Gravesham Borough Council

Report to: Cabinet

Date: 12 February 2007

Reporting officer: Director

Subject: Charging regime at - river crossing and issues for a study Purpose and summary of report: The has issued a consultation document about the future charging regime on the Dartford – Thurrock river crossing, with a set of specific questions. The same document also asks for any comments on the scope of the proposed study of crossing capacity, including a possible Lower Thames Crossing, which can be treated as a separate issue. The report recommends the Council’s stance on both issues. Recommendations:

That the Department of Transport be informed that: (i) whilst the efficient operation of the Dartford – Thurrock river crossing is accepted as being crucial, this Council is opposed to any price increases; (ii) the Council’s responses to the questions posed are as set out in paragraph 3.4; and (iii) the Council would wish to draw attention to the five issues set out in paragraphs 4.2-4.6 in relation to the study into additional crossing capacity, and would confirm that the Borough Council would wish to be involved in the study work.

1. Introduction

1.1 The Dartford Crossing, technically the A282 trunk road, consists of two two-lane tunnels northbound and a four lane bridge southbound. It is carrying some 150,000 vehicles per day in both directions, and on three occasions in 2005 (the last year with figures) the flow exceeded 180,000 vehicles in a single day. On these occasions this level of flow resulted in some 14 hours of extensive congestion. During the am and pm peak periods in the week the flow exceeds the design capacity and the result is significant congestion. If the traffic projections are correct the daily average is forecast to be between 170,000 and 190,000 vehicles per day by 2016. 1.2 The original tunnels were taken over from and County Councils under a concession agreement to build the Queen Elizabeth II Bridge, which opened in 1991. The tolls income was used to fund the bridges construction and the future maintenance of the crossing, which was achieved in March 2003. Prior to this date the Government decided to implement a ‘regulatory charge’ because of the high levels of demand for the crossing. This consultation, with responses due by 9 March 2007, seeks to place this charge on a longer term footing, better tailored to current and future demand.

1.3 The Government expects to let a contract early in 2007 to study options for ‘addressing traffic issues in the longer term, including the possibility of a new crossing in the area’. This is in the context of both demand growth and the proposed new developments in the . It is therefore also inviting views on this issue as well.

2. Crossing charging

2.1 As indicated above there crossing is starting to become congested. Even at weekends capacity is exceeded, generally around midday rather than the am and pm peaks of weekdays. Removal of the charge would, on the basis of work carried out in 2001, result in traffic levels after 6 years some 17.6% higher than with the charge. The consultation document makes it clear that removal of the charging booths would not smooth the flow as the volume of traffic is reaching capacity. Northbound in any case there is the need to filter the traffic into the two tunnels, which for safety reasons would continue to require some form of traffic management. Southbound there is the complication of three junctions in rapid succession (1a, 1b and 2) which results in considerable amount of weaving traffic, which the current arrangement assists with making safer.

2.2 The Government is keen to see five key considerations taken into account:

• Keep transactions simple

• Encourage the uptake of Dart-Tag’s

• Minimise impact on unavoidable users

• Focus charging on congested periods

• Ensure a fair return for local people

2.3 The proposed scale of charging is:

Cash Charge Tag Charge

Day Night Day Night (06:00 – 22:00) (22:00 – 06:00) (06:00 – 22:00) (22:00 – 06:00)

2 Cars £1.50 Free £1.00 Free

2 Axle Goods £2.00 Free £1.75 Free

Multi Axle £4.00 Free £3.20 Free Goods

2.4 The current charge for cars (£1) has the great merit of being one coin to pay, so the intention is to encourage as many users as possible to us the Dart-Tag – hence the reduced rates available with its use. The current £1 charge has been in place for over 10 years. The current charging structure has only a small reduction (£0.07p for cars) for using the Dart-Tag, so the proposed scale would increase the differential significantly. The proposed removal of charges at night is to encourage off peak usage – though it is not clear from the consultation paper how this would work in practice (i.e. would the barriers be left open or would they still operate). Goods vehicles currently pay £1.80 or £2.90 according to size but a flat £1 at night. Public transport vehicles on regular services pay nothing, along with a list of other exemptions principally for the emergency services.

