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. 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

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 . Better connections within Thamesmead and Woolwich were most frequently mentioned, followed by better links from Thamesmead to central London and Woolwich.

Page 2 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 and will help to inform the decisions on the next steps for the project.

Page 3 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.

Page 4 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 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

Page 5 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 , which will help to address the severe congestion and reliability issues currently experienced at the 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.

Page 6 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:

Page 7 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.

Page 8 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, o The Wharf radio, web) o South London Press o ITV London o City AM o LBC Radio o Essex Enquirer o Metro o Kent Messenger o Bexley Times o Newham Recorder o News Shopper 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

Page 9 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

Page 10 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.

Page 11 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

Businesses or campaign groups 3%

Members of the public 97%

Page 12 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

2%

4% 7%

10% Support both crossings Doesn't support either crossing Support Gallions Reach only Support Belvedere only Not answered

77%

Page 13 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 Does Support Support Not Total both not Gallions Belvedere answered responses crossings support Reach only either only crossing

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

Page 14 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.

Page 15 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%

Page 16 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.

Page 17 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 Proportion of responses responses Gallions By car 3,140 69% Reach 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, 456 10% taxi) Motorbike 316 7% I do not think I would use a new crossing at 587 13% Gallions Reach Total 8,677 193%

Page 18 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 Crossing1.2 Mode 1.3 Number1.4 Proportion of of responses responses 1.5 Belvedere1.12 By car 2,846 63% 1.6 1.7 1.13 On public transport (eg bus) 1,725 38% 1.8 1.14 On a cycle 1.9 813 18% 1.10 1.15 On foot 1.11 645 14% 1.16 By another type of vehicle (eg van, HGV, 437 10% taxi) 1.17 Motorbike 270 6% 1.18 I do not think I would use a new crossing 1,061 23% at Belvedere 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.

Page 19 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 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 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: Page 20 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.

Page 21 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.

Page 22 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.

Page 23 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.

Page 24 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 Page 25 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 Page 26 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.

Page 27 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

Page 28 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. 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.

Page 29 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 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.

Page 30 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

Page 31 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.

Page 32 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

Page 33 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. Page 34 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.

Page 35 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 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 Page 36 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.

Page 37 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.

Page 38 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

Page 39 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.

Page 40 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.

Page 41 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.

Page 42 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.

Page 43 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

Social media Saw it on the 4% TfL website 4%

Local borough publication 16% Leaflet 7% Read about it in the press 5% Received an email from TfL 64%

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)

Page 44 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

Page 45 of 45

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 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

Stakeholder list 3663 Food Services London Brewing, Food & Beverage Industry A2Dominion Group Suppliers Association AA DriveTech British Association of Removers Abellio London/Surrey Ltd British Beer & Pub Association ABP London British Council of Disabled People Access Company British Deaf Association (BDA) ACFO Ltd British Frozen Food Federation Action for Blind People British Motorcycling Federation Action on Hearing Loss (RNID) British Red Cross AEG Europe British Retail Consortium Age UK London Bromley Council Amey plc BskyB Angel AIM CABE Apasen Campaign for Better Transport Argall BID Campaign for Clean Air in London Armada Community Project Canal & River Trust Arriva London Canary Wharf Contractors Arriva the Shires Canary Wharf Group ASD Ltd Canary Wharf Management Asda car2go Asra Housing Carplus Association for Consultancy and CCG Greenwich Engineering (ACE) CCG Havering Association of British Drivers CCG Redbridge Association of Disabled Professionals Central London Freight Quality Partnership Association of Newspaper Distributors Centre for London Automobile Association (AA) Centrepoint Balfour Beatty plc Charlton Central Residents Association Barking & Dagenham Safer Transport Team Charlton Rail Users Group Barking and Dagenham NHS Care Chartered Institute of Logistics & Commissioning Group Transport (CILT) Barking, Havering and Redbridge University Chartered Institution of Highways & Hospitals NHS Trust Transportation (CIHT) Belvedere Community Forum Chinese Association of Tower Hamlets Bexley Council Circle 33 Bexley Industrial Logistics Technology City Car Club Bexley NHS Care Commissioning Group City of London Bidvest City of Peace Community Church Billingsgate Market City of Westminster Birch Sites Ltd Civil Engineering Contractors Association Blackheath Joint Working Party (CECA) Blackheath Society Clifford Chance Boots Community Links Trust Brent Cross Shopping Centre Community Transport Association (CTA) Brewery Logistics Group Compass Point Residents Association Confederation of British Industry (CBI) Gatwick Airport Confederation of Passenger Transport UK Gnewt cargo Construction Youth Trust Go Ahead London Council for Disabled Children Gravesham District Council Crossrail Ltd Greater London Authority (GLA) CT Plus Greater London Forum for Older People CTC (GLF) CTR Triangle Green Alliance DABD (UK) Green Party Dartford Borough Council Greenpeace Dartford District Council Greenwich & Lewisham Friends of the Demos Earth Department for Transport (DfT) Greenwich Carers Centre DHL UK & Ireland Greenwich Creekside Residents Disability Rights UK Association Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Greenwich Kurdish Community Committee Association Docklands Waste Greenwich Millennium Village Association Drivers Alliance Greenwich Peninsular Chaplaincy East & South East London Transport Greenwich Safer Transport Team Partnership Greenwich Society East End Community Foundation Greenwich United Church East Greenwich Residents Association Hainault Business Park BID East London Business Alliance Havering Safer Transport Team East Thames Group Heathrow Airport Holdings Ltd Eastney Street TRA Herne Hill Society e-Car Club Hertz on Demand EEF (Engineering Employers' Federation) Highways Agency (London) End Violence Against Women Hills Prospect Environmental Protection UK Home from Home HA Essex County Council Horniman Museum European Metal Recycling House of Commons Evening Standard distribution Excel London HS2 Ltd Family Mosaic IBM Federation of Small Businesses (FSB) ICE -London First Essex IER FirstGroup plc Ilford BID Food Storage and Distribution Federation Inclusion London Forest Hill Traders Association Independent Disability Advisory Group Freight Transport Association (IDAG) Freight Transport Association (FTA) Independent Shoreditch Friends of the Earth Institute for Sustainability G4S Institute of Advanced Motorists Galleons Point Residents Association Institute of Couriers Gallions Housing Association Institute of Directors (IoD) Gateway Housing Association Institution of Civil Engineers (ICE) Intelligent Transport Advisory Group on Thames EU Commission London Borough of Southwark John Lewis Partnership London Borough of Tower Hamlets Kasmiri welfare alliance London Borough of Waltham Forest Keltbray London Borough of Wandsworth Kent County Council London Cab Drivers' Club Ltd King's College London London Chamber of Commerce and Knight Dragon Industry (LCCI) KPMG LLP London City Airport Laing O'Rourke London Cycling Campaign LBN Communications Team London Cycling Campaign (Greenwich) Leaders in Community London Cycling Campaign (Lewisham) Lend Lease London Cycling Campaign (Newham) Leonard Cheshire Disability London Cycling Campaign (Redbridge) Lewisham Clinical Commissioning Group London Cycling Campaign (Tower Lewisham Safer Transport Team Hamlets) Lewisham Shpping Centre London European Partnership for Lewishman Council Transport Licensed Private Car Hire Association London First Licensed Taxi Drivers Association London Forum of Amenity & Civic Living Streets Societies Local Space Ltd London Legacy Development Corporation London ambulance Service London Power Network London Ambulance Service NHS Trust London Private Hire Board London Assembly London Somali Community Alliance London Association of Funeral Directors London Suburban Taxi Drivers' Coalition London Borough of Barking & Dagenham London Tenants Federation London Borough of Barnet London Thames Gateway Development London Borough of Bexley Corporation London Borough of Brent London Tourist Coach Operators London Borough of Bromley Association (LTCOA) London Borough of Camden London TravelWatch London Borough of Croydon London Visual Impairment Forum (LVIF) London Borough of Enfield London Voluntary Service Council London Borough of Greenwich London Wildlife Trust London Borough of Hammersmith and London Youth Fulham Look Ahead Housing and Care Ltd London Borough of Haringey Low Carbon Vehicle Partnership London Borough of Havering Marks & Spencer London Borough of Hounslow MENCAP London Borough of Islington Menzies Distribution London Borough of Lambeth Meridian Community Garden and London Borough of Lewisham Allotment London Borough of Merton Metropolitan Police London Borough of Newham Metropolitan Police - Community Police London Borough of Redbridge Millennium Primary School London Borough of Richmond upon Mineral Products Association MiNet/ROTA Morden College Quintain Morrisons RAC Foundation for Motoring Motorcycle Action Group RADAR Motorcycle Industry Association Radio Taxis Group Ltd National Children's Bureau (NCB) Rail Delivery Group (RDG) National Council for Voluntary Youth RBKC / LBHF Services (NCVYS) REAL National Federation of Retail Newsagents Redbridge Safer Transport Team National Federation of Retail Newsagents RNIB (NFRN) Road Haulage Association (RHA) National Grid plc RoadPeace National Grid Transco Royal Borough of Greenwich National Joint Utilities Group Ltd (NJUG) Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea National Motorcycle Council Royal London Society for the Blind (RLSB) National Union of Students Royal Mail NCVO Royal National Institute of the Blind (RNIB) Network Housing Group RSA Network Rail Sainsburys Supermarkets Ltd New Covent Garden Market Salisa Project New London Architecture SCOPE New Spitalfields Market Scotia Gas Networks Newham Chamber of Commerce Sense Newham Safer Transport Team Siemens Transportation Systems NHS Newham CCG Silvertown Quays NHS Tower Hamlets CCG Society of Motor Manufacturers and Nissan Traders (SMMT) Noise Abatement Society South Bank Employers Group North London Strategic Alliance South East London Chamber of North London Transport Forum Commerce Notting Hill Housing Group South Greenwich Forum O2 South Leytonstone Area Development Office of Rail Regulation Association (SLADA) One Housing Group Southern Gas Networks Orchard Tenant & Residents Association Southern Housing Group PACTS (Parliamentary Advisory Group for Space Syntax Limited traffic Safety) SSE (Southern Electric) Par Hill Research Ltd St Germans Terrace Association ParcelForce Worldwide Stagecoach London Partnership for Young London Stratford Renaissance Partnership Passenger Focus Sullivan Buses Peabody Sustrans Places for People Suzy Lamplugh Trust Port of London Authority Tamil Community Housing Association Pret-a-Manger TARA Private Hire Car Association Tate & Lyle plc PUBLICA Tate & Lyle Sugars Queen Elizabeth Olympic Park Tesco Tesco Stores Ltd Virtual Norwood Forum Textile Services Association VISION 2020UK Thales Group Walk London Thames Water Waltham Forest Council Thames Water Utilities Ltd Westcombe Society The Blackheath Society Westfield Group The Charlton Society Westfield Management Company UK Ltd The Eltham Society Westfield Shopping Towns Ltd The Langton Way Residentd Association Westminster City Council The London legacy Development Whizz-Kidz Corporation Willow BID Limited The Westcombe Society Wincanton The Who Cares? Trust Wine & Spirit Trade Association Thurrock District Council YMCA England Thurrock Thames Gateway Development Young Minds Corporation Zipcar 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 Appendix C– Consultation leaflet

A503

A406

A1 A12 A10 Barkfng

A41 Dagenham Dock M25 A13 Beam Park A501 A11 Barkfng Rfversfde (Proposed) (Proposed)

Tempfe Cannfng Town Canary Custom House Gafffons Reach Wharf London Cfty Afrport A202 A13

A503 Vfctorfa Waterfoo A201 Canada Water North A406 Greenwfch Abbey Wood Befvedere Woofwfch Arsenaf Imperfaf Charfton A282 Wharf Battersea (Proposed)A1 A12 A102 A202 A10 Barkfng The pfan for newBattersea rfver Park crossfngs fn London A2

A41 M25 KEY Dagenham Dock A13 Beam Park Opportunfty Area A501 A11 Barkfng Rfversfde (Proposed) (Proposed) Pfanned/ proposed crossfngs A20

N 0 500m 1km 2km A2 Tempfe Cannfng Town Canary Custom House Gafffons Reach Wharf London Cfty Afrport A202 A13

Vfctorfa Waterfoo A201 Canada Water North Greenwfch Abbey Wood Befvedere Woofwfch Arsenaf Imperfaf Charfton A282 Wharf Battersea (Proposed) A102 A202 Battersea Park A2

The pfan KEYfor new rfver crossfngs Opportunfty Area The Rfver Thames has afways provfded fmportant connectfons between London Much of the pfan focuses on east London, where exfstfng crossfngs are fewer Pfanned/ proposed crossfngs A20

and the rest of the worfd, hefpfng to cement fts pfaceN 0 500mas 1kmone of2km the worfd’s than efsewhere. Work has A2afready begun fn thfs area wfth the Emfrates Afr Lfne pre-emfnent cftfes. But ft can afso present barrfers to focaf travef. openfng fn 2012, Crossraff set to open fn 2018 and pfannfng permfssfon shortfy befng sought for the Sffvertown Tunnef, whfch coufd be bufft by 2022/23. Thfs fs most evfdent fn the east, where the rfver fs much wfder than ft fs fn the A number of other new connectfons coufd unfock potentfaf both fn centraf west, and has to accommodate the needs of shfppfng whfch uses thfs part of and east London and these are at varfous stages of devefopment. the rfver. Wfth east London set to see sfgnffcant growth fn popufatfon, housfng and empfoyment fn the comfng years, we expect fncreased pressure on the The focatfon of aff of these proposed crossfngs can be seen fn the map above exfstfng cross-rfver fnfrastructure, servfces and connectfons that move peopfe and further detaff on the pfan fs avaffabfe at tf.gov.uk/new-rfver-crossfngs around the Capftaf. Thfs consuftatfon asks for your comments on two proposed crossfngs at The Mayor fs pfannfng for thfs wfth a number of new rfver crossfngs, provfdfng Gafffons Reach and Befvedere. These crossfngs woufd fmprove connectfons fmproved connectfons for pedestrfans, cycffsts, pubffc transport and road users between parts of east and southeast London, hefpfng the focaf area to aff by a combfnatfon of brfdges, tunnefs and ferrfes. accommodate the expected growth fn jobs and popufatfon, and fncreasfng opportunftfes for focaf peopfe. Thfs feafet expfafns the ratfonafe for these two crossfngs, provfdes detaff on what we have been fnvestfgatfng sfnce the fast consuftatfon and presents fnformatfon so that you can have an fnformed say on what we are proposfng.

2 3 About thfs consuftatfon The Gafffons Reach and BefvedereA12 rfver crossfngs London’s popufatfon fs expected to fncrease by 1.5m peopfe over the next 15 A12 Foffowfng a 2014 consuftatfon on east London rfver crossfng optfons, the A12 years, and over one thfrd of thfs growth fs forecast to happen fn east London. Mayor asked Transport for London (TfL) to progress optfons for new brfdges or A406 Ho rn chu r ch Rd tunnefs at both Gafffons Reach and Befvedere. Takfng account of the responses The proposed crossfngs at Gafffons GReach reen and BefvedereLn can pfay a key rofe fn recefved, over the fast twefve months we have been undertakfng varfous pfeces A12 supportfng thfs growth and hefpfng drfve London’s economy by provfdfng better of work on: connectfons across the Thames fn thfs part of the Capftaf.

• The ffkefy fmpacts of these crossfngs, fncfudfng fmpact on traffc fows They are shownBarkfng on the map befow. A118 M25 A406

• The pubffc transport network and optfons for pubffc transportA10 provfsfon on A12 each of the crossfngs Dagenham • Envfronmentaf consfderatfons and fmpacts Barkfng Rd A13 A1306 Cannfng • The economfc benefts of new crossfngs Ma r sh W ay A11 Town New Rd Reports on these fssues are avaffabfe on the consuftatfon websfte (see page 23 Beckton for more detaffs), wfth the mafn fssues summarfsed fn thfs feafet. A13 Rafnham Royaf Docks Rd Docks Royaf 2 London Thamesmead A13 Thfs consuftatfon wfff hefp to progress the project and ensure our decfsfons take 1 Cfty Afrport 1 A2016 account of the vfews of the pubffc and stakehofders. CanaryA1020 Western Way A13 Wharf A2016 We woufd ffke to know whether you support the crossfngs, how you thfnk you A206 woufd use them and the destfnatfons you woufd ffke to be abfe to get to by A102 Woofwfch Befvedere fmproved pubffc transport connectfons. M25 Rotherhfthe A205 To have your say, pfease vfsft tf.gov.uk/east-fondon-crossfngs and fff fn the Greenwfch 1 Gafffons Reach Crossfng onffne questfonnafre. A2 2 Befvedere Crossfng 4 We apprecfate your tfme fn readfng about our project and provfdfng us wfth your feedback. The proposed Gafffons Reach and Befvedere rfver crossfngs A2 A282 Whffe the exact affgnment of eachE crossfngRo che has not s te been r fnaffsed,W ay the Gafffons 5 Reach crossfng woufd ffnk the A2016 Western Way fn Thamesmead wfth the A1020 Royaf Docks Road fn the north. The Befvedere crossfng woufd ffnk the A2016 Bronze Age Way fn Befvedere wfth the A13 Marsh Way junctfon fn Rafnham. A2 A2

4 5 New crossfngs woufd reduce journey tfmes, create new opportunftfes for Brfdges or tunnefs? fmprovements to the wafkfng, cycffng and pubffc transport networks across the In our prevfous consuftatfon, we asked for your vfews on ferry and brfdge optfons rfver, and hefp to stfmufate devefopment fn the surroundfng areas. around Woofwfch, Gafffons Reach and Befvedere. The responses fndfcated a strong Our work shows that rfver crossfngs at Gafffons Reach and Befvedere woufd: preference for brfdges at Gafffons Reach and Befvedere. A number of respondents • Better connect peopfe, busfnesses and communftfes wfth each other, afso requested that further consfderatfon be gfven to tunnefs at both focatfons. fncreasfng access to jobs, educatfon and fefsure actfvftfes As a resuft we are consfderfng the feasfbfffty of brfdges and tunnefs at Gafffons • Make ft easfer for peopfe and goods to cross the rfver fn east London Reach and Befvedere. There fs stfff more work to be done before we can decfde • Create opportunftfes for new cross-rfver pubffc transport ffnks and fmprove whfch optfon wfff be chosen at each focatfon, partfcufarfy because the pubffc focaf wafkfng and cycffng optfons transport optfons wfff have a major fnfuence on what fs the most feasfbfe and cost effectfve form of crossfng. Artfst’s fmpressfons of what each optfon coufd • Support London’s growfng economy by better connectfng busfnesses, and fook ffke can be seen on the foffowfng pages. fmprovfng access to fabour markets There are a number of questfons that need to be addressed fn determfnfng whether • Encourage devefopment fn the area, hefpfng to address London’s housfng a brfdge or tunnef woufd be the preferred optfon fn each focatfon. These fncfude: shortage • What form of pubffc transport fs proposed? • Hefp manage the fmpact of popufatfon growth by reducfng cross-rfver journey tfmes and dfstances • What woufd the fand and property fmpacts be for each crossfng? • What woufd the envfronmentaf fmpacts be? Each crossfng fs expected to consfst of two fanes fn each dfrectfon – one for pubffc transport and one for generaf traffc. There wfff be a charge for vehfcfes • What woufd the fmpact on other fnfrastructure be, f.e. rfver traffc and to use the crossfngs to manage demand and hefp pay for the scheme. Any London Cfty Afrport? pedestrfan and cycffst facffftfes woufd be segregated from traffc. • Whfch optfon woufd be most cost-effectfve gfven the questfons above? It fs fmportant for us to answer these and other questfons to understand the The future of the Woofwfch Ferry overaff pfcture before fdentffyfng a preferred optfon. We are fnvestfng fn the Woofwfch Ferry fn the short term to ensure ft remafns reffabfe and ft for purpose fnto the 2020s. Recent refurbfshment work means that the ferry dockfng areas are fn good order and we are pfannfng to purchase new boats to repface the current vessefs, whfch have been runnfng sfnce 1963. As yet, we have not taken a decfsfon on whether the ferry servfces woufd contfnue beyond the openfng of the new crossfngs proposed fn thfs feafet. We woufd consuft the pubffc before any decfsfons on the future of the Woofwfch Ferry are made.

6 7 Gafffons Reach brfdge Gafffons Reach tunnef

S I L V E R T O W N S I L V E R T O W N C A N N I N G C A N N I N G W O O L W I C H N O R T H T O W N W O O L W I C H N O R T H T O W N 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 T H A M E S M E A D TUNNEL ENTRY/EXIT W E S T W E S T

TUNNEL ENTRY/EXIT

N N

Thfs fs an artfst’s fmpre ssfon and fs not fntended to repre sent the finfshed fnfrastructure Thfs fs an artfst’s fmpre ssfon and fs not fntended to repre sent the finfshed fnfrastructure Artfst’s fmpressfon of a brfdge at Gafffons Reach Artfst’s fmpressfon of a tunnef at Gafffons Reach

There are a number of factors to consfder ff buffdfng a brfdge at Gafffons Reach: There are a number of factors to consfder ff buffdfng a tunnef at Gafffons Reach: • It woufd be ffkefy to be cheaper than a tunnef • It woufd be ffkefy to be more expensfve than a brfdge • It woufd need to be hfgh enough not to fmpact on shfppfng befow, whffe • It woufd have ffttfe or no fmpact on shfppfng and London Cfty Afrport fow enough to not fmpact London Cfty Afrport’s ffght path • A pedestrfan and cycfe tunnef coufd be consfdered fess attractfve to • Pedestrfan/cycfe facffftfes coufd be accommodated, afthough users users than a brfdge woufd be exposed to poor weather • It woufd be ffkefy to have fewer fmpacts on nearby resfdents, when compared to a brfdge • It woufd be ffkefy to have more fmpact on nearby resfdents than a tunnef (e.g. vfsuaf fmpacts) • It woufd be ffkefy to feave more fand avaffabfe for other uses, partfcufarfy after constructfon • It coufd make ft more dfffcuft to devefop resfdentfaf sftes cfose to the • It woufd be fess susceptfbfe to poor weather than a brfdge crossfng compared to a tunnef

8 9 Befvedere brfdge Befvedere tunnef

D A G E N H A M D A G E N H A M

TUNNEL ENTRY/EXIT

R A I N H A M R A I N H A M

TUNNEL ENTRY/EXIT

B E L V E D E R E B E L V E D E R E N N

Artfst’s fmpressfon of a brfdge at Befvedere Thfs fs an artfst’s fmpre ssfon and fs not fntended to repre sent the finfshed fnfrastructure Artfst’s fmpressfon of a tunnef at Befvedere Thfs fs an artfst’s fmpre ssfon and fs not fntended to repre sent the finfshed fnfrastructure

There are a number of factors to consfder ff buffdfng a brfdge at Befvedere: There are a number of factors to consfder ff buffdfng a tunnef at Befvedere: • It woufd be cfose to major workfng wharves and woufd therefore requfre • It coufd be a sfmffar cost to a brfdge a hfgh and fong span, whfch coufd fncrease the cost to be sfmffar to the • It woufd have ffttfe or no fmpact on shfppfng cost of a tunnef at Befvedere • It potentfaffy has fess of an fmpact than a brfdge on focaf propertfes and • Pedestrfan/cycfe facffftfes coufd be accommodated, afthough users the future devefopment of the area, partfcufarfy after constructfon woufd be exposed to poor weather • It woufd be fess susceptfbfe to poor weather than a brfdge • Befng further from the London Cfty Afrport, there fs more fexfbfffty on • A pedestrfan and cycfe tunnef coufd be consfdered fess attractfve to the type of structure that can be bufft than at Gafffons Reach users than a brfdge

10 11 A12 A12 A12

Cross-rfver pubffc transport ffnks A406 Romford G reen Ln The Gafffons Reach and Befvedere rfver crossfngs woufd pfay an fmportant rofe fn A12 fmprovfng pubffc transport connectfons between east and southeast London.

At the fast consuftatfon, respondents asked us to expfore what fmprovements to A118 the pubffc transport networks coufd be fncorporated wfthfn the new crossfngs. Barkfng Dagenham M25

A10 A12 Barkfng In addftfon to consfderfng new bus routes on both crossfngs and the destfnatfons M25 Dagenham Dock they coufd serve, we have expfored whether ft woufd be possfbfe to provfde new Barkfng Rd A13 raff ffnks as weff. Barkfng Rfversfde (Proposed) Rafnham Our work shows that an extensfon of the exfstfng DLR network, or a tram, woufd New Rd Gafffons Reach be more feasfbfe at Gafffons Reach than Befvedere. Thfs fs due to the proxfmftyA13 Custom House Canary Wharf London Cfty of the Gafffons Reach crossfng to the DLR statfon at Gafffons Reach and the Royaf Afrport Thamesmead hfgher numbers of peopfe ffvfng cfose to the crossfng now and fn the future who Docks Canary coufd beneft from ft. A13 Canada Water Wharf The DLR or tram woufd be provfded fn addftfon to the bus network. They woufd Befvedere requfre major fnvestment and each has advantages and dfsadvantages, soRotherhfthe we Woofwfch Arsenaf Abbey Wood Charfton Befvedere M25A282 need to better understand how focaf peopfe woufd use any new pubffc transport Woofwfch A205 servfces. A2 Erfth

Thfs consuftatfon fs seekfng your vfews on what new pubffc transport ffnks woufd Proposed crossfngsA207 be most hefpfuf to you, to hefp us understand whfch pubffc transport optfons Indfcatfve pubffc woufd be most effectfve fn meetfng focaf needs. transport destfnatfons Bexfeyheath Opportunfty area A282 A summary of these optfons fs set out on the foffowfng pages, wfth the map Underground Overground DLR opposfte fffustratfng some potentfaf new pubffc transport ffnks these crossfngs Natfonaf Raff Crossraff coufd provfde. Thfs fncfudes potentfaffy ffnkfng to: • The new Crossraff servfces at Abbey Wood, Woofwfch and Custom House Potentfaf new pubffc transport ffnks across the proposed Gafffons Reach and Befvedere rfver crossfngs A2 A2 • DLR servfces at Woofwfch Arsenaf and Gafffons Reach • The London Underground at Barkfng • The London Overground at Barkfng and Barkfng Rfversfde • Natfonaf Raff servfces at Abbey Wood, Woofwfch, Befvedere, Barkfng and Dagenham Dock. Further fnformatfon on the work fookfng at pubffc transport optfons can be found fn the supportfng documents – see page 23.

12 13 Bus servfces DLR Bus servfces are an fmportant part of the proposafs. Both crossfngs provfde the The exfstfng DLR network comes cfose to the northern end of the Gafffons Reach opportunfty to run new or extended bus routes across the Thames that woufd crossfng focatfon, provfdfng an opportunfty to extend the DLR across ft. serve a wfde range of destfnatfons on efther sfde of the rfver. A DLR servfce woufd provfde Thamesmead wfth a hfgh quaffty, dfrect new raff Wfth a bus-onfy sofutfon, ft fs fntended that bus fanes woufd be provfded ffnk to the Royaf Docks, wfth onward connectfons to Canary Wharf and centraf on the crossfngs to separate bus servfces from other traffc, and there fs the London and woufd compfement the new and extended bus routes that woufd potentfaf for compfementary bus prforfty to be provfded on the wfder focaf use the crossfng. road network to provfde rapfd bus transft ffnks wfth dedfcated bus fanes. There fs afso the potentfaf to make fonger connectfons, such as passfng through Exampfes of the potentfaf new connectfons fncfude: Thamesmead and towards Abbey Wood, or northwards towards Barkfng, efther at the same tfme or after the Gafffons Reach crossfng has been bufft. • Gafffons Reach crossfng – Barkfng, Beckton and the Royaf Docks to Thamesmead, Woofwfch and Abbey Wood Provfdfng a DLR servfce on the crossfng woufd add to the costs of the scheme (ft fs • Befvedere crossfng – Dagenham, Rafnham and Romford to Befvedere, ffkefy to be more expensfve to fncorporate a DLR servfce through a tunnef than on Erfth and Bexfeyheath a brfdge). It woufd provfde dfrect connectfons to fewer pfaces than new bus routes, but ft woufd greatfy fncrease the capacfty of pubffc transport ffnks to and from These servfces woufd ffnk to a wfde range of focaf areas, and woufd be Thamesmead, and fs ffkefy to stfmufate more growth fn housfng and amenftfes fn abfe to respond to changes fn passenger demand as the areas around the the area than a bus-onfy sofutfon. crossfngs devefop.

Artfst’s fmpressfon of bus prforfty over efther crossfng Artfst’s fmpressfon of a DLR servfce over a crossfng at Gafffons Reach

14 15 Tram Wafkfng and cycffng Unffke the DLR, there are no exfstfng tram networks focaffy to connect a new tram The crossfngs coufd provfde new opportunftfes for wafkfng and cycffng journeys servfce fnto. However, because trams can run at ground fevef and share the road across the Thames, brfngfng, for exampfe, the Royaf Docks wfthfn an easy cycffng wfth buses, ft coufd be a fower cost optfon than the DLR whffe provfdfng sfmffar dfstance of Thamesmead usfng the Gafffons Reach crossfng. Any new cross-rfver benefts. connectfons woufd ffnk wfth focaf wafkfng and cycffng networks. A tram network, whfch woufd be provfded fn addftfon to buses, coufd fncfude If we bufft brfdges, pedestrfan and cycffng facffftfes woufd be provfded afongsfde servfces from Barkfng to both Woofwfch and Abbey Wood vfa Gafffons Reach DLR the road, however they coufd take around haff an hour to cross on foot. As a statfon, the new crossfng and Thamesmead. Thfs optfon coufd be weff fntegrated brfdge woufd be around 50 metres above the Thames, ft woufd be a fong cffmb wfth a number of potentfaf new devefopment sftes, provfdfng the new capacfty and and affected at tfmes by poor weather. Lffts coufd be provfded to hefp pedestrfans connectfons that coufd affow thfs growth to take pface. and cycffsts access a brfdge from ground fevef, to avofd the fong approach ramps. Whffe ft coufd afso be more strafghtforward and fess costfy than the DLR to create To accommodate pedestrfans and cycffsts fn a tunnef, a separate compartment new tram ffnks beyond the crossfng ftseff, ft woufd requfre an fnterchange to access wfthfn the tunnef woufd need to be bufft for safety reasons. Thfs woufd have the the DLR network on the north sfde of the crossfng. beneft of weather protectfon, but ft coufd be very expensfve to construct and there may be chaffenges fn makfng ft feef safe at aff tfmes of the day. Thfs consuftatfon fs seekfng vfews on whether you thfnk you mfght use a crossfng on foot or on a bfcycfe, to hefp us understand the ffkefy fevef of demand for these facffftfes.

Artfst’s fmpressfon of a Tram servfce over a crossfng at Gafffons Reach

16 17 A12 A12

Traffc fmpacts A12 The Gafffons Reach and Befvedere rfver crossfngs woufd change traffc patterns fn east and southeast London. Thfs fs because some drfvers woufd change thefr route to take advantage of the new crossfngs, fncreasfng traffcA10 on some roads whffe reducfng ft on others. Some road users woufd be abfe to make shorter journeys, Rd Cfrcufar N Barkfng reducfng traffc fn some areas, but ft may afso mean that some new journeys are Cannfng A1306 made to take advantage of the new opportunftfes the crossfngs provfde. Town A12 In generaf, we expect traffc to decrease on certafn routes, such as other rfver A13 A1020 Rafnham crossfngs and the roads approachfng them, such as the A2. We expect traffc to Beckton Gafffons Reach fncrease on the roads approachfng the new crossfngs, such as the A406, A13 and Crossfng A1216 Befvedere A13 roads fn the north of Bexfey and Greenwfch. Thamesmead Crossfng Canary Sffvertown The proposed user charge woufd hefp to ensure that traffc vofumes do not Wharf cause sfgnffcant probfems efsewhere on the focaf road network, and woufd A206 A206 dfscourage drfvers seekfng to avofd the charges at other crossfngs. Rotherhfthe Woofwfch The map opposfte hfghffghts the mafn routes whfch our fnftfaf modefffng shows Befvedere

coufd experfence changes fn traffc durfng the mornfng peak. Purpfe ffnes fndfcate A2 where traffc coufd decrease and orange ffnes fndfcate where traffc coufd A102 A207 fncrease. Roads fn grey woufd not be ffkefy to see sfgnffcant change. KEY A20 Four + fane road Because of the ffmfted crossfng opportunftfes fn east London, ft can take a fong A206 M25 Two fane road A207 tfme to travef between pfaces on efther sfde of the rfver. These crossfngs woufd Lfkefy trafcA205 decrease reduce the tfme taken to get to the other sfde of the rfver. Lfkefy trafc fncrease Some expected reductfons fn peak journey tfme (by car) are:

• Thamesmead to Barkfng - around 40 mfnutes A20 Traffc fmpacts as a resuft of both crossfngs befng bufft • Rafnham to Erfth - around 20 mfnutes We wfff modef these changes fn more detaff and may propose changes to the road network to ensure traffc fs managed approprfatefy. The effect of the A2 crossfngs on traffc woufd afso be affected by any other changes made to the A205 focaf road networks; for exampfe, the emergfng growth pfans for the area coufd

create new road ffnks whfchA20 may fnfuence traffc patterns. More detaffed fnformatfon on the ffkefy effects of the schemes on traffc can be found fn the supportfng documents – see page 23.

18 19 Envfronmentaf fmpacts More detaff on the hfgh fevef envfronmentaf study can be found fn the We have undertaken a hfgh fevef envfronmentaf study so we have an fnftfaf supportfng documents – see page 23. More detaffed envfronmentaf understandfng of the potentfaf envfronmentaf fmpacts of these two crossfngs. fnvestfgatfons wfff be undertaken as the project progresses. Thfs study fooked fnto possfbfe fmpacts on afr quaffty nofse, vfsuaf and urban Fundfng these crossfngs surroundfngs, ground condftfons and materfafs, and focaf ecofogy. Each crossfng coufd cost fn the order of £1 bffffon. However the fnaf costs depend Afr quaffty on some decfsfons that stfff need to be made – such as whether they are brfdges or Prevfous fnvestfgatfons have consfdered afr quaffty fmpacts of each crossfng tunnefs, whether they fncfude facffftfes for pedestrfans and cycffsts, or fncfude a raff separatefy. Sfnce the fast consuftatfon, we have fooked at the potentfaf afr crossfng – and some factors outsfde our controf, such as future fnfatfon. Other quaffty fmpacts of both crossfngs together. Thfs fnvofved a hfgh fevef assessment factors whfch are currentfy uncertafn fncfude the ground condftfons, and changes to

of the potentfaf change fn afr quaffty (specffcaffy Nftrogen Dfoxfde, NO 2) the road network efsewhere (such as sfgnafs and junctfons) whfch coufd be requfred concentratfons as a resuft of vehfcfe emfssfons at a number of focatfons as a resuft of the scheme. surroundfng the crossfngs. The crossfngs woufd be partfy funded by chargfng vehfcfes to use them. Thfs charge

As woufd be expected, the resufts of the assessment fndfcate that NO 2 woufd afso hefp to manage the demand for the new crossfngs. concentratfons woufd be ffkefy to fncrease fn areas wfth fncreased traffc, We envfsage that peak perfod charges woufd be comparabfe to the proposed and decrease where roads become fess busy. charge for the Bfackwaff and Sffvertown tunnefs and those at the Dartford crossfng, Overaff, the assessment fndfcated that there woufd be breaches of the fegaf afthough no decfsfons have yet been made on the exact cost. There woufd be ffmfts, both wfth and wfthout the scheme, but there woufd be no addftfonaf scope for dfscounts and exemptfons, based on, for exampfe, the emfssfons of focatfons where afr quaffty woufd breach fegaf ffmfts as a resuft of the scheme. the vehfcfe. We wfff undertake further detaffed modefffng and specffc fnvestfgatfons as the It fs too earfy to determfne exactfy whfch fnancfng arrangement we woufd use to desfgn of the scheme progresses. Any proposafs taken forward wfff be subject deffver the crossfngs. We wfff consfder a range of optfons fncfudfng TfL or to rfgorous assessment to ensure they compfy wfth afr quaffty standards set out government fnancfng, borrowfng or prfvate fnance. fn poffcy and fegfsfatfon.

Vfsuaf fmpact, nofse and ecofogy Effects on other envfronmentaf factors wfff vary, dependfng on the type of crossfng that fs constructed. Tunnefs woufd be ffkefy to have more constructfon- refated fmpacts on focaf ecofogy than brfdges, afthough our current assessment of thfs rfsk fndfcates that ft coufd be managed to reduce any negatfve fmpact. Brfdges woufd requfre fong approach ramps as weff as the mafn structure, and woufd therefore have a greater vfsuaf fmpact on nefghbourfng communftfes than tunnefs. Brfdges woufd afso be ffkefy to create more nofse and vfbratfon than a tunnef. Further work fs requfred to concfude how sfgnffcant these fmpacts mfght be and what forms of mftfgatfon woufd be requfred.

