LOCOG appears to have sold about 4 times too many x-country tickets

[Rachel Mawhood]

What do you think has gone wrong here?

LOCOG has, it says, sold 50,000 tickets to the 2012 Olympics cross-country day at Greenwich

Source: Section 2 of LOCOG's Transport Plan in its current application (11/2604/SD) to the London Borough of Greenwich.

But the - independently assessed - maximum safe capacity of Greenwich Park is 15,000

(Source: Royal Parks 2010 Guidelines for Event Organisers)

or, to be accurate, less than 15,000 because so much space is to be taken up by the stadium, stabling, broadcast compounds, x-country course, loos, etc. This information about Greenwich Park has been readily available to event organisers for some years.

Normally there are 9-10 gates through which to evacuate people, if need be. LOCOG's current plans include a 4m-5m high security fence (electrified at the top, if it is like the fence at the Olympic Park, because during the Olympics all crowded places are prime terrorist targets) with essentially only three exits.

At the Licensing Committee of 19 October 2011 (LOCOG applied to Greenwich Council for a premises licence) LOCOG representatives were asked to clarify what the maximum safe capacity of the Park is. LOCOG's venue manager, Jeremy Edwards, remained silent. Sitting next to Jeremy Edwards was LOCOG's solicitor, Mr Phipps, who told the Licensing Committee to "Ask the Fire Brigade". Normally, venue organisers don't evade questions about the safe capacity of their venue.

So I submitted a Freedom of Information request to the London Fire Brigade, and that is how I know that the maximum safe capacity of Greenwich Park is only 15,000 or (if those attending are doing something sedentary such as watching films, with no alcohol, no dancing, no horses) 20,000. Not 68,000. Not 50,000.

PS Some people, including journalists, have assumed that all the 35,000 or so London Marathon runners assemble in Greenwich Park before the start of the Marathon, and therefore the Park capacity must be at least 35,000. But long ago the London Marathon got too big for that: only the "red start" is in Greenwich Park; the "blue start" and wheelchair participants' start are on Blackheath.

 

[flyingfeet]

Just shows what an totally unsuitable venue this is - it is not bringing equestrianism to the masses, but rather excluding everyone who would normally attend

If done in Windsor park they would have had in excess of 250,000 paying public plus trade stand revenue. Not to mention a facility suitable for hosting WEG and bringing in more visitors and trade.

Labour government, Lord Coe and the BEF ought to hang their heads in shame

 

[Faithkat]

I went and had a look at Greenwich Park when it was announced that the equestrian events would be held there and I admit to being a bit shocked at the approach to the Park. It might be OK on a normal day but the access roads seemed pretty narrow to me and when you think of the amount of extra traffic, people and general mayhem of tv crews, horse lorries etc etc . . . . . . hmmm . . . ..
I shall report back though as I will be a member of the volunteer Accreditation Team (security passes etc) at Greenwich Park in the fullness of time . . ..

 

[SpottedCat]

Whilst I don't want to get embroiled in the 'should equestrian be in Greenwich Park' debate, I would like to point out that Rachel Mawhood is an active member of NoGOE and I would urge people to do independent research since she has an agenda and is, I would suggest, unlikely to provide a balanced argument since the entire purpose of NoGOE is to prevent the Olympics using Greenwich as a venue. You will note that the second excerpt states that 'possibly more for certain events' [can be accommodated], and I would personally like to see the FOI request which proves that no evidence for how 50,000 can be safely accommodated has been produced. It seems unlikely that no-one at LOCOG has produced any kind of risk assessment/plan for safely accommodating that number of spectators, but if they haven't, NoGOE should be able to produce evidence very easily through an FOI request.

 

[LEC]

I am a massive fan of the event being held at Greenwich and I have spoken to riders and officials who are equally pleased. Personally for me the long term survival of equestrian at the Olympics is of paramount importance or else it will become a marginal sport which has to be funded by the federations. Could you imagine your BE fees going up to support teams because the lottery funding is completely removed. How about not being able to send up and coming horses to International events to gain experience?

I am fed up with criticism over the site sometimes its all a bit short sighted. I am also fed up with the not on my door step views of rich lawyers who live in Greenwich and are going to be affected for a couple of weeks.

