A look at Greenwich Cycleway 4 changes planned by TfL from 2027
A Freedom of Information request has revealed the latest TfL plans for street changes from May 2027 in Greenwich including the notorious Angerstein roundabout and flyover.
Having been sent current TfL designs by a reader it’s a good time to look at what’s the latest thinking. For those unaware Cycleway 4 has been built in various stages over the past decade with the final route set to run between Tower Bridge and Woolwich via Charlton, Greenwich, Deptford, Rotherhithe and Bermondsey.
One stretch from Trafalgar Road in east Greenwich to Charlton station was installed on a temporary basis and is now set to become a permanent fixture.
This section sits between the Charlton to Woolwich section now under construction and a proposed section in Greenwich town centre to the west yet to begin.
TfL’s documents show that while a few changes are planned another chance to improve some of London’s worst streets on foot and cycle could be squandered yet again.
Angerstein roundabout
Let’s start by looking at the notorious roundabout below the A102 which is a grim spot to walk and cycle through. Not as bad as it once was but far from what it could – and should – be.
Drab, ugly, cluttered and not at all pleasant, while changes look minimal. Various plans for this area have been and gone in recent years. The more radical options once seen are now not being pushed – but neither are some smaller easy wins.
Documents sent to me via the FoI don’t show many improvements to entice people through here.
There’s no mention of improved lighting or taking the opportunity to brighten it up with a lick of paint or a mural. Just anything to make it less visually bleak. Add some LED uplights like this. Make it half way attractive – or as much as is possible.
There’s plenty of examples across the world beneath bridges and flyovers. Many rail bridges have also seen improved lighting below in recent years.
Wandsworth have recently been undertaking some improvement works. Southwark have in recent years working with Network Rail.
When it comes to roads even TfL’s own Bow flyover is better. Hardly an amazing space it at least has far less clutter and some attempts to improve the area beneath.
What’s stopping TfL and Greenwich Council working together to improve areas around and beneath flyovers in Greenwich?
As so often there’s so little will coming from council HQ in Woolwich. TfL can and have done better elsewhere. We know just over in Newham borough that TfL they allocated millions in additional funding for street upgrades in Silvertown and Canning Town. So why the difference?
Well, Newham were willing to stump up money derived from much housing to improve areas in the midst of those thousands of new homes.
Greenwich Council and its leadership have for so long taken a far different approach – and we’ll see another example of that covered just below when it came to another major housing development recently approved nearby.
Approaches
The existing cycle lane across the Angerstein roundabout beneath the A102 flyover currently has its approaches situated in the centre of roads both on the east and west sides.
According to TfL plans this remains though tarmac will be replaced with paving and guardrail may be replaced or removed. Hopefully it’s removed.
One good aspect is redesigning the road layout where Tunnel Avenue meets Woolwich Road including a zebra crossing near the old east Greenwich library.
It isn’t currently the best.
Link to station
It’s also disappointing to see no wider effort shown to improve routes to Westcombe Park station on foot or cycle from Greenwich peninsula as part of this work.
Currently the way to go after crossing the Angerstein roundabout from Peartree Way is a detour around the houses or walking through a narrow, dingy alley. Removing one wall would open up the space and increase visibility across the area while improving access routes.
Leaving it in place encourages people to walk on the exit slip road to avoid the detour.
Its removal is a relatively simple fix that would aid accessibility. The green arrows in the below image lead from an existing crossing to bus stops behind the wall with the wall gone. The red arrows show the current, narrow alley needed to reach bus stops or continue to Westcome Park station.
The wall’s removal needn’t detract from safety. For one, the protective wall and railings alongside the slip road seen above would remain separating pedestrians and cyclists from traffic and second, the poor layout currently in place actively encourages people to go into the road and walk around the railings.
It should also be noted there’s no height difference either side of the wall. Remove it and access is immediately improved for many.
All that’s listed in TfL’s plan here though is a small bit of potential greenery.
