Greenwich and Woolwich Foot Tunnels.

The foot tunnels at Greenwich and Woolwich were opened in 1902 and
1912 respectively. They are classed as public highways and open 24
hours a day, 7 days a week, with the lifts, when they are working,
open Monday to Saturday 7.30am to 6pm and Sunday 9am to 4.30pm.

Since the opening of the Docklands Light Railway (DLR) between Cutty
Sark and Island Gardens, and between Woolwich Aresnal and Custom
House, the main users of the foot tunnels have been commuter cyclists
and tourists. The tunnel at Greenwich forms part of Sustrans National
Cycle Route 1 (NCR1), Dover to Shetland. It is also the start of
NCR4, Greenwich to St David's and NCR21, Greenwich to Eastbourne.

At peak times the tunnel takes over 200 cyclists per hour, 424
cyclists were counted going north by Greenwich Cyclists during two
hour period on a weekday morning peak in March 2009. The tunnel at
Woolwich is less heavily used, with the Woolwich Free Ferry running a
one or two boat shuttle service 6am to 8pm Monday to Saturday and
11.30am to 7.30pm Sunday.

Greenwich Council are planning a full closure of both tunnels for a
period of up to 18 months for an £11.5m refurbishment. They are not
planning any alternative ferry service. This means that cyclists
wishing to cross the Thames at Greenwich face a 16 mile diversion to
Tower Bridge upstream, or a 32 miles diversion to The Dartford River
Crossing downstream. Cyclists wishing to cross the Thames at
Woolwich, outside the Woolwich Ferry operating times face a 28 mile
diversion upstream to Tower Bridge or a 20 mile diversion downstream
to the Dartford River Crossing. A third alternative would be to use
the Rotherhithe Tunnel, three miles upstream from the Greenwich Foot
Tunnel, but this river crossing is wholly inappropriate for cycling.

DLR have told Greenwich Council that they will not relax the rules
banning all but bagged folding bikes on their trains.

This situation is totally unacceptable. Local cycling groups are
going to oppose the closure of the foot tunnels unless a replacement
ferry service at Greenwich is put in place for periods when the tunnel
is closed. This is likely to force a public enquiry, which will mean
that the works to the tunnels will not be complete by March 2011 and
Greenwich Council will lose the £11.5m funding. Rather than that,
they are most likely to lay on a ferry service.

Three thoughts occur

Firstly, do both tunnels have to close at the same time? Even with one
open the diversions will be significant but I suspect more acceptable.

Secondly (and I doubt they would be any more helpful than DLR) but would LUL
allow the Jubilee to be used to/from North Woolwich (it almost doesn't
matter which direction)?

Lastly, how about a minibus hauling a trailer through the Rotherhithe?
Again, not ideal but could run to/from the entrance to each tunnel.

Tom Crispin wrote:
Greenwich Council are planning a full closure of both tunnels for a
period of up to 18 months for an £11.5m refurbishment. They are not
planning any alternative ferry service. This means that cyclists
wishing to cross the Thames at Greenwich face a 16 mile diversion to
Tower Bridge upstream, or a 32 miles diversion to The Dartford River
Crossing downstream. Cyclists wishing to cross the Thames at
Woolwich, outside the Woolwich Ferry operating times face a 28 mile
diversion upstream to Tower Bridge or a 20 mile diversion downstream
to the Dartford River Crossing. A third alternative would be to use
the Rotherhithe Tunnel, three miles upstream from the Greenwich Foot
Tunnel, but this river crossing is wholly inappropriate for cycling.


Out of interest, why is the Rotherhithe tunnel so bad for cycling?

Adam Lea wrote:


Out of interest, why is the Rotherhithe tunnel so bad for cycling?



Driving it is bad enough.
Narrow, two-way, smelly, noisy, not straight.
Cycling it can be done, done it myself a few times, but it's not much fun.
Tower Bridge can seem a long way round some times.

Tom Crispin wrote:


Greenwich Council are planning a full closure of both tunnels for a
period of up to 18 months for an £11.5m refurbishment. They are not
planning any alternative ferry service. This means that cyclists
wishing to cross the Thames at Greenwich face a 16 mile diversion to
Tower Bridge upstream, or a 32 miles diversion to The Dartford River
Crossing downstream. Cyclists wishing to cross the Thames at
Woolwich, outside the Woolwich Ferry operating times face a 28 mile
diversion upstream to Tower Bridge or a 20 mile diversion downstream
to the Dartford River Crossing. A third alternative would be to use
the Rotherhithe Tunnel, three miles upstream from the Greenwich Foot
Tunnel, but this river crossing is wholly inappropriate for cycling.

And so too is the Greenwich Foot Tunnel wholly inappropriate for cycling.