 

[shoeey]

Ms Mawhood's argument is a specious one. She is comparing days when the public has full access to the park (marathon day and other ad hoc events) to a sporting event that has been many years in the the organising, when the park will be closed to the public.
I wish NOGOE would limit themselves to their real argument — they don't want to share the park — rather than latching on to anything that would seem to aid their campaign.
Since when has NOGOE cared about whether the park will provide suitable sport? They just don't want us, the equestrian public, to use it for a couple of months.

 

[Rachel Mawhood]

Whilst I don't want to get embroiled in the 'should equestrian be in Greenwich Park' debate, I would like to point out that Rachel Mawhood is an active member of NoGOE

Hey, sunshine - I am all transparency here - read back on the Test Event reactions thread to see why I have registered on this forum with my own name.

and I would urge people to do independent research since she has an agenda and is, I would suggest, unlikely to provide a balanced argument

I have given links to the primary sources so that people can draw their own conclusions.

You will note that the second excerpt states that 'possibly more for certain events' [can be accommodated],

The maximum is 20,000 for an event in which the participants are mostly sedentary, ie watching films, and involving no alcohol, no dancing, and no horses.

and I would personally like to see the FOI request which proves that no evidence for how 50,000 can be safely accommodated has been produced. It seems unlikely that no-one at LOCOG has produced any kind of risk assessment/plan for safely accommodating that number of spectators, but if they haven't, NoGOE should be able to produce evidence very easily through an FOI request.

Even I would have believed that things must be under control at LOCOG except for the fact that, when - at the London Borough of Greenwich Licensing Committee on 19 October 2011 - they were asked a direct question about the maximum safe capacity, LOCOG's Greenwich Park venue manager remained silent and LOCOG's solicitor tried to distract the Committee.

That was such a give-away. I was there. The question was put to them about three times by a member of the public.

The safe capacity of the Park is the gorilla in the room. Getting bigger by the day.

 

[Rachel Mawhood]

I am also fed up with the not on my door step views of rich lawyers who live in Greenwich and are going to be affected for a couple of weeks.

I am not rich and I am not a lawyer.

And there is no Olympic legacy for UK equestrianism. Thanks to the BEF's pig-headed insistence on using Greenwich Park just for the sake of the pictures.

 

[Rachel Mawhood]

Ms Mawhood's argument is a specious one. She is comparing days when the public has full access to the park (marathon day and other ad hoc events) to a sporting event that has been many years in the the organising, when the park will be closed to the public.

Actually, an awful lot of the Park is not available to the Olympic events.

This is from my FOI request to the London Fire Brigade

Please could you let me know what is the maximum number of people Greenwich Park can safely accommodate during the 2012 Olympics in the space remaining after you have put in the 23,000-seat stadium, stabling for 200-300 horses, broadcast compounds, cabling, electrical generators, stores, screens and loudspeakers, hospitality marquees, sufficient portaloos, litter bins, the 4-mile long 10ft wide cross-country course and its safety margin, and horse ambulances on stand-by; and excluding the Flower Garden, Rose Garden, Deer Enclosure, duck pond, children's playground, (which are not open to the public during the Olympic Games) and Royal Parks operations compound (at SE end of the Park); and without cutting down any existing trees or clearing existing shrubbery.

I wish NOGOE would limit themselves to their real argument — they don't want to share the park

This is richly insulting. LOCOG take over the Park for the Test Events and the main 2012 event and EXCLUDE the public, and you accuse US of "not sharing" it? Large parts of LeNotre's parterre had to be cordoned off for weeks during August and September, EXCLUDING people who usually play football there, because LOCOG's temporary stadium made such a mess.

They just don't want us, the equestrian public, to use it for a couple of months.

Because it is the wrong use of the Park. Because there are more suitable alternative venues. Because this is costing £60 million and yet leaving no legacy of UK equestrianism. Because of the criminal damage being done to the Park in the name of equestrianism.

 

[perfect11s]

I went and had a look at Greenwich Park when it was announced that the equestrian events would be held there and I admit to being a bit shocked at the approach to the Park. It might be OK on a normal day but the access roads seemed pretty narrow to me and when you think of the amount of extra traffic, people and general mayhem of tv crews, horse lorries etc etc . . . . . . hmmm . . . ..
I shall report back though as I will be a member of the volunteer Accreditation Team (security passes etc) at Greenwich Park in the fullness of time . . ..

