RIVER CROSSINGS: EAST OF CROSSINGS SUPPORTING TECHNICAL DOCUMENTATION

This document contains NEEDS AND OPTIONS information relevant to the REPORT following options:

TfL 07 July 2014 Ferries X This report examines the need for new Bridges X river crossings in east and south east Tunnels X London and assesses potential options. It sets out the process of identifying Gallions Reach shortlisted options, and provides more Ferries X detail on their potential impacts. Bridges X Tunnels X

Belvedere Ferries X

Bridge X Tunnels X

Others – various

East London River Crossings: Assessment of Need & Options East of Silvertown

Date: July 2014

TfL Planning River crossings: Assessment of Need and Options East of Silvertown

CONTENTS

SUMMARY ...... 3

1 Introduction ...... 11

2 Policy Context ...... 15

3 Needs Analysis ...... 26

4 Consultation to date ...... 85

5 STUDY Objectives ...... 87

6 Options short-listing ...... 90

7 Description of short-listed Options...... 110

8 Conclusions ...... 167

APPENDIX A – ENVIRONMENTAL SUMMARY OF SHORT-LISTED OPTIONS...... 171

APPENDIX B - MODELLING...... 187

2 TfL Planning River crossings: Assessment of Need and Options East of Silvertown

SUMMARY

Background and purpose London is growing rapidly, and needs many more jobs and homes to support the rising population – and this growth will generate travel. Growth needs various types of transport infrastructure as set out in the London Plan – this includes both public transport and road infrastructure. East and south are expected to see a lot of this anticipated growth – there are also many key drivers of growth on the north side of the Thames in east London such as Excel and . The East London sub-region has a (2011 census) resident population of some 2.3 million, with communities on the north of the river (some 1.5 million people) being separated from those to the south (some 800,000 people). This population separated by the Thames is similar in size to either the Manchester or the West Midlands conurbations, the two largest built-up areas outside London. Transport for London (TfL) has already consulted on river crossings in general, and has decided to take forward a preferred option for a new road crossing between North and Silvertown. This new Silvertown Tunnel would significantly reduce existing and future congestion at, and improve the resilience of, the , the strategic river crossing in east London. The question now remains of what, if any, other crossings are needed east of Silvertown, including a potential replacement of the . The study area under consideration for this part of the river crossings programme is therefore the area east of Silvertown to the Dartford Crossing, including the boroughs of Newham, Barking and Dagenham, Havering, Greenwich and Bexley.

Policy Existing regional and local planning and transport policy gives general and specific support to new road-based river crossings in east London to:  improve public transport, and  address identified significant strategic and local needs for cross-river accessibility. Policies include specific references to the consideration of a new vehicle ferry at Gallions Reach, and a longer-term fixed link at this location; other locations may also meet river crossing policy requirements and are not precluded. Policy also sets out ‘criteria’ to be taken into account in the assessment of new transport infrastructure proposals. Emerging policy also points to the increasing importance of growth in the areas adjacent to the river in east and south east London and in

3 TfL Planning River crossings: Assessment of Need and Options East of Silvertown

the east sub-region of London as a whole.

Assessment of existing needs Sustained investment in public transport in the area has resulted in a step change in the provision of cross-river rail connectivity over the last 20 years, and a further high capacity rail crossing in the form of Crossrail is under construction. There is no evidence of unduly limited rail capacity arising in the foreseeable future, although TfL is currently reviewing the transport implications of growth projections. In terms of bus access, there is only a single cross-river bus service in east London due to the lack of suitable road river crossings (there are 47 cross-river bus services in west London). There are few walking and cycling crossings in east London, and none east of the Woolwich Ferry. However there are only three highway cross-river links between Tower Bridge and the Dartford Crossing, leaving a stretch of some 14km between the Woolwich Ferry and Dartford Crossing without a crossing, a significant connectivity gap. All of the existing crossings are limited in capacity and have height, width, and/or load restrictions. This leads to major resilience problems, lack of connectivity and longer journey times. Incidents at crossings causing obstruction and delay are excessively frequent and have significant adverse impacts across the wider road network. The Silvertown Tunnel project aims to address the existing lack of capacity and resilience currently experienced at the Blackwall Tunnel, although it does not address resilience further east. While other transport modes are important, road based travel accounts for more than two thirds of all personal travel in four out of the five study area boroughs, the exception being Newham, where it accounts for some 49%, and is particularly important for freight.. While road-based mode share is expected to decrease over time, supported by TfL’s significant investment in public transport, it is clear that, given this dominance of road-based trips and the growth of population and employment expected in east London, increased highway travel overall is expected, and the pressure on the existing river crossings will increase. Currently the Dartford Crossings and Blackwall Tunnels provide the strategic traffic carrying function in the study area. The Woolwich Ferry, with a much lower capacity and slower journey time, has a more local function, although it is also used by certain categories of vehicles and loads which cannot use the Blackwall Tunnels. Taking account of TfL’s proposed Silvertown Tunnel crossing to relieve the Blackwall Tunnel and the DfT’s proposals to improve conditions at the Dartford Crossing, the residual need for a new crossing in the study area relates mainly to

4 TfL Planning River crossings: Assessment of Need and Options East of Silvertown

meeting existing and forecast local road traffic demand, though clearly, any crossing would also carry some longer distance traffic. Accessibility comparisons show that the barrier of the river constrains the economic and social opportunities available to residents and businesses on both sides of the river east of Tower Bridge, whereas no significant river barrier effect is indicated to the west. In addition two thirds of local businesses report that the ability to cross the river by road in East London is important to their business, with a third rating it as very important or essential. Only 18% feel current crossings are adequate.

Assessment of future needs East London contains areas of high deprivation and is one of the largest regeneration areas in the UK - the east sub-region contains 14 opportunity areas and areas for intensification, accounting for 27 percent of London’s overall development land potential. The delivery of sustainable development in this area is absolutely essential to maximising London’s significant economic potential. However, movements within the sub-region are significantly constrained by the ‘barrier effect’ of the Thames. This ‘barrier effect’ limits local firms’ access to markets, the size of retail and leisure catchments and residents’ access to employment opportunities, in a way that is peculiar to the eastern half of the Capital. This constraint on economic activity makes delivering the significant scale of development planned for the area more uncertain. Growth in east London, which appears to be happening far more quickly than had previously been forecast, is predicted to significantly increase the volume of road traffic in the study area together with associated levels of congestion.

Assessment of needs conclusion The overall conclusion is that there is a clear lack of road-based connectivity in east London, with the distance between crossings constraining movement and making cross-river highway trips longer and more costly, and severely limiting the ability to run cross-river bus services and reducing network resilience. This in turn reduces the ability of communities and businesses to interact cross-river and increases the costs of doing so. The existing road transport river crossings east of Tower Bridge are inadequate to cater for the existing and forecast future demand for cross river movement – they are at or over capacity and experience severe resilience problems. While public transport, walking and cycling are important sustainable means of

5 TfL Planning River crossings: Assessment of Need and Options East of Silvertown

travel to be given every encouragement, road transport is also a vital mode of travel for the study area, and the population and economic growth planned in the area will result in significant increases in road trips and associated congestion on the network in the absence of capacity improvements. The proposed Silvertown Crossing and improvements at the Dartford Crossings will assist in catering for the more strategic movements in East London, but will not deliver significantly better cross-river connectivity. A new road crossing over the river east of the proposed Silvertown Tunnel is therefore required, and should be principally aimed at facilitating more local needs including freight, buses, walking and cycling, while adding to network resilience. The potential for improvement in local cross river highway travel is therefore related to (1) facilitating local road traffic movements that are essential to the proper functioning of east London today and which are constrained by the lack of current connectivity and (2) facilitating the future economic and population growth in the area which will also have an essential component of cross-river road traffic which needs to be accommodated in an efficient manner. Other imperatives relevant to this consultation exercise are:  the need to make a decision on a replacement for the Woolwich Ferry as the current ferry nears the end of its working life; and  the need to address long-standing concerns regarding potential local traffic impacts in east London, and to consider the overall economic, social and environmental impacts of new road building compared with doing nothing to address these concerns.

Previous consultation TfL have conducted two public consultations on the river crossings programme to date. In the latest consultation in 2012, there was over 70% support for the fixed link (bridge/tunnel) options at Gallions Reach and Silvertown, with 77% for the Silvertown Tunnel. Overall 51% of respondents supported a new ferry at Woolwich and 52% supported a ferry at Gallions Reach. 55% of respondents opposed a toll for the new crossings and for the Blackwall Tunnel and a third supported it. Boroughs, business representative groups and members of the public generally acknowledged the need for new road crossings, although there were mixed views about how to take the matter forward. Some respondents (especially those with a focus on environmental protection) generally opposed any new highway capacity. There were suggestions that TfL should consider alternative crossings and crossing locations, and an indication that the focus on the replacement of the Woolwich Ferry was too narrow in the context of the wider strategic needs of this growing part of London.

6 TfL Planning River crossings: Assessment of Need and Options East of Silvertown

Study Objectives Taking into account up-to-date planning and transport policy, the identified socio- economic needs of the study area and consultation and stakeholder responses, the following east of Silvertown Tunnel river crossing study objectives have been developed:  Improving cross-river highway connectivity (including the distance between crossings, the availability of the crossings by time and for different users and the resultant accessibility levels)  Improving cross-river highway resilience (including the susceptibility of the crossings for closure, the capacity and reduction of congestion and the number of crossings and the distance between them)  Supporting economic activity and growth (including the ability of residents to access employment and or firms to hire labour and interact with other businesses and to encourage development) Within the scope of these objectives consideration is also required to be given to the wider environmental impacts of crossing options, safety, stakeholder views and specific issues including addressing the needs of Woolwich Ferry users and the assessed potential for development of a positive business case.

Options and sifting A range of schemes and locations have been put forward as options for consideration as part of the River Crossings programme, either identified by TfL or proposed by stakeholders and the public in response to consultation. The options have been examined over the last 2 years in a variety of technical reports and consultations – these have evolved as the programme has evolved over time. A two-stage option sifting process has been used:  First, a long list of potential options was considered in broad categories of options in terms of their potential to address the study objectives and requirements. Categories of options which fail to meet one or more of the objectives and/or are unlikely to pass key viability and acceptability requirements have not been taken forward from this stage.  Secondly, the options remaining within each option category carried forward from the first stage have been considered against their broad costs and benefits and the study’s objectives and requirements. This exercise has resulted in the production of a final short-list of options proposed for further public consultation.

7 TfL Planning River crossings: Assessment of Need and Options East of Silvertown

Outcome of option sifting A number of options were found not to meet the study objectives or requirements and were not taken forward – this includes stand-alone options for walking/cycling, public transport and road user charging. However it was recognised that the needs of these modes need to be considered in any short-listed options. The conclusion from the sifting process was that a road-based crossing was required to fully address the study objectives, and three locations (Woolwich( A on the figure below) Gallions Reach (B) and Belvedere ( C)) were identified where such a crossing should be considered. A number of different crossing types were considered at these locations.

The conclusion of this process was that at these locations, four options best met the study objectives, and are proposed for further consultation. These are:  a replacement vehicle ferry at Woolwich;  a new vehicle ferry at Gallions Reach;  a new road bridge at Gallions Reach; and  a new road bridge at Belvedere.

Nature of the crossing The proposals for a new Silvertown Tunnel crossing would significantly improve the capacity and resilience of the strategic crossing at Blackwall linking the A13 with the A2; and the introduction of free-flow charging at Dartford and potentially

8 TfL Planning River crossings: Assessment of Need and Options East of Silvertown

another road crossing in the lower Thames would address capacity constraints affecting strategic traffic movements around London. Any other crossing would be available for some more strategic movement, and would be important for network resilience and support for economic growth, but would focus on local accessibility – catering mainly for road based trips with an origin and/or destination in one of the five boroughs in the study area. The short-listed options therefore focus on local accessibility in various ways:  for the ferry option, capacity would be relatively low and, as with the current Woolwich Ferry, it is unlikely to operate 24/7  for the bridge options, capacity would be managed by operating a single lane in each direction for general use, with the second lane used for freight and bus vehicles only  In all options there would be appropriate lower capacity connections to the local road network  There would be user charging to manage the traffic use.

The main conclusions relating to the deliverability, costs and benefits of each of the short-listed options are provided in the table below. . Further details of each option and its assessed impacts are provided in Chapter 7, and as described in this chapter, there are various ways in which crossings can be implemented at these locations. A summary of the likely achievement of study objectives and requirements by the 4 short-listed options is given in Table 31. It is evident that the bridge options at Gallions Reach are likely to have a higher level of achievement of the study objectives and requirements.

9 TfL Planning River crossings: Assessment of Need and Options East of Silvertown

Table 1: Summary of short-listed options

Earliest possible Capital Transport Option completion date Cost1 improvements Other benefits Woolwich TfL could provide a £100m - Modest reductions There would be no significant change Ferry replacement ferry by the £200m in journey times, in access to jobs or other early 2020s but unlikely to be opportunities, and it would not give significant any significant support to growth. However there would be improvements to reliability over the existing ferry and some modest increase in capacity. Gallions The land required to build £150m - Would provide a Would put 20,000 firms and 300,000 Reach Ferry the new terminals and £250m new link between jobs within an average commuting access roads is safeguarded Greenwich and distance (37 mins) of , for a river crossing, and a Bexley and the and help support development of ferry could be in service by rapidly growing housing in nearby areas the early 2020s area Gallions The land required to build a £350m - A fast 24 hour link Would put 100,000 firms and Reach bridge is safeguarded for a £600m would greatly 800,000 jobs within an average Bridge river crossing, and it could improve access commuting distance (37 mins) of be built and operational by between Greenwich Thamesmead, and would support 2022-2025 and Bexley and the development in Thamesmead and rapidly growing Royal Docks area Belvedere No current safeguarding. £500m - A fast 24 hour link Would put 120,000 firms & 190,000 Bridge The bridge is unlikely to be £900m would greatly jobs within an average commuting built before 2025-2030 improve access distance (37 mins) of Belvedere, and between north would support development in Bexley and the Belvedere and Havering London Riverside opportunity areas

1 The capital cost range is due to different ferry or fixed link options. The indicative cost ranges reflect the estimated cost of construction and permanent land purchases, and include an allowance for risk and inflation. The cost of any complementary measures and land required temporarily for construction are not included.

10 TfL Planning River crossings: Assessment of Need and Options East of Silvertown

1 INTRODUCTION

Purpose of report 1.1 The purpose of this assessment report is to address two interrelated aspects of the River Crossings programme; the potential for a replacement of the Woolwich Ferry and the need for better connectivity across the Thames east of Silvertown. 1.2 This report supersedes the two reports, the ‘Assessment of Need’2 and ‘Assessment of Options,’3 produced by TfL for the purposes of the consultation on river crossings held in 2012/13. 1.3 The report firstly summarises relevant policy, defines the study area and assesses its needs, describes previous consultation and outlines the objectives for this element of the River Crossings programme. It then describes the river crossing options that have been assessed, presents an analysis of the options against the objectives set, and identifies the options selected for further public consultation, to take place in July 2014. The short-listed options are then described in more detail.

Strategic policy context 1.4 There is a strategic planning and transport policy framework for London which looks forward to 2031 and defines the key challenges that London has to address over this period. This is set out in the Mayor’s spatial development strategy, the London Plan (LP) and the Mayor’s Transport Strategy (MTS), finalised in 2011 and 2010 respectively. These two published documents were widely consulted upon and examined by an independent planning inspector and provide the statutory framework within which the boroughs develop their own local development frameworks and local implementation plans. They contain strategic policies and proposals that guide the provision of infrastructure by TfL. 1.5 The overall thrust of the LP and the MTS is that London is a growing city, with growth at the highest levels since the inter-war period. There is a focus on supporting new jobs and housing to meet the demands of a rising population and

2 This report supersedes the ‘River Crossings Assessment of Needs’ and ‘River Crossings Options’ reports by TfL, 2012, https://consultations.tfl.gov.uk/rivercrossings/consultation/supporting_documents/River%20Crossings%20Assessment%20of%20Needs% 20Report.pdf 3 River Crossings Options report, TfL, 2012

11 TfL Planning River crossings: Assessment of Need and Options East of Silvertown

the provision of transport infrastructure is a critical component in helping to achieve this. Transport policy development and investment in transport in recent years has helped London secure an overall reduction in the amount of road traffic mileage in the capital4, together with sustained increases in travel by public transport, walking and cycling. The Mayor supports the continuation of these trends and further investment in public transport capacity is a fundamental part of the MTS. 1.6 While the Mayor is fully committed to continuing the shift from private to public transport across London, at the same time he recognises that there are certain types of trips – freight trips5 and many business-related trips for example – which have no practical alternative but to take place by road. The scale of growth in London and, in particular, the concentration of growth in the eastern parts of the capital, together with current capacity constraints, combine to demonstrate that further investment in the road network is also required. The level of growth in east London is such that trips for which the road network is essential, would be negatively affected (with adverse consequences for London’s economy) if additional capacity and resilience in the network were not forthcoming. 1.7 East London is one of the largest regeneration areas in the UK. The seven boroughs that make up the sub-region are expected to accommodate the largest proportion of new homes and jobs in London (see 3.82), making the delivery of development in this area essential to maximising London’s significant economic potential. However, movements within the sub-region are significantly constrained by the ‘barrier effect’ of the Thames. There are only three road crossings, the Rotherhithe and Blackwall Tunnels and the Woolwich Ferry east of Tower Bridge in London, which link a resident population of some 2.3 million; and these crossings all suffer from severe capacity constraints. This ‘barrier effect’ limits businesses’ access to markets, the size of retail and leisure catchments and residents’ access to employment opportunities (see 3.108). This constraint on economic activity makes delivering the significant scale of development planned for the area more difficult. 1.8 The MTS, accordingly, sets out a long-term programme for investment in river crossings in east London. This includes a new proposed road crossing at Silvertown

4 Road traffic kilometres overall decreased by 10.9% between 2012 and 2000, although road traffic in outer London increased slightly in 2012 – Travel in London 6, TfL, 2013 5 The Roads Task Force estimates that 89% of London’s freight/deliveries rely on road haulage – TfL, Roads Task Force – Technical Note 3, 2013

12 TfL Planning River crossings: Assessment of Need and Options East of Silvertown

in the form of a tunnel, a new pedestrian and cycle link between the and the Royal Docks (now open as the Emirates Air Line), and options for improving connectivity further east including the potential for a new ferry at Gallions Reach and for a longer-term fixed link at this location.

Current River Crossings Programme options 1.9 Following the assessment of a range of potential options for expanding highway capacity, the proposed river crossings package for east London has evolved to identify two broad projects for further consideration:  A road tunnel at Silvertown designed to relieve congestion and improve resilience at the Blackwall Tunnel. A preferred option has been selected for this project and it is now being taken forward through the consents process, with further public consultation expected in autumn 2014 and in spring/summer 2015.  Options for a new ferry to replace the ageing Woolwich Ferry and/or a new crossing link east of Silvertown; this is the subject of this assessment report and of the proposed public consultation in summer 2014. 1.10 The Department for Transport (DfT) has a separate study investigating Thames crossings outside London’s boundaries including free flow charging at the Dartford Crossings and new capacity close to, or to the east of, the current Dartford Crossing.

Study Area 1.11 The study area is highlighted in orange in Figure 1 – it extends from Silvertown to the Dartford Crossing. The remainder of the east sub-region is highlighted with a bold border.

13 TfL Planning River crossings: Assessment of Need and Options East of Silvertown

Figure 1: Study Area and the east sub-region

Structure of this report 1.12 Chapter two of this report summarises the statutory planning context for the study area including relevant policy; Chapter three provides an analysis of the need for an additional proposed river crossing between Silvertown and Dartford; Chapter four summarises consultation undertaken to date, and Chapter five sets out the objectives that need to be met by the river crossing options. Chapter six describes the process of short-listing options for consultation and assesses the performance of each against the scheme objectives. The short-listed options are considered in detail in chapter seven. Conclusions are drawn in chapter eight.

Key issues for further consideration are highlighted in a grey box.

14 TfL Planning River crossings: Assessment of Need and Options East of Silvertown

2 POLICY CONTEXT

Introduction 2.1 The framework of national, regional and local spatial development and transport policies and plans provides the strategic and local planning context and principles that are to inform the development of transport projects including new river crossings in east London.

NATIONAL POLICIES

Draft National Policy statement for national networks 2.2 The National Policy Statement (NPS) for National Networks6 was published in draft by the Department for Transport in December 2013. The NPS sets out the Government’s vision and policy for the future development of nationally significant infrastructure projects on the national road and rail networks. It gives guidance for promoters of nationally significant infrastructure projects, and provides the basis for the examination of those projects by the Examining Authority and decisions by the Secretary of State. 2.3 Following a submission by TfL, the Secretary of State for Transport directed that the proposed Silvertown Tunnel be treated as a nationally significant infrastructure project for which development consent under the Planning Act 2008 is required. There may be potential for TfL to seek a similar direction in respect to a further new river crossing east of Silvertown if it considered the scheme to be nationally significant. 2.4 The NPS states that ‘The Government will deliver national networks that meet the country’s long-term needs; supporting a prosperous and competitive economy and improving overall quality of life, as part of a wider transport system. This means:  Networks with the capacity and connectivity to support national and local economic activity and facilitate growth and create jobs.  Networks which support and improve journey quality, reliability and safety.  Networks which support the delivery of environmental goals and the move to

6 https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/263720/consultation-document-draft-national-policy- statement.pdf

15 TfL Planning River crossings: Assessment of Need and Options East of Silvertown

a low carbon economy.  Networks which join up our communities and link effectively to each other.’ 2.5 The analysis of options which follows in Chapter 5 shows how the short-listed options align positively with these goals as expressed in the study objectives.

National Planning Policy Framework 2.6 The National Planning Policy Framework7 (NPPF) is the means by which the Government provides guidance to local authorities and others on planning policy and the operation of the planning system. The framework was published in March 2012 and replaces a large number of Planning Policy Guidance notes (PPGs) and Planning Policy Statements (PPSs), including PPG13 (Transport). 2.7 The framework sets out the Government’s national planning policies for England and how these are expected to be applied. It must be taken into account in the preparation of local authorities’ development plan documents (DPDs) and may also be a material consideration in the determination of planning applications. 2.8 Section 1 of the NPPF ‘Delivering sustainable development’ promotes the building of a strong, competitive economy. The Government is committed to securing economic growth in order to create jobs and prosperity, and the framework states that ‘significant weight should be placed on the need to support economic growth through the planning system’ (para 19).

LONDON-WIDE STRATEGIES

London Plan 2.9 The London Plan8, published in 2011, is the statutory spatial plan for London, which sets out the strategic vision for Greater London in the period to 2031. Draft Further Alterations to the London Plan (FALP)9 were published in October 2013, and were consulted upon from January to April 2014. The FALP addresses the strategic issues arising from the scale of growth that London would need to accommodate over the next two decades, and puts forward alternative spatial development policies which could be adopted to meet the forecasts for population and employment growth.

7 https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/6077/2116950.pdf 8 http://www.london.gov.uk/sites/default/files/The%20London%20Plan%202011_1.pdf 9 http://www.london.gov.uk/sites/default/files/FALP.pdf. The EiP is due to be held in September, no changes expected to be adopted until spring of 2015

16 TfL Planning River crossings: Assessment of Need and Options East of Silvertown

These include options of intensification of land use in central London, a decentralised policy with higher levels of development in outer London, and other options including making use of the potential of brownfield land to accommodate growth. 2.10 The FALP concludes that east London, with its large areas of ex-industrial brownfield land and improving transport links, should play a major role in London’s growth, and that with investment in infrastructure, many of London’s new jobs and homes can be accommodated in the east sub-region (which comprises boroughs in both east and south east London). However, it recognises that achieving this development is likely to require investment in infrastructure, including road infrastructure, and improving cross-river connectivity (para 6.4.1). 2.11 The London Plan clearly sets out the need for additional east London river crossings in a number of adopted policies: 2.12 Policy 6.1:‘Strategic Approach’ states that the Mayor will work with all relevant partners to encourage the closer integration of transport and development through the schemes and proposals including ‘New and enhanced road vehicle river crossing(s) in east London (package of measures)’ – described as a ‘programme of works under development to improve cross-Thames links in east London10’. 2.13 Policy 6.4:‘Enhancing London’s Transport Connectivity’ states that the Mayor will work with strategic partners, among other things, to ensure effective transport policies and projects to support the sustainable development of the London city region, to improve the public transport system in London, including cross-London and orbital rail links to support future development and regeneration priority areas, and increase public transport capacity by: (inter alia) ‘(k) providing new river crossings’. Paragraph 6.20 states that these new and enhanced river crossings are aimed at improving accessibility and the resilience of local transport networks, supporting economic growth in the area and linking local communities, and include:  consideration of ferry-based options east of a crossing at Silvertown; and  consideration over the longer-term of a fixed link at Gallions Reach 2.14 Policy 6.12:‘Road Network Capacity’ states that the Mayor supports the need for limited improvements to London’s road network, whether in improving or extending existing capacity, or providing new links, to ‘address clearly identified

10 London Plan, Table 6.1

17 TfL Planning River crossings: Assessment of Need and Options East of Silvertown

significant strategic or local needs’, and sets out the following criteria (Policy 6.12B) that should be taken into account when assessing these proposals:  the contribution to London’s sustainable development and regeneration including improved connectivity  the extent of any additional traffic and any effects it may have on the locality, and the extent to which congestion is reduced  how net benefit to London’s environment can be provided  how conditions for pedestrians, cyclists, public transport users, freight and local residents can be improved  how safety for all is improved. 2.15 Policy 6.12C states that proposals should show, overall, a net benefit across these criteria when taken as a whole. All proposals must show how any dis-benefits will be mitigated. 2.16 In the following text11 the Mayor recognises that there may well be cases where new roads are needed to support regeneration, improve the environment, increase safety or provide essential local access. He notes that there is little resilience in the event of an incident at existing river crossings, and that projected increases in jobs and population in the Thames Gateway will increase congestion and road network resilience problems. The text states that ‘The Mayor is therefore supportive of additional road-based river crossings in east London as part of a package of transport improvements’. 2.17 In summary, the London Plan policy:  Identifies the need for new and enhanced road vehicle river crossing(s) in east London as part of a package of transport measures (Policy 6.1).  Supports the need for limited improvements to London’s road network, to address clearly identified significant strategic or local needs (Policy 6.12).  Sets out in Policy 6.12 the planning criteria that such improvements will need to take into account and the requirement that road schemes demonstrate an overall net benefit when measured against the criteria.

11 London Plan paragraphs 6.40 and 6.41

18 TfL Planning River crossings: Assessment of Need and Options East of Silvertown

Mayor’s Transport Strategy 2.18 The MTS12, published in 2010 following wide consultation, sets out the transport strategy for London, developed in tandem with the work undertaken by the Greater London Authority (GLA) for the London Plan. This includes the strategy for delivering the transport infrastructure needed to accommodate growth in the east sub-region, which is a key part of the London Plan’s strategic vision. 2.19 The MTS identifies a wide range of policies and proposals to support this growth. It is based around three key policy areas: 1. Better co-ordination and integration of planning and transport; 2. Providing new capacity; and 3. Managing the demand to travel. 2.20 Overall, the implementation of the Strategy would see the existing increase in public transport usage continue, together with an increase in cycling, and a corresponding decrease in car mode share across London. 2.21 As with the London Plan, however, the MTS (394) identifies a clear need to progress a package of river crossings for east London, to help deliver growth and to meet its overall objectives. Part of this is recognition of the need to improve river crossings for road users, addressing the existing problems with the current infrastructure and to plan for the substantial growth that is identified for the surrounding area. 2.22 Figure 2 outlines the MTS policy on river crossings (MTS proposal 39), and highlights the outstanding issues. 2.23 In Proposal 35 the MTS states how the Mayor will give consideration to new road schemes where there is an overall net benefit when judged against criteria consistent with that in London Plan policy 6.12. 2.24 In Chapter 5.8 the MTS sets out the Mayor’s policy relating to new east London river crossings. Proposal 39 states that the Mayor, through TfL, and working with the London boroughs and other stakeholders, will take forward a package of river crossings in east London, including:  A new fixed link at Silvertown to provide congestion relief to the Blackwall Tunnel and provide local links for vehicle traffic

12 http://www.london.gov.uk/publication/mayors-transport-strategy

19 TfL Planning River crossings: Assessment of Need and Options East of Silvertown

 An upgraded Woolwich Ferry and consideration of a new vehicle ferry at Gallions Reach to improve connectivity  Local links to improve connections for pedestrians and cyclists  Consideration of a longer-term fixed link at Gallions Reach to improve connectivity for local traffic, buses, cyclists and to support economic development in this area  The encouragement of modal shift from private cars to public transport, using new proposed rail links  Support for Government proposals to reduce congestion at the Dartford Crossing 2.25 TfL has made progress on all of these, with completed schemes or proposals under consideration in each case, as summarised in Figure 2, below. 2.26 The MTS proposes a multi-modal approach (paragraphs 392-394) to new river crossings, including public transport, pedestrian and cycling provision and measures to encourage travel by sustainable modes. However there is also a recognition that there would continue to be a need for some journeys to be undertaken by vehicle, in particular commercial traffic and the movement of goods and the provision of services to support a growing economy in east London. The Mayor is therefore supportive of additional road-based river crossings in east London as part of a package of sustainable transport improvements.

20 TfL Planning River crossings: Assessment of Need and Options East of Silvertown

Figure 2: MTS Proposal 39 – River Crossings

MTS Policy Complete or in Proposals progress A new fixed link at Silvertown to provide congestion relief to the Blackwall Tunnel Silvertown tunnel and provide local links for vehicle traffic

Consideration of a longer-term fixed link at Gallions Reach to improve connectivity for Longer term options for a crossing local traffic, buses, cyclists and to support east of Silvertown economic development in this area

An upgraded Woolwich Ferry and Woolwich Ferries overhauled (2009) consideration of a new vehicle ferry at Gallions Reach to improve connectivity

The encouragement of modal shift from London Overground (2010) private cars to public transport, using new DLR Woolwich Arsenal (2009) rail links including High Speed One HS1 Domestic (Ebbsfleet to Stratford) domestic services, Crossrail and the DLR DLR capacity enhancements extension to Woolwich, reducing road Jubilee line extra capacity demand, and so road congestion at river Crossrail (2018) crossings, where possible

Support for Government proposals to Working with DfT on Lower Thames reduce congestion at the Dartford crossing Crossing Stakeholder Advisory Panel

Local links to improve connections for River concordat (2009) pedestrians and cyclists Oyster on Clippers (2009) Emirates Air Line (2012)

2.27 The MTS also states (Para 683-685) that some form of demand management in areas beyond the Central London Congestion Charging zone may be considered in the longer-term if congestion becomes an increasing problem or if other objectives (for example, environmental aims or the need for additional investment in transport) cannot otherwise be met. Charges or tolls to support specific infrastructure improvements, such as river crossings, would also be considered. 2.28 In summary, the MTS addresses relevant issues relating to east London river crossings, and includes a package of improvements in Proposal 39. Proposal 35 contains policy tests similar to those set out in the London Plan policy 6.12 for new road infrastructure and provides more detail on some of these. Charges or tolls are

21 TfL Planning River crossings: Assessment of Need and Options East of Silvertown

also control measures recognised by the MTS as potentially useful in supporting new river crossings. 2.29 Since the publication of the LP and the MTS more up-to-date information has become available on the forecast extent of growth in London, showing higher historic population growth earlier than expected13. The impact of this on the application of relevant policy is discussed in chapter 4.

LOCAL PLANS 2.30 The local plans of the boroughs in the study area have been reviewed (see Figure 1).

London Borough of Bexley 2.31 The London Borough of Bexley’s Core Strategy14 was adopted in February 2012 and states ‘Although no existing or proposed river crossings are located within the borough to facilitate north-south links, cross- traffic plays an important role in Bexley’s travel patterns. The Council is supportive of proposed improvements which will ease congestion, improve connectivity and enhance resilience of the existing crossings at Blackwall and Dartford. Additional river crossings are also supported in principle subject to no adverse impacts within the borough, such as increased traffic flows’ (4.7.12). 2.32 Bexley’s Local Implementation Plan15 for 2013/14 states that ‘there is potential to make greater use of existing passenger ferries’ (para 2.46).

Royal Borough of Greenwich 2.33 The Royal Borough of Greenwich submitted its Core Strategy to the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government in September 2013. Consultation on modifications to the Core Strategy including Development Management Policies16 was completed in April 2014 – no update was available at the time of writing this report. The borough is committed to supporting ‘the intensification of the use of the river for transport of people and freight, including upgrades to the Woolwich Ferry service’ (Policy IM3).

13 GLA 2012 Round Population Projections, Intelligence Update 05-2013, February 2013 14 http://www.bexley.gov.uk/index.aspx?articleid=4027 15 http://www.bexley.gov.uk/index.aspx?articleid=10875 16 http://www.royalgreenwich.gov.uk/info/1004/planning_policy/869/local_development_framework/2

22 TfL Planning River crossings: Assessment of Need and Options East of Silvertown

2.34 The Core Strategy states that improvements to transport infrastructure at Thamesmead would be promoted. It also notes that land for a river crossing at Thamesmead would continue to be protected and, if necessary in the shorter term, support would be given to a ferry service across the river at this location (3.3.46). 2.35 The Core Strategy further states that: ‘Any new crossings should ensure that they are fully integrated for use with public transport, walking and cycling. Although the development of fixed river crossings remain the Council's priority, in the shorter term support would also be given to cross-river ferry services, which can provide improved connectivity at a lower cost than a fixed crossing’ (4.8.17).

London Borough of Newham 2.36 The ’s Core Strategy17 was published in January 2012 and gives support for provision of new river crossings. It states that ‘The Council supports the development of bridge, tunnel or ferry crossings at these locations [Gallions Reach and Silvertown] to provide resilience to the Blackwall Tunnel and to support future growth’ ( 6.197). This supersedes policy T12 from the 2001 Unitary Development Plan which also supported a package of Thames crossings. 2.37 Newham’s Local Implementation Plan (LIP)18 for 2013/14 states that the council has a ‘serious concern that its [east London’s] further development will be hindered by the lack of a suitable road-based river crossing ensuring the efficient flow of both goods and visitors to the centre both north and south of the Thames’ (2.6.21). The council’s position is in favour of a package of river crossing improvements, which would need to include a new crossing at Gallions Reach as well as at Silvertown (3.2.8). The council is concerned about the impact of the Silvertown crossing on the area and identifies various traffic restraint mechanisms such as tolling (3.2.8). 2.38 Newham's Unitary Development Plan (UDP)19 was adopted in June 2001. It is being replaced by the emerging Local Plan (which includes the Core Strategy). In early 2012 a number of UDP policies were ‘saved’ and these policies currently continue to inform planning decisions. Of relevance in this context is policy T28: ‘development must have regard to the operational requirements of the Port of London Authority's radar stations at Beckton and ’ (proposal

17 http://www.newham.gov.uk/Documents/Environment%20and%20planning/CoreStrategy2004-13.pdf 18 London Borough of Newham’s Second Local Implementation Plan (LIP2), 2011 19 http://www.newham.gov.uk/Documents/Environment%20and%20planning/SavedUDPPoliciesFebruary2012.pdf

23 TfL Planning River crossings: Assessment of Need and Options East of Silvertown

no.T39).

London Borough of Barking and Dagenham 2.39 The London Borough of Barking and Dagenham’s Core Strategy20 was adopted in July 2010. Policy CM4: ‘Transport Links’ states that ‘land will be safeguarded for transport infrastructure schemes that could be implemented within the lifetime of the Plan’ and that the Council would continue to press for and support the transport infrastructure improvement projects including the . This is further supported by paragraph 4.4.7. 2.40 Barking and Dagenham’s LIP21 for 2013/14 offers support for Thames Gateway Crossings (1.3.6).

London Borough of Havering 2.41 The London Borough of Havering’s Core Strategy22 was adopted in 2008. In this document, the Council commits to working ‘with the relevant statutory authorities to secure the provision of … Thames Gateway Bridge: This would connect Beckton to Thamesmead and will enable the east London Transit to connect to the Greenwich Waterfront Transit’ (section 1.3).

Emerging policies and projects 2.42 There are emerging policies and projects supported by the London Plan that have close relevance to the provision of a vehicle river crossing east of Silvertown: 2.43 London Riverside is one of the largest Opportunity Areas in London, measuring 12km in length from Beckton to the west to Rainham Marshes in the east. Incorporating the London Boroughs of Barking and Dagenham, Havering and Newham it is home to over 116,000 people and 39,000 jobs. It is identified by the London Plan to accommodate significant growth in the next twenty years with up to 26,500 new homes and 16,000 new jobs. 2.44 Barking Riverside is the single largest development site within the Opportunity Area with outline planning permission for up to 10,800 homes. The Government is working with the Mayor to secure a funding package for an extension to the

20 http://www.lbbd.gov.uk/Environment/PlanningPolicy/LocalPlan/Documents/core-strategy-development-plan-jul-2010.pdf 21 http://www.lbbd.gov.uk/TransportAndStreets/LIP/Documents/LIPFinal18Aug11.pdf 22 https://www.havering.gov.uk/Documents/Planning/Gypsy-Traveller/Core-Strategy-Development-Control-Policies-DPD.pdf

24 TfL Planning River crossings: Assessment of Need and Options East of Silvertown

London Overground rail to the site. Beam Park, east of the old Ford Stamping Plant is another large development site reliant on significant transport investment with plans for a new station on the existing Southend to Fenchurch Street line. There is also scope for intensification at Barking town centre, Rainham Village and South Hornchurch 2.45 TfL and the GLA are currently considering the longer–term growth needs of London beyond 2031 to 2050. This work is ongoing, but early indications are that the central growth projections for London to 2050 are 11.3m for population and 6.3m for employment. If London is to accommodate this growing population sustainably, there would need to be further densification, including maximising the role that the Opportunity Areas offer – east London contains a high proportion of these, and would continue to be an important focus for growth. 2.46 Areas close to high quality public transport are likely to be prioritised for higher density development, but while TfL would expect the majority of residents’ travel to be made by public transport, there would remain a significant role for highway travel, for example to facilitate increases in servicing activity that new residential areas would inevitably require, and highway infrastructure improvements are also likely to be needed. New river crossings in east London are expected to be even more important in supporting and facilitating growth in housing and employment in east London, helping ensure that the area maximises its contribution to London’s broader strategic growth requirements. 2.47 There may also be potential in some Opportunity Areas to achieve growth beyond the levels envisaged in the London Plan, for example in outer riverside areas. New highway river crossing(s) east of Silvertown would contribute to development of this nature. Published and adopted regional and local policy gives general and specific support to new road-based river crossings in east London to:

1) improve public transport, and

2) address identified significant strategic and local present and future needs for cross-river accessibility.

Policies include specific references to the consideration of a new ferry at Gallions Reach, and a longer-term fixed link at this location; other locations may also meet river crossing policy requirements and are not precluded. Criteria are set out to be taken into account in the assessment of new transport infrastructure proposals. Specific policies and projects also point to the increasing importance of the accommodation of growth in the areas adjacent to the river in east and south east London and in the east London sub-region as a whole.

25 TfL Planning River crossings: Assessment of Need and Options East of Silvertown

3 NEEDS ANALYSIS

Introduction 3.1 This section begins by describing existing cross-river provision for public transport, walking and cycling and for road traffic. It then summarises the existing patterns of movement in the study area and the future ‘drivers of demand’ in relation to population, employment and resulting travel. The section concludes by describing committed enhancements to transport provision and identifying residual needs and, in particular, gaps in cross-river provision.

CURRENT CROSS-RIVER PUBLIC TRANSPORT PROVISION 3.2 There has been a period of sustained investment in public transport capacity across the whole of east London over the past 20 years and this would continue with the introduction of Crossrail services from 2018. Prior to 1999 London Underground’s east London line represented the only rail crossing of the River Thames in east London, providing a local shuttle from New Cross to Shoreditch. 3.3 Since 1999, new cross-river rail links have been provided on the following routes (see Figure 3):  Jubilee line (opened 1999, and subsequently upgraded with more frequent and longer trains);  (extended to Greenwich and Lewisham in 1999, and subsequently enhanced with longer trains, and extended to Woolwich in 2009);  High Speed 1, which started operating frequent high speed trains between Kent and east London in 2009;  London Underground’s East London line was transferred to the London Overground network, with new services to a much wider range of destinations from 2010, and further services from 2012;  Crossrail, now under construction, which will provide a new high frequency cross-river link from Woolwich to the Royal Docks, Canary Wharf and beyond from 2018.

26 TfL Planning River crossings: Assessment of Need and Options East of Silvertown

Figure 3: Recent or planned cross-river public transport improvements

3.4 Figure 4 illustrates the scale of increased public transport capacity across the Thames in east London from 1992 compared with the flat-lining of highway capacity over the same period.

Figure 4: Public transport and highway capacity, 1992-2022

3.5 These existing and committed public transport crossings have very significant levels of capacity, and there is scope to increase the capacity of several of these links without major infrastructure works, through provision of additional and/or longer trains. Table 2 shows estimates of the reference case and potential maximum capacity of the public transport links with the improvements in the table notes.

27 TfL Planning River crossings: Assessment of Need and Options East of Silvertown

Table 2: Reference case and potential maximum capacity of study area public transport crossings

Crossing Ref case capacity Potential max (pax/hr) (a) capacity~ (pax/hr) (a) Docklands Light Railway (DLR) Cutty Sark – Island Gardens 11,900 17,900 (b) Jubilee North Greenwich – Canary Wharf 24,700 27,200 (f) Jubilee Canning Town – North Greenwich 19, 800 27,200 (f) DLR Woolwich Arsenal – King George V 7, 400 17,900 (c) Crossrail Woolwich – Custom House 12,000 18,000 (d) Emirates Air Line 2,500 (e) 2,500 (e) a) If standardised at seated plus four standees per square metre b) With additional vehicles and North Route (Bow-Stratford) double tracking in place c) With additional vehicles and higher frequencies d) With 30tph core service, 18tph on branch; e) Theoretical maximum, all cabins full, system at full speed. Typical actual capacity lower; f) Additional trains cascaded from Northern line fleet to give 33tph service

3.6 London's existing cross-river bus network reflects the limited highway crossing provision to the east of Tower Bridge. Overall there are comprehensive networks of services on either side of the river in east and south east London, but these networks operate largely independently of one another. 3.7 Figure 5 shows all standard bus routes in Greater London which at some point cross the River Thames. It excludes night time only bus routes and school services. Routes which cross the river in central London, using Vauxhall Bridge, Tower Bridge, or crossing points in between these two are coloured light grey. Routes which cross the river outside these crossings are coloured red. 3.8 There are 47 bus routes which cross the river west of Vauxhall Bridge, and only a single route (the 108) crossing the river east of Tower Bridge (using Blackwall Tunnel). This service can suffer from significant disruption when the Blackwall Tunnel is closed. Bus connections are available at both ends of the foot tunnel and ferry at Woolwich, and via stations with cross-river services. The figure highlights the notable disparity in cross-river bus provision in cross-river bus routes between east and west London, which is a consequence of the very limited cross-river road connections.