See: http://www.greenwich.gov.uk/Greenwich/Travel/Walking.htm

QUOTE:
The Greenwich Tunnel provides a *pedestrian* link between Cutty Sark Gardens
and Island Gardens, Tower Hamlets.
ENDQUOTE

[My emphasis, BTW - and it's easy to find references on the web to cycling
not being allowed in the *foot* tunnel]

And see:
http://www.thegreenwichphantom.co.uk/2007/02/greenwich-foot-tunnel.html

QUOTE:
The riding of bicycles is banned, which means you get two different types of
cyclist. There are those who just ignore it, putting their heads down and
just going for it who are truly terrifying, and those who think it doesn't
count if they stand on one pedal and freewheel. The former is slightly more
dangerous than the latter but they are both deadly. There is a very rare
third variety - the guy who actually gets off and wheels his bike through. If
you see one of these shy, scarce creatures, shake them warmly by the hand and
thank them voraciously.
ENDQUOTE

DLR have told Greenwich Council that they will not relax the rules
banning all but bagged folding bikes on their trains.

This situation is totally unacceptable.

How, when the tunnel is closed, will it be - legally - any different from the
current situation (apart from the scarce creatures mentioned on the
greenwichphantom site, that is)?

On Wed, 13 May 2009 19:21:13 +0100, JNugent
wrote:

Tom Crispin wrote:


Greenwich Council are planning a full closure of both tunnels for a
period of up to 18 months for an £11.5m refurbishment. They are not
planning any alternative ferry service. This means that cyclists
wishing to cross the Thames at Greenwich face a 16 mile diversion to
Tower Bridge upstream, or a 32 miles diversion to The Dartford River
Crossing downstream. Cyclists wishing to cross the Thames at
Woolwich, outside the Woolwich Ferry operating times face a 28 mile
diversion upstream to Tower Bridge or a 20 mile diversion downstream
to the Dartford River Crossing. A third alternative would be to use
the Rotherhithe Tunnel, three miles upstream from the Greenwich Foot
Tunnel, but this river crossing is wholly inappropriate for cycling.

And so too is the Greenwich Foot Tunnel wholly inappropriate for cycling.

See: http://www.greenwich.gov.uk/Greenwich/Travel/Walking.htm

QUOTE:
The Greenwich Tunnel provides a *pedestrian* link between Cutty Sark Gardens
and Island Gardens, Tower Hamlets.
ENDQUOTE

[My emphasis, BTW - and it's easy to find references on the web to cycling
not being allowed in the *foot* tunnel]

And see:
http://www.thegreenwichphantom.co.uk/2007/02/greenwich-foot-tunnel.html

QUOTE:
The riding of bicycles is banned, which means you get two different types of
cyclist. There are those who just ignore it, putting their heads down and
just going for it who are truly terrifying, and those who think it doesn't
count if they stand on one pedal and freewheel. The former is slightly more
dangerous than the latter but they are both deadly. There is a very rare
third variety - the guy who actually gets off and wheels his bike through. If
you see one of these shy, scarce creatures, shake them warmly by the hand and
thank them voraciously.
ENDQUOTE

A cursory google image search for "greenwich foot tunnel" brings up
hundreds of images of the inside of the tunnel. Several of them
contain pedestrains pushing bicycles, but not one of the 20 pages I
viewed contain a photo of someone riding or scooting a bike.

A survey by Greenwich Cyclists in March this year, though not
specifically counted, suggests that about 10% of those with bikes ride
or scoot through the tunnel.

DLR have told Greenwich Council that they will not relax the rules
banning all but bagged folding bikes on their trains.

This situation is totally unacceptable.

How, when the tunnel is closed, will it be - legally - any different from the
current situation (apart from the scarce creatures mentioned on the
greenwichphantom site, that is)?

Would it be acceptable to Tower Bridge to motor traffic because few
motorists stick to the 20mph limit? I would say "yes", and so
probably would Doug. But there would be general outrage among
motorists who use Tower Bridge, even though London Bridge is only a
few hundred yards away.

On Wed, 13 May 2009 18:09:48 +0100, "Graham Harrison"
wrote:

Three thoughts occur

Firstly, do both tunnels have to close at the same time? Even with one
open the diversions will be significant but I suspect more acceptable.

According to Jeff Horsman, Manager of Highways and Structures,
Transportation, London Borough of Greenwich, yes. Some of the work to
the Woolwich Foot Tunnel is significant, including a repair to a leak
in the north lift/stairway shaft. The timing of the closures would
not fully overlap, but would inevitably significantly overlap.

Secondly (and I doubt they would be any more helpful than DLR) but would LUL
allow the Jubilee to be used to/from North Woolwich (it almost doesn't
matter which direction)?

Highly unlikely, but this is not something we have examined. Currently
cycles are allowed on surface or near surface sections of the Jubilee
Line outside peak periods. North Greenwich is a deep tunnel.

Lastly, how about a minibus hauling a trailer through the Rotherhithe?
Again, not ideal but could run to/from the entrance to each tunnel.

200+ bikes and cyclists an hour!? Not likely, even with 24 bikes per
trailer.