Its a long time since I visited the park cant realy remember the exact layout but maybe it would be a great oppertuinty to widen the road or build a new road along side the existing one between the A 206 at the north end and the south at the A2 it would make a huge differnce to trafic flow and give plenty of chance to build tempoary roads across the park maybe that's the answer?????...

 

[Rachel Mawhood]

Its a long time since I visited the park cant realy remember the exact layout but maybe it would be a great oppertuinty to widen the road or build a new road along side the existing one between the A 206 at the north end and the south at the A2 it would make a huge differnce to trafic flow and give plenty of chance to build tempoary roads across the park maybe that's the answer?????...

You are trolling, now, aren't you? Greenwich Park is the finest baroque landscape in England, part of the Maritime Greenwich World Heritage Site, the site of the original Royal Observatory, the most important historically of all the Royal Parks, many of the unfolding vistas are as they were planned four hundred years ago and enable people to connect with their history and be inspired by a more brave and noble past. And you want to make it a traffic thoroughfare.

Thank God such things are not decided by philistines in faraway Cheshire.

 

[SpottedCat]

Hey, sunshine - I am all transparency here - read back on the Test Event reactions thread to see why I have registered on this forum with my own name.

In which case I have no idea why you have even reacted to me drawing attention to the fact that you are firmly in one camp. If you're all about transparency surely the appropriate response is 'yes, I am active in NoGOE, thanks for pointing that out, should have mentioned it in the original post since although I've said it before, I know not everyone reads every post on here'....or words to that effect

I have given links to the primary sources so that people can draw their own conclusions.

Yes, and all I am doing is urging people to do just that - draw their own conclusions and not rely on conclusions drawn by someone who is pushing their own agenda. I'm all for a balanced argument.

The maximum is 20,000 for an event in which the participants are mostly sedentary, ie watching films, and involving no alcohol, no dancing, and no horses.

What you haven't made explicit though, is that the park is open to the general public and there is no restricted access or closing of the park during these events. So the actual safe capacity is 20,000 plus all the people using the park who are not attending the organised event.

Even I would have believed that things must be under control at LOCOG except for the fact that, when - at the London Borough of Greenwich Licensing Committee on 19 October 2011 - they were asked a direct question about the maximum safe capacity, LOCOG's Greenwich Park venue manager remained silent and LOCOG's solicitor tried to distract the Committee.

That was such a give-away. I was there. The question was put to them about three times by a member of the public.

The safe capacity of the Park is the gorilla in the room. Getting bigger by the day.

So why have you not done a formal FOI request in writing and got the response from them to publicise? Surely very easy to do - and much more useful as a reputable source than your anecdotal evidence from a meeting that vast majority of the general public could not attend.

 

[Rachel Mawhood]

What you haven't made explicit though, is that the park is open to the general public and there is no restricted access or closing of the park during these events. So the actual safe capacity is 20,000 plus all the people using the park who are not attending the organised event.

Just read the Royal Parks Guidelines for Event Organisers for yourself and remember that LOCOG's representatives refused to answer the simple question about the maximum safe capacity of the Park.

So why have you not done a formal FOI request in writing and got the response from them to publicise? Surely very easy to do - and much more useful as a reputable source than your anecdotal evidence from a meeting that vast majority of the general public could not attend.

I did. That's how I know what the maximum safe capacity of the Park is. Unlike LOCOG.

 

[perfect11s]

On balance it seems there are some positives to holding it there, superb landscape close to the other events , however its a bit of a nightmare to get to and it seems like a lot of work to build the facilitys for one event then reinstate when the money could have built something that lasts, however its too late to change now so lets hope it works out and everyone that wants to go gets a chance....

 

[SpottedCat]

Just read the Royal Parks Guidelines for Event Organisers for yourself and remember that LOCOG's representatives refused to answer the simple question about the maximum safe capacity of the Park.



I did. That's how I know what the maximum safe capacity of the Park is. Unlike LOCOG.

