Sunday, 14 November 2010

Greenwich gyratory proposals

You may remember the consultation almost a year ago about the plans to pedestrianise parts of Greenwich town centre. The benefits of making Greenwich town centre easier to navigate for pedestrians seemed to be outweighed by the intention to create a much larger gyratory which would affect bus routes and make certain journeys much longer for local motorists.

Not only does it seem that Greenwich Council and its transport advisers are out of step with the general trend to remove gyratories (New Cross is a perfect example of many in London which are being restored to their two-way road systems), but recent research by the council has also revealed that the gyratory would increase traffic levels on other streets such as Circus Street and Burney Street (although equally it would reduce traffic levels on other streets).

Many cyclists are concerned about the negative impact it will have on cycling in the area; higher traffic speeds and a reduction of freedom of movement for cyclists. Deptfordians who cycle from here to Greenwich also fear that Norman Road will become a huge barrier to travel.

The impact on bus routes has yet to be fully assessed, but it seems likely that routes such as the 199 from Lewisham to Surrey Quays would no longer be able to serve Greenwich Town Centre (one less option for public transport back from Greenwich to Deptford) and and many other routes would be extended/stops would be moved further away.

More details of the local opposition to the scheme is available on the website of West Greenwich CARA (Conservation Area Residents' Association) which is also having a meeting in the Prince of Greenwich pub in Royal Hill on Monday 15 November at 8pm.

Greenwich Council is intending to vote on the matter in December.


Paul said...

Why do CARA insist on misinterpeting councillors' comments?

For instance, they accuse one councillor of stating their concerns are "unnecessary", when it's obvious he means nothing of the sort.

I can't help thinking their attitude is counter-productive, and that they seem set on making enemies of those who could help them.

Sadly, one can't express such reservations on their website; they get censored. A shame they adopt the Greenwich Time approach to debate.

Deptford Dame said...

Thanks for your comment Paul, I presume it's this post you are referring to - I've added it for clarity.

Paul said...

Exactly, sorry if I didn't make myself clear.

Councillor Pennycook seems a decent type: he was apologising that the council has caused unnecessary concern with the confusion over a meeting.

On the CARA website, they suggest he means their concerns are unnecessary - ie he doesn't give a damn. Their attitude is hardly likely to make a difficult decision any easier.

Dan said...

Apologies on behalf of CARA, Paul. Originally there does indeed seem to be a misunderstanding of Cllr Pennycook's comments and we acknowledge that he was apologising for "unnecessary concern" that the Council had caused, not that he thought "our concerns were unnecessary".

I don't want to re-write web history and make your comments redundant, so will do my best to acknowledge the mistake and keep the context of your posts.