|
Radical new plans for a low traffic neighbourhood spanning the areas on both sides of Greenwich Park has resulted in rejection of all 'options' in an official Commonplace survey for the council. Huge majorities of residents voted against the vehicle restrictions, independent data analysis shows. 'Stage 2' of the consultation was published as a 'Consultation' at the end of August 2023. Emails to those signed up to Council alerts said the scheme was about 'neighbourhood' management, as did a letter drop to residents inside the LTN.
The scheme, divided into two East Greenwich 'options' and three West Greenwich 'options', was divided into two separate (East and West) consultations, which many believed ruled out a response about the 'other' area. Click on the pie chart links, to see how the votes stacked up. East Greenwich Option A was rejected by more than 83% of 1,641 respondents (aggregating 'negative' and 'very negative'), with just 15.4% in favour ('positive' and 'very positive') . Option B fared slightly better with 80.2% against and only 12.9% in favour. West Greenwich Option A was rejected by 70%, and 27.5% viewed it favourably. Options B and C were similarly split, with the exception of a lower positivity rate of 18% for Option C. Residents of the West Greenwich triangle (formerly referred to by the Council as 'Hills and Vales') have already experienced an experimental scheme for an 18-month period ending in February 2022. The removal of the scheme followed adverse impacts on residents living on the boundaries, evidence of unequal treatment of vulnerable minorities. An even greater proportion are now voting against repeating the experiment. There was no option in the current consultation to 'do nothing', despite the fact that many residents believe the neighbourhood, now free of barriers is 'low traffic' and not generating additional problems on boundary roads or the bus network, as identified by external reports supporting the removal of the 2020 scheme in February 2022. Analysing responses to earlier 'public consultations' on the 2020 scheme, findings included that residents within the privileged area were more likely to be in favour of retaining the scheme. Consultants also pointed out that traffic 'reduction' within the area was in part due to the existence of barriers, and that local traffic almost doubled as a result of diversions and boundary-type displacement to Royal Hill and Burney Street (supposedly part of the area), as well as to planned boundaries such as Greenwich South St and Blackheath Hill. Greenwich still repeats the shibboleth that LTN schemes 'reduce traffic' without an analysis of displacement and re-direction, or the impact of additional internal movement to find routes. An analysis of Equalities Act impacts in 2022 suggested a number of disproportionate impacts on vulnerable groups and proposed potential mitigations. Most have not been followed through, and the reports belie an unacceptable level of ignorance about the area. For instance, the Equalities report refers to St Ursula's School receiving SEN children, but does not mention James Wolfe Primary School at all, or the SEN provision it makes. A suggested investigation of the likely mitigation effects of permitting Blue Badge holders through ANPR has not been carried out, despite the well-known limitations of this approach. Other recorded impacts on for example, older people with moderate difficulties whose access to carers was compromised by the scheme remain unaddressed. Above all, the proposals were not supported by open and comprehensible hard evidence in favour of large scale traffic diversion. In response to the result, Greenwich has belatedly leafletted the area suggesting that the Council 'is doing this' to make it 'easier and safer to walk and cycle', clean up the air, and reduce road danger. The leaflet highlights the borough's 'highest levels of childhood obesity in London', the fact that local air pollution is 'higher than WHO guidelines' (a feature of almost the entire UK), and that 'we' have the 'fourth highest number of babies being hospitalised with respiratory tract infections ... anywhere in London'. (Note - East and West Greenwich are not among borough wards categorised as deprived, according to Indices of Deprivation, 2015 (the latest available analysis by the Council)). The area targeted for this expenditure on the traffic scheme surrounds a mile of parkland, and the more privileged streets on the southern borders overlook open heath and woodland. On Greenwich's own analysis, existing levels of active travel are the highest in the borough (Local Implementation Plan, 2019). This means that potential changes from existing car use to active travel ('switchability') are unlikely, even with the scheme in place.
0 Comments
People with disabilities living on boundary roads are 'trapped' both by congestion on main roads and inaccessibility, caused by LTNs and other modal filters. Their transport lifeline for treatment and a life beyond their homes can be seriously damaged. A Black Cab discount failed because savings were eaten up by waiting in traffic queues.