You aren't answering my question - you've submitted an FOI request about maximum safe capacity. You have not (as I understand it) submitted an FOI request to the Olympic Delivery Authority to ask how they are addressing the safety concerns. You cannot submit an FOI request to LOCOG because it is a private company. You can, however, submit one to ODA, which is a public body. Why haven't you?

The document you are quoting from, which is the event organiser's guide, is freely available, and you don't need an FOI request to get hold of it, you just need google. Interestingly, the figure you quote is not, at any point in the document, referred to as the 'maximum safe capacity' - the figure isn't even in the section titled 'Event Safety'. In actual fact, it is in the descriptions of each Royal Park, and clearly also says that 'possibly more [can be accommodated] for certain events'.

Given that when large scale events take place in Greenwich Park, it remains open to the general public, I fail to see how these are comparable with the Olympics, when the park will be closed to the general public. I also do not understand why you are taking a figure which the guidelines themselves state is flexible, and applying it as an absolute safety number.

I would also challenge you to prove that 20,000 is a number based on safety rather than on impact to the park - the latter being covered comprehensively by the planning application submitted, and approved, for the park to be used for the equestrian events.

Again, I challenge you to produce the evidence that LOCOG and ODA have not risk assessed the event and proven it is safe for those numbers to attend. Because all the information supplied with the planning application would suggest they have comprehensively risk assessed it - information that is freely available here: http://www.london2012.com/greenwich-park/greenwich-park-planning-application.html

 

[Orwell]

I challenge you to produce the evidence that LOCOG and ODA have not risk assessed the event and proven it is safe for those numbers to attend. Because all the information supplied with the planning application would suggest they have comprehensively risk assessed it [/url]

Presumably you are referring to the Operational Plan and the Transport Plan? I am assuming that these documents are the same as those submitted to Greenwich Council.

The Transport Plan assumes 68,000 people in the Park on Cross-country day (excluding the "Olympic Family" which may include the media; this is not clear at least to me). About 43,000 of these are expected to arrive at Greenwich Station (National Rail and DLR) and to make their way through Greenwich town centre to the Old Royal Naval College, and then cross Romney Road by means of footbridges into the National Maritime Museum, and from there cross via footbridges into the Park.

The Transport Plan is very much work-in-progress, for example: "The final capacity figure will be determined through joint working between LOCOG, ODA, TfL and transport providers" (2.1.2), "TfL are working on a plan which will include Traffic Management and signage to mitigate the delays" (3.5.1), "A plan will be developed to provide activities on the Last Mile Route which will slow the movement of spectators" (3.6.9), "There will be a plan in place for all spectators arriving in the North East precinct" (3.6.10), "There will be an operational plan in place for the movement of spectators from Blackheath" (3.6.12), on egress spectators "will be encouraged to take their time through Greenwich Town centre" in order to avoid bottlenecks at Greenwich Station (5.3.7), "The detailed design of the queuing system for Greenwich Pier is still ongoing" (5.3.8), "Traffic modelling of the Proposals at Greenwich Park is currently ongoing to understand the impact of the London 2012 Games on Greenwich" (8.1.1), "It is proposed that modelling outputs will feed into the final GRP [Greenwich Park] planning application as far as possible" (8.1.3). Appendix 8 suggests that the mathematical modelling which has taken place is very sketchy (figures are given with no explanation).

The Operational Plan (Section 3) has, as far as I can see, no figures for spectator numbers in each area of the Park (other than the stadium, which will seat 23,000), no modelling of crowd flow, and no account of emergency evacuation.

It seems to me that Locog are going to pack as many people as they can into the Park, and that there is no evidence that they have comprehensively assessed the risks. In the two published documents they seem to be assuming that nothing will go wrong.

You are right to point out that the public will be excluded, but this is easily offset by the fact that the Park will be much more congested than normal (with additional obstacles including fencing and temporary structures) and that the crowd will be arriving and leaving pretty much as a single body.

The undulating terrain in Greenwich Park is bad for horses. It is also bad for crowds; especially under emergency conditions.

it seems to me that Rachel Mawhood's objection remains largely intact. Greenwich Park say that a supervised crowd of 15,000 is reasonable (I believe that up to 20,000 were admitted for one event). By this standard, supervised crowd of 50,000-68,000 is excessive (for safety reasons, because of its impact on the Park, because of its impact on the surrounding area).