20 21 Tfmfng and next steps Supportfng documents Authorfsatfon to construct the Gafffons Reach and Befvedere rfver crossfngs wfff We have produced supportfng materfafs that contafn a farge amount of need to be granted by the Government. Subject to authorfsatfon befng gfven and fnformatfon about the scheme. We understand you may not have the tfme to read fundfng befng avaffabfe, the new crossfngs coufd open around 2025. through them aff, so we have created a gufde that wfff hefp you fnd where you can read more about a partfcufar topfc. The foffowfng shows an fndfcatfve tfmeffne and next steps for the Gafffons Reach and Befvedere rfver crossfngs. If you’re fnterested fn… You shoufd fook at… Sectfon… The overaff case for Strategfc Outffne Chapter 3 the new crossfngs Busfness Case NOW – • Non-statutory consuftatfon Feb 2016 Optfon Assessment Report – Long Lfst Chapter 6 How we narrowed down Optfon Assessment March • Report on outcome of consuftatfon pubffc transport optfons 2016 Report – Pubffc Aff Transport Interfm Lfst • Agreement on fundfng More detaffed drawfngs of Brfdge and tunnef Aff 2017 • Decfsfon to proceed the brfdge and tunnef optfons drawfngs Traffc fmpacts and traffc Traffc Impact Report Aff modefffng

2017/18 • Statutory consuftatfon Envfronmentaf fmpacts and Envfronmentaf Aff potentfaf mftfgatfon measures Optfons Report

• Submft appffcatfon for the powers needed to buffd the scheme How much wfff these proposafs 2018 Strategfc Outffne cost and how we are proposfng Chapters 4 and 5 Busfness Case to fund them How we have consfdered • Contract award Optfon Assessment 2021 pedestrfans and cycffsts as Chapter 5 Report – Long Lfst part of the scheme User chargfng as a means Strategfc Outffne • Estfmated compfetfon of managfng demand on Chapter 3 2025 Busfness Case the crossfngs

Aff of the materfafs are avaffabfe on our websfte at tf.gov.uk/east-fondon-crossfngs We can afso provfde paper or efectronfc copfes of the consuftatfon documents on request. To request a document pfease contact us on the detaffs outffned overfeaf.

22 23 Have your say We’d ffke to know whether you support the Gafffons Reach and Befvedere rfver crossfngs, as weff as how you thfnk you woufd use these new crossfngs (whether by vehfcfe, on foot, by bfcycfe, by pubffc transport etc). We woufd afso ffke to know where you woufd ffke fmproved pubffc transport connectfons. To have your say, pfease vfsft our websfte tf.gov.uk/east-fondon-crossfngs and fff fn the onffne questfonnafre. You may afso emaff your comments to [email protected] or wrfte to ‘FREEPOST TfL CONSULTATIONS’. Don’t forget to provfde your postcode, as thfs wfff hefp fmmensefy when anafysfng the resufts. The cfosfng date for feedback fs Frfday 12 February 2016. More fnformatfon If you have any further questfons or to request a copy of thfs feafet fn Brafffe, farge-text or another fanguage, pfease contact us by emaff [email protected] or by cafffng 0343 222 1155.* *servfce and network charges may appfy. Vfsft tf.gov.uk/terms for detaffs.

Prfnted on recycfed 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

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

Nov Dec Dec Dec Dec Jan Jan Jan Jan Feb Feb ------

30 07 14 21 28 04 11 18 25 01 08 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/ 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

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.

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.

Appendix H – Consultation questionnaire

Our proposals

The closing date for any comments is 12 February 2016.

1. Do you support new crossings at Gallions R each and Belvedere?

 Y es I support both crossings  I support G allions R each 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) P lease help us to identify local issues to this question by providing your postcode in the ‘About you’ s ection.

 Abbey Wood  Dagenham  R ainham  B arking  East Ham  R omford  B arking R iverside  E ltham  R oyal Docks  Belvedere  E rith  S tra tford  Bexleyheath  Greenwich  Thamesmead  Canary Wharf  Hornchurch  Woolwich  C entral London  Ilford  Other (please specify)  C ity Airport  L ewisham ______

3. If we build a new crossing at Gallions R each, 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 R each

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, HG V, 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?  Received an email from TfL  R ead about it in the press  T hrough social media  S aw an advert on the TfL website  Other (please advise)

P lease 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)

Appendix I – Steer Davis Gleave consultation report

Gallions Reach and Transport for London

Belvedere River Crossings Consultation

Report Our ref: 22886701

March 2016

Prepared by: Prepared for:

Steer Davies Gleave Transport for London 28-32 Upper Ground Lauren Barton London SE1 9PD TfL Planning Transport for London Windsor House, 42-50 Victoria Street London, SW1H 0TL

+44 20 7910 5000 www.steerdaviesgleave.com

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.

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

March 2016 Gallions Reach and Belvedere River Crossings Consultation | Report

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 | 1 Gallions Reach and Belvedere River Crossings Consultation | Report

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 | 2 Gallions Reach and Belvedere River Crossings Consultation | Report

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 | 3 Gallions Reach and Belvedere River Crossings Consultation | Report

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 | 4 Gallions Reach and Belvedere River Crossings Consultation | Report

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 | 5 Gallions Reach and Belvedere River Crossings Consultation | Report

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 | 6 Gallions Reach and Belvedere River Crossings Consultation | Report

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 | 7 Gallions Reach and Belvedere River Crossings Consultation | Report

Figure 3.1: Distribution of respondents to the consultation

March 2016 | 8 Gallions Reach and Belvedere River Crossings Consultation | Report

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 | 9 Gallions Reach and Belvedere River Crossings Consultation | Report

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

Greenwich 21% (729) 3% 2% 1%

Bexley 19% (681) 5% (172) 2% 1%

Newham 9% (305) 1%

Havering 8% (279) 1%

Barking & 6% (213) Dagenham

Lewisham 3%

Redbridge 3%

Tower Hamlets 2%

Bromley 1%

Southwark 1%

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30%

Yes I support both crossings I don’t support either crossing I support Gallions Reach only I support Belvedere only Not answered

March 2016 | 10 Gallions Reach and Belvedere River Crossings Consultation | Report

Table 3.2: Level of support in top ten boroughs, by number of respondents

Yes I I don’t I support I support support support Not Total London Borough Gallions Belvedere both either answered responses Reach only only crossings crossing 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 213 6% 3 0% 17 0% 13 0% 0 0% 246 7% Dagenham 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 | 11 Gallions Reach and Belvedere River Crossings Consultation | Report

Figure 3.4: Respondents’ level of support by borough

March 2016 | 12 Gallions Reach and Belvedere River Crossings Consultation | Report

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 | 13 Gallions Reach and Belvedere River Crossings Consultation | Report

Table 3.4: Top ten most popular ‘other’ destinations Proportion of Destination Number of respondents 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;  Greenwich;  Barking;  Hornchurch and Upminster;  Barking Riverside;  Ilford;  Beckton;  Rainham;  Belvedere;  Romford;  Bexleyheath;  Royal Docks;  Blackheath;  Sidcup and Bexley;  Charlton;  Stratford and West Ham;  Dagenham;  Thamesmead;  Dartford;  Thurrock;  East Ham;  Welling; and  Eltham;  Woolwich.  Erith; 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 | 14 Gallions Reach and Belvedere River Crossings Consultation | Report

