Greenwich and Woolwich Tunnels

1. Question from Anthony Austin of Greenfell Mansions, SE 8 to
Councillor Peter Brooks, Deputy Leader and Cabinet Member for
Regeneration and Human Resources

How many times have the lifts at the Greenwich and Woolwich foot
tunnels broken down or been closed because of staffing problems so far
this year?



Reply

I thank Mr Austin for his question.

The Greenwich south lift has suffered from long term problems with the
ageing control gear. This has lead to an unacceptable level of
service.

Temporary repairs have been completed, sufficient to run the lift
during the morning and evening peak hours.

From 1st January the staff shortage and mechanical breakdown figures
a

Greenwich Mechanical Staff
South 181 7
North 7 12

The figures for Woolwich a

Woolwich Mechanical Staff
South 20 18
North 4 18

I am pleased to report that the council has been successful in
obtaining over £11million of funding to complete a refurbishment of
the 2 tunnels, including major upgrading of the lifts which should
ensure a significant service improvement, particularly with regards to
reliability. The refurbishment project will run up to March 2011.

==============================

The south lift at Greenwich broke down 181 times since the beginning
of the year to 24 June. That is 181 times in 175 days.

Here are a couple of photos of school children struggling up the 200
dangerous steps with their bikes.
http://www.britishschoolofcycling.co.../struggle1.jpg
http://www.britishschoolofcycling.co.../struggle2.jpg
http://www.britishschoolofcycling.co.../struggle3.jpg

And Greenwich Council are not going to do anything about this shameful
state of affairs until March 2011.

Was there a question or are you talking to yourself.

Please also note, these are foot tunnels and nothing to do with cycling.

Happi Monday wrote:


Was there a question or are you talking to yourself.

Please also note, these are foot tunnels and nothing to do with cycling.

Apart from being part of National CYCLE Network No1 you mean?

On 26 June, 22:51, Marc wrote:
Happi Monday wrote:

Was there a question or are you talking to yourself.

Please also note, these are foot tunnels and nothing to do with cycling.

Apart from being part of National CYCLE Network No1 you mean?

They are a disgrace to the cycle network.

Doug.

Doug wrote:
On 26 June, 22:51, Marc wrote:
Happi Monday wrote:

Was there a question or are you talking to yourself.

Please also note, these are foot tunnels and nothing to do with
cycling.

Apart from being part of National CYCLE Network No1 you mean?

They are a disgrace to the cycle network.

How can they be a disgrace to the cycle network if they are footways?

Why not adopt a more positive attitude, they provide useful shortcuts for
cyclists to avoid less pleasant river crossings.

On Sat, 27 Jun 2009 08:19:46 +0100, "Brimstone"
wrote:

Doug wrote:
On 26 June, 22:51, Marc wrote:
Happi Monday wrote:

Was there a question or are you talking to yourself.

Please also note, these are foot tunnels and nothing to do with
cycling.

Apart from being part of National CYCLE Network No1 you mean?

They are a disgrace to the cycle network.

How can they be a disgrace to the cycle network if they are footways?

Why not adopt a more positive attitude, they provide useful shortcuts for
cyclists to avoid less pleasant river crossings.

That would not be true.

The Woolwich Ferry is a very pleasant river crossing, as is Tower
Bridge with its 20mph speed limit.

It is true that they are a part of the Dover to Shetland cycle route,
or NCR1, and part of the St Paul's to Notre Dame Avenue Verte.

Tom Crispin wrote:
On Sat, 27 Jun 2009 08:19:46 +0100, "Brimstone"
wrote:

Doug wrote:
On 26 June, 22:51, Marc wrote:
Happi Monday wrote:

Was there a question or are you talking to yourself.

Please also note, these are foot tunnels and nothing to do with
cycling.

Apart from being part of National CYCLE Network No1 you mean?

They are a disgrace to the cycle network.

How can they be a disgrace to the cycle network if they are footways?