On Wed, 13 May 2009 18:55:42 +0100, "Adam Lea"
wrote:

Tom Crispin wrote:
Greenwich Council are planning a full closure of both tunnels for a
period of up to 18 months for an £11.5m refurbishment. They are not
planning any alternative ferry service. This means that cyclists
wishing to cross the Thames at Greenwich face a 16 mile diversion to
Tower Bridge upstream, or a 32 miles diversion to The Dartford River
Crossing downstream. Cyclists wishing to cross the Thames at
Woolwich, outside the Woolwich Ferry operating times face a 28 mile
diversion upstream to Tower Bridge or a 20 mile diversion downstream
to the Dartford River Crossing. A third alternative would be to use
the Rotherhithe Tunnel, three miles upstream from the Greenwich Foot
Tunnel, but this river crossing is wholly inappropriate for cycling.


Out of interest, why is the Rotherhithe tunnel so bad for cycling?

4.8m wide 2-way carriageway (at 2.4m, each lane is narrower than the
3m diameter Greenwich Foot Tunnel), heavily polluted, lethal
overtaking manoeuvres by motorists.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...entrance_2.jpg

A critical mass of cyclists would probably make the tunnel safe, but I
expect that critical mass would probably have to be in excess of 500
cyclists per hour, enough to make motorists abandon the tunnel
completely. Now that's an idea!

On Wed, 13 May 2009 20:42:17 +0100, Tom Crispin
wrote:

On Wed, 13 May 2009 18:55:42 +0100, "Adam Lea"
wrote:

Tom Crispin wrote:
Greenwich Council are planning a full closure of both tunnels for a
period of up to 18 months for an £11.5m refurbishment. They are not
planning any alternative ferry service. This means that cyclists
wishing to cross the Thames at Greenwich face a 16 mile diversion to
Tower Bridge upstream, or a 32 miles diversion to The Dartford River
Crossing downstream. Cyclists wishing to cross the Thames at
Woolwich, outside the Woolwich Ferry operating times face a 28 mile
diversion upstream to Tower Bridge or a 20 mile diversion downstream
to the Dartford River Crossing. A third alternative would be to use
the Rotherhithe Tunnel, three miles upstream from the Greenwich Foot
Tunnel, but this river crossing is wholly inappropriate for cycling.


Out of interest, why is the Rotherhithe tunnel so bad for cycling?

4.8m wide 2-way carriageway (at 2.4m, each lane is narrower than the
3m diameter Greenwich Foot Tunnel), heavily polluted, lethal
overtaking manoeuvres by motorists.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...entrance_2.jpg

A critical mass of cyclists would probably make the tunnel safe, but I
expect that critical mass would probably have to be in excess of 500
cyclists per hour, enough to make motorists abandon the tunnel
completely. Now that's an idea!


Don't you just take you "primary position" and go for it?

If not - why not - I thought it was legal and acceptable cycling?

--

"Primary position" the middle of a traffic lane. To take the "primary position" : to ride a bike in the middle of the lane in order to obstruct other road vehicles from overtaking.

A term invented by and used by psycholists and not recognised in the Highway Code.

Highway Code Rule 168 : "Never obstruct drivers who wish to pass."

On Wed, 13 May 2009 22:56:19 +0100, Judith Smith
wrote:

On Wed, 13 May 2009 20:42:17 +0100, Tom Crispin
wrote:

On Wed, 13 May 2009 18:55:42 +0100, "Adam Lea"
wrote:

Tom Crispin wrote:
Greenwich Council are planning a full closure of both tunnels for a
period of up to 18 months for an £11.5m refurbishment. They are not
planning any alternative ferry service. This means that cyclists
wishing to cross the Thames at Greenwich face a 16 mile diversion to
Tower Bridge upstream, or a 32 miles diversion to The Dartford River
Crossing downstream. Cyclists wishing to cross the Thames at
Woolwich, outside the Woolwich Ferry operating times face a 28 mile
diversion upstream to Tower Bridge or a 20 mile diversion downstream
to the Dartford River Crossing. A third alternative would be to use
the Rotherhithe Tunnel, three miles upstream from the Greenwich Foot
Tunnel, but this river crossing is wholly inappropriate for cycling.


Out of interest, why is the Rotherhithe tunnel so bad for cycling?

4.8m wide 2-way carriageway (at 2.4m, each lane is narrower than the
3m diameter Greenwich Foot Tunnel), heavily polluted, lethal
overtaking manoeuvres by motorists.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...entrance_2.jpg

A critical mass of cyclists would probably make the tunnel safe, but I
expect that critical mass would probably have to be in excess of 500
cyclists per hour, enough to make motorists abandon the tunnel
completely. Now that's an idea!


Don't you just take you "primary position" and go for it?

That is the only sane way to cycle through the Rotherhithe Tunnel, if
cycling through the tunnel in the first place can ever be considered
sane. It doesn't stop motorists hooting up cyclists' arses, or
making/attempting lethal overtaking manoeuvres.

If not - why not - I thought it was legal and acceptable cycling?