2.5 The Government is further proposing a mechanism whereby the charges are increased annually in line with the retail price index, but with flexibility to vary this for different classes of vehicle so as meet the criterion of keeping the transaction simple. Any major changes in charging levels, to reflect congestion, would be subject to the same process as is currently being gone through. The use of credit/debit cards is being explored, but the entry of PIN numbers would slow the whole process down.

3. Dartford Crossing Comments

3.1 As indicated above the crossing is coming under increasing pressure from the volume of traffic and the use of the tolls needs to be thought of not as related to construction cost but rather as a congestion charge. The Eddington report set out the case for congestion charging and this can be thought of as an early application of that principle. There are obvious noise and air quality issues arising from the intensive use of the crossing (the Dartford Approaches are an AQMA) as well as those related to congestion. The potential consequences of major long term congestion at the crossing could have a significant impact on the economic regeneration of the borough however desirable the removal of charges would at first sight seem.

3.2 The A2/A282 scheme will improve the flow of traffic at junction 2, and is being combined with 4 lanes to junction 3 (M20). The A2 itself east of junction 2 is being widened to mainly 4 lanes (with some lane drops at junctions) through to M2 junction 3. In local terms the three junctions are important parts of the Kent Thameside transport network. Work on origins and destinations has shown that only 3% of trips using the crossing are for distances of less than 30km, that is what could be described as local. 61% are over 100 km, showing that the crossing has an important strategic role. The crossing appears to carry a higher proportion of good vehicles than the national average.

3.3 Currently a proportion of the revenues (£69m overall) goes to Kent County Council (£1m) and Thurrock Council (£0.75m) for local transport initiatives. The

3 Government wishes to continue to target money at Dartford and Thurrock, though these areas are only responsible for a small proportion of trips. This should continue across Kent Thameside to support public transport (in the wide sense) initiatives that help remove local traffic from the trunk road network. Ideally local residents should receive a discount at the crossing. Gravesham would expect its residents to be included in this because of the strong historical connections with Essex, as witnessed by the continued existence of the Ferry.

3.4 The DfT sets out a series of questions to which it is seeking a response:

• Given the pressures on the Crossing and the need to take action now, what are your views on the proposed changes to the pricing regime and the suggested level of discounts for Dart-Tag users?

In an ideal world the charge would be removed but in the circumstances it is reluctantly necessary to control demand. It is important for the delivery of the regeneration of Kent Thameside that the trunk roads in the area perform well. The DartTag gives a route to significant savings and is more likely to be used by local residents. However, this Council is opposed to any price increases.

• What are your views on the proposed process of increasing prices in line with inflation in order to maintain the pricing signals at the Crossing to manage demand?

Whilst this Council remains opposed to price increases, if they are to be introduced and provided this can be done in a sensible way in terms of the actual charge costs this is an appropriate approach. At some point in the future the charging mechanism will logically become part of the national road charging scheme. Any radical shift in charging policy will need to be subject to wider consultation due to the implications on the transport network.

• Given the impact of the Crossing on local congestion and the local environment and given the need to manage demand at the Crossing, what are your views on additional discounts for local residents? What are your views on revenues being spent on local transport improvements?

The Borough Council would welcome a concessionary rate for local residents, logically via the DartTag. It defines Gravesham has part of the local area for this purpose, partly because of Kent Thameside and partly due to the long historical association with Tilbury via the Ferry. An annual contribution from the finances to local transport funds ring fenced to Kent Thameside would be welcome to provide long term stability. The prime emphasis will be on shifting trips onto public transport as this will release general highway capacity.

• The Government wants to achieve a balance between offering exemptions for users of vehicles who genuinely have no alternative to driving for transport and managing demand at the Crossing. How well does the proposed list of exempted vehicles achieve that aim? What other vehicles should be considered?

No comment

• How clear are the current vehicle classifications? What other classifications would help distinguish the broad categories of: motorcycle, car, light goods vehicles and minibuses, and heavy goods vehicles and regular buses?