Nice and all but that isn’t aiding the creation of more direct routes between homes and public transport. The current route via the alley is so hidden away I’m sure many don’t even know it exists.
Open up the space and many would realise this is a usable route to reach bus tops and the railway station.
Junction
The other major junction on the stretch set for changes is the ugly, cluttered junction in east Greenwich beside Greenwich leisure centre and library.
This area still looks little changed from the 1970s and retains street design catered around vehicles rather than pedestrians and cyclists, as embodied by those ugly railings.
Most of the time railings are covered in ads and banners – often for Greenwich leisure centre itself – obscuring views for drivers of pedestrians and cyclist who are behind them waiting to cross. If a child ran out a driver would often have no idea as the view is blocked.
Changes here see a reduced width cycle lane and wider area for pedestrians crossing – though those railings not only limit visibility some of the time but limit usable pavement “real estate” when on foot.
And without excessive clutter gone it’ll still be an ugly, hostile area post-completion.
There’s also no mention of even starting to add a feeder lane off Cycleway 4 via Blackwall Lane to improve links with Greenwich peninsula and new developments there.
Blackwall Lane leads to two pretty awful areas for cyclists and pedestrians: Tunnel Avenue or the section beneath the A102 flyover seen below.
Prior cycleway work
This brings to mind work on Cycleway 4 to the west at the boundary of Greenwich and Lewisham boroughs on Creek Road.
When TfL were drawing up plans some years ago for that stretch Lewisham requested a small feeder section of cycle lane heading off Cycleway 4 along Deptford Church Street in advance of a bigger project. So the feeder was built and more recently Lewisham built a segregated lane all along Deptford Church Street to Deptford Bridge DLR station.
What did Greenwich council ask for from TfL? To retain railings and street clutter so the road would retain design elements as though it was still the 1970s.
We’ll have to see if Greenwich Council now push for a feeder section on Blackwall Lane as Lewisham did on Deptford Church Street but given past and current disinterest in linking east Greenwich to the peninsula it seems unlikely.
Greenwich’s continued abject failure on improving streets in the area contrasts with their recent announcement of £150 for families to buy children a bike.
A nice headline but if so many streets remain so bad – and the authority continually choose not to improve streets around many schools including St Mary Magdalene and Millennium Primary in this areas – then it just smacks of a gimmick.
Wands
At other parts of the cycle lane in line for changes the use of wands or bollards is set to remain rather than physical separation via kerbs.
This is a problem as some wands have been removed over time and not replaced. Physical street changes including kerbs could assist but in many places this isn’t proposed.
The reader who sent in TfL’s documents received from a FoI request was particularly critical of this lack of change. It means the route is not fully segregated.
One particular section is near east Greenwich fire station where westbound cyclists are extremely close to eastbound vehicles. A kerb here is suggested to protect cyclist but installed so as not to impede fire engines.
Repeat failings?
What seems revealing from these plans is that improvements TfL have undertaken in other parts of London are absent. Is this Greenwich interfering to the detriment of the local area once again? It’s happened before with Cycleway 4 works.
We know they’ve also chosen time and again not to improve various streets in east Greenwich and Greenwich peninsula and been called out on it by TfL themselves – including recently when 1,500 homes were again approved at Morden Wharf.
TfL stated “the proposals should go further to support active travel” and highlighted issues with an Active Travel Zone Assessment and recommended additional funding.
Greenwich planners batted it off as they regularly do when called to allocate extra funds for improving the area’s streets. They stated they’d previously allocated S106 so it’s all fine and dandy.
Trouble is the S106 allocation made at a number of previous Greenwich peninsula and east Greenwich developments was minimal, and some of those agreements don’t even intend to implement street improvements until 2037.
That could be sped up via additional S106 funds but they’ve again chosen not to.
And now Greenwich Labour have their £150 bike voucher policy for the election following on from being resolute in opting not improving many local streets, ensuring that if children do get a bike many areas are not safe and appealing to actually use.