The emergency services protested privately at the delays that would result from the scheme, and complaints followed, from the autumn of 2020 onwards, about critical delays to ambulance calls. Width restrictions were removed from the Hyde Vale and Crooms Hill junctions with the A2 encouraging speeding and increasing turning and circulation of goods vehicles within the protected enclave. There was no enforcement of speed limits, or control of bicycle and motorbike abuse of modal filters and the pavement. Crooms Hill, although closed to through traffic, has a zebra crossing, while no other 'LTN' street, including Royal Hill, has one. Public transport on boundary roads suffered the impact of increased congestion. Steep hills in the area make cycling dangerous for both cyclists and pedestrians, and few additional cyclists were seen during the experimental period. The original 'Liveable Neighbourhoods' policy in London was intended for poorer communities with few or no other environmental advantages. Guidance on their use included ensuring 'robust' boundary roads - that is, the four lane highways typical of A roads outside inner London.
No creditable research demonstrates that such areas 'reduce' traffic. Both traffic reduction and pollution can be hard to analyse, but effectively, we all breathe the same air. The exception is that those living within 30 metres of major roads experience high levels of unmeasured particulates arising from brakeware and tyres, which are implicated in serious health conditions. Although 'Liveable Neighbourhoods' was abandoned, schemes such as the 'Hills and Vales' - essentially traffic reduction for a small and already environmentally privileged neighbourhood - were looking (unsuccessfully) to the scheme for funding when the pandemic struck. Council officers now claim that TfL Healthy Streets policy is being applied. The rushed implementation of government measures in 2020, to prevent a 'traffic-led' recovery from the pandemic, gave schemes all over London a share of available transport cash following a collapse in TfL revenues. Journalist Paul Wheeler, writing in OnLondon, sets out the case that politicians should pursue policies on streets and pollution that are rooted in democracy and social justice. Click here for Paul Wheeler's "Last Rites for the Covid LTNs". Meanwhile, policy emerging from Transport for London and the Mayor shows a clear trend towards road charging to end the tidal waves of traffic converging on inner London. Discussion is also heading towards distance-charging as distinct from the unpopular daily charge. RBG rejected borough-wide transport review in favour of drastic 'traffic reduction' project8/23/2023 Plans for a new LTN in West Greenwich were already in preparation before the publication of a new Transport Strategy in October 2022.
The Strategy commits the Council to work 'in partnership with the local community'. But 'partnership' was side-stepped when planning for a new 'Low Traffic Neighbourhood' began to replace the failed scheme removed from the West Greenwich so-called 'Hills and Vales' earlier this year. Opposition to the original scheme was resolved by its removal in March 2022 under pressure from emergency services and local residents. The then Council leader Danny Thorpe promised to hold a borough-wide review of traffic. No such review was carried for the Strategy, launched in October by Cllr Averil Lekau who, following the May elections, became Deputy Leader as well as Cabinet Member for Climate Change, Environment & Transport. The new Strategy does not set out the function of ‘low traffic neighbourhoods’ in terms of traffic or transport needs. There is no analysis of traffic movement in the borough, despite the daily influx of 28,000 vehicles along the A2 at the southern boundary of the West Greenwich area. Before the ink was dry on the Strategy, officers told local councillors that both east and west Greenwich were already the subject of a designated 'study area' stretching from the A102 to Greenwich High Road as part of preparation for 'traffic reduction' measures, to be assisted by consultants Phil Jones Associates (PJA). The appointment of PJA to the project is astonishing, given the firm was engaged to design the original West Greenwich traffic management scheme in 2018. Two schemes put up for public engagement in 2019 were displayed by the firm at overcrowded sessions at James Wolfe School. PJA members present clearly did not know the area. Subsequent polling of residents living inside the area resulted in a majority rejecting both schemes. It is not known whether PJA was involved in the subsequent August 2020 scheme. Results of the 2019 poll were never publicly owned or disclosed by the Council except via an online link to a report by consultants. RBG's Transport Strategy Described as an 'ambitious vision', the new Transport Strategy states the council is ‘committed to working in partnership with the local community, the Department for Transport (DFT), and Transport for London (TfL), for the benefit of everyone in Royal Greenwich.’ The Strategy depends heavily on 'behavioural change' to discourage people from using cars in favour of walking and cycling. The Strategy contains no information on why and how borough residents use cars. It relies heavily on waging war on private car use in an effort to reduce obesity and improve health via "active travel". Officers are dismissive of the need to engage with Transport for London about the extreme pressure on the boundaries of the area, particularly on Blackheath Hill and Trafalgar Road, where many social housing and private tenants live without the amenities enjoyed by those living on the borders of Greenwich Park. Most of the local community use Trafalgar Road for shopping and public transport but nothing is being done to help pedestrians and little for people with disabilities. GGTF believes ‘active travel’ initiatives should be designed with citizen co-production and co-design, rather than coercive strategies. 'Active travel' should be voluntary. Initiatives brought in with coercive strategies, and without democratic public participation, do not take account of vital needs for transportation, including emergency vehicles. Transport for All - kept under wraps A Transport for All workshop in January 2022 (during the currency of the former experimental LTN in West Greenwich) engaged with people with disabilities about access to and in LTNs. The results echoed the criticisms of many residents in the area: that there had been no consultation and communication about the scheme, key routes (such as Crooms Hill) were closed and no modelling of the impacts had been available. LTNs made homes relatively inaccessible, created more traffic on key routes outside the area, had impacts on the Dial-a-Ride service, and cycling had taken precedence over other alternatives modes, and increased journey times. The workshop's report - restricted to council staff - cites a diagram adapted from the New Economics Foundation Participation Ladder indicated that strategies involving “education” and “coercion” lacked active participation from citizens in the design process. After the original West Greenwich scheme was launched in 2020, close to 5000 people signed online petitions opposing it. Residents of Blackheath Hill and East Greenwich had been completely unaware of the changes, and were shocked by surges of displaced traffic. Greenwichgonetoofar set up a campaign to expose the problems created by the scheme and the lack of Council accountability. Officers are now belatedly seeking ‘resident representatives’ for discussions about the new scheme. To join the consultation contact a councillor for your ward. Greenwich Park councillors are Aidan Smith [email protected] or Pat Slattery [email protected] Greenwich aims to spend £3.1m of its own and TfL money on a combined Low Traffic Neighbourhood across East and West Greenwich. There's no evidence justifying the plan, which is made up of barriers and restrictions that have been rejected in the past by thousands of local residents. In May the council said the money was for improvements to pedestrian and cycle infrastructure, and lower traffic speeds. But the 'Stage 2' consultation aims to bring in drastic vehicle prevention over a wide area, forcing huge numbers of drivers seeking access to homes and businesses to use overburdened boundaries. (See our masthead pic of Blackheath Hill during the 2020-22 West Greenwich LTN.)
Misleadingly divided into two schemes and dubbed 'Neighbourhood Management', the plan claims to combat 'serious congestion and safety problems'. None of the Commonplace references to 'collisions and congestion' inside the 'neighbourhoods' have been substantiated (but remain in online material, despite being dropped from current output). Greenwich and Lewisham businesses and residents living and operating on boundary roads experience serious congestion, additional pollution and lack of safety, but were excluded from information and consultation about the plans. Boundary road residents are being ignored, even as 'serious congestion and safety' are being deliberately made much worse for them. Traffic from large areas of the huge terrain in East Greenwich south of the railway line, will be forced into Charlton, where residents and businesses knew nothing about the plans until GGTF circulated leaflets. The 2019 Local Implementation Plan recorded the highest active travel rates in the borough in West and East Greenwich. It is not clear why the area, already under severe traffic pressure has been intensively singled out for the LTN treatment. The plans are openly admitted as making it more difficult to drive with the aim of making residents' lives 'happier and healthier' via active travel such as walking and cycling. But the impetus for the scheme from local amenity groups was originally to counter peak hours traffic in the affluent 'Hills and Vales' area where house prices regularly top £2m. There has been no joined-up thinking on the future of our overburdened 'boundary' roads, or on the accessibility and efficiency of our bus services on which so many depend. Traffic generated will greatly increase boundary road journeys in comparison with the 2020 scheme. The move reverses the abandonment of LTNs across the north of the borough from West Greenwich to Woolwich, which were strongly opposed by residents and councillors - one describing the combined schemes as ‘the perfect storm’. The only LTN to have been implemented, in West Greenwich, was removed in February 2022, due to displacement impacts and unfairness to boundary residents. Boundaries, already carrying 15,000 to 25,000 vehicles per day, plus our buses, will be expected to take the strain of diversions