gallions reach and belvedere river crossings - citizen · pdf filewith only three road...
TRANSCRIPT
Gallions Reach and
Belvedere river
crossings
Consultation report
and responses to key
issues raised
March 2016
Contents
Executive summary ............................................................................................................... 2
1. Introduction ................................................................................................................... 4
1.1. Description and purpose of the project ................................................................... 4
1.2. Wider context ......................................................................................................... 5
1.2.1. Connecting the Capital ..................................................................................... 5
1.2.2. Silvertown Tunnel ............................................................................................ 6
1.2.3. NLA Roads and Streets Exhibition .................................................................... 6
1.2.4. Lower Thames Crossing ................................................................................... 6
2. Overview of consultation ............................................................................................... 7
2.1. Objectives ............................................................................................................... 7
2.2. Who we consulted .................................................................................................. 7
2.3. Materials, distribution and publicity ......................................................................... 8
2.4. Questionnaire ......................................................................................................... 9
2.5. Analysis ................................................................................................................ 10
3. Results of the consultation .......................................................................................... 11
3.1. General consultation results .................................................................................. 11
3.1.1. Distribution of respondents ........................................................................... 11
3.2. Q1 – Support for the project ................................................................................. 13
3.3. Q2 – Desired public transport connections ........................................................... 16
3.4. Q3 – How would you use a crossing at Gallions Reach? ........................................ 18
3.5. Q4 – How would you use a crossing at Belvedere? ................................................ 19
3.6. Q5 – Free text comments and our response to the key issues raised .................... 20
3.6.1. Principle of the project ................................................................................... 20
3.6.2. Infrastructure ................................................................................................. 23
3.6.3. Public transport .............................................................................................. 25
3.6.4. Road network ................................................................................................. 28
3.6.5. Traffic ............................................................................................................ 30
3.6.6. User charge .................................................................................................... 33
3.6.7. Walking and cycling ........................................................................................ 36
3.6.8. Environment .................................................................................................. 38
3.6.9. General .......................................................................................................... 41
3.6.10. Consultation .................................................................................................. 42
3.7. How respondents heard about the consultation .................................................... 44
3.8. Comments on the quality of the consultation ....................................................... 44
4. Next steps ................................................................................................................... 45
5. Appendix ...................................................................................................................... 45
Page 2 of 45
Executive summary
London is set to experience significant growth over the coming years, and with this growth
will come increasing pressure on the transport network, including the existing cross-river
infrastructure, services and connections that are vital for moving people and goods around
the Capital.
The Gallions Reach and Belvedere river crossings would play a key role in supporting this
growth and provide improved connections between east and southeast London.
A consultation on these two proposed crossings was held between 2 December 2015 and 12
February 2016, to:
Gauge the level of support for the crossings
Understand the destinations that local residents would like better access to by public
transport
Determine the modes of transport respondents would most likely use on either of
the proposed river crossings
Capture themes emerging from other comments left by respondents to the
consultation.
The consultation was open to anyone who had an interest in the project, and was promoted
to the public through various means, including online and through print advertisements in
local publications. Key stakeholders were invited to respond by direct emails offering a
briefing. Responses were accepted via the online consultation questionnaire, email, post and
by phone call.
In total, 4,519 public responses and 43 stakeholder responses were received throughout the
ten and a half week consultation period.
Proposals for new crossings were supported by the majority of public respondents:
77% supported both crossings
10% supported neither crossing
7% supported a crossing at Gallions Reach only
4% supported a crossing at Belvedere only
2% did not provide a response.
Amongst stakeholders, 52% were supportive, 32% opposed the project and 16% were
neutral to the project.
Of the ten corridors for which respondents expressed the highest levels of support for
improved transport links, eight originate in Thamesmead. Better connections within
Thamesmead and Woolwich were most frequently mentioned, followed by better links from
Thamesmead to central London and Woolwich.
Page 3 of 45
The most popular mode by which respondents believe they will use each crossing was car
(69% for Gallions Reach and 63% for Belvedere).
2,224 responses were made to the free text question by members of the public, generating
6,342 comments (as one response could have multiple comments contained within it).
The following were the most common comments made:
General support for the project – 552 comments (24.8%)
Concern over an increase in traffic – 455 comments (20.4%)
Believe the crossings will provide congestion relief – 346 comments (15.5%)
Support a tunnel (for both, one or the other) – 254 comments (11%)
Oppose a user charge – 241 comments (10.8%)
o Crossings should be free – 135 comments
o Inequality between east and west crossings (west are not charged) – 73
comments
o Other reasons for opposition -33 comments
Support for new DLR links – 202 comments (9%)
Believe the crossings will worsen air quality – 184 comments (8.2%)
A desire for public transport only crossings – 177 comments (7.9%)
Support for the public transport options presented as part of this consultation – 177
comments (7.9%)
Support the provision of walking and cycling facilities on the crossings – 133
comments (5.9%)
Feedback received as part of this consultation will be used to inform the development of the
crossings. This report will be presented to the Mayor of London and will help to inform the
decisions on the next steps for the project.
Page 4 of 45
1. Introduction
London’s population is expected to increase by 1.5 million people over the next 20 years,
and over one third of this growth is forecast to take place in east and southeast London.
Two proposed multimodal crossings at Gallions Reach and Belvedere would play a key role in
supporting this growth and helping drive London’s economy by providing better connections
across the Thames in this part of the Capital. Proposals for these crossings have been
developed over a number of years, and with the benefit of feedback from three previous
consultations (see Appendix A).
The fourth and most recent non-statutory consultation, which ran for 10 and a half weeks
between December 2015 and February 2016, provided the opportunity to understand how
the community think they would use the crossings. It also sought any other comments on
the project in general, to ensure we have a clear understanding of any concerns, ideas and
opinions from the community.
This report explains the consultation process, sets out the results of the consultation, our
responses to comments received and the next steps for the project.
1.1. Description and purpose of the project
With only three road crossings of the Thames in London east of Tower Bridge, the crossings
at Gallions Reach and Belvedere are intended to help overcome the poor cross-river
connectivity that exists between east and southeast London and would deliver a number of
benefits, including:
Providing better connections between people, businesses and communities,
increasing access to jobs, education and leisure activities
Making it easer for people and goods to cross the river
Creating opportunities for new cross-river public transport links and improving local
walking and cycling options
Supporting London’s economy by better connecting businesses, and improving
access to labour markets
Encouraging development in the area, helping to address London’s housing shortage
Helping to manage the impact of population growth by reducing cross-river journey
times and distances
The locations of the proposed Gallions Reach and Belvedere river crossings are shown on the
map overleaf.
Page 5 of 45
Figure 1 – Location of the proposed Gallions Reach and Belvedere river crossings
While the exact alignment of each crossing has not been finalised, the Gallions Reach
crossing would link the A2016 Western Way in Thamesmead with the A1020 Royal Docks
Road in the north. The Belvedere crossing would link the A2016 Bronze Age Way in
Belvedere with the A13 Marsh Way junction in Rainham.
Each crossing would consist of two lanes in each direction – one for public transport and one
for general traffic. There would be a charge for vehicles to use the crossings to manage
demand and to help pay for the project. Any pedestrian and cyclist facilities included would
be segregated from traffic.
We are considering the feasbility of bridges and tunnels at both crossings, with a decision to
be taken at a later date and to be informed by other pending decisions including the type of
public transport provision that is made on the crossings.
1.2. Wider context
In addition to the consultation on the Gallions Reach and Belvedere crossings there was
activity on other related projects around or at the same time as this consultation.
1.2.1. Connecting the Capital
Coinciding with the start of the consultation on the Gallions Reach and Belvedere river
crossings, was the launch of the Mayor and TfL’s vision for future river crossings in London –
‘Connecting the Capital’. This document outlines 13 proposed new river crossings
Page 6 of 45
throughout the city, catering for road users, public transport users, pedestrians and cyclists,
to be delivered by 2050. Gallions Reach and Belvedere are two of these proposed new
crossings.
The publication can be viewed on TfL’s website.
1.2.2. Silvertown Tunnel
The Silvertown Tunnel is another proposed crossing for east London, which will help to
address the severe congestion and reliability issues currently experienced at the Blackwall
Tunnel and support economic growth. A statutory consultation on this scheme was held in
late 2015, to provide the community with the opportunity to comment on the scheme
before TfL makes a Development Consent Order (DCO) submission to apply for the powers
to build and operate the tunnel. Results of the consultation will be published in a
consultation report, which will be made publicly available. More information can be found on
the Silvertown Tunnel website.
Given the close proximity of both projects, and the subsequent overlap in stakeholders and
the public, both project teams are working closely together.
1.2.3. NLA Roads and Streets Exhibition
The proposed Gallions Reach and Belvedere river crossings, as well as the Silvertown Tunnel,
were profiled as part of a wider TfL exhibition at New London Architecture (NLA) for a
month, between the end of January and the end of February 2016. The Streets Ahead
exhibition aimed to raise stakeholder and general public awareness about the important role
that roads, streets and places will play in the future success of London; the challenges facing
the Capital’s road network; and the strategic options available to meet those challenges to
support London’s growth over the period up to 2040.
As part of this event, TfL presented a ‘soapbox’ speech on the vision for future river
crossings, and referenced the Gallions Reach and Belvedere river crossings, to drive further
awareness amongst key stakeholders. Direct feedback was received from stakeholders at the
event.
1.2.4. Lower Thames Crossing
Highways England is proposing a new crossing intended to reduce congestion at the existing
Dartford Crossing and support economic growth, including new homes and jobs in the
region. Consultation on three route options for this crossing was launched on 26 January
2016, with comments being sought until 24 March 2016.
While some distance from the proposed Gallions Reach and Belvedere river crossings, the
Lower Thames Crossing has overlap in stakeholders and interested members of the
community. We have and will continue to work closely with the Lower Thames Crossing
project team throughout the development of both projects.
The Lower Thames Crossing was also outlined in the ‘Connecting the Capital’ document.
Page 7 of 45
2. Overview of consultation
The consultation on the Gallions Reach and Belvedere crossings ran from Wednesday 2
December 2015 through to Friday 12 February 2016. The 10 and a half week timeframe was
longer than normal in consideration of the Christmas and New Year period.
2.1. Objectives
This consultation aimed to meet a number of objectives:
To present the work undertaken on the project since the previous consultation and
report back to the community on areas we had promised to further investigate
To understand the public’s level of support for the schemes
To understand how the public think they would use the fixed crossings (eg by car, on
foot, cycle, public transport)
To better understand which destinations the public want to get to with improved
public transport links
To explain the importance of these strategic links in the transport network, and
enable the public to understand the benefits these schemes would have to the local
community and London as a whole
To explain the impacts of the crossings, including traffic and environmental impacts
To provide information about what is next for the project, including timing, further
consultations and the planning process
2.2. Who we consulted
TfL consulted widely on the proposals, including with revelant local authorities and political
representatives, transport and environmental campaign groups, major businesses and
statutory stakeholders. In total, over 800 stakeholders from approximately 400 organisations
were contacted in relation to the consultation. A full list of stakeholders and the email they
received is included in Appendix B.
Key stakeholders were all offered a briefing on the project. A number accepted this offer,
with the following meetings held throughout and following the consultation period:
Page 8 of 45
Table 1 – Key stakeholder meetings
Stakeholder Meeting date
London Waterways Commission 14 December 2015
Havering Business Voice Board 12 January 2016
Federation of Small Businesses 13 January 2016
London Borough of Havering 14 January 2016
Teresa Pearce MP 18 January 2016
London Borough of Redbridge 19 January 2016
Canary Wharf Group 21 January 2016
Campaign for Better Transport 1 February 2016
RB Greenwich Transport Security Panel 11 February 2016
Belvedere Community Forum 3 March 20161
The consultation was also open to any member of the public who had a view they wished to
express.
2.3. Materials, distribution and publicity
On Wednesday 2 December 2015, detailed information on the project was published on
TfL’s consultation hub website. This was supported by a number of technical documents,
maps and artist impressions of the proposals.
This information was also summarised in a consultation leaflet, which was printed and
distributed to all the host boroughs for circulation to local venues, such as libraries and
community centres, and was handed out to users of the Woolwich Ferry during the
consultation period. A copy of this leaflet can be seen in Appendix C.
A dedicated project email address, Freepost address and phone number were provided for
members of the public to ask questions, provide feedback, or request hard copies of any of
the documents. The TfL Call Centre was briefed and provided project contacts, in order to
either address or refer on any calls they received.
Links to the consultation hub were also hosted on the project’s page on the TfL website and
the Connecting the Capital webpage.
1 Due to the group’s available meeting dates, the briefing was held outside of the consultation period.
Page 9 of 45
The consultation was publicised via a number of channels:
Email to previous consultation respondents – an email was sent to approximately
6,000 individuals who had responded to the 2014 consultation on options for river
crossings east of Silvertown. Recipients were provided with a link to the consultation
hub webpage to find out more on the project and have their say. A copy of this email
can be seen in Appendix D
Email to TfL customers – an email was sent to almost 450,000 people on the TfL
database who are known to drive, cycle or use public transport in the area and who
have agreed to recieve relevant communications from TfL. The email provided a brief
explanation of the project and included a link to the consultation hub webpage to find
out more and provide any feedback. A copy of this email can be seen in Appendix D
Borough publications – local boroughs were provided with information to share via
their various publications, websites and social media channels
Print advertising – a number of print advertisements were placed in local newspapers
to publicise the consultation further. A copy of the print advertisement and the
schedule of publications in which it appeared can be seen in Appendix E
Press – TfL issued a press release in relation to the overarching ‘Connecting the
Capital’ vision, and the start of the Gallions Reach and Belvedere river crossings
consultation on Wednesday 2 December 2015. This followed an announcement of
the vision and consultation by the Mayor of London, Boris Johnson, on LBC Radio
that same morning. A copy of the release can be seen in Appendix F. The
consultation received press coverage throughout various media outlets, including:
o BBC London News (TV,
radio, web)
o ITV London
o LBC Radio
o Metro
o Bexley Times
o News Shopper
o The Wharf
o South London Press
o City AM
o Essex Enquirer
o Kent Messenger
o Newham Recorder
o Evening Standard
Social media – TfL’s Twitter account was also utilised to publicise the consultation to
over 1 million followers. All tweets sent throughout the consultation period can be
seen in Appendix G
Other marketing activities – digital advertising, mobile
and desktop display banners – were undertaken as additional publicity channels
2.4. Questionnaire
The consultation questionnaire consisted of four closed questions2 and one open question3
that sought to gain a better understanding of the level of support for the project, and an
2 In which respondents chose an answer from a list
Page 10 of 45
indication of how the public believe they would use the crossings. It also aimed to gather
information in relation to where people would like better public transport links.
The closed questions were:
Do you support new crossings at Gallions Reach and Belvedere?
Which destinations / transport hubs would you prefer new or improved public
transport links to?
If we build a new crossing at Gallions Reach, how would you use it?
If we build a new crossing at Belvedere, how would you use it?
A free text box was also provided that allowed respondents to submit more detailed
comments on the proposals if they wished.
The questionnaire was accessed via a link from the Gallions Reach and Belvedere river
crossings webpage on TfL’s consultation hub website.
Respondents were also asked to provide demographic data (such as postcode, name and
email address) as part of their response, and to provide us with any feedback on the quality
of the consultation itself.
See Appendix H for a copy of the questionnaire.
2.5. Analysis
Given the high number of responses predicted for this consultation, external consultants
Steer Davies Gleave (SDG) were appointed to undertake analysis of all the public responses
received. This included the closed and open questions.
The free text responses (the responses to the open questions) were coded into themes by
SDG for quantitative analysis. The coding process groups similar responses using numeric
codes held within a code frame.
Using the same code frame, TfL undertook analysis of the stakeholder responses received.
Stakeholder responses were considered to be those received from:
London boroughs
Local Economic Partnerships
Politicians
Local businesses
Local resident and community groups
Accessiblity groups
Transport User Groups
Other groups with a specific interest in the schemes
SDG’s full report with all analysis and codes can be seen in Appendix I.
3 In which respondents could provide free text
Page 11 of 45
3. Results of the consultation
The following section presents the results of the consultation. It begins with general
consultation information (such as the number of responses received, where respondents
were from, how they heard about it and general responses in relation to the quality of the
consultation) and then presents the outcomes of each question separately. It also sets out
our responses to issues raised by the public and stakeholders.
3.1. General consultation results
A total of 4,562 responses to the consultation were received:
4,519 via the online questionnaire4
43 from stakeholders (shown in Appendix J)
3.1.1. Distribution of respondents
Based on the postcodes provided, respondents came from a variety of locations, as shown in
the map and table below, but with a particular concentration from the nearby boroughs.
Figure 2 – Distribution of respondents to the consultation
4 For ease of analysis, responses sent by email or letter, or received by the Call Centre were copied into the
online questionnaire. There were 80 responses received via email, 9 via letter and one via the Call Centre.
Page 12 of 45
Table 2 – Number of respondents from boroughs with highest response rates
Borough Number of responses Percentage of total
responses received
Bexley 988 22%
Greenwich 949 21%
Newham 382 8%
Havering 354 8%
Barking and Dagenham 246 5%
Lewisham 122 3%
Redbridge 103 2%
Tower Hamlets 92 2%
Bromley 54 1%
Southwark 46 1%
Respondents included members of the public and those from organisations, businesses or
campaign groups.
Figure 3 – Type of respondent
Members of the public 97%
Businesses or campaign groups
3%
Page 13 of 45
3.2. Q1 – Support for the project
Question one was asked to seek levels of support for the proposals. Respondents had the
choice of selecting support for both crossings, Gallions Reach only, Belvedere only, or
neither.
A total of 4,450 respondents answered this question (98% of all public respondents to the
consultation).
The levels of support are outlined in the table and pie chart below:
Table 3 – Level of support
Level of support Respondents Proportion of total
Support both crossings 3,456 77%
Do not support either crossing 473 10%
Support Gallions Reach only 325 7%
Support Belvedere only 196 4%
Not answered 67 2%
TOTAL 4,519 100%
Figure 4 – Level of support
77%
10%
7%
4%
2%
Support both crossings
Doesn't support either crossing
Support Gallions Reach only
Support Belvedere only
Not answered
Page 14 of 45
The support levels were also broken down by borough (based on respondents’ postcodes).
Table 4 – Level of support by borough
London Borough Support
both
crossings
Does
not
support
either
crossing
Support
Gallions
Reach
only
Support
Belvedere
only
Not
answered
Total
responses
Bexley 69% 17% 7% 5% 2% 988
Greenwich 77% 11% 7% 4% 1% 949
Newham 80% 5% 10% 5% 1% 382
Havering 79% 5% 9% 6% 1% 354
Barking and Dagenham 87% 1% 7% 5% 0% 246
Lewisham 85% 7% 4% 2% 2% 122
Redbridge 86% 1% 10% 2% 1% 103
Tower Hamlets 87% 7% 4% 2% 0 92
Bromley 83% 9% 6% 2% 0 54
Southwark 96% 4% 0 0 0 46
Page 15 of 45
Figure 5 – Level of support by borough
Many freetext responses to Q5, as well as stakeholder responses, provided further
information as to people’s support for/concerns about the crossings and these are presented
in section 3.6.
Page 16 of 45
3.3. Q2 – Desired public transport connections
The second question asked respondents to advise which destinations they would like
improved public transport links to. They could choose from a list of 22, or advise of any
others that were not noted.
This question was being asked to provide us with an understanding of where the local
community would like to access with public transport and to help inform a decision on the
public transport provision that might be most appropriate for each crossing.
The table below shows the number of respondents who selected each destination. As
respondents were able to select multiple destinations, some may be counted more than
once.
Table 5 – Top destinations respondents would like improved public transport links to
Destination Responses Proportion
Central London 1,092 8.4%
Greenwich 976 7.5%
Woolwich 968 7.4%
City Airport 966 7.4%
Bexleyheath 872 6.7%
Canary Wharf 831 6.4%
Thamesmead 824 6.3%
Belvedere 731 5.6%
Stratford 729 5.6%
Romford 542 4.1%
Dagenham 517 4.0%
Lewisham 509 3.9%
Erith 499 3.8%
Eltham 486 3.7%
Royal Docks 420 3.2%
Ilford 392 3.0%
Barking Riverside 375 2.9%
Rainham 374 2.9%
Hornchurch 344 2.6%
East Ham 342 2.6%
Other (please specify) 287 2.2%
Total 13,076 100%
Page 17 of 45
The table below summarises the top corridors along which local residents would like better
public transport. This includes those choosing their own town/area of residence, reflecting,
for example, links across Thamesmead, or into the centre of Woolwich or Bexleyheath from
more outlying parts of those towns.
