Association representatives on 28th October. Local Councillors could not attend the meeting due to prior commitments. It was designed primarily as an opening discussion of plans to address the serious issues of rat-running which residents have raised with us and officials over many months. However, during the meeting residents were told by Council officers that a firm date and decision-making body for the proposals had been agreed upon. This was incorrect and as local Councillors we have taken firm action through the Council Chief Executive to ensure that a similar situation does not happen again.
During the meeting we made clear that there have been two public consultations on the GTC pedestrianisation proposals (Dec-Jan 2009/10 and July 2010) both of which were advertised in the Council’s freesheet Greenwich Time and on the Council website (a copy of the Council’s advertisement and questionnaire can be found to the right hand side of this page). The Council also held an exhibition in Devonport House where residents could question Council officers on any aspect of the proposed scheme.
In addition we explained how as local Councillors we had fought for an extension of the consultation period after July 2010 in an effort to get further feedback from residents. During this period we personally hand-delivered a non-political leaflet on the proposals to every household in the Ward. This leaflet contained our contact details and a freepost tear off slip so that residents could easily let us know their views or get in touch with further questions. From this additional round of consultation we received 30-40 responses from residents across the Ward including those on Crooms Hill, Prior Street, Circus Street, Gloucester Circus, Royal Hill and many more.
We reiterated that the Council is wholly persuaded of the case to address traffic problems in the West Greenwich Conservation Area and made clear our intention to implement an appropriate scheme in full consultation with local residents irrespective of whether any scheme of pedestrianisation proceeds or not.
Council officers in attendance explained that traffic modelling data made available on the 28th is part of an iterative process and information on the potential impact of the partial pedestrianisation on traffic in nearby residential streets will continue to be utilised as the details of the scheme evolve in our discussions with local residents and businesses. They also informed residents that the Council is continuing to work with Transport for London who have been engaged at each stage in order to ensure the arrangements for bus routes (including stops) are properly assessed.
We were at pains to clarify that no timetable for a decision on the partial pedestrianisation scheme has been set, not least because Council officers continue to work through the traffic implications of such a scheme and to consult with those businesses and residents who would still require some vehicular access to pedestrianised streets under the proposals.
A decision on the pedestrianisation proposals will be taken in due course by the Council’s Cabinet. This will be a public meeting at which members of the public will, subject to appropriate time constraints, be welcome to speak and make representations. We assured residents who attended that full information on the traffic impact of the pedestriansation proposals and changes to bus routes and stops will be made available to the public for informed input into the decision-making process and to Cabinet members to make their decision in due course.
We will ensure that residents know the date and time of this meeting. If you wish to be kept informed please email matthew.pennycook@greenwich.gov.uk
It’s great that Greenwich residents are for once properly informed about planned changes and the ways in which they can express their opinions. However, Greenwich town centre is a major traffic bottle neck because of its geographical position and consultations will not make the traffic go away. If the pedestrianisation goes ahead drivers will simply look for new routes and traffic calming measures in West Greenwich will only push this problem to neighbouring areas. It is therefore crucial for the Council to take a holistic look at traffic flows in the broader area and to do whatever it can to allow traffic to flow freely on main roads, eg. the A2 and Shooters Hill Road. So far, the Council has demonstrated limited skill in this area and it must try much harder if it wants the pedestrianisation to be a success for the whole community, instead of just the immediate vicinity of the Town Centre.
Who are these “key stakeholders”?
Since when has this concept of ‘partial pedestrianisation’ emerged? When the four original proposals for this huge gyratory — dressed up as pedestrianisation of two small streets — were presented and commented on by the public, the council then whittled it down to ONE single option. And that was clearly presented on all the supporting correspondence as the ONLY proposal going forward – either that scheme in its entirety or nothing. No halfway house measures.
As the meeting at St Alfege Hall and subsequent report stressed, there’s UNANIMOUS resident opposition to any gyratory scheme – it’s not only devisive and unsafe (particularly to cyclists), but would not see ANY decrease in traffic levels or IMPROVEMENT in air quality (by the council’s own admission). Gyratories equate to Dark Ages thinking on traffic management, hence the recent removal of the one at Brixton and the soon-to-disappear one in Stoke Newington.