It all has the whiff of going for an easy option of fluttering some vouchers about rather than doing the hard work of planning and implementing people-friendly streets around schools, shops, public transport and housing.
As for upcoming changes to Cycleway 4 more details should emerge and we’ll see what – if anything – Greenwich input or whether they stump up any extra cash to assist TfL.
Work is set to start in May 2027.
The Angerstein Roundabouf and under pass is in need of new brighter street lighting ighting to be installed. Along with imptoved crossings and major improvements to public realm to improve the area and roundabout for pedestrians cyclists and motorists
I sometimes think Councillors on Greenwich Council forget what we actually pay our council tax for.
The safety of pedestrians cyclists and motorists much be paramount..
The Angerstein roundabout is the one good thing about cycle lane 4. The roundabout set up is confusing for motorists and prior to the change, it was dangerous for cyclists. As for the aesthetics, I couldn’t care less – it is under the ultra busy Blackwall tunnel road – get me through there quickly and safely breathing in a minimum of car fumes.
Yes the cut across is much better than before.
In terms of look and feel of an environment it may not matter to some but it is important to encourage active travel. On a bike at least you’ll be clear of the area beneath the flyover but pedestrians aren’t so lucky. Safe and attractive walking and cycling routes entice more people to use them. Plenty of direct routes are dank, dirty and dingy and so aren’t as well used as they could be. I use some grim bridges and alleys on a regular basis to reach stations and shops but I know full well others don’t risk them even if on paper they are pretty safe. They drive instead.
Plenty can be done in the area to encourage healthier and active travel.
The best way between Woolwich Road and Westcombe Park station is to use Farmdale Road and the bridge over the A102.
That’s a slower walk from GMV where I travel from. The quickest and most direct route could be improved and should be improved. Expecting people from new homes which keep growing to take a longer route to Westcombe Park station via Farmdale Road and over the bridge isn’t good design when improvements appear possible.
Highway engineers need to grasp that people want to get from start to finish quickly. Many now do but some cling on to outdated views putting cars first and expecting people to walk on long-winded routes. From GMV I walk down Peartree Way, cross under the flyover then to Woolwich Road and Westcombe Hill. I don’t even think of the walk around the hills via the footbridge over the dual carrigeways and I’m not sure many do either as it’s not signed nor quickest. I just checked journey planners to see what they suggest and it’s some mad route via the bridge. No one is doing that surely!! This has me thinking though is the route so poor as remote TfL and RB Greenwich staff looking at via route planners? A lack of knowledge on the ground perchance. The route planner way is twice as slow as what I do it in.
I expect next to nothing from TFL and Royal Greenwich borough to be honest but as stated this seems very much on Greenwich as other boroughs manage to work with TFL for wider benefits. If RG wont give any monies to assist then TFL aren’t going to go beyond the minimum and all the evidence points to RG not bothering to assist them or ignoring them. Maybe a change in local representation may lead to better results after this Thursday.
I think that RBG and Lewisham need more voices on the councils who are not Labour. They are both one party boroughs for so long. Complacent about voters needs, dreadful, disastrous planning ( Lewisham Gateway) and very little or no attention paid to community needs. They allow developers to throw up a few more thousand badly built flats ( many with cladding problems) and no beneficial aspects which improve voters lives.
Something has just occurred to me in regards to the bridge v Westcombe Hill approach to the railway station. Both are key routes but from different directions whether coming from east or north.
The approved B&Q and Ikea car park development with 1,300 homes would also see more pedestrians and cyclists approaching the nearby station from the north via this area and the old library. Thinking about it this was another development where TfL called out Greenwich inaction via S106 funding to improve the wider area. TfL also stated there that the Active Travel Assessment was again inadequate and that “Significant funding is needed to improve security and safety under the A102 flyover at Angerstein roundabout, supporting potential public realm improvements. A safe, signalised pedestrian and cyclist crossing should be provided at Peartree Way’s southern roundabout arm.”