Table 6 – Top ten destinations respondents would like improved public transport links to
Rank From To Responses
1 Thamesmead Thamesmead 240
2 Woolwich Woolwich 198
3 Thamesmead Central London 180
4 Thamesmead Woolwich 177
5 Bexleyheath Bexleyheath 168
6 Thamesmead City Airport 149
7 Thamesmead Abbey Wood 148
8 Thamesmead Canary Wharf 141
9 Thamesmead Greenwich 138
10 Thamesmead Bexleyheath 122
Of the ten corridors for which respondents expressed the highest levels of support for
improved transport links, eight originate in Thamesmead. Better connections within
Thamesmead and Woolwich were most frequently mentioned, followed by better links from
Thamesmead to central London and Woolwich.
Page 18 of 45
3.4. Q3 – How would you use a crossing at Gallions Reach?
We wanted to understand how the public think they would use a crossing at Gallions Reach,
such as by motorised vehicle, public transport, on foot or on a bicycle. Respondents could
choose as many options as they liked, and also had the option to advise if they did not think
they would use a crossing at Gallions Reach at all.
The table below shows the number of respondents who would use each of the modes
suggested in the question.
Table 7 – Number of responses by mode for Gallions Reach
Crossing Mode Number of
responses
Proportion of
responses
Gallions
Reach
By car 3,140 69%
On public transport (eg bus, DLR, tram) 2,298 51%
On a cycle 1,036 23%
On foot 844 20%
By another type of vehicle (eg van, HGV,
taxi)
456 10%
Motorbike 316 7%
I do not think I would use a new crossing at
Gallions Reach
587 13%
Total 8,677 193%
Page 19 of 45
3.5. Q4 – How would you use a crossing at Belvedere?
Similar to Q3, it was useful to understand how the public think they would use a crossing at
Belvedere. Respondents could choose as many options as they liked5, and also had the
option to advise if they did not think they would use a crossing at at all.
The table below shows the number of respondents who would use each of the modes
suggested in the question.
Table 8 – Number of responses by mode for Belvedere
1.1 Crossing 1.2 Mode 1.3 Number
of
responses
1.4 Proportion of
responses
1.5 Belvedere
1.6
1.7
1.8
1.9
1.10
1.11
1.12 By car 2,846 63%
1.13 On public transport (eg bus) 1,725 38%
1.14 On a cycle 813 18%
1.15 On foot 645 14%
1.16 By another type of vehicle (eg van, HGV,
taxi) 437 10%
1.17 Motorbike 270 6%
1.18 I do not think I would use a new crossing
at Belvedere 1,061 23%
1.19 Total 7,797 172%
5 For the initial 24 hours of the survey being open, respondents were only able to select one mode by which
they would use the Belvedere crossing. This was rectified by 9am on Thursday 3 December.
A total of 541 responses were received during this time. 114 of these advised they did not believe they would
use a crossing at Belvedere, or did not answer this question at all.
A link to the corrected question was sent to all 541 who responded, to provide the opportunity to re-submit
their answer to that question.
A total of 324 resubmissions were received – 75% of those who originally responded with an interest in the
Belvedere crossing.
Page 20 of 45
3.6. Q5 – Free text comments and our response to the key issues raised
Of the 4,519 public respondents who replied to the consultation via the consultation hub,
2,224 (49% of the total) provided further comments in the free text comment box (Q5). 43
stakeholders also provided separate responses.
This section sets out the comments received from the public and stakeholders, grouped by
their theme. It should be noted that some respondents have raised multiple comments. Our
responses to any of the main issues raised are noted in italics.
3.6.1. Principle of the project
Support for proposals
There was significant support expressed for the proposals by both the public and
stakeholders throughout the free text responses received.
The following stakeholders expressed a degree of support for the schemes: The
London Boroughs of Newham, Havering, Bexley, Barking and Dagenham, Tower
Hamlets, Redbridge, Lewisham, and Hackney, the Royal Borough of Greenwich, Essex
County Council, South East London Chamber of Commerce, Standard Life
Investments, the RAC Foundation, Prime Regal Ltd, Peabody, the London Chamber of
Commerce and Industry, the London Assembly Labour Group, the Inland Waterways
Association Freight Group, the Bexley Labour Group, ABP London Investment Ltd
(ABP), Federation of Small Businesses (FSB), the Barking and Dagenham Chamber of
Commerce, the Confederation of Passenger Transport and the Freight Transport
Association (FTA)
183 comments noted that these new crossings will provide more east London
crossing options
There were 180 general comments of support for the both the Gallions Reach and
Belvedere river crossings
60 comments were in relation to these crossings supporting redevelopment in east
London
51 comments were regarding the crossings supporting the local economy, including
job growth and access to employment
49 comments were supportive of the project as it would reduce journey times
18 comments expressed belief the project will improve links to London City Airport
and Canary Wharf
10 comments called for the Gallions Reach crossing to be prioritised over Belvedere.
The London Boroughs of Havering and Hackney, the Royal Borough of Greenwich and
the Bexley Labour Group echoed this. The London Borough of Bexley on the other
hand called for the Belvedere crossing to be built first
1 comment was favouring these east London crossings over the Silvertown Tunnel.
We welcome the support people have expressed for the proposals. The Gallions Reach and
Belvedere river crossings would transform cross-river connectivity in east London and would
deliver a number of significant benefits, including:
Page 21 of 45
- Better connecting people, businesses and communities with each other, increasing
access to jobs, education and leisure activities
- Making it easier for people and goods to cross the river in east London
- Creating opportunities for new cross-river public transport links and improving local
walking and cycling options
- Supporting London's economy by better connecting businesses, and improving
access to labour markets
- Encouraging development in the area, helping to address London's housing shortage
- Helping to manage the impact of population growth by reducing cross-river journey
times and distances
The Mayor asked TfL to take forward crossings at Gallions Reach and at Belvedere. The high
level timetable that has been set out for the proposals aims for both crossings to be
delivered in around 2025.
Opposition to the proposals
There were 251 comments received throughout the free text responses in general opposition
to the proposals in some form.
160 comments were opposing the project in its current form, and expressed a belief
the crossings should be for public transport/pedestrians/cyclists only; that more
roads are not needed. This includes the LA21(Bexley) Traffic and Transport Forum,
Bexley Against Road Crossings (BARC), Darren Johnson AM, Friends of the Earth and
the Campaign for Better Transport. Bexley Against Road Crossings, Friends of the
Earth and Darren Johnson AM all asked why a public transport only option was not
being consulted on
68 comments outlined no support for either crossing for various reasons, including
costs being too high, a perceived negative effect on house prices, and a belief there is
no demand for them. Amongst these were comments from the London Cycling
Campaign and Clive Efford MP
16 comments indicated no support for Belvedere because the Dartford crossing is
nearby and it is not needed
7 comments did not support Gallions Reach due to a belief it is not needed
There will always be vital delivery and servicing trips that cannot be undertaken by public
transport, and this study area provides a large amount of development land which could
house businesses providing such services to a rapidly growing Capital. There will continue to
be a need for a reliable and effective road network to cater for such journeys, even as TfL
continues to achieve an ever greater proportion of trips being made by public transport,
walking and cycling. A key priority set for TfL though the London Plan and Mayor’s Transport
Strategy is to improve road network connectivty and resilience and to better connect the
Opportunity Areas in the east to allow these areas to achieve their full development
potential. Without a road connection the strategies’ aims, and therefore the project’s
objectives, would not be met.
Page 22 of 45
Public transport provision would form an integral part of these crossings, and as part of the
work we have been undertaking to address the lack of connectivity between east and
southeast London, we have been considering public transport provision on the crossings. The
outcome of this work was presented as part of this latest consultation and a report that
details the potential public transport options is available here. The feedback from this most
recent consultation will help to inform the decision regarding the public transport provision
should proposals for the crossings be taken forward.
As well as seeking to improve the road network, TfL is building new dedicated public
transport river crossings, with Crossrail (the Elizabeth line) between Custom House and
Woolwich set to open in 2018. This is in addition to the DLR extension to Woolwich which
opened in 2009 and the Emirates Air Line which opened in 2012.
While a pedestrian and cycle only crossing may offer some very local benefits, due to the
scale of the crossing that would be required, its cost would be very high and its connectivity
benefits extremely limited relative to the cost. These factors mean a pedestrian and cycle
only crossing at these locations is not practical. There are a number of other locations in
London where dedicated pedestrian and cycle crossings may be more appropriate, feasible
and affordable, as set out in TfL's ‘Connecting the Capital’ report.
Page 23 of 45
3.6.2. Infrastructure
Tunnels or bridges
265 comments were expressed in support of a tunnel for one or both of the crossings.
67 comments advised favour toward a tunnel at Gallions Reach, including the RAC
Foundation, National Grid Property Holdings and Peabody
63 comments were in favour of tunnels for shipping or for weather reasons, including
the Port of London Authority (PLA) and the Royal Borough of Greenwich
55 comments were in favour of a tunnel at Belvedere, including the London Borough
of Bexley and the Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime (MOPAC)
35 comments expressed preference for a tunnel to avoid impact on the London City
Airport flight path, including London City Airport itself
29 comments indicated support for tunnels because they have a lower environmental
impact
13 comments stated belief that tunnels provide greater scope for land development,
including the Royal Borough of Greenwich
The South East London Chamber of Commerce and the Confederation of Passenger
Transport also support tunnels for both crossings
174 respondents favoured bridges for one or both crossings.
55 comments favoured a bridge at Belvedere, including the RAC Foundation
50 comments favoured a bridge at Gallions Reach, including the London Chamber of
Commerce and Industry
18 comments expressed preference for a bridge for cost reasons
6 comments favoured a bridge as a tunnel would be unpleasant to use
2 comments supported the idea of lifting bridges
2 comments favoured a bridge because tunnel construction would take too long
The FTA would like to see bridges built at both crossings, to provide an alternative
route for drivers of hazardous goods vehicles
There are a number of issues that need to be addressed and areas requiring further
investigation before determining whether a bridge or tunnel would be most appropriate at
each location. This includes what form of public transport is incorporated into the crossings,
a more detailed understanding of how the property impacts differ between options,
considerations about the impact of the crossings on river traffic and London City Airport and
what the environmental impacts are.
It is important for us to undertake further analysis into these and other questions such as the
cost differential and affordability to understand the overall picture before making a decision
as to which type of infrastructure would be most appropriate.
The feedback to this consultation will help address some of these questions.
Page 24 of 45
Our Options Assessment Report (Long List) considered a number of potential infrastructure
options including lifting bridges. These were ruled out for a number of reasons, including that
a bridge with spans in the range that would be required would face serious deliverability risks
and technical challenges. Furthermore, such crossings would be regularly closed to users to
allow shipping to pass.
Other infrastructure related issues
There were 18 additional comments made in relation to infrastructure.
16 respondents asked that designs for the crossings meet requirements for the next
100 years
2 respondents requested double deck bridges be built
The London City Airport and Confederation of Passenger Transport expressed a
desire to understand the proposed construction methodology and impact of this on
the highway and public transport network.
National Grid Property Holdings asked that the crossing adheres to the safeguarded
land at Gallions Reach
The Inland Waterways Freight Association asked that crossings do not restrict access
for barge traffic and larger vessels
We agree that it is important to consider future use of the crossings and will ensure that this
is considered throughout the design process.
It is not yet possible to set out a construction methodology as a preferred scheme is yet to
be defined. Once this has happened however, a Transport Assessment that considers the
potential impact of construction on the highway and public transport networks would be
prepared, and necessary mitigation measures outlined. This Assessment would be the
subject of public and stakeholder consultation.
The intention is that the Gallions Reach crossing would be built only on the land that is
safeguarded for a crossing and we do not at this stage anticipate that the structure would
require any additional land outside of that.
We have considered a number of potential infrastructure options for the Gallions Reach and
Belvedere crossings including lifting bridges and tunnels and this work is set out in our
Options Assessment Report (Long List). This work concluded that a high-level bridge or a
tunnel would be most appropriate at each location and that if they were to be bridges that
they could be designed in such a way as to not restrict the right of navigation of vessels on
the Thames.
Page 25 of 45
3.6.3. Public transport
General public transport comments
197 general comments were received about public transport on the crossings.
157 comments were in support of the public transport improvements the crossings
would bring, including the Confederation of Passenger Transport, ABP, the London
Assembly Labour Group and Prime Regal Ltd
16 comments requested we develop public transport plans for Belvedere, including
linking Bexleyheath, Belvedere, Erith and Welling with Romford, Rainham and
Dagenham
16 comments supported additional rail infrastructure as part of the project
7 comments asked that we prioritise rail over bus
1 comment asked that we put the DLR/Tram options on hold
1 comment advised belief that public transport options were not needed
We welcome people's support for public transport provision on the crossings. Public
transport provision would form a core part of the project, although the decision of the exact
mode is yet to be taken. Each option offers benefits and further work is required to
understand these - as well as the costs - before a decision can be made. The feedback
received as part of this consultation is an important element in taking this work forward.
DLR
284 comments were made on the proposal for a DLR to be incorporated as part of the
project.
172 comments were received in favour of a DLR extension between Gallions Reach
and Thamesmead, including from the London Boroughs of Tower Hamlets, Newham,
Barking and Dagenham, Peabody, ABP, the London Chamber of Commerce and
Industry, the London Assembly Labour Group, the Barking and Dagenham Chamber
of Commerce and the Bexley Labour Group
72 comments asked that the DLR be extended further to Abbey Wood, or south in
general
37 comments wanted to see the DLR extended to further destinations to the north,
including Barking
1 comment wanted a single track DLR in order to optimise bridge use
The London Chamber of Commerce and Industry supports the DLR but raised
concerns about it delaying construction
BARC also suggested ‘DLR 6’ was a much better option in the Gallions Reach location
and proposed a DLR option for the Belvedere location
We welcome the support for the proposals to incorporate DLR as part of the Gallions Reach
river crossing. The initial work undertaken suggests that there would be benefits of
incorporating a DLR extension from Gallions Reach station to the south side of the river. This
would be planned in such a way that further extensions could follow to other destinations in
Page 26 of 45
due course. Work will continue to investigate the DLR options, refining our understanding of
the costs and benefits of any potential scheme.
London Overground
There were 47 comments received in relation to the London Overground.
47 comments wanted the London Overground extended to Abbey Wood or
Belvedere for future south London connections, including the Royal Borough of
Greenwich, London Borough of Barking and Dagenham, the Bexley Labour Group and
BARC
As part of the investigation into potential public transport options, a London Overground
extension from Barking/Barking Riverside to Abbey Wood was assessed. The assessment is
presented in the Option Assessment Report (Public Transport Interim List). The proposal has
a very high cost (in the region of £1.5 billion) and due to capacity constraints elsewhere on
the line, could only operate four trains per hour to Barking. Our work therefore concluded
that such an extension would not meet the growth and local connectivity objectives of the
project in the short/medium term as well as other (lower cost) options such as buses, the
DLR or trams.
This does not preclude this concept in the longer term, for example as part of a longer
orbital corridor.
Tram
67 comments were received in relation to a proposed tram link.
54 comments indicated support for a tram, including the London Borough of Bexley
(who support provision of a tram on both crossings), the Royal Borough of Greenwich
and the London Assembly Labour Group
8 comments expressed general opposition to a tram
4 comments want the tram extended to Thamesmead
1 comment was in relation to the tram not being a viable option due to the need for a
depot
BARC questioned why tram links were not proposed for the Belvedere crossings,
when there is enough demand for road travel
We note with interest the public and stakeholder's views on the possibility of tram options
for the crossings. Our initial work demonstrates that such an option would be feasible on the
Gallions Reach crossing and could deliver a number of benefits to locations such as
Thamesmead. Further work is required to understand the costs and benefits in more detail,
and the feedback from this consultation is an important element of taking this work forward.
In terms of Belvedere specifically, our modelling demonstrates that there would be demand
for a road crossing at this location, serving dispersed trips between places in outer London
and surrounding areas, as presented in our Traffic Impacts Report. However, given the
dispersed patterns of forecast trips and the difficulty in connecting a tram to the nearest
major centres of demand, Bexleyheath and Romford, we believe that bus services are better
able to meet the local public transport needs and provide links to the major nearby
Page 27 of 45
employment and town centres, and at a significantly lower cost than rail alternatives at
Belvedere.
Bus
61 comments were received on the proposed bus network on the crossings.
55 comments were in support of the development of the bus network, including
cross-river night bus services and bus lanes
2 comments were in support of peak-time bus lanes
1 comment called for more money to be spent on maintenance of buses
The London Borough of Bexley would like to see bus rapid transit form part of the
proposals
BARC did not consider that buses would provide an attractive option and were
unlikely to encourage mode shift
The London Borough of Havering commented that little detail had been provided on
the bus routes and frequencies
We agree that good public transport provision is a key element of the proposals. Bus routes
play an important part in connectivity, particularly where the numbers of passengers travelling
are lower than needed to make light or heavy rail a realistic proposition, where there are
physical limitations as to the provision of rail options or where trips are dispersed. Buses also
have the advantage of being able to serve a range of local destinations on either side of a
crossing and are the main public transport mode for outer London.
There is currently only one bus route that crosses the Thames in east London (the 108
service which uses the unreliable as well as capacity constrained Blackwall Tunnel), and along
with the Silvertown Tunnel, new river crossings provide the opportunity to transform cross-
river bus services in east London. The crossings are assumed to have a public transport lane
and as the scheme design progresses, we will be looking at potential bus priority measures
(eg dedicated bus lanes on approach routes) to ensure the benefits of this new cross-river
provision are maximised. We would also continue to look at the potential traffic impacts on
local roads near to the crossing, and the impact on bus journey time reliability is a key factor
when considering mitigation measures.
As part of the design we will identify potential bus corridors. Detailed work on bus routes and
frequencies would then commence around two years ahead of the proposed routes being
implemented, in line with well-established TfL bus network development practice.The public
would be consulted ahead of any changes to existing routes or the creation of new routes.
Page 28 of 45
3.6.4. Road network
Improvements to the existing road network
105 comments were received in relation to improvements to the existing road network, to
ensure these schemes are successful.
100 comments were received regarding general roads and junctions in the surounding
road network needing to be improved, from respondents including those from
Thurrock Council, London City Airport, the Confederation of Passenger Transport and
the FTA
Five stakeholders – the London Boroughs of Barking and Dagenham and Havering,
Thurrock Council, London City Airpot and the Barking and Dagenham Chamber of
Commerce – all commented on the A13 in particular, either calling for it to be
upgraded before the crossings are implemented, or asking for consideration to be
given to the impacts the crossings would have on this road
The traffic modelling work undertaken thus far indicates that, in general terms, the traffic
impacts on the local network would be maintained within manageable limits. It is proposed
that any new highway river crossing in London would be charged and this mechanism would
be used to ensure that demand does not exceed the capacity of the crossing or the
surrounding road network. Further local traffic modelling work will be undertaken to refine
our understanding of the impacts on the approach routes to the crossings.
The A13 is one of the busiest and most strategically important roads in London, providing a
direct link from the M25 and beyond into London. We are undertaking a study of this corridor
that considers the issues the A13 currently faces while also looking at the future challenges
and how they could be addressed. We are also developing the A13 Riverside Tunnel
proposals and will continue to work with relevant stakeholders to progress this scheme.
Our modelling to date suggests that the proposed river crossings could have an impact on the
A13, and in particular at the junction with the A406, which may require some mitigation. In
taking any proposal further forward, we would work closely with relevant stakeholders to
ensure that mitigation is put in place where necessary.
Scheme capacity
There were 54 comments made in relation to scheme capacity – in particular, asking us to
ensure the schemes prioritise increasing road capacity and include more than two lanes in
each direction.
Both crossings are proposed to be two lanes in each direction, with one of these lanes in
each direction being reserved for public transport (and potentially HGVs). Improving cross-
river public transport connectivity is an important element of the proposals and the existence
of dedicated space for public transport will ensure that whether the primary provision is by
bus or rail, users of those services have a reliable service.
We do not believe it would be appropriate to add a second general traffic lane, due to the
impact on the surrounding road network. A key function of the proposed user charge is to
provide a mechanism to ensure that traffic demand does not exceed the capacity of a single
lane crossing, if necessary by increasing charges as peak times to ensure that as many
Page 29 of 45
journeys as possible are made by other means (e.g. public transport wherever possible), or at
quieter times of the day/week.
Tie-ins/junctions/other projects
23 comments called for us to ensure the Belvedere crossing was aligned with the A2 for
connections to the Channel Tunnel and other ports.
