gallions reach and belvedere river crossings - citizen · pdf filewith only three road...

Gallions Reach and

Belvedere river

crossings

Consultation report

and responses to key

issues raised

March 2016

Contents

Executive summary ............................................................................................................... 2

1. Introduction ................................................................................................................... 4

1.1. Description and purpose of the project ................................................................... 4

1.2. Wider context ......................................................................................................... 5

1.2.1. Connecting the Capital ..................................................................................... 5

1.2.2. Silvertown Tunnel ............................................................................................ 6

1.2.3. NLA Roads and Streets Exhibition .................................................................... 6

1.2.4. Lower Thames Crossing ................................................................................... 6

2. Overview of consultation ............................................................................................... 7

2.1. Objectives ............................................................................................................... 7

2.2. Who we consulted .................................................................................................. 7

2.3. Materials, distribution and publicity ......................................................................... 8

2.4. Questionnaire ......................................................................................................... 9

2.5. Analysis ................................................................................................................ 10

3. Results of the consultation .......................................................................................... 11

3.1. General consultation results .................................................................................. 11

3.1.1. Distribution of respondents ........................................................................... 11

3.2. Q1 – Support for the project ................................................................................. 13

3.3. Q2 – Desired public transport connections ........................................................... 16

3.4. Q3 – How would you use a crossing at Gallions Reach? ........................................ 18

3.5. Q4 – How would you use a crossing at Belvedere? ................................................ 19

3.6. Q5 – Free text comments and our response to the key issues raised .................... 20

3.6.1. Principle of the project ................................................................................... 20

3.6.2. Infrastructure ................................................................................................. 23

3.6.3. Public transport .............................................................................................. 25

3.6.4. Road network ................................................................................................. 28

3.6.5. Traffic ............................................................................................................ 30

3.6.6. User charge .................................................................................................... 33

3.6.7. Walking and cycling ........................................................................................ 36

3.6.8. Environment .................................................................................................. 38

3.6.9. General .......................................................................................................... 41

3.6.10. Consultation .................................................................................................. 42

3.7. How respondents heard about the consultation .................................................... 44

3.8. Comments on the quality of the consultation ....................................................... 44

4. Next steps ................................................................................................................... 45

5. Appendix ...................................................................................................................... 45

of 45

Executive summary

London is set to experience significant growth over the coming years, and with this growth

will come increasing pressure on the transport network, including the existing cross-river

infrastructure, services and connections that are vital for moving people and goods around

the Capital.

The Gallions Reach and Belvedere river crossings would play a key role in supporting this

growth and provide improved connections between east and southeast London.

A consultation on these two proposed crossings was held between 2 December 2015 and 12

February 2016, to:

Gauge the level of support for the crossings

Understand the destinations that local residents would like better access to by public

transport

Determine the modes of transport respondents would most likely use on either of

the proposed river crossings

Capture themes emerging from other comments left by respondents to the

consultation.

The consultation was open to anyone who had an interest in the project, and was promoted

to the public through various means, including online and through print advertisements in

local publications. Key stakeholders were invited to respond by direct emails offering a

briefing. Responses were accepted via the online consultation questionnaire, email, post and

by phone call.

In total, 4,519 public responses and 43 stakeholder responses were received throughout the

ten and a half week consultation period.

Proposals for new crossings were supported by the majority of public respondents:

77% supported both crossings

10% supported neither crossing

7% supported a crossing at Gallions Reach only

4% supported a crossing at Belvedere only

2% did not provide a response.

Amongst stakeholders, 52% were supportive, 32% opposed the project and 16% were

neutral to the project.

Of the ten corridors for which respondents expressed the highest levels of support for

improved transport links, eight originate in Thamesmead. Better connections within

Thamesmead and Woolwich were most frequently mentioned, followed by better links from

Thamesmead to central London and Woolwich.

of 45

The most popular mode by which respondents believe they will use each crossing was car

(69% for Gallions Reach and 63% for Belvedere).

2,224 responses were made to the free text question by members of the public, generating

6,342 comments (as one response could have multiple comments contained within it).

The following were the most common comments made:

General support for the project – 552 comments (24.8%)

Concern over an increase in traffic – 455 comments (20.4%)

Believe the crossings will provide congestion relief – 346 comments (15.5%)

Support a tunnel (for both, one or the other) – 254 comments (11%)

Oppose a user charge – 241 comments (10.8%)

o Crossings should be free – 135 comments

o Inequality between east and west crossings (west are not charged) – 73

comments

o Other reasons for opposition -33 comments

Support for new DLR links – 202 comments (9%)

Believe the crossings will worsen air quality – 184 comments (8.2%)

A desire for public transport only crossings – 177 comments (7.9%)

Support for the public transport options presented as part of this consultation – 177

comments (7.9%)

Support the provision of walking and cycling facilities on the crossings – 133

comments (5.9%)

Feedback received as part of this consultation will be used to inform the development of the

crossings. This report will be presented to the Mayor of London and will help to inform the

decisions on the next steps for the project.

of 45

1. Introduction

London’s population is expected to increase by 1.5 million people over the next 20 years,

and over one third of this growth is forecast to take place in east and southeast London.

Two proposed multimodal crossings at Gallions Reach and Belvedere would play a key role in

supporting this growth and helping drive London’s economy by providing better connections

across the Thames in this part of the Capital. Proposals for these crossings have been

developed over a number of years, and with the benefit of feedback from three previous

consultations (see Appendix A).

The fourth and most recent non-statutory consultation, which ran for 10 and a half weeks

between December 2015 and February 2016, provided the opportunity to understand how

the community think they would use the crossings. It also sought any other comments on

the project in general, to ensure we have a clear understanding of any concerns, ideas and

opinions from the community.

This report explains the consultation process, sets out the results of the consultation, our

responses to comments received and the next steps for the project.

1.1. Description and purpose of the project

With only three road crossings of the Thames in London east of Tower Bridge, the crossings

at Gallions Reach and Belvedere are intended to help overcome the poor cross-river

connectivity that exists between east and southeast London and would deliver a number of

benefits, including:

Providing better connections between people, businesses and communities,

increasing access to jobs, education and leisure activities

Making it easer for people and goods to cross the river

Creating opportunities for new cross-river public transport links and improving local

walking and cycling options

Supporting London’s economy by better connecting businesses, and improving

access to labour markets

Encouraging development in the area, helping to address London’s housing shortage

Helping to manage the impact of population growth by reducing cross-river journey

times and distances

The locations of the proposed Gallions Reach and Belvedere river crossings are shown on the

map overleaf.

of 45

Figure 1 – Location of the proposed Gallions Reach and Belvedere river crossings

While the exact alignment of each crossing has not been finalised, the Gallions Reach

crossing would link the A2016 Western Way in Thamesmead with the A1020 Royal Docks

Road in the north. The Belvedere crossing would link the A2016 Bronze Age Way in

Belvedere with the A13 Marsh Way junction in Rainham.

Each crossing would consist of two lanes in each direction – one for public transport and one

for general traffic. There would be a charge for vehicles to use the crossings to manage

demand and to help pay for the project. Any pedestrian and cyclist facilities included would

be segregated from traffic.

We are considering the feasbility of bridges and tunnels at both crossings, with a decision to

be taken at a later date and to be informed by other pending decisions including the type of

public transport provision that is made on the crossings.

1.2. Wider context

In addition to the consultation on the Gallions Reach and Belvedere crossings there was

activity on other related projects around or at the same time as this consultation.

1.2.1. Connecting the Capital

Coinciding with the start of the consultation on the Gallions Reach and Belvedere river

crossings, was the launch of the Mayor and TfL’s vision for future river crossings in London –

‘Connecting the Capital’. This document outlines 13 proposed new river crossings

of 45

throughout the city, catering for road users, public transport users, pedestrians and cyclists,

to be delivered by 2050. Gallions Reach and Belvedere are two of these proposed new

crossings.

The publication can be viewed on TfL’s website.

1.2.2. Silvertown Tunnel

The Silvertown Tunnel is another proposed crossing for east London, which will help to

address the severe congestion and reliability issues currently experienced at the Blackwall

Tunnel and support economic growth. A statutory consultation on this scheme was held in

late 2015, to provide the community with the opportunity to comment on the scheme

before TfL makes a Development Consent Order (DCO) submission to apply for the powers

to build and operate the tunnel. Results of the consultation will be published in a

consultation report, which will be made publicly available. More information can be found on

the Silvertown Tunnel website.

Given the close proximity of both projects, and the subsequent overlap in stakeholders and

the public, both project teams are working closely together.

1.2.3. NLA Roads and Streets Exhibition

The proposed Gallions Reach and Belvedere river crossings, as well as the Silvertown Tunnel,

were profiled as part of a wider TfL exhibition at New London Architecture (NLA) for a

month, between the end of January and the end of February 2016. The Streets Ahead

exhibition aimed to raise stakeholder and general public awareness about the important role

that roads, streets and places will play in the future success of London; the challenges facing

the Capital’s road network; and the strategic options available to meet those challenges to

support London’s growth over the period up to 2040.

As part of this event, TfL presented a ‘soapbox’ speech on the vision for future river

crossings, and referenced the Gallions Reach and Belvedere river crossings, to drive further

awareness amongst key stakeholders. Direct feedback was received from stakeholders at the

event.

1.2.4. Lower Thames Crossing

Highways England is proposing a new crossing intended to reduce congestion at the existing

Dartford Crossing and support economic growth, including new homes and jobs in the

region. Consultation on three route options for this crossing was launched on 26 January

2016, with comments being sought until 24 March 2016.

While some distance from the proposed Gallions Reach and Belvedere river crossings, the

Lower Thames Crossing has overlap in stakeholders and interested members of the

community. We have and will continue to work closely with the Lower Thames Crossing

project team throughout the development of both projects.

The Lower Thames Crossing was also outlined in the ‘Connecting the Capital’ document.

https://tfl.gov.uk/corporate/publications-and-reports/new-river-crossings-for-london?cid=new-river-crossings

http://www.tfl.gov.uk/silvertown-tunnel

of 45

2. Overview of consultation

The consultation on the Gallions Reach and Belvedere crossings ran from Wednesday 2

December 2015 through to Friday 12 February 2016. The 10 and a half week timeframe was

longer than normal in consideration of the Christmas and New Year period.

2.1. Objectives

This consultation aimed to meet a number of objectives:

To present the work undertaken on the project since the previous consultation and

report back to the community on areas we had promised to further investigate

To understand the public’s level of support for the schemes

To understand how the public think they would use the fixed crossings (eg by car, on

foot, cycle, public transport)

To better understand which destinations the public want to get to with improved

public transport links

To explain the importance of these strategic links in the transport network, and

enable the public to understand the benefits these schemes would have to the local

community and London as a whole

To explain the impacts of the crossings, including traffic and environmental impacts

To provide information about what is next for the project, including timing, further

consultations and the planning process

2.2. Who we consulted

TfL consulted widely on the proposals, including with revelant local authorities and political

representatives, transport and environmental campaign groups, major businesses and

statutory stakeholders. In total, over 800 stakeholders from approximately 400 organisations

were contacted in relation to the consultation. A full list of stakeholders and the email they

received is included in Appendix B.

Key stakeholders were all offered a briefing on the project. A number accepted this offer,

with the following meetings held throughout and following the consultation period:

of 45

Table 1 – Key stakeholder meetings

Stakeholder Meeting date

London Waterways Commission 14 December 2015

Havering Business Voice Board 12 January 2016

Federation of Small Businesses 13 January 2016

London Borough of Havering 14 January 2016

Teresa Pearce MP 18 January 2016

London Borough of Redbridge 19 January 2016

Canary Wharf Group 21 January 2016

Campaign for Better Transport 1 February 2016

RB Greenwich Transport Security Panel 11 February 2016

Belvedere Community Forum 3 March 20161

The consultation was also open to any member of the public who had a view they wished to

express.

2.3. Materials, distribution and publicity

On Wednesday 2 December 2015, detailed information on the project was published on

TfL’s consultation hub website. This was supported by a number of technical documents,

maps and artist impressions of the proposals.

This information was also summarised in a consultation leaflet, which was printed and

distributed to all the host boroughs for circulation to local venues, such as libraries and

community centres, and was handed out to users of the Woolwich Ferry during the

consultation period. A copy of this leaflet can be seen in Appendix C.

A dedicated project email address, Freepost address and phone number were provided for

members of the public to ask questions, provide feedback, or request hard copies of any of

the documents. The TfL Call Centre was briefed and provided project contacts, in order to

either address or refer on any calls they received.

Links to the consultation hub were also hosted on the project’s page on the TfL website and

the Connecting the Capital webpage.

1 Due to the group’s available meeting dates, the briefing was held outside of the consultation period.

http://www.tfl.gov.uk/east-london-crossings

https://tfl.gov.uk/corporate/about-tfl/how-we-work/planning-for-the-future/gallions-reach-and-belvedere

https://tfl.gov.uk/corporate/publications-and-reports/new-river-crossings-for-london?cid=new-river-crossings

of 45

The consultation was publicised via a number of channels:

Email to previous consultation respondents – an email was sent to approximately

6,000 individuals who had responded to the 2014 consultation on options for river

crossings east of Silvertown. Recipients were provided with a link to the consultation

hub webpage to find out more on the project and have their say. A copy of this email

can be seen in Appendix D

Email to TfL customers – an email was sent to almost 450,000 people on the TfL

database who are known to drive, cycle or use public transport in the area and who

have agreed to recieve relevant communications from TfL. The email provided a brief

explanation of the project and included a link to the consultation hub webpage to find

out more and provide any feedback. A copy of this email can be seen in Appendix D

Borough publications – local boroughs were provided with information to share via

their various publications, websites and social media channels

Print advertising – a number of print advertisements were placed in local newspapers

to publicise the consultation further. A copy of the print advertisement and the

schedule of publications in which it appeared can be seen in Appendix E

Press – TfL issued a press release in relation to the overarching ‘Connecting the

Capital’ vision, and the start of the Gallions Reach and Belvedere river crossings

consultation on Wednesday 2 December 2015. This followed an announcement of

the vision and consultation by the Mayor of London, Boris Johnson, on LBC Radio

that same morning. A copy of the release can be seen in Appendix F. The

consultation received press coverage throughout various media outlets, including:

o BBC London News (TV,

radio, web)

o ITV London

o LBC Radio

o Metro

o Bexley Times

o News Shopper

o The Wharf

o South London Press

o City AM

o Essex Enquirer

o Kent Messenger

o Newham Recorder

o Evening Standard

Social media – TfL’s Twitter account was also utilised to publicise the consultation to

over 1 million followers. All tweets sent throughout the consultation period can be

seen in Appendix G

Other marketing activities – digital advertising, mobile

and desktop display banners – were undertaken as additional publicity channels

2.4. Questionnaire

The consultation questionnaire consisted of four closed questions2 and one open question3

that sought to gain a better understanding of the level of support for the project, and an

2 In which respondents chose an answer from a list

of 45

indication of how the public believe they would use the crossings. It also aimed to gather

information in relation to where people would like better public transport links.

The closed questions were:

Do you support new crossings at Gallions Reach and Belvedere?

Which destinations / transport hubs would you prefer new or improved public

transport links to?

If we build a new crossing at Gallions Reach, how would you use it?

If we build a new crossing at Belvedere, how would you use it?

A free text box was also provided that allowed respondents to submit more detailed

comments on the proposals if they wished.

The questionnaire was accessed via a link from the Gallions Reach and Belvedere river

crossings webpage on TfL’s consultation hub website.

Respondents were also asked to provide demographic data (such as postcode, name and

email address) as part of their response, and to provide us with any feedback on the quality

of the consultation itself.

See Appendix H for a copy of the questionnaire.

2.5. Analysis

Given the high number of responses predicted for this consultation, external consultants

Steer Davies Gleave (SDG) were appointed to undertake analysis of all the public responses

received. This included the closed and open questions.

The free text responses (the responses to the open questions) were coded into themes by

SDG for quantitative analysis. The coding process groups similar responses using numeric

codes held within a code frame.

Using the same code frame, TfL undertook analysis of the stakeholder responses received.

Stakeholder responses were considered to be those received from:

London boroughs

Local Economic Partnerships

Politicians

Local businesses

Local resident and community groups

Accessiblity groups

Transport User Groups

Other groups with a specific interest in the schemes

SDG’s full report with all analysis and codes can be seen in Appendix I.

3 In which respondents could provide free text


of 45

3. Results of the consultation

The following section presents the results of the consultation. It begins with general

consultation information (such as the number of responses received, where respondents

were from, how they heard about it and general responses in relation to the quality of the

consultation) and then presents the outcomes of each question separately. It also sets out

our responses to issues raised by the public and stakeholders.

3.1. General consultation results

A total of 4,562 responses to the consultation were received:

4,519 via the online questionnaire4

43 from stakeholders (shown in Appendix J)

3.1.1. Distribution of respondents

Based on the postcodes provided, respondents came from a variety of locations, as shown in

the map and table below, but with a particular concentration from the nearby boroughs.

Figure 2 – Distribution of respondents to the consultation

4 For ease of analysis, responses sent by email or letter, or received by the Call Centre were copied into the

online questionnaire. There were 80 responses received via email, 9 via letter and one via the Call Centre.

of 45

Table 2 – Number of respondents from boroughs with highest response rates

Borough Number of responses Percentage of total

responses received

Bexley 988 22%

Greenwich 949 21%

Newham 382 8%

Havering 354 8%

Barking and Dagenham 246 5%

Lewisham 122 3%

Redbridge 103 2%

Tower Hamlets 92 2%

Bromley 54 1%

Southwark 46 1%

Respondents included members of the public and those from organisations, businesses or

campaign groups.

Figure 3 – Type of respondent

Members of the public 97%

Businesses or campaign groups

3%

of 45

3.2. Q1 – Support for the project

Question one was asked to seek levels of support for the proposals. Respondents had the

choice of selecting support for both crossings, Gallions Reach only, Belvedere only, or

neither.

A total of 4,450 respondents answered this question (98% of all public respondents to the

consultation).

The levels of support are outlined in the table and pie chart below:

Table 3 – Level of support

Level of support Respondents Proportion of total

Support both crossings 3,456 77%

Do not support either crossing 473 10%

Support Gallions Reach only 325 7%

Support Belvedere only 196 4%

Not answered 67 2%

TOTAL 4,519 100%

Figure 4 – Level of support

77%

10%

7%

4%

2%

Support both crossings

Doesn't support either crossing

Support Gallions Reach only

Support Belvedere only

Not answered

of 45

The support levels were also broken down by borough (based on respondents’ postcodes).

Table 4 – Level of support by borough

London Borough Support

both

crossings

Does

not

support

either

crossing

Support

Gallions

Reach

only

Support

Belvedere

only

Not

answered

Total

responses

Bexley 69% 17% 7% 5% 2% 988

Greenwich 77% 11% 7% 4% 1% 949

Newham 80% 5% 10% 5% 1% 382

Havering 79% 5% 9% 6% 1% 354

Barking and Dagenham 87% 1% 7% 5% 0% 246

Lewisham 85% 7% 4% 2% 2% 122

Redbridge 86% 1% 10% 2% 1% 103

Tower Hamlets 87% 7% 4% 2% 0 92

Bromley 83% 9% 6% 2% 0 54

Southwark 96% 4% 0 0 0 46

of 45

Figure 5 – Level of support by borough

Many freetext responses to Q5, as well as stakeholder responses, provided further

information as to people’s support for/concerns about the crossings and these are presented

in section 3.6.

of 45

3.3. Q2 – Desired public transport connections

The second question asked respondents to advise which destinations they would like

improved public transport links to. They could choose from a list of 22, or advise of any

others that were not noted.

This question was being asked to provide us with an understanding of where the local

community would like to access with public transport and to help inform a decision on the

public transport provision that might be most appropriate for each crossing.

The table below shows the number of respondents who selected each destination. As

respondents were able to select multiple destinations, some may be counted more than

once.

Table 5 – Top destinations respondents would like improved public transport links to

Destination Responses Proportion

Central London 1,092 8.4%

Greenwich 976 7.5%

Woolwich 968 7.4%

City Airport 966 7.4%

Bexleyheath 872 6.7%

Canary Wharf 831 6.4%

Thamesmead 824 6.3%

Belvedere 731 5.6%

Stratford 729 5.6%

Romford 542 4.1%

Dagenham 517 4.0%

Lewisham 509 3.9%

Erith 499 3.8%

Eltham 486 3.7%

Royal Docks 420 3.2%

Ilford 392 3.0%

Barking Riverside 375 2.9%

Rainham 374 2.9%

Hornchurch 344 2.6%

East Ham 342 2.6%

Other (please specify) 287 2.2%

Total 13,076 100%

of 45

The table below summarises the top corridors along which local residents would like better

public transport. This includes those choosing their own town/area of residence, reflecting,

for example, links across Thamesmead, or into the centre of Woolwich or Bexleyheath from

more outlying parts of those towns.