The report is here https://committees.royalgreenwich.gov.uk/documents/s14646/6%20-%20Millennium%20Retail%20Prk%20Car%20Park%2059%20Bugsbys%20Way%20land%20bound%20by%20Bugsbys%20Way%20Peartree%20Way%20and%20.pdf
Greenwich only mentioned confirmed totals for a crossing (£900k) in an area of far less importance as decent crossing already exist in that direction – while dire routes remain towards Charlton shops to the east and east Greenwich shops and station to the south via roundabouts with limited to no crossings. No exact figure exists as presumably it’ll be penny change or ignored yet again.
Who is funding this stretch then? Is it solely Transport for London?
It appears to be TfL via their “Safe and Healthy Streets” programme.
I’ve not seen any report from either TfL or Greenwich to suggest Greenwich are contributing. If so that explains why it’s so lacklustre in parts compared to, for example, improvements over the river in Canning Town and Silvertown as well as the feeder roads in areas like Deptford. When Greenwich do allocate S106 – and it’s usually small sums – it’s also sometimes in completely the wrong places. For example I’ve been reading a bit more of the B&Q development report and they want to spend almost all the public realm/street funding allocation on a crossing on the western part of Bugsby’s Way near two existing crossings but not a crossing across the top of Peartree Way to the many nearby shops to the east on the part of Bugsby’s Way lined with retail. It’s as though they want the peninsula to be an exclusive enclave and no link with existing shops or communities – but of course people will want to reach nearby shops, amenities, schools, doctors and stations.
To give yet another example Blackwall Lane, which could act as a key route from Cycleway 14 to the peninsula, sees just £20k mentioned in relation to the B&Q site development – and that is only for “developing wayfinding signage along Blackwall Lane and Trafalgar Road”.
If other sites are a guide the legible London signs go in, break then get removed. Nothing substantive to really improve links between Charlton, east Greenwich and the peninsula
The more you read reports about developments in the borough the less knowledge Greenwich demonstrate about substantial parts of major growth areas. It’s bizarre decision after bizarre decision with flawed Active Travel Assessments time and time again. And so TfL have to fund projects and of course they won’t go beyond the basics as Greenwich have so little clue or willingness to assist. The council and ruling party really needs a kick up the behind. They’ve presided over this for 25+ years in east Greenwich and the peninsula.
Just so many sites and so little willingness to fund street and travel improvement works be it the B&Q site, Greenwich Millennium Village, the former Greenwich hospital site, various Knight Dragon plots, Morden Wharf, Travelodge hotel tower, Enderby Wharf phase two, Fariviews site beside the A102, Ikea, Charlton blocks off Victoria Way, Retail Parks across Charlton, the approved student tower beside the o2, student blocks on the former Speedy Hire site, River Gardens, homes at the bottom of Blackwall Lane AND blocks on the former Siemens site. Few places get that bonanza in terms of incoming S106 and CIL cash from a vast number of sites and do next to nothing across so wide an area as Greenwich have.
It contradicts so many things the ruling party are supposed to stand for. Access to public transport? Access to jobs? Additional custom for local business by making them easier to reach from new housing especially independent business in east Greenwich? More children walking and cycling to school improving fitness levels and aiding with congestion? Civic pride? Attractive places to live, work and bring up children? On it goes. All things that should be key goals and that can be assisted with any sort of interest so often lacking.
Totally agree. Developers steamroller the council. Voters and residents get no community brnrfits.
The £150 child bike manifesto commitment screams of a bunch of people brainstorming around a table then getting in their cars and driving homes having zero clue how bad so many of the borough’s public spaces and streets are if not driving. Imagine taking your kids riding on these roads. Come on. I can’t believe there’s a nice cycleway being built but few decent routes off it to so many areas. Lets not even get onto the parking situation o n many roads making cycling worse than it should be.