We do not anticipate that either crossing would provide a convenient route for traffic
travelling between east London and the A2; the route via the A13 and the Dartford Crossing
(or in future the Lower Thames Crossing) would provide a faster route between east London
and the A2 in Kent. The new crossings are intended primarily to cater for more local journeys,
in particular those starting or ending in the northern parts of the boroughs of Bexley and
Greenwich rather than for traffic travelling to or from the A2.
Other projects
The London Borough of Havering, Essex County Council and Thurrock Council suggested
consideration be given to the interaction between these crossings and other proposed
schemes in the area, such as the Silvertown Tunnel and Lower Thames Crossing.
There are plans for other new highway crossings of the Thames in order to address the lack
of cross-river connectivity and the congestion and reliability issues faced at the few existing
crossings in east London. The Silvertown Tunnel, designed to address the congestion and
reliability issues at east London's only strategic road river crossing - the Blackwall Tunnel - is
the furthest progressed and could be built by the 2023/24. The Silvertown Tunnel proposals
form part of the Reference Case for the Gallions Reach and Belvedere crossings, which
means that all scenarios tested include the cumulative impact of and interaction between
these projects.
In addition to the Silvertown Tunnel and the crossings at Gallions Reach and Belvedere,
Highways England is consulting on plans for a Lower Thames Crossing to address the
congestion issues at the Dartford Crossing. Transport for London has and will continue to
liaise with Highways England throughout the planning of the Lower Thames Crossing, and up-
to-date transport modelling to understand the cumulative impact of and interaction between
the east London river crossings and the Lower Thames Crossing is being undertaken. This
work is not available at the time of print but will be discussed with stakeholders once
available.
Page 30 of 45
3.6.5. Traffic
Potential for increase
462 comments were made about a potential increase in traffic as a result of the schemes.
290 comments expressed general concern over an increase in traffic, including
London Cycling Campaign, London Assembly Labour Group, Friends of the Earth and
the RAC Foundation
46 comments warned that additional traffic on local roads will pose a safety hazard
to schools, young people, residents and other road users (including pedestrians and
cyclists)
48 comments raised concerns over a local traffic increase at Belvedere and the
impact on local roads, including BARC (who were particularly concerned about an
increase in congestion on the A206 and A2016), the Bexley Labour Group and the
LA21(Bexley) Traffic and Transport Forum
40 comments raised concerns about local traffic increase at Gallions Reach
23 comments raised concerns about an increase in rat-running
15 comments expressed worry about an increase in HGV traffic
A user charge is proposed in order to keep traffic within manageable limits both on the
crossings and the surrounding road networks. Traffic modelling outputs which identify broad
changes in traffic have been set out in the Traffic Impact Report. Further work is required to
refine the user charge to ensure that traffic impacts on the local area network are managed.
Further measures will also be explored to minimise the impact on residential areas and
junctions and to channel traffic to the most appropriate approaches to the crossings. As the
project progresses we will continue to investigate further how best to achieve this and we will
work closely with local boroughs on this matter.
Ensuring the safety of all road users is of critical importance and the crossings would be
designed to the latest standards. As the scheme design develops and more detailed
proposals are put forward, we would be in a position to identify any potential issues and
develop measures to address them. For example, the tie-in arrangements linking the
crossings to the road network on either side of the River Thames would be subject to a full
Road Safety Audit process, as part of which any safety issues would be identified and
recommendations made for the purpose of maximising the road safety of the proposals. A
full Environmental Impact Assessment will also be undertaken once the scheme design has
developed further, which will identify the likely significant effects of the scheme and develop
a package of necessary mitigation measures.
We understand the concern that some respondents raised regarding increased HGV traffic,
particularly on local roads. We expect non-local HGV traffic to use either the
Blackwall/Silvertown tunnels, since they provide links to the A2, A12, A13 and other strategic
routes in east London, or the Dartford crossings. The crossings are intended to provide
improved HGV access to local employment areas, such as Belvedere Industrial Area, and we
will consider with the local boroughs appropriate traffic management measures to avoid
HGV traffic using local roads to access the crossings.
Page 31 of 45
Crossings will induce traffic
The London Cycling Campaign, Darren Johnson AM, BARC and the LA21(Bexley) Traffic and
Transport Forum expressed concerns over induced traffic as a result of the schemes.
Any improvement to the road network has the potential to generate additional traffic as road
users respond by, for example, diverting from other routes, changing their origin or
destination (trip locations), switching from other transport modes, or making more journeys.
These crossings are intended to help boost the local economy, increasing the number of
local jobs, which would also lead to more trips being made.
This can therefore have some adverse impacts on the local road network, which are identified
in the Traffic Impact Report, although these are offset to some extent by making some
journeys shorter, and encouraging businesses servicing London to locate their business
closer to their customers.
As such there will be additional traffic in some areas. These impacts can be mitigated to a
degree through a user charge, which provides a tool to manage traffic demand to ensure the
benefits of the additional connectivity are secured and not lost through local traffic growth.
This could include targetting higher charges towards those users most able to use public
transport alternatives (such as car drivers in the peaks) or charging based on emissions (to
discourage more polluting vehicles from the local area).
As such a user charge is an essential element of the proposals for the Gallions Reach and
Belvedere crossings.
Local traffic management is also an important tool, to ensure that where traffic could
increase on more sensitive roads, such as residential roads or roads with more pedestrians,
measures can be put in place to discourage or prevent this, or address the impacts. This
could include, for example, traffic calming to reduce vehicle speeds, which discourage
through traffic and improve safety, width restrictions to keep goods vehicles on main roads,
or improved footways, cycle tracks and crossings to help those travelling in the local area on
foot or by cycle.
Traffic modelling
The London Boroughs of Barking and Daganhem, Bexley, Havering and Redbridge, BARC and
the Barking and Dagenham Chamber of Commerce all expressed concern over the traffic
modelling – suggesting that it was inadequate, inaccurate or did not take into account local
development.
TfL has significant experience in the use of traffic models and we are confident that our
models provide an appropriate assessment of the impact of the proposed schemes. The
transport models used to consider the effect of the crossings on the network have been
developed over a number of years and have been continuously improved and updated to, for
example, reflect best practice and up-to-date guidance. In line with Department for Transport
guidance, we produced an Appraisal Specification Report to document our modelling and
appraisal tools, and why we considered them proportionate for this stage of the assessment
in order to assess the broad changes in traffic patterns that would result from the two new
crossings and the magnitude of these changes. For this particular consultation, we used the
London Regional Demand Model (LoRDM 2014 version) to forecast the traffic impacts of
Page 32 of 45
providing new river crossings at Gallions Reach and Belvedere based on Greater London
Authority (London Plan 2011) planning assumptions, which was the model available at the
time the work was undertaken.
As work on the crossings develops and the models are updated with the latest planning data,
our understanding of the impacts of the crossings will become further refined. We will also
undertake sensitivity tests to consider future year scenarios that are not included in the
statutory planning assumptions (e.g. higher growth aspirations) to understand the effect of
alternative growth scenarios. As part of this development, TfL, in collaboration with London
boroughs, has commissioned an independent consultant to review our latest traffic models
to assess their suitability to progress the proposed crossings in east London. The study is
ongoing however, the review has confirmed to date that the base year part of the models are
‘fit for purpose’.
Congestion relief
347 comments were made in relation to congestion relief.
328 comments expressed belief that the crossings will alleviate/ease congestion
locally and at other crossing points, including the London Chamber of Commerce and
Industry
19 comments called for bans or restrictions on HGVs to help ease congestion
These crossings are designed to address the poor cross-river connectivity between east and
southeast London and to improve the resilience of the cross-river transport network in east
London by providing additional crossing options. As a result of the crossings at Gallions
Reach and Belvedere, there may be some traffic that diverts from the existing road network
and therefore some congestion relief in some local areas. However, the principal objective of
these crossings is to improve connectivity.
It is not proposed that HGVs would be banned or restricted from using crossings; supporting
local businesses which provide local jobs is a key objective of the Mayor, and freight is
heavily dependent on the road network; unlike car drivers, freight cannot simply switch to
public transport. However in the wider area, where there are concerns about HGVs leaving
the main road network and using residential roads, consideration can be given to banning
such routes should more goods vehicles start using inappropriate roads.
Page 33 of 45
3.6.6. User charge
Support a user charge
17 comments expressed their support for funding via a user charge and the merit in a user
charge as a means of traffic management, including the London Assembly Labour Group and
the London Borough of Hackney.
We welcome the support expressed for the user charge. The user charge is an essential part
of the proposals as is it needed to both manage demand for the crossings and to help
contribute towards the cost of construction, maintenance and operation. The charge level
would be set closer to the opening of the crossings in order to ensure it reflects the
conditions that exist at the time and that the charges are set at a level that would manage
demand for the crossings most effectively.
Oppose a user charge
There were 247 comments made in opposition to the proposed user charge.
137 comments argued the crossings should be free to use, including the London
Borough of Lewisham and the Barking and Dagenham Chamber of Commerce
77 comments were received on the perceived unfairness of east London river
crossings being charged while crossings in west London remained free, including the
London Borough of Barking and Dagenham, the Barking and Dagenham Chamber of
Commerce, FSB and the LA21(Bexley) Traffic and Transport Forum.
18 comments viewed the user charge as a tax
10 comments advised it was currently free to cross and should remain so
4 comments believed the charge will restrict opportunity area growth
1 comment believed the user charge will increase traffic
User charging is an essential element of the proposals as it would help to manage demand
for the new crossings, as well as contributing to the cost of construction, maintenance and
operation.
In terms of managing demand, if new crossings were to be built and not charged, experience
demonstrates that the volumes of traffic and local congestion would rise considerably. In our
view that is unlikely to be acceptable and would undermine the case for constructing the
crossings. The charge is therefore a means to ensure that the overall volume of traffic is
managed to mitigate the traffic and environmental impacts of the scheme. It could also
provide a means to prioritise certain types of traffic, for example much lower charges for
more environmentally friendly vehicles than for those with higher levels of emissions.
Moreover, with a user charge applied to existing and proposed crossings either side of those
at Gallions Reach and Belvedere (that is Blackwall/Silvertown and Dartford), demand for these
crossings would be too great in the absence of a user charge as drivers would divert to an
uncharged crossing.
With regards to the costs of the project, a new crossing would represent a very significant
capital investment; the costs of constructing a bridge or tunnel in this area are likely to be
significantly higher than in west London, where the river is narrower and large ships do not
Page 34 of 45
need be accommodated. Furthermore, while no new road crossings to the west are
proposed, it is likely that if we did build a new road crossing to the west, it would also be
charged. As it is, there are no outstanding costs from the construction of other road
crossings in London. We consider it reasonable and appropriate for the primary beneficiaries
of the new crossings, those driving across them, to contribute towards the costs.
Proposals for charging at the new crossings would be subject to further public and
stakeholder consultation as the scheme develops, with the initial charge level and the
structure of the charging regime to be set closer to the date that the crossings open to traffic.
This would ensure that the charging regime reflects the conditions that exist at the time and
the charges are set at a level that would manage demand for the crossings most effectively.
Request for discounts
There were 32 comments calling for various discounts to the proposed user charge.
21 comments were in relation to a discount for local residents, including the London
Boroughs of Tower Hamlets, Bexley, Newham and Havering and the London
Assembly Labour Group. Clive Efford MP advised he believed local residents should
be exempt altogether
The Confederation of Passenger Transport called for bus and coach priority charging
5 comments, including the London Borough of Barking and Dagenham, requested
differential charging (eg prioritising local traffic over regional and national traffic)
The London Chamber of Commerce and Industry advised that they would like to see
lower charges during off-peak periods or tidal charging, and that charging should
distinguish between business and private traffic
The FTA believes any charge should be focused on those who have alternatives
rather than essential delivery vehicles
Discounts and exemptions would be provided in a similar way as for the Congestion Charge,
which includes disabled users, emergency services and some large passenger vehicles
(coaches and buses). However it is not currently proposed that there would be a local
resident or business discount.
The key reasons for not proposing local discounts are:
- It would be contrary to the project objectives: any specific discount would undermine
the traffic demand and environmental impact management as well as the funding
objectives of user charging
- There is no clear rationale for offering a discount in this instance. For example,
residents living inside the central London Congestion Charging zone are eligible for a
discount because, if they need to move a vehicle at all, they have no choice but to
travel within the zone. For the Gallions Reach and Belvedere crossings this is not the
case
- There is no fair basis for deciding who qualifies for the discount – a local residents’
discount would have to distinguish between groups of people by whether or not they
live within a specified area. There is no proper basis on which to determine the
boundary of such an area and any such area could not take into account other
relevant criteria such as hardship caused by the charge or need to drive.
Page 35 of 45
The preference for a varying charge by direction of travel is noted; there is potential for higher
charges at certain times of day or directions, to discourage car commuting where public
transport alternatives exist, and to minimise the impacts on the road network. The charging
strategy for the crossings would not be set until closer to the crossings open, so that it can
reflect the conditions that exist at the time, including charges at adjacent crossings, and
ensure that the charges are set at a level that would manage demand for the crossings most
effectively.
User charge – other
70 comments were made in relation to other elements of the proposed user charge.
25 comments suggested discontinuing user charging once the crossings have been
paid for
21 comments raised concerns over the user charge rates being too expensive and
creating a divide between north and south London
12 comments called for a low-value pan-London charge to be introduced, including
the South East London Chamber of Commerce and RAC Foundation
2 comments believe charging will deter use of the crossings
1 comment asked us to toll the Blackwall tunnel and see if an additional crossing is
necessary
It is likely to be necessary for the user charge to continue beyond the date at which the cost
of the crossings' construction has been recouped in order to maintain its demand and
environmental management effect. However this point is not likely to be reached in the
foreseeable future as user charging is not expected to exceed the cost of construction.
Additionally, maintenance and operational costs of the crossings would be ongoing and the
charge revenue will help to pay for these.
TfL and the Mayor have the power to impose road user charging in London. Using these
powers to introduce a charging system could help to manage demand for the road network as
a whole, including crossings, although there are no plans at this time to introduce a wider
road user charge. Should any wider charging schemes be progressed in the future, the scope
for incorporating the charging regime for the Gallions Reach and Belvedere crossings within a
wider charging regime would be examined.
Page 36 of 45
3.6.7. Walking and cycling
General comments
157 comments were received about the proposed provision for pedestrians and cyclists over
both crossings.
138 comments were in support of the plan to incorporate walking and cycling on the
crossings, including the London Borough of Barking and Dagenham, the London
Borough of Tower Hamlets, the RAC Foundation, the London Assembly Labour
Group and the Bexley Labour Group
16 comments were unsupportive and believe that we should be prioritising road and
public transport crossings
The London Borough of Havering and the Confederation of Passenger Transport both
acknowledged the difficulties in providing a suitable environment for pedestrians and
cyclists in either a bridge or tunnel. The London Borough of Newham echoed this,
although the Borough believes the challenges are not insurmountable
Increasing the number of trips that are walked or cycled is a key objective of the Mayor’s
Transport Strategy, and as part of the work for this consultation, we have considered the
options for incorporating walking and cycling facilities into the crossings. This work was
presented in the Options Assessment Report (Long List), and for the purpose of the business
case the wider economic benefits of improved connectivity for cycling and walking were
included.
Further analysis will be undertaken to understand the demand for such facilities and this
analysis combined with other factors such the safety and security of users, design constraints
and costs, will help to decide how cross-river walking and cycling opportunities can be best
improved.
Design of walking and cycling facilities
There were 113 comments received in relation to how the walking and cycling facilities
would be designed.
42 comments were in relation to a bridge being more suitable for pedestrians and
cyclists, including the London Boroughs of Tower Hamlets and Hackney
37 comments called for any cycling facilities to be fully segregated
17 comments asked that we consider a lift and weather shielding for cyclists on a
bridge
13 comments suggested that we use vehicles to transport pedestrians and cyclists
over the crossings, including the Royal Borough of Greenwich
2 comments asked for cycle storage to be incorporated at key hubs
1 comment advised that a tunnel for pedestrians and cyclists should be well lit,
ventilated and safe
We would seek to incorporate segregated pedestrian and cycling facilities into the Gallions
Reach and Belvedere crossings provided they can be accommodated in a manner that
guarantees the safety and security of users, at a reasonable cost. There are pros and cons to
Page 37 of 45
each option in terms of which type of crossing would be better for users. For example,
bridges might offer a better feeling of safety and security as pedestrians and cyclists would
be in the open air and visible to passing vehicles, whereas in a tunnel they would be in a
separate cell, which, if not heavily used, could pose challenges in making it feel safe at all
times of day. Conversely, a tunnel would offer better protection against poor weather
conditions and a more comfortable gradient.
All suggestions received in relation to the design of the walking and cycling facilities will be
taken on board throughout the next stages of the project design.
Page 38 of 45
3.6.8. Environment
Air quality
221 comments were provided in relation to air quality, both positive and negative.
173 comments expressed concerns about the impact of the schemes on air quality in
general, with many requesting robust measures to improve air quality, including the
London Borough of Barking and Dagenham, Darren Johnson AM, Clive Efford MP,
BARC, Friends of the Earth, Campaign for Better Transport, London Cycling
Campaign, the London Assembly Labour Group and the Bexley Labour Group
Specifically, the London Borough of Barking and Dagenham and the Bexley Labour
Group requested a low emission zone be implemented for either the whole of
London or in the areas affected by the schemes
31 comments believed that air quality would be improved in some currently
congested areas as a result of the schemes, including the Confederation of Passenger
Transport
14 comments expressed worry about a potential increase in air pollution at Belvedere
6 comments were in relation to the scheme increasing air pollution at Gallions Reach
We understand people's concern regarding air quality in London and we have and will
continue to take into consideration all relevant policies, directives and guidance regarding this
issue, including emerging guidance. Any proposal taken forward would be subject to rigorous
assessment and would need to comply with air quality standards set out in policy and
legislation.
Our initial high level assessments indicate that in 2021 there will be several corridors where
annual average NO2 concentrations are expected to exceed the limit value of 40µg/m3
without the crossings. The initial screening assessment indicates that there would be no
additional locations where air quality would breach legal limits as a result of the crossings.
Our understanding of the impacts of the scheme on air quality will be refined as the scheme
is developed, and further assessment is required to understand the impacts in some areas.
Importantly, the proposals for new river crossings would be subject to full Environmental
Impact Assessment (EIA) once the scheme design has developed further. The scope of the
EIA would be discussed in detail with relevant stakeholders and ultimately considered by the
relevant decision body. The EIA would include modelling of air quality effects to predict
changes at individual receptor locations, as well as consideration of a number of other
environmental effects including nature conservation, visual effects, and land contamination.
Through the EIA process we would identify the likely significant effects of the proposed
scheme(s) and develop a package of mitigation measures if necessary, which would be
subject to consultation.
The air quality assessment that has been undertaken to date has been very high level
(indicative of the early stage we are currently at with the project). More specific and detailed
assessments need to be undertaken once the scheme design has been developed further.
Page 39 of 45
Noise
Concerns about noise pollution were raised in 45 comments.
38 comments raised concern about a general increase in noise pollution for all local
residents as a result of the schemes, including Friends of the Earth, Campaign for
Better Transport and the London Cycling Campaign
6 comments were in relation to specific concerns about an increase in noise pollution
around the Gallions Reach crossing
1 comment raised specific concerns about an increase in noise pollution around the
Belvedere crossing
A high-level assessment has been carried out to consider the change in noise levels
attributed to the implementation of the various traffic scenarios related to the proposals.
This work is available here. It suggests that there may be some limited areas where a
moderate change is experienced, however a detailed noise assessment is required before any
conclusions can be drawn and any specific mitigation measures - if required - designed.
As work on the Gallions Reach and Belvedere crossings progresses, detailed noise
assessments would be undertaken.
Environment and other impacts
45 comments were received about various other concerns in relation to potential
environmental impacts as a result of the schemes.
36 respondents were worried about a threat to local ecology and marine life
The Bexley Labour Group requested assurance that safeguards will be put in place to
protect marine reserves and areas of environmental and ecological importance
6 respondents made general comments that the plans are detrimental to the
environment
MOPAC, and SEGRO Plc both raised concerns over property impacts (including flood
risks)
The Environmental Options Report that formed part of the consultation materials was
designed to compare the impact of various options still under consideration. Given the stage
the project is at and the number of different options still under consideration, this was
considered a proportionate and appropriate approach. It does not comprise either a statutory
or non-statutory Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA), which would be undertaken when
a preferred option has been selected. At this stage, any necessary mitigation measures would
be incorporated and taken into account in the environmental assessment. Further work is
therefore required to understand issues such as flood risk and land contamination in more
detail.