Table 6 – Top ten destinations respondents would like improved public transport links to

Rank From To Responses

1 Thamesmead Thamesmead 240

2 Woolwich Woolwich 198

3 Thamesmead Central London 180

4 Thamesmead Woolwich 177

5 Bexleyheath Bexleyheath 168

6 Thamesmead City Airport 149

7 Thamesmead Abbey Wood 148

8 Thamesmead Canary Wharf 141

9 Thamesmead Greenwich 138

10 Thamesmead Bexleyheath 122

Of the ten corridors for which respondents expressed the highest levels of support for

improved transport links, eight originate in Thamesmead. Better connections within

Thamesmead and Woolwich were most frequently mentioned, followed by better links from

Thamesmead to central London and Woolwich.

of 45

3.4. Q3 – How would you use a crossing at Gallions Reach?

We wanted to understand how the public think they would use a crossing at Gallions Reach,

such as by motorised vehicle, public transport, on foot or on a bicycle. Respondents could

choose as many options as they liked, and also had the option to advise if they did not think

they would use a crossing at Gallions Reach at all.

The table below shows the number of respondents who would use each of the modes

suggested in the question.

Table 7 – Number of responses by mode for Gallions Reach

Crossing Mode Number of

responses

Proportion of

responses

Gallions

Reach

By car 3,140 69%

On public transport (eg bus, DLR, tram) 2,298 51%

On a cycle 1,036 23%

On foot 844 20%

By another type of vehicle (eg van, HGV,

taxi)

456 10%

Motorbike 316 7%

I do not think I would use a new crossing at

Gallions Reach

587 13%

Total 8,677 193%

of 45

3.5. Q4 – How would you use a crossing at Belvedere?

Similar to Q3, it was useful to understand how the public think they would use a crossing at

Belvedere. Respondents could choose as many options as they liked5, and also had the

option to advise if they did not think they would use a crossing at at all.

The table below shows the number of respondents who would use each of the modes

suggested in the question.

Table 8 – Number of responses by mode for Belvedere

1.1 Crossing 1.2 Mode 1.3 Number

of

responses

1.4 Proportion of

responses

1.5 Belvedere

1.6

1.7

1.8

1.9

1.10

1.11

1.12 By car 2,846 63%

1.13 On public transport (eg bus) 1,725 38%

1.14 On a cycle 813 18%

1.15 On foot 645 14%

1.16 By another type of vehicle (eg van, HGV,

taxi) 437 10%

1.17 Motorbike 270 6%

1.18 I do not think I would use a new crossing

at Belvedere 1,061 23%

1.19 Total 7,797 172%

5 For the initial 24 hours of the survey being open, respondents were only able to select one mode by which

they would use the Belvedere crossing. This was rectified by 9am on Thursday 3 December.

A total of 541 responses were received during this time. 114 of these advised they did not believe they would

use a crossing at Belvedere, or did not answer this question at all.

A link to the corrected question was sent to all 541 who responded, to provide the opportunity to re-submit

their answer to that question.

A total of 324 resubmissions were received – 75% of those who originally responded with an interest in the

Belvedere crossing.

of 45

3.6. Q5 – Free text comments and our response to the key issues raised

Of the 4,519 public respondents who replied to the consultation via the consultation hub,

2,224 (49% of the total) provided further comments in the free text comment box (Q5). 43

stakeholders also provided separate responses.

This section sets out the comments received from the public and stakeholders, grouped by

their theme. It should be noted that some respondents have raised multiple comments. Our

responses to any of the main issues raised are noted in italics.

3.6.1. Principle of the project

Support for proposals

There was significant support expressed for the proposals by both the public and

stakeholders throughout the free text responses received.

The following stakeholders expressed a degree of support for the schemes: The

London Boroughs of Newham, Havering, Bexley, Barking and Dagenham, Tower

Hamlets, Redbridge, Lewisham, and Hackney, the Royal Borough of Greenwich, Essex

County Council, South East London Chamber of Commerce, Standard Life

Investments, the RAC Foundation, Prime Regal Ltd, Peabody, the London Chamber of

Commerce and Industry, the London Assembly Labour Group, the Inland Waterways

Association Freight Group, the Bexley Labour Group, ABP London Investment Ltd

(ABP), Federation of Small Businesses (FSB), the Barking and Dagenham Chamber of

Commerce, the Confederation of Passenger Transport and the Freight Transport

Association (FTA)

183 comments noted that these new crossings will provide more east London

crossing options

There were 180 general comments of support for the both the Gallions Reach and

Belvedere river crossings

60 comments were in relation to these crossings supporting redevelopment in east

London

51 comments were regarding the crossings supporting the local economy, including

job growth and access to employment

49 comments were supportive of the project as it would reduce journey times

18 comments expressed belief the project will improve links to London City Airport

and Canary Wharf

10 comments called for the Gallions Reach crossing to be prioritised over Belvedere.

The London Boroughs of Havering and Hackney, the Royal Borough of Greenwich and

the Bexley Labour Group echoed this. The London Borough of Bexley on the other

hand called for the Belvedere crossing to be built first

1 comment was favouring these east London crossings over the Silvertown Tunnel.

We welcome the support people have expressed for the proposals. The Gallions Reach and

Belvedere river crossings would transform cross-river connectivity in east London and would

deliver a number of significant benefits, including:

of 45

- Better connecting people, businesses and communities with each other, increasing

access to jobs, education and leisure activities

- Making it easier for people and goods to cross the river in east London

- Creating opportunities for new cross-river public transport links and improving local

walking and cycling options

- Supporting London's economy by better connecting businesses, and improving

access to labour markets

- Encouraging development in the area, helping to address London's housing shortage

- Helping to manage the impact of population growth by reducing cross-river journey

times and distances

The Mayor asked TfL to take forward crossings at Gallions Reach and at Belvedere. The high

level timetable that has been set out for the proposals aims for both crossings to be

delivered in around 2025.

Opposition to the proposals

There were 251 comments received throughout the free text responses in general opposition

to the proposals in some form.

160 comments were opposing the project in its current form, and expressed a belief

the crossings should be for public transport/pedestrians/cyclists only; that more

roads are not needed. This includes the LA21(Bexley) Traffic and Transport Forum,

Bexley Against Road Crossings (BARC), Darren Johnson AM, Friends of the Earth and

the Campaign for Better Transport. Bexley Against Road Crossings, Friends of the

Earth and Darren Johnson AM all asked why a public transport only option was not

being consulted on

68 comments outlined no support for either crossing for various reasons, including

costs being too high, a perceived negative effect on house prices, and a belief there is

no demand for them. Amongst these were comments from the London Cycling

Campaign and Clive Efford MP

16 comments indicated no support for Belvedere because the Dartford crossing is

nearby and it is not needed

7 comments did not support Gallions Reach due to a belief it is not needed

There will always be vital delivery and servicing trips that cannot be undertaken by public

transport, and this study area provides a large amount of development land which could

house businesses providing such services to a rapidly growing Capital. There will continue to

be a need for a reliable and effective road network to cater for such journeys, even as TfL

continues to achieve an ever greater proportion of trips being made by public transport,

walking and cycling. A key priority set for TfL though the London Plan and Mayor’s Transport

Strategy is to improve road network connectivty and resilience and to better connect the

Opportunity Areas in the east to allow these areas to achieve their full development

potential. Without a road connection the strategies’ aims, and therefore the project’s

objectives, would not be met.

of 45

Public transport provision would form an integral part of these crossings, and as part of the

work we have been undertaking to address the lack of connectivity between east and

southeast London, we have been considering public transport provision on the crossings. The

outcome of this work was presented as part of this latest consultation and a report that

details the potential public transport options is available here. The feedback from this most

recent consultation will help to inform the decision regarding the public transport provision

should proposals for the crossings be taken forward.

As well as seeking to improve the road network, TfL is building new dedicated public

transport river crossings, with Crossrail (the Elizabeth line) between Custom House and

Woolwich set to open in 2018. This is in addition to the DLR extension to Woolwich which

opened in 2009 and the Emirates Air Line which opened in 2012.

While a pedestrian and cycle only crossing may offer some very local benefits, due to the

scale of the crossing that would be required, its cost would be very high and its connectivity

benefits extremely limited relative to the cost. These factors mean a pedestrian and cycle

only crossing at these locations is not practical. There are a number of other locations in

London where dedicated pedestrian and cycle crossings may be more appropriate, feasible

and affordable, as set out in TfL's ‘Connecting the Capital’ report.

https://consultations.tfl.gov.uk/rivercrossings/b5c585b1/user_uploads/option-assessment-report--pt-interim-list.pdf

http://content.tfl.gov.uk/connectingthecapital-newrivercrossingsforlondon-dec-2015.pdf

of 45

3.6.2. Infrastructure

Tunnels or bridges

265 comments were expressed in support of a tunnel for one or both of the crossings.

67 comments advised favour toward a tunnel at Gallions Reach, including the RAC

Foundation, National Grid Property Holdings and Peabody

63 comments were in favour of tunnels for shipping or for weather reasons, including

the Port of London Authority (PLA) and the Royal Borough of Greenwich

55 comments were in favour of a tunnel at Belvedere, including the London Borough

of Bexley and the Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime (MOPAC)

35 comments expressed preference for a tunnel to avoid impact on the London City

Airport flight path, including London City Airport itself

29 comments indicated support for tunnels because they have a lower environmental

impact

13 comments stated belief that tunnels provide greater scope for land development,

including the Royal Borough of Greenwich

The South East London Chamber of Commerce and the Confederation of Passenger

Transport also support tunnels for both crossings

174 respondents favoured bridges for one or both crossings.

55 comments favoured a bridge at Belvedere, including the RAC Foundation

50 comments favoured a bridge at Gallions Reach, including the London Chamber of

Commerce and Industry

18 comments expressed preference for a bridge for cost reasons

6 comments favoured a bridge as a tunnel would be unpleasant to use

2 comments supported the idea of lifting bridges

2 comments favoured a bridge because tunnel construction would take too long

The FTA would like to see bridges built at both crossings, to provide an alternative

route for drivers of hazardous goods vehicles

There are a number of issues that need to be addressed and areas requiring further

investigation before determining whether a bridge or tunnel would be most appropriate at

each location. This includes what form of public transport is incorporated into the crossings,

a more detailed understanding of how the property impacts differ between options,

considerations about the impact of the crossings on river traffic and London City Airport and

what the environmental impacts are.

It is important for us to undertake further analysis into these and other questions such as the

cost differential and affordability to understand the overall picture before making a decision

as to which type of infrastructure would be most appropriate.

The feedback to this consultation will help address some of these questions.

of 45

Our Options Assessment Report (Long List) considered a number of potential infrastructure

options including lifting bridges. These were ruled out for a number of reasons, including that

a bridge with spans in the range that would be required would face serious deliverability risks

and technical challenges. Furthermore, such crossings would be regularly closed to users to

allow shipping to pass.

Other infrastructure related issues

There were 18 additional comments made in relation to infrastructure.

16 respondents asked that designs for the crossings meet requirements for the next

100 years

2 respondents requested double deck bridges be built

The London City Airport and Confederation of Passenger Transport expressed a

desire to understand the proposed construction methodology and impact of this on

the highway and public transport network.

National Grid Property Holdings asked that the crossing adheres to the safeguarded

land at Gallions Reach

The Inland Waterways Freight Association asked that crossings do not restrict access

for barge traffic and larger vessels

We agree that it is important to consider future use of the crossings and will ensure that this

is considered throughout the design process.

It is not yet possible to set out a construction methodology as a preferred scheme is yet to

be defined. Once this has happened however, a Transport Assessment that considers the

potential impact of construction on the highway and public transport networks would be

prepared, and necessary mitigation measures outlined. This Assessment would be the

subject of public and stakeholder consultation.

The intention is that the Gallions Reach crossing would be built only on the land that is

safeguarded for a crossing and we do not at this stage anticipate that the structure would

require any additional land outside of that.

We have considered a number of potential infrastructure options for the Gallions Reach and

Belvedere crossings including lifting bridges and tunnels and this work is set out in our

Options Assessment Report (Long List). This work concluded that a high-level bridge or a

tunnel would be most appropriate at each location and that if they were to be bridges that

they could be designed in such a way as to not restrict the right of navigation of vessels on

the Thames.

https://consultations.tfl.gov.uk/rivercrossings/b5c585b1/user_uploads/option-assessment-report---long-list.pdf


of 45

3.6.3. Public transport

General public transport comments

197 general comments were received about public transport on the crossings.

157 comments were in support of the public transport improvements the crossings

would bring, including the Confederation of Passenger Transport, ABP, the London

Assembly Labour Group and Prime Regal Ltd

16 comments requested we develop public transport plans for Belvedere, including

linking Bexleyheath, Belvedere, Erith and Welling with Romford, Rainham and

Dagenham

16 comments supported additional rail infrastructure as part of the project

7 comments asked that we prioritise rail over bus

1 comment asked that we put the DLR/Tram options on hold

1 comment advised belief that public transport options were not needed

We welcome people's support for public transport provision on the crossings. Public

transport provision would form a core part of the project, although the decision of the exact

mode is yet to be taken. Each option offers benefits and further work is required to

understand these - as well as the costs - before a decision can be made. The feedback

received as part of this consultation is an important element in taking this work forward.

DLR

284 comments were made on the proposal for a DLR to be incorporated as part of the

project.

172 comments were received in favour of a DLR extension between Gallions Reach

and Thamesmead, including from the London Boroughs of Tower Hamlets, Newham,

Barking and Dagenham, Peabody, ABP, the London Chamber of Commerce and

Industry, the London Assembly Labour Group, the Barking and Dagenham Chamber

of Commerce and the Bexley Labour Group

72 comments asked that the DLR be extended further to Abbey Wood, or south in

general

37 comments wanted to see the DLR extended to further destinations to the north,

including Barking

1 comment wanted a single track DLR in order to optimise bridge use

The London Chamber of Commerce and Industry supports the DLR but raised

concerns about it delaying construction

BARC also suggested ‘DLR 6’ was a much better option in the Gallions Reach location

and proposed a DLR option for the Belvedere location

We welcome the support for the proposals to incorporate DLR as part of the Gallions Reach

river crossing. The initial work undertaken suggests that there would be benefits of

incorporating a DLR extension from Gallions Reach station to the south side of the river. This

would be planned in such a way that further extensions could follow to other destinations in

of 45

due course. Work will continue to investigate the DLR options, refining our understanding of

the costs and benefits of any potential scheme.

London Overground

There were 47 comments received in relation to the London Overground.

47 comments wanted the London Overground extended to Abbey Wood or

Belvedere for future south London connections, including the Royal Borough of

Greenwich, London Borough of Barking and Dagenham, the Bexley Labour Group and

BARC

As part of the investigation into potential public transport options, a London Overground

extension from Barking/Barking Riverside to Abbey Wood was assessed. The assessment is

presented in the Option Assessment Report (Public Transport Interim List). The proposal has

a very high cost (in the region of £1.5 billion) and due to capacity constraints elsewhere on

the line, could only operate four trains per hour to Barking. Our work therefore concluded

that such an extension would not meet the growth and local connectivity objectives of the

project in the short/medium term as well as other (lower cost) options such as buses, the

DLR or trams.

This does not preclude this concept in the longer term, for example as part of a longer

orbital corridor.

Tram

67 comments were received in relation to a proposed tram link.

54 comments indicated support for a tram, including the London Borough of Bexley

(who support provision of a tram on both crossings), the Royal Borough of Greenwich

and the London Assembly Labour Group

8 comments expressed general opposition to a tram

4 comments want the tram extended to Thamesmead

1 comment was in relation to the tram not being a viable option due to the need for a

depot

BARC questioned why tram links were not proposed for the Belvedere crossings,

when there is enough demand for road travel

We note with interest the public and stakeholder's views on the possibility of tram options

for the crossings. Our initial work demonstrates that such an option would be feasible on the

Gallions Reach crossing and could deliver a number of benefits to locations such as

Thamesmead. Further work is required to understand the costs and benefits in more detail,

and the feedback from this consultation is an important element of taking this work forward.

In terms of Belvedere specifically, our modelling demonstrates that there would be demand

for a road crossing at this location, serving dispersed trips between places in outer London

and surrounding areas, as presented in our Traffic Impacts Report. However, given the

dispersed patterns of forecast trips and the difficulty in connecting a tram to the nearest

major centres of demand, Bexleyheath and Romford, we believe that bus services are better

able to meet the local public transport needs and provide links to the major nearby

https://consultations.tfl.gov.uk/rivercrossings/b5c585b1/user_uploads/option-assessment-report--pt-interim-list.pdf

https://consultations.tfl.gov.uk/rivercrossings/b5c585b1/user_uploads/traffic-impact-report.pdf

of 45

employment and town centres, and at a significantly lower cost than rail alternatives at

Belvedere.

Bus

61 comments were received on the proposed bus network on the crossings.

55 comments were in support of the development of the bus network, including

cross-river night bus services and bus lanes

2 comments were in support of peak-time bus lanes

1 comment called for more money to be spent on maintenance of buses

The London Borough of Bexley would like to see bus rapid transit form part of the

proposals

BARC did not consider that buses would provide an attractive option and were

unlikely to encourage mode shift

The London Borough of Havering commented that little detail had been provided on

the bus routes and frequencies

We agree that good public transport provision is a key element of the proposals. Bus routes

play an important part in connectivity, particularly where the numbers of passengers travelling

are lower than needed to make light or heavy rail a realistic proposition, where there are

physical limitations as to the provision of rail options or where trips are dispersed. Buses also

have the advantage of being able to serve a range of local destinations on either side of a

crossing and are the main public transport mode for outer London.

There is currently only one bus route that crosses the Thames in east London (the 108

service which uses the unreliable as well as capacity constrained Blackwall Tunnel), and along

with the Silvertown Tunnel, new river crossings provide the opportunity to transform cross-

river bus services in east London. The crossings are assumed to have a public transport lane

and as the scheme design progresses, we will be looking at potential bus priority measures

(eg dedicated bus lanes on approach routes) to ensure the benefits of this new cross-river

provision are maximised. We would also continue to look at the potential traffic impacts on

local roads near to the crossing, and the impact on bus journey time reliability is a key factor

when considering mitigation measures.

As part of the design we will identify potential bus corridors. Detailed work on bus routes and

frequencies would then commence around two years ahead of the proposed routes being

implemented, in line with well-established TfL bus network development practice.The public

would be consulted ahead of any changes to existing routes or the creation of new routes.

of 45

3.6.4. Road network

Improvements to the existing road network

105 comments were received in relation to improvements to the existing road network, to

ensure these schemes are successful.

100 comments were received regarding general roads and junctions in the surounding

road network needing to be improved, from respondents including those from

Thurrock Council, London City Airport, the Confederation of Passenger Transport and

the FTA

Five stakeholders – the London Boroughs of Barking and Dagenham and Havering,

Thurrock Council, London City Airpot and the Barking and Dagenham Chamber of

Commerce – all commented on the A13 in particular, either calling for it to be

upgraded before the crossings are implemented, or asking for consideration to be

given to the impacts the crossings would have on this road

The traffic modelling work undertaken thus far indicates that, in general terms, the traffic

impacts on the local network would be maintained within manageable limits. It is proposed

that any new highway river crossing in London would be charged and this mechanism would

be used to ensure that demand does not exceed the capacity of the crossing or the

surrounding road network. Further local traffic modelling work will be undertaken to refine

our understanding of the impacts on the approach routes to the crossings.

The A13 is one of the busiest and most strategically important roads in London, providing a

direct link from the M25 and beyond into London. We are undertaking a study of this corridor

that considers the issues the A13 currently faces while also looking at the future challenges

and how they could be addressed. We are also developing the A13 Riverside Tunnel

proposals and will continue to work with relevant stakeholders to progress this scheme.

Our modelling to date suggests that the proposed river crossings could have an impact on the

A13, and in particular at the junction with the A406, which may require some mitigation. In

taking any proposal further forward, we would work closely with relevant stakeholders to

ensure that mitigation is put in place where necessary.

Scheme capacity

There were 54 comments made in relation to scheme capacity – in particular, asking us to

ensure the schemes prioritise increasing road capacity and include more than two lanes in

each direction.

Both crossings are proposed to be two lanes in each direction, with one of these lanes in

each direction being reserved for public transport (and potentially HGVs). Improving cross-

river public transport connectivity is an important element of the proposals and the existence

of dedicated space for public transport will ensure that whether the primary provision is by

bus or rail, users of those services have a reliable service.