@ John K – no, I support the plans…
I think the essential point is what do Greenwich residents want. Yes, central Greenwich is a traffic bottleneck – for those who simply use it as a means from one point to another.. They probably don’t live in the area, work in the area, or contribute taxes to the area. If they have to sit in their car for an extra half an hour so be it. The real question is dealing first with those who rat run. When that is dealt with (and further prevented) with vehicles kept to appropriate roads we can then turn our attention to the traffic in the town centre and on the main roads. As for the A2, that is in the control of TFL and they are very protective of traffic flow and control. In any event, no one single street in Greenwich can be sacrificed for the pedestrianisation or traffic calming measures put in place on other streets.
John K – as Russell has already proven, there certainly is not unanimous resident opposition to the scheme. Personally I’m open to the principle but would be interested to hear some properly articulated arguments against. Why is the scheme divisive? Why unsafe? As far as I can tell an absolute reduction in traffic and improvement in air quality are not stated aims of the scheme so these are not relevant arguments against. I’m still waiting to hear the one killer argument that any opposition campaign can be hung on.
Richard – not sure I agree that dealing with rat running is the first priority before town centre traffic. Whilst this would clearly be a major area of concern for the proposed scheme, my impression is that it really isn’t that big a problem as things stand at the moment.
I also completely disagree with your last point. Were there a feasible plan that ticked all the boxes and improved the traffic situations in Greenwich for the vast majority of people but at the expense of one single street, I can’t see why such a plan should be rejected. The implication of your argument is that only a scheme that is a “win” for all parties is acceptable but this is clearly unrealistic and some degree of compromise will always be necessary.
I particularly agree with the last sentence of Richard’s comment above.
I don’t know enough about SE10 traffic flows to have a firm view on whether pedestrianisation or the gyratory are desirable. We do though need to look at Greenwich traffic in a wider context. Excluding the tunnel there are four main routes in the Borough used by through traffic, all of which get crowded:
* South Circular towards Catford
* Sidcup Rd & Eltham Rd towards Lewisham
* Shooters Hill Rd & Blackheath towards Deptford
* Through Greenwich Town Centre
It would be wrong if measures designed to alleviate traffic on one of these had the intention or effect of increasing traffic congestion elsewhere in the Borough. That is why the Council’s secretive approach to TfL a few years back about a mini congestion pricing scheme in Greenwich Town Centre was misconceived. We need instead to take a co-ordinated approach, although I don’t have any brilliant insights myself on what is needed.
In any case even if the pedestrianisation is desirable is it the best use of public money at present? Once again the Town Hall seems to be succumbing to the Georges Pompidou “grands projets” mentality.
Fair play to Paul W – possibly the first local politician from Eltham/Lee who isn’t pretending he knows more about Greenwich than people from Greenwich 🙂
He’s right about this being part of a broader picture, though.
I’d say any approach on Greenwich traffic must involve Lewisham as as well – years back the two councils fell out over the Greenwich lorry ban (Blackheath Hill lies just in Lewisham borough, Blackheath Road is in Greenwich borough) and any Greenwich plan will have a knock-on effect in Deptford. But as far as I know, residents on the Lewisham side of Deptford haven’t been consulted about this.
Indeed, this is why we have a mayor of London, to take an overarching view on these matters. Since this scheme is to be funded by an annual grant from TfL to the boroughs, do we still know if this grant is still going to be given?
Traffic gyratories are a failed 1960’s traffic tool that are proven to lead to speeding when times are good, increased congestion when times are bad, rat-running through residential streets, severance of communities and failure of businesses. This is why they have been/are being decommissioned at great expense by TfL and other enlightened London Council’s such as at Shoreditch, Wandsworth, Brixton, Aldgate, New Cross, Tottenham Court Road, Stoke Newington and even at Pall Mall/Picadilly after the pedestrianisation of Trafalgar Square!
Greenwich’s traffic problems are noticeably much worse since TfL’s unannounced and unconsulted ‘improvement’ works to the A2 across the Heath last year. Council data gathered for the pedestrianisation project proves that 80% of Greenwich’s traffic is non-local through-traffic.
So what’s at the root of residents’ wishes? Simply less traffic through the town centre. And I do believe that Greenwich can indeed cease to be the A2 relief road that it has become by some simple improvements to the A2, from where the traffic originates and to where it usually rejoins.
And as for pedestrianisation scheme and the ‘nonsultation’ that has gone with it? Many simple and cheap improvements could immediately be made to Greenwich town centre incrementally to improve the visitor experience: Moving the bus stops from around the market would instantly help, or even just cleaning it. Most proposals would obviate the need for any kind of regressive monolithic 1960’s one-way system.