Ecological impacts was one of the focus areas of the Environmental Options Study that was
undertaken and presented as part of this consultation. Terrestrial surveys (on land) found
habitats at Gallions Reach that are suitable for important insect species, a wide range of
waterfowl and wintering birds. It also has the potential to support some protected bird
species. Marine surveys undertaken found a protected species of crustacean. The banks
Page 40 of 45
surrounding the Belvedere area comprise of mudflats, and a number of waterbodies in close
proximity to the crossing location would support water voles.
The effects on other areas surrounding the crossing locations will vary, depending on the
type of crossing that is implemented. Building the crossings as immersed tunnels would be
likely to have more construction-related impacts on marine and terrestrial ecology than
bridges, although this risk could be managed to lower any negative impact.
Suitable mitigation measures will be developed as the design develops to manage any risk to
marine and terrestrial ecology and reduce any adverse impacts.
The locations proposed for the Gallions Reach and Belvedere crossings have been identified
taking account of existing and future land uses in the area, including areas that are or may
become residential. At this stage of the design process, it is not thought that any homes
would need to be demolished to make way for the crossings.
A number of stakeholders raised concerns about specific commercial property impacts at
both Gallions Reach and Belvedere. We would work with existing land owners in the area to
ensure that the crossings are integrated with existing and planned developments.
Page 41 of 45
3.6.9. General
Woolwich Ferry
40 respondents, including London Borough of Tower Hamlets and the Greenwich
Conservatives, believe we should retain the Woolwich Ferry irrespective of whether new
crossings are built.
A decision on the longer term future of the Woolwich Ferry has not yet been taken. TfL is
investing in the Ferry to ensure that it is fit for purpose and reliable into the 2020s. Any
decisions about its longer term future would be subject to public and stakeholder
consultation.
Timescales
There were 111 comments in relation to the the timescales of the project.
110 comments called for the crossing(s) to be built sooner than 2025, including the
London Boroughs of Barking and Dagenham, Havering and Tower Hamlets, National
Grid Property Holdings, London Chamber of Commerce and Industry and the Barking
and Dagenham Chamber of Commerce
ABP called for certainty of delivery of the crossings to be established as a matter of
urgency
We recognise the importance of these crossings and have an ambitious programme for the
delivery of this major infrastructure project. There are still some key decisions to be made
before scheme designs can be finalised such as whether the crossings should be bridges or
tunnels and then a submission made to the Government for permission to construct and
operate the crossings. This non-statutory consultation has been an important step towards a
defined scheme and we will use the feedback received to help to inform these key decisions.
Given the stage the project is currently at and the planning approval process that must be
undertaken, the earliest the crossings could be open is 2025.
Connecting the Capital
There were 7 comments received in relation to ‘Connecting the Capital’, the Mayor and TfL’s
vision for future river crossings in London.
The Gallions Reach and Belvedere crossings that were the focus of this consultation are part
of a wider series of crossings presented in ‘Connecting the Capital’. This document brought
together a number of crossings for public transport, pedestrians, cyclists and vehicles that
have been proposed for London to the 2030s and beyond. We welcome the interest in the
document and the wider proposals for river crossings in London.
Some specific comments were received in support of the proposed pedestrian and cycle
bridge between Rotherhithe and Canary Wharf. This feedback will be shared with the project
team looking at that particular scheme.
Page 42 of 45
3.6.10. Consultation
Level of detail/scheme definition
The London Boroughs of Havering and Barking and Dagenham commented on the proposals
not being specific enough and that more detail is required.
The proposals are not yet at a stage where more detail can be provided. There are still a
number of options to be considered and further work - and consultation - required before a
preferred option can be identified and the costs and effects of the defined scheme set out in
detail. This consultation - and the feedback received from it - is an important step in this
process and more detail on all relevant elements will be provided as the schemes are defined
further.
For example, we have not proposed a specific public transport option yet because it would
be inappropriate to do so without first setting out for the boroughs, other stakeholders and
the public the pros and cons of options and seeking their views. The views on the public
transport options that were presented as part of this consultation will be an important
element in helping to shape a preferred option.
In terms of the level of user charge, we propose to set the initial level of the user charge and
the structure of the charging regime closer to the date that the crossings would open to
traffic. This would ensure that the charging regime reflects the conditions that exist at the
time, including charges at other crossings, and the charges are set at a level that would
manage demand for river crossings in east London most effectively.
And in terms of the final cost of the crossings, this very much depends on some key
decisions that are yet to be taken such as whether they would be bridges or tunnels and what
form of public transport provision is included. These types of decisions could not be taken
until further public and stakeholder consultation had occurred. We therefore presented as
part of this consultation a high level estimate of the cost to build the crossings, expressed as
a range, taking account of the different options still being considered. The ranges reflect the
relatively early stage of development of the crossings and therefore the level of uncertainty.
As we continue to develop the new crossings, we will increase our understanding of the
construction and operating costs involved.
Consultation timing
One stakeholder, the LA21 (Bexley) Traffic and Transport Forum, questioned the timing of
the consultation and why it was undertaken over the Christmas period.
The consultation on the Gallions Reach and Belvedere crossings ran from Wednesday 2
December 2015 through to Friday 12 February 2016. At nearly 11 weeks, this was a lengthy
consultation. The timeframe was longer than normal to take account of the Christmas and
New Year period.
The start date for this consultation was also dependent on the end of the Silvertown Tunnel
consultation. As the schemes are in a similar area, with similar stakeholders and local
communities, we wanted to ensure they did not overlap. The Silvertown Tunnel consultation
finished on 29 November. The Gallions Reach and Belvedere river crossings consultation was
therefore launched in the following week.
Page 43 of 45
Questionnaire
The London Borough of Havering and Royal Borough of Greenwich questioned the value to
be gained by the way the consultation questions (Q2-4) were posed, particularly since
answers would be limited to respondents’ personal experience and not necessarily future
habits.
At this stage, the aim of the consultation was to present the work we had been undertaking,
and the new information we had in relation to public transport and active travel modes. The
questions were unlike those posed as part of previous consultations to gain an understanding
of where the public think they would like to get to with the new crossings, as well as how
they believe they will use them.
This will help us shape the form of the crossings (e.g. the most cost-effective public
transport solution and the appetite for walking and cycling provision) based on local people’s
views. We recognise that this can only be a partial picture, as travel patterns and horizons are
limited by the current opportunities available, and new residents may have different views
and needs, but it is important that the needs of the existing community are understood and
taken into account in planning any new transport links.
Page 44 of 45
3.7. How respondents heard about the consultation
The most common source by which respondents heard about this consultation was via an
email sent by TfL. There were a number of other ways in which respondents heard about the
consultation, including via local groups, friends and family, work and general internet
searches.
Figure 6 – How respondents heard about the consultation
3.8. Comments on the quality of the consultation
Respondents were given the opportunity to comment on the quality of the consultation in a
free text box at the end of the questionnaire. A total of 2,036 respondents (45% of all
respondents) provided feedback to the question.
Positive comments
Satisfied with the consultation / excellent / very good (803 comments)
Good level of detail, well presented and high quality (433 comments)
Clear language and easy to understand (191 comments)
Negative comments
More detail required on local impacts, cost and funding and plans (117 comments)
Social media 4%
Saw it on the TfL website
4%
Received an email from TfL
64%
Read about it in the press
5%
Leaflet 7%
Local borough publication
16%
Page 45 of 45
Should have been more publicity such as roadshows, letters and plans in public
places (115 comments)
4. Next steps
Feedback received as part of this consultation will be used to inform the development of the
crossings. This report will be presented to the Mayor of London and will help to inform the
decisions on the next steps for the project.
However the schemes are progressed, we are committed to ensuring the community are
kept informed, and consulted with before permission to build new crossings is sought, as
well as to working closely with relevant authorities to progress the proposals.
5. Appendix
A number of appendices are presented over the following pages:
Appendix A – Consultation History
Appendix B – Key stakeholders and correspondence
Appendix C – Consultation leaflet
Appendix D – Email to previous respondents and TfL customers
Appendix E – Print advertisement and schedule
Appendix F – Press release and subsequent articles
Appendix G – Tweets posted by TfL
Appendix H – Consultation questionnaire
Appendix I – SDG Analysis and Code Frame
Appendix J – Stakeholders who responded to the consultation
Appendix A – Consultation history
The Gallions Reach and Belvedere river crossings have been developed over a number of years, as a result of feedback received from several consultations. These are outlined in the diagram below.
Figure 1 – East London river crossings consultation history
Appendix B – Stakeholder email and list
Email to stakeholders
Emails were sent to stakeholders identified as having an interest in the scheme (or the overarching ‘Connecting the Capital’ vision that was launched at the same time). This email was sent on Wednesday 2 December 2015 and text and stakeholder recipient list are shown below.
Good morning
London is growing. In fact, the population is expected to rise from 8.6 million to 10 million by 2030. This will increase pressure on the city’s infrastructure, including the river crossings that play a key role in moving people and goods around London.
Connecting the Capital
‘Connecting the Capital’ shows how 13 proposed crossings, including bridges and tunnels – for walking, cycling, public transport and traffic – can support this growth. New crossings will help to unlock the city’s full potential, support thousands of new jobs and homes, drive economic growth and ensure that London competes with other global cities.
These proposals include well publicised schemes such as the Silvertown Tunnel and Crossrail 2, as well as newer ideas which are still at an early stage of development.
You can view a copy of ’Connecting the Capital’ by visiting www.tfl.gov.uk/new-river-crossings
Have your say on the proposed Gallions Reach and Belvedere river crossings
Today we have launched a public consultation for proposed new river crossings at Gallions Reach and Belvedere, which form an integral part of this plan.
These two new road crossings will connect Beckton with Thamesmead and Rainham with Belvedere. They will help to support new jobs and homes in these growing areas of London and create new opportunities for further improvements to the walking, cycling and public transport networks.
We would like to know your thoughts on these schemes, particularly how we can best incorporate public transport, pedestrian and cycling routes into new crossings. To find out more and have your say, please visit our website www.tfl.gov.uk/east-london-crossings, where you can find detailed information about the potential benefits and impacts of the crossings. If you would like to meet our team to discuss the Gallions Reach and Belvedere river crossings in more detail, please get in touch by emailing [email protected] The deadline for comments is Friday 12 February, 2016. Please note that the deadline for our recent consultation on the Silvertown Tunnel has now passed. We will now review and respond to the comments we have received, and we will publish our consultation report next year. We appreciate your time in reading about our project and providing us with your feedback. Yours sincerely, Richard de Cani Managing Director, Planning Transport for London
Stakeholder list 3663 Food Services London A2Dominion Group AA DriveTech Abellio London/Surrey Ltd ABP London Access Company ACFO Ltd Action for Blind People Action on Hearing Loss (RNID) AEG Europe Age UK London Amey plc Angel AIM Apasen Argall BID Armada Community Project Arriva London Arriva the Shires ASD Ltd Asda Asra Housing Association for Consultancy and Engineering (ACE) Association of British Drivers Association of Disabled Professionals Association of Newspaper Distributors Automobile Association (AA) Balfour Beatty plc Barking & Dagenham Safer Transport Team Barking and Dagenham NHS Care Commissioning Group Barking, Havering and Redbridge University Hospitals NHS Trust Belvedere Community Forum Bexley Council Bexley Industrial Logistics Technology Bexley NHS Care Commissioning Group Bidvest Billingsgate Market Birch Sites Ltd Blackheath Joint Working Party Blackheath Society Boots Brent Cross Shopping Centre Brewery Logistics Group
Brewing, Food & Beverage Industry Suppliers Association British Association of Removers British Beer & Pub Association British Council of Disabled People British Deaf Association (BDA) British Frozen Food Federation British Motorcycling Federation British Red Cross British Retail Consortium Bromley Council BskyB CABE Campaign for Better Transport Campaign for Clean Air in London Canal & River Trust Canary Wharf Contractors Canary Wharf Group Canary Wharf Management car2go Carplus CCG Greenwich CCG Havering CCG Redbridge Central London Freight Quality Partnership Centre for London Centrepoint Charlton Central Residents Association Charlton Rail Users Group Chartered Institute of Logistics & Transport (CILT) Chartered Institution of Highways & Transportation (CIHT) Chinese Association of Tower Hamlets Circle 33 City Car Club City of London City of Peace Community Church City of Westminster Civil Engineering Contractors Association (CECA) Clifford Chance Community Links Trust Community Transport Association (CTA) Compass Point Residents Association
Confederation of British Industry (CBI) Confederation of Passenger Transport UK Construction Youth Trust Council for Disabled Children Crossrail Ltd CT Plus CTC CTR Triangle DABD (UK) Dartford Borough Council Dartford District Council Demos Department for Transport (DfT) DHL UK & Ireland Disability Rights UK Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee Docklands Waste Drivers Alliance East & South East London Transport Partnership East End Community Foundation East Greenwich Residents Association East London Business Alliance East Thames Group Eastney Street TRA e-Car Club EEF (Engineering Employers' Federation) End Violence Against Women Environmental Protection UK Essex County Council European Metal Recycling Evening Standard distribution Excel London Family Mosaic Federation of Small Businesses (FSB) First Essex FirstGroup plc Food Storage and Distribution Federation Forest Hill Traders Association Freight Transport Association Freight Transport Association (FTA) Friends of the Earth G4S Galleons Point Residents Association Gallions Housing Association Gateway Housing Association
Gatwick Airport Gnewt cargo Go Ahead London Gravesham District Council Greater London Authority (GLA) Greater London Forum for Older People (GLF) Green Alliance Green Party Greenpeace Greenwich & Lewisham Friends of the Earth Greenwich Carers Centre Greenwich Creekside Residents Association Greenwich Kurdish Community Association Greenwich Millennium Village Association Greenwich Peninsular Chaplaincy Greenwich Safer Transport Team Greenwich Society Greenwich United Church Hainault Business Park BID Havering Safer Transport Team Heathrow Airport Holdings Ltd Herne Hill Society Hertz on Demand Highways Agency (London) Hills Prospect Home from Home HA Horniman Museum House of Commons House of Lords HS2 Ltd IBM ICE -London IER Ilford BID Inclusion London Independent Disability Advisory Group (IDAG) Independent Shoreditch Institute for Sustainability Institute of Advanced Motorists Institute of Couriers Institute of Directors (IoD) Institution of Civil Engineers (ICE)
Intelligent Transport Advisory Group on EU Commission John Lewis Partnership Kasmiri welfare alliance Keltbray Kent County Council King's College London Knight Dragon KPMG LLP Laing O'Rourke LBN Communications Team Leaders in Community Lend Lease Leonard Cheshire Disability Lewisham Clinical Commissioning Group Lewisham Safer Transport Team Lewisham Shpping Centre Lewishman Council Licensed Private Car Hire Association Licensed Taxi Drivers Association Living Streets Local Space Ltd London ambulance Service London Ambulance Service NHS Trust London Assembly London Association of Funeral Directors London Borough of Barking & Dagenham London Borough of Barnet London Borough of Bexley London Borough of Brent London Borough of Bromley London Borough of Camden London Borough of Croydon London Borough of Enfield London Borough of Greenwich London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham London Borough of Haringey London Borough of Havering London Borough of Hounslow London Borough of Islington London Borough of Lambeth London Borough of Lewisham London Borough of Merton London Borough of Newham London Borough of Redbridge London Borough of Richmond upon
Thames London Borough of Southwark London Borough of Tower Hamlets London Borough of Waltham Forest London Borough of Wandsworth London Cab Drivers' Club Ltd London Chamber of Commerce and Industry (LCCI) London City Airport London Cycling Campaign London Cycling Campaign (Greenwich) London Cycling Campaign (Lewisham) London Cycling Campaign (Newham) London Cycling Campaign (Redbridge) London Cycling Campaign (Tower Hamlets) London European Partnership for Transport London First London Forum of Amenity & Civic Societies London Legacy Development Corporation London Power Network London Private Hire Board London Somali Community Alliance London Suburban Taxi Drivers' Coalition London Tenants Federation London Thames Gateway Development Corporation London Tourist Coach Operators Association (LTCOA) London TravelWatch London Visual Impairment Forum (LVIF) London Voluntary Service Council London Wildlife Trust London Youth Look Ahead Housing and Care Ltd Low Carbon Vehicle Partnership Marks & Spencer MENCAP Menzies Distribution Meridian Community Garden and Allotment Metropolitan Police Metropolitan Police - Community Police Millennium Primary School Mineral Products Association MiNet/ROTA
Morden College Morrisons Motorcycle Action Group Motorcycle Industry Association National Children's Bureau (NCB) National Council for Voluntary Youth Services (NCVYS) National Federation of Retail Newsagents National Federation of Retail Newsagents (NFRN) National Grid plc National Grid Transco National Joint Utilities Group Ltd (NJUG) National Motorcycle Council National Union of Students NCVO Network Housing Group Network Rail New Covent Garden Market New London Architecture New Spitalfields Market Newham Chamber of Commerce Newham Safer Transport Team NHS Newham CCG NHS Tower Hamlets CCG Nissan Noise Abatement Society North London Strategic Alliance North London Transport Forum Notting Hill Housing Group O2 Office of Rail Regulation One Housing Group Orchard Tenant & Residents Association PACTS (Parliamentary Advisory Group for traffic Safety) Par Hill Research Ltd ParcelForce Worldwide Partnership for Young London Passenger Focus Peabody Places for People Port of London Authority Pret-a-Manger Private Hire Car Association PUBLICA Queen Elizabeth Olympic Park
Quintain RAC Foundation for Motoring RADAR Radio Taxis Group Ltd Rail Delivery Group (RDG) RBKC / LBHF REAL Redbridge Safer Transport Team RNIB Road Haulage Association (RHA) RoadPeace Royal Borough of Greenwich Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea Royal London Society for the Blind (RLSB) Royal Mail Royal National Institute of the Blind (RNIB) RSA Sainsburys Supermarkets Ltd Salisa Project SCOPE Scotia Gas Networks Sense Siemens Transportation Systems Silvertown Quays Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders (SMMT) South Bank Employers Group South East London Chamber of Commerce South Greenwich Forum South Leytonstone Area Development Association (SLADA) Southern Gas Networks Southern Housing Group Space Syntax Limited SSE (Southern Electric) St Germans Terrace Association Stagecoach London Stratford Renaissance Partnership Sullivan Buses Sustrans Suzy Lamplugh Trust Tamil Community Housing Association TARA Tate & Lyle plc Tate & Lyle Sugars Tesco
Tesco Stores Ltd Textile Services Association Thales Group Thames Water Thames Water Utilities Ltd The Blackheath Society The Charlton Society The Eltham Society The Langton Way Residentd Association The London legacy Development Corporation The Westcombe Society The Who Cares? Trust Thurrock District Council Thurrock Thames Gateway Development Corporation TNT TNT Express Tom Smith Close TRA Tower Hamlets Committee of Local Charities Tower Hamlets Faith Tower Hamlets Federation of Tenanants and Residents Tower Hamlets Homes Tower Hamlets Safer Transport Team Tower Transit Toyota Trafalgar Estate Residents Association Transdev plc Transport Focus Transport for All Transport for London Triangle Management Services Ltd TRL Ltd UK Citizens UK Power Networks United Kingdom Disabled People's Council University College London UPS Urban Design London Valley Grove Residents Group Vanbrugh Park TRA vInspired Virgin Media Virginia Quay Residents Association Viridor Waste
Virtual Norwood Forum VISION 2020UK Walk London Waltham Forest Council Westcombe Society Westfield Group Westfield Management Company UK Ltd Westfield Shopping Towns Ltd Westminster City Council Whizz-Kidz Willow BID Limited Wincanton Wine & Spirit Trade Association YMCA England Young Minds Zipcar
Appendix C– Consultation leaflet
The pflan for new rfiver crossfings fin London
The Rfiver Thames has aflways provfided fimportant connectfions between London and the rest of the worfld, heflpfing to cement fits pflace as one of the worfld’s pre-emfinent cfitfies. But fit can aflso present barrfiers to flocafl travefl.
Thfis fis most evfident fin the east, where the rfiver fis much wfider than fit fis fin the west, and has to accommodate the needs of shfippfing whfich uses thfis part of the rfiver. Wfith east London set to see sfignfificant growth fin popuflatfion, housfing and empfloyment fin the comfing years, we expect fincreased pressure on the exfistfing cross-rfiver finfrastructure, servfices and connectfions that move peopfle around the Capfitafl.
The Mayor fis pflannfing for thfis wfith a number of new rfiver crossfings, provfidfing fimproved connectfions for pedestrfians, cycflfists, pubflfic transport and road users aflfl by a combfinatfion of brfidges, tunnefls and ferrfies.