We do not believe it would be appropriate to add a second general traffic lane, due to the

impact on the surrounding road network. A key function of the proposed user charge is to

provide a mechanism to ensure that traffic demand does not exceed the capacity of a single

lane crossing, if necessary by increasing charges as peak times to ensure that as many

of 45

journeys as possible are made by other means (e.g. public transport wherever possible), or at

quieter times of the day/week.

Tie-ins/junctions/other projects

23 comments called for us to ensure the Belvedere crossing was aligned with the A2 for

connections to the Channel Tunnel and other ports.

We do not anticipate that either crossing would provide a convenient route for traffic

travelling between east London and the A2; the route via the A13 and the Dartford Crossing

(or in future the Lower Thames Crossing) would provide a faster route between east London

and the A2 in Kent. The new crossings are intended primarily to cater for more local journeys,

in particular those starting or ending in the northern parts of the boroughs of Bexley and

Greenwich rather than for traffic travelling to or from the A2.

Other projects

The London Borough of Havering, Essex County Council and Thurrock Council suggested

consideration be given to the interaction between these crossings and other proposed

schemes in the area, such as the Silvertown Tunnel and Lower Thames Crossing.

There are plans for other new highway crossings of the Thames in order to address the lack

of cross-river connectivity and the congestion and reliability issues faced at the few existing

crossings in east London. The Silvertown Tunnel, designed to address the congestion and

reliability issues at east London's only strategic road river crossing - the Blackwall Tunnel - is

the furthest progressed and could be built by the 2023/24. The Silvertown Tunnel proposals

form part of the Reference Case for the Gallions Reach and Belvedere crossings, which

means that all scenarios tested include the cumulative impact of and interaction between

these projects.

In addition to the Silvertown Tunnel and the crossings at Gallions Reach and Belvedere,

Highways England is consulting on plans for a Lower Thames Crossing to address the

congestion issues at the Dartford Crossing. Transport for London has and will continue to

liaise with Highways England throughout the planning of the Lower Thames Crossing, and up-

to-date transport modelling to understand the cumulative impact of and interaction between

the east London river crossings and the Lower Thames Crossing is being undertaken. This

work is not available at the time of print but will be discussed with stakeholders once

available.

of 45

3.6.5. Traffic

Potential for increase

462 comments were made about a potential increase in traffic as a result of the schemes.

290 comments expressed general concern over an increase in traffic, including

London Cycling Campaign, London Assembly Labour Group, Friends of the Earth and

the RAC Foundation

46 comments warned that additional traffic on local roads will pose a safety hazard

to schools, young people, residents and other road users (including pedestrians and

cyclists)

48 comments raised concerns over a local traffic increase at Belvedere and the

impact on local roads, including BARC (who were particularly concerned about an

increase in congestion on the A206 and A2016), the Bexley Labour Group and the

LA21(Bexley) Traffic and Transport Forum

40 comments raised concerns about local traffic increase at Gallions Reach

23 comments raised concerns about an increase in rat-running

15 comments expressed worry about an increase in HGV traffic

A user charge is proposed in order to keep traffic within manageable limits both on the

crossings and the surrounding road networks. Traffic modelling outputs which identify broad

changes in traffic have been set out in the Traffic Impact Report. Further work is required to

refine the user charge to ensure that traffic impacts on the local area network are managed.

Further measures will also be explored to minimise the impact on residential areas and

junctions and to channel traffic to the most appropriate approaches to the crossings. As the

project progresses we will continue to investigate further how best to achieve this and we will

work closely with local boroughs on this matter.

Ensuring the safety of all road users is of critical importance and the crossings would be

designed to the latest standards. As the scheme design develops and more detailed

proposals are put forward, we would be in a position to identify any potential issues and

develop measures to address them. For example, the tie-in arrangements linking the

crossings to the road network on either side of the River Thames would be subject to a full

Road Safety Audit process, as part of which any safety issues would be identified and

recommendations made for the purpose of maximising the road safety of the proposals. A

full Environmental Impact Assessment will also be undertaken once the scheme design has

developed further, which will identify the likely significant effects of the scheme and develop

a package of necessary mitigation measures.

We understand the concern that some respondents raised regarding increased HGV traffic,

particularly on local roads. We expect non-local HGV traffic to use either the

Blackwall/Silvertown tunnels, since they provide links to the A2, A12, A13 and other strategic

routes in east London, or the Dartford crossings. The crossings are intended to provide

improved HGV access to local employment areas, such as Belvedere Industrial Area, and we

will consider with the local boroughs appropriate traffic management measures to avoid

HGV traffic using local roads to access the crossings.


of 45

Crossings will induce traffic

The London Cycling Campaign, Darren Johnson AM, BARC and the LA21(Bexley) Traffic and

Transport Forum expressed concerns over induced traffic as a result of the schemes.

Any improvement to the road network has the potential to generate additional traffic as road

users respond by, for example, diverting from other routes, changing their origin or

destination (trip locations), switching from other transport modes, or making more journeys.

These crossings are intended to help boost the local economy, increasing the number of

local jobs, which would also lead to more trips being made.

This can therefore have some adverse impacts on the local road network, which are identified

in the Traffic Impact Report, although these are offset to some extent by making some

journeys shorter, and encouraging businesses servicing London to locate their business

closer to their customers.

As such there will be additional traffic in some areas. These impacts can be mitigated to a

degree through a user charge, which provides a tool to manage traffic demand to ensure the

benefits of the additional connectivity are secured and not lost through local traffic growth.

This could include targetting higher charges towards those users most able to use public

transport alternatives (such as car drivers in the peaks) or charging based on emissions (to

discourage more polluting vehicles from the local area).

As such a user charge is an essential element of the proposals for the Gallions Reach and

Belvedere crossings.

Local traffic management is also an important tool, to ensure that where traffic could

increase on more sensitive roads, such as residential roads or roads with more pedestrians,

measures can be put in place to discourage or prevent this, or address the impacts. This

could include, for example, traffic calming to reduce vehicle speeds, which discourage

through traffic and improve safety, width restrictions to keep goods vehicles on main roads,

or improved footways, cycle tracks and crossings to help those travelling in the local area on

foot or by cycle.

Traffic modelling

The London Boroughs of Barking and Daganhem, Bexley, Havering and Redbridge, BARC and

the Barking and Dagenham Chamber of Commerce all expressed concern over the traffic

modelling – suggesting that it was inadequate, inaccurate or did not take into account local

development.

TfL has significant experience in the use of traffic models and we are confident that our

models provide an appropriate assessment of the impact of the proposed schemes. The

transport models used to consider the effect of the crossings on the network have been

developed over a number of years and have been continuously improved and updated to, for

example, reflect best practice and up-to-date guidance. In line with Department for Transport

guidance, we produced an Appraisal Specification Report to document our modelling and

appraisal tools, and why we considered them proportionate for this stage of the assessment

in order to assess the broad changes in traffic patterns that would result from the two new

crossings and the magnitude of these changes. For this particular consultation, we used the

London Regional Demand Model (LoRDM 2014 version) to forecast the traffic impacts of


https://consultations.tfl.gov.uk/rivercrossings/b5c585b1/user_uploads/appraisal-specification-report.pdf

of 45

providing new river crossings at Gallions Reach and Belvedere based on Greater London

Authority (London Plan 2011) planning assumptions, which was the model available at the

time the work was undertaken.

As work on the crossings develops and the models are updated with the latest planning data,

our understanding of the impacts of the crossings will become further refined. We will also

undertake sensitivity tests to consider future year scenarios that are not included in the

statutory planning assumptions (e.g. higher growth aspirations) to understand the effect of

alternative growth scenarios. As part of this development, TfL, in collaboration with London

boroughs, has commissioned an independent consultant to review our latest traffic models

to assess their suitability to progress the proposed crossings in east London. The study is

ongoing however, the review has confirmed to date that the base year part of the models are

‘fit for purpose’.

Congestion relief

347 comments were made in relation to congestion relief.

328 comments expressed belief that the crossings will alleviate/ease congestion

locally and at other crossing points, including the London Chamber of Commerce and

Industry

19 comments called for bans or restrictions on HGVs to help ease congestion

These crossings are designed to address the poor cross-river connectivity between east and

southeast London and to improve the resilience of the cross-river transport network in east

London by providing additional crossing options. As a result of the crossings at Gallions

Reach and Belvedere, there may be some traffic that diverts from the existing road network

and therefore some congestion relief in some local areas. However, the principal objective of

these crossings is to improve connectivity.

It is not proposed that HGVs would be banned or restricted from using crossings; supporting

local businesses which provide local jobs is a key objective of the Mayor, and freight is

heavily dependent on the road network; unlike car drivers, freight cannot simply switch to

public transport. However in the wider area, where there are concerns about HGVs leaving

the main road network and using residential roads, consideration can be given to banning

such routes should more goods vehicles start using inappropriate roads.

of 45

3.6.6. User charge

Support a user charge

17 comments expressed their support for funding via a user charge and the merit in a user

charge as a means of traffic management, including the London Assembly Labour Group and

the London Borough of Hackney.

We welcome the support expressed for the user charge. The user charge is an essential part

of the proposals as is it needed to both manage demand for the crossings and to help

contribute towards the cost of construction, maintenance and operation. The charge level

would be set closer to the opening of the crossings in order to ensure it reflects the

conditions that exist at the time and that the charges are set at a level that would manage

demand for the crossings most effectively.

Oppose a user charge

There were 247 comments made in opposition to the proposed user charge.

137 comments argued the crossings should be free to use, including the London

Borough of Lewisham and the Barking and Dagenham Chamber of Commerce

77 comments were received on the perceived unfairness of east London river

crossings being charged while crossings in west London remained free, including the

London Borough of Barking and Dagenham, the Barking and Dagenham Chamber of

Commerce, FSB and the LA21(Bexley) Traffic and Transport Forum.

18 comments viewed the user charge as a tax

10 comments advised it was currently free to cross and should remain so

4 comments believed the charge will restrict opportunity area growth

1 comment believed the user charge will increase traffic

User charging is an essential element of the proposals as it would help to manage demand

for the new crossings, as well as contributing to the cost of construction, maintenance and

operation.

In terms of managing demand, if new crossings were to be built and not charged, experience

demonstrates that the volumes of traffic and local congestion would rise considerably. In our

view that is unlikely to be acceptable and would undermine the case for constructing the

crossings. The charge is therefore a means to ensure that the overall volume of traffic is

managed to mitigate the traffic and environmental impacts of the scheme. It could also

provide a means to prioritise certain types of traffic, for example much lower charges for

more environmentally friendly vehicles than for those with higher levels of emissions.

Moreover, with a user charge applied to existing and proposed crossings either side of those

at Gallions Reach and Belvedere (that is Blackwall/Silvertown and Dartford), demand for these

crossings would be too great in the absence of a user charge as drivers would divert to an

uncharged crossing.

With regards to the costs of the project, a new crossing would represent a very significant

capital investment; the costs of constructing a bridge or tunnel in this area are likely to be

significantly higher than in west London, where the river is narrower and large ships do not

of 45

need be accommodated. Furthermore, while no new road crossings to the west are

proposed, it is likely that if we did build a new road crossing to the west, it would also be

charged. As it is, there are no outstanding costs from the construction of other road

crossings in London. We consider it reasonable and appropriate for the primary beneficiaries

of the new crossings, those driving across them, to contribute towards the costs.

Proposals for charging at the new crossings would be subject to further public and

stakeholder consultation as the scheme develops, with the initial charge level and the

structure of the charging regime to be set closer to the date that the crossings open to traffic.

This would ensure that the charging regime reflects the conditions that exist at the time and

the charges are set at a level that would manage demand for the crossings most effectively.

Request for discounts

There were 32 comments calling for various discounts to the proposed user charge.

21 comments were in relation to a discount for local residents, including the London

Boroughs of Tower Hamlets, Bexley, Newham and Havering and the London

Assembly Labour Group. Clive Efford MP advised he believed local residents should

be exempt altogether

The Confederation of Passenger Transport called for bus and coach priority charging

5 comments, including the London Borough of Barking and Dagenham, requested

differential charging (eg prioritising local traffic over regional and national traffic)

The London Chamber of Commerce and Industry advised that they would like to see

lower charges during off-peak periods or tidal charging, and that charging should

distinguish between business and private traffic

The FTA believes any charge should be focused on those who have alternatives

rather than essential delivery vehicles

Discounts and exemptions would be provided in a similar way as for the Congestion Charge,

which includes disabled users, emergency services and some large passenger vehicles

(coaches and buses). However it is not currently proposed that there would be a local

resident or business discount.

The key reasons for not proposing local discounts are:

- It would be contrary to the project objectives: any specific discount would undermine

the traffic demand and environmental impact management as well as the funding

objectives of user charging

- There is no clear rationale for offering a discount in this instance. For example,

residents living inside the central London Congestion Charging zone are eligible for a

discount because, if they need to move a vehicle at all, they have no choice but to

travel within the zone. For the Gallions Reach and Belvedere crossings this is not the

case

- There is no fair basis for deciding who qualifies for the discount – a local residents’

discount would have to distinguish between groups of people by whether or not they

live within a specified area. There is no proper basis on which to determine the

boundary of such an area and any such area could not take into account other

relevant criteria such as hardship caused by the charge or need to drive.

of 45

The preference for a varying charge by direction of travel is noted; there is potential for higher

charges at certain times of day or directions, to discourage car commuting where public

transport alternatives exist, and to minimise the impacts on the road network. The charging

strategy for the crossings would not be set until closer to the crossings open, so that it can

reflect the conditions that exist at the time, including charges at adjacent crossings, and

ensure that the charges are set at a level that would manage demand for the crossings most

effectively.

User charge – other

70 comments were made in relation to other elements of the proposed user charge.

25 comments suggested discontinuing user charging once the crossings have been

paid for

21 comments raised concerns over the user charge rates being too expensive and

creating a divide between north and south London

12 comments called for a low-value pan-London charge to be introduced, including

the South East London Chamber of Commerce and RAC Foundation

2 comments believe charging will deter use of the crossings

1 comment asked us to toll the Blackwall tunnel and see if an additional crossing is

necessary

It is likely to be necessary for the user charge to continue beyond the date at which the cost

of the crossings' construction has been recouped in order to maintain its demand and

environmental management effect. However this point is not likely to be reached in the

foreseeable future as user charging is not expected to exceed the cost of construction.

Additionally, maintenance and operational costs of the crossings would be ongoing and the

charge revenue will help to pay for these.

TfL and the Mayor have the power to impose road user charging in London. Using these

powers to introduce a charging system could help to manage demand for the road network as

a whole, including crossings, although there are no plans at this time to introduce a wider

road user charge. Should any wider charging schemes be progressed in the future, the scope

for incorporating the charging regime for the Gallions Reach and Belvedere crossings within a

wider charging regime would be examined.

of 45

3.6.7. Walking and cycling

General comments

157 comments were received about the proposed provision for pedestrians and cyclists over

both crossings.

138 comments were in support of the plan to incorporate walking and cycling on the

crossings, including the London Borough of Barking and Dagenham, the London

Borough of Tower Hamlets, the RAC Foundation, the London Assembly Labour

Group and the Bexley Labour Group

16 comments were unsupportive and believe that we should be prioritising road and

public transport crossings

The London Borough of Havering and the Confederation of Passenger Transport both

acknowledged the difficulties in providing a suitable environment for pedestrians and

cyclists in either a bridge or tunnel. The London Borough of Newham echoed this,

although the Borough believes the challenges are not insurmountable

Increasing the number of trips that are walked or cycled is a key objective of the Mayor’s

Transport Strategy, and as part of the work for this consultation, we have considered the

options for incorporating walking and cycling facilities into the crossings. This work was

presented in the Options Assessment Report (Long List), and for the purpose of the business

case the wider economic benefits of improved connectivity for cycling and walking were

included.

Further analysis will be undertaken to understand the demand for such facilities and this

analysis combined with other factors such the safety and security of users, design constraints

and costs, will help to decide how cross-river walking and cycling opportunities can be best

improved.

Design of walking and cycling facilities

There were 113 comments received in relation to how the walking and cycling facilities

would be designed.

42 comments were in relation to a bridge being more suitable for pedestrians and

cyclists, including the London Boroughs of Tower Hamlets and Hackney

37 comments called for any cycling facilities to be fully segregated

17 comments asked that we consider a lift and weather shielding for cyclists on a

bridge

13 comments suggested that we use vehicles to transport pedestrians and cyclists

over the crossings, including the Royal Borough of Greenwich

2 comments asked for cycle storage to be incorporated at key hubs

1 comment advised that a tunnel for pedestrians and cyclists should be well lit,

ventilated and safe

We would seek to incorporate segregated pedestrian and cycling facilities into the Gallions

Reach and Belvedere crossings provided they can be accommodated in a manner that

guarantees the safety and security of users, at a reasonable cost. There are pros and cons to


of 45

each option in terms of which type of crossing would be better for users. For example,

bridges might offer a better feeling of safety and security as pedestrians and cyclists would

be in the open air and visible to passing vehicles, whereas in a tunnel they would be in a

separate cell, which, if not heavily used, could pose challenges in making it feel safe at all

times of day. Conversely, a tunnel would offer better protection against poor weather

conditions and a more comfortable gradient.

All suggestions received in relation to the design of the walking and cycling facilities will be

taken on board throughout the next stages of the project design.

of 45

3.6.8. Environment

Air quality

221 comments were provided in relation to air quality, both positive and negative.

173 comments expressed concerns about the impact of the schemes on air quality in

general, with many requesting robust measures to improve air quality, including the

London Borough of Barking and Dagenham, Darren Johnson AM, Clive Efford MP,

BARC, Friends of the Earth, Campaign for Better Transport, London Cycling

Campaign, the London Assembly Labour Group and the Bexley Labour Group

Specifically, the London Borough of Barking and Dagenham and the Bexley Labour

Group requested a low emission zone be implemented for either the whole of

London or in the areas affected by the schemes

31 comments believed that air quality would be improved in some currently

congested areas as a result of the schemes, including the Confederation of Passenger

Transport

14 comments expressed worry about a potential increase in air pollution at Belvedere

6 comments were in relation to the scheme increasing air pollution at Gallions Reach

We understand people's concern regarding air quality in London and we have and will

continue to take into consideration all relevant policies, directives and guidance regarding this

issue, including emerging guidance. Any proposal taken forward would be subject to rigorous

assessment and would need to comply with air quality standards set out in policy and

legislation.

Our initial high level assessments indicate that in 2021 there will be several corridors where

annual average NO2 concentrations are expected to exceed the limit value of 40µg/m3

without the crossings. The initial screening assessment indicates that there would be no

additional locations where air quality would breach legal limits as a result of the crossings.

Our understanding of the impacts of the scheme on air quality will be refined as the scheme

is developed, and further assessment is required to understand the impacts in some areas.

Importantly, the proposals for new river crossings would be subject to full Environmental

Impact Assessment (EIA) once the scheme design has developed further. The scope of the

EIA would be discussed in detail with relevant stakeholders and ultimately considered by the

relevant decision body. The EIA would include modelling of air quality effects to predict

changes at individual receptor locations, as well as consideration of a number of other

environmental effects including nature conservation, visual effects, and land contamination.

Through the EIA process we would identify the likely significant effects of the proposed

scheme(s) and develop a package of mitigation measures if necessary, which would be

subject to consultation.

The air quality assessment that has been undertaken to date has been very high level

(indicative of the early stage we are currently at with the project). More specific and detailed

assessments need to be undertaken once the scheme design has been developed further.

https://consultations.tfl.gov.uk/rivercrossings/b5c585b1/user_uploads/environmental-options-report.pdf

of 45

Noise

Concerns about noise pollution were raised in 45 comments.

38 comments raised concern about a general increase in noise pollution for all local

residents as a result of the schemes, including Friends of the Earth, Campaign for

Better Transport and the London Cycling Campaign

6 comments were in relation to specific concerns about an increase in noise pollution

around the Gallions Reach crossing

1 comment raised specific concerns about an increase in noise pollution around the

Belvedere crossing

A high-level assessment has been carried out to consider the change in noise levels

attributed to the implementation of the various traffic scenarios related to the proposals.

This work is available here. It suggests that there may be some limited areas where a

moderate change is experienced, however a detailed noise assessment is required before any

conclusions can be drawn and any specific mitigation measures - if required - designed.

As work on the Gallions Reach and Belvedere crossings progresses, detailed noise

assessments would be undertaken.

Environment and other impacts

45 comments were received about various other concerns in relation to potential

environmental impacts as a result of the schemes.

36 respondents were worried about a threat to local ecology and marine life

The Bexley Labour Group requested assurance that safeguards will be put in place to

protect marine reserves and areas of environmental and ecological importance

6 respondents made general comments that the plans are detrimental to the

environment

MOPAC, and SEGRO Plc both raised concerns over property impacts (including flood

risks)

The Environmental Options Report that formed part of the consultation materials was

designed to compare the impact of various options still under consideration. Given the stage

the project is at and the number of different options still under consideration, this was

considered a proportionate and appropriate approach. It does not comprise either a statutory

or non-statutory Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA), which would be undertaken when

a preferred option has been selected. At this stage, any necessary mitigation measures would

be incorporated and taken into account in the environmental assessment. Further work is

therefore required to understand issues such as flood risk and land contamination in more

detail.