Figure 3.5: Interest areas

March 2016 | 15 Gallions Reach and Belvedere River Crossings Consultation | Report Figure 3.6: Top ten desire lines for improved public transport links

March 2016 | 16 Gallions Reach and Belvedere River Crossings Consultation | Report

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 | 17 Gallions Reach and Belvedere River Crossings Consultation | Report Figure 3.7: Desire lines for improved public transport links – destinations south of the Thames, originating in the north of London

March 2016 | 18 Gallions Reach and Belvedere River Crossings Consultation | Report Figure 3.8: Desire lines for improved public transport links – destinations north of the Thames, originating in the south of London

March 2016 | 19 Gallions Reach and Belvedere River Crossings Consultation | Report

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

Proportion of Number of respondents Crossing Mode responses 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 | 20 Gallions Reach and Belvedere River Crossings Consultation | Report

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

Proportion of Number of respondents Crossing Mode responses 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 | 21 Gallions Reach and Belvedere River Crossings Consultation | Report

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 | 22 Gallions Reach and Belvedere River Crossings Consultation | Report

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 | 23 Gallions Reach and Belvedere River Crossings Consultation | Report

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 | 24 Gallions Reach and Belvedere River Crossings Consultation | Report

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 | 25 Gallions Reach and Belvedere River Crossings Consultation | Report

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

3.35 Proportion of 3.32 Sub- 3.31 Theme 3.33 Description 3.34 Total Comments respondents theme 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 | 26 Gallions Reach and Belvedere River Crossings Consultation | Report

3.35 Proportion of 3.32 Sub- 3.31 Theme 3.33 Description 3.34 Total Comments respondents theme 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 G1 Support 133 6.0% Cycling 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 | 27 Gallions Reach and Belvedere River Crossings Consultation | Report

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 862 38.8% New crossings will provide more E. London crossing options 183 8.2% General comment of support 180 8.1% Against Scheme - no need for further investment in roads 124 5.6% infrastructure, support public transport crossings only New river crossings will support redevelopment in east 60 2.7% London Will support local economy (job growth, access to 51 2.3% employment) Public transport, walking and cycling options should be 50 2.2% prioritised over road crossings Infrastructure 443 19.9% Favour tunnel at Gallions Reach 64 2.9% Favour tunnels over bridges for weather or shipping reasons 61 2.7% Favour bridge at Belvedere 54 2.4% Favour tunnel at Belvedere 53 2.4% Public 634 28.5% Transport In favour of DLR extension from Gallions Reach to 164 7.4% Thamesmead Support public transport improvements as part of scheme 153 6.9% Support development of bus network (including cross river 55 2.5% night bus service, bus lanes) Support Tram 53 2.4% Road Network 180 8.1% Surrounding road network needs to be improved, including 96 4.3% links to strategic road network to handle traffic generated by scheme Scheme should prioritise increasing road capacity and 54 2.4% quality. (Support two+ general use lanes each way) Traffic 801 36.0% Concern over increased traffic as a result of the schemes 286 12.9% New crossings will alleviate congestion at other crossing 211 9.5% points New crossings will ease local congestion 116 5.2% Belvedere - Concern about local traffic increase 45 2.0% User Charge 349 15.7% Crossings should be free to use 135 6.1% Inequality in the charging of east and west London river 73 3.3% crossings Walking and 202 9.1% Cycling Support Walking and cycling options 117 1.8%

March 2016 | 28 Gallions Reach and Belvedere River Crossings Consultation | Report

Theme Key comments Count Proportion

Environment 299 13.5% Concern over poor air quality as a result of traffic generated 164 7.4% via the schemes General 149 6.7% Build ASAP/Sooner than 2025 104 1.6% No Response to question 5 2,314 51.3%

Irrelevant Comment/Out of scope 86 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 | 29 Gallions Reach and Belvedere River Crossings Consultation | Report

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 | 30 Gallions Reach and Belvedere River Crossings Consultation | Report

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

3.56 Proportion 3.53 Theme 3.54 Comment 3.55 Count of responses Positive comment 1,671 33.6% Satisfied with consultation 444 21.8% Good level of detail/high quality/well presented 433 21.3% Excellent/very good 359 17.6% The consultation is clear/clear language used 191 9.4% Constructive comment 673 82.1% More detailed plans/diagrams/maps needed 117 5.7% Consultation requires better publicity e.g. leafleting in affected areas, social media campaign 115 5.6% Not answered 2,469 54.7%

Out of scope/irrelevant comment 159 7.8% Total comments 2,036 115.1%

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.

March 2016 | 31 Gallions Reach and Belvedere River Crossings Consultation | Report

A Questionnaire

March 2016 | 32 Gallions Reach and Belvedere River Crossings Consultation | Report

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  Stratford  Barking  Thamesmead  Barking Riverside  Woolwich  Belvedere  Other (please specify)  Bexleyheath ______ Canary Wharf  Central London  City Airport  Dagenham  East Ham  Eltham  Erith  Greenwich  Hornchurch  Ilford  Lewisham  Rainham  Romford  Royal Docks

March 2016 | 33 Gallions Reach and Belvedere River Crossings Consultation | Report

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 | 34 Gallions Reach and Belvedere River Crossings Consultation | Report

 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 | 35 Gallions Reach and Belvedere River Crossings Consultation | Report

B Data Tables

March 2016 | 36 Gallions Reach and Belvedere River Crossings Consultation | Report Table 0.1: Level of support by London borough

I support Yes I support I don’t support I support London Borough Gallions Reach Not answered Total responses both crossings either crossing Belvedere only only

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 | 37 Gallions Reach and Belvedere River Crossings Consultation | Report

I support Yes I support I don’t support I support London Borough Gallions Reach Not answered Total responses both crossings either crossing Belvedere only only

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%

March 2016 | 38

CONTROL INFORMATION

Prepared by Prepared for Steer Davies Gleave Transport for London 28-32 Upper Ground Lauren Barton London SE1 9PD TfL Planning +44 20 7910 5000 Transport for London www.steerdaviesgleave.com 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 Transport for London 28-32 Upper Ground Lauren Barton London SE1 9PD TfL Planning +44 20 7910 5000 Transport for London www.steerdaviesgleave.com 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

P:\Projects\228\8\67\01\Work\Report\River Crossings Draft Report 0.6.docx

Control Information

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