Much of the pflan focuses on east London, where exfistfing crossfings are fewer than eflsewhere. Work has aflready begun fin thfis area wfith the Emfirates Afir Lfine openfing fin 2012, Crossrafifl set to open fin 2018 and pflannfing permfissfion shortfly befing sought for the Sfiflvertown Tunnefl, whfich coufld be bufiflt by 2022/23. A number of other new connectfions coufld unflock potentfiafl both fin centrafl and east London and these are at varfious stages of deveflopment.
The flocatfion of aflfl of these proposed crossfings can be seen fin the map above and further detafifl on the pflan fis avafiflabfle at tfl.gov.uk/new-rfiver-crossfings
Thfis consufltatfion asks for your comments on two proposed crossfings at Gaflflfions Reach and Beflvedere. These crossfings woufld fimprove connectfions between parts of east and southeast London, heflpfing the flocafl area to accommodate the expected growth fin jobs and popuflatfion, and fincreasfing opportunfitfies for flocafl peopfle.
Thfis fleaflet expflafins the ratfionafle for these two crossfings, provfides detafifl on what we have been finvestfigatfing sfince the flast consufltatfion and presents finformatfion so that you can have an finformed say on what we are proposfing.
A501
A41
A503
A10
A202
A202
A201
A1
A12
A13
A13
A282
A2
A2
A20
A102
M25
A11
A406
Abbey Wood
Wooflwfich Arsenafl
Beam Park (Proposed)
Barkfing
Custom House
Dagenham Dock
Beflvedere
Charflton
Gaflflfions Reach
North Greenwfich
London Cfity Afirport
Canada Water
Battersea Park
Tempfle
Waterfloo
Battersea (Proposed)
Vfictorfia
Imperfiafl Wharf
Cannfing TownCanary Wharf
Barkfing Rfiversfide (Proposed)A501
A41
A503
A10
A202
A202
A201
A1
A12
A13
A13
A282
A2
A2
A20
A102
M25
A11
A406
KEY
Opportunfity Area
Pflanned/ proposed crossfings
0 500m 1km 2kmN
A501
A41
A503
A10
A202
A202
A201
A1
A12
A13
A13
A282
A2
A2
A20
A102
M25
A11
A406
Abbey Wood
Wooflwfich Arsenafl
Beam Park (Proposed)
Barkfing
Custom House
Dagenham Dock
Beflvedere
Charflton
Gaflflfions Reach
North Greenwfich
London Cfity Afirport
Canada Water
Battersea Park
Tempfle
Waterfloo
Battersea (Proposed)
Vfictorfia
Imperfiafl Wharf
Cannfing TownCanary Wharf
Barkfing Rfiversfide (Proposed)A501
A41
A503
A10
A202
A202
A201
A1
A12
A13
A13
A282
A2
A2
A20
A102
M25
A11
A406
KEY
Opportunfity Area
Pflanned/ proposed crossfings
0 500m 1km 2kmN
The pflan for new rfiver crossfings
2 3
About thfis consufltatfion
Foflflowfing a 2014 consufltatfion on east London rfiver crossfing optfions, the Mayor asked Transport for London (TfL) to progress optfions for new brfidges or tunnefls at both Gaflflfions Reach and Beflvedere. Takfing account of the responses recefived, over the flast tweflve months we have been undertakfing varfious pfieces of work on:
• The flfikefly fimpacts of these crossfings, fincfludfing fimpact on traffic flows
• The pubflfic transport network and optfions for pubflfic transport provfisfion on each of the crossfings
• Envfironmentafl consfideratfions and fimpacts
• The economfic benefits of new crossfings
Reports on these fissues are avafiflabfle on the consufltatfion websfite (see page 23 for more detafifls), wfith the mafin fissues summarfised fin thfis fleaflet.
Thfis consufltatfion wfiflfl heflp to progress the project and ensure our decfisfions take account of the vfiews of the pubflfic and stakehoflders.
We woufld flfike to know whether you support the crossfings, how you thfink you woufld use them and the destfinatfions you woufld flfike to be abfle to get to by fimproved pubflfic transport connectfions.
To have your say, pflease vfisfit tfl.gov.uk/east-flondon-crossfings and fiflfl fin the onflfine questfionnafire.
We apprecfiate your tfime fin readfing about our project and provfidfing us wfith your feedback.
The Gaflflfions Reach and Beflvedere rfiver crossfingsLondon’s popuflatfion fis expected to fincrease by 1.5m peopfle over the next 15 years, and over one thfird of thfis growth fis forecast to happen fin east London.
The proposed crossfings at Gaflflfions Reach and Beflvedere can pflay a key rofle fin supportfing thfis growth and heflpfing drfive London’s economy by provfidfing better connectfions across the Thames fin thfis part of the Capfitafl.
They are shown on the map beflow.
Whfifle the exact aflfignment of each crossfing has not been finaflfised, the Gaflflfions Reach crossfing woufld flfink the A2016 Western Way fin Thamesmead wfith the A1020 Royafl Docks Road fin the north. The Beflvedere crossfing woufld flfink the A2016 Bronze Age Way fin Beflvedere wfith the A13 Marsh Way junctfion fin Rafinham.
A102
A10
A11
A13
A12
A12
A118
Barkfing Rd
A406A406
A13 A1306
A12
Green LnHornchurch Rd
A12
A12
M25
New RdMarsh Way
A13
A13
M25
A282
A2 A2
A2016
A2016
E Rochester Way
A2
A205
A2
Royafl Docks Rd
A1020
Western Way
A206
Beflvedere
Rafinham
Dagenham
Barkfing
Beckton
Wooflwfich
Thamesmead
GreenwfichRotherhfithe
CannfingTown
CanaryWharf
11
2
4
5
12
Gaflflfions Reach Crossfing
Beflvedere Crossfing
London Cfity Afirport
The proposed Gaflflfions Reach and Beflvedere rfiver crossfings
4 5
New crossfings woufld reduce journey tfimes, create new opportunfitfies for fimprovements to the waflkfing, cycflfing and pubflfic transport networks across the rfiver, and heflp to stfimuflate deveflopment fin the surroundfing areas.
Our work shows that rfiver crossfings at Gaflflfions Reach and Beflvedere woufld:
• Better connect peopfle, busfinesses and communfitfies wfith each other, fincreasfing access to jobs, educatfion and flefisure actfivfitfies
• Make fit easfier for peopfle and goods to cross the rfiver fin east London
• Create opportunfitfies for new cross-rfiver pubflfic transport flfinks and fimprove flocafl waflkfing and cycflfing optfions
• Support London’s growfing economy by better connectfing busfinesses, and fimprovfing access to flabour markets
• Encourage deveflopment fin the area, heflpfing to address London’s housfing shortage
• Heflp manage the fimpact of popuflatfion growth by reducfing cross-rfiver journey tfimes and dfistances
Each crossfing fis expected to consfist of two flanes fin each dfirectfion – one for pubflfic transport and one for generafl traffic. There wfiflfl be a charge for vehficfles to use the crossfings to manage demand and heflp pay for the scheme. Any pedestrfian and cycflfist facfiflfitfies woufld be segregated from traffic.
The future of the Wooflwfich Ferry We are finvestfing fin the Wooflwfich Ferry fin the short term to ensure fit remafins reflfiabfle and fit for purpose finto the 2020s. Recent refurbfishment work means that the ferry dockfing areas are fin good order and we are pflannfing to purchase new boats to repflace the current vessefls, whfich have been runnfing sfince 1963.
As yet, we have not taken a decfisfion on whether the ferry servfices woufld contfinue beyond the openfing of the new crossfings proposed fin thfis fleaflet.
We woufld consuflt the pubflfic before any decfisfions on the future of the Wooflwfich Ferry are made.
Brfidges or tunnefls?
In our prevfious consufltatfion, we asked for your vfiews on ferry and brfidge optfions around Wooflwfich, Gaflflfions Reach and Beflvedere. The responses findficated a strong preference for brfidges at Gaflflfions Reach and Beflvedere. A number of respondents aflso requested that further consfideratfion be gfiven to tunnefls at both flocatfions.
As a resuflt we are consfiderfing the feasfibfiflfity of brfidges and tunnefls at Gaflflfions Reach and Beflvedere. There fis stfiflfl more work to be done before we can decfide whfich optfion wfiflfl be chosen at each flocatfion, partficuflarfly because the pubflfic transport optfions wfiflfl have a major finfluence on what fis the most feasfibfle and cost effectfive form of crossfing. Artfist’s fimpressfions of what each optfion coufld flook flfike can be seen on the foflflowfing pages.
There are a number of questfions that need to be addressed fin determfinfing whether a brfidge or tunnefl woufld be the preferred optfion fin each flocatfion. These fincflude:
• What form of pubflfic transport fis proposed?
• What woufld the fland and property fimpacts be for each crossfing?
• What woufld the envfironmentafl fimpacts be?
• What woufld the fimpact on other finfrastructure be, fi.e. rfiver traffic and London Cfity Afirport?
• Whfich optfion woufld be most cost-effectfive gfiven the questfions above?
It fis fimportant for us to answer these and other questfions to understand the overaflfl pficture before fidentfifyfing a preferred optfion.
6 7
Gaflflfions Reach brfidge
There are a number of factors to consfider fif bufifldfing a brfidge at Gaflflfions Reach:
• It woufld be flfikefly to be cheaper than a tunnefl
• It woufld need to be hfigh enough not to fimpact on shfippfing beflow, whfifle flow enough to not fimpact London Cfity Afirport’s flfight path
• Pedestrfian/cycfle facfiflfitfies coufld be accommodated, aflthough users woufld be exposed to poor weather
• It woufld be flfikefly to have more fimpact on nearby resfidents than a tunnefl (e.g. vfisuafl fimpacts)
• It coufld make fit more dfifficuflt to deveflop resfidentfiafl sfites cflose to the crossfing compared to a tunnefl
Gaflflfions Reach tunnefl
There are a number of factors to consfider fif bufifldfing a tunnefl at Gaflflfions Reach:
• It woufld be flfikefly to be more expensfive than a brfidge
• It woufld have flfittfle or no fimpact on shfippfing and London Cfity Afirport
• A pedestrfian and cycfle tunnefl coufld be consfidered fless attractfive to users than a brfidge
• It woufld be flfikefly to have fewer fimpacts on nearby resfidents, when compared to a brfidge
• It woufld be flfikefly to fleave more fland avafiflabfle for other uses, partficuflarfly after constructfion
• It woufld be fless susceptfibfle to poor weather than a brfidge
S I L V E R T O W N
N O R T H W O O L W I C H
W O O L W I C H
T H A M E S M E A D W E S T
T O W NC A N N I N G
Thfis fis an artfist’s fimpressfion and fis not fintended to represent the finfished finfrastructure
N
S I L V E R T O W N
N O R T H W O O L W I C H
W O O L W I C H
T H A M E S M E A D W E S T
T O W NC A N N I N G
Thfis fis an artfist’s fimpressfion and fis not fintended to represent the finfished finfrastructure
N
TUNNEL ENTRY/EXIT
TUNNEL ENTRY/EXIT
Artfist’s fimpressfion of a brfidge at Gaflflfions Reach Artfist’s fimpressfion of a tunnefl at Gaflflfions Reach
8 9
Beflvedere brfidge
There are a number of factors to consfider fif bufifldfing a brfidge at Beflvedere:
• It woufld be cflose to major workfing wharves and woufld therefore requfire a hfigh and flong span, whfich coufld fincrease the cost to be sfimfiflar to the cost of a tunnefl at Beflvedere
• Pedestrfian/cycfle facfiflfitfies coufld be accommodated, aflthough users woufld be exposed to poor weather
• Befing further from the London Cfity Afirport, there fis more flexfibfiflfity on the type of structure that can be bufiflt than at Gaflflfions Reach
Thfis fis an artfist’s fimpressfion and fis not fintended to represent the finfished finfrastructure
N
D A G E N H A M
R A I N H A M
B E L V E D E R E
Artfist’s fimpressfion of a brfidge at Beflvedere
Beflvedere tunnefl
There are a number of factors to consfider fif bufifldfing a tunnefl at Beflvedere:
• It coufld be a sfimfiflar cost to a brfidge
• It woufld have flfittfle or no fimpact on shfippfing
• It potentfiaflfly has fless of an fimpact than a brfidge on flocafl propertfies and the future deveflopment of the area, partficuflarfly after constructfion
• It woufld be fless susceptfibfle to poor weather than a brfidge
• A pedestrfian and cycfle tunnefl coufld be consfidered fless attractfive to users than a brfidge
Artfist’s fimpressfion of a tunnefl at Beflvedere Thfis fis an artfist’s fimpressfion and fis not fintended to represent the finfished finfrastructure
N
D A G E N H A M
R A I N H A M
B E L V E D E R E
TUNNEL ENTRY/EXIT
TUNNEL ENTRY/EXIT
10 11
Cross-rfiver pubflfic transport flfinks
The Gaflflfions Reach and Beflvedere rfiver crossfings woufld pflay an fimportant rofle fin fimprovfing pubflfic transport connectfions between east and southeast London.
At the flast consufltatfion, respondents asked us to expflore what fimprovements to the pubflfic transport networks coufld be fincorporated wfithfin the new crossfings.
In addfitfion to consfiderfing new bus routes on both crossfings and the destfinatfions they coufld serve, we have expflored whether fit woufld be possfibfle to provfide new rafifl flfinks as weflfl.
Our work shows that an extensfion of the exfistfing DLR network, or a tram, woufld be more feasfibfle at Gaflflfions Reach than Beflvedere. Thfis fis due to the proxfimfity of the Gaflflfions Reach crossfing to the DLR statfion at Gaflflfions Reach and the hfigher numbers of peopfle flfivfing cflose to the crossfing now and fin the future who coufld benefit from fit.
The DLR or tram woufld be provfided fin addfitfion to the bus network. They woufld requfire major finvestment and each has advantages and dfisadvantages, so we need to better understand how flocafl peopfle woufld use any new pubflfic transport servfices.
Thfis consufltatfion fis seekfing your vfiews on what new pubflfic transport flfinks woufld be most heflpfufl to you, to heflp us understand whfich pubflfic transport optfions woufld be most effectfive fin meetfing flocafl needs.
A summary of these optfions fis set out on the foflflowfing pages, wfith the map opposfite fiflflustratfing some potentfiafl new pubflfic transport flfinks these crossfings coufld provfide. Thfis fincfludes potentfiaflfly flfinkfing to:
• The new Crossrafifl servfices at Abbey Wood, Wooflwfich and Custom House
• DLR servfices at Wooflwfich Arsenafl and Gaflflfions Reach
• The London Underground at Barkfing
• The London Overground at Barkfing and Barkfing Rfiversfide
• Natfionafl Rafifl servfices at Abbey Wood, Wooflwfich, Beflvedere, Barkfing and Dagenham Dock.
Further finformatfion on the work flookfing at pubflfic transport optfions can be found fin the supportfing documents – see page 23.
Potentfiafl new pubflfic transport flfinks across the proposed Gaflflfions Reach and Beflvedere rfiver crossfings
A10
A13
A12
A12
A118
Barkfing Rd
A406
A13
A12
Green Ln
A12
A12
M25
New Rd
A13
M25
A282
A2 A2
A205
A207
A2
Proposed crossfings
Indficatfive pubflfic transport destfinatfions Opportunfity area
Underground
Natfionafl Rafifl Crossrafifl
Overground DLR
Barkfing
Rafinham
Dagenham
Romford
Royafl Docks
Wooflwfich
Erfith
A282
M25
Abbey WoodWooflwfich Arsenafl
Barkfing
Custom House
Dagenham Dock
Beflvedere
Charflton
Gaflflfions Reach
London Cfity Afirport
Canada Water
Canary Wharf
Barkfing Rfiversfide (Proposed)
Beflvedere
Bexfleyheath
Thamesmead
Rotherhfithe
CanaryWharf
12 13
Bus servficesBus servfices are an fimportant part of the proposafls. Both crossfings provfide the opportunfity to run new or extended bus routes across the Thames that woufld serve a wfide range of destfinatfions on efither sfide of the rfiver.
Wfith a bus-onfly soflutfion, fit fis fintended that bus flanes woufld be provfided on the crossfings to separate bus servfices from other traffic, and there fis the potentfiafl for compflementary bus prfiorfity to be provfided on the wfider flocafl road network to provfide rapfid bus transfit flfinks wfith dedficated bus flanes.
Exampfles of the potentfiafl new connectfions fincflude:
• Gaflflfions Reach crossfing – Barkfing, Beckton and the Royafl Docks to Thamesmead, Wooflwfich and Abbey Wood
• Beflvedere crossfing – Dagenham, Rafinham and Romford to Beflvedere, Erfith and Bexfleyheath
These servfices woufld flfink to a wfide range of flocafl areas, and woufld be abfle to respond to changes fin passenger demand as the areas around the crossfings deveflop.
DLRThe exfistfing DLR network comes cflose to the northern end of the Gaflflfions Reach crossfing flocatfion, provfidfing an opportunfity to extend the DLR across fit.
A DLR servfice woufld provfide Thamesmead wfith a hfigh quaflfity, dfirect new rafifl flfink to the Royafl Docks, wfith onward connectfions to Canary Wharf and centrafl London and woufld compflement the new and extended bus routes that woufld use the crossfing.
There fis aflso the potentfiafl to make flonger connectfions, such as passfing through Thamesmead and towards Abbey Wood, or northwards towards Barkfing, efither at the same tfime or after the Gaflflfions Reach crossfing has been bufiflt.
Provfidfing a DLR servfice on the crossfing woufld add to the costs of the scheme (fit fis flfikefly to be more expensfive to fincorporate a DLR servfice through a tunnefl than on a brfidge). It woufld provfide dfirect connectfions to fewer pflaces than new bus routes, but fit woufld greatfly fincrease the capacfity of pubflfic transport flfinks to and from Thamesmead, and fis flfikefly to stfimuflate more growth fin housfing and amenfitfies fin the area than a bus-onfly soflutfion.
Artfist’s fimpressfion of bus prfiorfity over efither crossfing Artfist’s fimpressfion of a DLR servfice over a crossfing at Gaflflfions Reach
14 15
TramUnflfike the DLR, there are no exfistfing tram networks flocaflfly to connect a new tram servfice finto. However, because trams can run at ground flevefl and share the road wfith buses, fit coufld be a flower cost optfion than the DLR whfifle provfidfing sfimfiflar benefits.
A tram network, whfich woufld be provfided fin addfitfion to buses, coufld fincflude servfices from Barkfing to both Wooflwfich and Abbey Wood vfia Gaflflfions Reach DLR statfion, the new crossfing and Thamesmead. Thfis optfion coufld be weflfl fintegrated wfith a number of potentfiafl new deveflopment sfites, provfidfing the new capacfity and connectfions that coufld aflflow thfis growth to take pflace.
Whfifle fit coufld aflso be more strafightforward and fless costfly than the DLR to create new tram flfinks beyond the crossfing fitseflf, fit woufld requfire an finterchange to access the DLR network on the north sfide of the crossfing.
Waflkfing and cycflfingThe crossfings coufld provfide new opportunfitfies for waflkfing and cycflfing journeys across the Thames, brfingfing, for exampfle, the Royafl Docks wfithfin an easy cycflfing dfistance of Thamesmead usfing the Gaflflfions Reach crossfing. Any new cross-rfiver connectfions woufld flfink wfith flocafl waflkfing and cycflfing networks.
If we bufiflt brfidges, pedestrfian and cycflfing facfiflfitfies woufld be provfided aflongsfide the road, however they coufld take around haflf an hour to cross on foot. As a brfidge woufld be around 50 metres above the Thames, fit woufld be a flong cflfimb and affected at tfimes by poor weather. Lfifts coufld be provfided to heflp pedestrfians and cycflfists access a brfidge from ground flevefl, to avofid the flong approach ramps.
To accommodate pedestrfians and cycflfists fin a tunnefl, a separate compartment wfithfin the tunnefl woufld need to be bufiflt for safety reasons. Thfis woufld have the benefit of weather protectfion, but fit coufld be very expensfive to construct and there may be chaflflenges fin makfing fit feefl safe at aflfl tfimes of the day.
Thfis consufltatfion fis seekfing vfiews on whether you thfink you mfight use a crossfing on foot or on a bficycfle, to heflp us understand the flfikefly flevefl of demand for these facfiflfitfies.
Artfist’s fimpressfion of a Tram servfice over a crossfing at Gaflflfions Reach
16 17
We wfiflfl modefl these changes fin more detafifl and may propose changes to the road network to ensure traffic fis managed approprfiatefly. The effect of the crossfings on traffic woufld aflso be affected by any other changes made to the flocafl road networks; for exampfle, the emergfing growth pflans for the area coufld create new road flfinks whfich may finfluence traffic patterns.
