Rotherhithe to Canary Wharf Crossing Consultation Report

RotherhitheRotherhithe to to Canary Canary Wharf Wharf crossing crossing

ConsultationConsultation Report Report MarchMarch 2018 2018 Contents

1. About the proposals ...... 5 2. About the consultation ...... 10 3. About the respondents ...... 16 4. Summary of all consultation responses ...... 25 5. Next steps ...... 74 Appendix A: Detailed analysis of comments ...... 75 Appendix B: Questions that we asked about our proposals ...... 112 Appendix C: Consultation Postcard ...... 119 Appendix D Copy of Factsheets ...... 121 Appendix E Stakeholder List ...... 137 Appendix F Press and online advertising ...... 141 Appendix G Campaigns and Petitions ...... 146

2 Executive summary

This document explains the processes, responses and outcomes of the consultation on the Rotherhithe to Canary Wharf crossing proposal. Between 8 November 2017 and 8 January 2018, we consulted on proposals for a new River Thames crossing between Rotherhithe and Canary Wharf for pedestrians and cyclists. We received 6,094 responses to the public consultation, of which 93 per cent strongly supported or supported our proposal for a new crossing between Rotherhithe and Canary Wharf. Our preferred option of a navigable bridge was supported by 85 per cent. The Northern Alignment had the strongest support with 79 per cent for this location for the bridge, with many stating this was due to the convenience and anticipated demand being greater at this location. 55 per cent of respondents supported the Central alignment and 29 per cent the Southern alignment. We also received 47 responses from stakeholders. Summaries of stakeholder responses are summarised in Section 4.8.

Summary of issues raised during consultation

The main themes are highlighted below, with detailed analysis in Section 4. Many people who responded to the consultation stated that the crossing would benefit cyclists and pedestrians, was long overdue and would improve convenience and connectivity for those living, working or travelling to the area. It was mentioned that the crossing would alleviate congestion on existing routes, and have a positive environmental impact, as it would provide a greener travel option. Whilst the majority of respondents supported a bridge, some questioned whether the bridge was the best option, asking whether a ferry or tunnel would better serve the needs of those living, working or travelling through the area. Some were of the opinion that a crossing was not needed in this location, while others mentioned the needs of car users, suggesting that a new river crossing should accommodate vehicles in order to relieve road congestion. While many were excited about the prospect of an iconic bridge, some also raised concern over whether the bridge would have a negative visual impact. Others were concerned over the cost of the bridge. There was a spread of support for both the high and low bridge, and many people cited no preference. However, the higher bridge was slightly preferred, in recognition that the bridge must accommodate the needs of a range of users. Many recognised that a higher bridge needs longer ramps, or more stairs, making accessing it less

3 convenient for pedestrians and cyclists, but that a lower bridge would result in more openings, which would cause more frequent disruptions for all. On balance, people stated that a lower bridge would be more aesthetically pleasing. For cyclists, the ramp was preferred as a means of access and many respondents mentioned the need to segregate cyclists and pedestrians on the bridge.

Next steps We are now reviewing comments made during the consultation. We will publish our response to issues raised document during the summer.

We will also update as to any changes to the proposals when we publish our response to issues raised.

4 1. About the proposals

1.1 Introduction We are investigating the feasibility of providing a new walking and cycling crossing of the River Thames between Rotherhithe and Canary Wharf. This project is one of a number of potential new river crossings for London which are intended to improve cross-river connectivity. These proposed crossings would consist of new public transport, vehicle, pedestrian and cycle links.

It is forecast that there will be growth in cycling across London, employment growth in Canary Wharf and population growth, particularly in the Canada Water area due to new residential and mixed use development. This will generate an increase in journeys including a greater demand for walking and cycling facilities in the area.

At present there is a lack of infrastructure to accommodate cyclists and pedestrians wishing to cross the River Thames east of Tower Bridge to access Canary Wharf. The Jubilee line is also currently operating close to capacity during peak times. A new river crossing would contribute towards accommodating the growth in Canada Water and Canary Wharf.

Both Canary Wharf and Canada Water have been identified as Opportunity Areas in the London Plan which between them are expected to accommodate over 36,000 new homes and 112,000 new jobs. Given the scale and proposed growth in these two Opportunity Areas, a preferred crossing corridor was identified between Rotherhithe to Canary Wharf and our recommendation was for a ‘navigable Bridge’ for pedestrian and cyclists. Other options were investigated including a tunnel, cable car and an enhanced ferry.

The key objectives of the Rotherhithe to Canary Wharf river crossing are:

• To connect the two Opportunity Areas of Canada Water and the Isle of Dogs;

• To improve connectivity from the Rotherhithe peninsula, particularly the area beyond the walking catchment of Canada Water station;

• To encourage more people to walk and cycle in the area;

• To provide additional capacity and routes for cyclists as an alternative option to existing crossings in the area;

• To produce a well designed and convenient link which achieves value for money and is fundable; and

5 • To provide an alternative link to the Jubilee line between Canada Water and Canary Wharf.

A new crossing between Rotherhithe to Canary Wharf has been promoted by a wide number of stakeholders for over a decade and the Mayor included a commitment to the crossing in his manifesto.

Following the Mayor’s appointment, TfL commenced work to consider the feasibility and value of different crossing options. The crossing features in ‘A City for All Londoners’, ‘Healthy Streets for London’ and both the draft and final ‘Mayor’s Transport Strategy’ and the draft London Plan.

1.2 Purpose We wanted to establish public and stakeholder views on proposals for a new crossing over the River Thames for pedestrians and cyclists from Rotherhithe to Canary Wharf.

We have been working closely with the London Boroughs of Tower Hamlets and Southwark to explore options for a new crossing between Rotherhithe and Canary Wharf.

Following our Options Assessment we consulted on the recommended option of a navigable bridge.

We asked consultees for their views on:

1. Whether they support the proposed river crossing from Rotherhithe to Canary Wharf

2. Our preferred option of a bridge

3. Possible alignments and landing points

4. The height of the bridge

This consultation report summarises the findings of a public consultation on proposals for a new river crossing between Rotherhithe and Canary Wharf for pedestrians and cyclists.

1.3 Detailed description of potential bridge options While our recommendation is a navigable bridge, it is important to note that no final decisions have yet been made and we wanted views on this to help finalise this decision.

6 A navigable bridge is a complex and unique proposal. We have therefore begun investigating this option in greater detail to better understand a number of factors, such as the location, design, land requirements, cost and the need for it to open for larger vessels. To assist this investigation, we sought views on different aspects of a navigable bridge as part of this consultation, including the location, height and other considerations.

We consulted on our three preferred bridge location options which are:

Option 1: Northern Alignment

A bridge along the Northern Alignment could land in a new public space around the Hilton Hotel in Nelson Dock on the south side of the river and connect directly with Westferry Circus and the Thames Path on the north side.

Pros:

• The Nelson Dock landing site may allow for a more direct route through Pearson’s Park to Salter Road and the National Cycle Network

• The higher ground level at Westferry Circus allows for potentially shorter ramped access to a bridge

• Westferry Circus provides a suitable area for a bridge landing with adjacent commercial activity and good access to the wider transport network

Cons:

• Impacts on private commercial land including the Hilton Doubletree Docklands hotel

• Adjacent to heritage buildings around Nelson Dock

7 • May require reconfiguration works to the highway at Westferry Circus

Option 2: Central Alignment

A bridge along the Central Alignment would land in Durand’s Wharf Park on the south side of the river and connect with Westferry Road and the Thames Path around the existing West India Impound Lock site on the north side of the river.

Pros:

• Space for ramps could be available in Durand’s Wharf Park

• The area above the Impound Lock is not currently used (aside from maintaining the lock) or proposed for development

Cons:

• This alignment gives the longest movable span and therefore would have the longest duration for bridge openings

• Close proximity to residential buildings

• Changes to the use of public space at Durand’s Wharf

Option 3: Southern Alignment

A bridge along the Southern Alignment would land in Durand’s Wharf Park on the south side of the river and in West India Dock Pier on the north side of the river.

Pros:

• Bridge perpendicular to the straightest part of the river reducing construction costs, risks and opening times

Cons:

• Close proximity to residential buildings

• There is no adequate space for a ramp, so West India Dock Pier would require additional lift capacity which could impact on adjacent properties

• Vehicle access to adjacent properties and the junction of Cuba Street with Westferry Road pose a challenge to integrating cyclists/ pedestrians with the existing road network

• Changes to the use of public space at Durand’s Wharf

• The furthest away from the centre of the commercial activity at Canary Wharf

8 Height

We have been working with the Port of London Authority to investigate different options for the height and span of the bridge over the river. This heavily influences how the bridge opens for larger vessels on the river; the frequency and duration of openings; the visual impact of the bridge; and how easy it is to access for users. We sought views on the optimum height of a bridge option.

Higher bridge

A higher bridge would open less often for river traffic reducing disruption for both bridge users and boats, but would be more difficult to access, with taller ramps, lifts or stairs adding additional time to journeys. A higher bridge could also potentially have a greater visual impact.

Lower bridge

A lower bridge could be more accessible, have a lesser visual impact, and require less land either side of the river. However, it would need to open more frequently to allow vessels to pass causing more regular disruption to journeys.

There were also other bridge options presented on factsheets online and at the public events that took place. A copy of these factsheets can be found in Appendix D.

We provided a detailed report online summarising how the project arrived at bridge option that was consulted on. The report also contained the project objectives and the transport context for the area. This report can be found by following this link. https://consultations.tfl.gov.uk/++preview++/rivercrossings/rotherhithe- canarywharf/user_uploads/r2cw---background-to-consultation-report.pdf

The report is also available in pdf form online.

9 2. About the consultation

2.1 Purpose The objectives of the consultation were:

• To give stakeholders and the public easy to understand information about the proposals and allow them to respond

• To understand the level of support or opposition for the proposals

• To understand any issues that might affect the proposal of which we were not previously aware

• To understand concerns and objections

• To allow respondents to make suggestions

2.2 Potential outcomes The potential outcomes of the consultation are:

• Following careful consideration of the consultation responses, we decide to proceed with the scheme as set out in the consultation

• Following careful consideration of the consultation responses, we modify the proposals in response to issues raised and proceed with a revised scheme

• Following careful consideration of the consultation responses, we decide not to proceed with the scheme Our conclusion and next steps are set out in Chapter 5.

2.3 Consultation history This is the first public consultation that has taken place for this project. However, Pre-consultation engagement, in the form of stakeholder meetings and community workshops informed the consultation content and approach.

10 2.4 Who we consulted We consulted the local communities on both sides of the river. This included residents, neighbourhood groups, land owners and businesses.

We also consulted the wider areas of London on both sides of the river, with the objective being to give people travelling through the area now and or in the future an opportunity to view our proposals. We produced a post card which was distributed to over 147,000 properties. A map of the area we distributed the post card to can be found in Appendix C

A copy of the post card can also be found in Appendix C.

We also consulted local and London wide stakeholders seeking their views on the proposals. A full list of the stakeholders we consulted can be found in Appendix E.

2.5 Dates and duration The consultation was open between 8 November 2017 and 8 January 2018.

2.6 What we asked Our consultation sought views on the following:

• The overall need for a new river crossing • Support or opposition our preferred option of a navigable bridge • Potential locations and alignments for the bridge. Consultees could provide their views on each of the options • Possible height of the bridge. An image of what the lower and higher bridge may look like was provided • What was important to them about design aspects of the bridge by providing a tick box section with various options that could be selected • How people would use the bridge and what was their preference when accessing the bridge, taking in to consideration ramps and lift options • Views on the standard of the consultation material

We then provided a free text box where consultees could provide feedback on the proposals.

There were then questions about the consultee, equality monitoring questions, name and email address information. We also asked for the post code so we could analyse the results by consultees location.

A full list of the questions we asked can be found in Appendix B.

11 2.7 Methods of responding We invited consultees to respond via our consultation tool using our online questionnaire. Respondents could also email replies to [email protected] [email protected]. People could also write to us at Freepost TfL consultations. There was also a telephone number set up for people to be able to call our customer services department and give their views.

2.8 Consultation materials and publicity We used a variety of different methods to seek as many views as possible from people who may have a view on our proposals or who may be impacted by them.

2.8.1 Website Our proposals were online at tfl.gov.uk/R2CW-crossing.

2.8.2 Posted material We publicised the consultation website and proposals by distributing over 147,000 post cards. A copy of the post card can be found in Appendix C and a map of our consultation distribution area can also be found in Appendix C.

2.8.3 Emails to public We sent an email to over 350,000 people who have registered with TfL using either modal or geographical informaiton. A copy of this email can be found in Appendix H.

2.8.4 Emails to stakeholders We sent an email to all stakeholders from the TfL consultation email address. A copy of all the stakeholders who the email was sent to can be found in Appendix E and a copy of the email can be found in Appendix H.

2.8.5 Press and media activity The proposals and consultation were advertised on the Metro TfL page. A copy of the press ad used can be found in Appendix F.

There was a press release on the day the consultation launched, a copy of the press release can be found in Appendix F.

12 2.8.6 Public meetings, events and exhibitions We held five public events for the consultation. Near the event venues, people were handing out the post cards to raise the profile of the consultation and the proposals. The event details are below.

• Saturday 18 November 2017 1230-1630 held at Canada Water Library, Second floor, Room 5, 21 Surrey Quays Road, London, SE16 7A. Approximate number of attendees was 91 • Thursday 23 November 2017 1100-1900 held at Canada Water Library, Second floor, Room 5, 21 Surrey Quays Road, London, SE16 7A. Approximate number of attendees was 65 • Thursday 23 November 2017 0800-1000 staff were at Canada Water Underground station, Jubilee line ticket hall, Deal Porter Way, Surrey Quays, SE16. Approximately 1000 postcards were handed out with some people stopping to ask questions. Due to the venue numbers were not able to be recorded here • Saturday 25 November 2017 1100-1500 held at Alpha Grove Community Centre, Alpha Grove, Isle of Dogs, London E14 8LH Approximate number of attendees was 30 • Thursday 30 November 2017 08:00-19:00 staff were at Canary Wharf underground station, Jubilee line ticket hall, Canary Wharf, London E14 5NY. Approximately 3000 leaflets were distributed. People were stopping to talk to staff however numbers were not able to be recorded

2.8.7 Campaigns

There was a campaign by London Cycling Campaign (LCC) which provided a template for respondents to complete and submit using the email address. We received 100 emails from this campaign.

The LCC campaign strongly supports the proposals for a river crossing. They also supported a navigable bridge option. The emails also supported the northern alignment for the bridge.

A copy of the email text can be found in Appendix G.

The Bridge Action Group had a social media campaign on a Facebook Page “NoRotherhitheBridge” The same group also had a Twitter campaign @bridge_no. The Bridge Action Group also had a petition on Change.org platform, Thames River Protection Group Against The Rotherhithe Bridge, this petition is summarised in section 2.8.8.

The campaign highlighted the consultation and promoted people to take part in the exercise.

13 2.8.8 Petitions There were three petitions available for people to sign during this consultation. One supports the proposals, one is opposed and one proposes a different crossing alternative. None of the petitions were formally submitted to Transport for London or the Greater London Authority at the time of producing this report.

All three petitions used Change.org as the platform. The three petitions are summarised below:

Thames River Protection Group Against The Rotherhithe Bridge’s petition had 519 online signatures. A copy of the petitioning statement can be found in Appendix G. https://www.change.org/p/london-authorities-canary-wharf-riverside-natural- landscape-protection-against-the-rotherhithe- bridge?recruiter=622450511&utm_source=share_for_starters&utm_medium=copyLi nk

The Canary Wharf River Protection Group’s petition suggest an eco friendly ferry crossing alternative to the bridge option. The petition had 201 online signatures https://www.change.org/p/the-london-mayor-and-london-local-authorities-for-an-eco- ferry-boat-crossing-for-pedestrians-cyclists-between-rotherhithe-canary-wharf

David Mansfield’s petition supports the bridge proposals. The petition had 534 online signatures. https://www.change.org/p/sadiq-khan-yes-to-a-rotherhithe-bridge

2.9 Analysis of consultation responses Due to the amount of open questions asked in this consultation and the predicted number of responses, analysis of the consultation responses was supported by 2CV research.

All closed questions were reviewed and the results tabulated and reported.

All open questions, where respondents provided comments were read and analysed in detail. Each individual comment was attributed to one or more codes according to the issues raised.

A code frame was developed for each of the open questions, consisting of a series of themes, which contained detailed comments (or “codes”) capturing the sentiment of each respondent who left an open text response. During the coding process, each open text response was analysed and either a new code was created or the response was added to one or more of the existing codes within the code frame. As an iterative process, some codes were merged as similar themes emerged. This

14 process created a quantitative value for each code and theme which were used to rank themes.

Initially, the first 300 comments for each open question were coded to develop initial code frames based on emerging comments and themes. These were agreed between 2CV and TfL before all remaining open responses received were coded. To ensure consistency of coding, checks were made on the coding by 2CV’sProject Director.

In Chapter 4, responses to open questions are summarised and analysed. To summarise the results, themes into which responses have been categorised are displayed, along with any responses made by at least 3 per cent of respondents. A brief analysis of responses is provided above the table summarising the results of each open question. Full breakdowns of the results for each open question are provided in Appendix A.

All results are reported in Chapter 3, Chapter 4, and Appendix A of this report.

15 3. About the respondents

This chapter provides more information on respondents to this consultation, based on the information they provided in the online questionnaire. For a full list of consultation questions, see Appendix B.

3.1 Number of respondents A total of 6,140 respondents responded to the consultation, including 47 stakeholders.

Stakeholder responses are those submitted by individuals who indicate that they are responding on behalf of a political or other organisation, business or campaign group. Of the 47 stakeholder responses, 23 responded via the public consultation online questionnaire and 24 by letter or email.

Stakeholder responses are excluded from the public consultation responses in Sections 4.1 to 4.7. Summaries of stakeholder responses can be found in Section 4.8.

Respondents Total % Public responses 6,094 99% Stakeholder responses 47 1% Total 6,141 100%

Table 1 Type of respondent.

16 3.2 How respondents heard about the consultation We asked respondents to tell us how they heard about the consultation. A total of 5,801 out of 6,094 public respondents answered this question.

How respondents heard Total % Table 2 How respondent Received an email from TfL 2,984 51% heard about consultation. Social media 1,110 19% Received an letter from TfL 453 8% Read about in the press 442 8% Saw it on the TfL website 187 3% From a friend/ neighbour/ acquaintance 181 3% Through work 112 2% Received a leaflet from TfL 68 1% Through cycle groups 54 1% Word of mouth 33 1% From family 29 1% Through a residents’ association 29 1%

By email (unspecified) 22 <1%

Email from London Cycling Campaign 18 <1% Sustrans 15 <1% Google 13 <1% Local councillor 11 <1% Londonist 7 <1% Marina Office 6 <1% Internet (unspecified) 5 <1% Many sources 5 <1% Other 47 1% Total 5,801 100%

17 3.3 Postcodes of respondents Of the 6,094 public responses submitted to the consultation, 4,946 (81 per cent of respondents) submitted their postcode. Table 3 lists all postcodes provided by 30 or more respondents, with percentages given as a proportion of those who answered the question.

Postcode Total % SE16 1,411 29% E14 842 17% SE8 304 6% SE1 212 4% SE10 169 3% E3 142 3% SE15 137 3% E1 114 2% E1W 110 2% SE14 95 2% E16 60 1% SE13 52 1% SE5 47 1% SE22 44 1% SE4 43 1% SE17 37 1% SE3 37 1% SE18 34 1% SE23 33 1% SE11 30 1%

Table 3 Postcodes.

18 3.4 Distribution of respondents across Greater London The majority of respondents were from London (4,789, 97 per cent of those who provided a postcode). The map below shows the distribution of respondents within the Greater London area.

The proposed scheme location is between Southwark and Tower Hamlets boroughs. Of the respondents to the consultation who supplied their postcode, 37 per cent (1,845) were in Southwark and 25 per cent (1,228) in Tower Hamlets.

For maps showing levels of support for the overall scheme by area, go to Section 4.

20 3.5 Age range of respondents 5,746 out of 6,094 respondents answered the question asking for their age range. Table 4 shows the breakdown of these age ranges, including those who did not complete the question or indicated that they did not wish to specify their age range.

Age range Total % 15 or under 8 <1% 16-20 42 1% 21-25 386 6% 26-30 969 16% 31-35 1,092 18% 36-40 890 15% 41-45 620 10% 46-50 421 7% 51-55 362 6% 56-60 264 4% 61-65 163 3% 66-70 87 1% 71+ 72 1% Prefer not to say 370 6% Not answered 348 6% Total 6,094 100%

Table 4 Age of respondent.

3.6 Relationship between respondent and scheme area We asked respondents to describe their relationship to the scheme area using the categories below. 5,955 out of 6,094 respondents answered the question. Table 5 shows the breakdown of these, including those who did not complete the question.

Total %

A local resident 4,208 69% A commuter to the area 1,386 23% Employed locally 1,295 21% A visitor to the area 804 13% Not local but interested in the scheme 524 9% A local business owner 132 2% Former resident 54 1% Cyclist 25 <1% Property owner / landlord 21 <1% Future / prospective resident 14 <1% Nearby resident 14 <1% Walker 8 <1% River user 4 <1% Group representative/ leader 2 <1% Other 17 <1% Not answered 139 2% Total 6,094 100%

Table 5 Relationship between respondent and scheme area.

22 3.7 How respondents would use the bridge We asked respondents how they would use the bridge. This was answered by 5,939 out of 6,094 respondents. Table 6 shows the breakdown of these, including those who did not complete the question.

Total %

Walk 1,775 29% Cycle 810 13% Both walk and cycle 2,935 48% Neither 324 5% Not sure 95 2% Not Answered 155 3% Total 6,094 100%

Table 6 How respondents would use the bridge.

3.8 Reasons for using the bridge We asked respondents how they would use the bridge. This was answered by 5,811 out of 6,094 respondents. Table 7 shows the breakdown of these, including those who did not complete the question.

23 Total %

For leisure 3,389 56% To get to and from work 2,275 37% Not sure 305 5% No reason / would not use it 122 2% For shopping / restaurants / commercial centres 50 1% To get around / access / to cross the river 47 1% To visit friends/family 24 <1% For cycling 19 <1% For transport links / access to additional transport links 17 <1% To exercise (walk, run) 13 <1% Visiting / travel 6 <1% As an alternative to current transportation methods 4 <1% Other 38 1% Not answered 283 5% Total 6,094 100%

Table 7 Reasons for using the bridge.

