Once again community safety is put at risk as emergency services pan the scheme
Services' objections include 'forced' use of congested boundary roads, and complex changes to street layout. Services state all LTNs potentially delay life-saving help, and the Greenwich scheme threatens heightened risk to pan-London units lacking local knowledge, and emergency vehicles caught in long and congested boundary road diversions.
Changes in WG 'would create an extremely confusing and complex network of one way streets severely hindering emergency access/egress and navigation'. The response refers to similar warnings in 2020 that were also ignored. The earlier scheme was removed after critical ambulance delays.
The exposure of the community to the risk of delayed emergency responses replays Council tactics over the 2020 West Greenwich 'Hills and Vales' LTN, new Freedom of Information Act (FOI) responses reveal.
Greenwich failed to consult Emergency Services until after the 6 October closure of the public consultation. Ten days later, a first letter from Greenwich was sent to services, who reacted immediately - severely criticising the plans. But in a leaflet circulated at that time to households, the Council wrongly denied claims that emergency vehicles would be 'impacted' by the proposals, and said RBG had been 'working with' services.
Services state, in a general statement, that all LTNs have the potential to delay life-saving help. In a detailed response, strenuous complaints are also directed to the proposed detailed changes, including the impact of physical barriers (bollards and planters), complex changes to road layout, and long boundary lines, which are likely to mean:
This time round, Greenwich publicity for the new scheme keeps up a pretence that the authority was in discussion with emergency services much earlier than was the case. Emergency services were not consulted until mid-October on the 'options', which had by then had already been rejected by local residents.
The East-West Scheme now creates a 1.5 miles line of 'severance' on the A2 and A206, meaning that the effect of avoiding closures will multiply essential journeys delayed, more congestion, and more toxicity on boundary roads.
Greenwich's pro-LTN leaflet, distributed during the last week - to 6 October - of this year's Commonplace survey on the new monster LTN, tackled what the Council describes as a 'myth' that emergency services would be slowed down by the LTN, and also claimed to be in discussion with services. But detailed formal correspondence did not begin until 16 October 2023 and the emergency services make it starkly clear that all changes to road layout, traffic management schemes and road closures can impede responses to critically ill people. The Greenwich leaflet 'busts' the 'myth' with the misleading statement that 'reducing traffic overall will help them get to where they need to go faster too'.
Services have formally reminded Greenwich of long standing warnings received more than three years ago. FOI responses reveal that the London Ambulance Service (LAS) has re-issued a blanket warning to all authorities against 'changes to road layout, traffic management schemes and road closures' which LAS says are known to 'have the potential to impeded our response to the most critically-ill people'. Services prefer ANPR in all cases, permitting unimpeded access to ambulances, fire engines and the police. The letter, sent on 17 October 2023 reminded Greenwich that all London boroughs and TfL received this warning more than three years ago on 5 July 2020.
Freedom of Information Act (FoI) disclosures revealed that emergency services were given 48 hours in July 2020 to comment on schemes. They condemned hard closures such as bollards and planters as highly dangerous and potentially putting life at risk (see more, below, on the 2020 Scheme and the emergency services). This rebounded badly on Greenwich. Complaints of delayed ambulances were the underlying reason for modifying the 2020 LTN, and subsequently removing it in February 2022.
How the emergency services responded to the current proposals:
West Greenwich Options 1 and 2: all 'hard closures' (ie 'modal filters' not ANPR) are described as potentially 'delaying our responses to to our most critically ill/injured patients'. The real 'myth' is that services carry keys to open the barriers: they do not, as there is no standardised set of locks.
Barriers at Winforton Street and Maidenstone Hill are therefore rejected.
Bars to movement cause by 'no entry' signs are also criticised, because a uniformed police officer is required to direct traffic against the sign.
Aspects of the the proposals mean the fire service will deem necessary opening 'firegates' positioned at the Hyde Vale and General Wolfe Road A2 access, and (under Option 1) Circus Street gate with South Street are deemed necessary. Opening the gates in 2020-2022 encouraged faster traffic speeds through the LTN especially by larger vehicles, eliminating the current effective width restriction. In the case of the current Circus Street gating, an existing successful traffic control would be removed.
West Greenwich Option 2 'will mean emergency crews cannot move west to east through the scheme at all without diverting, exiting and re-entering the scheme increasing running times and potentially delaying response or conveyance of patients'.
West Greenwich 'minimal' (Option 3) scheme 'would create an extremely confusing and complex network of one way streets severely hindering emergency access/egress and navigation around the area'.
East Greenwich Option 1 is condemned for the 'lack of access/egress to multiple residential addresses and creating 'significant diversions around congested roads to gain access'. Similar criticisms are levelled at Option 2.
Greenwich denies the criticisms, claiming in its leaflet to residents that 'reducing traffic overall will help them [emergency services] get to where they need to go faster too'.
Changes in WG 'would create an extremely confusing and complex network of one way streets severely hindering emergency access/egress and navigation'. The response refers to similar warnings in 2020 that were also ignored. The earlier scheme was removed after critical ambulance delays.
The exposure of the community to the risk of delayed emergency responses replays Council tactics over the 2020 West Greenwich 'Hills and Vales' LTN, new Freedom of Information Act (FOI) responses reveal.
Greenwich failed to consult Emergency Services until after the 6 October closure of the public consultation. Ten days later, a first letter from Greenwich was sent to services, who reacted immediately - severely criticising the plans. But in a leaflet circulated at that time to households, the Council wrongly denied claims that emergency vehicles would be 'impacted' by the proposals, and said RBG had been 'working with' services.
Services state, in a general statement, that all LTNs have the potential to delay life-saving help. In a detailed response, strenuous complaints are also directed to the proposed detailed changes, including the impact of physical barriers (bollards and planters), complex changes to road layout, and long boundary lines, which are likely to mean:
- delays to all emergency vehicles, with heightened risk to pan-London units without local knowledge,
- emergency vehicles caught in long and congested of boundary road diversion, and
- changes of such complexity that - for instance - West Greenwich Option 3 'would create an extremely confusing and complex network of one way streets severely hindering emergency access/egress and navigation around the area'.
- similar warnings in 2020 were also ignored but the scheme was removed after critical ambulance delays.
This time round, Greenwich publicity for the new scheme keeps up a pretence that the authority was in discussion with emergency services much earlier than was the case. Emergency services were not consulted until mid-October on the 'options', which had by then had already been rejected by local residents.
The East-West Scheme now creates a 1.5 miles line of 'severance' on the A2 and A206, meaning that the effect of avoiding closures will multiply essential journeys delayed, more congestion, and more toxicity on boundary roads.
Greenwich's pro-LTN leaflet, distributed during the last week - to 6 October - of this year's Commonplace survey on the new monster LTN, tackled what the Council describes as a 'myth' that emergency services would be slowed down by the LTN, and also claimed to be in discussion with services. But detailed formal correspondence did not begin until 16 October 2023 and the emergency services make it starkly clear that all changes to road layout, traffic management schemes and road closures can impede responses to critically ill people. The Greenwich leaflet 'busts' the 'myth' with the misleading statement that 'reducing traffic overall will help them get to where they need to go faster too'.
Services have formally reminded Greenwich of long standing warnings received more than three years ago. FOI responses reveal that the London Ambulance Service (LAS) has re-issued a blanket warning to all authorities against 'changes to road layout, traffic management schemes and road closures' which LAS says are known to 'have the potential to impeded our response to the most critically-ill people'. Services prefer ANPR in all cases, permitting unimpeded access to ambulances, fire engines and the police. The letter, sent on 17 October 2023 reminded Greenwich that all London boroughs and TfL received this warning more than three years ago on 5 July 2020.
Freedom of Information Act (FoI) disclosures revealed that emergency services were given 48 hours in July 2020 to comment on schemes. They condemned hard closures such as bollards and planters as highly dangerous and potentially putting life at risk (see more, below, on the 2020 Scheme and the emergency services). This rebounded badly on Greenwich. Complaints of delayed ambulances were the underlying reason for modifying the 2020 LTN, and subsequently removing it in February 2022.
How the emergency services responded to the current proposals:
West Greenwich Options 1 and 2: all 'hard closures' (ie 'modal filters' not ANPR) are described as potentially 'delaying our responses to to our most critically ill/injured patients'. The real 'myth' is that services carry keys to open the barriers: they do not, as there is no standardised set of locks.
Barriers at Winforton Street and Maidenstone Hill are therefore rejected.
Bars to movement cause by 'no entry' signs are also criticised, because a uniformed police officer is required to direct traffic against the sign.
Aspects of the the proposals mean the fire service will deem necessary opening 'firegates' positioned at the Hyde Vale and General Wolfe Road A2 access, and (under Option 1) Circus Street gate with South Street are deemed necessary. Opening the gates in 2020-2022 encouraged faster traffic speeds through the LTN especially by larger vehicles, eliminating the current effective width restriction. In the case of the current Circus Street gating, an existing successful traffic control would be removed.
West Greenwich Option 2 'will mean emergency crews cannot move west to east through the scheme at all without diverting, exiting and re-entering the scheme increasing running times and potentially delaying response or conveyance of patients'.
West Greenwich 'minimal' (Option 3) scheme 'would create an extremely confusing and complex network of one way streets severely hindering emergency access/egress and navigation around the area'.
East Greenwich Option 1 is condemned for the 'lack of access/egress to multiple residential addresses and creating 'significant diversions around congested roads to gain access'. Similar criticisms are levelled at Option 2.
Greenwich denies the criticisms, claiming in its leaflet to residents that 'reducing traffic overall will help them [emergency services] get to where they need to go faster too'.