More detafifled finformatfion on the flfikefly effects of the schemes on traffic can be found fin the supportfing documents – see page 23.
Traffic fimpactsThe Gaflflfions Reach and Beflvedere rfiver crossfings woufld change traffic patterns fin east and southeast London. Thfis fis because some drfivers woufld change thefir route to take advantage of the new crossfings, fincreasfing traffic on some roads whfifle reducfing fit on others. Some road users woufld be abfle to make shorter journeys, reducfing traffic fin some areas, but fit may aflso mean that some new journeys are made to take advantage of the new opportunfitfies the crossfings provfide.
In generafl, we expect traffic to decrease on certafin routes, such as other rfiver crossfings and the roads approachfing them, such as the A2. We expect traffic to fincrease on the roads approachfing the new crossfings, such as the A406, A13 and roads fin the north of Bexfley and Greenwfich.
The proposed user charge woufld heflp to ensure that traffic voflumes do not cause sfignfificant probflems eflsewhere on the flocafl road network, and woufld dfiscourage drfivers seekfing to avofid the charges at other crossfings.
The map opposfite hfighflfights the mafin routes whfich our finfitfiafl modeflflfing shows coufld experfience changes fin traffic durfing the mornfing peak. Purpfle flfines findficate where traffic coufld decrease and orange flfines findficate where traffic coufld fincrease. Roads fin grey woufld not be flfikefly to see sfignfificant change.
Because of the flfimfited crossfing opportunfitfies fin east London, fit can take a flong tfime to travefl between pflaces on efither sfide of the rfiver. These crossfings woufld reduce the tfime taken to get to the other sfide of the rfiver.
Some expected reductfions fin peak journey tfime (by car) are:
• Thamesmead to Barkfing - around 40 mfinutes• Rafinham to Erfith - around 20 mfinutes
Traffic fimpacts as a resuflt of both crossfings befing bufiflt
M25
A13
A1306
A2
A2
A1020
N Cfircuflar Rd
A102 A207
A207
A206
A206
A206
A205
A205
A20
A20
A20
A12
A12 A12
A12A13
A1216
A10
Beflvedere
Thamesmead
Barkfing
Rafinham
Beckton
WooflwfichRotherhfithe
SfiflvertownCanaryWharf
CannfingTown
Gaflflfions Reach Crossfing
BeflvedereCrossfing
KEYFour + flane roadTwo flane roadLfikefly trafc decrease Lfikefly trafc fincrease
18 19
Envfironmentafl fimpacts We have undertaken a hfigh flevefl envfironmentafl study so we have an finfitfiafl understandfing of the potentfiafl envfironmentafl fimpacts of these two crossfings. Thfis study flooked finto possfibfle fimpacts on afir quaflfity nofise, vfisuafl and urban surroundfings, ground condfitfions and materfiafls, and flocafl ecoflogy.
Afir quaflfity
Prevfious finvestfigatfions have consfidered afir quaflfity fimpacts of each crossfing separatefly. Sfince the flast consufltatfion, we have flooked at the potentfiafl afir quaflfity fimpacts of both crossfings together. Thfis finvoflved a hfigh flevefl assessment of the potentfiafl change fin afir quaflfity (specfificaflfly Nfitrogen Dfioxfide, NO2) concentratfions as a resuflt of vehficfle emfissfions at a number of flocatfions surroundfing the crossfings.
As woufld be expected, the resuflts of the assessment findficate that NO2 concentratfions woufld be flfikefly to fincrease fin areas wfith fincreased traffic, and decrease where roads become fless busy.
Overaflfl, the assessment findficated that there woufld be breaches of the flegafl flfimfits, both wfith and wfithout the scheme, but there woufld be no addfitfionafl flocatfions where afir quaflfity woufld breach flegafl flfimfits as a resuflt of the scheme.
We wfiflfl undertake further detafifled modeflflfing and specfific finvestfigatfions as the desfign of the scheme progresses. Any proposafls taken forward wfiflfl be subject to rfigorous assessment to ensure they compfly wfith afir quaflfity standards set out fin poflficy and flegfisflatfion.
Vfisuafl fimpact, nofise and ecoflogy
Effects on other envfironmentafl factors wfiflfl vary, dependfing on the type of crossfing that fis constructed. Tunnefls woufld be flfikefly to have more constructfion-reflated fimpacts on flocafl ecoflogy than brfidges, aflthough our current assessment of thfis rfisk findficates that fit coufld be managed to reduce any negatfive fimpact.
Brfidges woufld requfire flong approach ramps as weflfl as the mafin structure, and woufld therefore have a greater vfisuafl fimpact on nefighbourfing communfitfies than tunnefls. Brfidges woufld aflso be flfikefly to create more nofise and vfibratfion than a tunnefl. Further work fis requfired to concflude how sfignfificant these fimpacts mfight be and what forms of mfitfigatfion woufld be requfired.
More detafifl on the hfigh flevefl envfironmentafl study can be found fin the supportfing documents – see page 23. More detafifled envfironmentafl finvestfigatfions wfiflfl be undertaken as the project progresses.
Fundfing these crossfings Each crossfing coufld cost fin the order of £1 bfiflflfion. However the finafl costs depend on some decfisfions that stfiflfl need to be made – such as whether they are brfidges or tunnefls, whether they fincflude facfiflfitfies for pedestrfians and cycflfists, or fincflude a rafifl crossfing – and some factors outsfide our controfl, such as future finflatfion. Other factors whfich are currentfly uncertafin fincflude the ground condfitfions, and changes to the road network eflsewhere (such as sfignafls and junctfions) whfich coufld be requfired as a resuflt of the scheme.
The crossfings woufld be partfly funded by chargfing vehficfles to use them. Thfis charge woufld aflso heflp to manage the demand for the new crossfings.
We envfisage that peak perfiod charges woufld be comparabfle to the proposed charge for the Bflackwaflfl and Sfiflvertown tunnefls and those at the Dartford crossfing, aflthough no decfisfions have yet been made on the exact cost. There woufld be scope for dfiscounts and exemptfions, based on, for exampfle, the emfissfions of the vehficfle.
It fis too earfly to determfine exactfly whfich financfing arrangement we woufld use to deflfiver the crossfings. We wfiflfl consfider a range of optfions fincfludfing TfL or government financfing, borrowfing or prfivate finance.
20 21
Tfimfing and next steps Authorfisatfion to construct the Gaflflfions Reach and Beflvedere rfiver crossfings wfiflfl need to be granted by the Government. Subject to authorfisatfion befing gfiven and fundfing befing avafiflabfle, the new crossfings coufld open around 2025.
The foflflowfing shows an findficatfive tfimeflfine and next steps for the Gaflflfions Reach and Beflvedere rfiver crossfings.
• Non-statutory consufltatfion
• Report on outcome of consufltatfion
• Agreement on fundfing • Decfisfion to proceed
• Statutory consufltatfion
• Submfit appflficatfion for the powers needed to bufifld the scheme
• Contract award
• Estfimated compfletfion
NOW – Feb 2016
March 2016
2017
2017/18
2018
2021
2025
Supportfing documents We have produced supportfing materfiafls that contafin a flarge amount of finformatfion about the scheme. We understand you may not have the tfime to read through them aflfl, so we have created a gufide that wfiflfl heflp you find where you can read more about a partficuflar topfic.
Aflfl of the materfiafls are avafiflabfle on our websfite at tfl.gov.uk/east-flondon-crossfings We can aflso provfide paper or eflectronfic copfies of the consufltatfion documents on request. To request a document pflease contact us on the detafifls outflfined overfleaf.
If you’re finterested fin… You shoufld flook at… Sectfion…
The overaflfl case for the new crossfings
Strategfic Outflfine Busfiness Case
Chapter 3
How we narrowed down pubflfic transport optfions
Optfion Assessment Report – Long Lfist
Optfion Assessment Report – Pubflfic Transport Interfim Lfist
Chapter 6
Aflfl
More detafifled drawfings of the brfidge and tunnefl optfions
Brfidge and tunnefl drawfings
Aflfl
Traffic fimpacts and traffic modeflflfing
Traffic Impact Report Aflfl
Envfironmentafl fimpacts and potentfiafl mfitfigatfion measures
Envfironmentafl Optfions Report
Aflfl
How much wfiflfl these proposafls cost and how we are proposfing to fund them
Strategfic Outflfine Busfiness Case
Chapters 4 and 5
How we have consfidered pedestrfians and cycflfists as part of the scheme
Optfion Assessment Report – Long Lfist
Chapter 5
User chargfing as a means of managfing demand on the crossfings
Strategfic Outflfine Busfiness Case
Chapter 3
22 23
Have your say We’d flfike to know whether you support the Gaflflfions Reach and Beflvedere rfiver crossfings, as weflfl as how you thfink you woufld use these new crossfings (whether by vehficfle, on foot, by bficycfle, by pubflfic transport etc). We woufld aflso flfike to know where you woufld flfike fimproved pubflfic transport connectfions.
To have your say, pflease vfisfit our websfite tfl.gov.uk/east-flondon-crossfings and fiflfl fin the onflfine questfionnafire. You may aflso emafifl your comments to [email protected] or wrfite to ‘FREEPOST TfL CONSULTATIONS’.
Don’t forget to provfide your postcode, as thfis wfiflfl heflp fimmensefly when anaflysfing the resuflts.
The cflosfing date for feedback fis Frfiday 12 February 2016.
More finformatfion If you have any further questfions or to request a copy of thfis fleaflet fin Brafiflfle, flarge-text or another flanguage, pflease contact us by emafifl [email protected] or by caflflfing 0343 222 1155.*
*servfice and network charges may appfly. Vfisfit tfl.gov.uk/terms for detafifls.
Prfinted on recycfled paper
Appendix D – Emails to the public
Email to previous respondents
The below email was sent to approximately 6,000 individuals who had responded to the 2014 consultation on river crossing options east of Silvertown. This email was sent on Wednesday 2 December 2015.
Dear Sir/Madam We thought you may be interested to know that today we have launched a public consultation on new river crossings at Gallions Reach and Belvedere. These two new road crossings will connect Beckton with Thamesmead and Rainham with Belvedere. They would help to support new jobs and homes in these growing areas of London and create new opportunities for further improvements to the walking, cycling and public transport networks. We would like to know your thoughts on these schemes, particularly how we can best incorporate public transport, pedestrian and cycling routes into new crossings. To find out more and have your say, please visit our website www.tfl.gov.uk/east-london-crossings, where you can find detailed information about the potential benefits and impacts of the crossings. The deadline for comments is Friday 12 February 2016. Kind regards, TfL River Crossings Consultation team
Email to TfL database
The following email was sent to almost 450,000 recipients on the TfL database on Friday 4 December 2015.
Dear
Following last year’s consultation, we now seek further comments on proposals for new river crossings at Gallions Reach and Belvedere. These would provide better connections between east and southeast London and offer new cross-river public transport, walking and cycling opportunities.
For full details and to share your views, please visit tfl.gov.uk/east-london-crossings
This consultation will run until Friday 12 February 2016.
Yours sincerely,
Richard De Cani
Managing Director Planning
These are our customer service updates about consultations. To unsubscribe, please click here
Appendix E – Print advertisements
Print advertising was utilised to promote the consultation, throughout a number of local publications. A copy of the ad, as well as the schedule, can be seen below.
Print advertisement
Print advertisement schedule
30
-Nov
07-D
ec
14-D
ec
21-D
ec
28-D
ec
04-J
an
11-J
an
18-J
an
25-J
an
01-F
eb
08-F
eb
Borough publications
The Newham Mag 15 East End Life 7 11 Greenwich Times 8 11 2 Regional Press
Newham & Stratford Recorder Series 2 16 27 Lewisham & Greenwich News Shopper 2 16 3 Barking & Dagenham Post 9 13 27 Barking Yellow Advertiser 16 20 3 Bexley News Shopper 2 13 3 Romford Recorder 2 13 3 Romford Yellow Advertiser 9 6 27 Ilford Recorder 3 21 Ilford Yellow Advertiser 10 28
Appendix F – Press release and coverage
Press release
The TfL press release covering the launch of ‘Connecting the Capital’ and the start of
consultation on the Gallions Reach and Belvedere river crossings can be viewed on the TfL
website:
https://tfl.gov.uk/info-for/media/press-releases/2015/december/mayor-sets-out-bold-
vision-for-13-new-river-crossings-for-lond
Press coverage
There was a high amount of coverage of the launch of the Mayor’s vision for new river
crossings in London, which included the Gallions Reach and Belvedere river crossings. This
resulted in a high level of promotion for the launch of consultation in the media. Links to
some of the coverage are shown below:
Broadcast media
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b06qmqs2/bbc-london-news-02122015
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-34982994
http://www.itv.com/news/london/2015-12-03/13-new-crossings-over-the-river-thames-by-
2050/
http://www.lbc.co.uk/boris-unveils-plan-for-new-thames-bridges-in-classic-style-120820
National and regional media
http://www.cityam.com/230052/these-are-the-13-bridges-and-tunnels-to-cross-the-
thames-boris-johnson-wants-to-build-by-2050
Trade publications
http://www.constructionenquirer.com/2015/12/03/plan-for-13-extra-thames-crossings-in-
london/
http://www.constructionenquirer.com/2015/12/03/plan-for-13-extra-thames-crossings-in-
london/
http://www.theconstructionindex.co.uk/news/view/consultation-opens-on-new-london-
river-crossings
http://freightinthecity.com/2015/12/fta-welcomes-tfls-east-london-river-crossing-plans-to-
tackle-congestion/
http://www.logisticsmanager.com/2015/12/tfl-plans-two-new-thames-crossings/
http://londonist.com/2015/12/13-new-river-crossings-for-london-in-boris-s-vision
Global media
http://www.globalpost.com/article/6698827/2015/12/03/feature-mayor-london-visions-13-
new-bridges-across-river-thames
Appendix G – Tweets
Tweets were sent from the general TfL Twitter account as well as the TfL Taxi and Private Hire Twitter account. @TfL Transport for London @TfL 2 Dec 2015 A consultation for Belvedere and Gallions Reach river crossings has launched today, don’t forget to have your say. http://ow.ly/VmVNa Transport for London @TfL 4 Dec 2015 More river crossings are vital to London’s growth - have your say about two new proposed east London river crossings http://ow.ly/VvsmM Transport for London @TfL Jan 20 Don’t forget to have your say about the proposed Gallions Reach and Belvedere river crossings http://ow.ly/Xj4uU Transport for London @TfL Jan 23 Cross-river public transport options are proposed as part of the Gallions Reach and Belvdere river crossings – have your say Transport for London @TfL Jan 25 The proposed Gallions Reach and Belvedere crossings would help support new jobs and homes on both sides of the river http://ow.ly/Xj4O8 Transport for London @TfL Feb 5 There’s just one week to go to have your say on our proposals for the Gallions Reach and Belvedere river crossings – http://ow.ly/XZ0Jx Transport for London @TfL Feb 8 Have you had your say on the proposed Gallions Reach and Belvedere river crossings? Consultation closes this Friday–http://ow.ly/XZ0Sf @TfLTPH TfL TPH @TfLTPH 30 Dec 2015 Have your say on new river crossings in east and southeast London http://ow.ly/WpE9p Consultation closes on 12 Feb 2016. TfL TPH @TfLTPH Jan 4 Have your say on new river crossings in east and southeast London http://ow.ly/WpDcq Consultation closes on 12 Feb 2016. TfL TPH @TfLTPH Jan 7 Have your say on new river crossings in east and southeast London http://ow.ly/WssBY Consultation closes on 12 Feb 2016. TfL TPH @TfLTPH Jan 9 Have your say on new river crossings in east and southeast London http://ow.ly/WNVOC Consultation closes on 12 Feb 2016. TfL TPH @TfLTPH Jan 14 Have your say on new river crossings in east and southeast London http://ow.ly/WXvdV Consultation closes on 12 Feb 2016.
TfL TPH @TfLTPH Jan 15 Have your say on new river crossings in east and southeast London http://ow.ly/WZKBM Consultation closes on 12 Feb 2016. TfL TPH @TfLTPH Jan 26 Have your say on new river crossings in east and southeast London http://ow.ly/Xp1z5 Consultation closes on 12 Feb 2016. TfL TPH @TfLTPH Jan 26 Have your say on new river crossings in east and southeast London http://ow.ly/Xxnc4 Consultation closes on 12 Feb 2016. TfL TPH @TfLTPH Jan 31 Have your say on new river crossings in east and southeast London http://ow.ly/XAktu Consultation closes on 12 Feb 2016. TfL TPH @TfLTPH Feb 1 Have your say on new river crossings in east and southeast London http://ow.ly/XFQIV Consultation closes on 12 Feb 2016. TfL TPH @TfLTPH Feb 4 Have your say on new river crossings in east and southeast London http://ow.ly/XFQKU Consultation closes on 12 Feb 2016. TfL TPH @TfLTPH Feb 7 Have your say on new river crossings in east and southeast London http://ow.ly/XFQMW Consultation closes on 12 Feb 2016. TfL TPH @TfLTPH Feb 9 Have your say on new river crossings in east and southeast London http://ow.ly/XFQPm Consultation closes on 12 Feb 2016.
Appendix H – Consultation questionnaire
O ur propos als T he clos ing date for any comments is 12 F ebruary 2016.
1. Do you support new cross ings at G allions R each and B elvedere?
Y es I support both cross ings I s upport G allions R each only I s upport B elvedere only I don’t s upport either cross ing
2. Which of these destinations / transport hubs would you prefer new or improved public trans port links to? (please s elect up to three) P lease help us to identify local is sues to this question by providing your postcode in the ‘About you’ section.
Abbey Wood B arking B arking R ivers ide B elvedere B exleyheath C anary Wharf C entral L ondon C ity A irport
Dagenham E as t Ham E ltham E rith G reenwich Hornchurch Ilford L ewisham
R ainham R omford R oyal Docks S tratford T hamesmead Woolwich O ther (please specify) ____________________
3. If we build a new cros s ing at G allions R each, do you think you would use it: (tick all that apply)
B y car Motorbike B y another type of vehicle (e.g. van, HG V, taxi) O n foot O n a cycle O n public transport (e.g. bus , DL R , tram) I don’t think I would use a new cross ing at G allions R each
4. If we build a new cros s ing at B elvedere, do you think you would use it: (tick all that apply)
B y car Motorbike B y another type of vehicle (e.g. van, HG V, taxi) O n foot O n a cycle O n public transport (e.g. bus) I don’t think I would use a new cross ing at B elvedere
5. P lease use this space for any other comments you may have, for example on the public transport options or any of the technical reports we have als o published.
What is your name? _________________________________________________________ What is your email addres s ? __________________________________________________ If responding on behalf of an organisation, bus iness or campaign group, please provide us with the name. _____________________________________________________________ How did you hear about this consultation? R eceived an email from T fL R ead about it in the press T hrough s ocial media S aw an advert on the T fL webs ite O ther (please advise)
P leas e tell us what you think about the quality of this consultation (for example, the information we have provided, any printed material you have received, any maps or plans , the webs ite and questionnaire etc)
Appendix I – Steer Davis Gleave consultation report
Steer Davies Gleave has prepared this material for Transport for London. This material may only be used
within the context and scope for which Steer Davies Gleave has prepared it and may not be relied upon
in part or whole by any third party or be used for any other purpose. Any person choosing to use any
part of this material without the express and written permission of Steer Davies Gleave shall be deemed
to confirm their agreement to indemnify Steer Davies Gleave for all loss or damage resulting therefrom.
Steer Davies Gleave has prepared this material using professional practices and procedures using
information available to it at the time and as such any new information could alter the validity of the
results and conclusions made.