24 4. Summary of all consultation responses

To gain feedback on the scheme, we asked respondents six closed questions, allowing them to express their opinion on:

• Level of support for a river crossing between Rotherhithe and Canary Wharf for pedestrians and cyclists • Level of support for our preferred option; navigable bridge • Location preference • Bridge height preference • Importance of design aspects • Bridge deck access preference (for cyclists only)

We also asked six open questions allowing them to expand on their reasons for the above preferences.

Stakeholder responses are excluded from the results in this chapter, and percentages are calculated from the number of respondents for each question. No questions were mandatory.

Table 8 shows level of support across the key closed questions: Respondents were able to select more than one option for some questions meaning there is more than 100 per cent for some totals.

25 Neither NET: Strongly Strongly NET: Support support nor Oppose SUPPORT support oppose OPPOSE oppose No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % No. %

Q1 New 5,532 93% 5,095 85% 437 7% 74 1% 75 1% 296 5% 371 6% crossing (5,977 answered)

Q2 Navigable 5,082 85% 3,843 64% 1,239 21% 378 6% 148 3% 363 6% 511 9% bridge (5,971 answered) Q3a Northern Alignment 4,360 79% 3,321 60% 1,039 19% 815 15% 168 3% 214 4% 382 7% (5,557 answered) Q3b Central Alignment 2,672 55% 677 14% 1,995 41% 1,260 26% 635 13% 262 5% 897 19% (4,829 answered) Q3c Southern Alignment 1,322 29% 573 13% 749 17% 1,807 40% 897 20% 465 10% 1,362 30% (4,491 answered)

Table 8 Level of support across the key closed questions.

4.1 Summary of responses to Question 1: Overarching Question The overarching question gave respondents the opportunity to express their overall level of support for the idea of a new river crossing between Rotherhithe and Canary Wharf. This was answered by 5,977 of the 6,094 respondents.

Do you support a new river crossing between Rotherhithe and Canary Wharf for pedestrians and cyclists?

The closed question allowed respondents to give one of the following responses: ‘Strongly support’, ‘Support’, ‘Neither support nor oppose’, ‘Oppose’, ‘Strongly oppose’.

4.1.1 Overall support

Overall, there was strong support for a new crossing, with 93 per cent supporting, one per cent neither supporting nor opposing and six per cent opposing. Strong support was high, with 85 per cent strongly supporting the proposal for a new crossing.

Of the 6,094 people who responded to this consultation, 4,246 (70 per cent) provided a comment in the open text box about why they support or oppose a new river

27 crossing between Rotherhithe and Canary Wharf. Of these, 3,858 comments were from those in support of the new river crossing (Section 4.1.3) and 336 from those in opposition (Section 4.1.4). A detailed analysis of comments is available in Appendix A.

28 4.1.2 Map of levels of support for proposed river crossing across Greater London The map below shows distribution of support and opposition for the new river crossing across Greater London.

4.1.2 Map of levels of support for proposed river crossing near crossing location The map below shows distribution of support and opposition for the new river crossing among those living in the area around Canary Wharf and Rotherhithe.

30 4.1.3 Comments by those in support of the scheme Among those who are in support of a river crossing, there were a number of benefits cited. Many were of the opinion that the scheme would benefit both cyclists and pedestrians, decreasing reliance on public transport or vehicles. A number of people mentioned that the proposed crossing would improve convenience, access and save time for those who live, work or travel to the area. Many said that it was long overdue and that there are not currently enough crossings in the area.

In conjunction with this, many said that the scheme would alleviate congestion on existing routes, especially on the Underground, with the Jubilee line benefitting in particular.

Supporters also mentioned that the scheme would have a positive impact on the environment, as it would provide a greener travel option. Having a cheaper or free alternative to public transport was also appreciated.

Comment Total % NET: POSITIVE 3,835 99% Net: Type Of User 2,116 55% Better for cyclists 900 23% No reliance on public transport/vehicles 699 18% Better for pedestrians 561 15% Encourages cycling 521 14% Encourages walking 487 13% Encourages being healthy/fit/active 248 6% Other type of user mentions 23 1% Net: Convenience 1,660 43% Good for people who live/work/travel to the area 821 21% No waiting/more direct/saves time/would be quicker 655 17% Ease of access/travel/easier/more convenient 622 16% Other ease/convenience mentions 12 0% Net: Overall acceptance 1,466 38% Agree with it/strongly in favour/it is much needed/long overdue 802 21% No/not enough crossings/bridges (in the area) 754 20% A bridge is preferred/is better than others (tunnel, ferry) 64 2% Other overall acceptance mentions 23 1% Net: User experience 1,201 31% Eases/alleviates traffic/congestion on the London Underground 677 18% line (Jubilee line, Tube) Eases/alleviates traffic/congestion (unspecified type/location) 188 5% Eases/alleviates traffic/congestion at Canada Water station 152 4% Eases/alleviates traffic/congestion in Rotherhithe tunnel 148 4%

Eases/alleviates traffic/congestion in the Greenwich Foot Tunnel 90 2% Eases/alleviates traffic/congestion on area bridges (Tower, 60 2% London Bridge, other bridges) Eases/alleviates traffic/congestion on the Overground/DLR 28 1% (Docklands Light Railway) Eases/alleviates traffic/congestion on roadways 26 1% Eases/alleviates traffic/congestion in the Blackwall Tunnel 14 0% Other user experience mentions 82 2% Net: Access 1,114 29% Better connectivity/improves access (all mentions) 937 24% Improves access to commercial outlets (restaurants, shops) 167 4% Other means of transport/access are often limited/closed/out of 34 1% order Other access mentions 80 2% Net: Environment 498 13% Better for the environment/greener/cleaner/less cars on the road 280 7% (all mentions) Rotherhithe tunnel is polluted/fumey/not nice 205 5% Less pollution for cyclists / more fresh air 20 1% Other environment mentions 17 0% Net: Infrastructure 333 9% Would improve the area/boost economy/development 286 7% Net: Financial 297 8% Value for money/cheaper/free method of travel 282 7% Other financial mentions 19 1% Net: Safety/security 326 8% Safer option/less dangerous for cyclists 231 6% Safer option/less dangerous for pedestrians 79 2% Safer option/less dangerous 74 2% Less crime/anti-social behaviour (not safe alone, at night, for 7 0% women)

Table 9 Positive comments by those in support of the scheme.

32 4.1.4 Issues raised by those in opposition to the scheme Among those in opposition to the scheme, for many the bridge was not seen to be the best option and many mentioned that alternative options (such as a ferry service or a tunnel) would be preferable. Others opinion was that existing routes were sufficient and an additional crossing is not needed.

Another concern raised was the overall project cost, and that the money could be better spent elsewhere. This included comments that it is not cost effective in comparison to the cost of a ferry, not value for money if it does not include cars and that the money would be better spent on road improvements or improvements to the Overground or Jubilee line.

There was also a concern that the scheme will increase congestion, in general and particularly for cyclists, without sufficiently alleviating current traffic or congestion issues. Some of those in opposition to the scheme mentioned that they would prefer an option that accommodates vehicles.

A number of those in opposition to the scheme were concerned about the negative visual impact that the bridge could have.

Finally, a number of general negative comments came through, coded in ‘Other’. These range from concerns of a negative impact on residents while the bridge is being built and once in operation, a concern over increased pollution in the area, and comments around cyclists needing further regulation and posing a hazard to pedestrians.

Issue Total % NET: NEGATIVE 334 99% Net: Overall Rejection 180 54% Prefer other method of crossing (ferry/tunnel/existing routes/ 101 30% existing ferry service) A crossing here is not needed/important/a bad idea/do not support 79 24% project Other overall rejection mentions 33 10% Net: Financial 162 48% Too expensive/waste of money/money could be better spent 145 43% Other financial mentions 23 7% Net: User experience 84 25% Will add to the congestion/increase congestion 19 6% Will add to cyclist congestion 15 5% Not sufficiently alleviate current traffic/congestion concerns 13 4% Will add to/create river traffic congestion 8 2% Will add to the congestion in residential areas 7 2% Will add to vehicle congestion 6 2% Will create parking issues/lack of parking 2 1%

33 Other user experience mentions 29 9% Net: Specific alternative suggestions 66 20% Prefer an option that accommodates cars/buses 33 10% Other specific alternative locations mentions 34 10% Net: Aesthetics 52 16% Would have a negative impact on aesthetics/prefer to see the 52 16% open stretch of water/like current atmosphere Net: Other 99 30% Other miscellaneous negative mentions 99 30%

Table 10 Negative comments by those in support of the scheme.

34 4.2 Summary of Question 2: Options Assessment Respondents also expressed their level of support for the preferred option of a navigable bridge between Rotherhithe and Canary Wharf. This was answered by 5,971 respondents.

Do you support our preferred option of a navigable bridge?

The question explained that a navigable bridge ‘allows the movement of vessels on the river to continue. It may be high level allowing vessels beneath or with an opening mechanism to allow them through.’

The closed question allowed respondents to give one of the following responses: ‘Strongly support’, ‘Support’, ‘Neither support nor oppose’, ‘Oppose’, ‘Strongly oppose’.

4.2.1 Level of support

Although lower than overall support for a new crossing, support for the preferred option of a navigable bridge was still high at 85 per cent. Strong support was high, with 64 per cent strongly supporting the proposal for a bridge.

Of the 6,094 people who responded to the consultation, 2,033 (33 per cent) provided a comment in the open text box about why they support or oppose the preferred option of a navigable bridge. Of these, 1,548 comments were from those in support of the bridge (Section 4.2.2) and 336 from those in opposition (Section 4.2.3). A detailed analysis of comments is available in Appendix A.

4.2.2 Comments by those in support of a navigable bridge For those in support of the navigable bridge, there were a number of comments around convenience. It was stated that the bridge should not cause delays and disruption across all different types of users, and this type of bridge would help minimise this issue.

Many considered the bridge to be the most practical option and to provide a quicker and more direct route than the current options. It was seen to be easier and more convenient to use than the other potential options of a ferry or tunnel.

Supporters also mentioned that the bridge would be particularly good for cyclists and pedestrians and would be good value for money overall.

Where people had other specific mentions around bridge height and access, there were a number of suggestions made. These ranged from a floating bridge, a bascule bridge, a swing bridge, a tilt bridge or escalators to access the bridge.

Comment Total % Net: Convenience 634 41% Bridge should not cause disruption/delays for any methods of 327 21% travel (cars/boats/cyclist/pedestrians) Bridge is easier/more convenient than others (ferry/tunnel) 177 11% A quicker/more direct route/saves time 176 11% A ferry is less easy / inconvenient / slower (e.g. a ferry has long 19 1% waiting time) A tunnel is less easy / inconvenient / slower 8 1% Other convenience mentions 75 5% Net: Overall acceptance 599 39% A bridge is preferred / is better than others (tunnel, ferry) 340 22% A bridge is the most sensible / realistic option / it is needed 233 15% A navigable bridge is better 19 1% A high bridge is better 11 1% A low bridge is better 10 1% A low bridge with opening mechanism causes less disruption for 4 0% users A tunnel will deter cyclists because of the danger when it is dark 1 0% A tunnel will deter pedestrians because of the danger when it is 1 0% dark Other overall acceptance mentions 19 1%

36 Net: Option (bridge/ferry/tunnel) 352 23% A tunnel is not preferred / is worse than others (ferry, bridge) 8 1% Other specific mentions of bridge height and access (types of 344 22% bridges - high/low/ramp/steps/lift/other) Net: Type of user (cyclist, pedestrian) 321 21% A bridge is better for cyclists 262 17% A bridge is better for pedestrians 195 13% Better for people with disabilities (wheelchairs) 20 1% A ferry will deter cyclists / pedestrians 3 0% Other type of user mentions 31 2% Net: Financial 274 18% A bridge is cheaper / the less expensive option / value for money 252 16% A tunnel is expensive / a more costly option 13 1% A ferry is expensive / a more costly option 9 1% Other financial mentions 9 1% Net: User experience 227 15% A bridge is more pleasant / nicer to use / offers better views / 227 15% picturesque Net: Specific alternative suggestions 150 10% Would prefer a time table/scheduled opening/closings 35 2% Other specific alternative mentions of frequency/length of opening 120 8% times Net: Other 134 9% Added attraction/tourist point/landmark 55 4% Other miscellaneous positive mentions 87 6% Net: Safety/security 89 6% A bridge is the safer option/less dangerous/less crime 89 6% Net: Location 61 4% Other specific location for bridge (e.g. Northern Alignment option, 61 4% Greenwich - all mentions)

Table 11 Comments by those in support of a navigable bridge.

4.2.3 Issues raised by those in opposition to a navigable bridge For those in opposition to the navigable bridge, in general they stated that the bridge was less preferable to other options. Many of those in opposition were concerned over the cost, suggesting that the bridge was an expensive option. Many also mentioned the visual impact of the bridge, citing concern that it could obstruct the view over the river or be aesthetically unpleasing.

In addition to this, there was some concern over the bridge causing disruption and delays for both vehicles and water vessels.

37 For some, a ferry was the preferred option, seen to be better able to flex according to demand, and a more practical option overall. Others cited a tunnel as the preferred option instead of the bridge.

For those coded as ‘Other negative comments’ there was mention of a range of issues such as strong winds being a potential concern with a high bridge, investment needed at other locations, and a concern that infrastructure such as lifts and lights will break down.

Issue Total % NET: NEGATIVE 335 98% Net: Option (bridge/ferry/tunnel) 200 58% A bridge / navigable bridge / high bridge is not preferred / is worse 196 57% than others (tunnel, ferry) A tunnel is preferred / tunnel is better than others (bridge, ferry) 8 2% Net: Other 127 37% Negative impact on lives of local residents (lack of privacy, increase in 22 6% noise) Prefer a more immediate solution 15 4% Other negative mentions 101 29% Net: Financial 120 35% A bridge is expensive / a more costly option 96 28% A ferry is cheaper / the less expensive option / value for money 9 3% A tunnel is cheaper / the less expensive option / value for money 2 1% Other financial mentions 24 7% Net: Environment 103 30% A bridge is an eyesore / negative visual impact / obstruct views 87 25% A bridge has an environmental impact (all mentions) 18 5% A bridge will cause elimination/destruction of land/trees/natural spaces 15 4% Net: Access 81 24% A bridge causes disruption / delays (road and water vessels) 67 20% A tunnel causes less disruption / delays (road and water vessels) 20 6% A ferry causes less disruption / delays (road and water vessels) 1 0% Net: Prefer another option 44 13% A ferry is preferred / ferry is better than others (bridge, tunnel) 29 9% A ferry is more flexible/scalable to need/use 11 3% A ferry is the most sensible / realistic option / it is needed 5 2% Net: Type Of User (cyclist, pedestrian) 38 11% A bridge is exposed to the weather 19 6% A bridge will deter cyclists / pedestrians 18 5% A ferry is better for cyclists / pedestrians / non-vehicle users 3 1% A tunnel is better for cyclists / pedestrians / non-vehicle users 2 1% Net: Specific Alternative Suggestions 32 9%

38 Other specific alternative suggestions mentions 32 9% Net: Convenience 21 6% A bridge is less easy / inconvenient / slower (e.g. a bridge has long 15 4% waiting time) A ferry is easier / more convenient / quicker / no waiting to use it / 6 2% ease of access A tunnel is easier / more convenient / quicker / no waiting to use it / 2 1% ease of access

Table 12 Issues raised by those in opposition to a navigable bridge.

4.3 Summary of Question 3: Bridge Location Respondents were asked their opinion of each of the three potential bridge locations. As none of the questions were compulsory, the number answering varied for each location: 5,557 for the Northern Alignment, 4,829 for the Central Alignment and 4,491 for the Southern Alignment.

Considering our preferred option of a navigable bridge, we would like to know your views on the following potential crossing locations?

The closed question allowed respondents to give one of the following responses: ‘Strongly support’, ‘Support’, ‘Neither support nor oppose’, ‘Oppose’, ‘Strongly oppose’ for each of the 3 locations: Northern Alignment, Central Alignment and Southern Alignment.

A map of the three potential locations is shown below:

39 4.3.1 Level of support for each alignment

The Northern Alignment had the highest level of support at 79 per cent overall support, with 55 per cent supporting the Central Alignment and 29 per cent the Southern Alignment.

Those who would use the bridge to cycle were particularly likely to support the Northern Alignment option (85 per cent compared to 79 per cent of those who would walk).

Those living south of the river were more likely than those living north of the river to support the Central and Southern Alignments.

40 Support for alignments by respondents’ relationship to the area is shown in table 13:

Alignment Neither support by support relationship to Net: Strongly nor Strongly Net: area Base Support support Support oppose Oppose oppose Oppose Northern Alignment Local resident 3,901 77% 59% 18% 15% 3% 4% 8% Local business 120 73% 54% 19% 13% 4% 9% 13% owner Employed locally 1,228 82% 65% 17% 12% 3% 3% 6% Visitor to area 762 86% 68% 19% 11% 1% 2% 3% Commuter to area 1,324 83% 64% 19% 13% 2% 2% 4% Not local 476 81% 60% 21% 15% 2% 3% 5% Central Alignment Local resident 3,436 56% 15% 41% 24% 14% 6% 20% Local business 105 52% 18% 34% 24% 17% 7% 24% owner Employed locally 1,103 57% 13% 44% 27% 12% 5% 16% Visitor to area 663 55% 11% 44% 29% 13% 3% 16% Commuter to area 1,164 59% 15% 44% 27% 10% 4% 14% Not local 394 53% 10% 42% 28% 15% 5% 19% Southern Alignment Local resident 3,185 31% 14% 16% 39% 19% 11% 30% Local business 94 28% 12% 16% 32% 23% 17% 40% owner Employed locally 1,028 27% 12% 16% 43% 20% 10% 30% Visitor to area 618 25% 7% 18% 44% 21% 10% 31% Commuter to area 1,087 28% 11% 17% 45% 20% 8% 28% Not local 371 29% 11% 18% 40% 22% 9% 31%

Table 13 Respondents’ relationship to the area.

4.3.2 Comments by those in support of the Northern Alignment For those in support of the Northern Alignment, many chose this simply because it best meets their personal needs such as proximity to their home or work. However, many also stated that this route would be where most demand is and that it would be most convenient for the majority of bridge users.

The ease of getting to Canary Wharf and Westferry Circus as well as better links to existing transport infrastructure were also mentioned in the Northern Alignment’s favour. For some, connectivity to the cycle network was also a factor.

41 The Northern Alignment was viewed by some to be the least disruptive to residential areas.

Comment Total % NET: POSITIVE ABOUT NORTHERN ALIGNMENT 1,372 90% Net: Location 677 45% Northern Alignment is better/more useful/my preferred location 509 33% Closer to commercial outlets (stores, restaurants) 53 4% Close to lodging/hotels 41 3% Close to my house/work 15 1% Northern Alignment has less impact on residential units 10 1% Northern Alignment/Location close to Hilton hotel/Doubletree 5 0% Hilton (all positive mentions) Northern Alignment requires less development 3 0% Other location mentions 88 6% Net: Convenience 598 39% Easy/convenient for getting to Canary Wharf 328 22% Westferry Circus is better/more convenient (is already a stop) 184 12% I support the quickest option 105 7% Northern Alignment option is better/further north is better for 32 2% people/more useful Northern Alignment/Westferry is better/more convenient for 7 1% people to get to / closer to shops & restaurants Central Alignment option is better/more central is better for 3 0% people/more useful Other ease/convenience mentions 77 5% Net: Infrastructure 353 23% Connectivity to cycle network/national cycle network is most 150 10% important Least disruptive option/less residential impact 117 8% Should be close to transport networks/near public transport 56 4% Other infrastructure mentions 67 4% Net: Option (Northern/Central/Southern) 161 11% Any option would work/I like all options/happy with all options/do 140 9% not mind A bridge is a good idea/we need a bridge 28 2% Net: Type Of User 140 9% Better/easier for cyclists 94 6% Better/easier for pedestrians 77 5% Northern Alignment is better/easier for cyclists and pedestrians 11 1% Other type of user mentions 13 1% Net: Access 129 9% Ramps are a good idea/ramps make it easier to access 83 5% Other access mentions 46 3%

42 Net: Specific Alternative Suggestions 64 4% Other specific location for bridge crossing (e.g. Durand’s Wharf, 60 4% Columbus Circle etc. - all mentions) Other specific alternative suggestions 4 0% Net: Other 143 9% Miscellaneous other positive mentions 143 9% NET: NEGATIVE ABOUT OTHER LOCATIONS 292 19% Net: Other 161 11% Ruin / lose open/green space at Durand's Wharf 27 2% Location (all mentions) 16 1% Central Alignment is too expensive / not worth the additional cost 12 1% Other miscellaneous negative mentions 96 6% Net: Access 125 8% Disagree with any option that uses lifts/dislike lifts/should be lift- 86 6% free access Issues with traffic / congestion 17 1% Potential impact on residential areas 11 1% Other access mentions 22 1%

Table 14 Comments by those in support of the Northern Alignment.

43 4.3.3 Comments by those in support of the Central Alignment Among those who supported the Central Alignment, the Northern Alignment was still the preferred location for many (25 per cent). There were mentions of supporting all the options with some saying they would support the quickest option. As for the Northern Alignment, ease of getting to Canary Wharf was a factor in their support for the Central Alignment.

Comment Total % NET: POSITIVE ABOUT CENTRAL ALIGNMENT 743 88% Net: Location 374 44% Northern Alignment is better/more useful/my preferred location 214 25% Central Alignment is better/more useful/my preferred location 86 10% Southern Alignment is better/more useful/my preferred location 53 6% Closer to commercial outlets (stores, restaurants) 24 3% Close to my house/work 19 2% Close to lodging/hotels 15 2% Northern Alignment/Location close to Hilton hotel/Doubletree 2 0% Hilton (all positive mentions) Northern Alignment has less impact on residential units 1 0% Other location mentions 49 6% Net: Convenience 297 35% Easy/convenient for getting to Canary Wharf 154 18% Westferry Circus is better/more convenient (is already a stop) 75 9% I support the quickest option 54 6% Northern Alignment option is better/further north is better for 12 1% people/more useful Central Alignment option is better/more central is better for 11 1% people/more useful Southern Alignment option is better/further south is better for 5 1% people/more useful Northern Alignment/Westferry is better/more convenient for 4 1% people to get to / closer to shops & restaurants Other ease/convenience mentions 46 6% Net: Infrastructure 161 19% Connectivity to cycle network/national cycle network is most 61 7% important Least disruptive option/less residential impact 56 7% Should be close to transport networks/near public transport 26 3% Other infrastructure mentions 35 4% Net: Option (Northern/Central/Southern) 112 13% Any option would work/I like all options/happy with all options/do 92 11% not mind A bridge is a good idea/we need a bridge 22 3%

Net: Specific Alternative Suggestions 82 10% Other specific location for bridge crossing (e.g. Durand’s Wharf, 78 9% Columbus Circle etc. - all mentions) Other specific alternative suggestions 4 1% Net: Access 78 9% Ramps are a good idea/ramps make it easier to access 40 5% Other access mentions 39 5% Net: Type Of User 69 8% Better/easier for cyclists 48 6% Better/easier for pedestrians 38 5% Northern Alignment is better/easier for cyclists and pedestrians 3 0% Other type of user mentions 9 1% NET: NEGATIVE ABOUT OTHER LOCATIONS 141 17% Net: Other 73 9% Location (all mentions) 7 1% Survey issues / forced answers / unable to select options as I 7 1% wanted Ruin / lose open/green space at Durand's Wharf 6 1% Other miscellaneous negative mentions 54 6% Net: Access 59 7% Disagree with any option that uses lifts/dislike lifts/should be lift- 46 6% free access Issues with traffic / congestion 6 1% Potential impact on residential areas 3 0% Other access mentions 6 1%

Table 15 Comments by those in support of the Central Alignment.