28 TfL Planning River crossings: Assessment of Need and Options East of Silvertown

Figure 5: Cross-river bus services in London

3.9 In addition to road and rail-based public transport, some river bus services operate in the eastern section of the Thames as illustrated in Figure 6. While they provide a useful radial link between east London and parts of central London, and also serve cross-river trips along the inner section of the Thames, these do not provide any crossing opportunities in areas east of Greenwich Pier. Figure 6: River Bus services in the study area

3.10 It should also be noted that while the existing cross-river public transport capacity

29 TfL Planning River crossings: Assessment of Need and Options East of Silvertown

is well used, it is currently forecast that in future years peak demand would remain capable of being accommodated on cross-river public transport links, albeit with some degree of standing and crowding. This contrasts with cross-river highway capacity which (as shown in paragraph 3.34, Table 3) is highly constrained, with all the existing highway crossings needing to accommodate demand at levels equal to or above their full capacity throughout peak periods. 3.11 A public transport accessibility level (PTAL) plan of east London is shown in Figure 7– level 1a is the lowest level of PTAL (least access to public transport), level 6a the highest. Figure 7: Public Transport Accessibility Levels in east London

3.12 Figure 7 illustrates that, as would be expected, central London has the greatest level of accessibility to public transport services. However this also illustrates that ‘hot spots’ with high levels of accessibility by public transport now exist in east London. Particularly notable are high PTALs (level 6 and above) across much of Tower Hamlets, in Stratford (Newham) and in Barking/Ilford (Newham). 3.13 There are also some ‘hot spots’ south of the River Thames, particularly in the town centres of Greenwich, Lewisham and Bromley. By contrast, there are significant parts of the study area where public transport accessibility is low, and where road- based travel is consequently especially important, as shown in the overall mode shares described below in Table 7.

30 TfL Planning River crossings: Assessment of Need and Options East of Silvertown

Sustained investment in public transport in east London has resulted in a step change in cross-river rail links over the last 20 years, with a further high-capacity rail crossing in the form of Crossrail under construction. There is no evidence of unduly limited capacity on these links arising in the foreseeable future. However, there are very few cross-river bus links in east London, due to the lack of suitable road river crossings, which limits orbital travel by public transport, particularly in outer London, east of Woolwich.

CURRENT CROSS-RIVER WALKING AND CYCLING PROVISION 3.14 Improving conditions for pedestrians and cyclists is a key part of the Mayor’s Transport Strategy. However, as described below (from paragraph 3.21) the scale and role of the River Thames as a major shipping navigation channel in east London makes the provision of convenient pedestrian and cycle links across the river significantly more challenging and costly compared with areas of London to the west of Tower Bridge. 3.15 Cross-river routes for cyclists and pedestrians are provided via dedicated foot tunnels at Greenwich and Woolwich (see Figure 8). Built in the early years of the twentieth century, these have recently been undergoing refurbishment including lift replacement by Greenwich Council. In addition, there are some rail links which pedestrians and cyclists can use for part of their journey to cross the Thames, and the Emirates Air Line provides a cross-river cable car link for pedestrians and cyclists between the Greenwich Peninsula and Royal Docks. 3.16 Cyclists have more restricted public transport options than pedestrians, due to restrictions on the carriage of (non-folded) cycles on peak services on the Jubilee line and DLR and in future on Crossrail. However cyclists can take their cycles through the foot tunnels and on the Woolwich Ferry free of charge. As noted above, bicycles may also be carried on the Emirates Air Line.

31 TfL Planning River crossings: Assessment of Need and Options East of Silvertown

Figure 8: River crossings in the study area for pedestrians and cyclists

3.17 Table 3 shows the estimated (2-way) pedestrian and cycle flows across the river in the morning peak hour. There are very low flows, with the highest being those on the Hilton Ferry and .

Table 3 : 8-9am estimated pedestrian/cycle crossing movements (2013)

River crossing Modes Total Cyclists 42 Rotherhithe Tunnel Pedestrians 0 Hilton ferry* Ferry passengers 260 Greenland - Canary Wharf ferry* Ferry passengers 56 Cyclists 299 Greenwich foot tunnel Pedestrians 100 Cyclists 23 Woolwich foot tunnel Pedestrians 13 Cyclists 21 Woolwich Ferry Pedestrians 38 * 2012 data, all data from TfL estimates

32 TfL Planning River crossings: Assessment of Need and Options East of Silvertown

Local pedestrian and cyclist trips across the river can be undertaken by means of one of several public transport links, including the Emirates Air Line and the foot tunnels. However, there are no crossing opportunities east of Woolwich. Any new crossing should provide a new crossing opportunity for pedestrians and cyclists wherever possible.

CURRENT HIGHWAYS PROVISION

Strategic highways network 3.18 Figure 9 illustrates the extent of the DfT’s Strategic National Network around London. As can be seen, the principal routes for long distance traffic bypass London using the M25, and none of the river crossings in the study area is included in the national strategic road network, although the A282 Dartford Crossing forms part of the M25 London Orbital. Figure 9: Strategic national road network in and around London

Source: Highways Agency23

23 http://www.highways.gov.uk/our-road-network/managing-our-roads/highways-agency-areas/area-teams/

33 TfL Planning River crossings: Assessment of Need and Options East of Silvertown

3.19 Within the M25, the London-wide road network caters for London-wide trips, as well as providing a means of accessing the national and international road networks. The strategic London road network is principally composed of the Transport for London Road Network (TLRN), which at 580km covers 4% of London's road length and carries over 30% of its traffic. Figure 10: Transport for London Road Network (TLRN)

Source: TfL24

3.20 The sub-region’s two existing river crossings lie on the TLRN. However in terms of capacity, use by longer-distance traffic and high volumes, the only two current ‘strategic’ cross-river highway links east of central London are the Blackwall Tunnel and the Dartford Crossing.

24 http://www.tfl.gov.uk/roadusers/redroutes/953.aspx

34 TfL Planning River crossings: Assessment of Need and Options East of Silvertown

Current cross-river highway infrastructure in east and west London 3.21 The River Thames historically provided the essential means by which London was linked to the rest of the world. At the same time, it acts as a natural barrier to travel between north and south within the city. 3.22 In west London, the Thames is narrower than it is in east London and there is no right of navigation for large (tall) ships. This means that in west London historically bridges over the river have been relatively straightforward to provide, their spans being short and capable of support with in-river piers and lower clearances above the river. 3.23 By contrast, in east London, where the river is wider and large and tall ships have a right of navigation, there are more difficult design constraints for potential bridge crossings in terms of minimum clearances above the river, lengthy crossing spans, and the fact that only limited in-river obstructions (for piers) can be accommodated. In addition the flight paths of aircraft to/from London City Airport in the Royal Docks also creates height constraints for new structures. 3.24 A result of these factors is that while there are a large number of bridges in west London, there are far fewer bridge crossings in east London. There are only two bridges east of London Bridge: Tower Bridge, with its famous bascule lifting section, and the Queen Elizabeth II Bridge at Dartford with 54 metres of clearance above high water. There are three tunnelled road crossings, the Rotherhithe Tunnel, the twin bore Blackwall Tunnel (both of these tunnels have height and width restrictions) and the tunnel at the Dartford Crossing. Subject to further consultation and DCO consent, TfL plans to construct a further tunnelled crossing adjacent to the Blackwall Tunnel at Silvertown as part of the River Crossings programme. 3.25 Figure 11 illustrates the difference in the availability of road crossings over the Thames in east and west London (noting those with restrictions on use), from the edge of the Central London Congestion Charging zone to the M25 London orbital motorway.  In west London between Vauxhall Bridge and the M25 there are 17 crossings in 29 km  In east London between Tower Bridge and the M25 there are three crossings in 23 km

35 TfL Planning River crossings: Assessment of Need and Options East of Silvertown

3.26 Of the three east London crossings west of Dartford, one is the restricted capacity Woolwich Ferry (which does not operate 24/7)25 and the other two are the Rotherhithe and Blackwall Tunnels (both of which place restrictions on use by large vehicles). This means that for certain categories of road users, commercial traffic in particular, the highway river crossings available in the study area is limited not only by number but also by restrictions on weights, heights, lengths and/or widths. For safety reasons, there are also restrictions on the nature of loads which may be carried in tunnels under the European Agreement on the International Carriage of Dangerous Goods. 3.27 An implication of the above is that road vehicles with origins or destinations in east London which are restricted from using certain crossings may need to take very lengthy diversionary routes, possibly on inappropriate roads, in order to cross the River Thames. In this respect, the Woolwich Ferry provides a useful service in that, despite carrying a relatively small number of vehicles, it affords a river crossing opportunity for certain goods vehicles. 3.28 The London Lorry Control Scheme represents a further impediment for some road traffic in restricting Heavy Goods Vehicles (HGVs) to a network of main roads for the majority of their trip during the night time to limit noise impacts. During scheme operating hours, the Blackwall Tunnel is the only permitted river crossing route between Richmond and the Dartford Crossing (a crow-flies distance of some 22 km).

25 The Woolwich Ferry operates 6.10am to 8pm Monday to Saturday (incl. most public holidays) and 11.30am to 7.30pm on Sundays.

36 TfL Planning River crossings: Assessment of Need and Options East of Silvertown

Figure 11: Tower Bridge to M25: 3 crossings in 23 km

3.29 The fact that there are only a few river crossings, with none in the 14 km between the Woolwich Ferry and Dartford crossings, also means that many local trips have to travel further to reach destinations the other side of the river, greatly increasing trip lengths and times, thereby constraining connectivity and accessibility and the links between the communities. 3.30 The current lack of connectivity and the resulting journey distances and times is obvious from Figure 12 and Figure 13 and the associated Table 4 below (all sourced from Googlemap data), which show distances and estimated ‘free-flow’ journey times between Thamesmead and Beckton and between Belvedere and Rainham. While there are alternative routes to cross the river, these are in all cases significantly greater than the crow-fly distances involved. This means that existing or potential trips incur a significant distance and time ‘penalty’ in these cross-river journeys.

Table 4: Journey pair times/distance estimates26

26 Existing times based on free-flow times measured by Google maps – TfL analysis

37 TfL Planning River crossings: Assessment of Need and Options East of Silvertown

Thamesmead to Beckton distance freeflow time av speed

via Dartford crossing 36 km 34 mins 64 km/h

via Woolwich ferry 9 km 35 mins 15 km/h

via Blackwall tunnel 18 km 25 mins 43 km/h

As the crow flies 3 km 3 mins 50 km/h

Belvedere to Rainham distance freeflow time av speed

via Dartford 24 km 23 mins 63 km/h

via Woolwich 20 km 45 mins 27 km/h

via Blackwall 28 km 34 mins 49 km/h

As the crow flies 3 km 3 mins 50 km/h

38 TfL Planning River crossings: Assessment of Need and Options East of Silvertown

Figure 12: Estimated current journey time/distance – Thamesmead to Beckton

39 TfL Planning River crossings: Assessment of Need and Options East of Silvertown

Figure 13: Estimated current journey time/distance - Belvedere to Rainham

40 TfL Planning River crossings: Assessment of Need and Options East of Silvertown

3.31 A corollary of this is that in areas where developed highway networks each side of the river are separated from one another by a lack of cross-river links, the provision of even a single new link has the potential to dramatically alter access to networks and the social and economic opportunities this offers. 3.32 As the analysis presented below from paragraph 3.65 demonstrates, this differential in cross-river highway provision has had a significant effect on the relative extent of cross-river travel in the eastern and western halves of the capital by influencing whether, how and where people travel. The limited number and location of crossings in east London is likely to have influenced the type of land uses in various locations.

Roads Task Force 3.33 In 2012 the established a Roads Task Force, an independent body bringing together a wide range of interests and expertise to consider the strategic needs of the road network across London. The RTF report, published in July 2013, sets out a vision of how London can cope with major population growth and remain one of the most vibrant, accessible and attractive world cities. An interactive map, case studies, technical notes and more are available on the RTF supporting documents page.Figure 14 below is taken from the task force’s 2013 report,27 and acknowledges the problems of poor connectivity across the Thames in east London, coupled with the high aspirations for growth in the Opportunity Areas in the area compared with other parts of the capital.

27 http://www.tfl.gov.uk/corporate/about-tfl/how-we-work/planning-for-the-future/roads-task-force?cid=fs086

41 TfL Planning River crossings: Assessment of Need and Options East of Silvertown

Figure 14: Roads Task Force plan of key growth areas and transport challenges

Current capacity and demand of highway crossings 3.34 Table 5 shows the approximate capacity and morning peak demand on the river crossing in east London. The actual capacity varies both within and between days due to fluctuations in vehicle flow volumes, speeds and vehicle mix, so this can only be a guideline. However it is known that queuing occurs in the peak direction throughout the morning peak period at all crossings, and the data indicates that all crossings are at or over capacity in the peak direction.

Table 5: 2012 Demand and estimated capacities of road crossings in and around the study area28

Crossing Capacity Flow in PCUs % capacity used

28 River Crossing Modelling Base Year Development and Validation Report, Mott McDonald, 2014 and other Mott McDonald data on capacities

42 TfL Planning River crossings: Assessment of Need and Options East of Silvertown

(PCUs/hr)* (08:00-09:00) (AM peak hour)

Blackwall Tunnel (n/b) 3236 3413 100% Blackwall Tunnel (s/b) 3842 2768 74% Woolwich Ferry (n/b) 164 123 100% Woolwich Ferry (s/b) 164 146 93% Dartford Crossing* (n/b) 5500 5277 96% Dartford Crossing* (s/b) 5500 5456 99% *Estimates of Dartford capacity do not reflect the effect of toll payment plazas on traffic flow and all capacity estimates dependant on volumes, speeds and vehicle mix

3.35 For certain categories of commercial road user, the number of highway river crossings available in the study area is much more limited since some crossings impose restrictions on the weights, heights, lengths and/or widths of vehicles that may use them. There are also restrictions on the nature of loads which may be carried in tunnels for safety reasons under the European Agreement on the International Carriage of Dangerous Goods. The relevant restrictions are shown in Table 6 below. 3.36 An implication of the above is that vehicles which are restricted from certain crossings may need to take very lengthy diversionary routes, possibly on inappropriate roads, in order to cross the Thames. In this respect, the Woolwich Ferry provides a valuable service in that, despite carrying a relatively small number of vehicles, it affords a river crossing opportunity for vehicles which would be barred from using the Blackwall or Dartford crossings.

43 TfL Planning River crossings: Assessment of Need and Options East of Silvertown

Table 6: Usage restrictions for commercial vehicles on east London and Dartford crossings

Max height Max width Max length Max weight Load restriction Tower None None None 18 t None Rotherhithe 4.4 m 2.0 m 10.0 m None Cat E Blackwall NB 4.0 m None None None Cat E Blackwall SB 4.7 m None None None Cat E Woolwich 4.8 m 3.5 m None None None

Dartford NB 4.75 m 2.75 m 18.3 m 38 t Cat C Dartford SB None 3.65 m 27.4 m 38 t None * Note: Load restriction categories denote the type and quantities of dangerous goods that are allowed to enter the UK’s larger road tunnels. Each regulated tunnel is assigned a particular category, A to E, with A being the least restrictive and E being the most restrictive. New restrictions were put in place in January 2010.29** Note: Some discrepancies appear to exist at the Dartford tunnel; the legal order30 proscribes vehicles over 4.75 m; the actual signing is in imperial units only and equates to 5.03 m on the eastern tunnel and 4.80 m on the western tunnel.

The nature and use of the Thames in east London necessitates road bridge river crossings to be higher, longer and to be less dependent on in-river piers than those in the west. By reason of these differences there are far fewer river crossings in east London than in west London.

Of the only three east London crossings west of Dartford (a 23 km distance to Tower Bridge), one is the low-capacity Woolwich Ferry (which does not operate 24/7) and the other two are the Rotherhithe and Blackwall Tunnels both which have restrictions on use by large vehicles and are over capacity in the peak directions in the peak periods.

The fact that there are only a few vehicle river crossings, with none in the 14 km between the Woolwich Ferry and Dartford crossings, also means that many local trips have to travel further to reach destinations either side of the river, constraining accessibility and the social and economic links between communities.

Currently all the existing highway river crossings in east London operate at or over their capacity.

29 For more information: http://www.roadsafeeurope.com/useful_info/Tunnel_Restrictions 30 http://legislation.data.gov.uk/uksi/1998/1908/made/data.htm?wrap=true

44 TfL Planning River crossings: Assessment of Need and Options East of Silvertown

Current resilience of the cross-river highway network 3.37 In transport planning, the term ‘resilience’ describes the ability of transport networks to provide and maintain an acceptable level of service in the face of both planned and unplanned incidents. In the case of the cross-river highway network this is a function of :  The number of crossings and the distance between them  Their capacity to meet demand and the consequent implications should full or partial closure of one or more crossings be necessary, including the ability of operating crossings to handle traffic diverted from non-operational crossings  Their susceptibility to closure; for instance, an inability to accommodate all vehicle types (the issue of limitations on vehicle height on the northbound bore of the Blackwall Tunnel is highly relevant), maintenance needs for old assets, susceptibility to adverse weather causing closures.. 3.38 Resilience is a significant issue for businesses, increasing costs and uncertainty – recent research on behalf of TfL found that 67% of firms located in the study area consider that poor reliability of cross-river travel acts as a constraint on or disruption to their business.31 3.39 Resilience is an issue for individual crossings, but is also applicable across the wider road network, where the overall number of linkages between different parts of the network and the distances between them are significant. In east London the overall resilience of the road network is sub-optimal due, in part, to the small number of river crossings and the significant distances between them. 3.40 The lack of crossings means traffic converges at only three crossings from across the entire southern area of east London (around 15 km of river), which reduces resilience and compounds traffic congestion and safety problems when incidents occur. These problems are likely to have a particularly pronounced impact on commercial traffic, which, as noted above, faces restrictions on the crossings it can use. 3.41 Incidents at crossings causing obstruction and delay are excessively frequent and have significant adverse impacts across the wider road network.

31 East London River Crossings – Business Survey, WSP, published June 2014

45 TfL Planning River crossings: Assessment of Need and Options East of Silvertown

3.42 The potential for serious and severe incidents at the Blackwall Tunnel to have a far- reaching impact on London's road network can be illustrated through an analysis of an incident which occurred on the evening of Sunday 29 November 2009. On this occasion, a vehicle fire in the northbound bore of the Blackwall Tunnel caused the closure of the tunnel in both directions on Sunday evening and the closure of the northbound bore most of Monday 30 November. The closure caused considerable delays to traffic across large sections of the road network, and particularly in south east London as drivers sought alternative routes and river crossings. 3.43 On the Sunday evening drivers experienced congestion on routes in both north east and south east London, in particular on the A13 and A2 northbound and Commercial Road towards Rotherhithe Tunnel, before it started to ease between midnight and 1am. Later in the morning (Monday) congestion started to build before 6am in south east London, particularly around Rotherhithe Tunnel. Conditions in the Rotherhithe Tunnel area improved around 9am, but widespread congestion was observed by the London Traffic Control Centre around the areas of Blackheath, Deptford, Greenwich, Lewisham and Surrey Quays. 3.44 Heavy congestion also persisted on the A2 northbound, spreading back into and Bexley. By 7.20am congestion was observable around the Woolwich Ferry southern terminal. Only one boat was in operation and by mid morning there were delays of over 2 hours. Despite the introduction of a second boat shortly after 11am, lengthy delays persisted for the rest of the day and the ferry service was extended until 9pm to clear the backlog. The northbound tunnel was re-opened at around 6.30pm on Monday and the London Traffic Control Centre observed a return to normal traffic conditions by 8pm that evening. 3.45 These impacts are illustrated in Figure 15 below which gives an impression of the wide geographical area affected by the incident (black lines represent the worst delays and red the next worse). The A2 Shooters Hill Road and the A200 Evelyn Street/Lower Road, which form the diversion route to the Rotherhithe Tunnel, are two of the worst affected roads.

46 TfL Planning River crossings: Assessment of Need and Options East of Silvertown

Figure 15: Effects of 30 November 2009 incident on south east London road network

3.46 A small sample of iBus data collected before and immediately after the above incident illustrates the effects of crossing closures to non-crossing traffic. Route 161, which runs close to, but not through, the Blackwall tunnel, operated only 35% of the scheduled trips on Monday 30 November, suggesting major disruption to local bus users as a result, with the maximum journey times on one short section increasing from 11 to 34 minutes. 3.47 There were a total of some 1,100 unplanned incidents in the Blackwall tunnel in the period Nov 2012 – Nov 2013 – some 55% of these were in relation to overheight vehicles, and a further 24% were caused by vehicle breakdowns.32 3.48 The Silvertown Tunnel project aims to address the existing lack of resilience currently experienced at the Blackwall Tunnel. 3.49 There are also current network resilience issues relating to the Woolwich Ferry. At busy times, the queue for traffic wishing to board the Woolwich Ferry often builds up considerably, sometimes significantly obstructing and delaying other road users, particularly on the southern side of the river. 3.50 Figure 16 illustrates an occasion where the queue for the ferry extended back through the roundabout and caused significant queuing on the eastbound and northbound approaches to the junction. A large majority of traffic on these roads is not seeking to use the ferry, but ferry queuing and associated congestion is causing

32 TfL Network Performance Data, 2012/3

47 TfL Planning River crossings: Assessment of Need and Options East of Silvertown

significant delays to other local traffic around Woolwich town centre. Other analysis33 showed that bus journey times in the area can be significantly affected by this queuing, which impacts on bus users over a wide area.

Figure 16: Woolwich Ferry queues blocking back through the roundabout (south side)

3.51 The Dartford Crossing also has some characteristics which impact upon its resilience. During high winds or icy weather, the bridge can be required to close. Neither the bridge nor the tunnels have hard shoulders. Meanwhile the tunnels need to be closed to facilitate recovery of broken down vehicles or maintenance (there are restrictions on vehicle recovery and on maintenance staff working alongside traffic). The Department for Transport is currently considering proposals for a new Lower Thames Crossing, which would go some way towards alleviating congestion currently associated with the Dartford Crossing, while free-flowing tolling currently being implemented would improve capacity and reduce delays currently experienced at toll-barriers.

33 TfL iBus data

48 TfL Planning River crossings: Assessment of Need and Options East of Silvertown

The lack of resilience of existing cross-river highway links is a major issue, given the very few crossings, the distance between them, the demand on them which exceeds current capacity and the restrictions on their use. Incidents at crossings causing obstruction and delay are excessively frequent and have significant adverse impacts across the wider road network. The Silvertown Tunnel project aims, amongst other project objectives, to address the existing lack of resilience currently experienced at the Blackwall Tunnel – however it continues to depend on the A2 for links to the south and will not provide greater network resilience or increased connectivity further east.

CURRENT PATTERNS OF MOVEMENT

Current mode share 3.52 As shown in Figure 17, levels of car and van ownership in the east London sub- region boroughs are in general around or below the London household average of 58% – the notable exceptions to this are the outer boroughs of Havering and Bexley, where 77% and 76% of households have at least one car or van, the second and sixth highest rate of all London boroughs respectively.

Figure 17: Households with at least one car or van (2011)

90% 77% 80% 76% 74%

70% 58% 60% 58% 60% 58% 56% 50% 48% 42% 40% 37% 30% 20% 10%

0%

Brent

Ealing

Barnet

Bexley

Sutton

Enfield

Merton Harrow

London

Camden

Bromley

Islington

Hackney

Croydon

Havering

Haringey

Lambeth

Newham

Redbridge

Lewisham

Hounslow

Hillingdon

Southwark

Greenwich

Study Area Study

Wandsworth

Westminster

City of London of City

Tower Hamlets Tower

Rest of London of Rest

Waltham Forest Waltham

England and Wales and England

Barking & Dagenham & Barking

Kensington & Chelsea & Kensington

Kingston upon Thames upon Kingston

Hammersmith & Fulham & Hammersmith Richmond upon Thames upon Richmond

Source: Census 2011

49 TfL Planning River crossings: Assessment of Need and Options East of Silvertown

3.53 Table 7 shows the overall mode share for personal travel by residents in the boroughs in the study area and compares these to inner London, outer London and London as a whole (this excludes freight and non-resident travel). While other modes are important, road-based travel (including bus, car, taxi and cycle – but excluding walking) accounts for more than two thirds of all travel in four out of the five boroughs, the exception is Newham, where it accounts for 49%. 3.54 While road-based mode share is expected to decrease over time, it is clear that, given this dominance of road-based travel and the growth of population and employment expected in east London, more highway travel is inevitable.

Table 7: Study area personal trips by borough of origin, trips per day and shares by main mode, average day (seven-day week) 2009/10 to 2011/12.34

Area Trips Rail Under- Bus / Taxi / Car / Cycle Walk (000s) ground / tram Other motor- DLR cycle

Newham 590 2% 10% 17% 1% 30% 1% 38% B & D 280 3% 5% 19% 0% 45% 1% 28% Bexley 357 4% 0% 8% 1% 61% 1% 25% Greenwich 428 5% 3% 16% 1% 46% 1% 28% Havering 477 4% 2% 13% 1% 58% 1% 21%

Inner London 7,958 6% 12% 18% 2% 22% 3% 38% Outer London 9,572 4% 4% 13% 1% 49% 2% 28% All London 17,530 5% 8% 15% 1% 37% 2% 32%

3.55 As Table 8, below, makes clear, road-based modes (including walking, cycling, taxis, and bus trips as well as private vehicle use) also play an important role in enabling access to employment across the study area, though this role has changed over time.

34 Borough Local Implementation Plan (LIP) performance indicators, http://www.tfl.gov.uk/cdn/static/cms/documents/borough-lip- performance-indicators.pdf - personal trips only

50 TfL Planning River crossings: Assessment of Need and Options East of Silvertown

Table 8: Change 2001-2011 of borough residents using road-based method of travel to work35

2001 road use 2011 road use Change (000s / Resident Borough Number Number %) (000s) Share (%) (000s) Share (%)

Newham 45 (56%) 59 (46%) +15(-10%) Greenwich 56 (65%) 66 (59%) +11 (-7%) Bexley 70 (73%) 75 (71%) +5 (-2%) Havering 70 (72%) 77 (71%) +7 (-1%) B&D 44 (71%) 47 (64%) +3 (-7%) Totals 321 382 +41 (13%)

3.56 Over 70% of Bexley and Havering residents commute to work by road – a high proportion of Barking and Dagenham residents also commute by road (64%). Newham (46%), Tower Hamlets (52%), and Greenwich (59%) have proportionally fewer residents commuting by road. 3.57 The proportion of residents using a road-based method of travel to work has reduced in all boroughs, indicating the impact of significant investment in rail infrastructure and possibly the level of congestion and unreliability of the road network. Despite these changes the proportions still stand at between 52% and 71%. (For context, between 2001 and 2011 the percentage of commuter trips made by road fell by 2.3% in England and Wales, 3.7% in London excluding the study area and 6.0% in the study area.) 3.58 While the share of commuting taking place by road-based modes has fallen in all boroughs, the absolute number of residents commuting by road has risen by a total of some 13 per cent, a result of population and employment changes. 3.59 Travelling by road, rather than rail-based public transport, is a faster option for many journeys in the study area, especially those that do not start or end very close to the rail network. It is this which helps to explain why car ownership and usage is much higher in outer London and why there continues to be high demand for journeys by car in east and south east London (including across the river), despite significant congestion – it is very difficult for public transport to cater for these

35 http://www.neighbourhood.statistics.gov.uk – 2001 census dataset UV39 – 2011 census dataset QS701EW. All figures rounded to nearest 100

51 TfL Planning River crossings: Assessment of Need and Options East of Silvertown

types of dispersed point-to-point journeys.

