Mayor's flawed consultation results on controversial road bridge |
|
On 11th November 2003, the Mayor announced the results of Transport for London's (TfL's) consultation on the proposed Thames Gateway bridge [1], and claimed 85% of East Londoners supported the scheme. Friends of the Earth London have consistently raised concerns about the 6-lane road scheme, the nature of the consultation, and how the results should be treated with caution. TfL did not have information available during the consultation, on how much traffic and air pollution the bridge would generate, that is necessary for people to make an informed judgment on whether or not to support the principle of the scheme [2]. Half way through the consultation, TfL's initial estimates for the number of vehicles that would use the bridge in the morning peak hour, that showed a massive rise of 36%, were published [3], and revealed the bridge would be congested from day one. Transport expert John Elliott [4] had predicted the congestion, and says the bridge would in fact result in "worse journey times for most people". Also a recent Government report makes it clear that congestion on existing local crossings would not be significantly alleviated even by the Thames Gateway bridge scheme and a third crossing at Blackwall [5] - the roads would just fill up with traffic again. However, comments from 19% of all respondents indicate they ticked the box in question one, for supporting the scheme, because they were under the impression that existing traffic congestion would be reduced generally, and on existing local crossings [6]. The change in traffic figures casts doubt on the reliability of the responses made in the first half of the consultation, before the estimates went up. Would people who responded and supported the scheme before this change, have still done so? If final figures change again, all responses could be unreliable. Jennifer Bates, Friends of the Earth London Campaigns Co-ordinator said: "The Mayor's consultation on the Thames Gateway road bridge was a flawed exercise and the results are unreliable. I doubt these are the results we would see if local people had been given proper information about the traffic and air pollution effects this bridge would create. From my experience, the more people find out about the effects of this scheme, the more they realise they don't want it." Question one actually has the potential to give a false impression of support for building this particular scheme, because the question actually asks for support or not "on the proposal to build a bridge at this location", and not specifically the proposed scheme. People do want to have transport access improved, but may not want this road bridge scheme. In effect the Mayor's consultation offered a take-it-or-leave-it choice - people were offered a single scheme, with no choices on alternative ways to aid regeneration and improve transport access. Independent regeneration expert, Professor John Whitelegg [7], has said "you could regenerate east London, creating far more sustainable jobs and with greater benefit to local people, at a fraction of the cost" (by alternative schemes). Comments from 17% of all respondents to question one say they supported the scheme because there was a lack of access and more crossings were needed [8]. Jennifer Bates, Friends of the Earth London Campaigns Co-ordinator said: "If local people had been given a choice of ways to help their area and improve transport access, I doubt they would choose a 6-lane road bridge, costing £1/2 billion. Far from being essential to regeneration, as the Mayor says, experts have said this scheme would do little or nothing to alleviate unemployment, but would bring more traffic congestion to local streets, and air pollution that would make them ill." [9] Contact Jennifer Bates Read more about: Notes[1] The Mayor's Transport for London ran a 3 month consultation on the Thames Gateway bridge, proposed between Thamesmead and Beckton in east London, between 13th May and 12th August 2003. [2] The consultation ended in August, and the Environmental Impact Assessment containing final information was due to be published in November. [3] TfL's Interim Technical Summary (ITS) published on June 26th, and put on the TfL website not until some time in July, revealed traffic estimates rising from 4,400 to 6,000 vehicles/hour. [4] John Elliott has written a report: "A Solution looking for a Problem - a review of Transport for London's proposals for river crossings in East London and their traffic impact", March 2003, for Transport 2000. [5] A report for the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister: "Relationship between Transport and Development in the Thames Gateway" by consultants Llewelyn Davies and Steer Davies Gleave, with Roger Tym and Partners and Atkins, July 2003. [6] Of a total of 5,290 responses, 5,194 answered question one. Out of a total of 3,655 comments on question one, there were 975 comments relating to traffic congestion being reduced generally / on existing crossings, which represents approximately 19% of all responses to question one. [7] Professor John Whitelegg has written a report: "Thames Gateway River Crossing: a social, economic and environmental assessment", January 2002, for the Simon Woolf Charitable Foundation [8] Refer to [6] above. There were 857 comments labeled "support - lack of access / need more crossings", which represents approximately 17% of all responses to question one. [9] Refer above to John Elliott [4] and Professor John Whitelegg [7] reports, and the report for the Government above [5] also states any potential benefits from the bridge to business development in the local area would be "not great in scale", and "could even be counter-productive" (because of added congestion). |