45 4.3.4 Comments by those in support of the Southern Alignment Even among those who supported the Southern Alignment, many stated that the Northern Alignment would be their preferred location of the options. Again, there were mentions of supporting all the options with some saying they would support the quickest option. Ease and convenience for getting to Canary Wharf was also mentioned. Connectivity to the cycle network and minimal disruption to residents was important to some.

Issue Total % NET: POSITIVE ABOUT SOUTHERN ALIGNMENT 371 89% Net: Location 188 45% Northern Alignment is better/more useful/my preferred location 76 18% Southern Alignment is better/more useful/my preferred location 69 17% Central Alignment is better/more useful/my preferred location 39 9% Close to my house/work 11 3% Closer to commercial outlets (stores, restaurants) 11 3% Close to lodging/hotels 5 1% Northern Alignment/Location close to Hilton hotel/Doubletree 1 0% Hilton (all positive mentions) Other location mentions 27 7% Net: Convenience 135 33% I support the quickest option 53 13% Easy/convenient for getting to Canary Wharf 49 12% Westferry Circus is better/more convenient (is already a stop) 24 6% Southern Alignment option is better/further south is better for 6 1% people/more useful Northern Alignment option is better/further north is better for 5 1% people/more useful Central Alignment option is better/more central is better for 3 1% people/more useful Other ease/convenience mentions 21 5% Net: Infrastructure 66 16% Connectivity to cycle network/national cycle network is most 25 6% important Least disruptive option/less residential impact 25 6% Should be close to transport networks/near public transport 4 1% Other infrastructure mentions 23 6% Net: Option (Northern/Central/Southern) 58 14% Any option would work/I like all options/happy with all options/do 48 12% not mind A bridge is a good idea/we need a bridge 14 3% Net: Specific Alternative Suggestions 57 14%

Other specific location for bridge crossing (e.g. Durand’s Wharf, 56 14% Columbus Circle etc. - all mentions) Other specific alternative suggestions 1 0% Net: Type Of User 33 8% Better/easier for cyclists 22 5% Better/easier for pedestrians 20 5% Other type of user mentions 6 1% Net: Financial 33 8% I support the cheapest option 17 4% Other financial mentions 16 4% Net: Access 24 6% Ramps are a good idea/ramps make it easier to access 6 1% Other access mentions 18 4% Net: Other 54 13% Miscellaneous other positive mentions 54 13% NET: NEGATIVE ABOUT OTHER LOCATIONS 72 17% Net: Other 49 12% Survey issues / forced answers / unable to select options as I 7 2% wanted Central Alignment is too expensive / not worth the additional cost 6 1% Location (all mentions) 3 1% Other miscellaneous negative mentions 33 8% Net: Access 16 4% Disagree with any option that uses lifts/dislike lifts/should be lift- 4 1% free access Issues with traffic / congestion 4 1% Potential impact on residential areas 3 1% Other access mentions 7 2%

Table 16 Comments by those in support of the Southern Alignment.

47 4.4 Summary of Question 4: Bridge Height The question about preferred bridge height was answered by 5,949 respondents.

Considering the information provided, which would you prefer?

The question explained that ‘we have been working with the Port of London Authority to investigate different options for the height and span of the bridge over the river. This heavily influences how the bridge opens for larger vessels on the river, the frequency and duration of openings, the visual impact of the bridge and how easy it is to access for users.’

The closed question allowed respondents to give one of the following responses: ‘Higher bridge, ‘Lower bridge’, ‘Have no preference, ‘Neither’, ‘Not sure’.

4.4.1 Bridge height preference

The preference for bridge height was less clear-cut than the other questions around the crossing as a whole and the navigable bridge. While 35 per cent preferred the higher bridge option, 27 per cent preferred the lower bridge, with the remainder expressing no preference, being unsure of their preference or preferring neither option.

Of the 6,094 people who responded to this consultation, 2,645 (43 per cent) provided a comment in the open text box about why they prefer the bridge height selected. Of these, 1,078 comments were from those in support of a higher bridge (Section 4.4.2) and 954 from those in support of a lower bridge (Section 4.4.3). A detailed analysis of comments is available in Appendix A.

4.4.2 Issues raised by those who prefer higher bridge

The most common reasons for preferring a higher bridge was that it would mean less frequent openings and closings which would cause less disruption to pedestrians, cyclists and river users, making it a route that can be relied on. Some said that a steeper incline would be preferable to having to wait for the bridge to open and close.

Some also were of the opinion that a higher bridge would be more visually attractive than a low bridge.

Comment Total % NET: POSITIVE ABOUT A HIGH BRIDGE 1,057 98% Net: Access 957 89% A high bridge would mean fewer openings & closings 594 55% A high bridge would cause less disruption to pedestrian/cyclist 349 32% traffic A high bridge would cause less disruption to river traffic / leave 287 27% the river navigable Can access by stairs/lift/ramp 78 7% A high bridge has easier access / easier to use 40 4% Would not require lifts/stairs 24 2% Would require lower/shorter ramps 19 2% Other access mentions 46 4% Net: Aesthetics 212 20% A high bridge would be visually attractive/less obtrusive/look 189 18% elegant/beautiful Other aesthetics mentions 31 3% Net: Type Of User (cyclist, pedestrian) 171 16% Good/better for cyclists 114 11% Good/better for pedestrians 98 9% Good for disabled people 18 2%

49 Other type of user mentions 30 3% Net: Other 76 7% Would encourage more/increased use 16 2% No/less maintenance required 12 1% Big ships do not cross often 5 1% Other miscellaneous positive mentions 48 5% Net: Option (bridge/ferry/tunnel) 52 5% A higher bridge is better / prefer a high bridge 52 5% Net: Convenience 45 4% Opening schedules could be published so users can plan 10 1% accordingly Do not mind waiting/openings/closures are not an issue 5 1% Stop bridge openings at peak commuter hours 3 0% Leaves the river navigable/less disruption to river traffic 2 0% Other convenience mentions 26 2%

Table 17 Issues raised by those who prefer higher bridge.

4.4.3 Issues raised by those who prefer lower bridge

For those who preferred the option of a lower bridge, ease of use and access was the key concern. Many were of the opinion that a lower bridge would be better for accessibility and that a high bridge could present greater barriers to pedestrians and cyclists. Some also mentioned better accessibility for those with disabilities.

For many respondents, increased opening and closing would be less of a concern than the inconvenience of having to use stairs, a ramp or a lift to access a higher bridge. Some stated that large ships do not travel up the Thames very frequently, so a low bridge would not need to open often. Some also said that they would not mind waiting for the bridge to open and close.

A lower bridge was seen by some to be better for cyclists and for pedestrians, as it would not require a lift or stairs.

50 Many were also of the opinion that a lower bridge would be less visually obstructive than a higher bridge.

Comment Total % NET: POSITIVE ABOUT A LOW BRIDGE 932 98% Net: Access 646 68% A low bridge has easier access / easier to use 274 29% A low bridge would cause less disruption to pedestrian/cyclist 177 19% traffic Would not require lifts/stairs 147 15% Would require lower/shorter ramps 134 14% A low bridge would cause low/minimal disruption to river traffic / 64 7% leave the river navigable A low bridge would open & close infrequently/not often enough to 60 6% cause issues A low bridge is easier for cyclists & pedestrians to use/better 30 3% access for cyclists A low bridge provides easier access for disabled 6 1% people/wheelchairs Can access by stairs/lift/ramp 4 0% Other access mentions 19 2% Net: Aesthetics 312 33% A low bridge would be visually attractive/less obtrusive/look 276 29% elegant/beautiful A low bridge is less visually obtrusive / less visual impact 30 3% Other aesthetics mentions 16 2% Net: Type Of User (cyclist, pedestrian) 315 33% Good/better for cyclists 266 28% Good/better for pedestrians 159 17% Good for disabled people 50 5% Other type of user mentions 32 3% Net: Convenience 208 22% Do not mind waiting/openings/closures are not an issue 166 17% Opening schedules could be published so users can plan 36 4% accordingly Stop bridge openings at peak commuter hours 16 2% Leaves the river navigable/less disruption to river traffic 4 0% Continuous (non-water) traffic flow/quick/direct/no delays 3 0% Other convenience mentions 9 1% Net: Other 110 12% Big ships do not cross often 50 5% No/less maintenance required 21 2% Would encourage more/increased use 6 1% Other miscellaneous positive mentions 39 4% Net: Financial 63 7%

51 Cost savings/cost effective option 63 7% Net: Environment 54 6% Lower impact on the area/environment 54 6% Net: Safety/security 40 4% More sheltered/better protected from winds 34 4% Safer option 4 0% Safer for cyclists 4 0% Safer for pedestrians 4 0% Less risk of suicides 2 0% NET: NEUTRAL GENERAL 52 6% Depends on the frequency with which the bridge will be 43 5% opened/closed Details on fact sheets are not sufficient/need additional 1 0% information Other neutral mentions 10 1%

Table 18 Issues raised by those who prefer lower bridge.

52 4.5 Summary of Question 5: Bridge Design Respondents were asked which aspects of bridge design are important to them, answered by 5,880 respondents:

We have been exploring a number of other aspects that influence the design of a bridge option. Which of the following aspects are important to you?

Respondents were able to select as many options as applied

4.5.1 Importance of bridge design elements Segregation between cyclists and pedestrians was seen as one of the most important elements of the bridge design (61 per cent of those who answered), particularly for cyclists (selected by 71 per cent who said they would use the crossing by cycling).

Access to the bridge deck was also seen as very important (61 per cent), again cyclists were more likely to find this issue important (69 per cent of those who said they would use the crossing by cycling).

Opening frequency and length of opening also ranked among the aspects respondents were most concerned about.

Issues such a bridge height, width, operation and opening system were seen as less important by potential bridge users.

Of those who answered ‘Other’, the most frequent responses were not wanting a bridge or wanting to explore other options (one per cent, 85 responses), accessibility for cyclists (one per cent, 72 responses), visual appeal or impact (one per cent, 42 responses), cost (one per cent, 34 responses) and construction time (one per cent, 30 responses).

54 Both walk Respondent type Leisure Commuting Walk Cycle and cycle Base 3,389 2,275 1,751 806 2,913 Segregation between cyclists and 63% 65% 61% 71% 63% pedestrians Access to the bridge deck (by ramps, lifts, 63% 64% 53% 69% 67% stairs or other means) Accessibility and inclusivity for all types of 61% 56% 56% 54% 62% user Opening time frequencies 54% 60% 53% 60% 57% Architectural design and materials 58% 48% 55% 42% 55% Opening time length 52% 57% 49% 57% 54% Environmental impacts 50% 43% 47% 44% 48% Onward journey connections 48% 50% 45% 51% 50% Safety and security 48% 45% 56% 34% 44% Urban realm and landscaping around the 40% 30% 37% 25% 38% bridge landing sites Width of the bridge deck 27% 30% 22% 34% 30% Bridge height (height of the deck for 23% 20% 18% 23% 23% users) Operation and maintenance of the bridge 23% 20% 23% 15% 22% Bridge opening system 21% 20% 21% 18% 21% Construction impacts 15% 12% 16% 7% 14% Bridge height (overall height of the 14% 10% 13% 8% 12% structure/towers)

Table 19 Importance of bridge design elements.

Respondents who would use the bridge for commuting were more likely to be concerned about bridge opening time frequencies and length of opening time than those who would use it for leisure.

Respondents who would use the bridge for leisure were more likely than commuters to state that such accessibility and inclusivity for users were important. They also more highly ranked the importance of aesthetic elements, such as architectural design and materials, environmental impacts and urban realm and landscaping around the bridge landing sites.

Cyclists were more likely to be concerned about the segregation of cyclists and pedestrians, access to the bridge deck and opening time frequencies.

55 4.6 Summary of Question 6: Further comments about proposal Further comments about the proposal for the Rotherhithe to Canary Wharf crossing were given by 2,720 respondents.

4.6.1 Further comments The majority of further comments about the proposal were positive in nature; with respondents re-iterating that a crossing here is much needed and expressing a wish for the bridge to be completed as soon as possible:

Respondents also noted the benefit of improved connectivity in the area, allowing development and improvements.

Among those who had negative further comments, this centred around preferring a ferry or tunnel option and concerns about the financial cost and potential waste of money that the project could incur.

Ensuring separation of cyclists and pedestrians was a concern for some, both for safety reasons and in order to ensure a convenient route for cyclists, particularly for commuting.

Those coded as ‘miscellaneous negative mentions’ covered a range of topics, with no topic mentioned by enough respondents to form an individual code. Topics raised included: asking for reconsideration on location (no specific suggestions), request for an additional Underground line between North Greenwich and Elephant and Castle, underutilisation of the Emirates Airline, congestion in the Blackwall Tunnel, banning cyclists in the Greenwich Foot Tunnel, responsibility for funding the bridge, concern about increases in rent, concern about increased crime in the Isle of Dogs and impact on green spaces.

Comment Total % NET: POSITIVE 2,122 78% Net: Overall acceptance 1,524 56% A crossing here is much needed/important/a good idea/brilliant idea/support 1,228 45% project Do it as quickly as possible/as soon as possible/asap 401 15% Will benefit the community/good for the community 22 1% Other overall acceptance mentions 24 1% Net: Miscellaneous Positive 538 20% Eases/alleviates traffic/congestion (all mentions) 181 7% Better for the environment/greener/cleaner/less cars on the road 114 4% Would boost economy/good for the area/development 101 4% Other miscellaneous positive mentions 214 8% Net: Location 479 18% Better connectivity/encourages travel/tourism/improves access 331 12% Good for people who live/work in the area 100 4% A bridge is needed around Canary Wharf/will be beneficial for access to 36 1% Canary Wharf Will improve connectivity in East London/make East London more accessible 28 1% I live in the area (unspecified) 14 1% Will benefit Rotherhithe 5 0% I work in Canary Wharf 5 0% Other location mentions 33 1% Net: Option (bridge, ferry, tunnel) 205 8% A bridge is preferred/is better than others (tunnel, ferry)/build a bridge 125 5% A Bascule bridge is preferred 57 2% A bridge is needed/badly needed/long overdue/a good addition/welcome 24 1% Net: Type Of User (cyclist, pedestrian, car) 203 8% Need better crossing for cyclists 100 4% Encourages cycling 57 2% Need better crossing for pedestrians 44 2% Encourages pedestrians 39 1% Other type of user mentions 38 1% NET: NEGATIVE 707 26% Net: Option (bridge/ferry/tunnel) 306 11% A ferry is preferred / is better than others (tunnel, bridge) 150 6% A tunnel is preferred/is better than others (ferry, bridge) / build a tunnel 104 4% A bridge is not needed/not a good idea 88 3% Net: Miscellaneous Negative 247 9% Not really a consultation / biased survey / decision has already been made 29 1% Other miscellaneous negative mentions 228 8% Net: Financial 198 7%

57 Any project is a waste of money/taxpayers money will be wasted/money 96 4% could be better spent Go with the cheapest option 2 0% Other financial mentions 103 4% Net: Type Of User (cyclist, pedestrian, car) 111 4% Cyclists should be kept separate from pedestrians/a separate cycle path 99 4% Other type of user mentions 13 1%

Table 20 Further comments.

4.7 Summary of Question 9: Cyclist access preference Preference for how to access the bridge deck as a cyclist, was answered by 3,680 respondents:

If you chose ‘Cycle’ for the previous question, how would you prefer to access the bridge deck (as a cyclist)? The bridge deck could be at a height of 10-20m, equivalent to a building of 3-6 storeys.

4.7.1 Bridge deck access preference (cyclists)

58 The majority preference for cyclists is to access the bridge via a ramp (81 per cent), with stairs the least popular option. For those who suggested other access options, these included a combination of the three options, a travellator, with a few mentioning more innovative solutions such as an escalator for bikes, paternoster lift, or design similar to the Falkirk Wheel (rotating boat lift).

Of the 3,680 cyclists who answered about their preference for bridge deck access, 1,321 provided a comment in the open text box about their reasons for this preference. Of these, 1,079 comments were from those who would prefer a ramp (Section 4.7.2), 178 from those who would prefer a lift (Section 4.7.3) and 69 from those who would prefer stairs. A detailed analysis of comments is available in Appendix A.

4.7.2 Reasons for ramp preference The majority of cyclists preferred a ramp option for accessing the cycle deck. This was mostly for convenience reasons, with cyclists suggesting that a ramp would be the most user friendly and easiest to use. Cyclists liked the idea that with a ramp they would not need to interrupt their journey by dismounting, as would be necessary with either stairs or a lift. This would make the ramp option the quickest to use, with no waiting and would also allow a continuous flow of users.

Some also referenced that a ramp would require less maintenance and therefore be more reliable than a lift. Stairs with a gutter were thought by some to be difficult to use. A few also mentioned that a ramp would be preferable for those using a bike with a trailer.

59 Most reliable/less maintenance required 131 12% Could use the exercise/good exercise 13 1% Other miscellaneous positive mentions 47 4% NET: NEGATIVE ABOUT OTHER OPTIONS 125 12% Net: Option (ramp/lift/stairs) 57 5% Maintenance issues with lifts 36 3% Dislike stairs/stairs option is the least preferable 21 2% Other option mentions 7 1% Net: Miscellaneous Negative 49 5% Lift would need to be large / capacity concerns about lift 28 3% Less maintenance 3 0% Other miscellaneous negative mentions 20 2% Net: Convenience 47 4% Waiting for a lift creates a bottleneck 26 2% Lifts are too slow/slow down your journey 12 1% Stairs create a bottleneck 3 0% Stairs are too slow/slow down your journey 2 0% Other convenience mentions 9 1%

Table 21 Reasons for ramp preference.

4.7.3 Reasons for lift preference Those who preferred the option of a lift stated that this would be the most convenient and easiest option to use. Cyclists mentioned ease of accessibility for both cyclists and pedestrians, with mentions of ease for children, older people, wheelchair users and parents with buggies. A lift was also preferred by some cyclists with disabilities or mobility issues.

There were concerns about ease of getting a bike up a ramp to a height of three to six storeys and that this might put off those who cycle for commuting. Some thought that a ramp would have the potential to cause tension between pedestrians and cyclists, and between cyclists travelling at varying speeds and that this could also pose a safety risk. There were also concerns that the long length of ramp would impact more negatively on the neighbouring areas. Several cited the Greenwich Foot Tunnel as an example of a lift system that works well.

60 Other option mentions 12 7% Net: Convenience 118 66% Lift is most convenient/easiest option to use 92 52% Fast/quick/no waiting to use 12 7% Allows the best/continuous flow of traffic/maximum number of 11 6% users A ramp would be most user-friendly/easiest to use 3 2% Stairs are most convenient/easiest option to use 1 1% Cyclists would not need to dismount using a ramp/uninterrupted 1 1% journey Other convenience mentions 11 6% NET: Miscellaneous Positive 20 11% Most reliable/less maintenance required 1 1% Other miscellaneous positive mentions 19 11% Net: Environment 16 9% A lift would cause less impact on surrounding areas/landing area 1 1% Other environment mentions 15 8% Net: Safety/security 9 5% Lift is safer / less likely to cause injury/accidents 6 3% Safer than a lift / security is a concern in a lift 1 1% Other safety mentions 2 1% NET: NEGATIVE ABOUT OTHER OPTIONS 29 16% Net: Option (ramp/lift/stairs) 16 9% Dislike stairs/stairs option is the least preferable 9 5% Maintenance issues with lifts 2 1% Other option mentions 5 3% Net: Miscellaneous Negative 12 7% Lift would need to be large / capacity concerns about lift 7 4% Other miscellaneous negative mentions 5 3% Net: Convenience 7 4% Lifts are too slow/slow down your journey 1 1% Other convenience mentions 6 3%

Table 22 Reasons for lift preference.

4.7.4 Reasons for stairs preference Some of those with a preference for stairs also mentioned the environmental impact; with stairs impacting less on the surrounding area particularly the park, rather than a ramp which has the potential to take up a lot of space in the area surrounding the bridge. Concerns were that a lift would slow their journey down, could have maintenance issues, lack cleanliness and cost more.

61 Comment Total % NET: POSITIVE ABOUT STAIRS 64 93% Net: Option (ramp/lift/stairs) 56 81% Stairs would be good/best option 44 64% A ramp would be good/best option 5 7% Lift would be good/best option 3 4% Other option mentions 8 12% Net: Convenience 35 51% Stairs are most convenient/easiest option to use 19 28% Fast/quick/no waiting to use 14 20% Allows the best/continuous flow of traffic/maximum number of 5 7% users Lift is most convenient/easiest option to use 2 3% Other convenience mentions 3 4% Net: Environment 14 20% Environment mentions 14 20% NET: Miscellaneous Positive 13 19% Most reliable/less maintenance required 3 4% Could use the exercise/good exercise 1 1% Other miscellaneous positive mentions 10 15% Net: Safety/security 4 6% Safer than a lift / security is a concern in a lift 1 1% Lift is safer / less likely to cause injury/accidents 1 1% Other safety mentions 2 3% NET: NEGATIVE ABOUT OTHER OPTIONS 14 20% Net: Convenience 10 15% Lifts are too slow/slow down your journey 4 6% Waiting for a lift creates a bottleneck 1 1% Other convenience mentions 5 7% Net: Miscellaneous Negative 4 6% Less maintenance 3 4% Other miscellaneous negative mentions 1 1%

Table 23 Reasons for stairs preference.

62 4.8 Summary of stakeholder responses This section provides summaries of the feedback we received from stakeholders. We sometimes have to condense detailed responses into brief summaries. The full stakeholder responses are always used for analysis purposes.