4 No comment

• The Government would like to better understand how the proposed changes to the charging regime would affect business - particularly small, local businesses. How would your business be affected by the proposed change in prices? How would your business be affected by worsening congestion at the Crossing?

The key issue for businesses will be that the crossing operates effectively and reliably. While not happy with increased charges, reliability is important. The existence of a charge is well established and, even at the proposed prices, is still cheaper than many other crossings.

4. Lower Thames Crossing comments

4.1 The possibility of a Lower Thames Crossing has been discussed for some considerable time. In the mid 1990’s for example a study was done which suggested a road crossing to the east of , linking into the Three Crutches junction (M2 junction 1). There have also been studies looking at a further rail crossing. The issue remains a matter of concern locally both because of the direct impact of any physical crossing and also because of the wider impacts in both traffic and environmental terms. It is an issue of national importance, but in which local considerations will be very important. The Government has asked no specific questions on this issue, so the Borough Council can only make comments on the best available information. These are directed at the issues that need to be examined and addressed as part of the study – not about how the Borough Council would react to any specific proposal. Five issues can be identified as needing to be examined in relation to enhancing crossing capacity. The Borough Council would be keen to be involved in an appropriate way in the study work.

4.2 The first issue is what is/are the crossing(s) for? Put another way is a crossing specifically aimed at the requirements of long distance or is it aimed at more local flows (local in this context meaning Thames Gateway). The importance of this is the nature not so much of the crossing itself but the infrastructure to support it. A new crossing seeking, for example, to link the Channel Ports and Tunnel with the rest of the country has to cater for M20 to M1 flows and therefore the wider road connections. A local link would be more of an A2 to A13 connection. If the main focus is on M25 circular flows this implies that anything significantly off line is unlikely to be attractive. None of this can be divorced from the operation of the road system locally on both sides of the crossing and the need for highway capacity to support regeneration.

4.3 The second area for attention is rail freight. Currently the amount of the traffic travelling by conventional train (as opposed to the freight shuttles) through the Channel Tunnel is pitifully small, for a whole variety of reasons. This is an area where active measures to encourage long distance flows onto rail could produce significant benefits (given that with a system at or over capacity every decrease can be obtained is to be welcomed). Train paths already exist on the rail system for these trains, so some impact can be obtained from existing resources without the need to build a new rail crossing. The focus on Channel crossing flows is because they are longer distance and therefore more amenable to transfer to rail.

5 4.4 The third area is the physical constraints. The option of a new major crossing within Dartford/Gravesend urban area is not feasible because of development and the known issues with existing junctions, especially Bean and Ebbsfleet. Capacity enhancement of the crossing (e.g. a second bridge), as opposed to the approaches, may be possible on the existing corridor, though this would have significant implications for Dartford and Thurrock locally.

4.5 The fourth area are the environmental constrains which figure significantly. Those of noise, air pollution and congestion have already been noted for the existing communities. East of Gravesend SSSI, Ramsar, SLA, and AoNB are all major issues that will require a lot of work to overcome.

4.6 The fifth area to examine is whether the whether the benefits for public transport capacity enhancement would be significant. The Docklands Light Railway is building a new crossing to Woolwich Arsenal, and Crossrail would reach to at least Abbey Wood. Suggestions in the past have included a local road crossing with , or connecting the Tilbury and North Kent railway lines. Best sue needs to be made of the CTRL, though this is inherently best suited to longer distance flows.

5. Risk

5.1 If the Borough Council fails to express a view on these issues it could weaken its position at a later date, though it has no direct control in the process.

Background Papers

Background papers are kept in Planning & Regeneration Services, 2 nd floor Cygnet House. All requests to inspect the above documents must be directed in the first instance to the Committee Section of the Democratic Services Department.

Proposed changes to charges at the Dartford-Thurrock River Crossing. DfT December 2006

Short-term study of the Extension of Dartford Tolls. Brown & Root Consulting for DTLGR 2001

Getting the most out of the Dartford Crossing. Jacobs Babtie for Highways Agency 2004

The Case for Action: Sir Rod Eddington’s advice to Government and related documents. HM Treasury 2006

6