Freight in the East sub-region 3.60 The east sub-regional plan36 notes that freight movement in the sub-region is expected to grow significantly in the future as it adapts to serve a growing and increasingly prosperous population, and as a result of the strategic role of the sub- region within an international gateway. 3.61 The east sub-region also accommodates a significant proportion of London’s freight industry – 30 percent of London’s warehousing space is in the sub-region – a similar proportion to the west sub-region, which has 32 percent. 3.62 Freight and servicing trips in the east sub-region are mostly undertaken by road. The sector is subject to the same issues as other road users, including congestion (notably on the A12, A13, A20, and A102), severance (for instance at the Thames and in the Lea Valley), and journey time unreliability (exacerbated by the scarcity of Thames crossings). These problems are passed on through higher business costs to consumers. 3.63 There is significant freight/business use of the existing crossings – a 2009 survey of the Blackwall Tunnel indicated that 23% of total traffic were Light Goods Vehicles (LGV)/HGVs; a similar survey on the Woolwich ferry showed that 40% of total traffic were LGV/HGV’s37.

Despite recent reductions in road-based mode share, road-based travel is still very important in connecting people to employment in east London. Indeed, it is the main commuting mode in all boroughs in the study area with the exception of Newham (49%). And while the proportion has decreased, the absolute number of people commuting by road has risen sharply over the past ten years as the population has increased, generating additional demand for highway capacity and for more effective links between growing economic and residential areas. This demand would increase further in future as population and employment are forecast to grow rapidly in the period 2011-2031. In addition, the vast majority of freight in London is carried by road, and the prediction is that this would increase significantly over the coming

36 East Sub-regional Transport Plan, TfL, 2010 37 River Crossings Assessment of Needs’ report by TfL, 2012

52 TfL Planning River crossings: Assessment of Need and Options East of Silvertown

decades – the east sub-region and the study area have a high proportion of London’s warehousing.

Current Cross-river travel patterns 3.64 An analysis of the latest (2011) London Travel Demand Survey (LTDS) has been undertaken to examine the extent of existing cross-river personal travel by residents in east London38, and so as to enable a comparison of both inter- and intra-borough trips to those in west London. It should be noted that this data excludes all non-resident travel in the area including freight, which constitutes a significant proportion of cross-river highway travel (see 3.63). The patterns identified are obviously affected by existing and historic land use patterns as well as the prevalence of crossings, but it gives an indication of the level of cross-river travel that can result from the availability of crossings which in turn influences land use. 3.65 Table 9 shows that, relatively, cross-river trips represent a small proportion of all resident-based personal trips: some 6.4% in east London and 10.8% in west London, including those in central London. However, the overall volume of daily trips is still high: 322,500 in east London and 566,400 in west London. West London therefore has some 70% more total cross-river trips compared to east London.

Table 9: Summary of all inter and intra-borough trips in study area and west London39 East London West London Trips (000s) % Trips (000s) % Entirely north 2,751 55% 2,882 55% Entirely south 1,962 39% 1,793 34% North-south crossing 160 3% 285 5% South-north crossing 163 3% 282 5% Total cross-river 323 6% 566 11% Total 5,036 100% 5,241 100%

38 East London River Crossings – LTDS Analysis Note, TfL – data used for 2005 to 2011 39 East London boroughs were defined as Newham, Barking & Dagenham, Havering, Redbridge, Bexley, Bromley, Greenwich and Lewisham, West London included Richmond and Kingston on Thames, Merton , Hounslow, Ealing, Wandsworth, Tower Hamlets and Lambeth. Central London included Kensington and Chelsea, Hammersmith and Fulham, the City of Southwark, Tower Hamlets and Westminster.

53 TfL Planning River crossings: Assessment of Need and Options East of Silvertown

3.66 However when trips into central London are excluded (see table below), cross-river trips in east London total decrease to 33,900, or just 0.6% of all trips that originate or destinate in this part of London. This compares with 313,700 trips that cross the river in west London – 10 times the east London figure, and a clear demonstration of the effect of the difference in cross-river connectivity between the two locations.

Table 10: Comparison of all inter and intra-borough trips in East London and West London – excluding central London (Average daily trips 2005 – 2011) East London West London Trips (000s) % Trips (000s) % Entirely north 1,544 31% 1,831 35% Entirely south 1,582 31% 1,793 34% North-south crossing 17 <1% 151 3% South-north crossing 17 <1% 163 3% Total cross-river 34 <1% 314 6% Total 3,160 63% 3,937 75%

3.67 The analysis also shows that current cross-river trips in east London are overwhelmingly made by public transport, with car trips as a proportion of all cross- river trips standing at just 2%40. This probably reflects the availability of cross-river transport in east London and the lack of road-based crossings. Cross-river trips that exclude central London are much more likely to be made by Underground or the DLR than other modes, given the current availability of the public transport network in the study area. Trips into Central London are much more likely to take place by National Rail (including Overground) given the availability of radial National Rail routes.

Local vs. Strategic needs: current river crossing use 3.68 River crossings in the study area carry a mix of both local and long distance road traffic, and can therefore be described as currently serving both ‘local’ and ‘strategic’ needs. 3.69 Figure 18 shows the surveyed origins and destinations of traffic using the Blackwall Tunnels and the Woolwich Ferry northbound during the morning peak hour. This

40 East London River Crossings – LTDS Analysis Note, TfL – data used for 2005 to 2011

54 TfL Planning River crossings: Assessment of Need and Options East of Silvertown

shows a spread of movement at both crossings, some local, some more strategic movements, with a focus on origins and destinations in the study area boroughs. As would be expected given the lack of crossings, origins are focused on the eastern part of the study area.

Figure 18: Origins/destinations – Blackwall Tunnels northbound morning peak hour41

41 TfL survey data, 2012

55 TfL Planning River crossings: Assessment of Need and Options East of Silvertown

Figure 19: Origins/destinations – Woolwich Ferry northbound morning peak hour

3.70 Analysis of the origins and destinations of current users of the Woolwich Ferry suggests that the service has a very local catchment, with a slight bias to the east42. The majority (94%) of northbound journeys surveyed in 2011 started in a London Borough south of the river, most notably Greenwich (71%) or Bexley (14%). Eight in ten (80%) southbound journeys started in one of the London boroughs north of the river, primarily Newham (23%) or Barking and Dagenham (20%). Greenwich stood out as the most common southbound destination (55%) compared with 16% to Bexley. 3.71 While carrying a mix of traffic, each crossing can be described in terms of the main function it performs in the London context. TfL have identified three types of crossing:  National/Regional Strategic – traffic carried mostly has an origin and /or

42 TfL River crossings programme ‘ Assessment of Needs’ 2012, from 8.70

56 TfL Planning River crossings: Assessment of Need and Options East of Silvertown

destination outside London; the crossing is of relatively minor importance for local, sub-regional or London-wide trips – the Dartford Crossing has this role in the study area. (see Figure 20 below)  London Strategic – most traffic carried has an origin and /or destination in the east sub-region or wider London. In the study area the Blackwall Tunnel most closely fits this description with 75% of all trip origins and 83% of all trip destinations lying within Greater London (see Figure 21 below). While many of the trips using it are local and sub-regional trips, serving origins and destinations entirely within the east sub-region, many longer distance trips also use this crossing, with sizeable flows appearing on the M11 to the north east and the A2 to the south east.  Local – with the majority of traffic having either an origin or destination (or both) in the study area (i.e. within the boroughs of Greenwich, Bexley, Newham, Barking and Dagenham and Havering). The Woolwich Ferry is the crossing in the study area which most closely fits this description (see Figure 22). A high proportion of its traffic has an origin and/or a destination in Greenwich or Bexley. There is an axis of demand following the A406, some of which then uses the M11, but most traffic using it appears to be local or sub- regional in nature.

Figure 20: Dartford Crossing modelled traffic routes in the morning Peak hour (0800-0900), 2009, southbound

57 TfL Planning River crossings: Assessment of Need and Options East of Silvertown

Figure 21: Blackwall Tunnel modelled traffic routes in the morning Peak hour (0800-0900), 2009

Figure 22: Woolwich Ferry modelled traffic routes in the morning Peak hour (0800-0900), 2009

58 TfL Planning River crossings: Assessment of Need and Options East of Silvertown

3.72 In the context of the present consultation, the following developments are relevant:  The DfT is implementing new technology to improve capacity at Dartford, and is investigating additional crossings at this location or further east – meeting the national/strategic needs for crossings east of London is therefore catered for or is being planned outside the study area.  TfL is proposing a new tunnel at Silvertown, which would significantly improve the capacity of the Blackwall Tunnel bottleneck, and provide much greater resilience here. Preliminary modelling indicates that this improvement would significantly reduce queuing and delays in this location, and therefore this proposal would appear to cater for the majority of London strategic road traffic movement requirements.  The Woolwich Ferry is approaching the end of its useful life as a ‘local’ crossing, and decisions need to be made on its future.  In addition there is significant local development planned in the wider study area along the river, and the links between these communities either side of the river need to be strengthened as noted in the London Plan in paragraph 6.20. 3.73 Taking account of these considerations the residual need for a crossing in the study area east of Silvertown relates to the requirement to (1) facilitate local road traffic movements that are essential to the proper functioning of east London today and which are constrained by the lack of connectivity and (2) facilitating the future economic and population growth in the area which will also have an essential component of cross-river road traffic which needs to be accommodated in an efficient manner.

Currently the vast majority of cross-river personal travel by residents of east London is by public transport, reflecting the availability and journey times of current travel opportunities.

An assessment of current cross-river personal travel by residents of east London indicates that it is very small proportion of overall personal travel (6.4%) - if Central London trips are excluded this reduces to only 0.6% of total personal travel.

While this will obviously be influenced by land use patterns, it must also be a reflection of the lack of river crossing opportunities (similar analysis in west London shows river crossing travel levels 10 times higher).

The analysis suggests that cross-river highway travel in east London is constrained, and there is a need for better connectivity to (1) facilitate local road traffic

59 TfL Planning River crossings: Assessment of Need and Options East of Silvertown

movements that are essential to the proper functioning of east London today and which are constrained by the lack of connectivity and (2) facilitating the future economic and population growth in the area which will also have an essential component of cross-river road traffic which needs to be accommodated in an efficient manner.

Strategic national/regional highway river crossings in the study area are principally via the Dartford Crossing, which is being upgraded and improved. Strategic London highway river crossings are currently delivered by the Blackwall Tunnels that lack resilience which the Silvertown Tunnel will address. The residual need for a crossing east of Silvertown relates mainly to facilitating local accessibility and related economic and population growth in the study area.

Current highway accessibility – opportunities for travel 3.74 The transport connections and conditions described above strongly influence the degree to which residents and businesses in the study area can access economic opportunities. 3.75 Using models and accessibility analysis described in more detail later in this report (Chapter 6), estimates of this accessibility can be derived. Two measures of this accessibility are:  Access to jobs – provides an indication of how attractive a place might be as a residential location;  Access to economically active population – provides an indication of how attractive a place might be to businesses in terms of their potential labour catchment. 3.76 Figure 23 shows the current highway accessibility to jobs in London from each transport model ‘zone’ in London, with areas from which jobs are increasingly accessible shaded progressively darker. It shows clearly how east London’s accessibility is relatively poor, and the ‘barrier’ effect of the river in east London is immediately visible as it forms a ‘cliff edge’ dividing areas of good accessibility from areas of much weaker accessibility. By contrast, accessibility graduates relatively smoothly downwards in west London, depending on distance from the centre, and no significant ‘river effect’ is visible.

60 TfL Planning River crossings: Assessment of Need and Options East of Silvertown

Figure 23: Current highway accessibility to jobs43

3.77 Figure 24 shows the current highway accessibility to economically active population in London. It shows much poorer accessibility in east London, particularly south of the river, and the river clearly divides areas of good accessibility from areas of much weaker accessibility. Again by contrast, no significant ‘river effect’ is visible in the west.

43 River Crossings Development Study – Final Report, Atkins Report | Version 2.0 | June 2014 47

61 TfL Planning River crossings: Assessment of Need and Options East of Silvertown

Figure 24: Current highway accessibility to economically active population44

3.78 Analysis in relation to options in Chapter 7 will show how this accessibility would change with new river crossings.

Accessibility comparisons clearly show that the barrier of the river currently constrains the opportunities available to residents and businesses on both sides of the river east of Tower Bridge, whereas no significant river effect is visible to the west.

FUTURE DRIVERS OF GROWTH 3.79 The next sections describe the growth estimates for the study area, business feedback on river crossing issues, and the links between transport and the economy in the area. They also show how this growth would translate into increased travel.

44 See footnote 27

62 TfL Planning River crossings: Assessment of Need and Options East of Silvertown

Growth and Economic Development issues - Population 3.80 The regeneration of the former Docklands is taking place within the context of broader historic population and employment trends, detailed in the London Plan45. The population in all of London's sub-regions declined in the decades following World War II, a process which slowed to a halt during the 1980s. Figure 25 shows that, while the east sub-region has historically had the highest population of the sub-regions in absolute terms, the rate of decline between the 1930s and the 1980s outstripped that of all other non-central sub-regions. 3.81 Population growth since 1991, however, has been most rapid in the areas where it had previously declined most quickly - the central and east sub-regions. The London Plan anticipates that population growth between 2011 and 2031 in the east sub- region will be considerably more rapid than in the other sub-regions, and by 2031 its population is expected to have comfortably exceeded the previous peak reached in the 1930s.

Figure 25: Population change 1931 to present and projections to 2031 in London's sub-regions

Source: East sub-regional plan, 2010 46

3.82 GLA forecasts, shown in Table 11, predict that London’s population would grow by around 1,150,000 people, or 14%, between 2011 and 2031. Table 11 shows that

45 London Plan, GLA, 2011/13 46 http://boroughs.tfl.gov.uk/sub_regional_transport_plans.aspx

63 TfL Planning River crossings: Assessment of Need and Options East of Silvertown

the forecast population growth in all but two of the nine boroughs in the east sub- region is expected to exceed the London average of 14% between 2011 and 2031, in many cases dramatically so. Together, the boroughs in the east sub-region are expected to account for 37% of London's total population growth over this period, while the four with the highest rates of growth (Tower Hamlets, Newham, Greenwich and Barking & Dagenham) are expected to account for 23% of that growth.