Ecological impacts was one of the focus areas of the Environmental Options Study that was

undertaken and presented as part of this consultation. Terrestrial surveys (on land) found

habitats at Gallions Reach that are suitable for important insect species, a wide range of

waterfowl and wintering birds. It also has the potential to support some protected bird

species. Marine surveys undertaken found a protected species of crustacean. The banks



of 45

surrounding the Belvedere area comprise of mudflats, and a number of waterbodies in close

proximity to the crossing location would support water voles.

The effects on other areas surrounding the crossing locations will vary, depending on the

type of crossing that is implemented. Building the crossings as immersed tunnels would be

likely to have more construction-related impacts on marine and terrestrial ecology than

bridges, although this risk could be managed to lower any negative impact.

Suitable mitigation measures will be developed as the design develops to manage any risk to

marine and terrestrial ecology and reduce any adverse impacts.

The locations proposed for the Gallions Reach and Belvedere crossings have been identified

taking account of existing and future land uses in the area, including areas that are or may

become residential. At this stage of the design process, it is not thought that any homes

would need to be demolished to make way for the crossings.

A number of stakeholders raised concerns about specific commercial property impacts at

both Gallions Reach and Belvedere. We would work with existing land owners in the area to

ensure that the crossings are integrated with existing and planned developments.

of 45

3.6.9. General

Woolwich Ferry

40 respondents, including London Borough of Tower Hamlets and the Greenwich

Conservatives, believe we should retain the Woolwich Ferry irrespective of whether new

crossings are built.

A decision on the longer term future of the Woolwich Ferry has not yet been taken. TfL is

investing in the Ferry to ensure that it is fit for purpose and reliable into the 2020s. Any

decisions about its longer term future would be subject to public and stakeholder

consultation.

Timescales

There were 111 comments in relation to the the timescales of the project.

110 comments called for the crossing(s) to be built sooner than 2025, including the

London Boroughs of Barking and Dagenham, Havering and Tower Hamlets, National

Grid Property Holdings, London Chamber of Commerce and Industry and the Barking

and Dagenham Chamber of Commerce

ABP called for certainty of delivery of the crossings to be established as a matter of

urgency

We recognise the importance of these crossings and have an ambitious programme for the

delivery of this major infrastructure project. There are still some key decisions to be made

before scheme designs can be finalised such as whether the crossings should be bridges or

tunnels and then a submission made to the Government for permission to construct and

operate the crossings. This non-statutory consultation has been an important step towards a

defined scheme and we will use the feedback received to help to inform these key decisions.

Given the stage the project is currently at and the planning approval process that must be

undertaken, the earliest the crossings could be open is 2025.

Connecting the Capital

There were 7 comments received in relation to ‘Connecting the Capital’, the Mayor and TfL’s

vision for future river crossings in London.

The Gallions Reach and Belvedere crossings that were the focus of this consultation are part

of a wider series of crossings presented in ‘Connecting the Capital’. This document brought

together a number of crossings for public transport, pedestrians, cyclists and vehicles that

have been proposed for London to the 2030s and beyond. We welcome the interest in the

document and the wider proposals for river crossings in London.

Some specific comments were received in support of the proposed pedestrian and cycle

bridge between Rotherhithe and Canary Wharf. This feedback will be shared with the project

team looking at that particular scheme.

of 45

3.6.10. Consultation

Level of detail/scheme definition

The London Boroughs of Havering and Barking and Dagenham commented on the proposals

not being specific enough and that more detail is required.

The proposals are not yet at a stage where more detail can be provided. There are still a

number of options to be considered and further work - and consultation - required before a

preferred option can be identified and the costs and effects of the defined scheme set out in

detail. This consultation - and the feedback received from it - is an important step in this

process and more detail on all relevant elements will be provided as the schemes are defined

further.

For example, we have not proposed a specific public transport option yet because it would

be inappropriate to do so without first setting out for the boroughs, other stakeholders and

the public the pros and cons of options and seeking their views. The views on the public

transport options that were presented as part of this consultation will be an important

element in helping to shape a preferred option.

In terms of the level of user charge, we propose to set the initial level of the user charge and

the structure of the charging regime closer to the date that the crossings would open to

traffic. This would ensure that the charging regime reflects the conditions that exist at the

time, including charges at other crossings, and the charges are set at a level that would

manage demand for river crossings in east London most effectively.

And in terms of the final cost of the crossings, this very much depends on some key

decisions that are yet to be taken such as whether they would be bridges or tunnels and what

form of public transport provision is included. These types of decisions could not be taken

until further public and stakeholder consultation had occurred. We therefore presented as

part of this consultation a high level estimate of the cost to build the crossings, expressed as

a range, taking account of the different options still being considered. The ranges reflect the

relatively early stage of development of the crossings and therefore the level of uncertainty.

As we continue to develop the new crossings, we will increase our understanding of the

construction and operating costs involved.

Consultation timing

One stakeholder, the LA21 (Bexley) Traffic and Transport Forum, questioned the timing of

the consultation and why it was undertaken over the Christmas period.

The consultation on the Gallions Reach and Belvedere crossings ran from Wednesday 2

December 2015 through to Friday 12 February 2016. At nearly 11 weeks, this was a lengthy

consultation. The timeframe was longer than normal to take account of the Christmas and

New Year period.

The start date for this consultation was also dependent on the end of the Silvertown Tunnel

consultation. As the schemes are in a similar area, with similar stakeholders and local

communities, we wanted to ensure they did not overlap. The Silvertown Tunnel consultation

finished on 29 November. The Gallions Reach and Belvedere river crossings consultation was

therefore launched in the following week.

of 45

Questionnaire

The London Borough of Havering and Royal Borough of Greenwich questioned the value to

be gained by the way the consultation questions (Q2-4) were posed, particularly since

answers would be limited to respondents’ personal experience and not necessarily future

habits.

At this stage, the aim of the consultation was to present the work we had been undertaking,

and the new information we had in relation to public transport and active travel modes. The

questions were unlike those posed as part of previous consultations to gain an understanding

of where the public think they would like to get to with the new crossings, as well as how

they believe they will use them.

This will help us shape the form of the crossings (e.g. the most cost-effective public

transport solution and the appetite for walking and cycling provision) based on local people’s

views. We recognise that this can only be a partial picture, as travel patterns and horizons are

limited by the current opportunities available, and new residents may have different views

and needs, but it is important that the needs of the existing community are understood and

taken into account in planning any new transport links.

of 45

3.7. How respondents heard about the consultation

The most common source by which respondents heard about this consultation was via an

email sent by TfL. There were a number of other ways in which respondents heard about the

consultation, including via local groups, friends and family, work and general internet

searches.

Figure 6 – How respondents heard about the consultation

3.8. Comments on the quality of the consultation

Respondents were given the opportunity to comment on the quality of the consultation in a

free text box at the end of the questionnaire. A total of 2,036 respondents (45% of all

respondents) provided feedback to the question.

Positive comments

Satisfied with the consultation / excellent / very good (803 comments)

Good level of detail, well presented and high quality (433 comments)

Clear language and easy to understand (191 comments)

Negative comments

More detail required on local impacts, cost and funding and plans (117 comments)

Social media 4%

Saw it on the TfL website

4%

Received an email from TfL

64%

Read about it in the press

5%

Leaflet 7%

Local borough publication

16%

of 45

Should have been more publicity such as roadshows, letters and plans in public

places (115 comments)

4. Next steps

Feedback received as part of this consultation will be used to inform the development of the

crossings. This report will be presented to the Mayor of London and will help to inform the

decisions on the next steps for the project.

However the schemes are progressed, we are committed to ensuring the community are

kept informed, and consulted with before permission to build new crossings is sought, as

well as to working closely with relevant authorities to progress the proposals.

5. Appendix

A number of appendices are presented over the following pages:

Appendix A – Consultation History

Appendix B – Key stakeholders and correspondence

Appendix C – Consultation leaflet

Appendix D – Email to previous respondents and TfL customers

Appendix E – Print advertisement and schedule

Appendix F – Press release and subsequent articles

Appendix G – Tweets posted by TfL

Appendix H – Consultation questionnaire

Appendix I – SDG Analysis and Code Frame

Appendix J – Stakeholders who responded to the consultation

Appendix A – Consultation history

The Gallions Reach and Belvedere river crossings have been developed over a number of years, as a result of feedback received from several consultations. These are outlined in the diagram below.

Figure 1 – East London river crossings consultation history

Appendix B – Stakeholder email and list

Email to stakeholders

Emails were sent to stakeholders identified as having an interest in the scheme (or the overarching ‘Connecting the Capital’ vision that was launched at the same time). This email was sent on Wednesday 2 December 2015 and text and stakeholder recipient list are shown below.

Good morning

London is growing. In fact, the population is expected to rise from 8.6 million to 10 million by 2030. This will increase pressure on the city’s infrastructure, including the river crossings that play a key role in moving people and goods around London.

Connecting the Capital

‘Connecting the Capital’ shows how 13 proposed crossings, including bridges and tunnels – for walking, cycling, public transport and traffic – can support this growth. New crossings will help to unlock the city’s full potential, support thousands of new jobs and homes, drive economic growth and ensure that London competes with other global cities.

These proposals include well publicised schemes such as the Silvertown Tunnel and Crossrail 2, as well as newer ideas which are still at an early stage of development.

You can view a copy of ’Connecting the Capital’ by visiting www.tfl.gov.uk/new-river-crossings

Have your say on the proposed Gallions Reach and Belvedere river crossings

Today we have launched a public consultation for proposed new river crossings at Gallions Reach and Belvedere, which form an integral part of this plan.

These two new road crossings will connect Beckton with Thamesmead and Rainham with Belvedere. They will help to support new jobs and homes in these growing areas of London and create new opportunities for further improvements to the walking, cycling and public transport networks.

We would like to know your thoughts on these schemes, particularly how we can best incorporate public transport, pedestrian and cycling routes into new crossings. To find out more and have your say, please visit our website www.tfl.gov.uk/east-london-crossings, where you can find detailed information about the potential benefits and impacts of the crossings. If you would like to meet our team to discuss the Gallions Reach and Belvedere river crossings in more detail, please get in touch by emailing [email protected] The deadline for comments is Friday 12 February, 2016. Please note that the deadline for our recent consultation on the Silvertown Tunnel has now passed. We will now review and respond to the comments we have received, and we will publish our consultation report next year. We appreciate your time in reading about our project and providing us with your feedback. Yours sincerely, Richard de Cani Managing Director, Planning Transport for London

http://www.tfl.gov.uk/new-river-crossings


mailto:[email protected]

Stakeholder list 3663 Food Services London A2Dominion Group AA DriveTech Abellio London/Surrey Ltd ABP London Access Company ACFO Ltd Action for Blind People Action on Hearing Loss (RNID) AEG Europe Age UK London Amey plc Angel AIM Apasen Argall BID Armada Community Project Arriva London Arriva the Shires ASD Ltd Asda Asra Housing Association for Consultancy and Engineering (ACE) Association of British Drivers Association of Disabled Professionals Association of Newspaper Distributors Automobile Association (AA) Balfour Beatty plc Barking & Dagenham Safer Transport Team Barking and Dagenham NHS Care Commissioning Group Barking, Havering and Redbridge University Hospitals NHS Trust Belvedere Community Forum Bexley Council Bexley Industrial Logistics Technology Bexley NHS Care Commissioning Group Bidvest Billingsgate Market Birch Sites Ltd Blackheath Joint Working Party Blackheath Society Boots Brent Cross Shopping Centre Brewery Logistics Group

Brewing, Food & Beverage Industry Suppliers Association British Association of Removers British Beer & Pub Association British Council of Disabled People British Deaf Association (BDA) British Frozen Food Federation British Motorcycling Federation British Red Cross British Retail Consortium Bromley Council BskyB CABE Campaign for Better Transport Campaign for Clean Air in London Canal & River Trust Canary Wharf Contractors Canary Wharf Group Canary Wharf Management car2go Carplus CCG Greenwich CCG Havering CCG Redbridge Central London Freight Quality Partnership Centre for London Centrepoint Charlton Central Residents Association Charlton Rail Users Group Chartered Institute of Logistics & Transport (CILT) Chartered Institution of Highways & Transportation (CIHT) Chinese Association of Tower Hamlets Circle 33 City Car Club City of London City of Peace Community Church City of Westminster Civil Engineering Contractors Association (CECA) Clifford Chance Community Links Trust Community Transport Association (CTA) Compass Point Residents Association

Confederation of British Industry (CBI) Confederation of Passenger Transport UK Construction Youth Trust Council for Disabled Children Crossrail Ltd CT Plus CTC CTR Triangle DABD (UK) Dartford Borough Council Dartford District Council Demos Department for Transport (DfT) DHL UK & Ireland Disability Rights UK Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee Docklands Waste Drivers Alliance East & South East London Transport Partnership East End Community Foundation East Greenwich Residents Association East London Business Alliance East Thames Group Eastney Street TRA e-Car Club EEF (Engineering Employers' Federation) End Violence Against Women Environmental Protection UK Essex County Council European Metal Recycling Evening Standard distribution Excel London Family Mosaic Federation of Small Businesses (FSB) First Essex FirstGroup plc Food Storage and Distribution Federation Forest Hill Traders Association Freight Transport Association Freight Transport Association (FTA) Friends of the Earth G4S Galleons Point Residents Association Gallions Housing Association Gateway Housing Association

Gatwick Airport Gnewt cargo Go Ahead London Gravesham District Council Greater London Authority (GLA) Greater London Forum for Older People (GLF) Green Alliance Green Party Greenpeace Greenwich & Lewisham Friends of the Earth Greenwich Carers Centre Greenwich Creekside Residents Association Greenwich Kurdish Community Association Greenwich Millennium Village Association Greenwich Peninsular Chaplaincy Greenwich Safer Transport Team Greenwich Society Greenwich United Church Hainault Business Park BID Havering Safer Transport Team Heathrow Airport Holdings Ltd Herne Hill Society Hertz on Demand Highways Agency (London) Hills Prospect Home from Home HA Horniman Museum House of Commons House of Lords HS2 Ltd IBM ICE -London IER Ilford BID Inclusion London Independent Disability Advisory Group (IDAG) Independent Shoreditch Institute for Sustainability Institute of Advanced Motorists Institute of Couriers Institute of Directors (IoD) Institution of Civil Engineers (ICE)

Intelligent Transport Advisory Group on EU Commission John Lewis Partnership Kasmiri welfare alliance Keltbray Kent County Council King's College London Knight Dragon KPMG LLP Laing O'Rourke LBN Communications Team Leaders in Community Lend Lease Leonard Cheshire Disability Lewisham Clinical Commissioning Group Lewisham Safer Transport Team Lewisham Shpping Centre Lewishman Council Licensed Private Car Hire Association Licensed Taxi Drivers Association Living Streets Local Space Ltd London ambulance Service London Ambulance Service NHS Trust London Assembly London Association of Funeral Directors London Borough of Barking & Dagenham London Borough of Barnet London Borough of Bexley London Borough of Brent London Borough of Bromley London Borough of Camden London Borough of Croydon London Borough of Enfield London Borough of Greenwich London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham London Borough of Haringey London Borough of Havering London Borough of Hounslow London Borough of Islington London Borough of Lambeth London Borough of Lewisham London Borough of Merton London Borough of Newham London Borough of Redbridge London Borough of Richmond upon

Thames London Borough of Southwark London Borough of Tower Hamlets London Borough of Waltham Forest London Borough of Wandsworth London Cab Drivers' Club Ltd London Chamber of Commerce and Industry (LCCI) London City Airport London Cycling Campaign London Cycling Campaign (Greenwich) London Cycling Campaign (Lewisham) London Cycling Campaign (Newham) London Cycling Campaign (Redbridge) London Cycling Campaign (Tower Hamlets) London European Partnership for Transport London First London Forum of Amenity & Civic Societies London Legacy Development Corporation London Power Network London Private Hire Board London Somali Community Alliance London Suburban Taxi Drivers' Coalition London Tenants Federation London Thames Gateway Development Corporation London Tourist Coach Operators Association (LTCOA) London TravelWatch London Visual Impairment Forum (LVIF) London Voluntary Service Council London Wildlife Trust London Youth Look Ahead Housing and Care Ltd Low Carbon Vehicle Partnership Marks & Spencer MENCAP Menzies Distribution Meridian Community Garden and Allotment Metropolitan Police Metropolitan Police - Community Police Millennium Primary School Mineral Products Association MiNet/ROTA

Morden College Morrisons Motorcycle Action Group Motorcycle Industry Association National Children's Bureau (NCB) National Council for Voluntary Youth Services (NCVYS) National Federation of Retail Newsagents National Federation of Retail Newsagents (NFRN) National Grid plc National Grid Transco National Joint Utilities Group Ltd (NJUG) National Motorcycle Council National Union of Students NCVO Network Housing Group Network Rail New Covent Garden Market New London Architecture New Spitalfields Market Newham Chamber of Commerce Newham Safer Transport Team NHS Newham CCG NHS Tower Hamlets CCG Nissan Noise Abatement Society North London Strategic Alliance North London Transport Forum Notting Hill Housing Group O2 Office of Rail Regulation One Housing Group Orchard Tenant & Residents Association PACTS (Parliamentary Advisory Group for traffic Safety) Par Hill Research Ltd ParcelForce Worldwide Partnership for Young London Passenger Focus Peabody Places for People Port of London Authority Pret-a-Manger Private Hire Car Association PUBLICA Queen Elizabeth Olympic Park

Quintain RAC Foundation for Motoring RADAR Radio Taxis Group Ltd Rail Delivery Group (RDG) RBKC / LBHF REAL Redbridge Safer Transport Team RNIB Road Haulage Association (RHA) RoadPeace Royal Borough of Greenwich Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea Royal London Society for the Blind (RLSB) Royal Mail Royal National Institute of the Blind (RNIB) RSA Sainsburys Supermarkets Ltd Salisa Project SCOPE Scotia Gas Networks Sense Siemens Transportation Systems Silvertown Quays Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders (SMMT) South Bank Employers Group South East London Chamber of Commerce South Greenwich Forum South Leytonstone Area Development Association (SLADA) Southern Gas Networks Southern Housing Group Space Syntax Limited SSE (Southern Electric) St Germans Terrace Association Stagecoach London Stratford Renaissance Partnership Sullivan Buses Sustrans Suzy Lamplugh Trust Tamil Community Housing Association TARA Tate & Lyle plc Tate & Lyle Sugars Tesco

Tesco Stores Ltd Textile Services Association Thales Group Thames Water Thames Water Utilities Ltd The Blackheath Society The Charlton Society The Eltham Society The Langton Way Residentd Association The London legacy Development Corporation The Westcombe Society The Who Cares? Trust Thurrock District Council Thurrock Thames Gateway Development Corporation TNT TNT Express Tom Smith Close TRA Tower Hamlets Committee of Local Charities Tower Hamlets Faith Tower Hamlets Federation of Tenanants and Residents Tower Hamlets Homes Tower Hamlets Safer Transport Team Tower Transit Toyota Trafalgar Estate Residents Association Transdev plc Transport Focus Transport for All Transport for London Triangle Management Services Ltd TRL Ltd UK Citizens UK Power Networks United Kingdom Disabled People's Council University College London UPS Urban Design London Valley Grove Residents Group Vanbrugh Park TRA vInspired Virgin Media Virginia Quay Residents Association Viridor Waste

Virtual Norwood Forum VISION 2020UK Walk London Waltham Forest Council Westcombe Society Westfield Group Westfield Management Company UK Ltd Westfield Shopping Towns Ltd Westminster City Council Whizz-Kidz Willow BID Limited Wincanton Wine & Spirit Trade Association YMCA England Young Minds Zipcar

Appendix C– Consultation leaflet

The pflan for new rfiver crossfings fin London

The Rfiver Thames has aflways provfided fimportant connectfions between London and the rest of the worfld, heflpfing to cement fits pflace as one of the worfld’s pre-emfinent cfitfies. But fit can aflso present barrfiers to flocafl travefl.

Thfis fis most evfident fin the east, where the rfiver fis much wfider than fit fis fin the west, and has to accommodate the needs of shfippfing whfich uses thfis part of the rfiver. Wfith east London set to see sfignfificant growth fin popuflatfion, housfing and empfloyment fin the comfing years, we expect fincreased pressure on the exfistfing cross-rfiver finfrastructure, servfices and connectfions that move peopfle around the Capfitafl.

The Mayor fis pflannfing for thfis wfith a number of new rfiver crossfings, provfidfing fimproved connectfions for pedestrfians, cycflfists, pubflfic transport and road users aflfl by a combfinatfion of brfidges, tunnefls and ferrfies.

Much of the pflan focuses on east London, where exfistfing crossfings are fewer than eflsewhere. Work has aflready begun fin thfis area wfith the Emfirates Afir Lfine openfing fin 2012, Crossrafifl set to open fin 2018 and pflannfing permfissfion shortfly befing sought for the Sfiflvertown Tunnefl, whfich coufld be bufiflt by 2022/23. A number of other new connectfions coufld unflock potentfiafl both fin centrafl and east London and these are at varfious stages of deveflopment.

The flocatfion of aflfl of these proposed crossfings can be seen fin the map above and further detafifl on the pflan fis avafiflabfle at tfl.gov.uk/new-rfiver-crossfings

Thfis consufltatfion asks for your comments on two proposed crossfings at Gaflflfions Reach and Beflvedere. These crossfings woufld fimprove connectfions between parts of east and southeast London, heflpfing the flocafl area to accommodate the expected growth fin jobs and popuflatfion, and fincreasfing opportunfitfies for flocafl peopfle.

Thfis fleaflet expflafins the ratfionafle for these two crossfings, provfides detafifl on what we have been finvestfigatfing sfince the flast consufltatfion and presents finformatfion so that you can have an finformed say on what we are proposfing.

A501

A41

A503

A10

A202

A202

A201

A1

A12

A13

A13

A282

A2

A2

A20

A102

M25

A11

A406

Abbey Wood

Wooflwfich Arsenafl

Beam Park (Proposed)

Barkfing

Custom House

Dagenham Dock

Beflvedere

Charflton

Gaflflfions Reach

North Greenwfich

London Cfity Afirport

Canada Water

Battersea Park

Tempfle

Waterfloo

Battersea (Proposed)

Vfictorfia

Imperfiafl Wharf

Cannfing TownCanary Wharf

Barkfing Rfiversfide (Proposed)A501

A41

A503

A10

A202

A202

A201

A1

A12

A13

A13

A282

A2

A2

A20

A102

M25

A11

A406

KEY

Opportunfity Area

Pflanned/ proposed crossfings

0 500m 1km 2kmN

A501

A41

A503

A10

A202

A202

A201

A1

A12

A13

A13

A282

A2

A2

A20

A102

M25

A11

A406

Abbey Wood

Wooflwfich Arsenafl

Beam Park (Proposed)

Barkfing

Custom House

Dagenham Dock

Beflvedere

Charflton

Gaflflfions Reach

North Greenwfich


Canada Water

Battersea Park

Tempfle

Waterfloo

Battersea (Proposed)

Vfictorfia

Imperfiafl Wharf

Cannfing TownCanary Wharf

Barkfing Rfiversfide (Proposed)A501

A41

A503

A10

A202

A202

A201

A1

A12

A13

A13

A282

A2

A2

A20

A102

M25

A11

A406

KEY

Opportunfity Area

Pflanned/ proposed crossfings

0 500m 1km 2kmN

The pflan for new rfiver crossfings

2 3

About thfis consufltatfion

Foflflowfing a 2014 consufltatfion on east London rfiver crossfing optfions, the Mayor asked Transport for London (TfL) to progress optfions for new brfidges or tunnefls at both Gaflflfions Reach and Beflvedere. Takfing account of the responses recefived, over the flast tweflve months we have been undertakfing varfious pfieces of work on:

• The flfikefly fimpacts of these crossfings, fincfludfing fimpact on traffic flows

• The pubflfic transport network and optfions for pubflfic transport provfisfion on each of the crossfings

• Envfironmentafl consfideratfions and fimpacts

• The economfic benefits of new crossfings

Reports on these fissues are avafiflabfle on the consufltatfion websfite (see page 23 for more detafifls), wfith the mafin fissues summarfised fin thfis fleaflet.

Thfis consufltatfion wfiflfl heflp to progress the project and ensure our decfisfions take account of the vfiews of the pubflfic and stakehoflders.

We woufld flfike to know whether you support the crossfings, how you thfink you woufld use them and the destfinatfions you woufld flfike to be abfle to get to by fimproved pubflfic transport connectfions.

To have your say, pflease vfisfit tfl.gov.uk/east-flondon-crossfings and fiflfl fin the onflfine questfionnafire.

We apprecfiate your tfime fin readfing about our project and provfidfing us wfith your feedback.

The Gaflflfions Reach and Beflvedere rfiver crossfingsLondon’s popuflatfion fis expected to fincrease by 1.5m peopfle over the next 15 years, and over one thfird of thfis growth fis forecast to happen fin east London.

The proposed crossfings at Gaflflfions Reach and Beflvedere can pflay a key rofle fin supportfing thfis growth and heflpfing drfive London’s economy by provfidfing better connectfions across the Thames fin thfis part of the Capfitafl.

They are shown on the map beflow.

Whfifle the exact aflfignment of each crossfing has not been finaflfised, the Gaflflfions Reach crossfing woufld flfink the A2016 Western Way fin Thamesmead wfith the A1020 Royafl Docks Road fin the north. The Beflvedere crossfing woufld flfink the A2016 Bronze Age Way fin Beflvedere wfith the A13 Marsh Way junctfion fin Rafinham.

A102

A10

A11

A13

A12

A12

A118

Barkfing Rd

A406A406

A13 A1306

A12

Green LnHornchurch Rd

A12

A12

M25

New RdMarsh Way

A13

A13

M25

A282

A2 A2

A2016

A2016

E Rochester Way

A2

A205

A2

Royafl Docks Rd

A1020

Western Way

A206

Beflvedere

Rafinham

Dagenham

Barkfing

Beckton

Wooflwfich

Thamesmead

GreenwfichRotherhfithe

CannfingTown

CanaryWharf

11

2

4

5

12

Gaflflfions Reach Crossfing

Beflvedere Crossfing


The proposed Gaflflfions Reach and Beflvedere rfiver crossfings

4 5

New crossfings woufld reduce journey tfimes, create new opportunfitfies for fimprovements to the waflkfing, cycflfing and pubflfic transport networks across the rfiver, and heflp to stfimuflate deveflopment fin the surroundfing areas.

Our work shows that rfiver crossfings at Gaflflfions Reach and Beflvedere woufld:

• Better connect peopfle, busfinesses and communfitfies wfith each other, fincreasfing access to jobs, educatfion and flefisure actfivfitfies

• Make fit easfier for peopfle and goods to cross the rfiver fin east London

• Create opportunfitfies for new cross-rfiver pubflfic transport flfinks and fimprove flocafl waflkfing and cycflfing optfions

• Support London’s growfing economy by better connectfing busfinesses, and fimprovfing access to flabour markets

• Encourage deveflopment fin the area, heflpfing to address London’s housfing shortage

• Heflp manage the fimpact of popuflatfion growth by reducfing cross-rfiver journey tfimes and dfistances

Each crossfing fis expected to consfist of two flanes fin each dfirectfion – one for pubflfic transport and one for generafl traffic. There wfiflfl be a charge for vehficfles to use the crossfings to manage demand and heflp pay for the scheme. Any pedestrfian and cycflfist facfiflfitfies woufld be segregated from traffic.

The future of the Wooflwfich Ferry We are finvestfing fin the Wooflwfich Ferry fin the short term to ensure fit remafins reflfiabfle and fit for purpose finto the 2020s. Recent refurbfishment work means that the ferry dockfing areas are fin good order and we are pflannfing to purchase new boats to repflace the current vessefls, whfich have been runnfing sfince 1963.

As yet, we have not taken a decfisfion on whether the ferry servfices woufld contfinue beyond the openfing of the new crossfings proposed fin thfis fleaflet.

We woufld consuflt the pubflfic before any decfisfions on the future of the Wooflwfich Ferry are made.

Brfidges or tunnefls?

In our prevfious consufltatfion, we asked for your vfiews on ferry and brfidge optfions around Wooflwfich, Gaflflfions Reach and Beflvedere. The responses findficated a strong preference for brfidges at Gaflflfions Reach and Beflvedere. A number of respondents aflso requested that further consfideratfion be gfiven to tunnefls at both flocatfions.

As a resuflt we are consfiderfing the feasfibfiflfity of brfidges and tunnefls at Gaflflfions Reach and Beflvedere. There fis stfiflfl more work to be done before we can decfide whfich optfion wfiflfl be chosen at each flocatfion, partficuflarfly because the pubflfic transport optfions wfiflfl have a major finfluence on what fis the most feasfibfle and cost effectfive form of crossfing. Artfist’s fimpressfions of what each optfion coufld flook flfike can be seen on the foflflowfing pages.

There are a number of questfions that need to be addressed fin determfinfing whether a brfidge or tunnefl woufld be the preferred optfion fin each flocatfion. These fincflude:

• What form of pubflfic transport fis proposed?

• What woufld the fland and property fimpacts be for each crossfing?

• What woufld the envfironmentafl fimpacts be?

• What woufld the fimpact on other finfrastructure be, fi.e. rfiver traffic and London Cfity Afirport?

• Whfich optfion woufld be most cost-effectfive gfiven the questfions above?

It fis fimportant for us to answer these and other questfions to understand the overaflfl pficture before fidentfifyfing a preferred optfion.

6 7

Gaflflfions Reach brfidge

There are a number of factors to consfider fif bufifldfing a brfidge at Gaflflfions Reach:

• It woufld be flfikefly to be cheaper than a tunnefl

• It woufld need to be hfigh enough not to fimpact on shfippfing beflow, whfifle flow enough to not fimpact London Cfity Afirport’s flfight path

• Pedestrfian/cycfle facfiflfitfies coufld be accommodated, aflthough users woufld be exposed to poor weather

• It woufld be flfikefly to have more fimpact on nearby resfidents than a tunnefl (e.g. vfisuafl fimpacts)

• It coufld make fit more dfifficuflt to deveflop resfidentfiafl sfites cflose to the crossfing compared to a tunnefl

Gaflflfions Reach tunnefl

There are a number of factors to consfider fif bufifldfing a tunnefl at Gaflflfions Reach:

• It woufld be flfikefly to be more expensfive than a brfidge

• It woufld have flfittfle or no fimpact on shfippfing and London Cfity Afirport

• A pedestrfian and cycfle tunnefl coufld be consfidered fless attractfive to users than a brfidge

• It woufld be flfikefly to have fewer fimpacts on nearby resfidents, when compared to a brfidge

• It woufld be flfikefly to fleave more fland avafiflabfle for other uses, partficuflarfly after constructfion

• It woufld be fless susceptfibfle to poor weather than a brfidge

S I L V E R T O W N

N O R T H W O O L W I C H

W O O L W I C H

T H A M E S M E A D W E S T

T O W NC A N N I N G

Thfis fis an artfist’s fimpressfion and fis not fintended to represent the finfished finfrastructure

N

S I L V E R T O W N

N O R T H W O O L W I C H

W O O L W I C H

T H A M E S M E A D W E S T

T O W NC A N N I N G


N

TUNNEL ENTRY/EXIT

TUNNEL ENTRY/EXIT

Artfist’s fimpressfion of a brfidge at Gaflflfions Reach Artfist’s fimpressfion of a tunnefl at Gaflflfions Reach

8 9

Beflvedere brfidge

There are a number of factors to consfider fif bufifldfing a brfidge at Beflvedere:

• It woufld be cflose to major workfing wharves and woufld therefore requfire a hfigh and flong span, whfich coufld fincrease the cost to be sfimfiflar to the cost of a tunnefl at Beflvedere

• Pedestrfian/cycfle facfiflfitfies coufld be accommodated, aflthough users woufld be exposed to poor weather

• Befing further from the London Cfity Afirport, there fis more flexfibfiflfity on the type of structure that can be bufiflt than at Gaflflfions Reach


N

D A G E N H A M

R A I N H A M

B E L V E D E R E

Artfist’s fimpressfion of a brfidge at Beflvedere

Beflvedere tunnefl

There are a number of factors to consfider fif bufifldfing a tunnefl at Beflvedere:

• It coufld be a sfimfiflar cost to a brfidge

• It woufld have flfittfle or no fimpact on shfippfing

• It potentfiaflfly has fless of an fimpact than a brfidge on flocafl propertfies and the future deveflopment of the area, partficuflarfly after constructfion

• It woufld be fless susceptfibfle to poor weather than a brfidge

• A pedestrfian and cycfle tunnefl coufld be consfidered fless attractfive to users than a brfidge

Artfist’s fimpressfion of a tunnefl at Beflvedere Thfis fis an artfist’s fimpressfion and fis not fintended to represent the finfished finfrastructure

N

D A G E N H A M

R A I N H A M

B E L V E D E R E

TUNNEL ENTRY/EXIT

TUNNEL ENTRY/EXIT

10 11

Cross-rfiver pubflfic transport flfinks

The Gaflflfions Reach and Beflvedere rfiver crossfings woufld pflay an fimportant rofle fin fimprovfing pubflfic transport connectfions between east and southeast London.

At the flast consufltatfion, respondents asked us to expflore what fimprovements to the pubflfic transport networks coufld be fincorporated wfithfin the new crossfings.

In addfitfion to consfiderfing new bus routes on both crossfings and the destfinatfions they coufld serve, we have expflored whether fit woufld be possfibfle to provfide new rafifl flfinks as weflfl.

Our work shows that an extensfion of the exfistfing DLR network, or a tram, woufld be more feasfibfle at Gaflflfions Reach than Beflvedere. Thfis fis due to the proxfimfity of the Gaflflfions Reach crossfing to the DLR statfion at Gaflflfions Reach and the hfigher numbers of peopfle flfivfing cflose to the crossfing now and fin the future who coufld benefit from fit.

The DLR or tram woufld be provfided fin addfitfion to the bus network. They woufld requfire major finvestment and each has advantages and dfisadvantages, so we need to better understand how flocafl peopfle woufld use any new pubflfic transport servfices.

Thfis consufltatfion fis seekfing your vfiews on what new pubflfic transport flfinks woufld be most heflpfufl to you, to heflp us understand whfich pubflfic transport optfions woufld be most effectfive fin meetfing flocafl needs.

A summary of these optfions fis set out on the foflflowfing pages, wfith the map opposfite fiflflustratfing some potentfiafl new pubflfic transport flfinks these crossfings coufld provfide. Thfis fincfludes potentfiaflfly flfinkfing to:

• The new Crossrafifl servfices at Abbey Wood, Wooflwfich and Custom House

• DLR servfices at Wooflwfich Arsenafl and Gaflflfions Reach

• The London Underground at Barkfing

• The London Overground at Barkfing and Barkfing Rfiversfide

• Natfionafl Rafifl servfices at Abbey Wood, Wooflwfich, Beflvedere, Barkfing and Dagenham Dock.

Further finformatfion on the work flookfing at pubflfic transport optfions can be found fin the supportfing documents – see page 23.

Potentfiafl new pubflfic transport flfinks across the proposed Gaflflfions Reach and Beflvedere rfiver crossfings

A10

A13

A12

A12

A118

Barkfing Rd

A406

A13

A12

Green Ln

A12

A12

M25

New Rd

A13

M25

A282

A2 A2

A205

A207

A2

Proposed crossfings

Indficatfive pubflfic transport destfinatfions Opportunfity area

Underground

Natfionafl Rafifl Crossrafifl

Overground DLR

Barkfing

Rafinham

Dagenham

Romford

Royafl Docks

Wooflwfich

Erfith

A282

M25

Abbey WoodWooflwfich Arsenafl

Barkfing

Custom House

Dagenham Dock

Beflvedere

Charflton

Gaflflfions Reach


Canada Water

Canary Wharf

Barkfing Rfiversfide (Proposed)

Beflvedere

Bexfleyheath

Thamesmead

Rotherhfithe

CanaryWharf

12 13

Bus servficesBus servfices are an fimportant part of the proposafls. Both crossfings provfide the opportunfity to run new or extended bus routes across the Thames that woufld serve a wfide range of destfinatfions on efither sfide of the rfiver.

Wfith a bus-onfly soflutfion, fit fis fintended that bus flanes woufld be provfided on the crossfings to separate bus servfices from other traffic, and there fis the potentfiafl for compflementary bus prfiorfity to be provfided on the wfider flocafl road network to provfide rapfid bus transfit flfinks wfith dedficated bus flanes.

Exampfles of the potentfiafl new connectfions fincflude:

• Gaflflfions Reach crossfing – Barkfing, Beckton and the Royafl Docks to Thamesmead, Wooflwfich and Abbey Wood

• Beflvedere crossfing – Dagenham, Rafinham and Romford to Beflvedere, Erfith and Bexfleyheath

These servfices woufld flfink to a wfide range of flocafl areas, and woufld be abfle to respond to changes fin passenger demand as the areas around the crossfings deveflop.

DLRThe exfistfing DLR network comes cflose to the northern end of the Gaflflfions Reach crossfing flocatfion, provfidfing an opportunfity to extend the DLR across fit.

A DLR servfice woufld provfide Thamesmead wfith a hfigh quaflfity, dfirect new rafifl flfink to the Royafl Docks, wfith onward connectfions to Canary Wharf and centrafl London and woufld compflement the new and extended bus routes that woufld use the crossfing.

There fis aflso the potentfiafl to make flonger connectfions, such as passfing through Thamesmead and towards Abbey Wood, or northwards towards Barkfing, efither at the same tfime or after the Gaflflfions Reach crossfing has been bufiflt.

Provfidfing a DLR servfice on the crossfing woufld add to the costs of the scheme (fit fis flfikefly to be more expensfive to fincorporate a DLR servfice through a tunnefl than on a brfidge). It woufld provfide dfirect connectfions to fewer pflaces than new bus routes, but fit woufld greatfly fincrease the capacfity of pubflfic transport flfinks to and from Thamesmead, and fis flfikefly to stfimuflate more growth fin housfing and amenfitfies fin the area than a bus-onfly soflutfion.

Artfist’s fimpressfion of bus prfiorfity over efither crossfing Artfist’s fimpressfion of a DLR servfice over a crossfing at Gaflflfions Reach

14 15

TramUnflfike the DLR, there are no exfistfing tram networks flocaflfly to connect a new tram servfice finto. However, because trams can run at ground flevefl and share the road wfith buses, fit coufld be a flower cost optfion than the DLR whfifle provfidfing sfimfiflar benefits.

A tram network, whfich woufld be provfided fin addfitfion to buses, coufld fincflude servfices from Barkfing to both Wooflwfich and Abbey Wood vfia Gaflflfions Reach DLR statfion, the new crossfing and Thamesmead. Thfis optfion coufld be weflfl fintegrated wfith a number of potentfiafl new deveflopment sfites, provfidfing the new capacfity and connectfions that coufld aflflow thfis growth to take pflace.

Whfifle fit coufld aflso be more strafightforward and fless costfly than the DLR to create new tram flfinks beyond the crossfing fitseflf, fit woufld requfire an finterchange to access the DLR network on the north sfide of the crossfing.

Waflkfing and cycflfingThe crossfings coufld provfide new opportunfitfies for waflkfing and cycflfing journeys across the Thames, brfingfing, for exampfle, the Royafl Docks wfithfin an easy cycflfing dfistance of Thamesmead usfing the Gaflflfions Reach crossfing. Any new cross-rfiver connectfions woufld flfink wfith flocafl waflkfing and cycflfing networks.

If we bufiflt brfidges, pedestrfian and cycflfing facfiflfitfies woufld be provfided aflongsfide the road, however they coufld take around haflf an hour to cross on foot. As a brfidge woufld be around 50 metres above the Thames, fit woufld be a flong cflfimb and affected at tfimes by poor weather. Lfifts coufld be provfided to heflp pedestrfians and cycflfists access a brfidge from ground flevefl, to avofid the flong approach ramps.

To accommodate pedestrfians and cycflfists fin a tunnefl, a separate compartment wfithfin the tunnefl woufld need to be bufiflt for safety reasons. Thfis woufld have the benefit of weather protectfion, but fit coufld be very expensfive to construct and there may be chaflflenges fin makfing fit feefl safe at aflfl tfimes of the day.

Thfis consufltatfion fis seekfing vfiews on whether you thfink you mfight use a crossfing on foot or on a bficycfle, to heflp us understand the flfikefly flevefl of demand for these facfiflfitfies.

Artfist’s fimpressfion of a Tram servfice over a crossfing at Gaflflfions Reach

16 17

We wfiflfl modefl these changes fin more detafifl and may propose changes to the road network to ensure traffic fis managed approprfiatefly. The effect of the crossfings on traffic woufld aflso be affected by any other changes made to the flocafl road networks; for exampfle, the emergfing growth pflans for the area coufld create new road flfinks whfich may finfluence traffic patterns.

