Greenwich Council Thames crossing campaign backed by 'pet pussy'

News Shopper: The Blackwall Tunnel The Blackwall Tunnel

GREENWICH Council is supporting plans for two new Thames river crossings - and so is the Dear Leader's pet pussy.

Hours after launching a campaign called Bridge the Gap as an exclusive on the front of its weekly propaganda paper Greenwich Time, the council's petition was inundated with fake account names.

Those names were then automatically published on the local authority's Twitter account.

Thanks to the council's feed, Twitter users learned that "the Dear Leader's pet pussy has just pledged support for #bridgethegap."

They were rapidly joined by supporters calling themselves "some stupid berk", "Royal Greenwich are gormless" and "Auto tweeting was a bad idea". The online strategy was quickly dropped.

Under Transport for London proposals currently being consulted on, a new tunnel would link Greenwich Peninsula with Silvertown across the river.

There are also plans for a ferry crossing from Thamesmead to Beckton at Gallions Reach while, as News Shopper reported last week, the option of a future road crossing on that part of the river is also included in the consultation.

News Shopper: Sir Robin Wales

A joint campaign backing a new tunnel and bridge is due to be officially launched next week by Greenwich Council and Newham Council, which is led by mayor Sir Robin Wales.

Speaking about the issue earlier this year, Sir Robin, who was knighted in 2000, said: "We have lost four valuable years since the Thames Gateway Bridge project was mothballed. A tunnel without a further bridge at Beckton will not meet the present demand and is wholly inadequate for the increased traffic expected in the future.

"The Silvertown crossing has always been seen as complementary to the Thames Gateway Bridge, rather than as a freestanding development. Without a bridge, there is no integrated regeneration and transport offer in east London.

"A river crossing at Beckton is key to the regeneration of the area. Therefore, the proposed ferry must be delivered quickly. Both residents and businesses on the north and south sides of the river would benefit from the Thames Gateway Bridge and therefore plans for another crossing should not be forgotten."

Leader of Greenwich Council Councillor Chris Roberts said: "New river crossings are vital for this part of London."

To have your say, visit tfl.gov.uk/rivercrossings

Comments (5)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

8:48pm Fri 7 Dec 12

RoyalCitizen says...

If my recollection is correct, areas surrounding Trafalgar Road and Greenwich Peninsula were reported as one of the UK's child asthma hotspots.

Is Chris "the leader" Roberts putting the convenience of Kent car commuters before the health of his constituents?
If my recollection is correct, areas surrounding Trafalgar Road and Greenwich Peninsula were reported as one of the UK's child asthma hotspots. Is Chris "the leader" Roberts putting the convenience of Kent car commuters before the health of his constituents? RoyalCitizen
  • Score: 0

2:09am Sat 8 Dec 12

j.j. says...

RoyalCitizen wrote:
If my recollection is correct, areas surrounding Trafalgar Road and Greenwich Peninsula were reported as one of the UK's child asthma hotspots.

Is Chris "the leader" Roberts putting the convenience of Kent car commuters before the health of his constituents?
I think it's the opposite: Blackwall tunnell is one of the UK's top 10 traffic bottlenecks and freeing up traffic to move throught it instead of polluting the local area for an average of 20 minutes per car during rush hour should significantly increase the air quality. This should also increase the quality of local's lives by reducing rat running and create job and business opportunities for Greenwich residents across the river. The council is right to put its full weight behind this.
[quote][p][bold]RoyalCitizen[/bold] wrote: If my recollection is correct, areas surrounding Trafalgar Road and Greenwich Peninsula were reported as one of the UK's child asthma hotspots. Is Chris "the leader" Roberts putting the convenience of Kent car commuters before the health of his constituents?[/p][/quote]I think it's the opposite: Blackwall tunnell is one of the UK's top 10 traffic bottlenecks and freeing up traffic to move throught it instead of polluting the local area for an average of 20 minutes per car during rush hour should significantly increase the air quality. This should also increase the quality of local's lives by reducing rat running and create job and business opportunities for Greenwich residents across the river. The council is right to put its full weight behind this. j.j.
  • Score: 0

2:22pm Sat 8 Dec 12

RoyalCitizen says...