Table 11: Forecast development of population in east sub-region

Resident Population: 2011 2031 % growth Tower Hamlets 245,710 325,723 33% Newham 295,777 361,181 22% Greenwich 245,586 313,282 28% Bexley 223,811 240,254 7% Hackney 235,334 273,496 16% Havering 233,207 269,676 16% Barking & Dagenham 180,895 233,462 29% Redbridge 266,175 300,212 13% Lewisham 271,275 311,853 15%

East sub-region 2,197,770 2,629,139 20% Greater London 7,991,889 9,144,126 14% Source: GLA Population Projections 2011 Round, SHLAA, High Fertility, Borough SYA (Jan 2012, GLA)47 All figures rounded to the nearest whole percent

3.83 Since the GLA forecasts were published, more recent information from the 2011 census has become available, shown in Table 12. The census shows that the 2011 London population was already around 180,000 higher than had been forecast by the GLA; and the east sub-region alone accounted for 75,000 of that additional population. This is clearly a significant increase in the number of additional residents in a short space of time. 3.84 Further work would be required to understand whether this is growth in population

47 http://data.london.gov.uk/datastore/package/gla-population-projections-2011-round-shlaa-borough-sya

64 TfL Planning River crossings: Assessment of Need and Options East of Silvertown

coming forward earlier than expected, or whether this means that the 2031 population is likely to be higher than forecast. For either scenario, the implication is that the infrastructure forecast to be required to accommodate growth by 2031 is now likely to be needed far sooner. If, as now seems likely, population growth exceeds the forecast then future road travel and congestion is also likely to be greater than forecast in London, and this has implications for the river crossing programme.

Table 12: Comparing GLA 2011 population forecasts with 2011 census data

Resident Population: 2011 (GLA) 2011 (census) Difference Difference (% (absolute) of GLA forecast)

Tower Hamlets 245,700 254,100 8,400 3% Newham 295,800 308,000 12,200 4% Greenwich 245,600 254,600 9,000 4% Bexley 223,800 232,000 8,200 4% Hackney 235,300 246,300 10,900 5% Havering 233,200 237,200 4,000 2% Barking & Dagenham 180,900 185,900 5,000 3% Redbridge 266,200 279,000 12,800 5% Lewisham 271,300 275,900 4,600 2%

East sub-region 2,197,800 2,272,900 75,100 3% Greater London 7,991,900 8,173,900 182,100 2% Source: GLA Population Projections 2011 Round, SHLAA, High Fertility, Borough SYA (Jan 2012, GLA) and the Census (2011)48 All figures rounded to the nearest whole percent and hundred 3.85 As the population grows, absolute numbers of trips would be expected to grow – both as a result of the travel of residents, and reflecting the increase in freight and servicing that a larger population would require.

48 http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/publications/re-reference-tables.html?edition=tcm%3A77-274670

65 TfL Planning River crossings: Assessment of Need and Options East of Silvertown

Population growth, particularly in Tower Hamlets, Barking & Dagenham, Greenwich and Newham, will inevitably increase travel demands, including for cross-river travel. 2011 census data indicates that population growth has been more rapid than the GLA previously forecast.

The population in the east sub-region is soon expected to exceed the previous peak reached in the 1930s. This rapid population growth, happening sooner than expected in many areas, confirms the growth patterns estimated in the London Plan and implies that the infrastructure needs forecast to be required by 2031 in the MTS are now needed sooner. In addition early work on London’s growth needs to 2050 indicates that east London will continue to be highly important as a location for future growth.

Future Drivers of Growth– Employment 3.86 In contrast to the 37% share of London's total population growth which the east sub-region is expected to accommodate, the share of total employment growth expected to take place in the sub-region is smaller at around 22%. 3.87 This employment growth is highly concentrated, with three of the nine boroughs in the east sub-region forecast to experience growth rates significantly above the London average; growth of some 33% and 22% is envisaged in Tower Hamlets and Newham respectively, while Hackney is expected to experience growth of around 17% (all these boroughs lie north of the River Thames).

Table 13: Current and forecast employment in east sub-region (000’s)

Employment forecasts: 2011 2031 % growth Tower Hamlets 227,000 301,000 33% Newham 88,000 107,000 22% Greenwich 80,000 87,000 9% Bexley 74,000 79,000 7% Hackney 95,000 111,000 17% Havering 83,000 89,000 7% Barking & Dagenham 51,000 56000 10% Redbridge 74,000 81,000 10%

66 TfL Planning River crossings: Assessment of Need and Options East of Silvertown

Employment forecasts: 2011 2031 % growth Lewisham 77,000 83,000 8% East sub-region 849,000 994,000 17% Greater London 4,797,000 5,452,000 14% Source: Borough Employment Projections, 2009, GLA (presented in the London Plan, 2011) 49 rounded to nearest whole number.

3.88 Some boroughs in the east sub-region, in particular those boroughs south of the river and in outer east London (London boroughs of Lewisham, Greenwich, Barking & Dagenham, Havering) are expected to experience significantly greater growth in population than employment over the next twenty years. 3.89 Figure 26 and Figure 27 illustrate these differences in growth patterns. Employment growth is concentrated in areas north of, and relatively near, the River Thames as well as in central London. The numbers of jobs in certain areas further north and east are actually expected to decline. In contrast, significant population growth is anticipated across a broader area of the sub-region, including more areas south of the river and in outer east London. 3.90 The ellipses highlight the areas of east/south east London which are most directly affected by the river crossings proposals for east London, and highlight the scale of growth anticipated here.

49 http://www.london.gov.uk/sites/default/files/The%20London%20Plan%202011_1.pdf

67 TfL Planning River crossings: Assessment of Need and Options East of Silvertown

Figure 26: Forecast changes in London's population, 2006 to 2031

Source: East sub-regional plan, 2010 50

Figure 27: Forecast changes in London's employment, 2006 to 2031

Source: East sub-regional plan, 2010

50 http://boroughs.tfl.gov.uk/sub_regional_transport_plans.aspx

68 TfL Planning River crossings: Assessment of Need and Options East of Silvertown

3.91 A likely consequence of this disparity is that if employment rates are to be maintained or increased, residents of the study area will increasingly need travel to find employment outside their home borough, leading to an increased need for travel within and beyond the study area – including increased cross-river travel.

Future drivers of growth – Increased demand for highway travel 3.92 TfL has modelled the changes in population and employment51, and the implications of this on demand to travel by road (other analysis not presented here included demand for public transport). Figure 28 shows the forecast of the change in the number of car drivers’ or car passengers’ journeys which will end in a particular area. 3.93 It demonstrates that there is predicted to be a significant increase in trips ending in the study area – these changes are amongst the highest in the whole of London.

Figure 28: Change in car person trip ends, morning peak, 2007 to 2031

Source: TfL Strategic Analysis, LTS model 3.94 TfL’s traffic forecasts also indicate that levels of congestion will increase most in the

51 TfL, LTS analysis

69 TfL Planning River crossings: Assessment of Need and Options East of Silvertown

east sub-region, in particular at locations adjacent to the River Thames, as the foregoing data would suggest. 3.95 Figure 29 illustrates the forecast change in levels of congestion by borough from 2007 levels to 2031.

Figure 29: Forecast change in congestion by borough, 2007 to 2031

Source: TfL Strategic Analysis, LTS model

Background traffic changes from 2012 to 2021 3.96 As part of this study, further modelling by TfL (see 7.3) has used the above estimates of growth to provide estimates of future highway demand in the study area. 3.97 Figure 30 shows the modelled change in traffic flows in the morning peak hour across east London from 2012 to 2021. It can be seen that there are large increases in flows across the strategic road network, e.g. A13, North Circular, A102, A2 and M25 and to a lesser extent the remainder of the network. These increases are driven primarily by the forecast increase in population and employment.

70 TfL Planning River crossings: Assessment of Need and Options East of Silvertown

Figure 30: Flow changes on the road network in the morning peak hour from 2012 to 2021

3.98 Figure 31 show the impact that such increases in traffic flow would have on junction delay between 2012 and 2021 in the morning peak hour. Projected increases in delay can be seen across the highway network as a result of increased traffic flows. Some of the largest increases in junction delay occur on the A13, M25, A2 and the approaches to the Blackwall Tunnel.

71 TfL Planning River crossings: Assessment of Need and Options East of Silvertown

Figure 31: Junction delay changes in the morning peak hour from 2012 to 2021

There is expected to be significant growth in employment and population in east London. Employment growth is forecast to be greatest in Tower Hamlets and Newham, however growth in population is focused elsewhere (refer to paragraph 3.43).

This disparity between the location of forecast population growth and the location of forecast employment growth will generate increased commuter travel demands outside residents’ home boroughs, including increased cross-river travel demand.

Modelling suggests that overall growth would significantly increase traffic congestion, particularly at locations adjacent to the River Thames in east London and at existing river crossings.

Future Drivers of Growth – Development & Regeneration 3.99 The London Plan states that ‘growth will be supported and managed across all parts of London to ensure it takes place within the current boundaries of Greater London without: a) encroaching on the Green Belt, or on London’s protected open spaces, and b) having unacceptable impacts on the environment’ (policy 1.1B). The plan goes on to state that ‘in spatial terms, this will mean renewed attention to the large areas of unused land in east London where there are both the potential and need for development and regeneration’ (Para 2.4).

72 TfL Planning River crossings: Assessment of Need and Options East of Silvertown

3.100 The London Plan therefore identifies London’s reservoir of brownfield land and, particularly, the larger sites in the east as a principal location for accommodating its growth requirements over the next 20 years (Para 2.58). The east sub-region contains 14 Opportunity Areas and areas for intensification, accounting for 27 percent of London’s overall land use potential. The east sub-region’s Opportunity Areas and areas for intensification are shown in Figure 32, with indicative capacities for new homes and new jobs from 2011 to 2031, subject to provision of infrastructure.

Figure 32: Opportunity Areas in east sub-region – growth potential 2011 to 2031

Source: London Plan 2011 (table A1.1)

3.101 Within the catchment area of the river crossings (the areas labelled in Fig.27) there is potential capacity for 200,000 new jobs and 100,000 new homes, which could be created in the period to 2031 if the necessary infrastructure is provided. Resilient cross-river linkages will clearly be important in linking these new and enlarged communities.

73 TfL Planning River crossings: Assessment of Need and Options East of Silvertown

3.102 Figure 33 shows that the inner parts of the east sub-region are heavily over represented in the 20% most deprived lower-layer super output areas (LSOAs) in London.52 There is variation within the sub-region, but in general the boroughs in the study area perform significantly worse than the London and national averages across a range of social and economic indicators. In particular, participation in the labour market tends to be lower, while unemployment and dependency on key state benefits is higher. This relative poor performance is illustrated in Table 14, which shows that the boroughs of Greenwich, Newham, and Tower Hamlets perform significantly worse than the average for London and England as a whole.

Figure 33: Location of 20% most deprived LSOAs in London

Source: London Plan, 2011

52 (Note that LSOAs are geographic areas which have been automatically generated to be as consistent as possible in terms of population size. The minimum population is 1,000 and the mean is 1,500. The London Plan identifies the 20% most deprived LSOAs as areas for regeneration.)

74 TfL Planning River crossings: Assessment of Need and Options East of Silvertown

Table 14: Key social indicators in selected boroughs in study area, with London and England averages (rounded)

Proportion of working age population who Activity Employment Unemployment claim out of work rate* (%) (%) (%) benefits (%)

B&D 75 60 15 20 Bexley 75 70 5 10 Greenwich 80 70 10 15 Newham 70 55 15 20 Tower Hamlets 75 60 15 15 London 80 70 10 10 England 80 70 10 10 Source: GLA London Borough Profiles, based on 2011 Census 53 * Note: Activity rate (%) measures the proportion of the working age population (16-64) who are active or potentially active members of the labour market.* Note: Working age out of work benefits include jobseekers allowance, income support for lone parents, incapacity benefits and other income related benefits.

3.103 It is possible that the level of deprivation in the east sub-region could be further exacerbated by the fact that population is expected to grow at a faster rate than employment within the sub-region. 3.104 This means that an increased population of working age is likely to need to travel within and beyond the study area, including across the river, in order to reach employment. Improving connectivity across the region is therefore a key objective to ensure better access to employment and improved links for business.

East London contains areas of high deprivation and the population is rising rapidly. The London Plan identifies London’s reservoir of brownfield land and particularly the larger sites in the east as the key to accommodating its growth requirements over the next 20 years.

The east sub-region contains 14 Opportunity Areas and areas for intensification, accounting for 27 percent of London’s overall land use potential.

53 http://data.london.gov.uk/datastore/package/london-borough-profiles

75 TfL Planning River crossings: Assessment of Need and Options East of Silvertown

The development of transport infrastructure of all types is essential to supporting and accommodating these development opportunities and to cater for increased travel movements. As noted above, road-based transport is by far the most important mode in the study area.