I personally even believe pedestrianisation could be possible as the Council wishes with the better use of technology and vision in improving the A2 (which would also assist our neighbours).
Richard – you seem to demonstrate a very dangerous attitude to resolving the problem with traffic in Central Greenwich. “If they have to sit in their car for an extra half an hour so be it…” “…When that (local rat-running) is dealt with with vehicles kept to appropriate roads we can then turn our attention to the traffic in the town centre and on the main roads…” If this is typical of the attitude of residents in Central Greenwich then I don’t mind if a 6 lane motorway is build across it – selfish people like you deserve it!
We need to take a much broader perspective to this and encourage the council to do so, too. If the Council manages to unblock bottlenecks around the tunnel, A2, A206, Shooter Hill Rd etc. we wouldn’t have this problem. You quite rightly noted that some of these roads are not under the Council’s direct control, but it can still influence intersections, feeder roads, the timing of traffic lights, turning restrictions etc. that impact the flow of traffic on these main roads. Or they could engage in a constructive dialogue with the Highways Authority. If the council is successful in doing this we will have a much smaller problem with rat-running on your street Richard, and on streets where other people live, and we all get much quicker from A to B.
I’ve noted already the propaganda being spewed about this issue. One good example is how some residents are getting children to draw pictures of cars with rat-rails and rat-ears (nice work, by the way) and attaching them to local lamp-posts; they also seem to be wilfully misinterpreting councillors’ message to infer they say residents’ concerns are ‘unnecessary’; while also saying that certain leaflets informing residents of the scheme were probably binned straight away as they were printed in red (and therefore came from the Labour Party!). They are also claiming that a show of hands of their supporters in a local pub is a more valid reflection of Greenwich public opinion than the Council consultation.
Against this, of course, the council are claiming that a general desire to ‘improve traffic’ is a vote in favour of a gyratory.
Between these two factions, I somehow think we’ll get more heat than light. It’s notable also that the “experts” called in by the council will most likely make more money if the scheme goes ahead, than if it’s cancelled. What we really need is an objective appraisal, which takes into account recent experience on whether removing gyratories – as in Tower Hamlets/Aldgate East – does improve traffic and reduce speeding.
Will, the whole reason for dealing with rat-running first is to make sure that when the central Greenwich traffic is dealt with drivers cannot avoid the measures put in place. As regards ‘constructive dialogue’ I think it usually beings with ‘people like you deserve it..’ always guaranteed to get people on your side. Paul Webbewood is right, the majority of traffic coming through Greenwich is people who don’t live in Greenwich and it is the people of central Greenwich that have to face the problems. So what do ‘people like me’ deserve? Not to have small local streets of Greenwich (or Lewisham for that matter) used by drivers speeding to join the A2 or avoid a traffic jam. Is that selfish? Then, so be it, I and many others will be happy to put my hand up to it. The Council have been trying to talk with TFL for a significant time and they have been resistant. The pedetrainisation will not unblock a bottle neck – anyone who has tried driving the proposed route will seen that all too quickly.
Richard, nobody deserves to have their residential streets turned into rat-runs. Unfortunately, this will be the outcome of the pedestrianisation for parts of Greenwich if we all just think about our own streets or if we start with the assumption that only residents of Greenwich should be allowed to drive through Greenwich (imagine the number of rat-runs this would create in the surrounding areas). We can achieve an outcome where rat-runs are eliminated rather than created only by taking a broader view and by expecting the council to do the same. If we all (residents of Greenwich) unite rather than try to push the traffic to each other’s streets we may be able to demonstrate to the Council that they will seriously offend thousands of voters if they don’t get this right and that they won’t get this right unless they think about the whole community.
Um, Paul, red or not, those leaflets DID come from the Labour Party. They had the labour party web address in a banner on the front, were published by the Labour Party and were to be returned to the Labour party office. Hmmm…..
Furthermore, those questionnaire/leaflets were delivered both after consultation had finished, and before any information was available on the consequential impact on our residential streets, making them doubly flawed. The sentiment of fact finding is absolutely to be applauded but sadly it was conducted in such a way that the results can be of no evidential value
There is almost universal opposition to the current gyratory amongst residents of West Greenwich because it will diminish their quality of life due to the significant negative impact on ratrunning surrounding streets, and their own reduced ability to get around their local area on foot, by bus and by car.