Gallions Reach and Belvedere River Crossings Consultation
Transport for London
Report
March 2016
Our ref: 22886701
Prepared by:
Prepared for:
Steer Davies Gleave
28-32 Upper Ground
London SE1 9PD
Transport for London
Lauren Barton
TfL Planning
Transport for London
Windsor House, 42-50 Victoria Street
London, SW1H 0TL
+44 20 7910 5000
www.steerdaviesgleave.com
March 2016
Contents
Executive summary ...................................................................................................................... 1
1 Introduction ....................................................................................................................... 3
Overview ....................................................................................................................................... 3
2 Methodology...................................................................................................................... 4
Consultation process .................................................................................................................... 4
Consultation analysis .................................................................................................................... 5
3 Consultation findings .......................................................................................................... 7
Overview ....................................................................................................................................... 7
Question one: Level of support .................................................................................................... 9
Question two: Destinations ........................................................................................................ 13
Questions three and four: Modes of transport .......................................................................... 20
Question five: Free text comments on proposals ...................................................................... 26
Quality of consultation ............................................................................................................... 31
Figures
Figure 3.1: Distribution of respondents to the consultation ........................................................ 8
Figure 3.2: Level of support for new river crossings ..................................................................... 9
Figure 3.3: Level of support in top ten boroughs, by number of respondents .......................... 10
Figure 3.4: Respondents’ level of support by borough .............................................................. 12
Figure 3.5: Interest areas ............................................................................................................ 15
Figure 3.6: Top ten desire lines for improved public transport links ......................................... 16
Figure 3.7: Desire lines for improved public transport links – destinations south of the Thames,
originating in the north of London ............................................................................................. 18
Figure 3.8: Desire lines for improved public transport links – destinations north of the Thames,
originating in the south of London ............................................................................................. 19
Figure 3.9: Respondents wishing to cross at Gallions Reach using a motorised vehicle ............ 22
Figure 3.10: Respondents wishing to cross at Belvedere using a motorised vehicle ................. 22
Figure 3.11: Respondents wishing to cross at Gallions Reach using public transport ............... 23
Figure 3.12: Respondents wishing to cross at Belvedere using public transport ....................... 23
Figure 3.13: Respondents wishing to cross at Gallions Reach on foot ....................................... 24
March 2016
Figure 3.14: Respondents wishing to cross at Belvedere on foot .............................................. 24
Figure 3.15: Respondents wishing to cross Gallions Reach on a bicycle .................................... 25
Figure 3.16: Respondents wishing to cross at Belvedere on a bicycle ....................................... 25
Tables
Table 3.1: Level of support ........................................................................................................... 9
Table 3.2: Level of support in top ten boroughs, by number of respondents ........................... 11
Table 3.3: Top destinations or transport hubs for improved public transport access ............... 13
Table 3.4: Top ten most popular ‘other’ destinations ................................................................ 14
Table 3.5: Top 14 desire lines for improved public transport links ............................................ 17
Table 3.6: How respondents would use a new crossing at Gallions Reach ................................ 20
Table 3.7: How respondents would use a new crossing at Belvedere ....................................... 21
Table 3.8: Responses grouped by theme and subtheme for all levels of support ..................... 26
Table 3.9: Themes and key comments from respondents who left a response to the open
question ...................................................................................................................................... 28
Table 3.10: Comments relating to the quality of the consultation ............................................ 31
Appendices
A Questionnaire
B Data Tables
Gallions Reach and Belvedere River Crossings Consultation | Report
March 2016 | 1
Executive summary
Background
Following a 2014 consultation on east London river crossing options, the Mayor of London
asked Transport for London (TfL) to progress options for new bridges or tunnels at both
Gallions Reach and Belvedere. Taking account of the responses received, over the last twelve
months TfL has been undertaking various pieces of work on:
the likely impacts of the crossings, including impact on traffic flows;
the public transport network and options for public transport provision on each of the
crossings;
environmental considerations and impacts; and
the economic benefits of new crossings.
River Crossings Consultation
The consultation held in winter 2015/16 was designed to seek the views of the public and
stakeholders about developing proposals for two new river crossings at Gallions Reach and
Belvedere. TfL sought to investigate:
levels of support for new crossings at Gallions Reach and Belvedere;
destinations local residents would like to access using the new crossings;
the modes of transportation respondents would most likely use to cross the river; and
themes emerging from other comments left by respondents to the consultation.
Consultation findings
In total, 4,519 responses were submitted to the consultation, including 141 responses from
organisations, business or campaign groups (this does not include stakeholder responses,
which were analysed separately by TfL).
2,920 responses (82%) originated from the Royal Borough of Greenwich and the London
Boroughs of Bexley, Newham, Havering and Barking and Dagenham which would be directly
affected by the proposed new crossings.
Proposals for new crossings were supported by the majority of respondents with support
being broken down at the following levels:
77% supported both crossings;
10% supported neither crossing;
7% supported a crossing at Gallions Reach only;
4% supported a crossing at Belvedere only; and
2% did not provide a response.
Respondents were asked which destinations to which they would like improved public
transport links. A summary of the most popular destinations respondents would like improved
public transport links to include:
Central London;
Greenwich;
Woolwich;
City Airport; and
Bexleyheath.
Gallions Reach and Belvedere River Crossings Consultation | Report
March 2016 | 2
Respondents were asked if they were to use the new crossings, which modes of transport
would they use to make their journeys.
Respondents proposing to use the crossing at Gallions Reach stated they would use make
journeys by:
car 39%;
public transport 28%;
cycle 13%;
on foot 10%;
other vehicle 6%; and
motorbike 4%
Respondents proposing to use the crossing at Belvedere stated they would make journeys by:
car 42%;
public transport 26%;
cycle 12%;
on foot 10%;
other vehicle 6%; and
motorbike 4%
Respondents were invited to leave additional comments about other aspects of the proposals,
such as technical reports or preferences for a type of crossing. In total 2,224 free text
responses were received, these were analysed against a code frame which was developed to
quantify the importance of responses. Comments were subsequently grouped into themes
and sub-themes. The sub-themes which attracted the highest proportion of comments in
relation to all responses received were:
general support for the scheme 25%;
concern over traffic increases 20%;
support due to congestion relief 16%;
support for tunnels 11%;
concern over poor air quality as a result of the scheme7%;
opposition to a user charge 11%;
support for extension of DLR 9%;
public transport only crossings 8%; and
opposition to the scheme 5%.
Gallions Reach and Belvedere River Crossings Consultation | Report
March 2016 | 3
1 Introduction Overview
Background to the proposals
1.1 The proposals for the Gallions Reach and Belvedere river crossings have been developed over
a number of years and with feedback from previous consultations.
1.2 The latest consultation was held between Wednesday 2 December 2015 and Friday 12
February 2016 (referred to in this report as the ‘winter 2015/16 consultation’). The public and
stakeholders were invited to submit their views on the proposals.
1.3 Steer Davies Gleave was appointed to undertake analysis of the public feedback received to
the consultation and this report provides an analysis of the responses received.
Gallions Reach and Belvedere River Crossings Consultation | Report
March 2016 | 4
2 Methodology Consultation process
Introduction
2.1 Following a 2014 consultation on east London river crossing options, the Mayor asked
Transport for London (TfL) to progress options for new bridges or tunnels at both Gallions
Reach and Belvedere. Taking account of the responses received to that consultation, over the
last twelve months TfL has been undertaking a wide range of other work including on:
The likely impacts of the crossings, including impact on traffic flows;
The public transport provision on each of the crossings;
Environmental considerations and impacts; and
The economic benefits of new crossings.
Scope of the consultation
2.2 The Winter 2015/16 consultation was designed to seek the views of the public and
stakeholders about developing proposals for two new river crossings at Gallions Reach and
Belvedere. The scope of issues consulted on included:
Support for new crossing at Gallions Reach and Belvedere;
Destinations local residents would like to access by public transport using the new
crossings in order to better understand where the public want to get to with improved
public transport links; and
The modes of transportation respondents would most likely use to cross the river.
Outside the scope of the consultation
2.3 The following were outside the scope of this consultation:
comments specifically relating to charging at the Dartford crossing;
suggestions for extensions to the London Underground in east and south east London;
comments relating to the proposed Silvertown Tunnel scheme; and
comments relating to the proposed Garden Bridge.
Consultation portal and reporting
2.4 The consultation was run online, via TfL’s consultation hub. Respondents were able to visit the
website, read about the project, download all the technical reports and register their response
via the online questionnaire.
2.5 People could also submit their thoughts in writing by sending a response to a postage paid
address, or by calling TfL’s contact centre.
Gallions Reach and Belvedere River Crossings Consultation | Report
March 2016 | 5
2.6 Steer Davies Gleave was appointed to analyse all public responses received via the portal. TfL
has undertaken analysis of all stakeholder responses received.
Consultation analysis
Consultation questionnaire
2.7 The winter 2015/16 consultation questionnaire consisted of four closed questions and two
open questions. Closed questions asked respondents to state their level of support for the
scheme, identify destinations they would like to travel to and which mode of transport they
would use to cross at one of the new crossing points.
2.8 One open question allowed respondents to leave any further comments about the scheme in
general.
2.9 The second open question was asked to all respondents about how they rated the quality of
the consultation. This questioned allowed respondents to leave feedback on the quality of
consultation materials, communications and other themes relating to the consultation
process.
2.10 In addition, respondents were asked for their name, email address, postcode and if they were
responding on behalf of an organisation, business or campaign group and if so, for the name of
their organisation. A copy of the consultation questionnaire can be found in Appendix A.
Analysis of responses
2.11 A code frame was developed to help analyse the responses to the open question that invited
respondents to provide any further opinions relating to proposals.
2.12 The code frame consists of a series of themes, sub-themes and within these, more detailed
comments. From the responses to the consultation, a list of ten themes and 42 sub themes
were identified. The list which follows details an example of the key themes discussed in
response to the open question:
Principle;
Infrastructure;
Public Transport;
Road Network;
Traffic;
User Charge;
Walking and Cycling;
Environment;
General; and
Consultation.
2.13 A second code frame was developed to help analyse the responses to the open question that
invited respondents to provide comments about the quality of the consultation.
2.14 The code frame consisted of themes and within these, more detailed comments. From the
responses to the consultation, two themes and 50 comments were identified.
2.15 Following agreement of the key themes and sub themes with TfL, all open responses were
coded. During the coding process it was necessary to add additional codes to the code frames
as appropriate. Individual comments were coded to one or many of the codes within the code
frame as relevant.
Gallions Reach and Belvedere River Crossings Consultation | Report
March 2016 | 6
2.16 To ensure consistency of coding, the first 50 responses coded were checked by TfL. For full
copies of the code frames, see Appendix B.
Gallions Reach and Belvedere River Crossings Consultation | Report
March 2016 | 7
3 Consultation findings Overview
3.1 In total 4,519 responses were received to the Gallions Reach and Belvedere river crossings
consultation. Respondents included 4,388 members of the public (97%) and 131 responses
from organisations, business or campaign groups (3%). This does not include the responses
submitted by organisations on TfL’s stakeholder database. These responses were analysed
separately by TfL using the same code frame as was developed for the public responses.
3.2 Figure 3.1 maps respondent postcodes alongside the London borough boundaries. The
majority of respondents are located within Greater London, with the highest response levels
from areas surrounding the proposed new crossing locations in east and south east London.
Gallions Reach and Belvedere River Crossings Consultation | Report
March 2016 | 8
Figure 3.1: Distribution of respondents to the consultation
Gallions Reach and Belvedere River Crossings Consultation | Report
March 2016 | 9
Question one: Level of support
3.3 The first closed question asked respondents if they supported the proposals for new crossings
at Gallions Reach and Belvedere. 4,452 respondents answered this question and indicated
their support for:
both crossings;
a crossing at Gallions Reach;
a crossing at Belvedere; or
none of these.
3.4 In total 77% of respondents supported both Gallions Reach and Belvedere crossings, whilst
10% of respondents supported neither. Seven percent of respondents supported a crossing at
Gallions Reach only and a further four percent supported a crossing at Belvedere only. Two
percent of respondents failed to indicate their level of support. Table 3.1 and Figure 3.2 show
respondents’ level of support.
Figure 3.2: Level of support for new river crossings
Table 3.1: Level of support
Level of support Respondents Proportion
Support both crossings 3,456 77%
Doesn’t support either crossing 475 10%
Support Gallions Reach only 325 7%
Support Belvedere only 196 4%
Not Answered 67 2%
Respondents total 4,519 100%
Gallions Reach and Belvedere River Crossings Consultation | Report
March 2016 | 10
Distribution of respondents
3.5 A table of support by borough for authorities with the highest response rates can be seen in
Table 3.2, with a complete breakdown provided in Appendix B.
3.6 The chart in Figure 3.3 shows the different types of response received from respondents,
grouped by the respondent's home borough. The boroughs with the highest numbers of
respondents are shown (top ten). Where the total number of responses for each type of
response is greater than 150, the number of responses are shown in brackets in the data
labels.
3.7 Respondents’ postcodes were mapped to show the level of support for each option, by
London borough, which is shown in Figure 3.4.
Figure 3.3: Level of support in top ten boroughs, by number of respondents
1%
1%
2%
3%
3%
6% (213)
8% (279)
9% (305)
19% (681)
21% (729)
5% (172)
3%
1%
1%
2%
2%
1%
1%
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30%
Southwark
Bromley
Tower Hamlets
Redbridge
Lewisham
Barking &Dagenham
Havering
Newham
Bexley
Greenwich
Yes I support both crossings I don’t support either crossing
I support Gallions Reach only I support Belvedere only
Not answered
Gallions Reach and Belvedere River Crossings Consultation | Report
March 2016 | 11
Table 3.2: Level of support in top ten boroughs, by number of respondents
London Borough
Yes I support
both crossings
I don’t support either
crossing
I support Gallions
Reach only
I support Belvedere
only
Not answered
Total responses
Greenwich 729 21% 107 3% 67 2% 38 1% 8 0% 949 27%
Bexley 681 19% 172 5% 71 2% 49 1% 15 0% 988 28%
Newham 305 9% 18 1% 39 1% 18 1% 3 0% 383 11%
Havering 279 8% 17 0% 32 1% 23 1% 3 0% 354 10%
Barking and Dagenham
213 6% 3 0% 17 0% 13 0% 0 0% 246 7%
Lewisham 104 3% 8 0% 5 0% 2 0% 3 0% 122 3%
Redbridge 89 3% 1 0% 10 0% 2 0% 1 0% 103 3%
Tower Hamlets 80 2% 6 0% 4 0% 2 0% 0 0% 92 3%
Bromley 45 1% 5 0% 3 0% 1 0% 0 0% 54 2%
Southwark 42 1% 2 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 46 1%
Total for top ten 2567 72% 339 10% 248 7% 148 4% 33 1% 3337 94%
Overall totals 2742 77% 362 10% 249 7% 151 4% 36 1% 3552 100%
Gallions Reach and Belvedere River Crossings Consultation | Report
March 2016 | 12
Figure 3.4: Respondents’ level of support by borough
Gallions Reach and Belvedere River Crossings Consultation | Report
March 2016 | 13
Question two: Destinations
3.6 Respondents were asked about destinations they would like to have improved public transport
links to. A list of 22 possible destinations or transport hubs were given as options, with the
opportunity for respondents to add other points or places of interest in an open response box.
3.7 Respondents were asked to select up to three destinations that they thought they might like
to travel to with improved public transport links (though they had the ability to choose more if
they wished). 4,182 respondents answered the question, and between them selected 14,222
destinations. A full breakdown of responses is provided in Table 3.3.
Table 3.3: Top destinations or transport hubs for improved public transport access
Destination Responses Proportion of respondents
Central London 1,092 26.1%
Greenwich 976 23.3%
Woolwich 968 23.2%
City Airport 966 23.1%
Bexleyheath 872 20.9%
Canary Wharf 831 19.9%
Thamesmead 824 19.7%
Abbey Wood 780 18.7%
Belvedere 731 17.5%
Stratford 729 17.4%
Barking 653 15.6%
Romford 542 13.0%
Dagenham 517 12.4%
Lewisham 509 12.2%
Erith 499 11.9%
Eltham 486 11.6%
Royal Docks 420 10.0%
Ilford 392 9.4%
Barking Riverside 375 9.0%
Rainham 374 8.9%
Hornchurch 344 8.2%
East Ham 342 8.2%
Other (please specify) 287 6.9%
Total 14,222 347%
3.8 Respondents also had the choice of nominating an ‘other’ destination they would like access
to with improved public transport links. A total of 553 further choices were put forward, of
which 457 were valid comments. 96 comments were coded as invalid as respondents did not
provide a destination or an answer relevant to the question.
3.9 117 of 457 comments were unique, cited by only one respondent. The remaining 340
comments were comprised of 62 other destinations. A list of the ten most popular ‘other’
destinations can be seen in Table 3.4.
Gallions Reach and Belvedere River Crossings Consultation | Report
March 2016 | 14
Table 3.4: Top ten most popular ‘other’ destinations
Destination Number of respondents Proportion of respondents
Dartford 25 5.5%
Sidcup 19 4.2%
Welling 19 4.2%
Blackheath 17 3.7%
Bromley 15 3.3%
Charlton 14 3.1%
Bexley 10 2.2%
Subtotal 202 4.2%
Grand Total 457 10.9%
Top 10 journeys
3.10 Home postcodes and destinations were analysed to determine the top 14 journeys
respondents wished to make.
3.11 Destinations were specified by respondents in their answers to the consultation question. To
determine origins, home postcodes were matched to postcode sectors and then classified by
locations of interest (based on information provided by TfL) as detailed below. Origins outside
these specific locations were excluded from our analysis, as they were outside the area of
interest. A map of the interest areas can be seen in Figure 3.5.
Abbey Wood;
Barking;
Barking Riverside;
Beckton;
Belvedere;
Bexleyheath;
Blackheath;
Charlton;
Dagenham;
Dartford;
East Ham;
Eltham;
Erith;
Greenwich;
Hornchurch and Upminster;
Ilford;
Rainham;
Romford;
Royal Docks;
Sidcup and Bexley;
Stratford and West Ham;
Thamesmead;
Thurrock;
Welling; and
Woolwich.
3.12 Within the top 14 journeys that respondents wished to make, four pairs of origins and
destinations were within the same interest areas. These journeys have been included in the
list to highlight the importance of local trips.
3.13 Of the remaining pairs four of the top 14 trips are cross river journeys. A list of the top pairs
can be seen in Table 3.5.
3.14 A map of the top ten pairs, excluding trips within the same area can be seen in Figure 3.6
Gallions Reach and Belvedere River Crossings Consultation | Report
March 2016 | 15
Figure 3.5: Interest areas
Gallions Reach and Belvedere River Crossings Consultation | Report
March 2016 | 16
Figure 3.6: Top ten desire lines for improved public transport links
Gallions Reach and Belvedere River Crossings Consultation | Report
March 2016 | 17
Table 3.5: Top 14 desire lines for improved public transport links
Origin Destination Number Cross River Trip
Thamesmead Thamesmead 240 No
Woolwich Woolwich 198 No
Thamesmead Central London 180 Yes
Thamesmead Woolwich 177 No
Bexleyheath Bexleyheath 168 No
Thamesmead City Airport 149 Yes
Thamesmead Abbey Wood 148 No
Thamesmead Canary Wharf 141 Yes
Thamesmead Greenwich 138 No
Thamesmead Bexleyheath 122 No
Belvedere Belvedere 116 No
Thamesmead Belvedere 103 No
Abbey Wood Belvedere 102 No
Thamesmead Stratford 100 Yes
Analysis of cross-river journeys
3.15 Using home postcodes and destinations respondents wished to travel to using public
transport; analysis was undertaken to identify the top cross river journeys originating in the
areas of interest.
3.16 Figure 3.7 shows the top nine destinations that respondents north of the river would like to
travel to using public transport, whilst Figure 3.8 shows the top 13 destinations respondents
south of the river would like to travel to using public transport.
Gallions Reach and Belvedere River Crossings Consultation | Report
March 2016 | 18
Figure 3.7: Desire lines for improved public transport links – destinations south of the Thames, originating in the north of London
Gallions Reach and Belvedere River Crossings Consultation | Report
March 2016 | 19
Figure 3.8: Desire lines for improved public transport links – destinations north of the Thames, originating in the south of London
Gallions Reach and Belvedere River Crossings Consultation | Report
March 2016 | 20
Questions three and four: Modes of transport
Gallions Reach
3.17 Respondents were asked if a crossing was built at Gallions Reach, how they thought they
might use it. Respondents were permitted to choose as many answers that applied from the
following list of choices:
car;
motorbike;
another type of vehicle (e.g. van, HGV, taxi);
on foot;
on a bicycle;
public transport (e.g. bus, DLR, tram); or
I don’t think I would use a new crossing at Gallions Reach.
3.18 4,372 respondents (97%) answered how they might use a new crossing at Gallions Reach,
whilst 147 didn’t answer (3%). Of those who answered, 3,785 indicated (87%) how they would
use the crossing, whilst 13% advised they didn’t think they would use the crossing. A total of
8,084 choices were made, a breakdown of those who indicated how they would use a crossing
is provided in Table 3.6.
Table 3.6: How respondents would use a new crossing at Gallions Reach
Crossing Mode Number of responses
Proportion of respondents
who would use the crossing
Gallions Reach By car 3,139 38.8%
On public transport (e.g. bus, DLR, tram) 2,297 28.4%
On a cycle 1,035 12.8%
On foot 843 10.4%
By another type of vehicle (e.g. van, HGV, taxi) 455 5.6%
Motorbike 315 3.9%
Total 8,084 100%
3.19 Using home postcode locations, respondents’ mode choices have been mapped to show how
they would like to make journeys using a new crossing at Gallions Reach. Mode choices have
been grouped into four categories; motorised vehicles, public transport, walking and cycling.