It’s not all bad but far from good enough and £9m could transform many areas area for the benefit of thousands of people. I see a lot of cycles sitting rusting in gardens or outside flats unless more actual improvements are built on the ground.
I can’t even believe people will use that cycleway that is being built. It’s choked with traffic, fumes, hgvs heading for the ferry and Kent. Hubby cycles and says he’s going to continue using the Thames path. More terrifying is how are emergency vehicles going to cope with only one lane of traffic each direction. Was in a jam in front of an ambulance, blue lights, unable to move. Desperate situation. It’d better be well used or there’ll be hell to pay.
Hi Jane, I’m glad your husband feels comfortable using the Thames Path but for a lot of people it’s not an option. It can be narrow with lots of blind turns, and can feel incredibly isolated at night. It’s also not a direct route, so people cycling have to go further to complete their journey. For these reasons and probably more, it’s not an option for a lot of people. Good cycle lanes along main routes get rid of most of these problems and if you’re worried about emergency services being stuck in traffic, I’d say you want more people out of their cars, which take up an increasing amount of space.
The pictures don’t paint a good picture of modern design of the area and I thought I’d have a look at streetview to see how it is having moved away two years ago to a place with a more capable authority.
Wow it really is still rubbish with the latest images being from 2025. Good luck crossing the road here. This is outside a school! https://www.google.com/maps/@51.4936643,0.0097702,3a,75y,295.59h,91.45t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1snoWHIhQ5ovg4M7Jhs09JqA!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fcb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile%26w%3D900%26h%3D600%26pitch%3D-1.451936080286515%26panoid%3DnoWHIhQ5ovg4M7Jhs09JqA%26yaw%3D295.5856149685205!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu&g_ep=EgoyMDI2MDQyOS4wIKXMDSoASAFQAw%3D%3D
And again here. I suppose people will have to walk well out of the way to reach their desired destination from here https://www.google.com/maps/@51.4930293,0.0100423,3a,75y,309.66h,97.73t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sLqIWDSbsd3YCxlXM15qfQg!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fcb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile%26w%3D900%26h%3D600%26pitch%3D-7.726225192615601%26panoid%3DLqIWDSbsd3YCxlXM15qfQg%26yaw%3D309.6642954211056!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu&g_ep=EgoyMDI2MDQyOS4wIKXMDSoASAFQAw%3D%3D
Tunnel Avenue is disgusting. Tourists at hotels are residing next to this https://www.google.com/maps/@51.4925482,0.0074527,3a,75y,18.64h,93.06t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sL3DFqveiZHmJdsZcJ4coTQ!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fcb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile%26w%3D900%26h%3D600%26pitch%3D-3.0640076773644296%26panoid%3DL3DFqveiZHmJdsZcJ4coTQ%26yaw%3D18.63920453577437!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu&g_ep=EgoyMDI2MDQyOS4wIKXMDSoASAFQAw%3D%3D
The general feel scooting around is how tired and outdated the roads and streets look. The concept of an attractive environment is completely alien across so much of this area. On the peninsula there’s many areas that are lovely but get out of them and its like heading back 40 years. Where’s the overall vision to link and thread them all together and the wider locality? A vast failure of planning and worse than many new London development areas built at scale. The authority there aren’t able. Maybe the Mayor should take over like on Oxford Street. Maybe a new party in power will help. I don’t know. This lot aren’t up to it but they have a horrid insular attitude they know best. It’s OBVIOUS walking around they don’t.
The £150 bribe for kids bikes is laughable given the Council’s record on encouraging active travel.
This is the same council which says there isn’t space through the centre of Woolwich for a dedicated cycle lane, despite the fact that one of the eastbound car lanes has been shut for two years whilst the new student accomodation is built, with no noticeable problems on traffic flow.
It also the same council which as soon as there was a backlash against increased charges for parking around areas like Plumstead Common scrapped every other active transport improvement planned in the same areas.