for drivers needing access to the huge new traffic-excluding area. A ‘first’ stage consultation, earlier in the year, showcased traffic-calming measures such as raised road areas and similar. A council press release said that the money would also be used for 20mph speed limits, controlled parking zones and school streets, emissions-based charges and ‘sustainable’ travel – including improvements to pedestrian and cycle infrastructure. None of these measures is in the new package. Councillors deny they can enforce 20mph limits, despite plans to install up to six ANPR cameras across the area to fine drivers for breaching barriers. The Commonplace consultation now admits that the barriers are intended to discourage people from using cars. What's not admitted is that barriers and fining are coercive, arbitrary, and take no account of genuine needs in the community for vehicles. Scroll down to our report on the January 2022 Transport for All workshop on provision for disability, in which council staff were warned that strategies involving “education” and “coercion” were least effective, and lacked active participation from citizens in the design process. The council is putting forward five new road blocking ‘options’ stretching across East and West Greenwich in a ‘second stage consultation’. The ‘consultation’ is rushed. It began in late August and was originally planned to end on 29 September - responses to the new consultation must be made early October. The ‘options’, do not include leaving things as they are, or improving pedestrian and bike access in genuinely effective ways. As we reported, promised community 'partnership' was ditched by Greenwich when plans for a new LTN were put in hand with consultants PJA a year ago. (Scroll down the Home page to RBG rejects borough-wide transport review in favour of drastic 'traffic reduction' project). Any combination of options will cause long southerly detours from the Sun and Sands roundabout to the notorious Blackheath Hill junction with Greenwich South Street and from the Angerstein roundabout to Greenwich Town Centre. Detours will increase mileage and congestion. The giant scheme threatens to restrict vital journeys over a wide area, and cause repeated and disabling gridlock when the A2, Blackwall Tunnel approaches, and A206 (Woolwich Rd, Trafalgar Rd, Greenwich High Rd and Greenwich South St) are affected by accidents, road works and other emergencies. See ‘What’s in store for the community’ to find out how the proposals could affect you. Greenwich has not evaluated or anticipated impacts, including traffic generated by the Silvertown Tunnel. But the transport strategy document admits there will be increased traffic generated by planned 'last mile' delivery hubs in the Peninsula area. And council consultants have already highlighted big box retail developments, such as IKEA, all council promoted and consented, as the source of increased East Greenwich traffic. Private car use is already in long term decline. The impact of ULEZ is yet to be fully assessed: but evidence is emerging of reductions in pollution. LTNs are becoming a toxic brand everywhere – cause community division between privileged internal streets, and people living on the boundary roads designed to receive displaced traffic. The Department of Transport decided in May that LTNs ‘do not benefit the community as a whole’. All LTNs were blocked from the Department’s recent fourth round of Active Travel Fund payments. A council consultation on extending a West Greenwich-style road scheme to East Greenwich has closed. It attracted more than 3,000 responses, with comments by residents and others overwhelmingly opposed to the council’s plans.
The East Greenwich plan would, like the Hills and Vales, cut through the area horizontally. Taking the railway line as what the council calls a “natural barrier”, there would be closures on Maze Hill, Vanbrugh Hill, Halstow Road and Westcombe Hill. All except Halstow Road would be enforced by cameras rather than modal filters (vehicle blockades). The use of ANPR cameras is in deference to the emergency services, who oppose the all-modal filter Hills and Vales scheme as creating unacceptable risks. Many survey respondents – including some of the minority who agreed in principle with the proposals – wanted residents to be excluded from the restrictions and able to drive through the cameras. The council’s proposals would not allow that, although it is happening elsewhere in London. There were widespread accusations by respondents that the consultation was biased and skewed towards getting the council the answers wanted. The survey questionnaire contained no option for straightforwardly saying ‘no’ to the council’s plans. Reasons given for rejecting the proposals include:
Council claims that ‘through traffic’ will be excluded by the barriers, but that affected residents and their visitors must walk, cycle or use wheel chairs and public transport for journeys if they do not want to take long detours. Freedom of Information requests to the Metropolitan Police show the only police communication about Crooms Hill was an email from an individual officer who had encountered a routine incident of a driver refusing to reverse on 25 June 2020. The officer described the incident in an email to an official or member of the council who appears to have been an acquaintance.
ln the hands of the council, this was exaggerated into the Metropolitan Police Service writing to the council about remedial action and “detailing road safety issues at the northern end of Crooms Hill, due to current levels of traffic”. None of this reflected the wording or tone of the one-off email. The email was not the official response to consultation on the scheme. Since then the council has avoided FOI requests on the Metropolitan Police Service’s actual feedback. By the time residents received the 12 August 2020 letter, the council knew the Met had objected to its proposals in July and had commented: “Police echo what the other emergency services are saying. We do not have enough information or time to adequately consult over these modal filters.” But the idea that the police were calling on the council to take action gained momentum within the council. Mehboob Kahn, then a councillor, told the September 2020 council meeting: “The Metropolitan Police have demanded action by the council and if the council had failed to act upon the Metropolitan Police’s advice we would have been neglecting our duty towards our residents.” And at the most recent meeting of the Highways Committee on 24 February 2021, Khan extended the claim beyond Crooms Hill, saying: “The Metropolitan Police wrote to the council and demanded action to tackle the amount of vehicles using these residential streets at peak hours. If the council didn’t respond and act on the Metropolitan Police’s advice they would be held accountable should anyone be injured or worse.” The emergency services are statutory consultees and as such were consulted on 8 July 2020 and given just two days to respond. Fire, ambulance and police services were fully in agreement that: ‘blocked roads create egress issues resulting in vehicles having to make multiple point turns to leave the scene’, ‘diversion routes are too long and hindered by existing restrictions’, complained that ‘all local authorities and TfL are implementing these schemes and there is no coordinated engagement or process for emergency services to feedback or object’*. All condemned modal filters and requested ANPR be used instead. The accident rate in the ‘Hills and Vales’ was negligible prior to the scheme’s introduction. Although bound to consult with the emergency services, local authorities do not have to follow the advice given. Following legal challenges by residents, and negotiation with services, many London local authorities have removed modal filters (road blocks only open to bikes), which are the chief danger. Formal complaints that the references to the police in the council’s 12 August 2020 letter to residents were false and misleading have been referred to the Local Government Ombudsman, who investigates maladministration. Local councils might also find themselves liable for compensation, having left obstructive modal filters in place despite warnings about the risks. * From the South London Ambulance Service response on 8 July 2020, joined by the Fire Service and Metropolitan Police. The Council's 12 August 2020 letter and map of the area can be seen here Council Highways Committee prejudices final decision on the West Greenwich Traffic Management Scheme10/12/2022 The Highways Committee, chaired by Cllr Bill Freeman, agreed that the Council’s Executive should adopt the scheme ‘permanently’, in defiance of the meeting’s stated objectives. Most councillors speaking had no knowledge of the area, or the scheme, and judged it on the basis of believing that it is a ‘low traffic neighbourhood’ or LTN. Greenwich no longer claims this is the case, describing it as a ‘traffic reduction trial’. Traffic is displaced to the A2 on Blackheath Hill and Royal Hill by a dividing barrier along Royal Hill and Blissett Street.
The special meeting was set up to consider the treatment of independent public online petitions about the scheme. But the Committee overlooked a West Greenwich Petition started by local resident David Patrick that has attracted more than 1,300 signatures opposing the scheme. No one was invited to address the Committee on behalf of this substantial number of signatories. Added to this is a major petition originated by East Greenwich residents affected by displaced traffic, with 3,100 signatories who also oppose the scheme. A total in the low hundreds in other petitions were in favour of maintaining the road blocks. Representatives for these petitions, as well as the East Greenwich petition, were invited to address the Committee. The Officers’ report stated that the public consultation period closes on 3 March, but that further data needed to be considered including traffic volumes, and figures for road safety, air quality and collisions. They also include a ‘review and analysis of public comments and petitions’, further equality impact assessments and ‘feedback’ from the emergency services. Freedom of information responses have disclosed that all three statutory services - the fire brigade, ambulance service and the Metropolitan Police - opposed the modal filter-only scheme on safety grounds last July before installation. This was ignored by the Council. Despite assurances that monitoring took place before and after the introduction of the scheme, nothing has been made publicly available. Critics argue that pandemic conditions make it impossible to test the impact of a permanent scheme at present and that the scheme should be dismantled for this, and safety, reasons. Committee members have prejudiced the outcome of the decision-making process by recommending permanent adoption. The meeting is available to view at: https://youtu.be/P4qj_n4oWqY The West Greenwich traffic scheme ‘experimental’ period was covertly extended by executive action in August 2021. Experimental ‘modifications’ required for the extension include the notorious peak hours opening of Hyde Vale. This was intended to relieve displaced traffic that has plagued East Greenwich and Trafalgar Road.