Why not adopt a more positive attitude, they provide useful
shortcuts for cyclists to avoid less pleasant river crossings.

That would not be true.

The Woolwich Ferry is a very pleasant river crossing, as is Tower
Bridge with its 20mph speed limit.

Surely that's a matter of personal preference, but I was thinking of the
road tunnels.

It is true that they are a part of the Dover to Shetland cycle route,
or NCR1, and part of the St Paul's to Notre Dame Avenue Verte.

On 27 June, 08:19, "Brimstone" wrote:
Doug wrote:
On 26 June, 22:51, Marc wrote:
Happi Monday wrote:

Was there a question or are you talking to yourself.

Please also note, these are foot tunnels and nothing to do with
cycling.

Apart from being part of National CYCLE Network No1 you mean?

They are a disgrace to the cycle network.

How can they be a disgrace to the cycle network if they are footways?

Why not adopt a more positive attitude, they provide useful shortcuts for
cyclists to avoid less pleasant river crossings.

The foot tunnels would be more pleasant if they were shared use and
cyclists didn't have to carry their bikes up long flights of stairs
when lifts/attendants are often not working. They should either create
a much wider, shared-use tunnel with a ramp approach or close it down
and provide a proper foot/cycle bridge instead. As they stand the
tunnels are antiquated and only suitable for very fit cyclists, which
is discriminatory.

Doug.

Doug wrote:

"Brimstone" wrote:
Doug wrote:
Marc wrote:
Happi Monday wrote:

Was there a question or are you talking to yourself.
Please also note, these are foot tunnels and nothing to do with
cycling.

Apart from being part of National CYCLE Network No1 you mean?

They are a disgrace to the cycle network.

How can they be a disgrace to the cycle network if they are footways?
Why not adopt a more positive attitude, they provide useful shortcuts for
cyclists to avoid less pleasant river crossings.

The foot tunnels would be more pleasant if they were shared use and
cyclists didn't have to carry their bikes up long flights of stairs
when lifts/attendants are often not working. They should either create
a much wider, shared-use tunnel with a ramp approach or close it down
and provide a proper foot/cycle bridge instead. As they stand the
tunnels are antiquated and only suitable for very fit cyclists, which
is discriminatory.

And cycling provides so much taxation to the Treasury that the massive cost
of provision of a wide new bridge across the Thames would be but a drop in
the ocean.

Hang on... perhaps I wasn't thinking of cycling taxation...

Tell you what though... how about building the foot/cycle bridge you suggest
(whether out of the Exchequer or a PFI) and charging a toll in order to fund
it... say... £5 each way?

Doug wrote:
On 27 June, 08:19, "Brimstone" wrote:
Doug wrote:
On 26 June, 22:51, Marc wrote:
Happi Monday wrote:

Was there a question or are you talking to yourself.

Please also note, these are foot tunnels and nothing to do with
cycling.

Apart from being part of National CYCLE Network No1 you mean?

They are a disgrace to the cycle network.

How can they be a disgrace to the cycle network if they are footways?

Why not adopt a more positive attitude, they provide useful
shortcuts for cyclists to avoid less pleasant river crossings.

The foot tunnels would be more pleasant if they were shared use and
cyclists didn't have to carry their bikes up long flights of stairs
when lifts/attendants are often not working.

Whatever the mode of transport of the user, I agree the lifts should be
working. The fact that they don't merely serves to show where the pedestrian
comes in the pecking order.

They should either create
a much wider, shared-use tunnel with a ramp approach or close it down
and provide a proper foot/cycle bridge instead.

Be careful what you wish for, such a bridge might be less accessible to all
than the present tunnel. Why should a new tunnel be built solely for the
benefit of a very small minority?

As they stand the
tunnels are antiquated and only suitable for very fit cyclists, which
is discriminatory.

Apart from the lack of lifts, they suit their intended purpose very well.
Unless you're suggesting that they're discriminatory against all wheeled
vehicles except perambulators?