One possible solution to reducing the waiting time to cross the river is to reduce the number of lanes, from Kibrooke to Blackwall, to two. Why have three lanes of traffic directed in to a tunnel that has only two lanes?

Did the construction of the M25 remove 60% of traffic from London's roads? NO! But that was the promise during the Public Consultation.

Once you create additional crossing capacity in Greenwich, you will encourage more vehicles to use this route. You will then be widening the Rochester Way Relief road, as that will be full to capacity (it's nearly full now).

To solve this problem of congestion we now need intelligent 21st century solutions. Don't repeat the failures of the narrow minded thinking from the last century!
One possible solution to reducing the waiting time to cross the river is to reduce the number of lanes, from Kibrooke to Blackwall, to two. Why have three lanes of traffic directed in to a tunnel that has only two lanes? Did the construction of the M25 remove 60% of traffic from London's roads? NO! But that was the promise during the Public Consultation. Once you create additional crossing capacity in Greenwich, you will encourage more vehicles to use this route. You will then be widening the Rochester Way Relief road, as that will be full to capacity (it's nearly full now). To solve this problem of congestion we now need intelligent 21st century solutions. Don't repeat the failures of the narrow minded thinking from the last century! RoyalCitizen
  • Score: 0

1:34pm Sun 9 Dec 12

j.j. says...

RoyalCitizen wrote:
One possible solution to reducing the waiting time to cross the river is to reduce the number of lanes, from Kibrooke to Blackwall, to two. Why have three lanes of traffic directed in to a tunnel that has only two lanes?

Did the construction of the M25 remove 60% of traffic from London's roads? NO! But that was the promise during the Public Consultation.

Once you create additional crossing capacity in Greenwich, you will encourage more vehicles to use this route. You will then be widening the Rochester Way Relief road, as that will be full to capacity (it's nearly full now).

To solve this problem of congestion we now need intelligent 21st century solutions. Don't repeat the failures of the narrow minded thinking from the last century!
I totally agree with this - we need modern and innovative solutions, eg. road pricing, variable speed limits with average sped controlling instead of single point cameras, commuter lanes for cars with 2+ passengers, further restrictions for vehicles that are not environmentally sound etc. The technology exists for this and many other major cities are using it, but in London we (TfL) are stuck with antiquated and ideologically motivated approaches. We need to get this city moving but in a sustainable way.
[quote][p][bold]RoyalCitizen[/bold] wrote: One possible solution to reducing the waiting time to cross the river is to reduce the number of lanes, from Kibrooke to Blackwall, to two. Why have three lanes of traffic directed in to a tunnel that has only two lanes? Did the construction of the M25 remove 60% of traffic from London's roads? NO! But that was the promise during the Public Consultation. Once you create additional crossing capacity in Greenwich, you will encourage more vehicles to use this route. You will then be widening the Rochester Way Relief road, as that will be full to capacity (it's nearly full now). To solve this problem of congestion we now need intelligent 21st century solutions. Don't repeat the failures of the narrow minded thinking from the last century![/p][/quote]I totally agree with this - we need modern and innovative solutions, eg. road pricing, variable speed limits with average sped controlling instead of single point cameras, commuter lanes for cars with 2+ passengers, further restrictions for vehicles that are not environmentally sound etc. The technology exists for this and many other major cities are using it, but in London we (TfL) are stuck with antiquated and ideologically motivated approaches. We need to get this city moving but in a sustainable way. j.j.
  • Score: 0

12:16am Thu 3 Jan 13

Teri-cyclist says...

I fear this tunnel will be built whether we like it or not. On that basis, please sign my petition: http://www.change.or
g/en-GB/petitions/tf
l-build-a-cycle-tunn
el-under-the-thames)
I fear this tunnel will be built whether we like it or not. On that basis, please sign my petition: http://www.change.or g/en-GB/petitions/tf l-build-a-cycle-tunn el-under-the-thames) Teri-cyclist
  • Score: 0

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree