RIVER CROSSINGS: EAST OF SILVERTOWN CROSSINGS

Transcription

1 TRANSPORT FOR LONDON RIVER CROSSINGS: EAST OF SILVERTOWN CROSSINGS SUPPORTING TECHNICAL DOCUMENTATION NEEDS AND OPTIONS REPORT This document contains information relevant to the following options: TfL 07 July 2014 Woolwich Ferries X This report examines the need for new river crossings in east and south east London and assesses potential options. It sets out the process of identifying shortlisted options, and provides more detail on their potential impacts. Bridges Tunnels X X Gallions Reach Ferries X Bridges X Tunnels X Belvedere Ferries Bridge Tunnels X X X Others various

2 East London River Crossings: Assessment of Need & Options East of Silvertown Date: July 2014

3 CONTENTS SUMMARY Introduction Policy Context Needs Analysis Consultation to date STUDY Objectives Options short-listing Description of short-listed Options Conclusions APPENDIX A ENVIRONMENTAL SUMMARY OF SHORT-LISTED OPTIONS APPENDIX B - MODELLING

4 SUMMARY Background and purpose London is growing rapidly, and needs many more jobs and homes to support the rising population and this growth will generate travel. Growth needs various types of transport infrastructure as set out in the London Plan this includes both public transport and road infrastructure. East and south east London are expected to see a lot of this anticipated growth there are also many key drivers of growth on the north side of the Thames in east London such as Excel and London City Airport. The East London sub-region has a (2011 census) resident population of some 2.3 million, with communities on the north of the river (some 1.5 million people) being separated from those to the south (some 800,000 people). This population separated by the Thames is similar in size to either the Manchester or the West Midlands conurbations, the two largest built-up areas outside London. Transport for London (TfL) has already consulted on river crossings in general, and has decided to take forward a preferred option for a new road crossing between North Greenwich and Silvertown. This new Silvertown Tunnel would significantly reduce existing and future congestion at, and improve the resilience of, the Blackwall Tunnel, the strategic river crossing in east London. The question now remains of what, if any, other crossings are needed east of Silvertown, including a potential replacement of the Woolwich Ferry. The study area under consideration for this part of the river crossings programme is therefore the area east of Silvertown to the Dartford Crossing, including the boroughs of Newham, Barking and Dagenham, Havering, Greenwich and Bexley. Policy Existing regional and local planning and transport policy gives general and specific support to new road-based river crossings in east London to: improve public transport, and address identified significant strategic and local needs for cross-river accessibility. Policies include specific references to the consideration of a new vehicle ferry at Gallions Reach, and a longer-term fixed link at this location; other locations may also meet river crossing policy requirements and are not precluded. Policy also sets out criteria to be taken into account in the assessment of new transport infrastructure proposals. Emerging policy also points to the increasing importance of growth in the areas adjacent to the river in east and south east London and in 3

5 the east sub-region of London as a whole. Assessment of existing needs Sustained investment in public transport in the area has resulted in a step change in the provision of cross-river rail connectivity over the last 20 years, and a further high capacity rail crossing in the form of Crossrail is under construction. There is no evidence of unduly limited rail capacity arising in the foreseeable future, although TfL is currently reviewing the transport implications of growth projections. In terms of bus access, there is only a single cross-river bus service in east London due to the lack of suitable road river crossings (there are 47 cross-river bus services in west London). There are few walking and cycling crossings in east London, and none east of the Woolwich Ferry. However there are only three highway cross-river links between Tower Bridge and the Dartford Crossing, leaving a stretch of some 14km between the Woolwich Ferry and Dartford Crossing without a crossing, a significant connectivity gap. All of the existing crossings are limited in capacity and have height, width, and/or load restrictions. This leads to major resilience problems, lack of connectivity and longer journey times. Incidents at crossings causing obstruction and delay are excessively frequent and have significant adverse impacts across the wider road network. The Silvertown Tunnel project aims to address the existing lack of capacity and resilience currently experienced at the Blackwall Tunnel, although it does not address resilience further east. While other transport modes are important, road based travel accounts for more than two thirds of all personal travel in four out of the five study area boroughs, the exception being Newham, where it accounts for some 49%, and is particularly important for freight.. While road-based mode share is expected to decrease over time, supported by TfL s significant investment in public transport, it is clear that, given this dominance of road-based trips and the growth of population and employment expected in east London, increased highway travel overall is expected, and the pressure on the existing river crossings will increase. Currently the Dartford Crossings and Blackwall Tunnels provide the strategic traffic carrying function in the study area. The Woolwich Ferry, with a much lower capacity and slower journey time, has a more local function, although it is also used by certain categories of vehicles and loads which cannot use the Blackwall Tunnels. Taking account of TfL s proposed Silvertown Tunnel crossing to relieve the Blackwall Tunnel and the DfT s proposals to improve conditions at the Dartford Crossing, the residual need for a new crossing in the study area relates mainly to 4

6 meeting existing and forecast local road traffic demand, though clearly, any crossing would also carry some longer distance traffic. Accessibility comparisons show that the barrier of the river constrains the economic and social opportunities available to residents and businesses on both sides of the river east of Tower Bridge, whereas no significant river barrier effect is indicated to the west. In addition two thirds of local businesses report that the ability to cross the river by road in East London is important to their business, with a third rating it as very important or essential. Only 18% feel current crossings are adequate. Assessment of future needs East London contains areas of high deprivation and is one of the largest regeneration areas in the UK - the east sub-region contains 14 opportunity areas and areas for intensification, accounting for 27 percent of London s overall development land potential. The delivery of sustainable development in this area is absolutely essential to maximising London s significant economic potential. However, movements within the sub-region are significantly constrained by the barrier effect of the Thames. This barrier effect limits local firms access to markets, the size of retail and leisure catchments and residents access to employment opportunities, in a way that is peculiar to the eastern half of the Capital. This constraint on economic activity makes delivering the significant scale of development planned for the area more uncertain. Growth in east London, which appears to be happening far more quickly than had previously been forecast, is predicted to significantly increase the volume of road traffic in the study area together with associated levels of congestion. Assessment of needs conclusion The overall conclusion is that there is a clear lack of road-based connectivity in east London, with the distance between crossings constraining movement and making cross-river highway trips longer and more costly, and severely limiting the ability to run cross-river bus services and reducing network resilience. This in turn reduces the ability of communities and businesses to interact cross-river and increases the costs of doing so. The existing road transport river crossings east of Tower Bridge are inadequate to cater for the existing and forecast future demand for cross river movement they are at or over capacity and experience severe resilience problems. While public transport, walking and cycling are important sustainable means of 5

7 travel to be given every encouragement, road transport is also a vital mode of travel for the study area, and the population and economic growth planned in the area will result in significant increases in road trips and associated congestion on the network in the absence of capacity improvements. The proposed Silvertown Crossing and improvements at the Dartford Crossings will assist in catering for the more strategic movements in East London, but will not deliver significantly better cross-river connectivity. A new road crossing over the river east of the proposed Silvertown Tunnel is therefore required, and should be principally aimed at facilitating more local needs including freight, buses, walking and cycling, while adding to network resilience. The potential for improvement in local cross river highway travel is therefore related to (1) facilitating local road traffic movements that are essential to the proper functioning of east London today and which are constrained by the lack of current connectivity and (2) facilitating the future economic and population growth in the area which will also have an essential component of cross-river road traffic which needs to be accommodated in an efficient manner. Other imperatives relevant to this consultation exercise are: the need to make a decision on a replacement for the Woolwich Ferry as the current ferry nears the end of its working life; and the need to address long-standing concerns regarding potential local traffic impacts in east London, and to consider the overall economic, social and environmental impacts of new road building compared with doing nothing to address these concerns. Previous consultation TfL have conducted two public consultations on the river crossings programme to date. In the latest consultation in 2012, there was over 70% support for the fixed link (bridge/tunnel) options at Gallions Reach and Silvertown, with 77% for the Silvertown Tunnel. Overall 51% of respondents supported a new ferry at Woolwich and 52% supported a ferry at Gallions Reach. 55% of respondents opposed a toll for the new crossings and for the Blackwall Tunnel and a third supported it. Boroughs, business representative groups and members of the public generally acknowledged the need for new road crossings, although there were mixed views about how to take the matter forward. Some respondents (especially those with a focus on environmental protection) generally opposed any new highway capacity. There were suggestions that TfL should consider alternative crossings and crossing locations, and an indication that the focus on the replacement of the Woolwich Ferry was too narrow in the context of the wider strategic needs of this growing part of London. 6

8 Study Objectives Taking into account up-to-date planning and transport policy, the identified socioeconomic needs of the study area and consultation and stakeholder responses, the following east of Silvertown Tunnel river crossing study objectives have been developed: Improving cross-river highway connectivity (including the distance between crossings, the availability of the crossings by time and for different users and the resultant accessibility levels) Improving cross-river highway resilience (including the susceptibility of the crossings for closure, the capacity and reduction of congestion and the number of crossings and the distance between them) Supporting economic activity and growth (including the ability of residents to access employment and or firms to hire labour and interact with other businesses and to encourage development) Within the scope of these objectives consideration is also required to be given to the wider environmental impacts of crossing options, safety, stakeholder views and specific issues including addressing the needs of Woolwich Ferry users and the assessed potential for development of a positive business case. Options and sifting A range of schemes and locations have been put forward as options for consideration as part of the River Crossings programme, either identified by TfL or proposed by stakeholders and the public in response to consultation. The options have been examined over the last 2 years in a variety of technical reports and consultations these have evolved as the programme has evolved over time. A two-stage option sifting process has been used: First, a long list of potential options was considered in broad categories of options in terms of their potential to address the study objectives and requirements. Categories of options which fail to meet one or more of the objectives and/or are unlikely to pass key viability and acceptability requirements have not been taken forward from this stage. Secondly, the options remaining within each option category carried forward from the first stage have been considered against their broad costs and benefits and the study s objectives and requirements. This exercise has resulted in the production of a final short-list of options proposed for further public consultation. 7

9 Outcome of option sifting A number of options were found not to meet the study objectives or requirements and were not taken forward this includes stand-alone options for walking/cycling, public transport and road user charging. However it was recognised that the needs of these modes need to be considered in any short-listed options. The conclusion from the sifting process was that a road-based crossing was required to fully address the study objectives, and three locations (Woolwich( A on the figure below) Gallions Reach (B) and Belvedere ( C)) were identified where such a crossing should be considered. A number of different crossing types were considered at these locations. The conclusion of this process was that at these locations, four options best met the study objectives, and are proposed for further consultation. These are: a replacement vehicle ferry at Woolwich; a new vehicle ferry at Gallions Reach; a new road bridge at Gallions Reach; and a new road bridge at Belvedere. Nature of the crossing The proposals for a new Silvertown Tunnel crossing would significantly improve the capacity and resilience of the strategic crossing at Blackwall linking the A13 with the A2; and the introduction of free-flow charging at Dartford and potentially 8

10 another road crossing in the lower Thames would address capacity constraints affecting strategic traffic movements around London. Any other crossing would be available for some more strategic movement, and would be important for network resilience and support for economic growth, but would focus on local accessibility catering mainly for road based trips with an origin and/or destination in one of the five boroughs in the study area. The short-listed options therefore focus on local accessibility in various ways: for the ferry option, capacity would be relatively low and, as with the current Woolwich Ferry, it is unlikely to operate 24/7 for the bridge options, capacity would be managed by operating a single lane in each direction for general use, with the second lane used for freight and bus vehicles only In all options there would be appropriate lower capacity connections to the local road network There would be user charging to manage the traffic use. The main conclusions relating to the deliverability, costs and benefits of each of the short-listed options are provided in the table below.. Further details of each option and its assessed impacts are provided in Chapter 7, and as described in this chapter, there are various ways in which crossings can be implemented at these locations. A summary of the likely achievement of study objectives and requirements by the 4 short-listed options is given in Table 31. It is evident that the bridge options at Gallions Reach are likely to have a higher level of achievement of the study objectives and requirements. 9

11 Table 1: Summary of short-listed options Option Earliest possible completion date Capital Cost 1 Transport improvements Other benefits Woolwich Ferry TfL could provide a replacement ferry by the early 2020s 100m - 200m Modest reductions in journey times, but unlikely to be significant There would be no significant change in access to jobs or other opportunities, and it would not give any significant support to growth. However there would be improvements to reliability over the existing ferry and some modest increase in capacity. Gallions Reach Ferry The land required to build the new terminals and access roads is safeguarded for a river crossing, and a ferry could be in service by the early 2020s 150m - 250m Would provide a new link between Greenwich and Bexley and the rapidly growing Royal Docks area Would put 20,000 firms and 300,000 jobs within an average commuting distance (37 mins) of Thamesmead, and help support development of housing in nearby areas Gallions Reach Bridge The land required to build a bridge is safeguarded for a river crossing, and it could be built and operational by m - 600m A fast 24 hour link would greatly improve access between Greenwich and Bexley and the rapidly growing Royal Docks area Would put 100,000 firms and 800,000 jobs within an average commuting distance (37 mins) of Thamesmead, and would support development in Thamesmead and Beckton Belvedere Bridge No current safeguarding. The bridge is unlikely to be built before m - 900m A fast 24 hour link would greatly improve access between north Bexley and the London Riverside opportunity areas Would put 120,000 firms & 190,000 jobs within an average commuting distance (37 mins) of Belvedere, and would support development in Belvedere and Havering 1 The capital cost range is due to different ferry or fixed link options. The indicative cost ranges reflect the estimated cost of construction and permanent land purchases, and include an allowance for risk and inflation. The cost of any complementary measures and land required temporarily for construction are not included. 10

12 1 INTRODUCTION Purpose of report 1.1 The purpose of this assessment report is to address two interrelated aspects of the River Crossings programme; the potential for a replacement of the Woolwich Ferry and the need for better connectivity across the Thames east of Silvertown. 1.2 This report supersedes the two reports, the Assessment of Need 2 and Assessment of Options, 3 produced by TfL for the purposes of the consultation on river crossings held in 2012/ The report firstly summarises relevant policy, defines the study area and assesses its needs, describes previous consultation and outlines the objectives for this element of the River Crossings programme. It then describes the river crossing options that have been assessed, presents an analysis of the options against the objectives set, and identifies the options selected for further public consultation, to take place in July The short-listed options are then described in more detail. Strategic policy context 1.4 There is a strategic planning and transport policy framework for London which looks forward to 2031 and defines the key challenges that London has to address over this period. This is set out in the Mayor s spatial development strategy, the London Plan (LP) and the Mayor s Transport Strategy (MTS), finalised in 2011 and 2010 respectively. These two published documents were widely consulted upon and examined by an independent planning inspector and provide the statutory framework within which the boroughs develop their own local development frameworks and local implementation plans. They contain strategic policies and proposals that guide the provision of infrastructure by TfL. 1.5 The overall thrust of the LP and the MTS is that London is a growing city, with growth at the highest levels since the inter-war period. There is a focus on supporting new jobs and housing to meet the demands of a rising population and 2 This report supersedes the River Crossings Assessment of Needs and River Crossings Options reports by TfL, 2012, 20Report.pdf 3 River Crossings Options report, TfL,

13 the provision of transport infrastructure is a critical component in helping to achieve this. Transport policy development and investment in transport in recent years has helped London secure an overall reduction in the amount of road traffic mileage in the capital 4, together with sustained increases in travel by public transport, walking and cycling. The Mayor supports the continuation of these trends and further investment in public transport capacity is a fundamental part of the MTS. 1.6 While the Mayor is fully committed to continuing the shift from private to public transport across London, at the same time he recognises that there are certain types of trips freight trips 5 and many business-related trips for example which have no practical alternative but to take place by road. The scale of growth in London and, in particular, the concentration of growth in the eastern parts of the capital, together with current capacity constraints, combine to demonstrate that further investment in the road network is also required. The level of growth in east London is such that trips for which the road network is essential, would be negatively affected (with adverse consequences for London s economy) if additional capacity and resilience in the network were not forthcoming. 1.7 East London is one of the largest regeneration areas in the UK. The seven boroughs that make up the sub-region are expected to accommodate the largest proportion of new homes and jobs in London (see 3.82), making the delivery of development in this area essential to maximising London s significant economic potential. However, movements within the sub-region are significantly constrained by the barrier effect of the Thames. There are only three road crossings, the Rotherhithe and Blackwall Tunnels and the Woolwich Ferry east of Tower Bridge in London, which link a resident population of some 2.3 million; and these crossings all suffer from severe capacity constraints. This barrier effect limits businesses access to markets, the size of retail and leisure catchments and residents access to employment opportunities (see 3.108). This constraint on economic activity makes delivering the significant scale of development planned for the area more difficult. 1.8 The MTS, accordingly, sets out a long-term programme for investment in river crossings in east London. This includes a new proposed road crossing at Silvertown 4 Road traffic kilometres overall decreased by 10.9% between 2012 and 2000, although road traffic in outer London increased slightly in 2012 Travel in London 6, TfL, The Roads Task Force estimates that 89% of London s freight/deliveries rely on road haulage TfL, Roads Task Force Technical Note 3,

14 in the form of a tunnel, a new pedestrian and cycle link between the Greenwich Peninsula and the Royal Docks (now open as the Emirates Air Line), and options for improving connectivity further east including the potential for a new ferry at Gallions Reach and for a longer-term fixed link at this location. Current River Crossings Programme options 1.9 Following the assessment of a range of potential options for expanding highway capacity, the proposed river crossings package for east London has evolved to identify two broad projects for further consideration: A road tunnel at Silvertown designed to relieve congestion and improve resilience at the Blackwall Tunnel. A preferred option has been selected for this project and it is now being taken forward through the consents process, with further public consultation expected in autumn 2014 and in spring/summer Options for a new ferry to replace the ageing Woolwich Ferry and/or a new crossing link east of Silvertown; this is the subject of this assessment report and of the proposed public consultation in summer The Department for Transport (DfT) has a separate study investigating Thames crossings outside London s boundaries including free flow charging at the Dartford Crossings and new capacity close to, or to the east of, the current Dartford Crossing. Study Area 1.11 The study area is highlighted in orange in Figure 1 it extends from Silvertown to the Dartford Crossing. The remainder of the east sub-region is highlighted with a bold border. 13

15 Figure 1: Study Area and the east sub-region Structure of this report 1.12 Chapter two of this report summarises the statutory planning context for the study area including relevant policy; Chapter three provides an analysis of the need for an additional proposed river crossing between Silvertown and Dartford; Chapter four summarises consultation undertaken to date, and Chapter five sets out the objectives that need to be met by the river crossing options. Chapter six describes the process of short-listing options for consultation and assesses the performance of each against the scheme objectives. The short-listed options are considered in detail in chapter seven. Conclusions are drawn in chapter eight. Key issues for further consideration are highlighted in a grey box. 14

16 2 POLICY CONTEXT Introduction 2.1 The framework of national, regional and local spatial development and transport policies and plans provides the strategic and local planning context and principles that are to inform the development of transport projects including new river crossings in east London. NATIONAL POLICIES Draft National Policy statement for national networks 2.2 The National Policy Statement (NPS) for National Networks 6 was published in draft by the Department for Transport in December The NPS sets out the Government s vision and policy for the future development of nationally significant infrastructure projects on the national road and rail networks. It gives guidance for promoters of nationally significant infrastructure projects, and provides the basis for the examination of those projects by the Examining Authority and decisions by the Secretary of State. 2.3 Following a submission by TfL, the Secretary of State for Transport directed that the proposed Silvertown Tunnel be treated as a nationally significant infrastructure project for which development consent under the Planning Act 2008 is required. There may be potential for TfL to seek a similar direction in respect to a further new river crossing east of Silvertown if it considered the scheme to be nationally significant. 2.4 The NPS states that The Government will deliver national networks that meet the country s long-term needs; supporting a prosperous and competitive economy and improving overall quality of life, as part of a wider transport system. This means: Networks with the capacity and connectivity to support national and local economic activity and facilitate growth and create jobs. Networks which support and improve journey quality, reliability and safety. Networks which support the delivery of environmental goals and the move to

17 a low carbon economy. Networks which join up our communities and link effectively to each other. 2.5 The analysis of options which follows in Chapter 5 shows how the short-listed options align positively with these goals as expressed in the study objectives. National Planning Policy Framework 2.6 The National Planning Policy Framework 7 (NPPF) is the means by which the Government provides guidance to local authorities and others on planning policy and the operation of the planning system. The framework was published in March 2012 and replaces a large number of Planning Policy Guidance notes (PPGs) and Planning Policy Statements (PPSs), including PPG13 (Transport). 2.7 The framework sets out the Government s national planning policies for England and how these are expected to be applied. It must be taken into account in the preparation of local authorities development plan documents (DPDs) and may also be a material consideration in the determination of planning applications. 2.8 Section 1 of the NPPF Delivering sustainable development promotes the building of a strong, competitive economy. The Government is committed to securing economic growth in order to create jobs and prosperity, and the framework states that significant weight should be placed on the need to support economic growth through the planning system (para 19). LONDON-WIDE STRATEGIES London Plan 2.9 The London Plan 8, published in 2011, is the statutory spatial plan for London, which sets out the strategic vision for Greater London in the period to Draft Further Alterations to the London Plan (FALP) 9 were published in October 2013, and were consulted upon from January to April The FALP addresses the strategic issues arising from the scale of growth that London would need to accommodate over the next two decades, and puts forward alternative spatial development policies which could be adopted to meet the forecasts for population and employment growth The EiP is due to be held in September, no changes expected to be adopted until spring of

18 These include options of intensification of land use in central London, a decentralised policy with higher levels of development in outer London, and other options including making use of the potential of brownfield land to accommodate growth The FALP concludes that east London, with its large areas of ex-industrial brownfield land and improving transport links, should play a major role in London s growth, and that with investment in infrastructure, many of London s new jobs and homes can be accommodated in the east sub-region (which comprises boroughs in both east and south east London). However, it recognises that achieving this development is likely to require investment in infrastructure, including road infrastructure, and improving cross-river connectivity (para 6.4.1) The London Plan clearly sets out the need for additional east London river crossings in a number of adopted policies: 2.12 Policy 6.1: Strategic Approach states that the Mayor will work with all relevant partners to encourage the closer integration of transport and development through the schemes and proposals including New and enhanced road vehicle river crossing(s) in east London (package of measures) described as a programme of works under development to improve cross-thames links in east London Policy 6.4: Enhancing London s Transport Connectivity states that the Mayor will work with strategic partners, among other things, to ensure effective transport policies and projects to support the sustainable development of the London city region, to improve the public transport system in London, including cross-london and orbital rail links to support future development and regeneration priority areas, and increase public transport capacity by: (inter alia) (k) providing new river crossings. Paragraph 6.20 states that these new and enhanced river crossings are aimed at improving accessibility and the resilience of local transport networks, supporting economic growth in the area and linking local communities, and include: consideration of ferry-based options east of a crossing at Silvertown; and consideration over the longer-term of a fixed link at Gallions Reach 2.14 Policy 6.12: Road Network Capacity states that the Mayor supports the need for limited improvements to London s road network, whether in improving or extending existing capacity, or providing new links, to address clearly identified 10 London Plan, Table

19 significant strategic or local needs, and sets out the following criteria (Policy 6.12B) that should be taken into account when assessing these proposals: the contribution to London s sustainable development and regeneration including improved connectivity the extent of any additional traffic and any effects it may have on the locality, and the extent to which congestion is reduced how net benefit to London s environment can be provided how conditions for pedestrians, cyclists, public transport users, freight and local residents can be improved how safety for all is improved Policy 6.12C states that proposals should show, overall, a net benefit across these criteria when taken as a whole. All proposals must show how any dis-benefits will be mitigated In the following text 11 the Mayor recognises that there may well be cases where new roads are needed to support regeneration, improve the environment, increase safety or provide essential local access. He notes that there is little resilience in the event of an incident at existing river crossings, and that projected increases in jobs and population in the Thames Gateway will increase congestion and road network resilience problems. The text states that The Mayor is therefore supportive of additional road-based river crossings in east London as part of a package of transport improvements In summary, the London Plan policy: Identifies the need for new and enhanced road vehicle river crossing(s) in east London as part of a package of transport measures (Policy 6.1). Supports the need for limited improvements to London s road network, to address clearly identified significant strategic or local needs (Policy 6.12). Sets out in Policy 6.12 the planning criteria that such improvements will need to take into account and the requirement that road schemes demonstrate an overall net benefit when measured against the criteria. 11 London Plan paragraphs 6.40 and

20 Mayor s Transport Strategy 2.18 The MTS 12, published in 2010 following wide consultation, sets out the transport strategy for London, developed in tandem with the work undertaken by the Greater London Authority (GLA) for the London Plan. This includes the strategy for delivering the transport infrastructure needed to accommodate growth in the east sub-region, which is a key part of the London Plan s strategic vision The MTS identifies a wide range of policies and proposals to support this growth. It is based around three key policy areas: 1. Better co-ordination and integration of planning and transport; 2. Providing new capacity; and 3. Managing the demand to travel Overall, the implementation of the Strategy would see the existing increase in public transport usage continue, together with an increase in cycling, and a corresponding decrease in car mode share across London As with the London Plan, however, the MTS (394) identifies a clear need to progress a package of river crossings for east London, to help deliver growth and to meet its overall objectives. Part of this is recognition of the need to improve river crossings for road users, addressing the existing problems with the current infrastructure and to plan for the substantial growth that is identified for the surrounding area Figure 2 outlines the MTS policy on river crossings (MTS proposal 39), and highlights the outstanding issues In Proposal 35 the MTS states how the Mayor will give consideration to new road schemes where there is an overall net benefit when judged against criteria consistent with that in London Plan policy In Chapter 5.8 the MTS sets out the Mayor s policy relating to new east London river crossings. Proposal 39 states that the Mayor, through TfL, and working with the London boroughs and other stakeholders, will take forward a package of river crossings in east London, including: A new fixed link at Silvertown to provide congestion relief to the Blackwall Tunnel and provide local links for vehicle traffic

21 An upgraded Woolwich Ferry and consideration of a new vehicle ferry at Gallions Reach to improve connectivity Local links to improve connections for pedestrians and cyclists Consideration of a longer-term fixed link at Gallions Reach to improve connectivity for local traffic, buses, cyclists and to support economic development in this area The encouragement of modal shift from private cars to public transport, using new proposed rail links Support for Government proposals to reduce congestion at the Dartford Crossing 2.25 TfL has made progress on all of these, with completed schemes or proposals under consideration in each case, as summarised in Figure 2, below The MTS proposes a multi-modal approach (paragraphs ) to new river crossings, including public transport, pedestrian and cycling provision and measures to encourage travel by sustainable modes. However there is also a recognition that there would continue to be a need for some journeys to be undertaken by vehicle, in particular commercial traffic and the movement of goods and the provision of services to support a growing economy in east London. The Mayor is therefore supportive of additional road-based river crossings in east London as part of a package of sustainable transport improvements. 20

22 Figure 2: MTS Proposal 39 River Crossings MTS Policy A new fixed link at Silvertown to provide congestion relief to the Blackwall Tunnel and provide local links for vehicle traffic Complete or in progress Proposals Silvertown tunnel Consideration of a longer-term fixed link at Gallions Reach to improve connectivity for local traffic, buses, cyclists and to support economic development in this area Longer term options for a crossing east of Silvertown An upgraded Woolwich Ferry and consideration of a new vehicle ferry at Gallions Reach to improve connectivity Woolwich Ferries overhauled (2009) The encouragement of modal shift from private cars to public transport, using new rail links including High Speed One domestic services, Crossrail and the DLR extension to Woolwich, reducing road demand, and so road congestion at river crossings, where possible London Overground (2010) DLR Woolwich Arsenal (2009) HS1 Domestic (Ebbsfleet to Stratford) DLR capacity enhancements Jubilee line extra capacity Crossrail (2018) Support for Government proposals to reduce congestion at the Dartford crossing Working with DfT on Lower Thames Crossing Stakeholder Advisory Panel Local links to improve connections for pedestrians and cyclists River concordat (2009) Oyster on Clippers (2009) Emirates Air Line (2012) 2.27 The MTS also states (Para ) that some form of demand management in areas beyond the Central London Congestion Charging zone may be considered in the longer-term if congestion becomes an increasing problem or if other objectives (for example, environmental aims or the need for additional investment in transport) cannot otherwise be met. Charges or tolls to support specific infrastructure improvements, such as river crossings, would also be considered In summary, the MTS addresses relevant issues relating to east London river crossings, and includes a package of improvements in Proposal 39. Proposal 35 contains policy tests similar to those set out in the London Plan policy 6.12 for new road infrastructure and provides more detail on some of these. Charges or tolls are 21

23 also control measures recognised by the MTS as potentially useful in supporting new river crossings Since the publication of the LP and the MTS more up-to-date information has become available on the forecast extent of growth in London, showing higher historic population growth earlier than expected 13. The impact of this on the application of relevant policy is discussed in chapter 4. LOCAL PLANS 2.30 The local plans of the boroughs in the study area have been reviewed (see Figure 1). London Borough of Bexley 2.31 The London Borough of Bexley s Core Strategy 14 was adopted in February 2012 and states Although no existing or proposed river crossings are located within the borough to facilitate north-south links, cross-river Thames traffic plays an important role in Bexley s travel patterns. The Council is supportive of proposed improvements which will ease congestion, improve connectivity and enhance resilience of the existing crossings at Blackwall and Dartford. Additional river crossings are also supported in principle subject to no adverse impacts within the borough, such as increased traffic flows (4.7.12) Bexley s Local Implementation Plan 15 for 2013/14 states that there is potential to make greater use of existing passenger ferries (para 2.46). Royal Borough of Greenwich 2.33 The Royal Borough of Greenwich submitted its Core Strategy to the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government in September Consultation on modifications to the Core Strategy including Development Management Policies 16 was completed in April 2014 no update was available at the time of writing this report. The borough is committed to supporting the intensification of the use of the river for transport of people and freight, including upgrades to the Woolwich Ferry service (Policy IM3). 13 GLA 2012 Round Population Projections, Intelligence Update , February

24 2.34 The Core Strategy states that improvements to transport infrastructure at Thamesmead would be promoted. It also notes that land for a river crossing at Thamesmead would continue to be protected and, if necessary in the shorter term, support would be given to a ferry service across the river at this location (3.3.46) The Core Strategy further states that: Any new crossings should ensure that they are fully integrated for use with public transport, walking and cycling. Although the development of fixed river crossings remain the Council's priority, in the shorter term support would also be given to cross-river ferry services, which can provide improved connectivity at a lower cost than a fixed crossing (4.8.17). London Borough of Newham 2.36 The London Borough of Newham s Core Strategy 17 was published in January 2012 and gives support for provision of new river crossings. It states that The Council supports the development of bridge, tunnel or ferry crossings at these locations [Gallions Reach and Silvertown] to provide resilience to the Blackwall Tunnel and to support future growth ( 6.197). This supersedes policy T12 from the 2001 Unitary Development Plan which also supported a package of Thames crossings Newham s Local Implementation Plan (LIP) 18 for 2013/14 states that the council has a serious concern that its [east London s] further development will be hindered by the lack of a suitable road-based river crossing ensuring the efficient flow of both goods and visitors to the centre both north and south of the Thames (2.6.21). The council s position is in favour of a package of river crossing improvements, which would need to include a new crossing at Gallions Reach as well as at Silvertown (3.2.8). The council is concerned about the impact of the Silvertown crossing on the Canning Town area and identifies various traffic restraint mechanisms such as tolling (3.2.8) Newham's Unitary Development Plan (UDP) 19 was adopted in June It is being replaced by the emerging Local Plan (which includes the Core Strategy). In early 2012 a number of UDP policies were saved and these policies currently continue to inform planning decisions. Of relevance in this context is policy T28: development must have regard to the operational requirements of the Port of London Authority's radar stations at Beckton and North Woolwich (proposal London Borough of Newham s Second Local Implementation Plan (LIP2),

25 no.t39). London Borough of Barking and Dagenham 2.39 The London Borough of Barking and Dagenham s Core Strategy 20 was adopted in July Policy CM4: Transport Links states that land will be safeguarded for transport infrastructure schemes that could be implemented within the lifetime of the Plan and that the Council would continue to press for and support the transport infrastructure improvement projects including the Thames Gateway Bridge. This is further supported by paragraph Barking and Dagenham s LIP 21 for 2013/14 offers support for Thames Gateway Crossings (1.3.6). London Borough of Havering 2.41 The London Borough of Havering s Core Strategy 22 was adopted in In this document, the Council commits to working with the relevant statutory authorities to secure the provision of Thames Gateway Bridge: This would connect Beckton to Thamesmead and will enable the east London Transit to connect to the Greenwich Waterfront Transit (section 1.3). Emerging policies and projects 2.42 There are emerging policies and projects supported by the London Plan that have close relevance to the provision of a vehicle river crossing east of Silvertown: 2.43 London Riverside is one of the largest Opportunity Areas in London, measuring 12km in length from Beckton to the west to Rainham Marshes in the east. Incorporating the London Boroughs of Barking and Dagenham, Havering and Newham it is home to over 116,000 people and 39,000 jobs. It is identified by the London Plan to accommodate significant growth in the next twenty years with up to 26,500 new homes and 16,000 new jobs Barking Riverside is the single largest development site within the Opportunity Area with outline planning permission for up to 10,800 homes. The Government is working with the Mayor to secure a funding package for an extension to the

26 London Overground rail to the site. Beam Park, east of the old Ford Stamping Plant is another large development site reliant on significant transport investment with plans for a new station on the existing Southend to Fenchurch Street line. There is also scope for intensification at Barking town centre, Rainham Village and South Hornchurch 2.45 TfL and the GLA are currently considering the longer term growth needs of London beyond 2031 to This work is ongoing, but early indications are that the central growth projections for London to 2050 are 11.3m for population and 6.3m for employment. If London is to accommodate this growing population sustainably, there would need to be further densification, including maximising the role that the Opportunity Areas offer east London contains a high proportion of these, and would continue to be an important focus for growth Areas close to high quality public transport are likely to be prioritised for higher density development, but while TfL would expect the majority of residents travel to be made by public transport, there would remain a significant role for highway travel, for example to facilitate increases in servicing activity that new residential areas would inevitably require, and highway infrastructure improvements are also likely to be needed. New river crossings in east London are expected to be even more important in supporting and facilitating growth in housing and employment in east London, helping ensure that the area maximises its contribution to London s broader strategic growth requirements There may also be potential in some Opportunity Areas to achieve growth beyond the levels envisaged in the London Plan, for example in outer riverside areas. New highway river crossing(s) east of Silvertown would contribute to development of this nature. Published and adopted regional and local policy gives general and specific support to new road-based river crossings in east London to: 1) improve public transport, and 2) address identified significant strategic and local present and future needs for cross-river accessibility. Policies include specific references to the consideration of a new ferry at Gallions Reach, and a longer-term fixed link at this location; other locations may also meet river crossing policy requirements and are not precluded. Criteria are set out to be taken into account in the assessment of new transport infrastructure proposals. Specific policies and projects also point to the increasing importance of the accommodation of growth in the areas adjacent to the river in east and south east London and in the east London sub-region as a whole. 25

27 3 NEEDS ANALYSIS Introduction 3.1 This section begins by describing existing cross-river provision for public transport, walking and cycling and for road traffic. It then summarises the existing patterns of movement in the study area and the future drivers of demand in relation to population, employment and resulting travel. The section concludes by describing committed enhancements to transport provision and identifying residual needs and, in particular, gaps in cross-river provision. CURRENT CROSS-RIVER PUBLIC TRANSPORT PROVISION 3.2 There has been a period of sustained investment in public transport capacity across the whole of east London over the past 20 years and this would continue with the introduction of Crossrail services from Prior to 1999 London Underground s east London line represented the only rail crossing of the River Thames in east London, providing a local shuttle from New Cross to Shoreditch. 3.3 Since 1999, new cross-river rail links have been provided on the following routes (see Figure 3): Jubilee line (opened 1999, and subsequently upgraded with more frequent and longer trains); Docklands Light Railway (extended to Greenwich and Lewisham in 1999, and subsequently enhanced with longer trains, and extended to Woolwich in 2009); High Speed 1, which started operating frequent high speed trains between Kent and east London in 2009; London Underground s East London line was transferred to the London Overground network, with new services to a much wider range of destinations from 2010, and further services from 2012; Crossrail, now under construction, which will provide a new high frequency cross-river link from Woolwich to the Royal Docks, Canary Wharf and beyond from

28 Figure 3: Recent or planned cross-river public transport improvements 3.4 Figure 4 illustrates the scale of increased public transport capacity across the Thames in east London from 1992 compared with the flat-lining of highway capacity over the same period. Figure 4: Public transport and highway capacity, These existing and committed public transport crossings have very significant levels of capacity, and there is scope to increase the capacity of several of these links without major infrastructure works, through provision of additional and/or longer trains. Table 2 shows estimates of the reference case and potential maximum capacity of the public transport links with the improvements in the table notes. 27

29 Table 2: Reference case and potential maximum capacity of study area public transport crossings Crossing Ref case capacity (pax/hr) (a) Potential max capacity~ (pax/hr) (a) Docklands Light Railway (DLR) Cutty Sark Island Gardens 11,900 17,900 (b) Jubilee North Greenwich Canary Wharf 24,700 27,200 (f) Jubilee Canning Town North Greenwich 19, ,200 (f) DLR Woolwich Arsenal King George V 7, ,900 (c) Crossrail Woolwich Custom House 12,000 18,000 (d) Emirates Air Line 2,500 (e) 2,500 (e) a) If standardised at seated plus four standees per square metre b) With additional vehicles and North Route (Bow-Stratford) double tracking in place c) With additional vehicles and higher frequencies d) With 30tph core service, 18tph on Abbey Wood branch; e) Theoretical maximum, all cabins full, system at full speed. Typical actual capacity lower; f) Additional trains cascaded from Northern line fleet to give 33tph service 3.6 London's existing cross-river bus network reflects the limited highway crossing provision to the east of Tower Bridge. Overall there are comprehensive networks of services on either side of the river in east and south east London, but these networks operate largely independently of one another. 3.7 Figure 5 shows all standard bus routes in Greater London which at some point cross the River Thames. It excludes night time only bus routes and school services. Routes which cross the river in central London, using Vauxhall Bridge, Tower Bridge, or crossing points in between these two are coloured light grey. Routes which cross the river outside these crossings are coloured red. 3.8 There are 47 bus routes which cross the river west of Vauxhall Bridge, and only a single route (the 108) crossing the river east of Tower Bridge (using Blackwall Tunnel). This service can suffer from significant disruption when the Blackwall Tunnel is closed. Bus connections are available at both ends of the foot tunnel and ferry at Woolwich, and via stations with cross-river services. The figure highlights the notable disparity in cross-river bus provision in cross-river bus routes between east and west London, which is a consequence of the very limited cross-river road connections. 28

30 Figure 5: Cross-river bus services in London 3.9 In addition to road and rail-based public transport, some river bus services operate in the eastern section of the Thames as illustrated in Figure 6. While they provide a useful radial link between east London and parts of central London, and also serve cross-river trips along the inner section of the Thames, these do not provide any crossing opportunities in areas east of Greenwich Pier. Figure 6: River Bus services in the study area 3.10 It should also be noted that while the existing cross-river public transport capacity 29

31 is well used, it is currently forecast that in future years peak demand would remain capable of being accommodated on cross-river public transport links, albeit with some degree of standing and crowding. This contrasts with cross-river highway capacity which (as shown in paragraph 3.34, Table 3) is highly constrained, with all the existing highway crossings needing to accommodate demand at levels equal to or above their full capacity throughout peak periods A public transport accessibility level (PTAL) plan of east London is shown in Figure 7 level 1a is the lowest level of PTAL (least access to public transport), level 6a the highest. Figure 7: Public Transport Accessibility Levels in east London 3.12 Figure 7 illustrates that, as would be expected, central London has the greatest level of accessibility to public transport services. However this also illustrates that hot spots with high levels of accessibility by public transport now exist in east London. Particularly notable are high PTALs (level 6 and above) across much of Tower Hamlets, in Stratford (Newham) and in Barking/Ilford (Newham) There are also some hot spots south of the River Thames, particularly in the town centres of Greenwich, Lewisham and Bromley. By contrast, there are significant parts of the study area where public transport accessibility is low, and where roadbased travel is consequently especially important, as shown in the overall mode shares described below in Table 7. 30

32 Sustained investment in public transport in east London has resulted in a step change in cross-river rail links over the last 20 years, with a further high-capacity rail crossing in the form of Crossrail under construction. There is no evidence of unduly limited capacity on these links arising in the foreseeable future. However, there are very few cross-river bus links in east London, due to the lack of suitable road river crossings, which limits orbital travel by public transport, particularly in outer London, east of Woolwich. CURRENT CROSS-RIVER WALKING AND CYCLING PROVISION 3.14 Improving conditions for pedestrians and cyclists is a key part of the Mayor s Transport Strategy. However, as described below (from paragraph 3.21) the scale and role of the River Thames as a major shipping navigation channel in east London makes the provision of convenient pedestrian and cycle links across the river significantly more challenging and costly compared with areas of London to the west of Tower Bridge Cross-river routes for cyclists and pedestrians are provided via dedicated foot tunnels at Greenwich and Woolwich (see Figure 8). Built in the early years of the twentieth century, these have recently been undergoing refurbishment including lift replacement by Greenwich Council. In addition, there are some rail links which pedestrians and cyclists can use for part of their journey to cross the Thames, and the Emirates Air Line provides a cross-river cable car link for pedestrians and cyclists between the Greenwich Peninsula and Royal Docks Cyclists have more restricted public transport options than pedestrians, due to restrictions on the carriage of (non-folded) cycles on peak services on the Jubilee line and DLR and in future on Crossrail. However cyclists can take their cycles through the foot tunnels and on the Woolwich Ferry free of charge. As noted above, bicycles may also be carried on the Emirates Air Line. 31

33 Figure 8: River crossings in the study area for pedestrians and cyclists 3.17 Table 3 shows the estimated (2-way) pedestrian and cycle flows across the river in the morning peak hour. There are very low flows, with the highest being those on the Hilton Ferry and Greenwich foot tunnel. Table 3 : 8-9am estimated pedestrian/cycle crossing movements (2013) River crossing Modes Total Rotherhithe Tunnel Cyclists 42 Pedestrians 0 Hilton ferry* Ferry passengers 260 Greenland - Canary Wharf ferry* Ferry passengers 56 Greenwich foot tunnel Cyclists 299 Pedestrians 100 Woolwich foot tunnel Cyclists 23 Pedestrians 13 Woolwich Ferry Cyclists 21 Pedestrians 38 * 2012 data, all data from TfL estimates 32

34 Local pedestrian and cyclist trips across the river can be undertaken by means of one of several public transport links, including the Emirates Air Line and the foot tunnels. However, there are no crossing opportunities east of Woolwich. Any new crossing should provide a new crossing opportunity for pedestrians and cyclists wherever possible. CURRENT HIGHWAYS PROVISION Strategic highways network 3.18 Figure 9 illustrates the extent of the DfT s Strategic National Network around London. As can be seen, the principal routes for long distance traffic bypass London using the M25, and none of the river crossings in the study area is included in the national strategic road network, although the A282 Dartford Crossing forms part of the M25 London Orbital. Figure 9: Strategic national road network in and around London Source: Highways Agency

35 3.19 Within the M25, the London-wide road network caters for London-wide trips, as well as providing a means of accessing the national and international road networks. The strategic London road network is principally composed of the Transport for London Road Network (TLRN), which at 580km covers 4% of London's road length and carries over 30% of its traffic. Figure 10: Transport for London Road Network (TLRN) Source: TfL The sub-region s two existing river crossings lie on the TLRN. However in terms of capacity, use by longer-distance traffic and high volumes, the only two current strategic cross-river highway links east of central London are the Blackwall Tunnel and the Dartford Crossing

36 Current cross-river highway infrastructure in east and west London 3.21 The River Thames historically provided the essential means by which London was linked to the rest of the world. At the same time, it acts as a natural barrier to travel between north and south within the city In west London, the Thames is narrower than it is in east London and there is no right of navigation for large (tall) ships. This means that in west London historically bridges over the river have been relatively straightforward to provide, their spans being short and capable of support with in-river piers and lower clearances above the river By contrast, in east London, where the river is wider and large and tall ships have a right of navigation, there are more difficult design constraints for potential bridge crossings in terms of minimum clearances above the river, lengthy crossing spans, and the fact that only limited in-river obstructions (for piers) can be accommodated. In addition the flight paths of aircraft to/from London City Airport in the Royal Docks also creates height constraints for new structures A result of these factors is that while there are a large number of bridges in west London, there are far fewer bridge crossings in east London. There are only two bridges east of London Bridge: Tower Bridge, with its famous bascule lifting section, and the Queen Elizabeth II Bridge at Dartford with 54 metres of clearance above high water. There are three tunnelled road crossings, the Rotherhithe Tunnel, the twin bore Blackwall Tunnel (both of these tunnels have height and width restrictions) and the tunnel at the Dartford Crossing. Subject to further consultation and DCO consent, TfL plans to construct a further tunnelled crossing adjacent to the Blackwall Tunnel at Silvertown as part of the River Crossings programme Figure 11 illustrates the difference in the availability of road crossings over the Thames in east and west London (noting those with restrictions on use), from the edge of the Central London Congestion Charging zone to the M25 London orbital motorway. In west London between Vauxhall Bridge and the M25 there are 17 crossings in 29 km In east London between Tower Bridge and the M25 there are three crossings in 23 km 35

37 3.26 Of the three east London crossings west of Dartford, one is the restricted capacity Woolwich Ferry (which does not operate 24/7) 25 and the other two are the Rotherhithe and Blackwall Tunnels (both of which place restrictions on use by large vehicles). This means that for certain categories of road users, commercial traffic in particular, the highway river crossings available in the study area is limited not only by number but also by restrictions on weights, heights, lengths and/or widths. For safety reasons, there are also restrictions on the nature of loads which may be carried in tunnels under the European Agreement on the International Carriage of Dangerous Goods An implication of the above is that road vehicles with origins or destinations in east London which are restricted from using certain crossings may need to take very lengthy diversionary routes, possibly on inappropriate roads, in order to cross the River Thames. In this respect, the Woolwich Ferry provides a useful service in that, despite carrying a relatively small number of vehicles, it affords a river crossing opportunity for certain goods vehicles The London Lorry Control Scheme represents a further impediment for some road traffic in restricting Heavy Goods Vehicles (HGVs) to a network of main roads for the majority of their trip during the night time to limit noise impacts. During scheme operating hours, the Blackwall Tunnel is the only permitted river crossing route between Richmond and the Dartford Crossing (a crow-flies distance of some 22 km). 25 The Woolwich Ferry operates 6.10am to 8pm Monday to Saturday (incl. most public holidays) and 11.30am to 7.30pm on Sundays. 36

38 Figure 11: Tower Bridge to M25: 3 crossings in 23 km 3.29 The fact that there are only a few river crossings, with none in the 14 km between the Woolwich Ferry and Dartford crossings, also means that many local trips have to travel further to reach destinations the other side of the river, greatly increasing trip lengths and times, thereby constraining connectivity and accessibility and the links between the communities The current lack of connectivity and the resulting journey distances and times is obvious from Figure 12 and Figure 13 and the associated Table 4 below (all sourced from Googlemap data), which show distances and estimated free-flow journey times between Thamesmead and Beckton and between Belvedere and Rainham. While there are alternative routes to cross the river, these are in all cases significantly greater than the crow-fly distances involved. This means that existing or potential trips incur a significant distance and time penalty in these cross-river journeys. Table 4: Journey pair times/distance estimates Existing times based on free-flow times measured by Google maps TfL analysis 37

39 Thamesmead to Beckton distance freeflow time av speed via Dartford crossing 36 km 34 mins 64 km/h via Woolwich ferry 9 km 35 mins 15 km/h via Blackwall tunnel 18 km 25 mins 43 km/h As the crow flies 3 km 3 mins 50 km/h Belvedere to Rainham distance freeflow time av speed via Dartford 24 km 23 mins 63 km/h via Woolwich 20 km 45 mins 27 km/h via Blackwall 28 km 34 mins 49 km/h As the crow flies 3 km 3 mins 50 km/h 38

40 Figure 12: Estimated current journey time/distance Thamesmead to Beckton 39

41 Figure 13: Estimated current journey time/distance - Belvedere to Rainham 40

42 3.31 A corollary of this is that in areas where developed highway networks each side of the river are separated from one another by a lack of cross-river links, the provision of even a single new link has the potential to dramatically alter access to networks and the social and economic opportunities this offers As the analysis presented below from paragraph 3.65 demonstrates, this differential in cross-river highway provision has had a significant effect on the relative extent of cross-river travel in the eastern and western halves of the capital by influencing whether, how and where people travel. The limited number and location of crossings in east London is likely to have influenced the type of land uses in various locations. Roads Task Force 3.33 In 2012 the Mayor of London established a Roads Task Force, an independent body bringing together a wide range of interests and expertise to consider the strategic needs of the road network across London. The RTF report, published in July 2013, sets out a vision of how London can cope with major population growth and remain one of the most vibrant, accessible and attractive world cities. An interactive map, case studies, technical notes and more are available on the RTF supporting documents page.figure 14 below is taken from the task force s 2013 report, 27 and acknowledges the problems of poor connectivity across the Thames in east London, coupled with the high aspirations for growth in the Opportunity Areas in the area compared with other parts of the capital

43 Figure 14: Roads Task Force plan of key growth areas and transport challenges Current capacity and demand of highway crossings 3.34 Table 5 shows the approximate capacity and morning peak demand on the river crossing in east London. The actual capacity varies both within and between days due to fluctuations in vehicle flow volumes, speeds and vehicle mix, so this can only be a guideline. However it is known that queuing occurs in the peak direction throughout the morning peak period at all crossings, and the data indicates that all crossings are at or over capacity in the peak direction. Table 5: 2012 Demand and estimated capacities of road crossings in and around the study area 28 Crossing Capacity Flow in PCUs % capacity used 28 River Crossing Modelling Base Year Development and Validation Report, Mott McDonald, 2014 and other Mott McDonald data on capacities 42

44 (PCUs/hr)* (08:00-09:00) (AM peak hour) Blackwall Tunnel (n/b) % Blackwall Tunnel (s/b) % Woolwich Ferry (n/b) % Woolwich Ferry (s/b) % Dartford Crossing* (n/b) % Dartford Crossing* (s/b) % *Estimates of Dartford capacity do not reflect the effect of toll payment plazas on traffic flow and all capacity estimates dependant on volumes, speeds and vehicle mix 3.35 For certain categories of commercial road user, the number of highway river crossings available in the study area is much more limited since some crossings impose restrictions on the weights, heights, lengths and/or widths of vehicles that may use them. There are also restrictions on the nature of loads which may be carried in tunnels for safety reasons under the European Agreement on the International Carriage of Dangerous Goods. The relevant restrictions are shown in Table 6 below An implication of the above is that vehicles which are restricted from certain crossings may need to take very lengthy diversionary routes, possibly on inappropriate roads, in order to cross the Thames. In this respect, the Woolwich Ferry provides a valuable service in that, despite carrying a relatively small number of vehicles, it affords a river crossing opportunity for vehicles which would be barred from using the Blackwall or Dartford crossings. 43

45 Table 6: Usage restrictions for commercial vehicles on east London and Dartford crossings Max height Max width Max length Max weight Load restriction Tower None None None 18 t None Rotherhithe 4.4 m 2.0 m 10.0 m None Cat E Blackwall NB 4.0 m None None None Cat E Blackwall SB 4.7 m None None None Cat E Woolwich 4.8 m 3.5 m None None None Dartford NB 4.75 m 2.75 m 18.3 m 38 t Cat C Dartford SB None 3.65 m 27.4 m 38 t None * Note: Load restriction categories denote the type and quantities of dangerous goods that are allowed to enter the UK s larger road tunnels. Each regulated tunnel is assigned a particular category, A to E, with A being the least restrictive and E being the most restrictive. New restrictions were put in place in January ** Note: Some discrepancies appear to exist at the Dartford tunnel; the legal order 30 proscribes vehicles over 4.75 m; the actual signing is in imperial units only and equates to 5.03 m on the eastern tunnel and 4.80 m on the western tunnel. The nature and use of the Thames in east London necessitates road bridge river crossings to be higher, longer and to be less dependent on in-river piers than those in the west. By reason of these differences there are far fewer river crossings in east London than in west London. Of the only three east London crossings west of Dartford (a 23 km distance to Tower Bridge), one is the low-capacity Woolwich Ferry (which does not operate 24/7) and the other two are the Rotherhithe and Blackwall Tunnels both which have restrictions on use by large vehicles and are over capacity in the peak directions in the peak periods. The fact that there are only a few vehicle river crossings, with none in the 14 km between the Woolwich Ferry and Dartford crossings, also means that many local trips have to travel further to reach destinations either side of the river, constraining accessibility and the social and economic links between communities. Currently all the existing highway river crossings in east London operate at or over their capacity. 29 For more information:

46 Current resilience of the cross-river highway network 3.37 In transport planning, the term resilience describes the ability of transport networks to provide and maintain an acceptable level of service in the face of both planned and unplanned incidents. In the case of the cross-river highway network this is a function of : The number of crossings and the distance between them Their capacity to meet demand and the consequent implications should full or partial closure of one or more crossings be necessary, including the ability of operating crossings to handle traffic diverted from non-operational crossings Their susceptibility to closure; for instance, an inability to accommodate all vehicle types (the issue of limitations on vehicle height on the northbound bore of the Blackwall Tunnel is highly relevant), maintenance needs for old assets, susceptibility to adverse weather causing closures Resilience is a significant issue for businesses, increasing costs and uncertainty recent research on behalf of TfL found that 67% of firms located in the study area consider that poor reliability of cross-river travel acts as a constraint on or disruption to their business Resilience is an issue for individual crossings, but is also applicable across the wider road network, where the overall number of linkages between different parts of the network and the distances between them are significant. In east London the overall resilience of the road network is sub-optimal due, in part, to the small number of river crossings and the significant distances between them The lack of crossings means traffic converges at only three crossings from across the entire southern area of east London (around 15 km of river), which reduces resilience and compounds traffic congestion and safety problems when incidents occur. These problems are likely to have a particularly pronounced impact on commercial traffic, which, as noted above, faces restrictions on the crossings it can use Incidents at crossings causing obstruction and delay are excessively frequent and have significant adverse impacts across the wider road network. 31 East London River Crossings Business Survey, WSP, published June

47 3.42 The potential for serious and severe incidents at the Blackwall Tunnel to have a farreaching impact on London's road network can be illustrated through an analysis of an incident which occurred on the evening of Sunday 29 November On this occasion, a vehicle fire in the northbound bore of the Blackwall Tunnel caused the closure of the tunnel in both directions on Sunday evening and the closure of the northbound bore most of Monday 30 November. The closure caused considerable delays to traffic across large sections of the road network, and particularly in south east London as drivers sought alternative routes and river crossings On the Sunday evening drivers experienced congestion on routes in both north east and south east London, in particular on the A13 and A2 northbound and Commercial Road towards Rotherhithe Tunnel, before it started to ease between midnight and 1am. Later in the morning (Monday) congestion started to build before 6am in south east London, particularly around Rotherhithe Tunnel. Conditions in the Rotherhithe Tunnel area improved around 9am, but widespread congestion was observed by the London Traffic Control Centre around the areas of Blackheath, Deptford, Greenwich, Lewisham and Surrey Quays Heavy congestion also persisted on the A2 northbound, spreading back into Eltham and Bexley. By 7.20am congestion was observable around the Woolwich Ferry southern terminal. Only one boat was in operation and by mid morning there were delays of over 2 hours. Despite the introduction of a second boat shortly after 11am, lengthy delays persisted for the rest of the day and the ferry service was extended until 9pm to clear the backlog. The northbound tunnel was re-opened at around 6.30pm on Monday and the London Traffic Control Centre observed a return to normal traffic conditions by 8pm that evening These impacts are illustrated in Figure 15 below which gives an impression of the wide geographical area affected by the incident (black lines represent the worst delays and red the next worse). The A2 Shooters Hill Road and the A200 Evelyn Street/Lower Road, which form the diversion route to the Rotherhithe Tunnel, are two of the worst affected roads. 46

48 Figure 15: Effects of 30 November 2009 incident on south east London road network 3.46 A small sample of ibus data collected before and immediately after the above incident illustrates the effects of crossing closures to non-crossing traffic. Route 161, which runs close to, but not through, the Blackwall tunnel, operated only 35% of the scheduled trips on Monday 30 November, suggesting major disruption to local bus users as a result, with the maximum journey times on one short section increasing from 11 to 34 minutes There were a total of some 1,100 unplanned incidents in the Blackwall tunnel in the period Nov 2012 Nov 2013 some 55% of these were in relation to overheight vehicles, and a further 24% were caused by vehicle breakdowns The Silvertown Tunnel project aims to address the existing lack of resilience currently experienced at the Blackwall Tunnel There are also current network resilience issues relating to the Woolwich Ferry. At busy times, the queue for traffic wishing to board the Woolwich Ferry often builds up considerably, sometimes significantly obstructing and delaying other road users, particularly on the southern side of the river Figure 16 illustrates an occasion where the queue for the ferry extended back through the roundabout and caused significant queuing on the eastbound and northbound approaches to the junction. A large majority of traffic on these roads is not seeking to use the ferry, but ferry queuing and associated congestion is causing 32 TfL Network Performance Data, 2012/3 47

49 significant delays to other local traffic around Woolwich town centre. Other analysis 33 showed that bus journey times in the area can be significantly affected by this queuing, which impacts on bus users over a wide area. Figure 16: Woolwich Ferry queues blocking back through the roundabout (south side) 3.51 The Dartford Crossing also has some characteristics which impact upon its resilience. During high winds or icy weather, the bridge can be required to close. Neither the bridge nor the tunnels have hard shoulders. Meanwhile the tunnels need to be closed to facilitate recovery of broken down vehicles or maintenance (there are restrictions on vehicle recovery and on maintenance staff working alongside traffic). The Department for Transport is currently considering proposals for a new Lower Thames Crossing, which would go some way towards alleviating congestion currently associated with the Dartford Crossing, while free-flowing tolling currently being implemented would improve capacity and reduce delays currently experienced at toll-barriers. 33 TfL ibus data 48

50 Hillingdon Havering Sutton Bromley Harrow Bexley Richmond upon Thames Kingston upon Thames Redbridge Barnet Hounslow Enfield Merton Croydon Ealing Barking & Dagenham Waltham Forest Greenwich Brent Wandsworth Lewisham Haringey Newham Hammersmith & Fulham Kensington & Chelsea Lambeth Southwark Camden Westminster Tower Hamlets Hackney Islington City of London Study Area Rest of London London England and Wales TfL Planning The lack of resilience of existing cross-river highway links is a major issue, given the very few crossings, the distance between them, the demand on them which exceeds current capacity and the restrictions on their use. Incidents at crossings causing obstruction and delay are excessively frequent and have significant adverse impacts across the wider road network. The Silvertown Tunnel project aims, amongst other project objectives, to address the existing lack of resilience currently experienced at the Blackwall Tunnel however it continues to depend on the A2 for links to the south and will not provide greater network resilience or increased connectivity further east. CURRENT PATTERNS OF MOVEMENT Current mode share 3.52 As shown in Figure 17, levels of car and van ownership in the east London subregion boroughs are in general around or below the London household average of 58% the notable exceptions to this are the outer boroughs of Havering and Bexley, where 77% and 76% of households have at least one car or van, the second and sixth highest rate of all London boroughs respectively. Figure 17: Households with at least one car or van (2011) 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 77% 76% 60% 58% 48% 42% 37% 58% 58% 56% 74% Source: Census

51 3.53 Table 7 shows the overall mode share for personal travel by residents in the boroughs in the study area and compares these to inner London, outer London and London as a whole (this excludes freight and non-resident travel). While other modes are important, road-based travel (including bus, car, taxi and cycle but excluding walking) accounts for more than two thirds of all travel in four out of the five boroughs, the exception is Newham, where it accounts for 49% While road-based mode share is expected to decrease over time, it is clear that, given this dominance of road-based travel and the growth of population and employment expected in east London, more highway travel is inevitable. Table 7: Study area personal trips by borough of origin, trips per day and shares by main mode, average day (seven-day week) 2009/10 to 2011/ Area Trips (000s) Rail Underground / DLR Bus / tram Taxi / Other Car / motorcycle Cycle Walk Newham 590 2% 10% 17% 1% 30% 1% 38% B & D 280 3% 5% 19% 0% 45% 1% 28% Bexley 357 4% 0% 8% 1% 61% 1% 25% Greenwich 428 5% 3% 16% 1% 46% 1% 28% Havering 477 4% 2% 13% 1% 58% 1% 21% Inner London 7,958 6% 12% 18% 2% 22% 3% 38% Outer London 9,572 4% 4% 13% 1% 49% 2% 28% All London 17,530 5% 8% 15% 1% 37% 2% 32% 3.55 As Table 8, below, makes clear, road-based modes (including walking, cycling, taxis, and bus trips as well as private vehicle use) also play an important role in enabling access to employment across the study area, though this role has changed over time. 34 Borough Local Implementation Plan (LIP) performance indicators, - personal trips only 50

52 Table 8: Change of borough residents using road-based method of travel to work 35 Resident Borough 2001 road use 2011 road use Number (000s) Share (%) Number (000s) Share (%) Change (000s / %) Newham 45 (56%) 59 (46%) +15(-10%) Greenwich 56 (65%) 66 (59%) +11 (-7%) Bexley 70 (73%) 75 (71%) +5 (-2%) Havering 70 (72%) 77 (71%) +7 (-1%) B&D 44 (71%) 47 (64%) +3 (-7%) Totals (13%) 3.56 Over 70% of Bexley and Havering residents commute to work by road a high proportion of Barking and Dagenham residents also commute by road (64%). Newham (46%), Tower Hamlets (52%), and Greenwich (59%) have proportionally fewer residents commuting by road The proportion of residents using a road-based method of travel to work has reduced in all boroughs, indicating the impact of significant investment in rail infrastructure and possibly the level of congestion and unreliability of the road network. Despite these changes the proportions still stand at between 52% and 71%. (For context, between 2001 and 2011 the percentage of commuter trips made by road fell by 2.3% in England and Wales, 3.7% in London excluding the study area and 6.0% in the study area.) 3.58 While the share of commuting taking place by road-based modes has fallen in all boroughs, the absolute number of residents commuting by road has risen by a total of some 13 per cent, a result of population and employment changes Travelling by road, rather than rail-based public transport, is a faster option for many journeys in the study area, especially those that do not start or end very close to the rail network. It is this which helps to explain why car ownership and usage is much higher in outer London and why there continues to be high demand for journeys by car in east and south east London (including across the river), despite significant congestion it is very difficult for public transport to cater for these census dataset UV census dataset QS701EW. All figures rounded to nearest

53 types of dispersed point-to-point journeys. Freight in the East sub-region 3.60 The east sub-regional plan 36 notes that freight movement in the sub-region is expected to grow significantly in the future as it adapts to serve a growing and increasingly prosperous population, and as a result of the strategic role of the subregion within an international gateway The east sub-region also accommodates a significant proportion of London s freight industry 30 percent of London s warehousing space is in the sub-region a similar proportion to the west sub-region, which has 32 percent Freight and servicing trips in the east sub-region are mostly undertaken by road. The sector is subject to the same issues as other road users, including congestion (notably on the A12, A13, A20, and A102), severance (for instance at the Thames and in the Lea Valley), and journey time unreliability (exacerbated by the scarcity of Thames crossings). These problems are passed on through higher business costs to consumers There is significant freight/business use of the existing crossings a 2009 survey of the Blackwall Tunnel indicated that 23% of total traffic were Light Goods Vehicles (LGV)/HGVs; a similar survey on the Woolwich ferry showed that 40% of total traffic were LGV/HGV s 37. Despite recent reductions in road-based mode share, road-based travel is still very important in connecting people to employment in east London. Indeed, it is the main commuting mode in all boroughs in the study area with the exception of Newham (49%). And while the proportion has decreased, the absolute number of people commuting by road has risen sharply over the past ten years as the population has increased, generating additional demand for highway capacity and for more effective links between growing economic and residential areas. This demand would increase further in future as population and employment are forecast to grow rapidly in the period In addition, the vast majority of freight in London is carried by road, and the prediction is that this would increase significantly over the coming 36 East Sub-regional Transport Plan, TfL, River Crossings Assessment of Needs report by TfL,

54 decades the east sub-region and the study area have a high proportion of London s warehousing. Current Cross-river travel patterns 3.64 An analysis of the latest (2011) London Travel Demand Survey (LTDS) has been undertaken to examine the extent of existing cross-river personal travel by residents in east London 38, and so as to enable a comparison of both inter- and intra-borough trips to those in west London. It should be noted that this data excludes all non-resident travel in the area including freight, which constitutes a significant proportion of cross-river highway travel (see 3.63). The patterns identified are obviously affected by existing and historic land use patterns as well as the prevalence of crossings, but it gives an indication of the level of cross-river travel that can result from the availability of crossings which in turn influences land use Table 9 shows that, relatively, cross-river trips represent a small proportion of all resident-based personal trips: some 6.4% in east London and 10.8% in west London, including those in central London. However, the overall volume of daily trips is still high: 322,500 in east London and 566,400 in west London. West London therefore has some 70% more total cross-river trips compared to east London. Table 9: Summary of all inter and intra-borough trips in study area and west London 39 East London West London Trips (000s) % Trips (000s) % Entirely north 2,751 55% 2,882 55% Entirely south 1,962 39% 1,793 34% North-south crossing 160 3% 285 5% South-north crossing 163 3% 282 5% Total cross-river 323 6% % Total 5, % 5, % 38 East London River Crossings LTDS Analysis Note, TfL data used for 2005 to East London boroughs were defined as Newham, Barking & Dagenham, Havering, Redbridge, Bexley, Bromley, Greenwich and Lewisham, West London included Richmond and Kingston on Thames, Merton, Hounslow, Ealing, Wandsworth, Tower Hamlets and Lambeth. Central London included Kensington and Chelsea, Hammersmith and Fulham, the City of Southwark, Tower Hamlets and Westminster. 53

55 3.66 However when trips into central London are excluded (see table below), cross-river trips in east London total decrease to 33,900, or just 0.6% of all trips that originate or destinate in this part of London. This compares with 313,700 trips that cross the river in west London 10 times the east London figure, and a clear demonstration of the effect of the difference in cross-river connectivity between the two locations. Table 10: Comparison of all inter and intra-borough trips in East London and West London excluding central London (Average daily trips ) East London West London Trips (000s) % Trips (000s) % Entirely north 1,544 31% 1,831 35% Entirely south 1,582 31% 1,793 34% North-south crossing 17 <1% 151 3% South-north crossing 17 <1% 163 3% Total cross-river 34 <1% 314 6% Total 3,160 63% 3,937 75% 3.67 The analysis also shows that current cross-river trips in east London are overwhelmingly made by public transport, with car trips as a proportion of all crossriver trips standing at just 2% 40. This probably reflects the availability of cross-river transport in east London and the lack of road-based crossings. Cross-river trips that exclude central London are much more likely to be made by Underground or the DLR than other modes, given the current availability of the public transport network in the study area. Trips into Central London are much more likely to take place by National Rail (including Overground) given the availability of radial National Rail routes. Local vs. Strategic needs: current river crossing use 3.68 River crossings in the study area carry a mix of both local and long distance road traffic, and can therefore be described as currently serving both local and strategic needs Figure 18 shows the surveyed origins and destinations of traffic using the Blackwall Tunnels and the Woolwich Ferry northbound during the morning peak hour. This 40 East London River Crossings LTDS Analysis Note, TfL data used for 2005 to

56 shows a spread of movement at both crossings, some local, some more strategic movements, with a focus on origins and destinations in the study area boroughs. As would be expected given the lack of crossings, origins are focused on the eastern part of the study area. Figure 18: Origins/destinations Blackwall Tunnels northbound morning peak hour TfL survey data,

57 Figure 19: Origins/destinations Woolwich Ferry northbound morning peak hour 3.70 Analysis of the origins and destinations of current users of the Woolwich Ferry suggests that the service has a very local catchment, with a slight bias to the east 42. The majority (94%) of northbound journeys surveyed in 2011 started in a London Borough south of the river, most notably Greenwich (71%) or Bexley (14%). Eight in ten (80%) southbound journeys started in one of the London boroughs north of the river, primarily Newham (23%) or Barking and Dagenham (20%). Greenwich stood out as the most common southbound destination (55%) compared with 16% to Bexley While carrying a mix of traffic, each crossing can be described in terms of the main function it performs in the London context. TfL have identified three types of crossing: National/Regional Strategic traffic carried mostly has an origin and /or 42 TfL River crossings programme Assessment of Needs 2012, from

58 destination outside London; the crossing is of relatively minor importance for local, sub-regional or London-wide trips the Dartford Crossing has this role in the study area. (see Figure 20 below) London Strategic most traffic carried has an origin and /or destination in the east sub-region or wider London. In the study area the Blackwall Tunnel most closely fits this description with 75% of all trip origins and 83% of all trip destinations lying within Greater London (see Figure 21 below). While many of the trips using it are local and sub-regional trips, serving origins and destinations entirely within the east sub-region, many longer distance trips also use this crossing, with sizeable flows appearing on the M11 to the north east and the A2 to the south east. Local with the majority of traffic having either an origin or destination (or both) in the study area (i.e. within the boroughs of Greenwich, Bexley, Newham, Barking and Dagenham and Havering). The Woolwich Ferry is the crossing in the study area which most closely fits this description (see Figure 22). A high proportion of its traffic has an origin and/or a destination in Greenwich or Bexley. There is an axis of demand following the A406, some of which then uses the M11, but most traffic using it appears to be local or subregional in nature. Figure 20: Dartford Crossing modelled traffic routes in the morning Peak hour ( ), 2009, southbound 57

59 Figure 21: Blackwall Tunnel modelled traffic routes in the morning Peak hour ( ), 2009 Figure 22: Woolwich Ferry modelled traffic routes in the morning Peak hour ( ),

60 3.72 In the context of the present consultation, the following developments are relevant: The DfT is implementing new technology to improve capacity at Dartford, and is investigating additional crossings at this location or further east meeting the national/strategic needs for crossings east of London is therefore catered for or is being planned outside the study area. TfL is proposing a new tunnel at Silvertown, which would significantly improve the capacity of the Blackwall Tunnel bottleneck, and provide much greater resilience here. Preliminary modelling indicates that this improvement would significantly reduce queuing and delays in this location, and therefore this proposal would appear to cater for the majority of London strategic road traffic movement requirements. The Woolwich Ferry is approaching the end of its useful life as a local crossing, and decisions need to be made on its future. In addition there is significant local development planned in the wider study area along the river, and the links between these communities either side of the river need to be strengthened as noted in the London Plan in paragraph Taking account of these considerations the residual need for a crossing in the study area east of Silvertown relates to the requirement to (1) facilitate local road traffic movements that are essential to the proper functioning of east London today and which are constrained by the lack of connectivity and (2) facilitating the future economic and population growth in the area which will also have an essential component of cross-river road traffic which needs to be accommodated in an efficient manner. Currently the vast majority of cross-river personal travel by residents of east London is by public transport, reflecting the availability and journey times of current travel opportunities. An assessment of current cross-river personal travel by residents of east London indicates that it is very small proportion of overall personal travel (6.4%) - if Central London trips are excluded this reduces to only 0.6% of total personal travel. While this will obviously be influenced by land use patterns, it must also be a reflection of the lack of river crossing opportunities (similar analysis in west London shows river crossing travel levels 10 times higher). The analysis suggests that cross-river highway travel in east London is constrained, and there is a need for better connectivity to (1) facilitate local road traffic 59

61 movements that are essential to the proper functioning of east London today and which are constrained by the lack of connectivity and (2) facilitating the future economic and population growth in the area which will also have an essential component of cross-river road traffic which needs to be accommodated in an efficient manner. Strategic national/regional highway river crossings in the study area are principally via the Dartford Crossing, which is being upgraded and improved. Strategic London highway river crossings are currently delivered by the Blackwall Tunnels that lack resilience which the Silvertown Tunnel will address. The residual need for a crossing east of Silvertown relates mainly to facilitating local accessibility and related economic and population growth in the study area. Current highway accessibility opportunities for travel 3.74 The transport connections and conditions described above strongly influence the degree to which residents and businesses in the study area can access economic opportunities Using models and accessibility analysis described in more detail later in this report (Chapter 6), estimates of this accessibility can be derived. Two measures of this accessibility are: Access to jobs provides an indication of how attractive a place might be as a residential location; Access to economically active population provides an indication of how attractive a place might be to businesses in terms of their potential labour catchment Figure 23 shows the current highway accessibility to jobs in London from each transport model zone in London, with areas from which jobs are increasingly accessible shaded progressively darker. It shows clearly how east London s accessibility is relatively poor, and the barrier effect of the river in east London is immediately visible as it forms a cliff edge dividing areas of good accessibility from areas of much weaker accessibility. By contrast, accessibility graduates relatively smoothly downwards in west London, depending on distance from the centre, and no significant river effect is visible. 60

62 Figure 23: Current highway accessibility to jobs Figure 24 shows the current highway accessibility to economically active population in London. It shows much poorer accessibility in east London, particularly south of the river, and the river clearly divides areas of good accessibility from areas of much weaker accessibility. Again by contrast, no significant river effect is visible in the west. 43 River Crossings Development Study Final Report, Atkins Report Version 2.0 June

63 Figure 24: Current highway accessibility to economically active population Analysis in relation to options in Chapter 7 will show how this accessibility would change with new river crossings. Accessibility comparisons clearly show that the barrier of the river currently constrains the opportunities available to residents and businesses on both sides of the river east of Tower Bridge, whereas no significant river effect is visible to the west. FUTURE DRIVERS OF GROWTH 3.79 The next sections describe the growth estimates for the study area, business feedback on river crossing issues, and the links between transport and the economy in the area. They also show how this growth would translate into increased travel. 44 See footnote 27 62

64 Growth and Economic Development issues - Population 3.80 The regeneration of the former Docklands is taking place within the context of broader historic population and employment trends, detailed in the London Plan 45. The population in all of London's sub-regions declined in the decades following World War II, a process which slowed to a halt during the 1980s. Figure 25 shows that, while the east sub-region has historically had the highest population of the sub-regions in absolute terms, the rate of decline between the 1930s and the 1980s outstripped that of all other non-central sub-regions Population growth since 1991, however, has been most rapid in the areas where it had previously declined most quickly - the central and east sub-regions. The London Plan anticipates that population growth between 2011 and 2031 in the east subregion will be considerably more rapid than in the other sub-regions, and by 2031 its population is expected to have comfortably exceeded the previous peak reached in the 1930s. Figure 25: Population change 1931 to present and projections to 2031 in London's sub-regions Source: East sub-regional plan, GLA forecasts, shown in Table 11, predict that London s population would grow by around 1,150,000 people, or 14%, between 2011 and Table 11 shows that 45 London Plan, GLA, 2011/

65 the forecast population growth in all but two of the nine boroughs in the east subregion is expected to exceed the London average of 14% between 2011 and 2031, in many cases dramatically so. Together, the boroughs in the east sub-region are expected to account for 37% of London's total population growth over this period, while the four with the highest rates of growth (Tower Hamlets, Newham, Greenwich and Barking & Dagenham) are expected to account for 23% of that growth. Table 11: Forecast development of population in east sub-region Resident Population: % growth Tower Hamlets 245, ,723 33% Newham 295, ,181 22% Greenwich 245, ,282 28% Bexley 223, ,254 7% Hackney 235, ,496 16% Havering 233, ,676 16% Barking & Dagenham 180, ,462 29% Redbridge 266, ,212 13% Lewisham 271, ,853 15% East sub-region 2,197,770 2,629,139 20% Greater London 7,991,889 9,144,126 14% Source: GLA Population Projections 2011 Round, SHLAA, High Fertility, Borough SYA (Jan 2012, GLA) 47 All figures rounded to the nearest whole percent 3.83 Since the GLA forecasts were published, more recent information from the 2011 census has become available, shown in Table 12. The census shows that the 2011 London population was already around 180,000 higher than had been forecast by the GLA; and the east sub-region alone accounted for 75,000 of that additional population. This is clearly a significant increase in the number of additional residents in a short space of time Further work would be required to understand whether this is growth in population

66 coming forward earlier than expected, or whether this means that the 2031 population is likely to be higher than forecast. For either scenario, the implication is that the infrastructure forecast to be required to accommodate growth by 2031 is now likely to be needed far sooner. If, as now seems likely, population growth exceeds the forecast then future road travel and congestion is also likely to be greater than forecast in London, and this has implications for the river crossing programme. Table 12: Comparing GLA 2011 population forecasts with 2011 census data Resident Population: 2011 (GLA) 2011 (census) Difference (absolute) Difference (% of GLA forecast) Tower Hamlets 245, ,100 8,400 3% Newham 295, ,000 12,200 4% Greenwich 245, ,600 9,000 4% Bexley 223, ,000 8,200 4% Hackney 235, ,300 10,900 5% Havering 233, ,200 4,000 2% Barking & Dagenham 180, ,900 5,000 3% Redbridge 266, ,000 12,800 5% Lewisham 271, ,900 4,600 2% East sub-region 2,197,800 2,272,900 75,100 3% Greater London 7,991,900 8,173, ,100 2% Source: GLA Population Projections 2011 Round, SHLAA, High Fertility, Borough SYA (Jan 2012, GLA) and the Census (2011) 48 All figures rounded to the nearest whole percent and hundred 3.85 As the population grows, absolute numbers of trips would be expected to grow both as a result of the travel of residents, and reflecting the increase in freight and servicing that a larger population would require

67 Population growth, particularly in Tower Hamlets, Barking & Dagenham, Greenwich and Newham, will inevitably increase travel demands, including for cross-river travel census data indicates that population growth has been more rapid than the GLA previously forecast. The population in the east sub-region is soon expected to exceed the previous peak reached in the 1930s. This rapid population growth, happening sooner than expected in many areas, confirms the growth patterns estimated in the London Plan and implies that the infrastructure needs forecast to be required by 2031 in the MTS are now needed sooner. In addition early work on London s growth needs to 2050 indicates that east London will continue to be highly important as a location for future growth. Future Drivers of Growth Employment 3.86 In contrast to the 37% share of London's total population growth which the east sub-region is expected to accommodate, the share of total employment growth expected to take place in the sub-region is smaller at around 22% This employment growth is highly concentrated, with three of the nine boroughs in the east sub-region forecast to experience growth rates significantly above the London average; growth of some 33% and 22% is envisaged in Tower Hamlets and Newham respectively, while Hackney is expected to experience growth of around 17% (all these boroughs lie north of the River Thames). Table 13: Current and forecast employment in east sub-region (000 s) Employment forecasts: % growth Tower Hamlets 227, ,000 33% Newham 88, ,000 22% Greenwich 80,000 87,000 9% Bexley 74,000 79,000 7% Hackney 95, ,000 17% Havering 83,000 89,000 7% Barking & Dagenham 51, % Redbridge 74,000 81,000 10% 66

68 Employment forecasts: % growth Lewisham 77,000 83,000 8% East sub-region 849, ,000 17% Greater London 4,797,000 5,452,000 14% Source: Borough Employment Projections, 2009, GLA (presented in the London Plan, 2011) 49 rounded to nearest whole number Some boroughs in the east sub-region, in particular those boroughs south of the river and in outer east London (London boroughs of Lewisham, Greenwich, Barking & Dagenham, Havering) are expected to experience significantly greater growth in population than employment over the next twenty years Figure 26 and Figure 27 illustrate these differences in growth patterns. Employment growth is concentrated in areas north of, and relatively near, the River Thames as well as in central London. The numbers of jobs in certain areas further north and east are actually expected to decline. In contrast, significant population growth is anticipated across a broader area of the sub-region, including more areas south of the river and in outer east London The ellipses highlight the areas of east/south east London which are most directly affected by the river crossings proposals for east London, and highlight the scale of growth anticipated here

69 Figure 26: Forecast changes in London's population, 2006 to 2031 Source: East sub-regional plan, Figure 27: Forecast changes in London's employment, 2006 to 2031 Source: East sub-regional plan,

70 3.91 A likely consequence of this disparity is that if employment rates are to be maintained or increased, residents of the study area will increasingly need travel to find employment outside their home borough, leading to an increased need for travel within and beyond the study area including increased cross-river travel. Future drivers of growth Increased demand for highway travel 3.92 TfL has modelled the changes in population and employment 51, and the implications of this on demand to travel by road (other analysis not presented here included demand for public transport). Figure 28 shows the forecast of the change in the number of car drivers or car passengers journeys which will end in a particular area It demonstrates that there is predicted to be a significant increase in trips ending in the study area these changes are amongst the highest in the whole of London. Figure 28: Change in car person trip ends, morning peak, 2007 to 2031 Source: TfL Strategic Analysis, LTS model 3.94 TfL s traffic forecasts also indicate that levels of congestion will increase most in the 51 TfL, LTS analysis 69

71 east sub-region, in particular at locations adjacent to the River Thames, as the foregoing data would suggest Figure 29 illustrates the forecast change in levels of congestion by borough from 2007 levels to Figure 29: Forecast change in congestion by borough, 2007 to 2031 Source: TfL Strategic Analysis, LTS model Background traffic changes from 2012 to As part of this study, further modelling by TfL (see 7.3) has used the above estimates of growth to provide estimates of future highway demand in the study area Figure 30 shows the modelled change in traffic flows in the morning peak hour across east London from 2012 to It can be seen that there are large increases in flows across the strategic road network, e.g. A13, North Circular, A102, A2 and M25 and to a lesser extent the remainder of the network. These increases are driven primarily by the forecast increase in population and employment. 70

72 Figure 30: Flow changes on the road network in the morning peak hour from 2012 to Figure 31 show the impact that such increases in traffic flow would have on junction delay between 2012 and 2021 in the morning peak hour. Projected increases in delay can be seen across the highway network as a result of increased traffic flows. Some of the largest increases in junction delay occur on the A13, M25, A2 and the approaches to the Blackwall Tunnel. 71

73 Figure 31: Junction delay changes in the morning peak hour from 2012 to 2021 There is expected to be significant growth in employment and population in east London. Employment growth is forecast to be greatest in Tower Hamlets and Newham, however growth in population is focused elsewhere (refer to paragraph 3.43). This disparity between the location of forecast population growth and the location of forecast employment growth will generate increased commuter travel demands outside residents home boroughs, including increased cross-river travel demand. Modelling suggests that overall growth would significantly increase traffic congestion, particularly at locations adjacent to the River Thames in east London and at existing river crossings. Future Drivers of Growth Development & Regeneration 3.99 The London Plan states that growth will be supported and managed across all parts of London to ensure it takes place within the current boundaries of Greater London without: a) encroaching on the Green Belt, or on London s protected open spaces, and b) having unacceptable impacts on the environment (policy 1.1B). The plan goes on to state that in spatial terms, this will mean renewed attention to the large areas of unused land in east London where there are both the potential and need for development and regeneration (Para 2.4). 72

74 3.100 The London Plan therefore identifies London s reservoir of brownfield land and, particularly, the larger sites in the east as a principal location for accommodating its growth requirements over the next 20 years (Para 2.58). The east sub-region contains 14 Opportunity Areas and areas for intensification, accounting for 27 percent of London s overall land use potential. The east sub-region s Opportunity Areas and areas for intensification are shown in Figure 32, with indicative capacities for new homes and new jobs from 2011 to 2031, subject to provision of infrastructure. Figure 32: Opportunity Areas in east sub-region growth potential 2011 to 2031 Source: London Plan 2011 (table A1.1) Within the catchment area of the river crossings (the areas labelled in Fig.27) there is potential capacity for 200,000 new jobs and 100,000 new homes, which could be created in the period to 2031 if the necessary infrastructure is provided. Resilient cross-river linkages will clearly be important in linking these new and enlarged communities. 73

75 3.102 Figure 33 shows that the inner parts of the east sub-region are heavily over represented in the 20% most deprived lower-layer super output areas (LSOAs) in London. 52 There is variation within the sub-region, but in general the boroughs in the study area perform significantly worse than the London and national averages across a range of social and economic indicators. In particular, participation in the labour market tends to be lower, while unemployment and dependency on key state benefits is higher. This relative poor performance is illustrated in Table 14, which shows that the boroughs of Greenwich, Newham, and Tower Hamlets perform significantly worse than the average for London and England as a whole. Figure 33: Location of 20% most deprived LSOAs in London Source: London Plan, (Note that LSOAs are geographic areas which have been automatically generated to be as consistent as possible in terms of population size. The minimum population is 1,000 and the mean is 1,500. The London Plan identifies the 20% most deprived LSOAs as areas for regeneration.) 74

76 Table 14: Key social indicators in selected boroughs in study area, with London and England averages (rounded) Activity rate* (%) Employment (%) Unemployment (%) Proportion of working age population who claim out of work benefits (%) B&D Bexley Greenwich Newham Tower Hamlets London England Source: GLA London Borough Profiles, based on 2011 Census 53 * Note: Activity rate (%) measures the proportion of the working age population (16-64) who are active or potentially active members of the labour market.* Note: Working age out of work benefits include jobseekers allowance, income support for lone parents, incapacity benefits and other income related benefits It is possible that the level of deprivation in the east sub-region could be further exacerbated by the fact that population is expected to grow at a faster rate than employment within the sub-region This means that an increased population of working age is likely to need to travel within and beyond the study area, including across the river, in order to reach employment. Improving connectivity across the region is therefore a key objective to ensure better access to employment and improved links for business. East London contains areas of high deprivation and the population is rising rapidly. The London Plan identifies London s reservoir of brownfield land and particularly the larger sites in the east as the key to accommodating its growth requirements over the next 20 years. The east sub-region contains 14 Opportunity Areas and areas for intensification, accounting for 27 percent of London s overall land use potential

77 The development of transport infrastructure of all types is essential to supporting and accommodating these development opportunities and to cater for increased travel movements. As noted above, road-based transport is by far the most important mode in the study area. Business needs survey Between 24 September and 15 October 2013 TfL commissioned 700 telephone surveys of businesses on a sampling frame designed to cover boroughs, sector and size (number of employees) within the study area The key findings of the research are: Businesses expect a strong positive economic effect from the East London River Crossings Package % expect it to improve the local economy overall. Improvements to cross-river journeys are seen as important to businesses. 64% of firms regard the ability to cross the River Thames as important to the successful operation of their business. Only 18% of businesses agree or strongly agree that current crossing options are adequate. The predictability of cross-river journey times is a particular issue. 65% of firms consider that poor reliability of cross-river travel acts as a constraint on or disruption to their business. 44% of firms think predictability of journey times is poor or very poor, against 12% who regard it as good or very good. This is of most concern to firms in Greenwich (80%) and least for those in Lewisham and Havering (54% each). The majority of firms (78%) anticipate more predictable journey times as a result of the implementation of the crossings package. A significant number of businesses see the river as a barrier to the development of their business on the other side. Overall around a third of all businesses agreed with this statement, although the level of agreement was higher for businesses in Greenwich (49%), Newham (47%) and Bexley (40%). Should the investment package be implemented, 65% of firms anticipate 54 WSP/TfL east London River Crossing Business Survey, published Feb Defined in the survey as a new tunnel at Silvertown; a new ferry, tunnel or bridge at Gallions Reach, or An upgrade to existing Woolwich Ferry 76

78 more business coming from the other side of the river (82% for Newham). Proximity to other businesses is important to a third of firms because it brings in more trade/customers. This proximity is more important for businesses in Barking and Dagenham (42%) and Newham (41%) and less so in Bexley (28%), Tower Hamlets and Lewisham (30% each). Firms were asked about business prospects on a short-term horizon (a year); therefore the survey reflects current cyclical trends. There was spare capacity in the local economy at the time of fieldwork (October 2013 / March 2014), exemplified by the fact that 61% of businesses expected their turnover to grow over the next 12 months, yet only 29% of businesses considered the number of staff that they employ was likely to increase. For those that did recruit (52% businesses), the vast majority (83%) did not have difficulties. This reflects the current state of the post-recession labour market. Longer-term recruitment trends are expected to be stronger if the East London River Crossings package is implemented. Almost half of businesses (49%) expect to recruit additional staff as a result of the investment, with firms in boroughs closest to the planned new crossings - Greenwich (57%) and Newham (54%) - anticipating the biggest effect. Construction sector businesses are most likely to expect to recruit additional staff (59% think this will occur as a result of the package). Freight and logistics are expected to benefit from the East London River Crossings package. More efficient use of supplies and deliveries is anticipated by 65% of firms as a result of the package. The construction sector is most concerned about problems crossing the river. Half of all construction businesses regard crossing the river as essential or very important to their success, compared with c.30-40% for other sectors. The main benefit anticipated by construction businesses is more predictable journey times (86% expect this to result from the investment package). Over half of firms would be happy to pay a reasonable charge to cross the river if journey times became more reliable. 59% of firms agreed or strongly agreed with this statement. Smartcard payment for freight was supported by 73% of respondents The importance of crossing the river in east London to businesses by borough, by sector and by location in relation to new road crossings in east London is illustrated in Figure 34 and Figure 30. These indicate that the businesses in boroughs further from existing crossings regard new crossings in east London as more important compared with those nearer; and that businesses in the construction, primary/manufacturing and transport, retail and distribution sectors regard new crossings as of more importance compared with other employment sectors. 77

79 Figure 34: Importance of east London river crossings to successful operation (by borough) Source: TfL East London River Crossings Business Survey, 2014 Figure 35: Importance of east London river crossings to successful operation (by sector) Source: TfL East London River Crossings Business Survey, 2014 Overall two thirds of businesses report that the ability to cross the river by road in east London is important to their business, with a third rating it as very important or essential. Only 18% feel current crossings are adequate. The responses to survey indicate that the businesses in boroughs further from existing crossings regard new crossings in east London as more important compared with those nearer and that businesses in the construction, primary/manufacturing, transport, retail and distribution sectors regard new crossings as of more importance compared with those in other employment sectors. 78

80 Linkages between transport and development As part of the programme, a comprehensive study of the potential development and socio-economic impacts resulting from a range of crossing options within east London was undertaken 56 - a summary of the main findings of this study is described in the following paragraphs Transport infrastructure can facilitate economic growth by improving business efficiency through time savings and reliability, expanding labour markets and increasing competition through improving access to customers and suppliers. Places that are better connected are generally more attractive both for businesses and as residential locations and this can increase demand for services and property values Improvements in the resilience and reliability of the transport network are as important as improvements in connectivity for many road-based business sectors Transport investment can also facilitate growth through improving the image of an area, providing a demonstration of long-term public sector investment and drawing it to the attention of potential inward investors; Different firms are affected by transport improvements in different ways. The manufacturing and construction sectors are more road dependent than office based sectors and are likely to respond to changes in road-based connectivity more positively. However, sensitivity to changes in the road network is just as much about location as sector, with outer London borough businesses much more reliant on road-based accessibility than those in inner and central London Boroughs; Case studies of similar major investments in cross-river capacity, such as the Severn Bridge and the Dartford Crossing, have demonstrated that such investment can generate strong employment growth at levels well above the regional average, with those areas that the bridge directly links benefiting to the greatest degree. There is also evidence of higher levels of housing development facilitated by the crossings; there is other empirical evidence of an increase in employment being related to accessibility to jobs by road; Transport is a necessary, but not sufficient, condition for growth. For transport investment to facilitate regeneration, the proposed scheme needs to be set within a context of wider economic growth, with a supportive policy environment, and to 56 River Crossings Development Study Final Report, Atkins Report Version 2.0 June

81 provide a significant step change in connectivity. Given the current lack of connectivity in the study area, it is likely that some river crossing options will to achieve this latter change, as described later in Section The lack of cross-river connectivity in east London restricts the size of labour market and the potential customer catchment for firms, thereby restricting competition and economic activity. East London boroughs have lower proportions of the labour force that come from outside each borough, have lower employment densities per hectare, lower retail catchments and less average spend per town centre The study area contains a high proportion of businesses in the distribution, construction and manufacturing sectors that rely on good road links to access customers and suppliers. These businesses also have higher proportions of their labour force that commute by road-based modes and were most likely to state that a new road crossing would lead to growing their business. Growth in freight movement is also expected, with the number of LGVs forecast to grow by up to 30% between 2008 and 2031, accounting for 15% of traffic on London s Roads It is estimated that there is potential capacity for over 243,000 residential units, 2.5 million sq.m. of office floorspace, 440,000 sq.m. of retail floorspace and 1 million sq.m. of leisure floorspace in the study area. If this was floorspace developed, this would result in a loss of 975,000sq.m of industrial floorspace. However there is a significant oversupply of capacity when compared to estimated demand, particularly for office and retail development. This suggests that not all sites will come forward for development, with only those where market demand is strongest and site constraints do not threaten viability The northern side of the river in the study area has over twice as much floorspace capacity that could support employment than on the south side, with the majority of this difference in the office sector. This potential imbalance in employment growth, combined with a relatively even distribution of potential housing growth, is likely to lead to a greater demand for trips from the south side of the river to employment/businesses on the north side In terms of the development potential in east London. There is currently a focus on access to public transport and central London for new housing, and this has resulted in more intensive development in the west of the study area. The study area, outside of Southwark and Tower Hamlets, requires a step change in the performance of its economy to deliver its full potential, and given the high proportion of road travel mode use in the study area, new road river crossings may contribute significantly to that because of changes in connectivity and related accessibility; Office development is likely to continue to be located in northern Southwark 80

82 and western Tower Hamlets (City Fringe), Canary Wharf, as well as a limited number of select hubs with excellent public transport accessibility, such as Stratford. There is also significant potential at Royal Docks, although improvements to the accessibility of these sites are key to their development; Retail demand is expected to decline somewhat compared to recent years due to structural changes in the market related to e-commerce and other factors. However, there is still potential for growth, especially in town centres and where a quality product can be offered to the market; New industrial floorspace is more likely to occur in locations where high quality industrial space can meet the needs of hi-tech industries that want to be located close to the London skill base and have access to finance, and can access the strategic transport network, such as the London Sustainable Industries Park at Dagenham Docks; The development of logistics space close to urban areas will also be dependent upon the cost and availability of large plots of development land, as well as the opportunity cost of not developing for other, more valuable uses such as residential. This suggests locations such as Barking & Dagenham, Bexley and southern parts of Havering are likely to see the strongest growth in this sector; but this will be dependent on the provision of good road access. There are strong links between transport connectivity and the economy, and connectivity affects different sectors and locations in different ways the nature of the businesses and travel to work in the study area means that road connectivity is very important. While transport is a necessary, but not sufficient, condition for growth but there are strong indications that new river crossings would increase the accessibility of local residents to employment and local businesses to each other and to the labour market, and to assist in the achievement of forecast development and employment. COMMITTED TRANSPORT ENHANCEMENTS There are a number of significant enhancements planned to assist in meeting growth demand that have been identified and developed in partnership with boroughs and other stakeholders. The Sub-Regional Transport Plan east 57 sets 57 Mayor of London, Transport for London, undated 81

83 out a wide variety of public transport, walking, cycling and highways projects to meet identified needs in east London. Some of the more significant schemes are: Crossrail (2018) Devolution of West Anglia suburban services (2015) Bow rail junction remodelling and Gravesend train lengthening ( ) New stations at Lea Bridge station (2014) and DLR Pudding Mill Lane Stratford to Upper Lea Valley rail enhancements (2018) Jubilee line timetable improvements Electrification of the Gospel Oak to Barking line (2016) Hackney Wick and Bromley-by-Bow station improvements Train lengthening to five cars on London Overground (2015) Implementation of the Mayor s Vision for Cycling While these are significant improvements, it is notable that the only planned scheme which will enhance cross-river connectivity is Crossrail. NEEDS GAP ANALYSIS Having regard to existing transport network in the study area including the lack of connectivity and resilience in road based river-crossings, the ways that residents and businesses travel, the factors which are anticipated to change the area s travel needs, and the programme of committed investment already set out, the following conclusions can be reached Sustained investment in public transport in east London has resulted in a step change in cross-river rail connectivity over the last 20 years, with a further highcapacity rail crossing in the form of Crossrail under construction. There is no evidence of unduly limited capacity arising in the foreseeable future, although TfL is currently reviewing the implications of growth projections. In terms of bus access, there are very few cross-river links in east London, largely due to the lack of suitable road river crossings There are few walking and cycling crossings in east London, and none east of the Woolwich Ferry There are only three highway cross-river links between Tower Bridge and the Dartford Crossing (with none in the 14km between the Woolwich Ferry and Dartford Crossing) all existing crossings are over capacity in the peak hours and have height, width, and/or load restrictions. This leads to a lack of connectivity and longer journey times and major resilience problems. 82

84 3.126 While cross-river travel represents only a small proportion of study area resident personal travel, it is still considerable and freight use is very important. There are strong indications that the lack of river crossings constrains and reduces cross-river travel and is a constraint on links being formed between communities and businesses While other modes are important, road-based travel accounts for more than two thirds of all travel in four out of the five study area boroughs, the exception being Newham (49%), While road-based mode share is expected to decrease over time, it is clear that, given this dominance of road-based travel and the growth of population and employment expected in east London, more highway travel is inevitable East London is one of the largest regeneration areas in the UK. The delivery of development in this area is fundamental to maximising London s significant economic potential. However, road traffic movements within the sub-region are significantly constrained by the barrier effect of the Thames. This barrier effect limits local firm s access to markets, the size of retail and leisure catchments and residents access to employment opportunities in a way that is peculiar to the eastern half of the capital. This constraint on economic activity makes delivering the significant scale of development planned for the area more difficult Population growth, which appears to be happening far more quickly than had previously been anticipated, is predicted to significantly increase the volumes of road traffic in the study area together with levels of congestion Overall two thirds of local businesses report that the ability to cross the river by road in east London is important to their business, with a third rating it as very important or essential. Only 18% feel current crossings are adequate Currently the Dartford Crossings and the Blackwall Tunnel provide the principal strategic traffic carrying function in the study area. The Woolwich Ferry, with a much lower capacity and slower journey time, has a more local function, although it is important for higher vehicles and hazardous loads which cannot use the Blackwall Tunnel Taking into account TfL s Silvertown Tunnel proposal to relieve the Blackwall Tunnel and the DfT s proposals to improve conditions at the Dartford Crossing, the residual need for a new crossing in the study area east of Silvertown relates mainly to providing for local connectivity and accessibility and meeting present and future road traffic functional demands on the network. 83

85 The overall conclusion is that the current river crossings between Tower Bridge and the Dartford Crossing do not provide adequate connectivity between the large populations and businesses either side of the river, leading to longer journey times and higher costs and constraining travel between them. The existing crossings do not cater adequately for current cross-river road traffic movement; they are at or over capacity and there are severe resilience problems. While public transport, walking and cycling are important, road travel is also vital for the proper functioning of the study area, and growth predictions are for significant increases in road travel and congestion. Better cross-river connectivity and resilience are needed now, and any new infrastructure should aim to cater for and support the significant growth planned in the area. A new road crossing east of Silvertown should seek to facilitate local accessibility and accommodate local needs including freight, buses, walking and cycling. 84

86 4 CONSULTATION TO DATE General 4.1 Since the publication of the MTS there have been two public consultations held on the River Crossings programme to date, one during February-March 2012, and a second from November 2012 to February Initial consultation An initial 4-week consultation was held in early The river crossings options presented were a new tunnel at Silvertown and a new ferry at Gallions Reach (the Emirates Air Line had already been consulted on in 2010 and was delivered in 2012). 4.3 Over 90% of the approximately 4,000 respondents agreed that there is a need for more river crossings between east and south east London. 80% of respondents supported the Silvertown Tunnel and over 60% supported the Gallions Reach ferry. However, some respondents, and many key stakeholders, also made suggestions for other improvements they would like to see, particularly a fixed link (bridge/tunnel) at Gallions Reach either instead of a ferry, or replacing the ferry at some point in the future. Second Consultation A second consultation was held on river crossings, running from October 2012 to February Taking into account the responses from the initial consultation, this second consultation covered a wider package of options: a new tunnel at Silvertown, replacement of the Woolwich Ferry at Woolwich, a new ferry service at Gallions Reach, a new bridge/tunnel at Gallions Reach by 2021 (instead of a ferry), a new bridge/tunnel at Gallions Reach by 2031 (if a ferry service does not adequately address the area s transport needs). 58 See 85

87 4.5 The consultation proposed charging of the Blackwall Tunnel and any other new crossings introduced. A user charge would be applied to manage traffic volumes and to help fund the new crossings. The level of these charges, and any associated discounts would be managed to control the overall volume of demand and the wider traffic impacts away from the crossings themselves. A user charge of a magnitude similar to those at Dartford was assumed. 4.6 There were about 6,400 questionnaire responses received including about 80 from identified stakeholder organisations 59. There was over 70% support for each of the fixed link (bridge/tunnel) options, with the strongest support for the Silvertown Tunnel (77%). Overall 51% of respondents supported a new ferry at Woolwich and 52% supported a new ferry at Gallions Reach. 55% of respondents opposed a toll for the new crossings and for the Blackwall Tunnel and a third supported it. 4.7 Boroughs, business representative groups and members of the public generally acknowledged the need for new crossings, although there were mixed views about how to approach this. Some respondents (especially those with a concern for transport impacts on the environment) generally opposed any new highway capacity. 4.8 There were again suggestions that TfL should consider alternative crossings and crossing locations, and an indication that the focus on the replacement of the Woolwich Ferry was too narrow in the context of the wider strategic needs of this growing part of London

88 5 STUDY OBJECTIVES Background 5.1 To assess the many schemes and ideas which have been generated either by TfL or others (for instance in response to consultation), a series of study objectives have been developed. 5.2 These study objectives draw from Mayoral policy as set out in the London Plan and MTS, information gathered from the assessment of needs (including the latest information on population growth), and responses to consultation. East of Silvertown crossing study objectives as set out in Chapters 2, 3 and 4 above. Study objectives 5.3 Based on a broad view of policy, the transport and economic context and the identified needs, as described above, the following have been adopted as the study objectives for the study dealing with consideration of options for roads-based river crossings east of Silvertown. These are: to improve cross-river connectivity (for local traffic including the movement of goods, buses, cyclists and pedestrians). This relates to the strategic objective for river crossings defined in the London Plan, and relates directly to TfL s refreshed assessment of the area s need for improved transport connections across the river set out in Chapter 3. to improve the resilience of the river crossing network (i.e. the reliable availability of the crossing, and the ability of the cross-river highway network to manage planned and unplanned events and incidents) This also relates to the strategic objective for river crossings defined in the London Plan and also the assessment of the area s needs set out in Chapter 3 above. to provide transport measures to support and cater for the anticipated development in east and south east London and emerging growth (including addressing the needs of businesses and housing and population growth). This objective reflects the London Plan s emphasis on supporting growth, together with more recent data on the pace of growth and the views of those who responded to TfL s most recent consultation. 5.4 In addition to these objectives, which are described in more detail in 5.7, a successful crossing option or package of options would need to meet a number of other important study requirements arising principally from the programme objectives outlined in the 2012 Assessment of Needs report, but also the criteria defined in the London Plan (and echoed in the MTS) for assessing proposals for new roads. These are: 87

89 To address the needs of Woolwich Ferry users To minimise any adverse impacts of proposals on health, safety and the London environment, including any additional traffic (and local effects of this) and changes in congestion 60 To ensure where possible that any proposals are acceptable in principle to key stakeholders, including affected boroughs To consider local and strategic land use policies To achieve a positive business case 5.5 The assessment should also take into account whether mitigation measures could reduce any adverse effects on the above. 5.6 Together these objectives and requirements are consistent with the Mayoral objectives as set out in the MTS (and therefore the principles of the TfL Strategic Appraisal Framework) and the LP, and with the programme objectives suggested in the 2012 River Crossings Options report 61. Definition of study objectives 5.7 Cross-river highway connectivity refers in this context to a number of criteria: The spacing of different crossings over the river, which impacts on the links and connectivity between the networks and communities on either side of the river, the way that travel can be dispersed between crossings, and the shortening of journey lengths and times to cross the river These factors result in a change to the accessibility of the areas either side of the river to each other and to the opportunities for jobs, businesses and facilities on each side of the river In addition it is evident from the needs analysis above, that in addition to any freight movements any new crossing should focus primarily on catering for local traffic, that is, traffic with either an origin or destination (or both) in of the boroughs adjacent to the river (Greenwich, Bexley, Newham, Barking and Dagenham and Havering). Clearly any crossing will be used to some degree by 60 SEE LP policy and MTS policy River Crossings Options report, TfL,

90 traffic that does not have this local origin and destination, but this should not be the majority of traffic attracted to using the crossing. 5.8 Cross-river highway resilience in this context refers to: The availability of these crossings to local traffic (including the movement of goods), buses, cyclists and pedestrians throughout the day and week The susceptibility of crossings to closure, for instance their ability to deal with different vehicle types or other operational constraints The capacity of these links and the demand to use them, and therefore the implications should full or partial closure of one or more crossings be necessary The number of crossings and the distance between them 5.9 In this context, a resilient cross-river highway network would be composed of a number of different links, spaced regularly along the river, each of which is able to provide an acceptable level of service and is not prone to unplanned closure Support for growth and economic development and emerging growth encompasses some aspects of accessibility as described above, which reflect the ability of residents to access employment, and of firms to hire labour and to interact with other businesses, and to encourage development of various types. It embraces accessibility for freight traffic as an important factor. Support for growth also means accommodating where necessary the increases in traffic and travel which are anticipated to follow from growth. 89

91 6 OPTIONS SHORT-LISTING Introduction 6.1 This chapter firstly describes the source of options generated and the outline of the two-stage sifting process used. It then describes the categories of options considered in the first stage sift, explaining how they address the study objectives and highlighting the short-listed categories of options. 6.2 The chapter then concludes by comparing various options within each of the shortlisted categories against study objectives and requirements and proposes a final short-list of options for consultation. Option generation 6.3 TfL has reviewed all of the options which could feasibly address the river crossing needs identified in the area east of Silvertown, including some which were identified in the previous Assessment of Options consulted upon in 2012, and new options developed following responses to the previous consultation, such as a potential new crossing location between Belvedere and Rainham. 6.4 The options have been examined over the last two years in a variety of technical reports and consultations 62 these have evolved as the study has evolved over time. The sifting process 6.5 A two-stage sifting process has been used to review potential options (see Figure 36): First, broad categories of options have been considered in terms of their potential to address the study objectives and requirements. Categories of options which fail to meet one or more of the objectives and/or are unlikely to pass the key project requirements (as described in Chapter 5 above) have not been taken forward from this stage. Next, the options carried forward from this first stage have been considered against the likely costs and benefits and study requirements. This is followed

92 by a final short-listing of options proposed for further public consultation before any decisions over which option(s), if any, should be taken forward as projects. Figure 36 Option sifting process STAGE 1: ASSESSING CATEGORIES OF OPTIONS 6.6 The options considered fall into a number of broad categories firstly, various nonhighway options, secondly highway. An assessment of how each of these categories of options contributes to the study objectives is summarised below. Do-nothing 6.7 The do-nothing option assumes that the Blackwall Tunnel and Woolwich Ferry continue to operate as at present the Woolwich Ferry would require significant 91