More detafifled finformatfion on the flfikefly effects of the schemes on traffic can be found fin the supportfing documents – see page 23.

Traffic fimpactsThe Gaflflfions Reach and Beflvedere rfiver crossfings woufld change traffic patterns fin east and southeast London. Thfis fis because some drfivers woufld change thefir route to take advantage of the new crossfings, fincreasfing traffic on some roads whfifle reducfing fit on others. Some road users woufld be abfle to make shorter journeys, reducfing traffic fin some areas, but fit may aflso mean that some new journeys are made to take advantage of the new opportunfitfies the crossfings provfide.

In generafl, we expect traffic to decrease on certafin routes, such as other rfiver crossfings and the roads approachfing them, such as the A2. We expect traffic to fincrease on the roads approachfing the new crossfings, such as the A406, A13 and roads fin the north of Bexfley and Greenwfich.

The proposed user charge woufld heflp to ensure that traffic voflumes do not cause sfignfificant probflems eflsewhere on the flocafl road network, and woufld dfiscourage drfivers seekfing to avofid the charges at other crossfings.

The map opposfite hfighflfights the mafin routes whfich our finfitfiafl modeflflfing shows coufld experfience changes fin traffic durfing the mornfing peak. Purpfle flfines findficate where traffic coufld decrease and orange flfines findficate where traffic coufld fincrease. Roads fin grey woufld not be flfikefly to see sfignfificant change.

Because of the flfimfited crossfing opportunfitfies fin east London, fit can take a flong tfime to travefl between pflaces on efither sfide of the rfiver. These crossfings woufld reduce the tfime taken to get to the other sfide of the rfiver.

Some expected reductfions fin peak journey tfime (by car) are:

• Thamesmead to Barkfing - around 40 mfinutes• Rafinham to Erfith - around 20 mfinutes

Traffic fimpacts as a resuflt of both crossfings befing bufiflt

M25

A13

A1306

A2

A2

A1020

N Cfircuflar Rd

A102 A207

A207

A206

A206

A206

A205

A205

A20

A20

A20

A12

A12 A12

A12A13

A1216

A10

Beflvedere

Thamesmead

Barkfing

Rafinham

Beckton

WooflwfichRotherhfithe

SfiflvertownCanaryWharf

CannfingTown

Gaflflfions Reach Crossfing

BeflvedereCrossfing

KEYFour + flane roadTwo flane roadLfikefly trafc decrease Lfikefly trafc fincrease

18 19

Envfironmentafl fimpacts We have undertaken a hfigh flevefl envfironmentafl study so we have an finfitfiafl understandfing of the potentfiafl envfironmentafl fimpacts of these two crossfings. Thfis study flooked finto possfibfle fimpacts on afir quaflfity nofise, vfisuafl and urban surroundfings, ground condfitfions and materfiafls, and flocafl ecoflogy.

Afir quaflfity

Prevfious finvestfigatfions have consfidered afir quaflfity fimpacts of each crossfing separatefly. Sfince the flast consufltatfion, we have flooked at the potentfiafl afir quaflfity fimpacts of both crossfings together. Thfis finvoflved a hfigh flevefl assessment of the potentfiafl change fin afir quaflfity (specfificaflfly Nfitrogen Dfioxfide, NO2) concentratfions as a resuflt of vehficfle emfissfions at a number of flocatfions surroundfing the crossfings.

As woufld be expected, the resuflts of the assessment findficate that NO2 concentratfions woufld be flfikefly to fincrease fin areas wfith fincreased traffic, and decrease where roads become fless busy.

Overaflfl, the assessment findficated that there woufld be breaches of the flegafl flfimfits, both wfith and wfithout the scheme, but there woufld be no addfitfionafl flocatfions where afir quaflfity woufld breach flegafl flfimfits as a resuflt of the scheme.

We wfiflfl undertake further detafifled modeflflfing and specfific finvestfigatfions as the desfign of the scheme progresses. Any proposafls taken forward wfiflfl be subject to rfigorous assessment to ensure they compfly wfith afir quaflfity standards set out fin poflficy and flegfisflatfion.

Vfisuafl fimpact, nofise and ecoflogy

Effects on other envfironmentafl factors wfiflfl vary, dependfing on the type of crossfing that fis constructed. Tunnefls woufld be flfikefly to have more constructfion-reflated fimpacts on flocafl ecoflogy than brfidges, aflthough our current assessment of thfis rfisk findficates that fit coufld be managed to reduce any negatfive fimpact.

Brfidges woufld requfire flong approach ramps as weflfl as the mafin structure, and woufld therefore have a greater vfisuafl fimpact on nefighbourfing communfitfies than tunnefls. Brfidges woufld aflso be flfikefly to create more nofise and vfibratfion than a tunnefl. Further work fis requfired to concflude how sfignfificant these fimpacts mfight be and what forms of mfitfigatfion woufld be requfired.

More detafifl on the hfigh flevefl envfironmentafl study can be found fin the supportfing documents – see page 23. More detafifled envfironmentafl finvestfigatfions wfiflfl be undertaken as the project progresses.

Fundfing these crossfings Each crossfing coufld cost fin the order of £1 bfiflflfion. However the finafl costs depend on some decfisfions that stfiflfl need to be made – such as whether they are brfidges or tunnefls, whether they fincflude facfiflfitfies for pedestrfians and cycflfists, or fincflude a rafifl crossfing – and some factors outsfide our controfl, such as future finflatfion. Other factors whfich are currentfly uncertafin fincflude the ground condfitfions, and changes to the road network eflsewhere (such as sfignafls and junctfions) whfich coufld be requfired as a resuflt of the scheme.

The crossfings woufld be partfly funded by chargfing vehficfles to use them. Thfis charge woufld aflso heflp to manage the demand for the new crossfings.

We envfisage that peak perfiod charges woufld be comparabfle to the proposed charge for the Bflackwaflfl and Sfiflvertown tunnefls and those at the Dartford crossfing, aflthough no decfisfions have yet been made on the exact cost. There woufld be scope for dfiscounts and exemptfions, based on, for exampfle, the emfissfions of the vehficfle.

It fis too earfly to determfine exactfly whfich financfing arrangement we woufld use to deflfiver the crossfings. We wfiflfl consfider a range of optfions fincfludfing TfL or government financfing, borrowfing or prfivate finance.

20 21

Tfimfing and next steps Authorfisatfion to construct the Gaflflfions Reach and Beflvedere rfiver crossfings wfiflfl need to be granted by the Government. Subject to authorfisatfion befing gfiven and fundfing befing avafiflabfle, the new crossfings coufld open around 2025.

The foflflowfing shows an findficatfive tfimeflfine and next steps for the Gaflflfions Reach and Beflvedere rfiver crossfings.

• Non-statutory consufltatfion

• Report on outcome of consufltatfion

• Agreement on fundfing • Decfisfion to proceed

• Statutory consufltatfion

• Submfit appflficatfion for the powers needed to bufifld the scheme

• Contract award

• Estfimated compfletfion

NOW – Feb 2016

March 2016

2017

2017/18

2018

2021

2025

Supportfing documents We have produced supportfing materfiafls that contafin a flarge amount of finformatfion about the scheme. We understand you may not have the tfime to read through them aflfl, so we have created a gufide that wfiflfl heflp you find where you can read more about a partficuflar topfic.

Aflfl of the materfiafls are avafiflabfle on our websfite at tfl.gov.uk/east-flondon-crossfings We can aflso provfide paper or eflectronfic copfies of the consufltatfion documents on request. To request a document pflease contact us on the detafifls outflfined overfleaf.

If you’re finterested fin… You shoufld flook at… Sectfion…

The overaflfl case for the new crossfings

Strategfic Outflfine Busfiness Case

Chapter 3

How we narrowed down pubflfic transport optfions

Optfion Assessment Report – Long Lfist

Optfion Assessment Report – Pubflfic Transport Interfim Lfist

Chapter 6

Aflfl

More detafifled drawfings of the brfidge and tunnefl optfions

Brfidge and tunnefl drawfings

Aflfl

Traffic fimpacts and traffic modeflflfing

Traffic Impact Report Aflfl

Envfironmentafl fimpacts and potentfiafl mfitfigatfion measures

Envfironmentafl Optfions Report

Aflfl

How much wfiflfl these proposafls cost and how we are proposfing to fund them


Chapters 4 and 5

How we have consfidered pedestrfians and cycflfists as part of the scheme

Optfion Assessment Report – Long Lfist

Chapter 5

User chargfing as a means of managfing demand on the crossfings


Chapter 3

22 23

Have your say We’d flfike to know whether you support the Gaflflfions Reach and Beflvedere rfiver crossfings, as weflfl as how you thfink you woufld use these new crossfings (whether by vehficfle, on foot, by bficycfle, by pubflfic transport etc). We woufld aflso flfike to know where you woufld flfike fimproved pubflfic transport connectfions.

To have your say, pflease vfisfit our websfite tfl.gov.uk/east-flondon-crossfings and fiflfl fin the onflfine questfionnafire. You may aflso emafifl your comments to [email protected] or wrfite to ‘FREEPOST TfL CONSULTATIONS’.

Don’t forget to provfide your postcode, as thfis wfiflfl heflp fimmensefly when anaflysfing the resuflts.

The cflosfing date for feedback fis Frfiday 12 February 2016.

More finformatfion If you have any further questfions or to request a copy of thfis fleaflet fin Brafiflfle, flarge-text or another flanguage, pflease contact us by emafifl [email protected] or by caflflfing 0343 222 1155.*

*servfice and network charges may appfly. Vfisfit tfl.gov.uk/terms for detafifls.

Prfinted on recycfled paper

Appendix D – Emails to the public

Email to previous respondents

The below email was sent to approximately 6,000 individuals who had responded to the 2014 consultation on river crossing options east of Silvertown. This email was sent on Wednesday 2 December 2015.

Dear Sir/Madam We thought you may be interested to know that today we have launched a public consultation on new river crossings at Gallions Reach and Belvedere. These two new road crossings will connect Beckton with Thamesmead and Rainham with Belvedere. They would help to support new jobs and homes in these growing areas of London and create new opportunities for further improvements to the walking, cycling and public transport networks. We would like to know your thoughts on these schemes, particularly how we can best incorporate public transport, pedestrian and cycling routes into new crossings. To find out more and have your say, please visit our website www.tfl.gov.uk/east-london-crossings, where you can find detailed information about the potential benefits and impacts of the crossings. The deadline for comments is Friday 12 February 2016. Kind regards, TfL River Crossings Consultation team

Email to TfL database

The following email was sent to almost 450,000 recipients on the TfL database on Friday 4 December 2015.

Dear

Following last year’s consultation, we now seek further comments on proposals for new river crossings at Gallions Reach and Belvedere. These would provide better connections between east and southeast London and offer new cross-river public transport, walking and cycling opportunities.

For full details and to share your views, please visit tfl.gov.uk/east-london-crossings

This consultation will run until Friday 12 February 2016.

Yours sincerely,

Richard De Cani

Managing Director Planning

These are our customer service updates about consultations. To unsubscribe, please click here


https://consultations.tfl.gov.uk/rivercrossings/east-of-silvertown?cid=east-london-crossings

Appendix E – Print advertisements

Print advertising was utilised to promote the consultation, throughout a number of local publications. A copy of the ad, as well as the schedule, can be seen below.

Print advertisement

Print advertisement schedule

30

-Nov

07-D

ec

14-D

ec

21-D

ec

28-D

ec

04-J

an

11-J

an

18-J

an

25-J

an

01-F

eb

08-F

eb

Borough publications

The Newham Mag 15 East End Life 7 11 Greenwich Times 8 11 2 Regional Press

Newham & Stratford Recorder Series 2 16 27 Lewisham & Greenwich News Shopper 2 16 3 Barking & Dagenham Post 9 13 27 Barking Yellow Advertiser 16 20 3 Bexley News Shopper 2 13 3 Romford Recorder 2 13 3 Romford Yellow Advertiser 9 6 27 Ilford Recorder 3 21 Ilford Yellow Advertiser 10 28

Appendix F – Press release and coverage

Press release

The TfL press release covering the launch of ‘Connecting the Capital’ and the start of

consultation on the Gallions Reach and Belvedere river crossings can be viewed on the TfL

website:

https://tfl.gov.uk/info-for/media/press-releases/2015/december/mayor-sets-out-bold-

vision-for-13-new-river-crossings-for-lond

Press coverage

There was a high amount of coverage of the launch of the Mayor’s vision for new river

crossings in London, which included the Gallions Reach and Belvedere river crossings. This

resulted in a high level of promotion for the launch of consultation in the media. Links to

some of the coverage are shown below:

Broadcast media

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b06qmqs2/bbc-london-news-02122015

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-34982994

http://www.itv.com/news/london/2015-12-03/13-new-crossings-over-the-river-thames-by-

2050/

http://www.lbc.co.uk/boris-unveils-plan-for-new-thames-bridges-in-classic-style-120820

National and regional media

http://www.cityam.com/230052/these-are-the-13-bridges-and-tunnels-to-cross-the-

thames-boris-johnson-wants-to-build-by-2050

Trade publications

http://www.constructionenquirer.com/2015/12/03/plan-for-13-extra-thames-crossings-in-

london/

http://www.constructionenquirer.com/2015/12/03/plan-for-13-extra-thames-crossings-in-

london/

http://www.theconstructionindex.co.uk/news/view/consultation-opens-on-new-london-

river-crossings

http://freightinthecity.com/2015/12/fta-welcomes-tfls-east-london-river-crossing-plans-to-

tackle-congestion/

https://tfl.gov.uk/info-for/media/press-releases/2015/december/mayor-sets-out-bold-vision-for-13-new-river-crossings-for-lond

https://tfl.gov.uk/info-for/media/press-releases/2015/december/mayor-sets-out-bold-vision-for-13-new-river-crossings-for-lond

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b06qmqs2/bbc-london-news-02122015

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-34982994

http://www.itv.com/news/london/2015-12-03/13-new-crossings-over-the-river-thames-by-2050/

http://www.itv.com/news/london/2015-12-03/13-new-crossings-over-the-river-thames-by-2050/

http://www.lbc.co.uk/boris-unveils-plan-for-new-thames-bridges-in-classic-style-120820

http://www.cityam.com/230052/these-are-the-13-bridges-and-tunnels-to-cross-the-thames-boris-johnson-wants-to-build-by-2050

http://www.cityam.com/230052/these-are-the-13-bridges-and-tunnels-to-cross-the-thames-boris-johnson-wants-to-build-by-2050

http://www.constructionenquirer.com/2015/12/03/plan-for-13-extra-thames-crossings-in-london/




http://www.theconstructionindex.co.uk/news/view/consultation-opens-on-new-london-river-crossings

http://www.theconstructionindex.co.uk/news/view/consultation-opens-on-new-london-river-crossings

http://freightinthecity.com/2015/12/fta-welcomes-tfls-east-london-river-crossing-plans-to-tackle-congestion/

http://freightinthecity.com/2015/12/fta-welcomes-tfls-east-london-river-crossing-plans-to-tackle-congestion/

http://www.logisticsmanager.com/2015/12/tfl-plans-two-new-thames-crossings/

http://londonist.com/2015/12/13-new-river-crossings-for-london-in-boris-s-vision

Global media

http://www.globalpost.com/article/6698827/2015/12/03/feature-mayor-london-visions-13-

new-bridges-across-river-thames

http://www.logisticsmanager.com/2015/12/tfl-plans-two-new-thames-crossings/

http://londonist.com/2015/12/13-new-river-crossings-for-london-in-boris-s-vision

http://www.globalpost.com/article/6698827/2015/12/03/feature-mayor-london-visions-13-new-bridges-across-river-thames

http://www.globalpost.com/article/6698827/2015/12/03/feature-mayor-london-visions-13-new-bridges-across-river-thames

Appendix G – Tweets

Tweets were sent from the general TfL Twitter account as well as the TfL Taxi and Private Hire Twitter account. @TfL Transport for London @TfL 2 Dec 2015 A consultation for Belvedere and Gallions Reach river crossings has launched today, don’t forget to have your say. http://ow.ly/VmVNa Transport for London @TfL 4 Dec 2015 More river crossings are vital to London’s growth - have your say about two new proposed east London river crossings http://ow.ly/VvsmM Transport for London @TfL Jan 20 Don’t forget to have your say about the proposed Gallions Reach and Belvedere river crossings http://ow.ly/Xj4uU Transport for London @TfL Jan 23 Cross-river public transport options are proposed as part of the Gallions Reach and Belvdere river crossings – have your say Transport for London @TfL Jan 25 The proposed Gallions Reach and Belvedere crossings would help support new jobs and homes on both sides of the river http://ow.ly/Xj4O8 Transport for London @TfL Feb 5 There’s just one week to go to have your say on our proposals for the Gallions Reach and Belvedere river crossings – http://ow.ly/XZ0Jx Transport for London @TfL Feb 8 Have you had your say on the proposed Gallions Reach and Belvedere river crossings? Consultation closes this Friday–http://ow.ly/XZ0Sf @TfLTPH TfL TPH @TfLTPH 30 Dec 2015 Have your say on new river crossings in east and southeast London http://ow.ly/WpE9p Consultation closes on 12 Feb 2016. TfL TPH @TfLTPH Jan 4 Have your say on new river crossings in east and southeast London http://ow.ly/WpDcq Consultation closes on 12 Feb 2016. TfL TPH @TfLTPH Jan 7 Have your say on new river crossings in east and southeast London http://ow.ly/WssBY Consultation closes on 12 Feb 2016. TfL TPH @TfLTPH Jan 9 Have your say on new river crossings in east and southeast London http://ow.ly/WNVOC Consultation closes on 12 Feb 2016. TfL TPH @TfLTPH Jan 14 Have your say on new river crossings in east and southeast London http://ow.ly/WXvdV Consultation closes on 12 Feb 2016.

https://twitter.com/TfL


https://t.co/XqGmN5V94z



https://t.co/y4okqozQ1l



https://t.co/d5oM12l0uR





https://t.co/WHtJb3P9C4



https://t.co/KfLWpaggQ7



https://t.co/CAAAwufb5s

https://twitter.com/TfLTPH


https://t.co/CDS2bhbIhS



https://t.co/jvMy3DyC07



https://t.co/pbM75f2v1w



https://t.co/oRanHxmpZO



https://t.co/WdLTZmTGXt

TfL TPH @TfLTPH Jan 15 Have your say on new river crossings in east and southeast London http://ow.ly/WZKBM Consultation closes on 12 Feb 2016. TfL TPH @TfLTPH Jan 26 Have your say on new river crossings in east and southeast London http://ow.ly/Xp1z5 Consultation closes on 12 Feb 2016. TfL TPH @TfLTPH Jan 26 Have your say on new river crossings in east and southeast London http://ow.ly/Xxnc4 Consultation closes on 12 Feb 2016. TfL TPH @TfLTPH Jan 31 Have your say on new river crossings in east and southeast London http://ow.ly/XAktu Consultation closes on 12 Feb 2016. TfL TPH @TfLTPH Feb 1 Have your say on new river crossings in east and southeast London http://ow.ly/XFQIV Consultation closes on 12 Feb 2016. TfL TPH @TfLTPH Feb 4 Have your say on new river crossings in east and southeast London http://ow.ly/XFQKU Consultation closes on 12 Feb 2016. TfL TPH @TfLTPH Feb 7 Have your say on new river crossings in east and southeast London http://ow.ly/XFQMW Consultation closes on 12 Feb 2016. TfL TPH @TfLTPH Feb 9 Have your say on new river crossings in east and southeast London http://ow.ly/XFQPm Consultation closes on 12 Feb 2016.



https://t.co/y9ozIljeNZ



https://t.co/mfTR0HuEcB



https://t.co/MnwMgNi0dc



https://t.co/AmQAgDjsRI



https://t.co/1KZjttYZKg



https://t.co/vV4DFkTgtx



https://t.co/pR0VKTVOVD



https://t.co/Ndmm9GC3K0

Appendix H – Consultation questionnaire

O ur propos als T he clos ing date for any comments is 12 F ebruary 2016.

1. Do you support new cross ings at G allions R each and B elvedere?

Y es I support both cross ings I s upport G allions R each only I s upport B elvedere only I don’t s upport either cross ing

2. Which of these destinations / transport hubs would you prefer new or improved public trans port links to? (please s elect up to three) P lease help us to identify local is sues to this question by providing your postcode in the ‘About you’ section.