Stakeholders have been grouped into the following categories:

• Local authorities and statutory bodies

• Local business, land owners and interest groups

• Politicians and political organisations

• Transport and active travel groups

4.8.1 Local authorities and statutory bodies Port of London Authority (PLA)

The PLA’s position is that the maintenance of river navigation is paramount. They support an enhanced ferry service, which they anticipate would have much less impact on navigational safety in Limehouse Reach than a navigable bridge. The PLA raises concerns over each of the three alignment options and states no preference. A higher bridge is preferred to ensure tall vessels can pass. The PLA has no fixed views on a particular opening mechanism, but has a strong preference for a bridge design that, when open, maintains unrestricted airdraft .

London Borough of Southwark

Strongly support for the proposed crossing and opportunity to comment via the consultation. The borough supports the preferred option of the navigable bridge and states that it will improve connectivity in the area, promote active travel and encourage new homes and jobs. The borough wants to see improvements to existing ferry services in the short-term and a final bridge design that minimises the impact on residences near to landing locations.

63 London Borough of Tower Hamlets

The borough acknowledges the need for improved river connectivity east of Tower Bridge and supports investment that promotes sustainable, active forms of travel and the use of zero emission transport. They raise doubts about the location and whether the Greenwich Peninsula would be better given the relative significance of housing and business growth in that area. They state their support for a navigable bridge option to be taken forward for further analysis over an enhanced ferry or tunnel, but highlight that further information relating to cost-benefit analysis is required. In terms of alignment, the Northern Alignment is preferred. The council expects TfL to deliver a scheme that minimises detrimental visual impact and engages residents.

Environment Agency

The Environment Agency (EA) note that the crossing between Canary Wharf and Rotherhithe has been identified as a priority within the Mayor’s draft Transport Strategy and that it aligns with the ‘Healthy Streets’ approach which the EA support in principle. They state that it is important that environmental risks associated with the project are understood to meet the Mayor’s objective of protecting and enhancing the environment and delivering a net positive impact for biodiversity (Policy 7 Mayoral Transport Strategy).

London TravelWatch

Strong support for the bridge and strong support for the Northern Alignment. There is no preference for a higher or lower bridge height. A ramp is preferred for cyclists to gain access to the bridge because lifts are considered to be unreliable. Accessibility and inclusivity for all users, as well as safety and security are cited as key considerations.

Historic England

Support the proposal of a new river crossing and recognise the potential benefits for improved foot and cycle access. No preferred type of crossing is stated but final bridge design is important to ensure no negative impact on nearby assets or their settings. Historic England note the potentially beneficial opportunities a bridge crossing could have by opening up access to new riverside views and enhancing the setting of certain heritage assets through careful design and landscaping.

Canal & River Trust

Supportive of the bridge as an improved facility for walking and cycling in London. However, they raise concerns relating to the Central Alignment as it would involve building on land owned and managed by the Canal & River Trust, disturbing an area of historical importance and interest. There are no concerns raised about the other proposed crossing locations.

64 4.8.2 Local business, land owners and interest groups AECOM

There is strong support for the bridge, which they state offers good value and an attractive transport choice for regular users. They also state that the bridge will become an iconic addition to the London landscape. The Northern Alignment is supported due to the vertical topography of the Westferry Circus landing site.

The lower bridge height is favoured because it has potential to offer the most cost effective option, minimising disruption to users, whilst becoming an asset to London’s transport network.

Albion Street Group Practice

Overall, there is strong support for the bridge with the Northern Alignment preferred. The favoured option is for a lower bridge. The bridge will allow patients to register at the surgery from the North side of the river. A ramp is considered to be the most convenient option for cyclists to access the bridge. However, a long ramp is likely to discourage use. In particular, it is essential that cyclists have seamless access to roads and that the bridge remains open during rush hour.

Bike Taxi LTD

There is support for a river crossing however a preference for a tunnel rather than a bridge is stated. The Bike Taxi LTD states a preference for the Northern Alignment and for a ramp due to the fact it would be the most convenient option for cyclists to access the bridge. The ramp is preferred because some bikes can be too heavy for stairs, whilst lifts can be unreliable.

British Land/BL CW Holdings LTD

There is support for the navigable bridge however, it is also proposed that there may be a role for an enhanced ferry service in the short term, prior to completion of the bridge in order to establish better connections and encourage new cycling trips. There is a slight preference for a higher bridge because this is less likely to disrupt pedestrian and cycle movements, providing greater certainty for bridge users. Ramps are favoured for providing cyclists access to the bridge deck. Although, it is also noted that lifts may be appropriate for mobility-impaired users.

65 London Chamber of Commerce (LCCI)

Supports a new river crossing provided the project is fully integrated into existing plans for further road river crossings across east London to secure the region’s future growth and prosperity and accommodate London’s growing population. LCCI states that TfL’s existing proposals for fixed road crossings in east London should be prioritised and raise a concern that they have been overlooked under the draft Mayor’s Transport Strategy. They would like to see a full costing for the project.

Canary Wharf Group

There is support for new river crossings, but state the first priority should be improvements to the Jubilee line. They neither support or oppose the option of a navigable bridge, but propose the option of a ferry crossing is reconsidered. Of the proposed bridge locations, they support the Southern Alignment but raise a concern about the potential impact on residential properties on Westferry Road and the impact of adjoining roads on both sides of the river. A lower bridge is preferred because it is considered to be less intrusive, cheaper, and easier to access for users.

MBNA Thames Clippers

Welcomes the opportunity to comment but regrets that they were not consulted sooner given their valuable marine expertise. They acknowledge the need to improve river crossings in the area. However, do not support the proposed bridge option as they state there is an insufficient business case. An enhanced ferry is stated to be able to accommodate the same demand for less cost whilst also delivering a unique and enhanced customer experience. They further state the consultation process misrepresents the ferry option and overestimates the cost. They also question the weighting given to the waiting and crossing time assumed for cyclists using a free ferry service since cyclists will lose a comparable amount of time cycling up to the proposed bridge.

Mackenzie Wheeler

There is strong support for the bridge to reduce reliance on road links, whilst being important for growth on the north and south banks of the river. The Northern Alignment is preferred because it will link desirable destinations, whilst being able to link with existing transport facilities. The higher bridge is desirable because it is important to minimise compromising the use of the Thames as a public transport link.

66 Poplar HARCA

Support the navigable bridge and state that it will be beneficial in terms of reducing commuter traffic in the Blackwall Tunnel and encouraging more active travel amongst residents in Poplar. They raise the point that bridge opening must allow larger vessels to pass through. They also state the need for TfL to investigate transport connections for walkers and cyclists beyond the bridge landing points, for example wider links with Poplar and Bow. reForm Architects

Are delighted that the much needed Rotherhithe Bridge project has been adopted by TfL. However, they raise several concerns relating to the procurement process in terms of it needing to be transparent, non-discriminatory, fair and providing value. They question the value for money nature of the proposed bridge design and state that the reForm / Elliot Wood proposal would be significantly cheaper. reForm also state that they should have been consulted earlier in the process and that their design should be considered alongside others.

Mindful Smile

There is strong support for the bridge with the Northern Alignment being preferred. The higher bridge option is preferred as it will allow pedestrians, cyclists and vessels to all use the bridge at the same time, avoiding long waiting times which is of particular concern for commuters. In relation to width, they highlight the need to allow casual walkers, cyclists and runners to be segregated from one another and for the bridge to absorb runners’ vibrations to ensure it does not shake.

Surrey Docks Farm

Overall, there is strong support for a bridge, to improve access and reduce the cost of crossing the river, with the Northern Alignment being preferred. Potential concerns are the noise of opening and closing and the impact on street parking around Surrey Docks Farm, as the area is currently permit free. There is particular concern over the potential impact on those with disabilities who are dropped off to use the farm, and they ask whether reserved street parking could be considered here.

Hallsville school of Ballet

Overall, there is strong support for the bridge with the Northern Alignment strongly supported. The preferred option is for a higher bridge. The bridge provides the opportunity to discover different areas of London, and a potential boost of customers to the ballet school.

67 JP Morgan Chase Bank

Supports the crossing between Rotherhithe and Canary Wharf and do not have a strong view on the three proposed alignments for the crossing. They acknowledge the merits of a navigable bridge compared with other crossing options. In terms of height, it should be minimised and an appropriate design solution should be proposed that will mitigate the negative impacts of a ramp. JP Morgan consider that a ramp could be visually and physically detrimental to the local environment.

They raise the issue that all of the proposed alignments will have an impact on their Riverside South site and therefore request a full assessment of the future design and feasibility work. Should the landing sites encompass JP Morgan land, then they would oppose the bridge proposal. However, for the moment they look forward to working with TfL and wish to be informed on project progress.

St Katherine Docks Marina

Supports a new river crossing between Rotherhithe and Canary Wharf, to support cross-river connectivity for cyclists and pedestrians. Their preferred option is a ferry service, however, if this has been discounted then they support the navigable bridge, providing it does not discourage or hinder marine traffic to the Marina. They have no strong views on location, again, so long as there is no negative impact on marine leisure traffic wishing to berth at SKD. They would like to be informed of progress and welcome the opportunity to attend events and acquire more information.

2000 Community Action Centre

Opposes the river crossing because it should be located at Convoys Wharf to facilitate new residents in Deptford. Additionally, the bridge is opposed and they state a preference for a tunnel. The group highlight accessibility and inclusivity for all types of users as important and stress that a tunnel should be built to avoid the problems of a bridge.

The Peckham Coal Line

There is strong support for the bridge, with a high bridge preferred, to ensure that the bridge is open as much as possible. This will ensure it is a reliable & dependable way to navigate the city, in order to maximise use. Strong support for the Central Alignment, in order to connect into the Peckham Coal Line via Russia dock. The suggestion put forward is that a high navigable bridge could pass over Rotherhithe Street to connect directly into the existing footpath and cycleway from the Salter Street footbridge. The response highlighted that they felt that the success of the Peckham Coal Line is linked closely with that of the Rotherhithe Bridge.

68 Team London Bridge – Business Improvement District

Strongly supports the bridge under the condition that the bridge is navigable to allow ships access to Tower Bridge. The Northern Alignment is supported under the condition that it links with CS4. Uncertain about the bridge height, however, it is crucial the large vessels that use Tower Bridge are able to pass through. A key issue that is important is onward journey connections. Additional information needs to be provided about ongoing journeys because it is currently unclear about links to other transport interchanges.

PPM Production Limited

Strongly supports the proposal of the bridge, with a preference for the Northern Alignment and a higher bridge height. A ramp is the preferred way for cyclists to gain access to the bridge as dismounting is likely to impact the uptake by cyclists.

4.8.3 Politicians and political organisations Southwark Liberal Democrats

Overall, there is strong support for bridge for a number of reasons. These include easing overcrowding on the Jubilee line and East London Overground, creating an alternative route for Rotherhithe tunnel users, enable more cycling, improving access to jobs and decreasing air pollution. The Northern Alignment is preferred. However, the group note that there is risk of affecting a heritage building at Nelson’s Dock on Rotherhithe Street and cyclists merging at Westferry Circus could cause congestion. It is suggested that a segregated merging lane for cyclists heading north could minimise this. A higher bridge is favoured because fewer bridge openings will be required, resulting in minimal delays.

Southwark Green Party

Overall, there is support for the bridge with the Northern Alignment being favoured for location. However, it is important that Durand’s Wharf is not impacted. A lower bridge height is preferred for shorter journey times and to improve energy/efficiency.

Neil Coyle MP, Labour Bermondsey and Old Southwark

Strong support for the bridge proposal, over a tunnel or ferry options. The bridge offers more to the local community and will cause less disruption. The Central or Southern Alignment options are preferred, linking to Durand’s Wharf and a low bridge is preferred in order to prevent public space being lost, but it is recognised that this would only work if feasible from a safety and navigability perspective. The impact of integrating with the existing roads and cycle ways is raised., especially noting traffic issues on Rotherhithe Street. There is a desire to engage the local community in this process and ensure their contribution is reflected in the final designs.

69 Caroline Pidgeon, Liberal Democrat London Assembly Member

Fully supports a pedestrian and cycle crossing between Rotherhithe and Canary Wharf, stating that it is long overdue and plays a critical role in making east London more accessible by foot and bike, helping to deliver many economic, environmental and health benefits for local residents and future Londoners. The Northern Alignment is preferred as it will have lowest impact on residents and provide the best connections. The need for the bridge to be built to a high architectural standard and have an aesthetically pleasing design, ensuring that it is an attraction in itself is raised. Supports the bridge providing segregation for pedestrians and cyclists and being on the higher range of the height options, whilst ensuring a well-designed bridge that local residents find acceptable. GLA Conservatives

Raise concerns relating to the amount of detailed cost-benefit analysis provided by TfL and question whether there is a strong enough business case for the bridge. They raise doubt over the consultation process itself given this lack of detailed information and oppose the proposal. They state the proposal is weak on demand analysis for a walking and cycling bridge in this location. They suggest that TfL considers subsidising the existing ferry service for six months as a means of properly assessing the level of demand. They further stress the opportunity cost of the bridge and that TfL spending could be better targeted at existing development demands in the Isle of Dogs area.

4.8.4 Transport and active travel groups TfL Youth Panel

Overall, there is general support for a navigable bridge. While there is not a general consensus on the best location, the North and Central Alignment were preferred due to desirable onwards connections. They prefer a higher bridge stating it should be 10-15 metres in height to reflect river traffic usage. Ramps are considered to be the most convenient option for cyclists to access the bridge, but they should not be too steep or too long.

Stop Killing Cyclists

Strong support for the navigable bridge as part of their own efforts to get more people cycling safely and to help meet the targets around cycling set out by the draft Mayor’s Transport Strategy. Aspects of the design deemed important include, allowing for the use of accessible bicycles, including cargo bikes, mobility bicycles and also providing ample cycle lane width to avoid any potential conflict with pedestrians. Connecting either end of the bridge to the wider cycle network is critical in relation to cyclist safety. Here, fully protected cycle lanes are the preferred option.

70 The Ramblers Inner London Area

Strong support for the bridge as it provides a new crossing for pedestrians, linking to the Thames Path, which will encourage walking by providing new routes for leisure walking, and link communities. Particular benefits are a bridge being a more reliable option than a ferry, due to waiting times, and safer than a tunnel for walkers. While all three location options are supported, strongest support is for the Northern Alignment, as this will have the least impact on local public space. There is not a preference for the bridge height, as there are pros and cons for each option.

Better streets for Tower Hamlets

Strongly support the proposed bridge. The bridge facilitates active travel between Canary Wharf and the London Borough of Southwark and support the Mayor’s aim for 80 per cent of Londoners trips to be by foot/ cycle or public transport by 2041. The Northern Alignment is preferred, due to convenience and the fact that Westferry Circus is at an elevated level, therefore they anticipate that no access ramp is needed on the north side of the bridge. It also better respects privacy, as on the northern side it lands further from residential developments. The lower bridge is preferred due to access benefits and note that this is important for those with disabilities and for facilitating inclusive cycling.

The Inland Waterways Association Freight Group (IWAFG)

Supportive of a new river crossing for pedestrian and cyclists as it addresses a very urgent need. However, they underline the need to recognise the potential impact of a pedestrian and cyclist bridge on river traffic and shipping and want to see London’s role as a port city preserved. They strongly support a navigable bridge allowing passage upstream to large vessels. They consider the Southern Alignment most satisfactory for reasons of both visibility and ship control as it involves the longest and straightest approach and avoids river bends. The Southern Alignment also avoids adding congestion on both sides of the Northern Alignment and it is shortest in terms of length and slope of bridge and approach ramps.

Sustrans

Strongly support the proposal of the bridge with a preference for the Central Alignment, as it creates the optimum crossing point; meets the needs or river traffic and has sufficient space for access ramps at the landing site. A lower bridge is supported, but on the condition that the Port of London Authority improves navigational efficiencies on the river and minimises the number of openings. Ramps are preferred for cyclists to gain access to the bridge deck.

71 Campaign for Better Transport London

There is strong support for the bridge, with the Northern Alignment and lower bridge height being preferred. However, as a lower level bridge has the disadvantage of being opened too frequently a medium level bridge is favoured. A ramp is preferred for cyclists to access the bridge due to ease of use.

Lewisham Cyclists

Strongly support the river crossing and the proposal of the bridge, but would prefer a tunnel. Of the potential bridge options, the Northern Alignment is favoured due to shorter ramp access to Westferry Circus and better connectivity to the National Cycle Network on the west side. It is proposed that a 15-20m height for the bridge would be appropriate, as Lewisham Cyclists would prefer minimal opening times. Ramps are preferred for cyclists to gain access to the bridge deck.

Living Streets

Strongly support the river crossing, due to the prioritisation of active travel and the potential of reducing congestion on the Jubilee line. The Northern Alignment and lower bridge height is favoured. It is crucial that stairs and lift are not the only way to provide access to the bridge. It is preferable that ramps are located on both sides of the bridge.

London Cycling Campaign

Overall, there is support for the bridge with the Northern Alignment being preferred. This option should directly connect to both Thames Path and Westferry Road. The preferred height of the bridge is dependent on the amount of time it is required to be closed annually and how much effort it will take for users, particularly those with mobility impairments, to ascend/descend from the bridge. Northern Alignment is favoured because this option features a direct connection into the employment centres of the Isle of Dogs and better onward connections to other cycling/walking routes.

Railfuture - London & South East regional branch

There is strong support of the bridge and there is no preference stated for any of the potential locations. There is a preference for a lower bridge so it is accessible to all potential users. For cyclists, ramps are favoured to access the bridge.

72 Tower Hamlet Wheelers

Overall, there is strong support for the bridge due to the benefits to Tower Hamlets residents. They suggest links to the existing cycling network alongside the development of new cycling routes in the borough, in order for the proposal to be mutually beneficial. The Northern Alignment is preferred because it enables good links to Canary Wharf, wider destinations in Tower Hamlets and beyond. There should be a direct cycle link from the bridge to National Cycle Route 1 in addition to a direct link to Westferry Road. Separation of pedestrians and cyclists is proposed if the width allows for this.

Watermen and Lightermen of the River Thames

Unsupportive of the bridge and request the budget should be spent on expanding river services and facilities. A ferry service is preferred. If a bridge is built, a higher bridge is preferred; its design should be high enough to allow vessels with the highest possible air draught to pass underneath it. It is suggested that the bridge should be as high above the river as the QE2 crossing. Current ferry service between Surrey Quays and Canary Wharf provides adequate capacity for the current footfall and could be increased at little public cost.

Wheels for Wellbeing

Strongly support the crossing. There is support for the bridge with Northern Alignment being preferred due to the potential of the crossing being shorter in length. A lower bridge is favoured because it is more accessible for users. However, there is a potential risk of high winds on the bridge. Wind shielding should be considered for the bridge and the ramps to ensure they are accessible when the wind is raised. Ramps are favoured for cyclists to access the bridge because they have the potential to be inclusive to all users.

Alliance of British Drivers

Oppose the bridge as they consider the the costs are too high for the number of pedestrians and cyclists that will benefit. Another reason cited is that the Rotherhithe tunnel is considered to be little used by pedestrians and cyclists. While they are in opposition, and oppose the Central Alignment in particular, they have the strongest support for the Southern Alignment. They do not have any preference on the height of the bridge and state that a ferry is preferable, as it is a cheaper option and more flexible in terms of coping with variable demand or inaccurate forecasts of usage. They consider the cost of building the bridge would be better spent on a road crossing further downstream.

73 5. Next steps

We are now reviewing comments made during the consultation. We will publish our response to issues raised document during the summer.

We will also update as to any changes to the proposals when we publish our response to issues raised.

74 Appendix A: Detailed analysis of comments

Analysis of the most commons themes of the open questions is shown in Section 4. The tables below provide a full summary of all responses to open questions provided by members of the public.

Q1: Overarching Question Do you support a new river crossing between Rotherhithe and Canary Wharf for pedestrians and cyclists?

The closed question allowed respondents to give one of the following responses: ‘Strongly support’, ‘Support’, ‘Neither support nor oppose’, ‘Oppose’, ‘Strongly oppose’.

Issues raised by those in support of the scheme Table 24 shows the full list of coded open responses from the 3,858 respondents who were in support (strongly support or support) of a new river crossing, and gave an open response about the reasons for their support.

75 Eases/alleviates traffic/congestion on the London Underground 677 18% Line (Jubilee Line, Tube) Eases/alleviates traffic/congestion (unspecified type/location) 188 5% Eases/alleviates traffic/congestion at Canada Water station 152 4% Eases/alleviates traffic/congestion in Rotherhithe tunnel 148 4% Eases/alleviates traffic/congestion in the Greenwich Foot Tunnel 90 2% Eases/alleviates traffic/congestion on area bridges (Tower, 60 2% London Bridge, other bridges) Eases/alleviates traffic/congestion on the Overground/DLR 28 1% (Docklands Light Railway) Eases/alleviates traffic/congestion on roadways 26 1% Eases/alleviates traffic/congestion in the Blackwall Tunnel 14 0% Other user experience mentions 82 2% Net: Access 1,114 29% Better connectivity /improves access (all mentions) 937 24% Improves access to commercial outlets (restaurants, shops) 167 4% Other means of transport/access are often limited/closed/out of 34 1% order Other access mentions 80 2% Net: Environment 498 13% Better for the environment/greener/cleaner/less cars on the road 280 7% (all mentions) Rotherhithe tunnel is polluted/fumey/not nice 205 5% Less pollution for cyclists / more fresh air 20 1% Other environment mentions 17 0% Net: Infrastructure 333 9% Would improve the area/boost economy/development 286 7% Net: Financial 297 8% Value for money/cheaper/free method of travel 282 7% Other financial mentions 19 1% Net: Safety/security 326 8% Safer option/less dangerous for cyclists 231 6% Safer option/less dangerous for pedestrians 79 2% Safer option/less dangerous 74 2% Less crime/anti-social behaviour (not safe alone, at night, for 7 0% women) Net: Other 124 3% Potential to create a new / attractive area feature/landmark 18 1% Other miscellaneous positive mentions 109 3% Net: Location 113 3% Includes a route to Canary Wharf 65 2% I live in the area 37 1% I work in Canary Wharf 18 1% Includes a route to Canada Water 7 0%

76 Should connect directly into CS3 to the North 6 0% Consideration should be given to connect with National Cycle Route 1 which passes North & South through the Greenwich 5 0% Tunnel NET: NEGATIVE 84 2% Large increase in population/growth to the area 56 2% Net: Specific alternative suggestions 34 1% Prefer an option that accommodates cars/buses 13 0% Other specific alternative suggestions mentions 21 1% Net: Overall Rejection 25 1% NET: NEUTRAL 22 1% Prefer other/existing method of crossing/existing ferry service 20 1% A crossing here is not needed/important/a bad idea/do not 3 0% support project Other miscellaneous neutral mentions 22 1% Other overall rejection mentions 4 0% Net: Financial 15 0% Too expensive/waste of money/money could be better spent 10 0% Other financial mentions 6 0% Net: User experience 7 0% Will add to the congestion in residential areas 2 0% Will create parking issues/lack of parking 2 0% Will add to/create river traffic congestion 2 0% Will add to vehicle congestion 1 0% Other user experience mentions 2 0% Net: Aesthetics 4 0% Would have a negative impact on aesthetics/prefer to see the 4 0% open stretch of water/like current atmosphere Net: Other 19 1% Other miscellaneous negative mentions 19 1% Total 3,858 100%

Table 24 Issues raised by those in support of the scheme.

77 Issues raised by those in opposition to the scheme Table 25 shows the full list of coded open responses from the 336 respondents who were in opposition (strongly oppose or oppose) to a new river crossing, and gave an open response about the reasons for their opposition. There were five people who were in overall opposition to the scheme who had positive or partially positive comments about it.

Issue Total % NET: POSITIVE 5 2% Net: Overall acceptance 2 1% Agree with it/strongly in favour/it is much needed/long overdue 2 1% No/not enough crossings/bridges (in the area) 1 0% Net: Convenience 2 1% Good for people who live/work/travel to the area 1 0% Other ease/convenience mentions 1 0% Net: Type Of User 1 0% No reliance on public transport/vehicles 1 0% Net: Environment 1 0% Better for the environment/greener/cleaner/less cars on the road 1 0% (all mentions) NET: NEGATIVE 334 99% Net: Overall Rejection 180 54% Prefer other method of crossing (ferry/tunnel/existing 101 30% routes/existing ferry service) A crossing here is not needed/important/a bad idea/do not support 79 24% project Other overall rejection mentions 33 10% Net: Financial 162 48% Too expensive/waste of money/money could be better spent 145 43% Other financial mentions 23 7% Net: User experience 84 25% Will add to the congestion/increase congestion 19 6% Will add to cyclist congestion 15 5% Not sufficiently alleviate current traffic/congestion concerns 13 4% Will add to/create river traffic congestion 8 2% Will add to the congestion in residential areas 7 2% Will add to vehicle congestion 6 2% Will create parking issues/lack of parking 2 1% Other user experience mentions 29 9% Net: Specific alternative suggestions 66 20% Prefer an option that accommodates cars/buses 33 10% Other specific alternative locations mentions 34 10%

Net: Aesthetics 52 16% Would have a negative impact on aesthetics/prefer to see the 52 16% open stretch of water/like current atmosphere Net: Other 99 30% Other miscellaneous negative mentions 99 30% Total 336 100%

Table 25 Issues raised by those in opposition to the scheme.

79 Q2: Options Assessment Do you support our preferred option of a navigable bridge?

The closed question allowed respondents to give one of the following responses: ‘Strongly support’, ‘Support’, ‘Neither support nor oppose’, ‘Oppose’, ‘Strongly oppose’.

Issues raised by those in support of a navigable bridge Table 26 shows the full list of coded open responses from the 1,547 respondents who were in support (strongly support or support) of a navigable bridge, and gave an open response about the reasons for their support.

Comment Total % NET: POSITIVE 1,458 94% Net: Convenience 634 41% Bridge should not cause disruption/delays for any methods of 327 21% travel (cars/boats/cyclist/pedestrians) Bridge is easier/more convenient than others (ferry/tunnel) 177 11% A quicker/more direct route/saves time 176 11% A ferry is less easy / inconvenient / slower (e.g. a ferry has long 19 1% waiting time) A tunnel is less easy / inconvenient / slower 8 1% Other convenience mentions 75 5% Net: Overall acceptance 599 39% A bridge is preferred / is better than others (tunnel, ferry) 340 22% A bridge is the most sensible / realistic option / it is needed 233 15% A navigable bridge is better 19 1% A high bridge is better 11 1% A low bridge is better 10 1% A low bridge with opening mechanism causes less disruption for 4 0% users A tunnel will deter cyclists because of the danger when it is dark 1 0% A tunnel will deter pedestrians because of the danger when it is 1 0% dark Other overall acceptance mentions 19 1% Net: Option (bridge/ferry/tunnel) 352 23% Other specific mentions of bridge height and access (types of 344 22% bridges - high/low/ramp/steps/lift/other) A tunnel is not preferred / is worse than others (ferry, bridge) 8 1% Net: Type of user (cyclist, pedestrian) 321 21%

80 A bridge is better for cyclists 262 17% A bridge is better for pedestrians 195 13% Better for people with disabilities (wheelchairs) 20 1% A ferry will deter cyclists / pedestrians 3 0% Other type of user mentions 31 2% Net: Financial 274 18% A bridge is cheaper / the less expensive option / value for money 252 16% A tunnel is expensive / a more costly option 13 1% A ferry is expensive / a more costly option 9 1% Other financial mentions 9 1% Net: User experience 227 15% A bridge is more pleasant / nicer to use / offers better views / 227 15% picturesque Net: Specific alternative suggestions 150 10% Would prefer a time table/scheduled opening/closings 35 2% Other specific alternative mentions of frequency/length of opening 120 8% times Net: Other 134 9% Added attraction/tourist point/landmark 55 4% Other miscellaneous positive mentions 87 6% Net: Safety/security 89 6% A bridge is the safer option/less dangerous/less crime 89 6% Net: Location 61 4% Other specific location for bridge (e.g. Northern Alignment option, 61 4% Greenwich - all mentions) Net: Environment 50 3% Less impact on the environment/air quality 44 3% A ferry has an environmental impact (all mentions) 3 0% A tunnel has an environmental impact (all mentions) 2 0% A ferry is an eyesore / negative visual impact / obstruct views 1 0% Net: Overall rejection 16 1% A ferry is not preferred / is worse than others (tunnel, bridge etc.) 16 1% NET: NEUTRAL 37 2% Other neutral mentions 37 2% NET: NEGATIVE 90 6% Net: Option (bridge/ferry/tunnel) 51 3% A bridge / navigable bridge / high bridge is not preferred / is worse 44 3% than others (tunnel, ferry) A tunnel is preferred / tunnel is better than others (bridge, ferry) 7 1% Net: Specific Alternative Suggestions 16 1% Other specific alternative suggestions mentions 14 1% Other specific suggestions for tunnel (e.g. new ideas - all 2 0% mentions)

81 Net: Access 15 1% A bridge causes disruption / delays (road and water vessels) 11 1% A tunnel causes less disruption / delays on traffic (road and water 5 0% vessels) Net: Financial 14 1% A bridge is expensive / a more costly option 7 1% A ferry is cheaper / the less expensive option / value for money 3 0% A tunnel is cheaper / the less expensive option / value for money 1 0% Other financial mentions 3 0% Net: Other 13 1% Prefer a more immediate solution 2 0% Negative impact on lives of local residents (lack of privacy, 2 0% increase in noise) Other negative mentions 9 1% Net: Prefer another option 7 1% A ferry is the most sensible / realistic option / it is needed 3 0% A tunnel is the most sensible / realistic option / it is needed 2 0% A ferry is preferred / ferry is better than others (bridge, tunnel) 1 0% A ferry is more flexible/scalable to need/use 1 0% Net: Type Of User (cyclist, pedestrian) 7 1% A bridge is exposed to the weather 3 0% A bridge will deter cyclists / pedestrians 1 0% A ferry is better for cyclists / pedestrians / non-vehicle users 1 0% A tunnel is better for cyclists / pedestrians / non-vehicle users 1 0% A tunnel will deter cyclists because of the pollution 1 0% Net: Environment 2 0% A bridge is an eyesore / negative visual impact / obstruct views 1 0% A bridge has an environmental impact (all mentions) 1 0% Net: None/nothing 19 1% None/nothing 19 1% Total 1,547 100%

Table 26 Issues raised by those in support of a navigable bridge.

82 Issues raised by those in opposition to a navigable bridge Table 27 shows the full list of coded open responses from the 343 respondents who were in opposition (strongly oppose or oppose) to a navigable bridge, and gave an open response about the reasons for their opposition. There were nine people who were in overall opposition to the navigable bridge but had positive or partially positive comments about it.

Issue Total % NET: POSITIVE 9 3% Net: Option (bridge/ferry/tunnel) 2 1% Other specific mentions of bridge height and access (types of 2 1% bridges - high/low/ramp/steps/lift/other) Net: Overall acceptance 3 1% A bridge is the most sensible / realistic option / it is needed 2 1% A bridge is preferred / is better than others (tunnel, ferry) 1 0% Net: Convenience 3 1% Bridge is easier/more convenient than others (ferry/tunnel) 1 0% A quicker/more direct route/saves time 1 0% Other convenience mentions 1 0% Net: Type of user (cyclist, pedestrian) 2 1% A bridge is better for cyclists 2 1% A bridge is better for pedestrians 1 0% Better for people with disabilities (wheelchairs) 1 0% Net: Specific alternative suggestions 2 1% Would prefer a time table/scheduled opening/closings 2 1% Net: User experience 1 0% A bridge is more pleasant / nicer to use / offers better views / 1 0% picturesque Net: Financial 1 0% A bridge is cheaper / the less expensive option / value for money 1 0% NET: NEUTRAL 5 2% Other neutral mentions 5 2% NET: NEGATIVE 335 98% Net: Option (bridge/ferry/tunnel) 200 58% A bridge / navigable bridge / high bridge is not preferred / is worse 196 57% than others (tunnel, ferry) A tunnel is preferred / tunnel is better than others (bridge, ferry) 8 2% Net: Other 127 37% Negative impact on lives of local residents (lack of privacy, 22 6% increase in noise) Prefer a more immediate solution 15 4% Other negative mentions 101 29%

Net: Financial 120 35% A bridge is expensive / a more costly option 96 28% A ferry is cheaper / the less expensive option / value for money 9 3% A tunnel is cheaper / the less expensive option / value for money 2 1% Other financial mentions 24 7% Net: Environment 103 30% A bridge is an eyesore / negative visual impact / obstruct views 87 25% A bridge has an environmental impact (all mentions) 18 5% A bridge will cause elimination/destruction of land/trees/natural 15 4% spaces Net: Access 81 24% A bridge causes disruption / delays (road and water vessels) 67 20% A tunnel causes less disruption / delays on traffic (road and water 20 6% vessels) A ferry causes less disruption / delays on traffic (road and water 1 0% vessels) Net: Prefer another option 44 13% A ferry is preferred / ferry is better than others (bridge, tunnel) 29 9% A ferry is more flexible/scalable to need/use 11 3% A ferry is the most sensible / realistic option / it is needed 5 2% Net: Type Of User (cyclist, pedestrian) 38 11% A bridge is exposed to the weather 19 6% A bridge will deter cyclists / pedestrians 18 5% A ferry is better for cyclists / pedestrians / non-vehicle users 3 1% A tunnel is better for cyclists / pedestrians / non-vehicle users 2 1% Net: Specific Alternative Suggestions 32 9% Other specific alternative mentions of frequency/ length of 32 9% opening times Net: Convenience 21 6% A bridge is less easy / inconvenient / slower (e.g. a bridge has 15 4% long waiting time) A ferry is easier / more convenient / quicker / no waiting to use it / 6 2% ease of access A tunnel is easier / more convenient / quicker / no waiting to use it 2 1% / ease of access Net: User Experience 4 1% A ferry is more pleasant / nicer to use / offers better views / 3 1% picturesque A tunnel is more pleasant / nicer to use 1 0% Net: Safety/Security 1 0% A tunnel is the safer option / less dangerous / less crime 1 0% Net: None/nothing 1 0% None/nothing 1 0% Total 343 100% Table 27 Issues raised by those in opposition to a navigable bridge.

Q3: Bridge Location Considering our preferred option of a navigable bridge, we would like to know your views on the following potential crossing locations?

Issues raised by those in support of the Northern Alignment Table 28 shows the full list of coded open responses from the 1,523 respondents who were in support (strongly support or support) of the Northern Alignment, and gave an open response about the location of the bridge. Because the Q3 open response question asked ‘Do you have any comments on the location of a bridge?’ and respondents were able to express support for more than one option, respondents reasons may be in support of another alignment.

Comment Total % NET: POSITIVE 1,372 90% Net: Location 677 45% Northern Alignment is better/more useful/my preferred location 509 33% Closer to commercial outlets (stores, restaurants) 53 4% Close to lodging/hotels 41 3% Central Alignment is better/more useful/my preferred location 40 3% Southern Alignment is better/more useful/my preferred location 37 2% Close to my house/work 15 1% Northern Alignment has less impact on residential units 10 1% Northern Alignment/Location close to Hilton hotel/Doubletree 5 0% Hilton (all positive mentions) Northern Alignment requires less development 3 0% Other location mentions 88 6% Net: Convenience 598 39% Easy/convenient for getting to Canary Wharf 328 22% Westferry Circus is better/more convenient (is already a stop) 184 12% I support the quickest option 105 7% Northern Alignment option is better/further north is better for 32 2% people/more useful Northern Alignment/Westferry is better/more convenient for 7 1% people to get to / closer to shops & restaurants

85 Central Alignment option is better/more central is better for 3 0% people/more useful Other ease/convenience mentions 77 5% Net: Infrastructure 353 23% Connectivity to cycle network/national cycle network is most 150 10% important Least disruptive option/less residential impact 117 8% Should be close to transport networks/near public transport 56 4% Other infrastructure mentions 67 4% Net: Option (Northern/Central/Southern) 161 11% Any option would work/I like all options/happy with all options/do 140 9% not mind A bridge is a good idea/we need a bridge 28 2% Net: Type Of User 140 9% Better/easier for cyclists 94 6% Better/easier for pedestrians 77 5% Northern Alignment is better/easier for cyclists and pedestrians 11 1% Other type of user mentions 13 1% Net: Access 129 9% Ramps are a good idea/ramps make it easier to access 83 5% Other access mentions 46 3% Net: Specific Alternative Suggestions 64 4% Other specific location for bridge crossing (e.g. Durand’s Wharf, 60 4% Columbus Circle etc. - all mentions) Other specific alternative suggestions 4 0% Net: Financial 43 3% I support the cheapest option 22 1% Other financial mentions 21 1% Net: Overall Acceptance 9 1% Other overall acceptance mentions 9 1% Net: Other 143 9% Miscellaneous other positive mentions 143 9% NET: NEUTRAL 20 1% Other neutral mentions 20 1% NET: NEGATIVE 292 19% Net: Other 161 11% Ruin / lose open/green space at Durand's Wharf 27 2% Survey issues / forced answers / unable to select options as I 18 1% wanted Location (all mentions) 16 1% Central Alignment is too expensive / not worth the additional cost 12 1% Other miscellaneous negative mentions 96 6% Net: Access 125 8%

86 Disagree with any option that uses lifts/dislike lifts/should be lift- 86 6% free access Issues with traffic / congestion 17 1% Potential impact on residential areas 11 1% Other access mentions 22 1% Net: Option (Northern/Central/Southern) 46 3% Central Alignment is too long / longer close times 24 2% Southern Alignment is not good / impractical / least favourable 23 2% If the Northern Alignment is chosen, Westferry Circus should be completely redesigned and private vehicles should be banned 1 0% from its upper deck Net: Overall Rejection 14 1% Do not agree with it/a bridge is a bad idea/not the best solution/do 7 1% not want a bridge/do not like any location Prefer a ferry/ferry option is better 2 0% Prefer a tunnel/tunnel option is better 2 0% Other overall rejection mentions 4 0% Net: None/nothing 32 2% None/nothing/no thoughts on it/do not care 32 2% Total 1,523 100%

Table 27 Issues raised by those in support of the Northern Alignment.

Issues raised by those in support of the Central Alignment Table 29 shows the full list of coded open responses from the 843 respondents who were in support (strongly support or support) of the Central Alignment, and gave an open response about the location of the bridge. Because the Q3 open response question asked ‘Do you have any comments on the location of a bridge?’ and respondents were able to express support for more than one option, respondents reasons may be in support of another alignment e.g. 25 per cent of those in support of the Central Alignment said that the Northern Alignment was their preferred location.

Comment Total % NET: POSITIVE 743 88% Net: Location 374 44% Northern Alignment is better/more useful/my preferred location 214 25% Central Alignment is better/more useful/my preferred location 86 10% Southern Alignment is better/more useful/my preferred location 53 6% Closer to commercial outlets (stores, restaurants) 24 3% Close to my house/work 19 2% Close to lodging/hotels 15 2% Northern Alignment/Location close to Hilton hotel/Doubletree 2 0% Hilton (all positive mentions)

87 Northern Alignment has less impact on residential units 1 0% Other location mentions 49 6% Net: Convenience 297 35% Easy/convenient for getting to Canary Wharf 154 18% Westferry Circus is better/more convenient (is already a stop) 75 9% I support the quickest option 54 6% Northern Alignment option is better/further north is better for 12 1% people/more useful Central Alignment option is better/more central is better for 11 1% people/more useful Southern Alignment option is better/further south is better for 5 1% people/more useful Northern Alignment/Westferry is better/more convenient for 4 1% people to get to / closer to shops & restaurants Other ease/convenience mentions 46 6% Net: Infrastructure 161 19% Connectivity to cycle network/national cycle network is most 61 7% important Least disruptive option/less residential impact 56 7% Should be close to transport networks/near public transport 26 3% Other infrastructure mentions 35 4% Net: Option (Northern/Central/Southern) 112 13% Any option would work/I like all options/happy with all options/do 92 11% not mind A bridge is a good idea/we need a bridge 22 3% Net: Specific Alternative Suggestions 82 10% Other specific location for bridge crossing (e.g. Durand’s Wharf, 78 9% Columbus Circle etc. - all mentions) Other specific alternative suggestions 4 1% Net: Access 78 9% Ramps are a good idea/ramps make it easier to access 40 5% Other access mentions 39 5% Net: Type Of User 69 8% Better/easier for cyclists 48 6% Better/easier for pedestrians 38 5% Northern Alignment is better/easier for cyclists and pedestrians 3 0% Other type of user mentions 9 1% Net: Financial 28 3% Other financial mentions 18 2% I support the cheapest option 10 1% Net: Overall Acceptance 4 1% Other overall acceptance mentions 4 1% Net: Other 69 8% Miscellaneous other positive mentions 69 8%

88 NET: NEUTRAL 23 3% Other neutral mentions 23 3% NET: NEGATIVE 141 17% Net: Other 73 9% Location (all mentions) 7 1% Survey issues / forced answers / unable to select options as I 7 1% wanted Ruin / lose open/green space at Durand's Wharf 6 1% Other miscellaneous negative mentions 54 6% Net: Access 59 7% Disagree with any option that uses lifts/dislike lifts/should be lift- 46 6% free access Issues with traffic / congestion 6 1% Potential impact on residential areas 3 0% Other access mentions 6 1% Net: Option (Northern/Central/Southern) 17 2% Southern Alignment is not good / impractical / least favourable 15 2% Central Alignment is too long / longer close times 2 0% Net: Overall Rejection 10 1% Do not agree with it/a bridge is a bad idea/not the best solution/do 4 1% not want a bridge/do not like any location Prefer a ferry/ferry option is better 2 0% Prefer a tunnel/tunnel option is better 1 0% Other overall rejection mentions 5 1% Net: None/nothing 14 2% None/nothing/no thoughts on it/do not care 14 2% Total 843 100%

Table 28 Issues raised by those in support of the Central Alignment.

89 Issues raised by those in support of the Southern Alignment Table 30 shows the full list of coded open responses from the 416 respondents who were in support (strongly support or support) of the Southern Alignment, and gave an open response about the location of the bridge. Because the Q3 open response question asked ‘Do you have any comments on the location of a bridge?’ and respondents were able to express support for more than one option, respondents reasons may be in support of another alignment e.g. 18 per cent of those in support of the Southern Alignment said that the Northern Alignment was their preferred location.

Issue Total % NET: POSITIVE 371 89% Net: Location 188 45% Northern Alignment is better/more useful/my preferred location 76 18% Southern Alignment is better/more useful/my preferred location 69 17% Central Alignment is better/more useful/my preferred location 39 9% Close to my house/work 11 3% Closer to commercial outlets (stores, restaurants) 11 3% Close to lodging/hotels 5 1% Northern Alignment/Location close to Hilton hotel/Doubletree 1 0% Hilton (all positive mentions) Other location mentions 27 7% Net: Convenience 135 33% I support the quickest option 53 13% Easy/convenient for getting to Canary Wharf 49 12% Westferry Circus is better/more convenient (is already a stop) 24 6% Southern Alignment option is better/further south is better for 6 1% people/more useful Northern Alignment option is better/further north is better for 5 1% people/more useful Central Alignment option is better/more central is better for 3 1% people/more useful Other ease/convenience mentions 21 5% Net: Infrastructure 66 16% Connectivity to cycle network/national cycle network is most 25 6% important Least disruptive option/less residential impact 25 6% Should be close to transport networks/near public transport 4 1% Other infrastructure mentions 23 6% Net: Option (Northern/Central/Southern) 58 14% Any option would work/I like all options/happy with all options/do 48 12% not mind A bridge is a good idea/we need a bridge 14 3%

Net: Specific Alternative Suggestions 57 14% Other specific location for bridge crossing (e.g. Durand’s Wharf, 56 14% Columbus Circle etc. - all mentions) Other specific alternative suggestions 1 0% Net: Type Of User 33 8% Better/easier for cyclists 22 5% Better/easier for pedestrians 20 5% Other type of user mentions 6 1% Net: Financial 33 8% I support the cheapest option 17 4% Other financial mentions 16 4% Net: Access 24 6% Ramps are a good idea/ramps make it easier to access 6 1% Other access mentions 18 4% Net: Overall Acceptance 2 1% Other overall acceptance mentions 2 1% Net: Other 54 13% Miscellaneous other positive mentions 54 13% NET: NEUTRAL 11 3% Other neutral mentions 11 3% NET: NEGATIVE 72 17% Net: Other 49 12% Survey issues / forced answers / unable to select options as I 7 2% wanted Central Alignment is too expensive / not worth the additional cost 6 1% Location (all mentions) 3 1% Other miscellaneous negative mentions 33 8% Net: Access 16 4% Disagree with any option that uses lifts/dislike lifts/should be lift- 4 1% free access Issues with traffic / congestion 4 1% Potential impact on residential areas 3 1% Other access mentions 7 2% Net: Option (Northern/Central/Southern) 13 3% Central Alignment is too long / longer close times 13 3% Southern Alignment is not good / impractical / least favourable 1 0% Net: Overall Rejection 8 2% Do not agree with it/a bridge is a bad idea/not the best solution/do 4 1% not want a bridge/do not like any location Prefer a ferry/ferry option is better 2 1% Prefer a tunnel/tunnel option is better 1 0% Other overall rejection mentions 2 1% Net: None/nothing 9 2%

91 None/nothing/no thoughts on it/do not care 9 2% Total 416 100%

Table 29 Issues raised by those in support of the Southern Alignment.

92 Q4: Bridge Height Considering the information provided, which would you prefer?

The closed question allowed respondents to give one of the following responses: ‘Higher bridge, ‘Lower bridge’, ‘Have no preference, ‘Neither’, ‘Not sure’.

Issues raised by those who prefer higher bridge Table 31 shows the full list of coded open responses from the 1,078 respondents who preferred a higher bridge, and gave an open response about the reasons why.

Comment Total % NET: POSITIVE ABOUT A HIGH BRIDGE 1,057 98% Net: Access 957 89% A high bridge would mean fewer openings & closings 594 55% A high bridge would cause less disruption to pedestrian/cyclist 349 32% traffic A high bridge would cause less disruption to river traffic / leave 287 27% the river navigable Can access by stairs/lift/ramp 78 7% A high bridge has easier access / easier to use 40 4% Would not require lifts/stairs 24 2% Would require lower/shorter ramps 19 2% Other access mentions 46 4% Net: Aesthetics 212 20% A high bridge would be visually attractive/less obtrusive/look 189 18% elegant/beautiful Other aesthetics mentions 31 3% Net: Type Of User (cyclist, pedestrian) 171 16% Good/better for cyclist 114 11% Good/better for pedestrians 98 9% Good for disabled people 18 2% Other type of user mentions 30 3% Net: Other 76 7% Would encourage more/increased use 16 2% No/less maintenance required 12 1% Big ships do not cross often 5 1% Other miscellaneous positive mentions 48 5%

93 Net: Option (bridge/ferry/tunnel) 52 5% A higher bridge is better / prefer a high bridge 52 5% Net: Convenience 45 4% Opening schedules could be published so users can plan 10 1% accordingly Do not mind waiting/openings/closures are not an issue 5 1% Stop bridge openings at peak commuter hours 3 0% Leaves the river navigable/less disruption to river traffic 2 0% Other convenience mentions 26 2% Net: Overall Acceptance 23 2% Either would work/like both options/as long as there is a crossing 10 1% Other overall acceptance mentions 13 1% Net: Financial 21 2% Cost savings/cost effective option 21 2% Net: Safety/security 7 1% Safer for cyclists 5 1% Safer for pedestrians 2 0% Safer option 1 0% Net: Environment 6 1% Lower impact on the area/environment 6 1% NET: POSITIVE ABOUT A LOW BRIDGE 1 0% Net: Aesthetics 1 0% A low bridge would be visually attractive/less obtrusive/look 1 0% elegant/beautiful NET: NEUTRAL GENERAL 28 3% Depends on the frequency with which the bridge will be 15 1% opened/closed Other neutral mentions 13 1% NET: NEGATIVE ABOUT A HIGH BRIDGE 12 1% Net: Access 9 1% A high bridge would require steep ramps / too difficult to go up 7 1% steep ramps A high bridge would restrict access / make access difficult / more 1 0% difficult A high bridge would require long ramps 1 0% Net: Aesthetics 5 1% A high bridge would have a negative visual impact / look horrible / 5 1% an eyesore NET: NEGATIVE GENERAL 33 3% Net: Access 10 1% Would require more opening & closing 2 0% Delays/interruptions/no flow 2 0% Other access mentions 6 1% Net: Overall Rejection 9 1%

94 Disagree with any type of bridge/shouldn't have a bridge 5 1% Prefer to have a tunnel/tunnel option is better 4 0% Prefer to have a ferry crossing/ferry option is better 1 0% Net: Financial 4 0% Too expensive/needless expense 4 0% Net: Convenience 1 0% Not easy/not convenient to use/no access 1 0% Net: Other 19 2% Other miscellaneous negative mentions 19 2% Net: None/nothing 3 0% None/nothing 3 0% Total 1,078 100%

Table 30 Issues raised by those who prefer higher bridge.

Issues raised by those who prefer lower bridge Table 32 shows the full list of coded open responses from the 954 respondents who preferred a lower bridge, and gave an open response about the reasons why.

95 Good/better for pedestrians 159 17% Good for disabled people 50 5% Other type of user mentions 32 3% Net: Convenience 208 22% Do not mind waiting/openings/closures are not an issue 166 17% Opening schedules could be published so users can plan 36 4% accordingly Stop bridge openings at peak commuter hours 16 2% Leaves the river navigable/less disruption to river traffic 4 0% Continuous (non-water) traffic flow/quick/direct/no delays 3 0% Other convenience mentions 9 1% Net: Other 110 12% Big ships do not cross often 50 5% No/less maintenance required 21 2% Would encourage more/increased use 6 1% Other miscellaneous positive mentions 39 4% Net: Financial 63 7% Cost savings/cost effective option 63 7% Net: Environment 54 6% Lower impact on the area/environment 54 6% Net: Safety/security 40 4% More sheltered/better protected from winds 34 4% Safer option 4 0% Safer for cyclists 4 0% Safer for pedestrians 4 0% Less risk of suicides 2 0% Net: Option (bridge/ferry/tunnel) 26 3% A lower bridge is better / prefer a low bridge 26 3% Net: Overall Acceptance 30 3% Either would work/like both options/as long as there is a crossing 5 1% Other overall acceptance mentions 25 3% NET: NEUTRAL GENERAL 52 6% Depends on the frequency with which the bridge will be 43 5% opened/closed Details on fact sheets are not sufficient/need additional 1 0% information Other neutral mentions 10 1% NET: NEGATIVE ABOUT A HIGH BRIDGE 26 3% Net: Access 21 2% A high bridge would require steep ramps / too difficult to go up 12 1% steep ramps A high bridge would require long ramps 7 1% A high bridge would restrict access / make access difficult / more 5 1%

96 difficult A high bridge would be more difficult for cyclists/put cyclists & 1 0% pedestrians off Net: Aesthetics 7 1% A high bridge would have a negative visual impact / look horrible / 7 1% an eyesore NET: NEGATIVE ABOUT A LOW BRIDGE 9 1% Net: Access 9 1% A low bridge would require more opening & closing 9 1% NET: NEGATIVE GENERAL 23 2% Net: Overall Rejection 11 1% Disagree with any type of bridge/shouldn't have a bridge 4 0% Prefer to have a tunnel/tunnel option is better 4 0% Prefer to have a ferry crossing/ferry option is better 2 0% Other overall rejection mentions 1 0% Net: Access 5 1% Delays/interruptions/no flow 1 0% Other access mentions 4 0% Net: Financial 1 0% Too expensive/needless expense 1 0% Net: Convenience 1 0% Not easy/not convenient to use/no access 1 0% Net: Other 7 1% Other miscellaneous negative mentions 7 1% Net: None/nothing 7 1% None/nothing 7 1% Total 954 100%

Table 31 Issues raised by those who prefer lower bridge.

97 Issues raised by those who have no preference/ prefer neither height Table 33 shows the full list of coded open responses from the 272 respondents who had no height preference for the bridge and the 188 who preferred neither, and gave an open response about the reasons why.

No preference Neither Comment Total % Total % NET: POSITIVE ABOUT HIGH BRIDGE 13 5% 0 0% Net: Access 12 4% 0 0% A high bridge would mean fewer openings & closings 3 1% 0 0% A high bridge would cause less disruption to pedestrian/cyclist traffic 1 0% 0 0% A high bridge would cause less disruption to river traffic / leave the river navigable 1 0% 0 0% A high bridge has easier access / easier to use 8 3% 0 0% Net: Aesthetics 3 1% 0 0% A high bridge would be visually attractive/less obtrusive/look elegant/beautiful 3 1% 0 0% Net: Option (bridge/ferry/tunnel) 2 1% 0 0% A higher bridge is better / prefer a high bridge 2 1% 0 0% NET: POSITIVE ABOUT LOW BRIDGE 33 12% 8 4% Net: Access 29 11% 8 4% A low bridge has easier access / easier to use 11 4% 2 1% A low bridge would cause less disruption to pedestrian/cyclist traffic 0 0% 0 0% A low bridge would open & close infrequently/not often enough to cause issues 18 7% 6 3% A low bridge would cause low/minimal disruption to river traffic / leave the river navigable 0 0% 0 0% A low bridge is easier for cyclists & pedestrians to use/better access for cyclists 2 1% 0 0% A low bridge provides easier access for disabled people/wheelchairs 0 0% 0 0% Net: Aesthetics 3 1% 1 1% A low bridge would be visually attractive/less obtrusive/look elegant/beautiful 3 1% 0 0% A low bridge is less visually obtrusive / less visual impact 1 0% 1 1% Net: Option (bridge/ferry/tunnel) 1 0% 0 0% A lower bridge is better / prefer a low bridge 1 0% 0 0% NET: POSITIVE GENERAL 211 78% 21 11% Net: Overall Acceptance 105 39% 13 7% Either would work/like both options/as long as there is a crossing 89 33% 0 0% Other overall acceptance mentions 17 6% 13 7%

Net: Convenience 70 26% 3 2% Do not mind waiting/openings/closures are not an issue 10 4% 0 0% Opening schedules could be published so users can plan accordingly 6 2% 0 0% Other convenience mentions 13 5% 0 0% Leaves the river navigable/less disruption to river traffic 31 11% 1 1% Continuous (non-water) traffic flow/quick/direct/no delays 17 6% 2 1% Stop bridge openings at peak commuter hours 5 2% 0 0% Net: Type Of User (cyclist, pedestrian) 48 18% 2 1% Good/better for cyclist 33 12% 1 1% Good/better for pedestrians 20 7% 1 1% Good for disabled people 7 3% 0 0% Other type of user mentions 6 2% 2 1% Net: Access 34 13% 2 1% Would not require lifts/stairs 15 6% 1 1% Would require lower/shorter ramps 8 3% 1 1% Can access by stairs/lift/ramp 7 3% 0 0% Other access mentions 12 4% 0 0% Net: Aesthetics 26 10% 3 2% Visually attractive/less obtrusive/looks elegant/beautiful 20 7% 3 2% Other aesthetics mentions 11 4% 0 0% Net: Other 19 7% 2 1% Big ships do not cross often 2 1% 1 1% No/less maintenance required 4 2% 0 0% Would encourage more/increased use 4 2% 0 0% Other miscellaneous positive mentions 10 4% 1 1% Net: Financial 11 4% 2 1% Cost savings/cost effective option 11 4% 2 1% Net: Environment 5 2% 4 2% Lower impact on the area/environment 5 2% 4 2% Net: Safety/security 4 2% 2 1% More sheltered/better protected from winds 1 0% 1 1% Safer for cyclists 1 0% 0 0% Safer option 2 1% 0 0% Safer for pedestrians 0 0% 0 0% Less risk of suicides 0 0% 1 1% NET: NEUTRAL GENERAL 65 24% 9 5% Depends on the frequency with which the bridge will be opened/closed 25 9% 2 1% Details on fact sheets are not sufficient/need additional information 4 2% 1 1% Other neutral mentions 40 15% 6 3%

99 NET: NEGATIVE ABOUT HIGH BRIDGE 8 3% 12 6% Net: Access 6 2% 5 3% A high bridge would require steep ramps / too difficult to go up steep ramps 5 2% 5 3% A high bridge would restrict access / make access difficult / more difficult 1 0% 1 1% A high bridge would require long ramps 0 0% 0 0% A high bridge would be more difficult for cyclists/put cyclists & pedestrians off 1 0% 0 0% Net: Aesthetics 2 1% 9 5% A high bridge would have a negative visual impact / look horrible / an eyesore 2 1% 9 5% NET: NEGATIVE ABOUT LOW BRIDGE 5 2% 8 4% Net: Access 5 2% 8 4% A low bridge would require more opening & closing 5 2% 8 4% NET: NEGATIVE GENERAL 31 11% 169 90% Net: Overall Rejection 11 4% 145 77% Disagree with any type of bridge/shouldn't have a bridge 6 2% 96 51% Prefer to have a tunnel/tunnel option is better 3 1% 36 19% Prefer to have a ferry crossing/ferry option is better 0 0% 41 22% Other overall rejection mentions 2 1% 6 3% Net: Access 10 4% 16 9% Delays/interruptions/no flow 5 2% 8 4% Would require more opening & closing 2 1% 6 3% Other access mentions 3 1% 7 4% Net: Convenience 5 2% 3 2% Not easy/not convenient to use/no access 5 2% 3 2% Net: Financial 3 1% 20 11% Too expensive/needless expense 3 1% 20 11% Net: Aesthetics 1 0% 12 6% Would have a negative visual impact/unattractive/an eyesore 1 0% 12 6% Net: Other 8 3% 48 26% Other miscellaneous negative mentions 8 3% 48 26% Net: None/nothing 3 1% 6 3% None/nothing 3 1% 6 3% Total 272 100% 188 100%

Table 32 Issues raised by those who have no preference/ prefer neither height.

100 Q5: Bridge Design We have been exploring a number of other aspects that influence the design of a bridge option. Which of the following aspects are important to you?

Respondents were able to select as many options as applied, and specify ‘other’ aspects that were important to them. Table 34 shows the full list of responses, including coded responses from the ‘Other’ option.

Comment Total % Segregation between cyclists and pedestrians 3,595 61% Access to the bridge deck (by ramps, lifts, stairs or other means) 3,564 61% Accessibility and inclusivity for all types of user 3,365 57% Opening time frequencies 3,183 54% Architectural design and materials 3,079 52% Opening time length 3,015 51% Environmental impacts 2,798 48% Onward journey connections 2,766 47% Safety and security 2,724 46% Urban realm and landscaping around the bridge landing sites 2,076 35% Width of the bridge deck 1,623 28% Bridge height (height of the deck for users) 1,298 22% Operation and maintenance of the bridge 1,287 22% Bridge opening system 1,215 21% Construction impacts 919 16% Bridge height (overall height of the structure/towers) 786 13% Do not want a bridge / want to explore alternative options 85 1% (tunnel/ferry) Accessibility for cyclists 72 1% Visual appeal / impact 42 1% Cost / how it is paid for / who pays for it 34 1% Construction time 30 1% Open 24 hours / all day and night 24 0% Impact on residents / residential area 23 0% Lighting / light impact 21 0% Protection from wind / weather 20 0% Vehicle access 17 0% Noise impact 14 0% Accessibility for pedestrians 13 0% Accessibility / easy to access 11 0% Impact on boats / ships / river access 11 0%

Shelter / seating / rest / viewing areas on bridge 10 0% Location impact 8 0% Accessibility for elderly / handicapped / wheelchair bound 7 0% Free access / no toll 7 0% Make a landmark / tourist attraction 7 0% Traffic impact 7 0% App / email / website with bridge info 6 0% Everything / all 6 0% Kiosks / shops / cafes / cycle rental stores 6 0% Efficient / practical 5 0% Speed limit 5 0% Other 47 1% Total 5,880 100%

Table 33 Other option

102 Q6: Further comments about proposal Table 35 shows the full list of coded open responses from the 2,720 respondents who had further comments about the proposal for the Rotherhithe to Canary Wharf crossing

Comment Total % NET: POSITIVE 2,122 78% Net: Overall acceptance 1,524 56% A crossing here is much needed/important/a good idea/brilliant idea/support 1,228 45% project Do it as quickly as possible/as soon as possible/asap 401 15% Will benefit the community/good for the community 22 1% Other overall acceptance mentions 24 1% Net: Miscellaneous Positive 538 20% Eases/alleviates traffic/congestion (all mentions) 181 7% Better for the environment/greener/cleaner/less cars on the road 114 4% Would boost economy/good for the area/development 101 4% Other miscellaneous positive mentions 214 8% Net: Location 479 18% Better connectivity/encourages travel/tourism/improves access 331 12% Good for people who live/work in the area 100 4% A bridge is needed around Canary Wharf/will be beneficial for access to 36 1% Canary Wharf Will improve connectivity in East London/make East London more accessible 28 1% I live in the area (unspecified) 14 1% Will benefit Rotherhithe 5 0% I work in Canary Wharf 5 0% Other location mentions 33 1% Net: Option (bridge, ferry, tunnel) 205 8% A bridge is preferred/is better than others (tunnel, ferry)/build a bridge 125 5% A Bascule bridge is preferred 57 2% A bridge is needed/badly needed/long overdue/a good addition/welcome 24 1% Net: Type Of User (cyclist, pedestrian, car) 203 8% Need better crossing for cyclists 100 4% Encourages cycling 57 2% Need better crossing for pedestrians 44 2% Encourages pedestrians 39 1% Other type of user mentions 38 1% Net: Access 6 0% Other access mentions 6 0% Net: Financial 5 0% A tunnel would be expensive/cost a lot to build 5 0%

103 NET: GENERAL 4 0% Net: Organisations Involved 4 0% Mention of Elliott Wood/Reform/Sustrans 4 0% Mention of The Bridge Action Group 1 0% NET: NEGATIVE 707 26% Net: Option (bridge/ferry/tunnel) 306 11% A ferry is preferred / is better than others (tunnel, bridge) 150 6% A tunnel is preferred/is better than others (ferry, bridge) / build a tunnel 104 4% A bridge is not needed/not a good idea 88 3% Net: Miscellaneous Negative 247 9% Not really a consultation / biased/corrupt survey / decision has already been 29 1% made Other miscellaneous negative mentions 228 8% Net: Financial 198 7% Any project is a waste of money/taxpayers money will be wasted/money 96 4% could be better spent Go with the cheapest option 2 0% Other financial mentions 103 4% Net: Type Of User (cyclist, pedestrian, car) 111 4% Cyclists should be kept separate from pedestrians/a separate cycle path 99 4% Other type of user mentions 13 1% Net: Overall rejection 91 3% The Garden Bridge was a waste of money 3 0% Other overall rejection mentions 88 3% Net: Garden Bridge 6 0% The Garden Bridge was a vanity project 4 0% The Garden Bridge was a negative political move 1 0% The Garden Bridge should never have been considered 1 0% Net: None/nothing 56 2% None/nothing 56 2% Total 2,720 100%

Table 34 Further comments .

104 Q9: Cyclist access preference If you chose ‘Cycle’ for the previous question, how would you prefer to access the bridge deck (as a cyclist)? The bridge deck could be at a height of 10-20m, equivalent to a building of 3-6 storeys.

Reasons for ramp preference Table 36 below shows the full list of coded open responses from the 1,079 respondents who said they would prefer a ramp to access the bridge as a cyclist and gave an open response about why.

Comment Total % NET: POSITIVE ABOUT RAMP 1,030 96% Net: Convenience 899 83% A ramp would be most user-friendly/easiest to use 385 36% Cyclists would not need to dismount using a ramp/uninterrupted 333 31% journey Allows the best/continuous flow of traffic/maximum number of 249 23% users Fast/quick/no waiting to use 218 20% A ramp would be quickest to use/the fastest option for cyclists 24 2% Lift is most convenient/easiest option to use 4 0% Other convenience mentions 38 4% Net: Option (ramp/lift/stairs) 763 71% A ramp would be good/best option 730 68% Lift would be good/best option 17 2% Stairs would be good/best option 4 0% Other option mentions 33 3% NET: Miscellaneous Positive 181 17% Most reliable/less maintenance required 131 12% Could use the exercise/good exercise 13 1% Other miscellaneous positive mentions 47 4% Net: Safety/security 30 3% Ramp is safer / less likely to cause injury/accidents 13 1% Safer than a lift / security is a concern in a lift 8 1% Lift is safer / less likely to cause injury/accidents 1 0% Other safety mentions 8 1% Net: Specific alternative suggestions 14 1% A spiral ramp would be a good idea 1 0% Other specific alternative suggestions mentions 13 1% Net: Environment 9 1% Environment mentions 9 1% NET: NEGATIVE ABOUT OTHER OPTIONS 125 12%

105 Net: Option (ramp/lift/stairs) 57 5% Maintenance issues with lifts 36 3% Dislike stairs/stairs option is the least preferable 21 2% Other option mentions 7 1% Net: Miscellaneous Negative 49 5% Lift would need to be large / capacity concerns about lift 28 3% Less maintenance 3 0% Other miscellaneous negative mentions 20 2% Net: Convenience 47 4% Waiting for a lift creates a bottleneck 26 2% Lifts are too slow/slow down your journey 12 1% Stairs create a bottleneck 3 0% Stairs are too slow/slow down your journey 2 0% Other convenience mentions 9 1% Net: Safety/security 12 1% Lifts are prone to vandalism/theft 12 1% Net: None/nothing 1 0% None/nothing 1 0% Total 1,079 100%

Table 35 Reasons for ramp preference.

Reasons for lift preference Table 37 shows the full list of coded open responses from the 178 respondents who said they would prefer a lift to access the bridge as a cyclist and gave an open response about why.

Comment Total % NET: POSITIVE ABOUT LIFT 165 93% Net: Option (ramp/lift/stairs) 146 82% Lift would be good/best option 120 67% A ramp would be good/best option 17 10% Stairs would be good/best option 3 2% Other option mentions 12 7% Net: Convenience 118 66% Lift is most convenient/easiest option to use 92 52% Fast/quick/no waiting to use 12 7% Allows the best/continuous flow of traffic/maximum number of 11 6% users A ramp would be most user-friendly/easiest to use 3 2% Stairs are most convenient/easiest option to use 1 1%

106 Cyclists would not need to dismount using a ramp/uninterrupted 1 1% journey Other convenience mentions 11 6% NET: Miscellaneous Positive 20 11% Most reliable/less maintenance required 1 1% Other miscellaneous positive mentions 19 11% Net: Environment 16 9% A lift would cause less impact on surrounding areas/landing area 1 1% Other environment mentions 15 8% Net: Safety/security 9 5% Lift is safer / less likely to cause injury/accidents 6 3% Safer than a lift / security is a concern in a lift 1 1% Other safety mentions 2 1% Net: Specific alternative suggestions 1 1% Other specific alternative suggestions mentions 1 1% NET: NEGATIVE ABOUT OTHER OPTIONS 29 16% Net: Option (ramp/lift/stairs) 16 9% Dislike stairs/stairs option is the least preferable 9 5% Maintenance issues with lifts 2 1% Other option mentions 5 3% Net: Miscellaneous Negative 12 7% Lift would need to be large / capacity concerns about lift 7 4% Other miscellaneous negative mentions 5 3% Net: Convenience 7 4% Lifts are too slow/slow down your journey 1 1% Other convenience mentions 6 3% Net: None/nothing 1 1% None/nothing 1 1% Total 178 100%

Table 36 Reasons for lift preference.

Reasons for stairs preference Table 38 shows the full list of coded open responses from the 69 respondents who said they would prefer stairs to access the bridge as a cyclist and gave an open response about why.

Comment Total % NET: POSITIVE ABOUT STAIRS 64 93% Net: Option (ramp/lift/stairs) 56 81% Stairs would be good/best option 44 64% A ramp would be good/best option 5 7%

107 Lift would be good/best option 3 4% Other option mentions 8 12% Net: Convenience 35 51% Stairs are most convenient/easiest option to use 19 28% Fast/quick/no waiting to use 14 20% Allows the best/continuous flow of traffic/maximum number of 5 7% users Lift is most convenient/easiest option to use 2 3% Other convenience mentions 3 4% Net: Environment 14 20% Other environment mentions 14 20% NET: Miscellaneous Positive 13 19% Most reliable/less maintenance required 3 4% Could use the exercise/good exercise 1 1% Other miscellaneous positive mentions 10 15% Net: Safety/security 4 6% Safer than a lift / security is a concern in a lift 1 1% Lift is safer / less likely to cause injury/accidents 1 1% Other safety mentions 2 3% Net: Specific alternative suggestions 3 4% Other specific alternative suggestions mentions 3 4% NET: NEGATIVE ABOUT OTHER OPTIONS 14 20% Net: Convenience 10 15% Lifts are too slow/slow down your journey 4 6% Waiting for a lift creates a bottleneck 1 1% Other convenience mentions 5 7% Net: Miscellaneous Negative 4 6% Less maintenance 3 4% Other miscellaneous negative mentions 1 1% Total 69 100%

Table 37 Reasons for stairs preference.

108 Q16: Quality of consultation

The majority rated the consultation as good (87 per cent).

109 Q18: Ethnic group Ethnic group Total % Asian or Asian British – Bangladeshi 37 1% Asian or Asian British – Chinese 147 2% Asian or Asian British – Indian 185 3% Asian or Asian British – Other 65 1% Asian or Asian British – Pakistani 17 0% Black or Black British – African 44 1% Black or Black British – Caribbean 30 1% Black or Black British – Other 8 0% Mixed – Other 82 1% Mixed – White and Asian 71 1% Mixed – White and Black African 13 0% Mixed – White and Caribbean 23 0% Other Ethnic Group 27 0% Other Ethnic Group – Arab 17 0% Other Ethnic Group – Kurdish 2 0% Other Ethnic Group – Latin American 39 1% Other Ethnic Group – Turkish 11 0% White – British 2,851 47% White – Irish 135 2% White – Other 1,381 23% Prefer not to say 548 9% Not Answered 361 6% Net: White 4,367 72% Net: Other 818 13% Total 6,094 100%

Table 38 Ethnic group.

Q20: Sexual orientation

Sexual orientation Total % Heterosexual 3,971 65% Bisexual 119 2% Gay man 447 7%

Lesbian 39 1% Other 45 1% Prefer not to say 1,017 17% Not Answered 456 8% Total 6,094 100%

Table 40 Ethnic group.

Q21: Religious faith Ethnic group Total % Christian 1,529 25% Hindu 107 2% Muslim 94 2% Buddhist 63 1% Jewish 40 1% Sikh 6 0% Other 93 2% No religion 2,780 46% Prefer not to say 947 16% Not Answered 435 7% Total 6,094 100%

Table 39 Religious faith.

Appendix B: Questions that we asked about our proposals

1. Do you support a new river crossing between Rotherhithe and Canary Wharf for pedestrians and cyclists?

Strongly support Support Neither support nor oppose Oppose Strongly oppose

Please tell us why below

Options

2. Do you support our preferred option of a navigable bridge? A navigable bridge allows the movement of vessels on the river to continue. It may be high level allowing vessels beneath or with an opening mechanism to allow them through.

Strongly support Support Neither support nor oppose Oppose Strongly oppose

Do you have any further comments on TfL’s preferred option, other options or the selection process?

112 Bridge Location

3. Considering our preferred option of a navigable bridge, we would like to know your views on the following potential crossing locations? Please tick a different option for each alignment, for example, do not tick “Support” for all three alignments. This will help us to understand your preference when we analyse the responses.

Do you have any comments on the location of a bridge? Bridge height

We have been working with the Port of London Authority to investigate different options for the height and span of the bridge over the river. This heavily influences how the bridge opens for larger vessels on the river, the frequency and duration of openings, the visual impact of the bridge and how easy it is to access for users.

4. Considering the information provided, which would you prefer?

Higher bridge Lower bridge Have no preference Neither

Please tell us why below

113 Bridge design

We have been exploring a number of other aspects that influence the design of a bridge. More information can be found in Factsheet 3: Bridge options.

5. Which of the following aspects are important to you? (tick all that apply):

Access to the bridge deck (by ramps, lifts, stairs or other means)

Accessibility and inclusivity for all types of user

Architectural design and materials

Bridge height (height of the deck for users)

Bridge height (overall height of the structure/towers)

Bridge opening system

Construction impacts

Environmental impacts

Onward journey connections

Opening time frequencies

Opening time length

Operation and maintenance of the bridge

Safety and security

Segregation between cyclists and pedestrians

Urban realm and landscaping around the bridge landing sites

Width of the bridge deck

Other (please specify below)

Other

114 General comments on the project as a whole

6. Do you have any further comments you would like to make about our proposals?

7. Are you (please tick all boxes that apply):

A local resident

A local business owner

Employed locally

A visitor to the area

A commuter to the area

Not local but interested in the scheme

Other (please specify)

Other

8. How would you use the bridge?

Walk Cycle Both walk and cycle Neither Not sure

9. If you chose 'Cycle' for the previous question, how would you prefer to access the bridge deck (as a cyclist)? The bridge deck may be at a height of 10-20 metres, equivalent to a building of 3-6 storeys.

Ramp (the ramp may require some detour from the direction of travel to reach this height with a comfortable cycling gradient)

Lift (cyclists may be required to dismount, although the lift could be designed as a ‘through-lift’ to make it easy for cyclists to push the bicycle in one door and out the opposite door)

Stairs (dismount and push the bicycle up/down a ‘gutter’ on the stairs)

115 Other Please tell us why below r (please specify below)

11. Why would you use the bridge?

For leisure To get to and from work Not sure Other (please specify below)

Other

12. What is your name?

13. What is your email address?

14. Please provide us with your postcode?

15. If responding on behalf of an organisation, business or campaign group, please provide us with the name:

16. How did you find out about this consultation?

Received an email from TfL Received a letter from TfL Read about in the press Saw it on the TfL website Social media Other (please specify)

Other

17. What do 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.)?

Very good Good Acceptable Poor Very poor

Do you have any further comments about the quality of the consultation material?

116 Equality Monitoring

Please tell us about yourself in this section. All information will be kept confidential and used for analysis purposes only. We are asking these questions to ensure our consultations reach all sections of the community and to improve the effectiveness of the way we communicate with our customers. You do not have to provide any personal information if you don’t want to.Top of Form

18. Gender:

Male Female Trans female Trans male Gender neutral Prefer not to say

19. Ethnic Group:

Asian or Asian British – Bangladeshi Asian or Asian British – Chinese

Asian or Asian British – Indian Asian or Asian British – Other

Asian or Asian British – Pakistani Black or Black British – African

Black or Black British – Caribbean

Black or Black British – Other Mixed – Other Mixed – White and Asian

Mixed – White and Black African Mixed – White and Caribbean

Other Ethnic Group Other Ethnic Group – Arab Other Ethnic Group – Kurdish

Other Ethnic Group – Latin American Other Ethnic Group – Turkish White – British

White – Irish White – Other

20. Age:

Under 15 16-20 21-25 26-30 31-35 36-40 41-45 46-50 51-55 56-60 61-65 66-70 71+ Prefer not to say

117 21. Sexual Orientation:

Heterosexual Bisexual Gay man Lesbian Other Prefer not to say

22. Religious faith:

Buddhist Christian Hindu Muslim Sikh Jewish Other No religion Prefer not to say

23. Are your day-to-day activities limited because of a health problem or disability which has lasted, or is expected to last, at least 12 months? (Please include problems related to old age)

Yes, limited a lot Yes, limited a little No Prefer not to say Thank you for taking the time to give us your views

118 Appendix C: Consultation Postcard

Copy of postcard that was distributed.

119 Distribution map

Below is the area the post card was delivered to, over 147,000 addresses.

120 Appendix D Copy of Factsheets

Factsheet 1 Overview For a hard copy of this factsheet, please visit https://consultations.tfl.gov.uk/++preview++/rivercrossings/rotherhithe- canarywharf/user_uploads/r2cw-factsheet-1---overview.pdf A new river crossing between Rotherhithe and Canary Wharf: Factsheet 1 – Overview

Introduction We would like your views on our proposals for a new river crossing for pedestrians and cyclists from Rotherhithe to Canary Wharf. This project is one of a number of proposed new river crossings for London which are intended to improve cross-river connectivity. Please see Figure 1 for the section of the River Thames under consideration for the new crossing. Why are we proposing a new Thames Crossing? It is forecast that there will be significant growth in cycling across London, employment growth in Canary Wharf, and population growth particularly in the Canada Water area, due to new residential and mixed use development. This will generate an increase in journeys and a demand for walking and cycling facilities in the area

The Jubilee line is currently operating close to capacity during peak times and there is a lack of appropriate or sufficient infrastructure to accommodate cyclists and pedestrians wishing to cross the Thames east of Tower Bridge to access Canary Wharf. A new river crossing would provide a more direct and attractive route for pedestrians and cyclists travelling between south and east London. This will help to improve the share of local trips being made by walking and cycling, in line with the Mayor’s aim for 80 per cent of Londoners’ trips to be on foot, by cycle or by using public transport by 2041.

The Mayor also specifically referenced the crossing in the draft Mayor’s Transport Strategy 2017 and committed to investigate its feasibility.

121

Figure 1: (left) Section of the River Thames under consideration for a new river crossing.

Options for a new river crossing We investigated several options for a new river crossing in this location. Some were discounted at an early stage as they were not feasible, leaving us with a short list of three options; a tunnel, improvements to the existing ferry service and a bridge. These three options were further assessed to consider their ability to meet the scheme’s objectives, their likely costs, potential benefits, and possible impacts.

Preferred option Based on the studies that we have carried out so far, we propose a bridge as our preferred option for a river crossing between Rotherhithe and Canary Wharf but we want to hear your views. Any option taken forward is likely to be subject to further Environmental Assessment. This will examine the proposals and describe the likely significant environmental effects, as well as potential mitigation measures. It will be reported in an Environmental Report for submission as part of any consents application.

We will work closely with statutory stakeholders, such as the Local Authorities, Port of London Authority, Environment Agency and Historic England to ensure that any likely significant impacts are carefully considered and appropriately mitigated.

More information on our shortlisted options can be found in Factsheet 2.

What are the next steps?

We have allocated funds for the development of the crossing in our business plan and are also exploring opportunities for third party funding. Following incorporation of your feedback into the scheme we anticipate consulting again in 2018 before submitting a consents application in 2019.

To find out more: Visit tfl.gov.uk/R2CW-crossing

where you can view our other factsheets and supporting information about the scheme.

Public Exhibitions: Alternatively, come along to one of our public exhibitions where you will have the opportunity to speak to TfL staff about our proposals.

122 Rotherhithe:

Saturday 18 November 2017

• At Canada Water Library, Room 5, 21 Surrey Quays Rd, London SE16 7AR o from 12:30 to 16:30 Thursday 23 November 2017

• Canada Water underground station, Jubilee line ticket hall, Deal Porter Way, Surrey Quays SE16 o from 08:00 to 10:00

• Canada Water Library, Room 3, 21 Surrey Quays Rd, London SE16 7AR o from 11:00 to 19:00 Canary Wharf:

Saturday 25 November 2017

• Alpha Grove Community Centre, Alpha Grove, Isle of Dogs, London E14 8LH o from 11:00 to 15:00 Thursday 30 November 2017

• Canary Wharf underground station, Jubilee line ticket hall, Canary Wharf, London E14 5NY o from 08:00 to 19:00 Have your say This public consultation will be open until 8 January 2018. To have your say about our proposals please visit tfl.gov.uk/R2CW-crossing

Or Email: [email protected]

• Phone: 0343 222 1155* • Post: FREEPOST TFL CONSULTATIONS If you would like a paper copy of our consultation plans and questionnaire, please contact us using the details above.

*Service and network charges may apply. See tfl.gov.uk/terms for details

123 Factsheet 2: Crossing options For a hard copy of this factsheet, please visit https://consultations.tfl.gov.uk/++preview++/rivercrossings/rotherhithe- canarywharf/user_uploads/r2cw---factsheet-2---crossing-options.pdf A new river crossing between Rotherhithe and Canary Wharf Factsheet 2 – Crossing options

Introduction

We are investigating the feasibility of providing a new river crossing for pedestrians and cyclists between Rotherhithe and Canary Wharf. This crossing seeks to increase travel by sustainable modes, improve the health of Londoners, and support growth in the opportunity areas of Canada Water and the Isle of Dogs. Figure 1 shows the section of the River Thames under consideration for a new crossing.

A new river crossing would provide a more direct and attractive route for pedestrians and cyclists travelling between south and east London helping to improve the share of local trips being made by walking and cycling in line with the Mayor’s aim for 80 per cent of Londoners’ trips to be on foot, by cycle or by using public transport by 2041.

Options Assessment

We carried out a number of assessments to explore possible crossing options. Some options (such as a cable car) were discounted at an early stage as they were not feasible. Three potential options were shortlisted for further assessment, appraisal and review; a navigable bridge (a bridge which still allows shipping to pass), a tunnel and an enhanced ferry (note there is an existing ferry service in this location).

These three options were assessed to consider their ability to meet the need for a new crossing, the project’s objectives, their likely costs, potential benefits, and possible impacts. We also engaged with stakeholders, including landowners and the local community, to understand what they thought of the crossing options from an early stage. This factsheet outlines a summary of this assessment.

124 Figure 1: The section of the River Thames under consideration for a new crossing

Bridge

Option description: A navigable bridge can be built in a number of ways to enable the passage of vessels on the river to continue. For example, a high-level bridge could be built, or a bridge could be constructed at a lower-level with a movable span to allow the bridge deck to be opened for passing vessels. Cost1: Approximately £225-300 million (Net Present Value (2016 base year).

1 This represents whole life costs expressed as a Net Present Value (2016 base year). This means the total of all costs involved in designing, constructing, operating and maintaining that option over a 60 year appraisal period, reduced to 2016 prices.

125 Forecast demand: In 2031 approximately 1.5 million pedestrian trips are forecast per year and between 450,000 and 900,000 cycling trips. Availability: A crucial consideration with this option is the need to open for larger vessels on the river. An opening might mean the bridge is unavailable to users for as little as 10 minutes typically, however, this might increase up to 60 minutes if, for example, a large war ship requires synchronised opening with Tower Bridge. The time of day when it has to open will change as many vessels move with the changing tides, however, it may be possible to communicate these openings to users to mitigate any impact on their journeys. The frequency of opening is dependent on the height of a bridge above the water. A bridge is easier to access if it is at a lower level but it would have to open for river vessels more often. A higher bridge is more difficult to access (with taller ramps/lifts/stairs) but would open less. For a navigable bridge to never have to open for vessels, it would need to be up to 60m clear of the water (similar to the Emirates Air Line). Feasibility: A pedestrian and cycle bridge of the span needed to cross the river at this location would be unusual and therefore relatively high risk. However, early engagement with the engineering and construction industry suggests it is feasible. Environment: Subject to further assessment, some impacts are anticipated in the river around piers and possibly visual impacts for nearby residents (these could be positive, or negative, depending on design). Construction impacts, such as noise, are likely but mitigation measures could be employed. Impacts on land will depend on the height of the bridge deck and the extent and design of any ramps. Value for money: The cost: benefit assessment for this option appears to be similar to the ferry option, but with the potential for a more transformative impact and realisation of wider long-term economic benefits. A bridge achieves similar benefits at a significantly lower cost than the tunnel. Summary: A bridge would provide a permanent cross river link for walking and cycling in this location, helping to encourage a change in behaviour and supporting sustainable growth. The key challenges will be to develop a cost effective solution that minimises the impact on the environment, local residents, and balances the needs of those using the bridge with those using the river.

126 Enhanced ferry service

Option description: One crossing option is to enhance the existing cross river ferry connecting the DoubleTree Docklands Hotel with Canary Wharf. Pier upgrades at Canary Wharf and Nelson Dock could make them more accessible and able to accommodate new roll-on/roll-off cycle vessels to provide faster boarding and alighting. New vessels could provide a higher frequency service than the current service through provision of two or even three vessels to reduce waiting times. The existing ferry service has a fare for users but this could be altered, or removed entirely. Cost1: Approximately £75-120m (Net Present Value (2016 base year). Forecast demand: In 2031 between 850,000 and 1.1 million pedestrian trips are forecast per year and up to 340,000 cycling trips. Availability: A ferry would provide good availability as the impact of passing vessels on ferry operations would be minimal. However, there would always be a wait associated with the service even if multiple boats were provided to reduce waiting times. Given the running costs and lower demand, a multiple boat service could be reduced at night or outside commuting periods. Feasibility: No significant constructability issues are foreseen. Environment: Subject to further assessment, minor impacts are anticipated during construction, for example, visual and noise impacts around the piers and some temporary impacts on river habitats. Construction impacts are likely but mitigation measures would be employed. Value for money: For assessment purposes, we considered a free service and a fare charged service, the free service generating a higher forecast demand. This produced a comparable cost benefit assessment to a navigable bridge option, although the lower cost reflects the lower benefits of reduced number of users. Summary: An Enhanced ferry service is cheaper and faster to implement than the bridge or tunnel alternatives, but is unlikely to encourage as many walking or cycling trips.

127 Tunnel

Option description: A tunnel could provide a reliable link which would be accessed by lifts or potentially by ramps. We based this option on an immersed tube tunnel2 as we determined this to be the most effective tunnel solution; unlike other tunnel types this could provide a more efficient square cross section and could be shallower underground to reduce the height change for users. Further we concluded that an immersed tube tunnel would be cheaper than alternative tunnel options. A tunnel option could be relatively flexible in location with no need to construct entrances directly on the riverbank, although a longer length of tunnel may cost more. Cost1: Approximately £440 million (Net Present Value (2016 base year)). Forecast demand: In 2031 approximately 1.6 million pedestrian trips are forecast per year and up to 900,000 cycling trips. Availability: A tunnel would provide very good availability to users 24 hours a day, regardless of weather or shipping movements. Feasibility: This approach would be a complex engineering challenge as an equivalent immersed tube tunnel has not been built before in London, however, it is not uncommon elsewhere and early engagement with the engineering and construction industry suggests it is feasible. Environment: Subject to further assessment, impacts are anticipated on aquatic ecology and riverine habitat during construction associated with an immersed tube tunnel. Construction impacts are likely, such as visual and noise but mitigation measures would be employed. A tunnel would have little visual impact on the river and surrounding landscapes in its final state. Value for money: This option offers poorer benefits compared to its overall cost than the ferry or bridge options, due to its higher construction cost. Summary: : A tunnel would provide a 24/7 solution, but would be the highest cost option. An immersed tube option, which we believe would be the most viable form of tunnel, could also have significant environmental impacts on the river.

2 An immersed tube tunnel is located at the bottom of a body of water consisting of multiple sections which are floated into position and sunk to their specified location and subsequently connected

128 Our preferred option Based on the studies that we have carried out so far, we propose a navigable bridge as our preferred option for a river crossing between Rotherhithe and Canary Wharf. It is important to note that no final decisions have yet been made and we want your views on our initial options assessment. To find out more: Visit tfl.gov.uk/R2CW-crossing where you can view and download our other factsheets and supporting information about the scheme. Have your say

This public consultation will be open until 8 January 2018.

To have your say about our proposals please visit tfl.gov.uk/R2CW-crossing Or • Email: [email protected] • Phone: 0343 222 1155* • Post: FREEPOST TFL CONSULTATIONS

*Service and network charges may apply. See tfl.gov.uk/terms for details

You can also request paper copies of plans and a consultation questionnaire in Braille, large text or another language using the above contact information, or calling 0343 222 1155*.

129 Factsheet 3 Bridge Options

For a hard copy of this factsheet, please visit https://consultations.tfl.gov.uk/++preview++/rivercrossings/rotherhithe- canarywharf/user_uploads/r2cw---factsheet-3---bridge-options.pdf A new river crossing between Rotherhithe and Canary Wharf: Factsheet 3 – Bridge options

Introduction We are investigating the feasibility of providing a new Thames river crossing between Rotherhithe and Canary Wharf for pedestrians and cyclists.

Options for a new river crossing We considered several options for a new river crossing in this location, including a tunnel, enhanced ferry and bridge. Based on the studies we have carried out so far, we propose a navigable bridge (i.e. a bridge that allows vessels on the river to pass) as our preferred option. Further information on our initial options assessment is provided in: Factsheet 2 - Crossing Options

Bridge options In order to inform future decisions we have been investigating the navigable bridge option in greater detail. As part of this work, we would like your views on different aspects of a bridge including the location, height and other considerations. We will work closely with statutory stakeholders, such as the Local Authorities, Port of London Authority, Environment Agency and Historic England to ensure that any likely significant impacts are carefully considered and appropriately mitigated. Location We would like your views on three preferred bridge alignments which are illustrated in Figure 1.

130 Figure 1 – Possible crossing alignments

Northern Alignment: Nelson Dock Pier to Westferry Circus

Pros: • The Nelson Dock landing allows for a more direct route through Pearson’s Park to Salter Road and the National Cycle Network • The higher level at Westferry Circus allows for potentially shorter ramped access to the bridge • Westferry Circus provides a suitable area for a bridge landing with adjacent commercial activity and good access to the wider transport network

Cons: • Impacts on private commercial land including the Hilton Doubletree Docklands hotel • Adjacent to heritage buildings around Nelson Dock. • May require reconfiguration works to the highway at West Ferry Circus

Central Alignment: Durand’s Wharf to Impound Lock

Pros: • Space for ramps could be available in Durand’s Wharf Park • The area above the Impound Lock is not currently used (aside from maintaining the lock) or proposed for development • There are opportunities to provide ramps at both ends of the bridge

Cons: • This alignment gives the longest movable span and thus the longest duration for bridge openings • Close proximity to residential buildings • Changes to the use of public space at Durand’s Wharf

131 Southern Alignment: Durand’s Wharf to West India Dock

Pros: • Bridge perpendicular to the straightest part of the river reducing construction costs, risks and opening times

Cons: • Close proximity to residential buildings • There is no adequate space for a ramp and so West India Dock Pier would require additional lift capacity which could impact on adjacent properties • Vehicular access to adjacent properties and the junction of Cuba Street with Westferry Road pose a challenge to integrating cyclists/ pedestrians with the existing road network. • Changes to the use of public space at Durand’s Wharf We would like to know your views on the possible alignments.

Height We have been working with the Port of London Authority to investigate different options for the height and span of the bridge over the river. This heavily influences the design of the bridge, how easy it is to access, its potential visual impact and how often/for how long it opens for larger vessels on the river.

We have been surveying the river to understand the height and frequency of vessels navigating along this section of the river. These surveys will continue to assist future stages of design but initial findings suggest a bridge of10, 15 or 20m above the water, during the busiest summer months, would have an average 15, 8 or 4 vessels passing beneath per day respectively.

An opening might mean the bridge is typically unavailable to users for as little as 10 minutes, however, this may take up to 60 minutes for the very largest vessels. The time of day when it has to open will change as many vessels move with the changing tides, however, it may be possible to communicate these openings to users to mitigate any impact on their journeys.

Higher bridge

Pros: A higher bridge would open less often for river vessels

Cons: Would be more difficult to access (with taller ramps/lifts/stairs) and could potentially have a greater visual impact.

132 Lower bridge

Pros: More accessible and a lesser impact on the existing communities

Cons: Would need to open more frequently to allow vessels to pass.

A key implication of the bridge height decision is how users will access a bridge. A combination of ramps, lifts and stairs could be used to get users up to the main bridge section on the river. The higher the bridge, the longer the ramps need to be. This results in longer journeys and requires a greater amount of space. The height decision will not only affect how users cross the bridge, but also how vessels navigate underneath it. As such it is essential that the height of the bridge strikes a balance between these two characteristics of the bridge. We would like your views on how to develop an optimum bridge height.

How the bridge could open There are different ways that a bridge could open and the main examples we are considering are presented in Figures 2, 3 and 4.

Figure 2: Vertical Lift

133 Pros: • Relies on a single opening mechanism that is energy efficient • Gives the shortest moving span and a potential for incremental height changes • The size of the bridge piers would be the smallest of the options

Cons: • Vertical clearance has an ultimate limit (the maximum lifting height) • Towers (possibly up to 80m above the river) will be required to hold the mechanism and lift the bridge in the air. This may have a greater visual impact. Other bridge options will likely also require towers for cables supporting the main span, but these might be shorter.

Figure 3: Bascule

Pros: • The height of towers above the bridge deck are less than for a lift bridge • Counter balancing the bridge would reduce energy use • Provides unlimited height clearance for vessels when fully open

Cons: • A bascule bridge of the size required in this location would be at least 40% longer than the largest currently existing bridge of this type • In the maximum open position the end of each deck would be up to 80m above the river. This may have an impact on views and also poses a significant engineering challenge.

The wind and other loads on the structure in the open position are greater than for other options, which will require a greater amount of energy

134 Figure 4: Swing

Pros: • Counter balancing the bridge may reduce energy use • Provides unlimited height clearance for vessels when fully open • Could potentially have a lower visual impact than other bridge options

Cons: • The area of bridge moving for the swing will be larger than for other bridge types. It will take more time to clear people before opening therefore increasing the waiting times. • Ends of the swing spans can be vulnerable to ship impact and may require additional protection and parking structures in the river in the fully open position

We would like your views on these different opening mechanisms as well as a number of other design considerations for a bridge.

Further detail on our work to date investigating a bridge, and the crossing in general, is provided in the Background to Consultation Report which can be viewed at: tfl.gov.uk/R2CW-crossing Have your say

This public consultation will be open until 8 January 2018.

To have your say about our proposals please visit tfl.gov.uk/R2CW-crossing Or • Email: [email protected]

135 • Phone: 0343 222 1155* • Post: FREEPOST TFL CONSULTATIONS

If you would like a paper copy of our consultation plans and questionnaire, please contact us using the details above.

*Service and network charges may apply. See tfl.gov.uk/terms for details

136 Appendix E Stakeholder List

Below is the full list of stakeholders we contacted regarding the consultation

London boroughs

City of Westminster Tower Hamlets

Southwark

Members of Parliament

Dr Rosena Allin-Khan MP (Tooting) Chris Grayling MP (Epsom and Ewell)

Andrew Jones MP (Harrogate and Knaresborough)

Harriet Harmen QC MP (Camberwell and Peckham)

Helen Hayes MP (Dulwich and West Norwood)

Neil Coyle MP (Bermondsey and Old Southwark)

London Assembly Members

Valerie Shawcross Deputy Mayor for Transport

Gareth Bacon AM Nicky Gavron AM

Andrew Boff AM Tom Copley AM

Joanne McCartney AM Fiona Twycross AM

Shaun Bailey AM Sian Berry AM

David Kurten AM Caroline Russell AM

Peter Whittle AM Susan Hall AM

Unmesh Desai AM Abbie Cooper AM

Florence Eshalom Caroline Pidgeon AM

GLA Conservatives

Business Groups & Local Business

ICE –London Canary Wharf Management Ltd

South Bank Employers' Group Northbank BID

137 Northbank BID Victoria Business Improvement District

Better Bankside BID London Bridge Team

South Bank Employers' Group Federation of Small Businesses

South Bermondsey Partnership Camden Town Unlimited

Canary Wharf Group Capita

FXpansion Audio UK Ltd. Hallsville School of Ballet

Livett's Group Mackenzie Wheeler Architects

Thames Clippers Mindful Smile

PPM Production Limited

London Chamber of Commerce and Industry

Residents & Community Groups

One Housing Group Herne Hill Society

Friends of Russia Dock Woodland group Canada Water Library

Evolution Quarter Residents' Association Bankside Residents' Forum

Docklands Sailing and Watersports Centre Docklands Community Centre

Alpha Grove Community Centre 2000 Community Action Centre

Poplar HARCA Tower Hamlets Wheelers

Accessibility Groups

Independent Disability Advisory Group Parkinson's UK

National Autistic Society Action on Hearing Loss

Leonard Cheshire Disability Disability Rights UK

London Older People's Strategy Group Alzheimer's Society

London Forum for the Elderly London Visual Impairment Forum

Wheels for Wellbeing RNIB

Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee

British Deaf Association (BDA) National Pensioners Forum

Transport for All Thomas Pocklington Trust

138 Scope Trailblazers, Muscular Dystrophy UK

Royal Society of Blind Children Guide Dogs

Royal London Society for the Blind (RLSB) Age UK Camden

Age UK Camden Disability Action

Whizz Kidz Vision 2020

Asian People's Disability Alliance Brent MenCap

Transport Groups

London TravelWatch Sustrans

Clapham Transport User Group Friends of Capital Transport

Highways Agency Campaign for Better Transport

London Cycling Campaign Department for Transport

Better Streets for Tower Hamlets Cruising Association

Lewisham Cyclists Greenwich Cyclists

TfL Youth Panel

Railfuture - London & South East regional branch

London Group of Campaign for Better Transport

Other Organisations

London Councils Port of London Authority

Redriff Primary School Canal and River Trust Historic England

Natural England Clean Air London

London Wildlife Trust Living Streets

Friends of the Earth Centre for Cities

London Ambulance Service Royal Mail British Waterways

National Grid Met Police Community Policing EDF UKPN

NHS Care Commissioning Group Thames Water

AECOM Albion Street GP

139 Bike Taxi Ltd Environment Agency

Historic England JPMorgan Chase Bank

London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority

The Inland Waterways Association London Living Streets

Reform Southwark Green Party

Southwark Liberal Democrats Stop Killing Cyclists (SKC)

Surrey Docks Farm The Peckham Coal Line

The Ramblers Inner London Area

Watermen and Lightermen of the River Thames

140 Appendix F Press and online advertising

Below is the press ad that appeared in the Metro newspaper in the TfL page on various days during the consultation

141 Below is the press release at the launch of the consultation

PN-137 8 November 2017

Londoners’ views sought on plans for new Rotherhithe to Canary Wharf crossing

• Consultation now underway on a new crossing in east London, providing a dedicated pedestrian and cycling route across the Thames • Subject to consultation responses, a second consultation on final preferred design will take place in 2018 – paving the way for application for planning consents in early 2019.

Transport for London (TfL) has begun an eight-week consultation on plans for a new pedestrian and cycling crossing across the Thames between Rotherhithe and Canary Wharf.

The proposal forms part of the Mayor’s wider package of river crossings and new walking and cycling infrastructure in east London set out in his Manifesto and draft Transport Strategy. It could see a new much-needed river crossing linking thousands of people directly between Canada Water and Canary Wharf, and supporting new jobs and homes in the area.

The crossing would link into existing and planned cycle routes on both sides of the river. With a dedicated walking and cycling bridge being TfL’s preferred option, it would directly encourage more people to cycle and walk in the local area, supporting

142 the Mayor’s aim for 80 per cent of Londoners’ trips to be on foot, by cycle or by public transport by 2041.

TfL’s recently published Strategic Cycling Analysis showed how the route from Peckham, through Rotherhithe and across the river to Canary Wharf and Hackney, should be looked at in more detail to help encourage more cycling. The latest modelling by TfL suggests that, with future growth and development in the local area, by 2031 more than two million pedestrian and cyclist journey every year are expected to be made using the bridge. This could increase further if walking and cycling improvements are delivered across the wider area.

Pedestrians and cyclists currently have very limited opportunities to cross the river east of Tower Bridge easily and safely - restricting access to key destinations such as Canary Wharf. The Greenwich Foot Tunnel is already operating at capacity at peak times and the Rotherhithe Tunnel, which is the only other permanent crossing option across the river at this point, is regularly avoided by pedestrians and cyclists.

A new river crossing would contribute towards dealing with the substantial growth in east London in recent years, and would provide an easy alternative to the Jubilee line and other river crossings for those trips that could be made on foot or by bike.

Over the past year, TfL has worked with the engineering consultants Arcadis and Knight Architects to review the need for a new crossing and explore different crossing options to ensure the development of a value for money solution. This has included looking at the design and engineering considerations as well as modelling demand for different crossings at this location, and speaking to local residents and stakeholders. This work led to the creation of a shortlist of three options - an enhanced ferry service, a bridge or a tunnel. These options were further assessed to consider their ability to meet the scheme’s objectives, their likely costs, potential benefits, and possible impacts.

Based on the studies carried out so far, a navigable bridge is TfL’s preferred option, and it has begun to investigate this option in greater detail (this is a bridge that allows the movement of vessels on the river to continue). As part of the consultation,

143 TfL is seeking views on the selection of this preferred option and different aspects of a navigable bridge. These include the specific location of a bridge option, the height that the bridge would be, as well as other considerations such as the overall design and considerations about how a bridge would open for large ships to pass on the river.

While a navigable bridge is TfL’s preference, no final decisions have yet been made and Londoners are welcome to recommend alternative designs or options as part of the consultation process.

Val Shawcross, Deputy Mayor for Transport, said: “It’s great news that we’ve started the formal process for a new walking and cycling crossing between Rotherhithe and Canary Wharf. This area of east London has seen huge growth in recent years, and our desire for a dedicated crossing for cyclists and pedestrians shows our real commitment to greener forms of transport across London. It will provide vital new connections to work, shopping and leisure facilities for thousands of local residents and provide a new route for commuters into Canary Wharf. We now want everyone to have their say before we outline further details of how we can make this ambition a reality.”

Leon Daniels, Managing Director of Surface Transport at TfL, said: “Walking and cycling is key to creating a more liveable, healthy city. East London is seeing more growth than any other part of London and it’s absolutely right that we invest in new vital river crossings to support this going forward. This new crossing is envisioned to be a fantastic addition to London and provide a valuable and accessible link to new and proposed walking and cycling routes on both sides of the river.”

Simon Munk, Infrastructure Campaigner, London Cycling Campaign said: “More walking and cycling-friendly crossings across the Thames are much-needed, especially connecting east London. There is huge potential to get more people from south London cycling to work in the Docklands area but the options currently available - Tower Bridge, Rotherhithe tunnel and the Greenwich Foot Tunnel – all have major issues for potential cyclists.

144 “We welcome this new consultation and hope the Mayor moves forward on this crossing, along with the proposed Cycle Superhighway 4, which will improve access to the bridge and other major cycling schemes, rapidly for the benefit of all Londoners.”

Clare Wadd, Chair of the Ramblers Inner London Area, said: “The Rotherhithe to Canary Wharf Crossing will be an exciting addition to London’s walking routes, connecting communities and enabling people to easily enjoy The Thames Path on both banks.”

Based on the responses to this consultation, TfL will determine the most appropriate form of crossing and continue to develop more detailed designs, together with a construction timeline. TfL will then look to consult on the designs for the crossing in 2018. This will allow local residents, visitors and commuters to comment on the proposed designs before they are completed and submitted as part of any consents application in 2019.

For more information and to respond to the consultation, please visit www.tfl.gov.uk/R2CW-crossing

145 Appendix G Campaigns and Petitions

Campaigns

Below is a copy of the email text that was in the email from respondents of the London Cycling Campaign.

"Dear Transport for London,

I would like to express my strong support for a new river crossing between Rotherhithe and Canary Wharf for people walking and cycling. I support the proposal for a navigable bridge over the other options as a bridge provides a crossing without wait times (unlike a ferry), and would be more pleasant to use and cheaper to build than a tunnel. Of the bridge options, I prefer the Northern Alignment. This is because it provides the space for ramps on and off the bridge, meaning that cycle journeys wouldn’t be interrupted by lifts or curtailed by stairs, and the bridge would be accessible for the widest range of cyclists. It also provides a more direct connection to the employment centres on the Isle of Dogs, and to existing and planned cycle routes. I also prefer the option for the higher bridge, as it will minimize the number of times the bridge will need to open, reducing any wait time. But it shouldn't have slopes more than 1:40 overall - more than that and it becomes a barrier to people walking or cycling over it. Being able to cycle on and off the proposed bridge is very important to me, as a different option (stairs or a lift) would drastically change the accessibility and usability of the bridge for those on bike. Alongside this proposal, I would like to see more walking, cycling and/or public transport bridges east of Tower Bridge, to help the Mayor reach his targets set out in the Mayor's Transport Strategy, increasing the number of people choosing to walk, cycle and take public transport. What I don’t want to see is more motor vehicle crossings that would create more motor traffic, congestion and pollution in east London.

146 ==Sent by London Cycling Campaign on behalf of== First Name: Last Name: Postal Code: Email: Are you (please tick all boxes that apply): How would you use the bridge? : If you chose 'cycle' for the previous question, how would you prefer to access the bridge deck (as a cyclists)? Ramp (the ramp may require some detour from the direction of travel to reach this height with a comfortable cycling gradient) Why would you use the bridge? Submitted on”

147 Petitions Below is the text for the Thames River Protection Group Against The Rotherhithe Bridge petition The Thames river and Europe's most rapidly developing hub, Canary Wharf (CW), are under threat, as London authorities are planning to build a foot/cycle bridge, linking up Rotherhithe to the western part of the isle of dogs. There are many reasons why this bridge is a danger for the environment and the well-being of Londoners especially those living and/or working in the isle of dogs, but we tried to isolate a few which we deem worthy of this fight against another ill- thought colossal superfluous cemented structure, on our beloved river. Destruction of a beautiful natural landscape, that has become a touristic hotspot linking the views of the city to those of Canary Wharf, Astronomical cost (£200M+) for little value for local residents when the need for surgeries, schools and basic infrastructures for an ever-growing local population is essential, Damage to an already fragile environmental water life by passers-by who would undoubtedly pollute the river bed on this 24h a day unpoliced structure, The case for such a crossing at this particular location has not been proven at all, by any study, and the figures of the existing crossing at such location (the Hilton ferry) are insignificant to justify such a massive new expenditure. PLEASE SIGN THIS PETITION to the decision makers to stop the Rotherhithe Bridge and comment on why you are signing; all feedback is welcome and encouraged. Many thanks for your support. More info: Firstly, if built, the so-called Rotherhithe bridge will not only destroy a stunning natural landscape, preventing residents and tourists alike, to enjoy a beautiful view of the river, and the city, including some of the most iconic west end landmarks, but most importantly, it will aggravate further an already ultra-congested area, by increasing the incoming footfall onto CW. Secondly, the rising cost of construction (from an estimated £85M to £200M and counting) and the burden of annual maintenance, will fall upon the public, whilst at the same time, the isle of dogs residents badly need public expenditure to go on surgeries and schools, in order to cope with an exponentially increasing population. The isle of dogs residents are lacking some basic public services like fire protection (our local fire station is down to a one manned engine at the moment) or police station, since by the time this bridge is built, the latter would have moved from Limehouse to Bethnal Green, making the area even more difficult to secure. Thirdly, the catastrophic environmental effect of a 24/7 steel structure laying on the river, with the obvious pollution from passers-by throwing their garbage as they cross, should not be underestimated, along with its impact on the river's surroundings wildlife (flora, fauna and sea birds) and a uniquely convoluted landings,

148 making it one of the very few, if not the only bridge in the world, that is not set to cross a river at a 90 degrees angle. Fourthly, there are already a dozen bridges spanning a few miles crossing the Thames in central London, most of them can be crossed by foot. That is more than is needed. Besides, based on the present traffic between Canada Water and canary wharf, there is no evidence whatsoever that such a bridge would benefit a large enough commuting crowd to be of public interest. A look at the data coming from the Hilton ferry would prove that there is an insignificant number of daily crossings/commutes between Rotherhithe and Canary Wharf. If the authorities wanted to prove the case, for such a structure, a river crossing/traffic test could be easily done by improving the existing ferry services making it available to bicycles and pedestrian alike, and compiling the data after a few months. Finally, our opposition to the bridge is not an opposition to any change that will benefit our neighbourhood when it comes to commuting infrastructures, but this proposed Rotherhithe link in its essence, location, and design is not the answer, so we would be keen to work with the relevant authorities on finding an appropriate solution that can benefit our local area, the Isle of Dogs, Canary Wharf and Tower Hamlets.

149 Below is the text for The Canary Wharf River Protection Group’s petition. Support the implementation of an economical, eco-friendly, and flexible crossing between Rotherhithe and Canary Wharf, for cyclists & pedestrians: a solar- powered/electric ferry boat crossing. The case for the Rotherhithe Eco Ferry (REF): As you may be aware, the London authorities are currently proposing to build a pedestrian/cycle crossing linking Rotherhithe to Canary Wharf. We would like, with your support in signing up this online petition, to get the authorities, to adopt an eco- friendly ferry boat solution. An electric ferry boat, propelled for instance by solar panels, has several massive advantages over other solutions, currently being considered by Transport for London (TFL). Lower drastically the cost of any type of alternative crossings (bridge and tunnel) by dozens of millions of pounds which could be better served, improving the current transport infrastructures around the already ultra-congested isle of dogs, or subsidizing the cost of a tailor-made ferry crossing, making it a free or at least inexpensive (part of an oyster card travel) and enjoyable navigational experience. It is estimated that a bridge would cost in excess of £200M, when the REF would reduce this cost down to a very small fraction of it. Protect the wonderful natural unabridged view of the river at this particular location, which has become over the years, a famous touristic hotspot, featured in many tv/movie films, documentaries and countless other media outlets, Shield the river from the environmental damage that a 24/7 unpoliced bridge would cause to the river (unavoidable construction pollution, pedestrians littering the river and endangering the wildlife, not to mention the traditional security risks to people, inherent to any bridge); Provide a more flexible solution, as a ferry could serve different paths and adapt to the actual need of the residents and visitors alike, when it comes to its docking locations. Ferry boats can travel multiple destinations whilst bridges are obviously static. We can therefore imagine a fast frequent and cheap/free crossing that would provide some rest to cyclists and pedestrians on their journey, especially if the landings of a bridge are expected to prolong the journey time by a considerable amount given that a bridge deck is expected to be at least 20m high as it has been suggested by the Port of London Authorities (PLA); Solve the many problems that a bridge would cause to the PLA and the boating community at large, at the bend of the river, that would otherwise limit the flowing passage of a significant number of ships, whose height exceed the decks; Finally, test at the lowest possible cost the real need for a crossing at this particular part of the river, by extending/improving on a service currently provided by the Hilton (but at a very high cost, hence limiting its appeal), and make sure that the authorities are not making an unrepairable financial and environmental mistake, when they

150 assume, without any study, let alone a serious one, that a crossing is needed at this particular spot and that it has to be a bridge; If you wish to see the London authorities and Mayor Sadiq Khan weigh in in favour of a truly green, flexible and cost saving solution for our city, please support this petition asking for the REF (Rotherhithe Eco-Ferry) option to be trialled. The Canary Wharf River Protection Group.

Below is the text for David Mansfield’s petition Public transport to the Isle of Dogs is limited by the River Thames surrounding it on three aspects, with just a foot tunnel to the south, and already overcrowded DLR and Jubilee line trains at rush hour. Residents and commuters of the Isle of Dogs and Rotherhithe would greatly benefit from additional access points to/from the island, opening up their travel choices with additional low-impact options of walking and cycling, and by providing free and easy access to amenities and resources across the river. Local businesses would benefit from the increased footfall brought in by day trippers and tourists making use of the bridge. The Mayor of London has approved this bridge, along with some other river crossings, for further consideration. However, a vocal opposition group has started a petition against the bridge and are trying to get the project pulled. To counter the opposition campaign this petition aims to demonstrate support in the same way to allow fair assessment of the proportions of the two views. With funding not yet in place and local authorities straining under austerity budgets, it's important to show we really do value this option, and encourage funding to be sought from wherever it may be.”

151 Appendix H: Emails

Below is a copy of the text emailed to our Oyster card database registered customers

Subject: Have your say on proposals for a new river crossing between Rotherhithe and Canary Wharf

Good afternoon,

We would like your views on proposals for a new river crossing between Rotherhithe and Canary Wharf for pedestrians and cyclists.

A new crossing would provide a safe, attractive and direct route for pedestrians and cyclists, reducing journey times and encouraging more active travel among the growing communities on both sides of the river.

For full details and to share your views, please visit tfl.gov.uk/R2CW-crossing

This consultation will be open until Monday 8 January 2018.

Yours sincerely, David Rowe Head of Major Projects Sponsorship

152 Below is a copy of the email that was sent to stakeholders on our stakeholder list

From: TfL Consultations

Sent: 08 November 2017 14:17

Subject: Have your say on proposals for a new river crossing between Rotherhithe and Canary Wharf

Good afternoon,

We would like your views on proposals for a new river crossing between Rotherhithe and Canary Wharf for pedestrians and cyclists.

For full details and to share your views, please visit tfl.gov.uk/R2CW-crossing

This consultation will be open until Monday 8 January 2018.

Yours sincerely,

David Rowe

Head of Major Projects Sponsorship

Transport for London

153