Hyde Vale was closed as part of the original scheme, resulting in a drop in daily traffic from 1,120 to 650. Opening this road in the morning peak has created a route to ease congestion in East Greenwich and on Trafalgar Road caused by the scheme. But the scheme also channels morning peak traffic into Royal Hill, threatening the safety of primary school children at James Wolfe School, and stepping up existing disruption to pedestrians, local shops and community businesses - the kind of 'rat run' the scheme was supposed to stop. A lack of signs for motorists means that few know about the new route. But as traffic finds the new pathway, the worst effects could be felt after the end of the experimental period in February. The new peak hours opening is a sham that could herald a long term disaster for Royal Hill, the area's major pedestrian thoroughfare and shopping street. Royal Hill is already a 'boundary' road following the barriers brought in during August 2020. The consultation asks whether residents and road users approve the opening and believe it makes the scheme more 'equitable'. This limited opening will funnel all traffic down one route, leaving spacious Crooms Hill, King George Street, Point Hill, as well as Maidenstone Hill (and adjacent streets) still benefitting from traffic reductions. Objecting to the new opening means the Council must think again about the traffic chaos caused by the scheme from Creek Road to Westcombe Hill. The final question on the consultation provides an opportunity to vote to dump the overall scheme and start afresh. This question asks: ‘Overall, do you support or object to the Experimental Traffic Order that has been made to close various roads in the West Greenwich LTN to through traffic?’ ‘Object’ is the answer that could allow a majority of road users, including pedestrians and public transport users to bring an end to the scheme. The consultation can be found at https://greenersafergreenwich.commonplace.is/proposals/west-greenwich-low-traffic-neighbourhood It is the only chance to scrap the Scheme and make a fresh start. It could open the way for the Council’s more recent promise of a broader, fairer borough transport strategy. Since it was installed in August 2020, the Scheme has increased the daily vehicle tally of 28,000 on Blackheath Hill, causing life-threatening additional congestion and pollution. Scrapping the scheme will help reduce the nightmare of overloaded boundary rounds. Government traffic figures show that while pandemic traffic reduced vehicles numbers everywhere, heavy goods vehicles on Blackheath Hill increased by 17 per cent. The Blackheath Hill junction with Greenwich South Street has no pedestrian phase, increasing accident risks as displaced traffic travels around the area. The Scheme has proved to be unworkable from the start, endangering the community and failing to solve area-wide traffic problems. Other modifications include converting three road-blocking modal filters to ANPR (camera recognition) barriers. This followed a wave a protest by the London Ambulance and other emergency services, about critical delays caused by ‘modal filters’. (Dust carts and black taxi cabs are now also permitted to cross the ANPR filters.) Councillors now accept that their programme of successive closures in neighbouring areas, together with the loss of road space to the cycle superhighway, compounds congestion and is having a disastrous impact on borough residents reliant on buses, vans and cars, and emergency services. A councillor has privately described the situation as the “perfect storm”. In June 2021, Cllr Sarah Merrill the new Council Transportation leader, announced a fresh start to the Borough’s traffic problems, calling a halt to new LTNs, dismantling barriers all over the Borough and promising a fairer share of traffic nuisance. But the West Greenwich scheme continues, with the prospect of permanent installation in February. Traffic levels on Royal Hill and Blissett Street rose during the experimental LTN period, leading to dangerous congestion around the school involving commercial vehicles.
After the 'LTN' was removed, immediate and ongoing improvements also include reductions in traffic and queuing on Blackheath Hill and Maze Hill, as well as less 'internal' traffic circulation and turning. Before the scheme, the West Greenwich area had always been quiet for most of the day and night, with some peak time queuing on open common land leading to the A2. As many locals testify, the traffic scheme was a 24-hour solution to a two-hour problem. West Greenwich IS a low traffic neighbourhood, and does not need barriers to. The scheme led to scenes like those pictured below on Royal Hill, where commercial and other traffic was diverted from spacious Crooms Hill, and which also attempted to avoid congestion on Greenwich South Street. The chicane close to James Wolfe School on Royal Hill was often overwhelmed during the morning peak, placing children at risk every day. Additional congestion on Blackheath Hill caused long tailbacks in all directions. Early in 2021, undisclosed Council monitoring had already recorded traffic displacement from West Greenwich all over the Westcombe Park area. |
RSS Feed