3.20 Respondents’ mode choices have been shown on maps for the Gallions Reach crossing in
Figure 3.9, Figure 3.11, Figure 3.13 and Figure 3.15. Travel options have been superimposed
over all responses, shown in white, to show the distribution of each mode relative to
respondents.
Gallions Reach and Belvedere River Crossings Consultation | Report
March 2016 | 21
Belvedere
3.21 Respondents were asked if a crossing was built at Belvedere how they thought they might use
it. Respondents could chose as many answers that applied from the following list of possible
choices:
by car;
motorbike;
by another type of vehicle (e.g. van, HGV, taxi);
on foot;
on a bicycle;
on public transport (e.g. bus); or
I don’t think I would use a new crossing at Belvedere.
3.22 In the first 24 hours of the consultation being opened a technical error occurred meaning that
respondents could only select one of the possible answers for Belvedere. The error was
rectified on the 3rd December and an email sent to affected respondents inviting them to re-
submit their answers to this question only.
3.23 The radio button error affected a total of 541 responses (114 of which had stated they would
not use a crossing at Belvedere or didn’t answer Q4 at all).
3.24 Of the 427 who did provide an answer to Q4, 74% resubmitted answers to the question. Of
these, 82% were successfully matched to the dataset using an email address resulting in 4,407
usable responses to the question.
3.25 3,403 respondents (75%) advised how they might use a new crossing at Belvedere, whilst
1,116 didn’t answer or a response wasn’t available to use (25%). Of those who answered,
2,342 indicated (69%) how they would use the new crossing, whilst 31% advised they did not
think they would use the crossing. A total of 6,730 mode choices were made, a breakdown of
those who indicated how they would use a crossing can be seen in Table 3.7.
Table 3.7: How respondents would use a new crossing at Belvedere
Crossing Mode Number of responses
Proportion of respondents
who would use the crossing
Belvedere By car 2845 42.3%
On public transport (e.g. bus) 1724 25.6%
On a cycle 812 12.1%
On foot 644 9.6%
By another type of vehicle (e.g. van, HGV, taxi) 436 6.5%
Motorbike 269 4.0%
Total 6,730 100%
3.26 Using home postcode locations, respondents’ mode choices have been mapped to show how
they would like to make journeys using a new crossing at Belvedere. Mode choices were
grouped into four categories; motorised vehicles, public transport, walking and cycling.
3.27 Respondents’ mode choices have been shown on maps for the Belvedere crossing in Figure
3.10, Figure 3.12, Figure 3.14 and Figure 3.16. Options have been superimposed over all
responses, shown in white, to show the distribution of each mode relative to respondents.
Gallions Reach and Belvedere River Crossings Consultation | Report
March 2016 | 22
Figure 3.9: Respondents wishing to cross at Gallions Reach using a motorised vehicle
Figure 3.10: Respondents wishing to cross at Belvedere using a motorised vehicle
Gallions Reach and Belvedere River Crossings Consultation | Report
March 2016 | 23
Figure 3.11: Respondents wishing to cross at Gallions Reach using public transport
Figure 3.12: Respondents wishing to cross at Belvedere using public transport
Gallions Reach and Belvedere River Crossings Consultation | Report
March 2016 | 24
Figure 3.13: Respondents wishing to cross at Gallions Reach on foot
Figure 3.14: Respondents wishing to cross at Belvedere on foot
Gallions Reach and Belvedere River Crossings Consultation | Report
March 2016 | 25
Figure 3.15: Respondents wishing to cross Gallions Reach on a bicycle
Figure 3.16: Respondents wishing to cross at Belvedere on a bicycle
Gallions Reach and Belvedere River Crossings Consultation | Report
March 2016 | 26
Question five: Free text comments on proposals
3.28 Respondents were asked if they had any other comments relating to the proposals for
new river crossing at Gallions Reach or Belvedere. A total of 2,224 open responses were
made about the proposals accounting for 49% of the overall number of respondents
3.29 Code frames were developed for these comments which were grouped into themes, as
described in Section 1. The code frames enable the number of comments regarding particular
issues to be quantified.
Overall comments on the proposals
3.30 Themes were divided into sub-themes to give an additional level of summary, below themes,
to comments left in the open question. Within each theme, subthemes provide subtotals for
differing levels of support, topics or modes that relate to TfL’s consultation topics.
Table 3.8: Responses grouped by theme and subtheme for all levels of support
3.31 Theme 3.32 Sub-
theme 3.33 Description 3.34 Total Comments
3.35 Proportion of respondents
responding to Q5
X1 No response 2,314 51.3%
X2 Out of scope 77 3.5%
A - Principle A1 Support scheme 552 24.8%
A7 PT only crossings 177 8.0%
A2 Oppose scheme 110 4.9%
A6 Oppose Belvedere 16 0.7%
A4 Oppose Gallions Reach 7 0.3%
B - Infrastructure B1 Support tunnel 254 11.4%
B2 Support bridge 171 7.7%
B3 Other 18 0.8%
C – Public Transport C1 DLR support 202 9.1%
C3 PT general 177 8.0%
C2 DLR Other 72 3.2%
C8 Bus 57 2.6%
C6 Support tram 57 2.6%
C4 Overground 43 1.9%
C5 PT Other 17 0.8%
C7 against tram 9 0.4%
D – Road Network D1 Improve existing 96 4.3%
D2 Scheme capacity 54 2.4%
Gallions Reach and Belvedere River Crossings Consultation | Report
March 2016 | 27
3.31 Theme 3.32 Sub-
theme 3.33 Description 3.34 Total Comments
3.35 Proportion of respondents
responding to Q5
D3 Tie-ins/junctions 23 1.0%
D4 Other 7 0.3%
E - Traffic E1 Concern over increase 455 20.4%
E2 Congestion relief 346 15.5%
F – User Charge F2 Oppose 241 10.8%
F4 Other 40 2.0%
F5 Level 26 1.2%
F3 Discounts 19 0.9%
F1 Support 14 0.6%
G – Walking and Cycling
G1 Support 133 6.0%
G2 Design 69 3.1%
H – Environment H1 Air quality 215 9.7%
H3 Noise 42 1.9%
H2 Ecology 36 1.6%
H4 Other 6 0.3%
I - General I2 Timescales 104 4.7%
I1 Woolwich Ferry 38 1.7%
I3 Connecting the Capital 7 0.3%
Total 6,342 181%
Gallions Reach and Belvedere River Crossings Consultation | Report
March 2016 | 28
Key comments
3.36 Within each sub-theme, there were a number of comments received. Table 3.9 shows the
most commonly raised comments associated with each theme.
Table 3.9: Themes and key comments from respondents who left a response to the open question
Theme Key comments Count Proportion
Principle
New crossings will provide more E. London crossing options
General comment of support
Against Scheme - no need for further investment in roads infrastructure, support public transport crossings only
New river crossings will support redevelopment in east London
Will support local economy (job growth, access to employment)
Public transport, walking and cycling options should be prioritised over road crossings
862
183
180
124
60
51
50
38.8%
8.2%
8.1%
5.6%
2.7%
2.3%
2.2%
Infrastructure
Favour tunnel at Gallions Reach
Favour tunnels over bridges for weather or shipping reasons
Favour bridge at Belvedere
Favour tunnel at Belvedere
443
64
61
54
53
19.9%
2.9%
2.7%
2.4%
2.4%
Public Transport
In favour of DLR extension from Gallions Reach to Thamesmead
Support public transport improvements as part of scheme
Support development of bus network (including cross river night bus service, bus lanes)
Support Tram
634
164
153
55
53
28.5%
7.4%
6.9%
2.5%
2.4%
Road Network
Surrounding road network needs to be improved, including links to strategic road network to handle traffic generated by scheme
Scheme should prioritise increasing road capacity and quality. (Support two+ general use lanes each way)
180
96
54
8.1%
4.3%
2.4%
Traffic
Concern over increased traffic as a result of the schemes
New crossings will alleviate congestion at other crossing points
New crossings will ease local congestion
Belvedere - Concern about local traffic increase
801
286
211
116
45
36.0%
12.9%
9.5%
5.2%
2.0%
User Charge
Crossings should be free to use
Inequality in the charging of east and west London river crossings
349
135
73
15.7%
6.1%
3.3%
Walking and Cycling
Support Walking and cycling options
202
117
9.1%
1.8%
Gallions Reach and Belvedere River Crossings Consultation | Report
March 2016 | 29
Theme Key comments Count Proportion
Environment
Concern over poor air quality as a result of traffic generated via the schemes
299
164
13.5%
7.4%
General
Build ASAP/Sooner than 2025
149
104
6.7%
1.6%
No Response to question 5
Irrelevant Comment/Out of scope
2,314
86
51.3%
4.0%
Total number of comments 6,342 181.2%
Principle
3.37 183 respondents stated that the proposed new river crossings will provide more east London
crossing options, with a further 180 respondents adding general comments of support for the
scheme.
3.38 124 comments where in opposition to the scheme where respondents stated that there is no
need for further investment in roads infrastructure and any new crossing should be for public
transport use only.
3.39 Redevelopment of east London and growth of the local economy were both popular
comments, attracting 60 and 51 responses respectively.
3.40 50 respondents stated that walking, cycling and public transport option should be prioritised
over any new road crossings.
Infrastructure
3.41 Respondents commented on their preferences for tunnels or bridges at both locations and
their reasons why. 64 respondents favoured a tunnel at Gallions Reach. Tunnels where sited as
a preference over bridges for weather and shipping reasons by 61 respondents due to their
ability to remain open during adverse weather events and would not restrict passage of large
vessels on the Thames.
3.42 Overall 54 respondents preferred a bridge at Belvedere whilst 53 stated a preference for a
tunnel.
Public transport
3.43 Plans for an extension of the DLR to Gallions Reach and Thamesmead attracted 164 comments
of support, whilst a further 153 respondents supported general public transport
improvements as part of the scheme.
3.44 Comments from 55 respondents supported development of the local bus network including
provision of bus lanes along the new crossings and additional services, such as a night bus.
3.45 53 respondents favoured proposals for a tram system linking the north and south sides of the
river.
Gallions Reach and Belvedere River Crossings Consultation | Report
March 2016 | 30
Road network
3.46 96 respondents felt that the surrounding road network would need to be improved in order to
cope with increased traffic levels generated as a result of new crossings. 54 respondents
commented that road capacity at crossing points should be prioritised, where at least two
general use lanes should be built to carry traffic in each direction.
Traffic
3.47 Respondents commented about traffic improvements at current crossing locations should new
bridges be built but raised concerns about local traffic impacts. 286 individuals felt local traffic
could increase as a result of vehicles being diverted into different areas however 211
respondents commented that congestion would be alleviated at current river crossing pinch
points. 116 respondents to the open question felt that new crossing would generally ease local
congestion.
User charge
3.48 135 individuals felt that any new east London river crossings should not be charged. A further
73 respondents added comments that inequality exists in the proposed user charges between
west and east London.
Walking and cycling
3.49 117 respondents commented on walking and cycling options and added their support to
inclusion of provisions in the proposal.
General comments
3.50 104 respondents felt that the proposed timescales for consultation, design and build were too
long and that the project should be completed as soon as possible.
Gallions Reach and Belvedere River Crossings Consultation | Report
March 2016 | 31
Quality of consultation
Findings
3.51 In the second open question respondents were asked about their opinions on the quality of
the consultation. In total 2,036 (45%) of respondents left a comment about the consultation,
resulting in 2,344 comments being coded.
3.52 The complete code frame for responses to the second open question can be found in
Appendix B.
Table 3.10: Comments relating to the quality of the consultation
Positive comments
3.57 Respondents left a total of 1,671 positive comments about the quality of the consultation. 444
respondents commented that they were satisfied with the consultation. 433 respondents
stated that the consultation contained a good level of detail, was of high quality and well
presented. 359 respondents were very pleased with the quality of the materials whilst 191 felt
the consultation was clear and easy to understand.
Constructive comments
3.58 Respondents left a total of 673 constructive comments relating to the quality of the
consultation. 117 respondents felt that the consultation could have been improved with more
detailed maps, drawings and diagrams. 115 respondents felt that the consultation required
publicising more widely through a variety of different channels such as social media and
residential leafleting.
Summary
3.59 In total 82.1% of comments made about the quality of the consultation were positive whilst
33.6% of respondents felt that some improvements could be made to achieve a more detailed
and widely publicised consultation.
3.53 Theme 3.54 Comment 3.55 Count 3.56 Proportion
of responses
Positive comment
Satisfied with consultation
Good level of detail/high quality/well presented
Excellent/very good
The consultation is clear/clear language used
1,671
444
433
359
191
33.6%
21.8%
21.3%
17.6%
9.4%
Constructive comment
More detailed plans/diagrams/maps needed
Consultation requires better publicity e.g. leafleting in affected areas, social media campaign
673
117
115
82.1%
5.7%
5.6%
Not answered
Out of scope/irrelevant comment
2,469
159
54.7%
7.8%
Total comments 2,036 115.1%
Gallions Reach and Belvedere River Crossings Consultation | Report
March 2016 | 32
A Questionnaire
Gallions Reach and Belvedere River Crossings Consultation | Report
March 2016 | 33
Our proposals
The closing date for any comments is 12 February 2016.
1. Do you support new crossings at Gallions Reach and Belvedere?
Yes I support both crossings
I support Gallions Reach only
I support Belvedere only
I don’t support either crossing
2. Which of these destinations / transport hubs would you prefer new or improved
public transport links to? (please select up to three) Please help us to identify local issues to this question by providing your postcode in the ‘About you’ section.
Abbey Wood
Barking
Barking Riverside
Belvedere
Bexleyheath
Canary Wharf
Central London
City Airport
Dagenham
East Ham
Eltham
Erith
Greenwich
Hornchurch
Ilford
Lewisham
Rainham
Romford
Royal Docks
Stratford
Thamesmead
Woolwich
Other (please specify)
____________________
Gallions Reach and Belvedere River Crossings Consultation | Report
March 2016 | 34
3. If we build a new crossing at Gallions Reach, do you think you would use it: (tick all
that apply)
By car
Motorbike
By another type of vehicle (e.g. van, HGV, taxi)
On foot
On a cycle
On public transport (e.g. bus, DLR, tram)
I don’t think I would use a new crossing at Gallions Reach
4. If we build a new crossing at Belvedere, do you think you would use it: (tick all that
apply)
By car
Motorbike
By another type of vehicle (e.g. van, HGV, taxi)
On foot
On a cycle
On public transport (e.g. bus)
I don’t think I would use a new crossing at Belvedere
5. Please use this space for any other comments you may have, for example on the
public transport options or any of the technical reports we have also published.
What is your name? _________________________________________________________
What is your email address? __________________________________________________
If responding on behalf of an organisation, business or campaign group, please provide us with the name. _____________________________________________________________
How did you hear about this consultation?
Gallions Reach and Belvedere River Crossings Consultation | Report
March 2016 | 35
Received an email from TfL Read about it in the press Through social media Saw an advert on the TfL website Other (please advise)
Please tell us what you think about the quality of this consultation (for example, the information we have provided, any printed material you have received, any maps or plans, the website and questionnaire etc)
Gallions Reach and Belvedere River Crossings Consultation | Report
March 2016 | 36
B Data Tables
Gallions Reach and Belvedere River Crossings Consultation | Report
March 2016 | 37
Table 0.1: Level of support by London borough
London Borough Yes I support both crossings
I don’t support either crossing
I support Gallions Reach only
I support Belvedere only
Not answered Total responses
Greenwich 729 21% 107 3% 67 2% 38 1% 8 0% 949 27%
Bexley 681 19% 172 5% 71 2% 49 1% 15 0% 988 28%
Newham 305 9% 18 1% 39 1% 18 1% 3 0% 383 11%
Havering 279 8% 17 0% 32 1% 23 1% 3 0% 354 10%
Barking and Dagenham 213 6% 3 0% 17 0% 13 0% 0 0% 246 7%
Lewisham 104 3% 8 0% 5 0% 2 0% 3 0% 122 3%
Redbridge 89 3% 1 0% 10 0% 2 0% 1 0% 103 3%
Tower Hamlets 80 2% 6 0% 4 0% 2 0% 0 0% 92 3%
Bromley 45 1% 5 0% 3 0% 1 0% 0 0% 54 2%
Southwark 42 1% 2 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 46 1%
Waltham Forest 41 1% 4 0% 0 0% 0 0% 1 0% 51 1%
Hackney 22 1% 2 0% 1 0% 1 0% 0 0% 26 1%
Croydon 19 1% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 19 1%
Lambeth 16 0% 4 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 22 1%
Haringey 14 0% 2 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 17 0%
Islington 12 0% 4 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 16 0%
Camden 7 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 7 0%
City of Westminster 6 0% 2 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 8 0%
Harrow 4 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 5 0%
Wandsworth 4 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 4 0%
Hounslow 3 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 3 0%
Barnet 3 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 3 0%
Enfield 3 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 1 0% 4 0%
Sutton 3 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 3 0%
Gallions Reach and Belvedere River Crossings Consultation | Report
March 2016 | 38
London Borough Yes I support both crossings
I don’t support either crossing
I support Gallions Reach only
I support Belvedere only
Not answered Total responses
Richmond upon Thames 3 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 3 0%
Merton 3 0% 0 0% 0 0% 1 0% 0 0% 4 0%
Kensington and Chelsea 3 0% 2 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 5 0%
City of London 3 0% 1 0% 0 0% 0 0% 1 0% 6 0%
Kingston upon Thames 2 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 2 0%
Ealing 2 0% 2 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 4 0%
Hillingdon 1 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 1 0%
Brent 1 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 1 0%
Hammersmith and Fulham 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 1 0% 0 0% 1 0%
Total for top ten 2567 72% 339 10% 248 7% 148 4% 33 1% 3337 94%
Overall totals 2742 77% 362 0.10191 249 7% 151 4% 36 1% 3552 100%
P:\Projects\228\8\67\01\Work\Report\River Crossings Draft Report 0.6.docx
Control Information
CONTROL INFORMATION
Prepared by Prepared for
Steer Davies Gleave 28-32 Upper Ground London SE1 9PD +44 20 7910 5000 www.steerdaviesgleave.com
Transport for London Lauren Barton TfL Planning Transport for London Windsor House, 42-50 Victoria Street London, SW1H 0TL
SDG project/proposal number Client contract/project number
22886701
Author/originator Reviewer/approver
Tomasz Sawicki
Other contributors Distribution
Client: SDG:
Version control/issue number Date
CONTROL INFORMATION
Prepared by Prepared for
Steer Davies Gleave 28-32 Upper Ground London SE1 9PD +44 20 7910 5000 www.steerdaviesgleave.com
Transport for London Lauren Barton TfL Planning Transport for London Windsor House, 42-50 Victoria Street London, SW1H 0TL
SDG project/proposal number Client contract/project number
22886701
Author/originator Reviewer/approver
Tomasz Sawicki Matthew Clark
Other contributors Distribution
Client: SDG:
Version control/issue number Date
steerdaviesgleave.com
Appendix J – Stakeholder responses received
APB Investment Ltd (Royal Albert Dock Site) Barking and Dagenham Chamber of Commerce Bexley Against Road Crossings (BARC) Bexley Labour Group Campaign for Better Transport (CBT) Clive Efford, MP Eltham Confederation of Passenger Transport (CPT) Conservative Group (Royal Borough of Greenwich) Darren Johnson AM Diago Pension Fund (Alchemy Park and Burts Wharf) Essex County Council Federation of Small Businesses (FSB) Freight Transport Association (FTA) Friends of the Earth Friends of the Earth - Greenwich Friends of the Earth - Newham Historic England Historic England (Greater London Archaeology Advisory Service) Inland Waterways Association Freight Group LA (21) Bexley Traffic and Transport Forum London Borough of Barking and Dagenham London Borough of Bexley London Borough of Hackney London Borough of Havering London Borough of Lewisham London Borough of Newham London Borough of Redbridge London Borough of Tower Hamlets London Chamber of Commerce and Industry (LCCI) London City Airport London Cycling Campaign Mayor's Office for Policing and Crime (MOPAC) National Grid Property Holdings Peabody Port of London Authority (PLA) Prime Regal (Europa Industrial Estate Erith) RAC Foundation Royal Borough of Greenwich SEGRO Plc South East London Chamber of Commerce Standard Life Investments (Gallions Reach Retail Park) Thurrock Council Valerie Shawcross, London Assembly Labour Group
Contact
If you have any questions about this report, please
contact us on the details below.
Email: [email protected]
Phone: 0343 222 1155