Hope the Greens make tangible inroads in the upcoming elections and start holding this incompetent Labour administration to account.
Yes, Greenwich’s refusal to do anything about the section through Woolwich is abysmal, the upgrades to Beresford Square actively interfere with the published TfL plans. Worse is the now very dangerous crossing from the Lizzie to the DLR/ bus stop which could easily be fixed (and should have before the Lizzy opened!) but Greenwich don’t give a damn and I think not even someone being killed will make them change it (see the poor kid killed at Plumstead station 2-3 years ago and the empty promises for change there).
If TfL and Greenwich Council want to get more people cycling then they must pay attention to the dire state of much of the borough’s public realm – to which you allude in this article. Dirty and poorly maintained streets do not encourage people to get out of their cars . Greenwich Council’s mantra a few months ago was all about “getting things done ” – well the state of the public realm does not indicate that statement is anything more than just that – an empty slogan.
Are these messages communicated to the council workforce ??
Maintenance of the public realm does not appear to figure on the council’s agenda.
I wouldn’t say terrible mismanagement of public spaces and streets is a Labour problem per se but a Greenwich Labour problem. Other Labour councils are doing far better jobs. Greenwich Labour are tired, complacent and unwilling to change and for that reason they need a wake up call. Be it Green, Lib Dem or even Tory just something to get them out of their stupor. They’ve cocked up so much of major development changes in what should be a fantastic exemplar for the city.
Greenwich Labour may pat themselves on the back about their bike voucher idea but think how much could be achieved with some of the £9 million they’ve allocated: Many more cycle lanes, safer and better road crossings, school streets and overall far better infrastructure for all.
As for kids getting bikes why not set up exchange schemes in schools? Far cheaper funding schools to do that and as any parent will tell you, kids outgrow bikes quickly so many have some spare that get binned or given away. I got one from my neighbour that way and another off another parent from school. That’d be a great idea to push and use saved funds to embark on a truly ambitious infrastructure programme. Yeah I know it’s not happening with this council leadership so they throw money out. Not a vote winner for me I’m afraid. Quite the reverse.
Will Transport for London maintain the Greenwich Cycleway 4 route. Most other roads around London do need to be maintained including potholes that are dangerous to not just cars and other vehicles but also it’s dangerous to motorbikes, pedal bikes and scooters that do use the road.
The state of the public realm in much of Greenwich is poor, and has not changed much since I was a child living in West Greenwich in the 1970s. The council’s obsession with guardrails is madding, along with my pet peeve of staggered crossings. Pavement use appears not to be considered when planning permission is given for various developments. The floating bus stops on Woolwich Road is badly thought out and does two things: puts vulnerable pedestrians into the path of cyclists, and causes delay to traffic when buses are at the stop.
I’ll say from the viewpoint of a road user, the commute to and from work on my scooter between Anchor & Hope Lane to just before Greenwich High Road is appalling. The road is poorly-to-never maintained, and is potentially dangerous to scooter / motocycle riders, especially on Woolwich Road approaching the Woolwich Road roundabout, and the conditon of the road on the roundabout itself. I have reported it twice to the council through their website with no outcome. It improves on Greenwich High Road – which was resurfaced a few months ago. Despite how heavily-used it is, going from Deptford Bridge, Old Kent Road and into Westminster is ok as the roads are better maintaned.
Greenwich Council are far too complacent and a change of administration is definitely needed. The question is, if there was a change at the council, will it be reflected in a change of attitude towards residents in areas such as public realm?
That is a question to put to your candidates – all of whom I assume have been knocking on your door seeking your vote. A clean and well maintained public realm is important to everybody – we all engage with it every time we leave our homes . Regret to say this Labour Council does not seem to get that .
What about a new Mayor of London to take over the current mayor of London and to fix London’s roads that have lots of potholes everywhere. As well as bringing better transport across London for Londoners and tourists who come to London.