|
|
|
-
Public not given key information, on how much traffic and
air pollution the bridge would generate, necessary for people to
make an informed judgment on whether or not to support the principle
of the scheme, was not available during the consultation. The consultation
ended in August, and the Environmental Impact Assessment containing
this information was due to be published in November.
-
Traffic figures go up during the consultation. Half way
through the consultation, initial estimates for the number of vehicles
that would use the bridge in the morning peak hour, showing a massive
rise of 36%, were published by TfL. 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, and meaning the bridge would be congested
from day one. The change in traffic figures casts doubt on the reliability
of the responses made in the first half of the consultation, before
the most recent data became available. If final figures change again,
all responses could be unreliable.
-
Misleading question used. The consultation's first question
was misleading. It asked people to give their views "on the proposal
to build a bridge at this location", with a tick for supporting
or for not supporting. Although there was a space below for "reasons
or any other comments", even if this was not filled in, a tick for
support for building a bridge in that location cannot be taken to
indicate support for building this particular bridge. Lynne Featherstone,
the chair of the Greater London Authority transport scrutiny committee,
said at a meeting of the committee on 19th June that she was concerned
about the potential for this question to give a false impression
of support for the scheme.
-
No alternatives offered. No choices of alternative schemes
were offered to people in the consultation. This appears to be in
breach of the Government's own requirements contained in NATA, its
New Approach to Transport Appraisal. This is also despite independent
regeneration expert, Professor John Whitelegg, saying "you could
regenerate east London, creating far more sustainable jobs and with
greater benefit to local people, at a fraction of the cost". In
effect the Mayor's consultation offered a take-it-or-leave-it scheme
- people were offered a single scheme with no alternatives. People
should have been involved in deciding what would most benefit them
and their area, to aid regeneration and improve transport access,
and offered real choices. The TfL approach was described by Whitelegg
as "an inexcusable and fundamental betrayal" of local people.
-
Flawed analysis. Another transport expert, John Elliott,
considers the benefits claimed for the Thames Gateway road bridge
to be based on flawed analysis of time savings to the motorist.
He says the TfL figures are flawed because they do not reflect generated
traffic and expected worsening of congestion beyond the immediate
vicinity of the bridge. TfL acknowledge time savings could fall.
Read more about:
What
should happen now?
Thames
Gateway bridge: facts and figures
Read about Friends of the Earth's view of the Mayor's
consultation results
|