Archived press release

Thames Gateway: Sham consultation starts on motorway-style bridge

22 May 2003

A public consultation by the Mayor of London and Transport for London (TfL) is expected to be announced next week (either Monday 12th or Tuesday 13th) on a controversial 6-lane motorway-style road bridge across the river Thames in the Thames Gateway regeneration zone. The scheme is being promoted as a `local crossing' between Thamesmead and Beckton, but it will complete dual-carriageways to the North Circular and M11 on the north side of the river, and to the M25 on the south. [1]

A leading transport expert has already slammed the consultation as "fraudulent", the job creation claims for the bridge as "spurious" and the economics of the bridge as being `flawed'. [2]

The London Assembly (GLA) has also branded the consultation and handling of the scheme as "inadequate". [3] In November 2002 the Mayor had to use his casting vote to progress the scheme after half of the Board of Transport for London (TfL) voted against it.

Jennifer Bates of Friends of the Earth London comments:

"This is a flawed scheme and a sham consultation. The Mayor has already said he is determined to push this damaging scheme through. He will be asking for people's views without giving them all the information. Key facts will not be made public until after the consultation ends. This includes where all the traffic would go once it has crossed the river and the health effects of the extra traffic and pollution. How can people give an informed view without this vital information?

"The Mayor should give people different transport options and other ways of regenerating their area. We support regeneration in east and south east London but piling more cars and trucks through some of London's poorest and heavily polluted areas is backward thinking. There is no evidence that local people would get the jobs that might be created. In fact this road bridge would make it easier for people living outside the area drive in and take the jobs. The Thames Gateway Bridge is de-generation not regeneration."

In backing the £billion scheme Mayor Livingstone is breaking his election pledge that if built "they would have to bury me in the first block of concrete." The Mayor's u-turn suits the roads lobby and business interests that have fought hard for this road bridge for decades. They received a set back in the early 1990s when local people defeated the same scheme, when it was planned to run through the Oxleas Wood Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) in Greenwich.

The road bridge's backers say it will regenerate the Thames Gateway area and create employment for local people. In recent years they have hyped the ability of the road bridge to create jobs, variously estimating 25,000 and then 48,000 `sustainable jobs'. Yet even the Mayor's own figures show that only about 13 per cent of expected new jobs in the Thames Gateway would be due to the new road bridge. [4]

Friends of the Earth London want to see the sustainable regeneration of the Thames Gateway area and support one of the other public transport crossings proposed in the package of river crossings being promoted by the Mayor. But Friends of the Earth London oppose road-based regeneration and dispute the road bridge backers' hype.

The motorway-style road bridge will not guarantee local work for local people as claimed. This is because the crossing will make it easier for people from outside the area to drive longer distances to access jobs in Newham, Greenwich and other local boroughs. This undermines claims that the bridge will be a `local crossing' giving local people access to work opportunities;

Traffic leaving the bridge north and south of the river will pile onto already clogged roads in some of London's poorest communities which already suffer chronic road traffic and air quality problems. An independent study has already shown that the road bridge would generate up to 8,000 extra vehicles an hour and this would be up to 12,000 vehicles an hour if the two bus lanes currently planned for the crossing were removed and given over to normal traffic; [5] and,

The money spent on the road bridge could mean little or no money being left over for spending on other less damaging but much needed public transport schemes and regeneration initiatives.

Friends of the Earth also criticise the Mayor's consultation. The public is to be asked about just one scheme without alternative transport solutions having been fully worked up and presented. Their only option is the road bridge on offer - take it or leave it. The consultation will also end in July 2003 before the results are revealed to the public of a study into the real effects of the road bridge including air pollution and levels of road traffic. [6]

Notes

[1] The Thames Gateway Bridge is being promoted as a `local crossing' to aid regeneration and employment. In reality the bridge would be a strategic link completing dual carriageways to the North Circular and the M11 in the north and to the M25 in the south. The scheme is heavily backed by certain businesses wishing to use the bridge for more road freight through London, bypassing the M25, and to enable longer distance car commuting by people living outside London.

[2] Professor John Whitelegg in "Thames Gateway River Crossing: a social, economic and environmental assessment" for the Simon Woolf Charitable Foundation, January 2002.

[3] GLA transport scrutiny update, "Getting the public on board", April 2003.

[4] Transport for London Board report, 19^th November 2002.

[5] John Elliot in "A Solution looking for a Problem - a review of Transport for London's proposals for river crossings in East London and their traffic impact" for Transport 2000, March 2003.

[6] An Environmental Impact Assessment study (EIA) into the effects of the bridge is to be carried out by Scott Wilson Consultants on behalf of the Mayor and Transport for London (TfL). The results of the study will not be available to the public as part of the consultation starting in May 2003.

[7] Transport for London's two-way figure of 4,400 vehicles in the morning peak hour are refuted by John Elliot (see [5] above) who found that the bridge would be likely to be used by between 6,000 - 8,000 vehicles an hour in the morning peak period. This could be even higher, up to 12,000 vehicles an hour, if the two proposed bus lanes were to be scrapped and replaced with lanes for use by general traffic.

[8] The two authoritative reports (see [2] and [5] above) criticising the scheme have yet to be repudiated by the Mayor and other backers of the road bridge. Between them the reports found that:

• Spending should be directed to public transport instead because car ownership is low in the immediately affected boroughs (for example: Greenwich 40.8%; Newham 48.9%);

• The scheme would do little or nothing to relieve unemployment in local boroughs and would make it easier for other people from outside the local area to drive in and access any employment opportunities that are created;

• There are better and cheaper ways to regenerate the area and to improve local transport without adding to current traffic and pollution problems suffered by people in already over-polluted areas;

• The main economic benefits claimed for the scheme are based on savings to the motorist, and that claims for improved access to employment by car are based on flawed analysis of road congestion;

• Even though 2 lanes on the bridge are proposed for use by buses access to employment by public transport would be barely improved;

• The scheme's backers have greatly underestimated the increase in traffic flows and have therefore also underestimated the extra traffic chaos and pollution caused by the bridge (for instance as traffic tried to cut through to the A2 to the south); and,

• The promotion and public consultation on the scheme to date has been `fraudulent' (John Whitelegg report) offering no public transport alternatives. The money could be spent on public transport north and south of the river and dedicated public transport crossings could be explored instead.

[9] Since the Thames Gateway Bridge has been proposed there have been several crossings which create access to employment without adding to the area's traffic chaos:

• The Jubilee Line Extension crosses the river 3 times;

• The Docklands Light Railway (DLR) crosses the river from the Isle of Dogs to Greenwich and Lewisham; and,

• The DLR is also due to cross the river Thames to Woolwich.

Other schemes either proceeding or which could be improved if money for the bridge went instead into these include: an improved Woolwich ferry; a `transit scheme' for East London; and a `transit scheme' for the Greenwich

Waterfront. These will link into existing transport infrastructure. The route of the proposed Crossrail would cross the river just upstream from where the bridge is proposed, linking Woolwich with the Royal Docks - the area does not need both Crossrail and the Thames Gateway Bridge.

[10] Money for transport in the Thames Gateway has been promised from the revenues raised by the continuation of the tolling of the Dartford crossings.

If you're a journalist looking for press information please contact the Friends of the Earth media team on 020 7566 1649.

Published by Friends of the Earth Trust