Abbey Wood B arking B arking R ivers ide B elvedere B exleyheath C anary Wharf C entral L ondon C ity A irport

Dagenham E as t Ham E ltham E rith G reenwich Hornchurch Ilford L ewisham

R ainham R omford R oyal Docks S tratford T hamesmead Woolwich O ther (please specify) ____________________

3. If we build a new cros s ing at G allions R each, do you think you would use it: (tick all that apply)

B y car Motorbike B y another type of vehicle (e.g. van, HG V, taxi) O n foot O n a cycle O n public transport (e.g. bus , DL R , tram) I don’t think I would use a new cross ing at G allions R each

4. If we build a new cros s ing at B elvedere, do you think you would use it: (tick all that apply)

B y car Motorbike B y another type of vehicle (e.g. van, HG V, taxi) O n foot O n a cycle O n public transport (e.g. bus) I don’t think I would use a new cross ing at B elvedere

5. P lease use this space for any other comments you may have, for example on the public transport options or any of the technical reports we have als o published.

What is your name? _________________________________________________________ What is your email addres s ? __________________________________________________ If responding on behalf of an organisation, bus iness or campaign group, please provide us with the name. _____________________________________________________________ How did you hear about this consultation? R eceived an email from T fL R ead about it in the press T hrough s ocial media S aw an advert on the T fL webs ite O ther (please advise)

P leas e tell us what you think about the quality of this consultation (for example, the information we have provided, any printed material you have received, any maps or plans , the webs ite and questionnaire etc)

Appendix I – Steer Davis Gleave consultation report

Steer Davies Gleave has prepared this material for Transport for London. This material may only be used

within the context and scope for which Steer Davies Gleave has prepared it and may not be relied upon

in part or whole by any third party or be used for any other purpose. Any person choosing to use any

part of this material without the express and written permission of Steer Davies Gleave shall be deemed

to confirm their agreement to indemnify Steer Davies Gleave for all loss or damage resulting therefrom.

Steer Davies Gleave has prepared this material using professional practices and procedures using

information available to it at the time and as such any new information could alter the validity of the

results and conclusions made.

Gallions Reach and Belvedere River Crossings Consultation

Transport for London

Report

March 2016

Our ref: 22886701

Prepared by:

Prepared for:

Steer Davies Gleave

28-32 Upper Ground

London SE1 9PD


Lauren Barton

TfL Planning


Windsor House, 42-50 Victoria Street

London, SW1H 0TL

+44 20 7910 5000

www.steerdaviesgleave.com

March 2016

Contents

Executive summary ...................................................................................................................... 1

1 Introduction ....................................................................................................................... 3

Overview ....................................................................................................................................... 3

2 Methodology...................................................................................................................... 4

Consultation process .................................................................................................................... 4

Consultation analysis .................................................................................................................... 5

3 Consultation findings .......................................................................................................... 7

Overview ....................................................................................................................................... 7

Question one: Level of support .................................................................................................... 9

Question two: Destinations ........................................................................................................ 13

Questions three and four: Modes of transport .......................................................................... 20

Question five: Free text comments on proposals ...................................................................... 26

Quality of consultation ............................................................................................................... 31

Figures

Figure 3.1: Distribution of respondents to the consultation ........................................................ 8

Figure 3.2: Level of support for new river crossings ..................................................................... 9

Figure 3.3: Level of support in top ten boroughs, by number of respondents .......................... 10

Figure 3.4: Respondents’ level of support by borough .............................................................. 12

Figure 3.5: Interest areas ............................................................................................................ 15

Figure 3.6: Top ten desire lines for improved public transport links ......................................... 16

Figure 3.7: Desire lines for improved public transport links – destinations south of the Thames,

originating in the north of London ............................................................................................. 18

Figure 3.8: Desire lines for improved public transport links – destinations north of the Thames,

originating in the south of London ............................................................................................. 19

Figure 3.9: Respondents wishing to cross at Gallions Reach using a motorised vehicle ............ 22

Figure 3.10: Respondents wishing to cross at Belvedere using a motorised vehicle ................. 22

Figure 3.11: Respondents wishing to cross at Gallions Reach using public transport ............... 23

Figure 3.12: Respondents wishing to cross at Belvedere using public transport ....................... 23

Figure 3.13: Respondents wishing to cross at Gallions Reach on foot ....................................... 24

March 2016

Figure 3.14: Respondents wishing to cross at Belvedere on foot .............................................. 24

Figure 3.15: Respondents wishing to cross Gallions Reach on a bicycle .................................... 25

Figure 3.16: Respondents wishing to cross at Belvedere on a bicycle ....................................... 25

Tables

Table 3.1: Level of support ........................................................................................................... 9

Table 3.2: Level of support in top ten boroughs, by number of respondents ........................... 11

Table 3.3: Top destinations or transport hubs for improved public transport access ............... 13

Table 3.4: Top ten most popular ‘other’ destinations ................................................................ 14

Table 3.5: Top 14 desire lines for improved public transport links ............................................ 17

Table 3.6: How respondents would use a new crossing at Gallions Reach ................................ 20

Table 3.7: How respondents would use a new crossing at Belvedere ....................................... 21

Table 3.8: Responses grouped by theme and subtheme for all levels of support ..................... 26

Table 3.9: Themes and key comments from respondents who left a response to the open

question ...................................................................................................................................... 28

Table 3.10: Comments relating to the quality of the consultation ............................................ 31

Appendices

A Questionnaire

B Data Tables

Gallions Reach and Belvedere River Crossings Consultation | Report

March 2016 | 1

Executive summary

Background

Following a 2014 consultation on east London river crossing options, the Mayor of London

asked Transport for London (TfL) to progress options for new bridges or tunnels at both

Gallions Reach and Belvedere. Taking account of the responses received, over the last twelve

months TfL has been undertaking various pieces of work on:

the likely impacts of the crossings, including impact on traffic flows;

the public transport network and options for public transport provision on each of the

crossings;

environmental considerations and impacts; and

the economic benefits of new crossings.

River Crossings Consultation

The consultation held in winter 2015/16 was designed to seek the views of the public and

stakeholders about developing proposals for two new river crossings at Gallions Reach and

Belvedere. TfL sought to investigate:

levels of support for new crossings at Gallions Reach and Belvedere;

destinations local residents would like to access using the new crossings;

the modes of transportation respondents would most likely use to cross the river; and

themes emerging from other comments left by respondents to the consultation.

Consultation findings

In total, 4,519 responses were submitted to the consultation, including 141 responses from

organisations, business or campaign groups (this does not include stakeholder responses,

which were analysed separately by TfL).

2,920 responses (82%) originated from the Royal Borough of Greenwich and the London

Boroughs of Bexley, Newham, Havering and Barking and Dagenham which would be directly

affected by the proposed new crossings.

Proposals for new crossings were supported by the majority of respondents with support

being broken down at the following levels:

77% supported both crossings;

10% supported neither crossing;

7% supported a crossing at Gallions Reach only;

4% supported a crossing at Belvedere only; and

2% did not provide a response.

Respondents were asked which destinations to which they would like improved public

transport links. A summary of the most popular destinations respondents would like improved

public transport links to include:

Central London;

Greenwich;

Woolwich;

City Airport; and

Bexleyheath.


March 2016 | 2

Respondents were asked if they were to use the new crossings, which modes of transport

would they use to make their journeys.

Respondents proposing to use the crossing at Gallions Reach stated they would use make

journeys by:

car 39%;

public transport 28%;

cycle 13%;

on foot 10%;

other vehicle 6%; and

motorbike 4%

Respondents proposing to use the crossing at Belvedere stated they would make journeys by:

car 42%;

public transport 26%;

cycle 12%;

on foot 10%;

other vehicle 6%; and

motorbike 4%

Respondents were invited to leave additional comments about other aspects of the proposals,

such as technical reports or preferences for a type of crossing. In total 2,224 free text

responses were received, these were analysed against a code frame which was developed to

quantify the importance of responses. Comments were subsequently grouped into themes

and sub-themes. The sub-themes which attracted the highest proportion of comments in

relation to all responses received were:

general support for the scheme 25%;

concern over traffic increases 20%;

support due to congestion relief 16%;

support for tunnels 11%;

concern over poor air quality as a result of the scheme7%;

opposition to a user charge 11%;

support for extension of DLR 9%;

public transport only crossings 8%; and

opposition to the scheme 5%.


March 2016 | 3

1 Introduction Overview

Background to the proposals

1.1 The proposals for the Gallions Reach and Belvedere river crossings have been developed over

a number of years and with feedback from previous consultations.

1.2 The latest consultation was held between Wednesday 2 December 2015 and Friday 12

February 2016 (referred to in this report as the ‘winter 2015/16 consultation’). The public and

stakeholders were invited to submit their views on the proposals.

1.3 Steer Davies Gleave was appointed to undertake analysis of the public feedback received to

the consultation and this report provides an analysis of the responses received.


March 2016 | 4

2 Methodology Consultation process

Introduction

2.1 Following a 2014 consultation on east London river crossing options, the Mayor asked

Transport for London (TfL) to progress options for new bridges or tunnels at both Gallions

Reach and Belvedere. Taking account of the responses received to that consultation, over the

last twelve months TfL has been undertaking a wide range of other work including on:

The likely impacts of the crossings, including impact on traffic flows;

The public transport provision on each of the crossings;

Environmental considerations and impacts; and

The economic benefits of new crossings.

Scope of the consultation

2.2 The Winter 2015/16 consultation was designed to seek the views of the public and

stakeholders about developing proposals for two new river crossings at Gallions Reach and

Belvedere. The scope of issues consulted on included:

Support for new crossing at Gallions Reach and Belvedere;

Destinations local residents would like to access by public transport using the new

crossings in order to better understand where the public want to get to with improved

public transport links; and

The modes of transportation respondents would most likely use to cross the river.

Outside the scope of the consultation

2.3 The following were outside the scope of this consultation:

comments specifically relating to charging at the Dartford crossing;

suggestions for extensions to the London Underground in east and south east London;

comments relating to the proposed Silvertown Tunnel scheme; and

comments relating to the proposed Garden Bridge.

Consultation portal and reporting

2.4 The consultation was run online, via TfL’s consultation hub. Respondents were able to visit the

website, read about the project, download all the technical reports and register their response

via the online questionnaire.

2.5 People could also submit their thoughts in writing by sending a response to a postage paid

address, or by calling TfL’s contact centre.


March 2016 | 5

2.6 Steer Davies Gleave was appointed to analyse all public responses received via the portal. TfL

has undertaken analysis of all stakeholder responses received.

Consultation analysis

Consultation questionnaire

2.7 The winter 2015/16 consultation questionnaire consisted of four closed questions and two

open questions. Closed questions asked respondents to state their level of support for the

scheme, identify destinations they would like to travel to and which mode of transport they

would use to cross at one of the new crossing points.

2.8 One open question allowed respondents to leave any further comments about the scheme in

general.

2.9 The second open question was asked to all respondents about how they rated the quality of

the consultation. This questioned allowed respondents to leave feedback on the quality of

consultation materials, communications and other themes relating to the consultation

process.

2.10 In addition, respondents were asked for their name, email address, postcode and if they were

responding on behalf of an organisation, business or campaign group and if so, for the name of

their organisation. A copy of the consultation questionnaire can be found in Appendix A.

Analysis of responses

2.11 A code frame was developed to help analyse the responses to the open question that invited

respondents to provide any further opinions relating to proposals.

2.12 The code frame consists of a series of themes, sub-themes and within these, more detailed

comments. From the responses to the consultation, a list of ten themes and 42 sub themes

were identified. The list which follows details an example of the key themes discussed in

response to the open question:

Principle;

Infrastructure;

Public Transport;

Road Network;

Traffic;

User Charge;

Walking and Cycling;

Environment;

General; and

Consultation.

2.13 A second code frame was developed to help analyse the responses to the open question that

invited respondents to provide comments about the quality of the consultation.

2.14 The code frame consisted of themes and within these, more detailed comments. From the

responses to the consultation, two themes and 50 comments were identified.

2.15 Following agreement of the key themes and sub themes with TfL, all open responses were

coded. During the coding process it was necessary to add additional codes to the code frames

as appropriate. Individual comments were coded to one or many of the codes within the code

frame as relevant.


March 2016 | 6

2.16 To ensure consistency of coding, the first 50 responses coded were checked by TfL. For full

copies of the code frames, see Appendix B.


March 2016 | 7

3 Consultation findings Overview

3.1 In total 4,519 responses were received to the Gallions Reach and Belvedere river crossings

consultation. Respondents included 4,388 members of the public (97%) and 131 responses

from organisations, business or campaign groups (3%). This does not include the responses

submitted by organisations on TfL’s stakeholder database. These responses were analysed

separately by TfL using the same code frame as was developed for the public responses.

3.2 Figure 3.1 maps respondent postcodes alongside the London borough boundaries. The

majority of respondents are located within Greater London, with the highest response levels

from areas surrounding the proposed new crossing locations in east and south east London.


March 2016 | 8

Figure 3.1: Distribution of respondents to the consultation


March 2016 | 9

Question one: Level of support

3.3 The first closed question asked respondents if they supported the proposals for new crossings

at Gallions Reach and Belvedere. 4,452 respondents answered this question and indicated

their support for:

both crossings;

a crossing at Gallions Reach;

a crossing at Belvedere; or

none of these.

3.4 In total 77% of respondents supported both Gallions Reach and Belvedere crossings, whilst

10% of respondents supported neither. Seven percent of respondents supported a crossing at

Gallions Reach only and a further four percent supported a crossing at Belvedere only. Two

percent of respondents failed to indicate their level of support. Table 3.1 and Figure 3.2 show

respondents’ level of support.

Figure 3.2: Level of support for new river crossings

Table 3.1: Level of support

Level of support Respondents Proportion

Support both crossings 3,456 77%

Doesn’t support either crossing 475 10%

Support Gallions Reach only 325 7%

Support Belvedere only 196 4%

Not Answered 67 2%

Respondents total 4,519 100%


March 2016 | 10

Distribution of respondents

3.5 A table of support by borough for authorities with the highest response rates can be seen in

Table 3.2, with a complete breakdown provided in Appendix B.

3.6 The chart in Figure 3.3 shows the different types of response received from respondents,

grouped by the respondent's home borough. The boroughs with the highest numbers of

respondents are shown (top ten). Where the total number of responses for each type of

response is greater than 150, the number of responses are shown in brackets in the data

labels.

3.7 Respondents’ postcodes were mapped to show the level of support for each option, by

London borough, which is shown in Figure 3.4.

Figure 3.3: Level of support in top ten boroughs, by number of respondents

1%

1%

2%

3%

3%

6% (213)

8% (279)

9% (305)

19% (681)

21% (729)

5% (172)

3%

1%

1%

2%

2%

1%

1%

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30%

Southwark

Bromley

Tower Hamlets

Redbridge

Lewisham

Barking &Dagenham

Havering

Newham

Bexley

Greenwich

Yes I support both crossings I don’t support either crossing

I support Gallions Reach only I support Belvedere only

Not answered


March 2016 | 11

Table 3.2: Level of support in top ten boroughs, by number of respondents

London Borough

Yes I support

both crossings

I don’t support either

crossing

I support Gallions

Reach only

I support Belvedere

only

Not answered

Total responses

Greenwich 729 21% 107 3% 67 2% 38 1% 8 0% 949 27%

Bexley 681 19% 172 5% 71 2% 49 1% 15 0% 988 28%

Newham 305 9% 18 1% 39 1% 18 1% 3 0% 383 11%

Havering 279 8% 17 0% 32 1% 23 1% 3 0% 354 10%

Barking and Dagenham

213 6% 3 0% 17 0% 13 0% 0 0% 246 7%

Lewisham 104 3% 8 0% 5 0% 2 0% 3 0% 122 3%

Redbridge 89 3% 1 0% 10 0% 2 0% 1 0% 103 3%

Tower Hamlets 80 2% 6 0% 4 0% 2 0% 0 0% 92 3%

Bromley 45 1% 5 0% 3 0% 1 0% 0 0% 54 2%

Southwark 42 1% 2 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 46 1%

Total for top ten 2567 72% 339 10% 248 7% 148 4% 33 1% 3337 94%

Overall totals 2742 77% 362 10% 249 7% 151 4% 36 1% 3552 100%


March 2016 | 12

Figure 3.4: Respondents’ level of support by borough


March 2016 | 13

Question two: Destinations

3.6 Respondents were asked about destinations they would like to have improved public transport

links to. A list of 22 possible destinations or transport hubs were given as options, with the

opportunity for respondents to add other points or places of interest in an open response box.

3.7 Respondents were asked to select up to three destinations that they thought they might like

to travel to with improved public transport links (though they had the ability to choose more if

they wished). 4,182 respondents answered the question, and between them selected 14,222

destinations. A full breakdown of responses is provided in Table 3.3.

Table 3.3: Top destinations or transport hubs for improved public transport access

Destination Responses Proportion of respondents

Central London 1,092 26.1%

Greenwich 976 23.3%

Woolwich 968 23.2%

City Airport 966 23.1%

Bexleyheath 872 20.9%

Canary Wharf 831 19.9%

Thamesmead 824 19.7%

Abbey Wood 780 18.7%

Belvedere 731 17.5%

Stratford 729 17.4%

Barking 653 15.6%

Romford 542 13.0%

Dagenham 517 12.4%

Lewisham 509 12.2%

Erith 499 11.9%

Eltham 486 11.6%

Royal Docks 420 10.0%

Ilford 392 9.4%

Barking Riverside 375 9.0%

Rainham 374 8.9%

Hornchurch 344 8.2%

East Ham 342 8.2%

Other (please specify) 287 6.9%

Total 14,222 347%

3.8 Respondents also had the choice of nominating an ‘other’ destination they would like access

to with improved public transport links. A total of 553 further choices were put forward, of

which 457 were valid comments. 96 comments were coded as invalid as respondents did not

provide a destination or an answer relevant to the question.

3.9 117 of 457 comments were unique, cited by only one respondent. The remaining 340

comments were comprised of 62 other destinations. A list of the ten most popular ‘other’

destinations can be seen in Table 3.4.


March 2016 | 14

Table 3.4: Top ten most popular ‘other’ destinations

Destination Number of respondents Proportion of respondents

Dartford 25 5.5%

Sidcup 19 4.2%

Welling 19 4.2%

Blackheath 17 3.7%

Bromley 15 3.3%

Charlton 14 3.1%

Bexley 10 2.2%

Subtotal 202 4.2%

Grand Total 457 10.9%

Top 10 journeys

3.10 Home postcodes and destinations were analysed to determine the top 14 journeys

respondents wished to make.

3.11 Destinations were specified by respondents in their answers to the consultation question. To

determine origins, home postcodes were matched to postcode sectors and then classified by

locations of interest (based on information provided by TfL) as detailed below. Origins outside

these specific locations were excluded from our analysis, as they were outside the area of

interest. A map of the interest areas can be seen in Figure 3.5.

Abbey Wood;

Barking;

Barking Riverside;

Beckton;

Belvedere;

Bexleyheath;

Blackheath;

Charlton;

Dagenham;

Dartford;

East Ham;

Eltham;

Erith;

Greenwich;

Hornchurch and Upminster;

Ilford;

Rainham;

Romford;

Royal Docks;

Sidcup and Bexley;

Stratford and West Ham;

Thamesmead;

Thurrock;

Welling; and

Woolwich.

3.12 Within the top 14 journeys that respondents wished to make, four pairs of origins and

destinations were within the same interest areas. These journeys have been included in the

list to highlight the importance of local trips.

3.13 Of the remaining pairs four of the top 14 trips are cross river journeys. A list of the top pairs

can be seen in Table 3.5.

3.14 A map of the top ten pairs, excluding trips within the same area can be seen in Figure 3.6


March 2016 | 15

Figure 3.5: Interest areas


March 2016 | 16

Figure 3.6: Top ten desire lines for improved public transport links


March 2016 | 17

Table 3.5: Top 14 desire lines for improved public transport links

Origin Destination Number Cross River Trip

Thamesmead Thamesmead 240 No

Woolwich Woolwich 198 No

Thamesmead Central London 180 Yes

Thamesmead Woolwich 177 No

Bexleyheath Bexleyheath 168 No

Thamesmead City Airport 149 Yes

Thamesmead Abbey Wood 148 No

Thamesmead Canary Wharf 141 Yes

Thamesmead Greenwich 138 No

Thamesmead Bexleyheath 122 No

Belvedere Belvedere 116 No

Thamesmead Belvedere 103 No

Abbey Wood Belvedere 102 No

Thamesmead Stratford 100 Yes

Analysis of cross-river journeys

3.15 Using home postcodes and destinations respondents wished to travel to using public

transport; analysis was undertaken to identify the top cross river journeys originating in the

areas of interest.

3.16 Figure 3.7 shows the top nine destinations that respondents north of the river would like to

travel to using public transport, whilst Figure 3.8 shows the top 13 destinations respondents

south of the river would like to travel to using public transport.


March 2016 | 18

Figure 3.7: Desire lines for improved public transport links – destinations south of the Thames, originating in the north of London


March 2016 | 19

Figure 3.8: Desire lines for improved public transport links – destinations north of the Thames, originating in the south of London


March 2016 | 20

Questions three and four: Modes of transport

Gallions Reach

3.17 Respondents were asked if a crossing was built at Gallions Reach, how they thought they

might use it. Respondents were permitted to choose as many answers that applied from the

following list of choices:

car;

motorbike;

another type of vehicle (e.g. van, HGV, taxi);

on foot;

on a bicycle;

public transport (e.g. bus, DLR, tram); or

I don’t think I would use a new crossing at Gallions Reach.

3.18 4,372 respondents (97%) answered how they might use a new crossing at Gallions Reach,

whilst 147 didn’t answer (3%). Of those who answered, 3,785 indicated (87%) how they would

use the crossing, whilst 13% advised they didn’t think they would use the crossing. A total of

8,084 choices were made, a breakdown of those who indicated how they would use a crossing

is provided in Table 3.6.

Table 3.6: How respondents would use a new crossing at Gallions Reach

Crossing Mode Number of responses

Proportion of respondents

who would use the crossing

Gallions Reach By car 3,139 38.8%

On public transport (e.g. bus, DLR, tram) 2,297 28.4%

On a cycle 1,035 12.8%

On foot 843 10.4%

By another type of vehicle (e.g. van, HGV, taxi) 455 5.6%

Motorbike 315 3.9%

Total 8,084 100%

3.19 Using home postcode locations, respondents’ mode choices have been mapped to show how

they would like to make journeys using a new crossing at Gallions Reach. Mode choices have

been grouped into four categories; motorised vehicles, public transport, walking and cycling.

3.20 Respondents’ mode choices have been shown on maps for the Gallions Reach crossing in

Figure 3.9, Figure 3.11, Figure 3.13 and Figure 3.15. Travel options have been superimposed

over all responses, shown in white, to show the distribution of each mode relative to

respondents.


March 2016 | 21

Belvedere

3.21 Respondents were asked if a crossing was built at Belvedere how they thought they might use

it. Respondents could chose as many answers that applied from the following list of possible

choices:

by car;

motorbike;

by another type of vehicle (e.g. van, HGV, taxi);

on foot;

on a bicycle;

on public transport (e.g. bus); or

I don’t think I would use a new crossing at Belvedere.

3.22 In the first 24 hours of the consultation being opened a technical error occurred meaning that

respondents could only select one of the possible answers for Belvedere. The error was

rectified on the 3rd December and an email sent to affected respondents inviting them to re-

submit their answers to this question only.

3.23 The radio button error affected a total of 541 responses (114 of which had stated they would

not use a crossing at Belvedere or didn’t answer Q4 at all).

3.24 Of the 427 who did provide an answer to Q4, 74% resubmitted answers to the question. Of

these, 82% were successfully matched to the dataset using an email address resulting in 4,407

usable responses to the question.

3.25 3,403 respondents (75%) advised how they might use a new crossing at Belvedere, whilst

1,116 didn’t answer or a response wasn’t available to use (25%). Of those who answered,

2,342 indicated (69%) how they would use the new crossing, whilst 31% advised they did not

think they would use the crossing. A total of 6,730 mode choices were made, a breakdown of

those who indicated how they would use a crossing can be seen in Table 3.7.

Table 3.7: How respondents would use a new crossing at Belvedere

Crossing Mode Number of responses

Proportion of respondents

who would use the crossing

Belvedere By car 2845 42.3%

On public transport (e.g. bus) 1724 25.6%

On a cycle 812 12.1%

On foot 644 9.6%

By another type of vehicle (e.g. van, HGV, taxi) 436 6.5%

Motorbike 269 4.0%

Total 6,730 100%

3.26 Using home postcode locations, respondents’ mode choices have been mapped to show how

they would like to make journeys using a new crossing at Belvedere. Mode choices were

grouped into four categories; motorised vehicles, public transport, walking and cycling.

3.27 Respondents’ mode choices have been shown on maps for the Belvedere crossing in Figure

3.10, Figure 3.12, Figure 3.14 and Figure 3.16. Options have been superimposed over all

responses, shown in white, to show the distribution of each mode relative to respondents.


March 2016 | 22

Figure 3.9: Respondents wishing to cross at Gallions Reach using a motorised vehicle

Figure 3.10: Respondents wishing to cross at Belvedere using a motorised vehicle


March 2016 | 23

Figure 3.11: Respondents wishing to cross at Gallions Reach using public transport

Figure 3.12: Respondents wishing to cross at Belvedere using public transport


March 2016 | 24

Figure 3.13: Respondents wishing to cross at Gallions Reach on foot

Figure 3.14: Respondents wishing to cross at Belvedere on foot


March 2016 | 25

Figure 3.15: Respondents wishing to cross Gallions Reach on a bicycle

Figure 3.16: Respondents wishing to cross at Belvedere on a bicycle


March 2016 | 26

Question five: Free text comments on proposals

3.28 Respondents were asked if they had any other comments relating to the proposals for

new river crossing at Gallions Reach or Belvedere. A total of 2,224 open responses were

made about the proposals accounting for 49% of the overall number of respondents

3.29 Code frames were developed for these comments which were grouped into themes, as

described in Section 1. The code frames enable the number of comments regarding particular

issues to be quantified.

Overall comments on the proposals

3.30 Themes were divided into sub-themes to give an additional level of summary, below themes,

to comments left in the open question. Within each theme, subthemes provide subtotals for

differing levels of support, topics or modes that relate to TfL’s consultation topics.

Table 3.8: Responses grouped by theme and subtheme for all levels of support

3.31 Theme 3.32 Sub-

theme 3.33 Description 3.34 Total Comments

3.35 Proportion of respondents

responding to Q5

X1 No response 2,314 51.3%

X2 Out of scope 77 3.5%

A - Principle A1 Support scheme 552 24.8%

A7 PT only crossings 177 8.0%

A2 Oppose scheme 110 4.9%

A6 Oppose Belvedere 16 0.7%

A4 Oppose Gallions Reach 7 0.3%

B - Infrastructure B1 Support tunnel 254 11.4%

B2 Support bridge 171 7.7%

B3 Other 18 0.8%

C – Public Transport C1 DLR support 202 9.1%

C3 PT general 177 8.0%

C2 DLR Other 72 3.2%

C8 Bus 57 2.6%

C6 Support tram 57 2.6%

C4 Overground 43 1.9%

C5 PT Other 17 0.8%

C7 against tram 9 0.4%

D – Road Network D1 Improve existing 96 4.3%

D2 Scheme capacity 54 2.4%


March 2016 | 27

3.31 Theme 3.32 Sub-

theme 3.33 Description 3.34 Total Comments

3.35 Proportion of respondents

responding to Q5

D3 Tie-ins/junctions 23 1.0%

D4 Other 7 0.3%

E - Traffic E1 Concern over increase 455 20.4%

E2 Congestion relief 346 15.5%

F – User Charge F2 Oppose 241 10.8%

F4 Other 40 2.0%

F5 Level 26 1.2%

F3 Discounts 19 0.9%

F1 Support 14 0.6%

G – Walking and Cycling

G1 Support 133 6.0%

G2 Design 69 3.1%

H – Environment H1 Air quality 215 9.7%

H3 Noise 42 1.9%

H2 Ecology 36 1.6%

H4 Other 6 0.3%

I - General I2 Timescales 104 4.7%

I1 Woolwich Ferry 38 1.7%

I3 Connecting the Capital 7 0.3%

Total 6,342 181%


March 2016 | 28

Key comments

3.36 Within each sub-theme, there were a number of comments received. Table 3.9 shows the

most commonly raised comments associated with each theme.

Table 3.9: Themes and key comments from respondents who left a response to the open question

Theme Key comments Count Proportion

Principle

New crossings will provide more E. London crossing options

General comment of support

Against Scheme - no need for further investment in roads infrastructure, support public transport crossings only

New river crossings will support redevelopment in east London

Will support local economy (job growth, access to employment)

Public transport, walking and cycling options should be prioritised over road crossings

862

183

180

124

60

51

50

38.8%

8.2%

8.1%

5.6%

2.7%

2.3%

2.2%

Infrastructure

Favour tunnel at Gallions Reach

Favour tunnels over bridges for weather or shipping reasons

Favour bridge at Belvedere

Favour tunnel at Belvedere

443

64

61

54

53

19.9%

2.9%

2.7%

2.4%

2.4%

Public Transport

In favour of DLR extension from Gallions Reach to Thamesmead

Support public transport improvements as part of scheme

Support development of bus network (including cross river night bus service, bus lanes)

Support Tram

634

164

153

55

53

28.5%

7.4%

6.9%

2.5%

2.4%

Road Network

Surrounding road network needs to be improved, including links to strategic road network to handle traffic generated by scheme

Scheme should prioritise increasing road capacity and quality. (Support two+ general use lanes each way)

180

96

54

8.1%

4.3%

2.4%

Traffic

Concern over increased traffic as a result of the schemes

New crossings will alleviate congestion at other crossing points

New crossings will ease local congestion

Belvedere - Concern about local traffic increase

801

286

211

116

45

36.0%

12.9%

9.5%

5.2%

2.0%

User Charge

Crossings should be free to use

Inequality in the charging of east and west London river crossings

349

135

73

15.7%

6.1%

3.3%

Walking and Cycling

Support Walking and cycling options

202

117

9.1%

1.8%


March 2016 | 29

Theme Key comments Count Proportion

Environment

Concern over poor air quality as a result of traffic generated via the schemes

299

164

13.5%

7.4%

General

Build ASAP/Sooner than 2025

149

104

6.7%

1.6%

No Response to question 5

Irrelevant Comment/Out of scope

2,314

86

51.3%

4.0%

Total number of comments 6,342 181.2%

Principle

3.37 183 respondents stated that the proposed new river crossings will provide more east London

crossing options, with a further 180 respondents adding general comments of support for the

scheme.

3.38 124 comments where in opposition to the scheme where respondents stated that there is no

need for further investment in roads infrastructure and any new crossing should be for public

transport use only.

3.39 Redevelopment of east London and growth of the local economy were both popular

comments, attracting 60 and 51 responses respectively.

3.40 50 respondents stated that walking, cycling and public transport option should be prioritised

over any new road crossings.

Infrastructure

3.41 Respondents commented on their preferences for tunnels or bridges at both locations and

their reasons why. 64 respondents favoured a tunnel at Gallions Reach. Tunnels where sited as

a preference over bridges for weather and shipping reasons by 61 respondents due to their

ability to remain open during adverse weather events and would not restrict passage of large

vessels on the Thames.

3.42 Overall 54 respondents preferred a bridge at Belvedere whilst 53 stated a preference for a

tunnel.

Public transport

3.43 Plans for an extension of the DLR to Gallions Reach and Thamesmead attracted 164 comments

of support, whilst a further 153 respondents supported general public transport

improvements as part of the scheme.

3.44 Comments from 55 respondents supported development of the local bus network including

provision of bus lanes along the new crossings and additional services, such as a night bus.

3.45 53 respondents favoured proposals for a tram system linking the north and south sides of the

river.


March 2016 | 30

Road network

3.46 96 respondents felt that the surrounding road network would need to be improved in order to

cope with increased traffic levels generated as a result of new crossings. 54 respondents

commented that road capacity at crossing points should be prioritised, where at least two

general use lanes should be built to carry traffic in each direction.

Traffic

3.47 Respondents commented about traffic improvements at current crossing locations should new

bridges be built but raised concerns about local traffic impacts. 286 individuals felt local traffic

could increase as a result of vehicles being diverted into different areas however 211

respondents commented that congestion would be alleviated at current river crossing pinch

points. 116 respondents to the open question felt that new crossing would generally ease local

congestion.

User charge

3.48 135 individuals felt that any new east London river crossings should not be charged. A further

73 respondents added comments that inequality exists in the proposed user charges between

west and east London.

Walking and cycling

3.49 117 respondents commented on walking and cycling options and added their support to

inclusion of provisions in the proposal.

General comments

3.50 104 respondents felt that the proposed timescales for consultation, design and build were too

long and that the project should be completed as soon as possible.


March 2016 | 31

Quality of consultation

Findings

3.51 In the second open question respondents were asked about their opinions on the quality of

the consultation. In total 2,036 (45%) of respondents left a comment about the consultation,

resulting in 2,344 comments being coded.

3.52 The complete code frame for responses to the second open question can be found in

Appendix B.

Table 3.10: Comments relating to the quality of the consultation

Positive comments

3.57 Respondents left a total of 1,671 positive comments about the quality of the consultation. 444

respondents commented that they were satisfied with the consultation. 433 respondents

stated that the consultation contained a good level of detail, was of high quality and well

presented. 359 respondents were very pleased with the quality of the materials whilst 191 felt

the consultation was clear and easy to understand.

Constructive comments

3.58 Respondents left a total of 673 constructive comments relating to the quality of the

consultation. 117 respondents felt that the consultation could have been improved with more

detailed maps, drawings and diagrams. 115 respondents felt that the consultation required

publicising more widely through a variety of different channels such as social media and

residential leafleting.

Summary

3.59 In total 82.1% of comments made about the quality of the consultation were positive whilst

33.6% of respondents felt that some improvements could be made to achieve a more detailed

and widely publicised consultation.

3.53 Theme 3.54 Comment 3.55 Count 3.56 Proportion

of responses

Positive comment

Satisfied with consultation

Good level of detail/high quality/well presented

Excellent/very good

The consultation is clear/clear language used

1,671

444

433

359

191

33.6%

21.8%

21.3%

17.6%

9.4%

Constructive comment

More detailed plans/diagrams/maps needed

Consultation requires better publicity e.g. leafleting in affected areas, social media campaign

673

117

115

82.1%

5.7%

5.6%

Not answered

Out of scope/irrelevant comment

2,469

159

54.7%

7.8%

Total comments 2,036 115.1%


March 2016 | 32

A Questionnaire


March 2016 | 33

Our proposals

The closing date for any comments is 12 February 2016.

1. Do you support new crossings at Gallions Reach and Belvedere?

Yes I support both crossings

I support Gallions Reach only

I support Belvedere only

I don’t support either crossing

2. Which of these destinations / transport hubs would you prefer new or improved

public transport links to? (please select up to three) Please help us to identify local issues to this question by providing your postcode in the ‘About you’ section.

Abbey Wood

Barking

Barking Riverside

Belvedere

Bexleyheath

Canary Wharf

Central London

City Airport

Dagenham

East Ham

Eltham

Erith

Greenwich

Hornchurch

Ilford

Lewisham

Rainham

Romford

Royal Docks

Stratford

Thamesmead

Woolwich

Other (please specify)

____________________


March 2016 | 34

3. If we build a new crossing at Gallions Reach, do you think you would use it: (tick all

that apply)

By car

Motorbike

By another type of vehicle (e.g. van, HGV, taxi)

On foot

On a cycle

On public transport (e.g. bus, DLR, tram)

I don’t think I would use a new crossing at Gallions Reach

4. If we build a new crossing at Belvedere, do you think you would use it: (tick all that

apply)

By car

Motorbike

By another type of vehicle (e.g. van, HGV, taxi)

On foot

On a cycle

On public transport (e.g. bus)

I don’t think I would use a new crossing at Belvedere

5. Please use this space for any other comments you may have, for example on the

public transport options or any of the technical reports we have also published.

What is your name? _________________________________________________________

What is your email address? __________________________________________________

If responding on behalf of an organisation, business or campaign group, please provide us with the name. _____________________________________________________________

How did you hear about this consultation?


March 2016 | 35

Received an email from TfL Read about it in the press Through social media Saw an advert on the TfL website Other (please advise)

Please tell us what you think about the quality of this consultation (for example, the information we have provided, any printed material you have received, any maps or plans, the website and questionnaire etc)


March 2016 | 36

B Data Tables


March 2016 | 37

Table 0.1: Level of support by London borough

London Borough Yes I support both crossings




Not answered Total responses

Greenwich 729 21% 107 3% 67 2% 38 1% 8 0% 949 27%

Bexley 681 19% 172 5% 71 2% 49 1% 15 0% 988 28%

Newham 305 9% 18 1% 39 1% 18 1% 3 0% 383 11%

Havering 279 8% 17 0% 32 1% 23 1% 3 0% 354 10%

Barking and Dagenham 213 6% 3 0% 17 0% 13 0% 0 0% 246 7%

Lewisham 104 3% 8 0% 5 0% 2 0% 3 0% 122 3%

Redbridge 89 3% 1 0% 10 0% 2 0% 1 0% 103 3%

Tower Hamlets 80 2% 6 0% 4 0% 2 0% 0 0% 92 3%

Bromley 45 1% 5 0% 3 0% 1 0% 0 0% 54 2%

Southwark 42 1% 2 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 46 1%

Waltham Forest 41 1% 4 0% 0 0% 0 0% 1 0% 51 1%

Hackney 22 1% 2 0% 1 0% 1 0% 0 0% 26 1%

Croydon 19 1% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 19 1%

Lambeth 16 0% 4 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 22 1%

Haringey 14 0% 2 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 17 0%

Islington 12 0% 4 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 16 0%

Camden 7 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 7 0%

City of Westminster 6 0% 2 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 8 0%

Harrow 4 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 5 0%

Wandsworth 4 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 4 0%

Hounslow 3 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 3 0%

Barnet 3 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 3 0%

Enfield 3 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 1 0% 4 0%

Sutton 3 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 3 0%


March 2016 | 38

London Borough Yes I support both crossings




Not answered Total responses

Richmond upon Thames 3 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 3 0%

Merton 3 0% 0 0% 0 0% 1 0% 0 0% 4 0%

Kensington and Chelsea 3 0% 2 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 5 0%

City of London 3 0% 1 0% 0 0% 0 0% 1 0% 6 0%

Kingston upon Thames 2 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 2 0%

Ealing 2 0% 2 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 4 0%

Hillingdon 1 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 1 0%

Brent 1 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 1 0%

Hammersmith and Fulham 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 1 0% 0 0% 1 0%

Total for top ten 2567 72% 339 10% 248 7% 148 4% 33 1% 3337 94%

Overall totals 2742 77% 362 0.10191 249 7% 151 4% 36 1% 3552 100%

P:\Projects\228\8\67\01\Work\Report\River Crossings Draft Report 0.6.docx

Control Information

CONTROL INFORMATION

Prepared by Prepared for

Steer Davies Gleave 28-32 Upper Ground London SE1 9PD +44 20 7910 5000 www.steerdaviesgleave.com

Transport for London Lauren Barton TfL Planning Transport for London Windsor House, 42-50 Victoria Street London, SW1H 0TL

SDG project/proposal number Client contract/project number

22886701

Author/originator Reviewer/approver

Tomasz Sawicki

Other contributors Distribution

Client: SDG:

Version control/issue number Date

CONTROL INFORMATION

Prepared by Prepared for

Steer Davies Gleave 28-32 Upper Ground London SE1 9PD +44 20 7910 5000 www.steerdaviesgleave.com

Transport for London Lauren Barton TfL Planning Transport for London Windsor House, 42-50 Victoria Street London, SW1H 0TL

SDG project/proposal number Client contract/project number

22886701

Author/originator Reviewer/approver

Tomasz Sawicki Matthew Clark

Other contributors Distribution

Client: SDG:

Version control/issue number Date

steerdaviesgleave.com

Appendix J – Stakeholder responses received

APB Investment Ltd (Royal Albert Dock Site) Barking and Dagenham Chamber of Commerce Bexley Against Road Crossings (BARC) Bexley Labour Group Campaign for Better Transport (CBT) Clive Efford, MP Eltham Confederation of Passenger Transport (CPT) Conservative Group (Royal Borough of Greenwich) Darren Johnson AM Diago Pension Fund (Alchemy Park and Burts Wharf) Essex County Council Federation of Small Businesses (FSB) Freight Transport Association (FTA) Friends of the Earth Friends of the Earth - Greenwich Friends of the Earth - Newham Historic England Historic England (Greater London Archaeology Advisory Service) Inland Waterways Association Freight Group LA (21) Bexley Traffic and Transport Forum London Borough of Barking and Dagenham London Borough of Bexley London Borough of Hackney London Borough of Havering London Borough of Lewisham London Borough of Newham London Borough of Redbridge London Borough of Tower Hamlets London Chamber of Commerce and Industry (LCCI) London City Airport London Cycling Campaign Mayor's Office for Policing and Crime (MOPAC) National Grid Property Holdings Peabody Port of London Authority (PLA) Prime Regal (Europa Industrial Estate Erith) RAC Foundation Royal Borough of Greenwich SEGRO Plc South East London Chamber of Commerce Standard Life Investments (Gallions Reach Retail Park) Thurrock Council Valerie Shawcross, London Assembly Labour Group

Contact

If you have any questions about this report, please

contact us on the details below.

Email: [email protected]

Phone: 0343 222 1155

gallions reach and belvedere river crossings - citizen · pdf filewith only three road...

Documents