Business needs survey 3.105 Between 24 September and 15 October 2013 TfL commissioned 700 telephone surveys of businesses on a sampling frame designed to cover boroughs, sector and size (number of employees) within the study area.54 3.106 The key findings of the research are:  Businesses expect a strong positive economic effect from the East London River Crossings Package55. 83% expect it to improve the local economy overall.  Improvements to cross-river journeys are seen as important to businesses. 64% of firms regard the ability to cross the River Thames as important to the successful operation of their business. Only 18% of businesses agree or strongly agree that current crossing options are adequate.  The predictability of cross-river journey times is a particular issue. 65% of firms consider that poor reliability of cross-river travel acts as a constraint on or disruption to their business. 44% of firms think predictability of journey times is poor or very poor, against 12% who regard it as good or very good. This is of most concern to firms in Greenwich (80%) and least for those in Lewisham and Havering (54% each). The majority of firms (78%) anticipate more predictable journey times as a result of the implementation of the crossings package.  A significant number of businesses see the river as a barrier to the development of their business on the other side. Overall around a third of all businesses agreed with this statement, although the level of agreement was higher for businesses in Greenwich (49%), Newham (47%) and Bexley (40%). Should the investment package be implemented, 65% of firms anticipate

54 WSP/TfL east London River Crossing – Business Survey, published Feb 2014 55 Defined in the survey as a new tunnel at Silvertown; a new ferry, tunnel or bridge at Gallions Reach, or An upgrade to existing Woolwich Ferry

76 TfL Planning River crossings: Assessment of Need and Options East of Silvertown

more business coming from the other side of the river (82% for Newham).  Proximity to other businesses is important to a third of firms because it brings in more trade/customers. This proximity is more important for businesses in Barking and Dagenham (42%) and Newham (41%) and less so in Bexley (28%), Tower Hamlets and Lewisham (30% each).  Firms were asked about business prospects on a short-term horizon (a year); therefore the survey reflects current cyclical trends. There was spare capacity in the local economy at the time of fieldwork (October 2013 / March 2014), exemplified by the fact that 61% of businesses expected their turnover to grow over the next 12 months, yet only 29% of businesses considered the number of staff that they employ was likely to increase. For those that did recruit (52% businesses), the vast majority (83%) did not have difficulties. This reflects the current state of the post-recession labour market.  Longer-term recruitment trends are expected to be stronger if the East London River Crossings package is implemented. Almost half of businesses (49%) expect to recruit additional staff as a result of the investment, with firms in boroughs closest to the planned new crossings - Greenwich (57%) and Newham (54%) - anticipating the biggest effect. Construction sector businesses are most likely to expect to recruit additional staff (59% think this will occur as a result of the package). Freight and logistics are expected to benefit from the East London River Crossings package. More efficient use of supplies and deliveries is anticipated by 65% of firms as a result of the package.  The construction sector is most concerned about problems crossing the river. Half of all construction businesses regard crossing the river as essential or very important to their success, compared with c.30-40% for other sectors. The main benefit anticipated by construction businesses is more predictable journey times (86% expect this to result from the investment package).  Over half of firms would be happy to pay a reasonable charge to cross the river if journey times became more reliable. 59% of firms agreed or strongly agreed with this statement. Smartcard payment for freight was supported by 73% of respondents. 3.107 The importance of crossing the river in east London to businesses by borough, by sector and by location in relation to new road crossings in east London is illustrated in Figure 34 and Figure 30. These indicate that the businesses in boroughs further from existing crossings regard new crossings in east London as more important compared with those nearer; and that businesses in the construction, primary/manufacturing and transport, retail and distribution sectors regard new crossings as of more importance compared with other employment sectors.

77 TfL Planning River crossings: Assessment of Need and Options East of Silvertown

Figure 34: Importance of east London river crossings to successful operation (by borough)

Source: TfL East London River Crossings – Business Survey, 2014

Figure 35: Importance of east London river crossings to successful operation (by sector)

Source: TfL East London River Crossings – Business Survey, 2014

Overall two thirds of businesses report that the ability to cross the river by road in east London is important to their business, with a third rating it as very important or essential. Only 18% feel current crossings are adequate. The responses to survey indicate that the businesses in boroughs further from existing crossings regard new crossings in east London as more important compared with those nearer and that businesses in the construction, primary/manufacturing, transport, retail and distribution sectors regard new crossings as of more importance compared with those in other employment sectors.

78 TfL Planning River crossings: Assessment of Need and Options East of Silvertown

Linkages between transport and development 3.108 As part of the programme, a comprehensive study of the potential development and socio-economic impacts resulting from a range of crossing options within east London was undertaken56 - a summary of the main findings of this study is described in the following paragraphs. 3.109 Transport infrastructure can facilitate economic growth by improving business efficiency through time savings and reliability, expanding labour markets and increasing competition through improving access to customers and suppliers. Places that are better connected are generally more attractive both for businesses and as residential locations and this can increase demand for services and property values. 3.110 Improvements in the resilience and reliability of the transport network are as important as improvements in connectivity for many road-based business sectors. 3.111 Transport investment can also facilitate growth through improving the image of an area, providing a demonstration of long-term public sector investment and drawing it to the attention of potential inward investors; 3.112 Different firms are affected by transport improvements in different ways. The manufacturing and construction sectors are more road dependent than office based sectors and are likely to respond to changes in road-based connectivity more positively. However, sensitivity to changes in the road network is just as much about location as sector, with outer London borough businesses much more reliant on road-based accessibility than those in inner and central London Boroughs; 3.113 Case studies of similar major investments in cross-river capacity, such as the Severn Bridge and the Dartford Crossing, have demonstrated that such investment can generate strong employment growth at levels well above the regional average, with those areas that the bridge directly links benefiting to the greatest degree. There is also evidence of higher levels of housing development facilitated by the crossings; there is other empirical evidence of an increase in employment being related to accessibility to jobs by road; 3.114 Transport is a necessary, but not sufficient, condition for growth. For transport investment to facilitate regeneration, the proposed scheme needs to be set within a context of wider economic growth, with a supportive policy environment, and to

56 River Crossings Development Study – Final Report, Atkins Report | Version 2.0 | June 2014

79 TfL Planning River crossings: Assessment of Need and Options East of Silvertown

provide a significant step change in connectivity. Given the current lack of connectivity in the study area, it is likely that some river crossing options will to achieve this latter change, as described later in Section 7. 3.115 The lack of cross-river connectivity in east London restricts the size of labour market and the potential customer catchment for firms, thereby restricting competition and economic activity. East London boroughs have lower proportions of the labour force that come from outside each borough, have lower employment densities per hectare, lower retail catchments and less average spend per town centre. 3.116 The study area contains a high proportion of businesses in the distribution, construction and manufacturing sectors that rely on good road links to access customers and suppliers. These businesses also have higher proportions of their labour force that commute by road-based modes and were most likely to state that a new road crossing would lead to growing their business. Growth in freight movement is also expected, with the number of LGVs forecast to grow by up to 30% between 2008 and 2031, accounting for 15% of traffic on London’s Roads. 3.117 It is estimated that there is potential capacity for over 243,000 residential units, 2.5 million sq.m. of office floorspace, 440,000 sq.m. of retail floorspace and 1 million sq.m. of leisure floorspace in the study area. If this was floorspace developed, this would result in a loss of 975,000sq.m of industrial floorspace. However there is a significant oversupply of capacity when compared to estimated demand, particularly for office and retail development. This suggests that not all sites will come forward for development, with only those where market demand is strongest and site constraints do not threaten viability. 3.118 The northern side of the river in the study area has over twice as much floorspace capacity that could support employment than on the south side, with the majority of this difference in the office sector. This potential imbalance in employment growth, combined with a relatively even distribution of potential housing growth, is likely to lead to a greater demand for trips from the south side of the river to employment/businesses on the north side. 3.119 In terms of the development potential in east London.  There is currently a focus on access to public transport and central London for new housing, and this has resulted in more intensive development in the west of the study area. The study area, outside of Southwark and Tower Hamlets, requires a step change in the performance of its economy to deliver its full potential, and given the high proportion of road travel mode use in the study area, new road river crossings may contribute significantly to that because of changes in connectivity and related accessibility;  Office development is likely to continue to be located in northern Southwark

80 TfL Planning River crossings: Assessment of Need and Options East of Silvertown

and western Tower Hamlets (City Fringe), Canary Wharf, as well as a limited number of select hubs with excellent public transport accessibility, such as Stratford. There is also significant potential at Royal Docks, although improvements to the accessibility of these sites are key to their development;  Retail demand is expected to decline somewhat compared to recent years due to structural changes in the market related to e-commerce and other factors. However, there is still potential for growth, especially in town centres and where a quality product can be offered to the market;  New industrial floorspace is more likely to occur in locations where high quality industrial space can meet the needs of hi-tech industries that want to be located close to the London skill base and have access to finance, and can access the strategic transport network, such as the London Sustainable Industries Park at Dagenham Docks;  The development of logistics space close to urban areas will also be dependent upon the cost and availability of large plots of development land, as well as the opportunity cost of not developing for other, more valuable uses such as residential. This suggests locations such as Barking & Dagenham, Bexley and southern parts of Havering are likely to see the strongest growth in this sector; but this will be dependent on the provision of good road access. There are strong links between transport connectivity and the economy, and connectivity affects different sectors and locations in different ways – the nature of the businesses and travel to work in the study area means that road connectivity is very important. While transport is a necessary, but not sufficient, condition for growth but there are strong indications that new river crossings would increase the accessibility of local residents to employment and local businesses to each other and to the labour market, and to assist in the achievement of forecast development and employment.

COMMITTED TRANSPORT ENHANCEMENTS 3.120 There are a number of significant enhancements planned to assist in meeting growth demand that have been identified and developed in partnership with boroughs and other stakeholders. The ‘Sub-Regional Transport Plan – east’57 sets

57 Mayor of London, Transport for London, undated

81 TfL Planning River crossings: Assessment of Need and Options East of Silvertown

out a wide variety of public transport, walking, cycling and highways projects to meet identified needs in east London. Some of the more significant schemes are:  Crossrail (2018)  Devolution of West Anglia suburban services (2015)  Bow rail junction remodelling and Gravesend train lengthening (2014-2019)  New stations at Lea Bridge station (2014) and DLR Pudding Mill Lane  Stratford to Upper Lea Valley rail enhancements (2018)  Jubilee line timetable improvements  Electrification of the Gospel Oak to Barking line (2016)  Hackney Wick and Bromley-by-Bow station improvements  Train lengthening to five cars on London Overground (2015)  Implementation of the Mayor’s Vision for Cycling 3.121 While these are significant improvements, it is notable that the only planned scheme which will enhance cross-river connectivity is Crossrail.

NEEDS GAP ANALYSIS 3.122 Having regard to existing transport network in the study area including the lack of connectivity and resilience in road based river-crossings, the ways that residents and businesses travel, the factors which are anticipated to change the area’s travel needs, and the programme of committed investment already set out, the following conclusions can be reached. 3.123 Sustained investment in public transport in east London has resulted in a step change in cross-river rail connectivity over the last 20 years, with a further high- capacity rail crossing in the form of Crossrail under construction. There is no evidence of unduly limited capacity arising in the foreseeable future, although TfL is currently reviewing the implications of growth projections. In terms of bus access, there are very few cross-river links in east London, largely due to the lack of suitable road river crossings. 3.124 There are few walking and cycling crossings in east London, and none east of the Woolwich Ferry. 3.125 There are only three highway cross-river links between Tower Bridge and the Dartford Crossing (with none in the 14km between the Woolwich Ferry and Dartford Crossing) – all existing crossings are over capacity in the peak hours and have height, width, and/or load restrictions. This leads to a lack of connectivity and longer journey times and major resilience problems.

82 TfL Planning River crossings: Assessment of Need and Options East of Silvertown

3.126 While cross-river travel represents only a small proportion of study area resident personal travel, it is still considerable and freight use is very important. There are strong indications that the lack of river crossings constrains and reduces cross-river travel and is a constraint on links being formed between communities and businesses. 3.127 While other modes are important, road-based travel accounts for more than two thirds of all travel in four out of the five study area boroughs, the exception being Newham (49%), While road-based mode share is expected to decrease over time, it is clear that, given this dominance of road-based travel and the growth of population and employment expected in east London, more highway travel is inevitable. 3.128 East London is one of the largest regeneration areas in the UK. The delivery of development in this area is fundamental to maximising London’s significant economic potential. However, road traffic movements within the sub-region are significantly constrained by the ‘barrier effect’ of the Thames. This ‘barrier effect’ limits local firm’s access to markets, the size of retail and leisure catchments and residents’ access to employment opportunities in a way that is peculiar to the eastern half of the capital. This constraint on economic activity makes delivering the significant scale of development planned for the area more difficult. 3.129 Population growth, which appears to be happening far more quickly than had previously been anticipated, is predicted to significantly increase the volumes of road traffic in the study area together with levels of congestion. 3.130 Overall two thirds of local businesses report that the ability to cross the river by road in east London is important to their business, with a third rating it as very important or essential. Only 18% feel current crossings are adequate. 3.131 Currently the Dartford Crossings and the Blackwall Tunnel provide the principal strategic traffic carrying function in the study area. The Woolwich Ferry, with a much lower capacity and slower journey time, has a more local function, although it is important for higher vehicles and hazardous loads which cannot use the Blackwall Tunnel. 3.132 Taking into account TfL’s Silvertown Tunnel proposal to relieve the Blackwall Tunnel and the DfT’s proposals to improve conditions at the Dartford Crossing, the residual need for a new crossing in the study area east of Silvertown relates mainly to providing for local connectivity and accessibility and meeting present and future road traffic functional demands on the network.

83 TfL Planning River crossings: Assessment of Need and Options East of Silvertown

The overall conclusion is that the current river crossings between Tower Bridge and the Dartford Crossing do not provide adequate connectivity between the large populations and businesses either side of the river, leading to longer journey times and higher costs and constraining travel between them. The existing crossings do not cater adequately for current cross-river road traffic movement; they are at or over capacity and there are severe resilience problems. While public transport, walking and cycling are important, road travel is also vital for the proper functioning of the study area, and growth predictions are for significant increases in road travel and congestion. Better cross-river connectivity and resilience are needed now, and any new infrastructure should aim to cater for and support the significant growth planned in the area. A new road crossing east of Silvertown should seek to facilitate local accessibility and accommodate local needs including freight, buses, walking and cycling.

84 TfL Planning River crossings: Assessment of Need and Options East of Silvertown

4 CONSULTATION TO DATE

General 4.1 Since the publication of the MTS there have been two public consultations held on the River Crossings programme to date, one during February-March 2012, and a second from November 2012 to February 2013.

Initial consultation 2012 4.2 An initial 4-week consultation was held in early 2012. The river crossings options presented were a new tunnel at Silvertown and a new ferry at Gallions Reach (the Emirates Air Line had already been consulted on in 2010 and was delivered in 2012). 4.3 Over 90% of the approximately 4,000 respondents agreed that there is a need for more river crossings between east and south east London. 80% of respondents supported the Silvertown Tunnel and over 60% supported the Gallions Reach ferry. However, some respondents, and many key stakeholders, also made suggestions for other improvements they would like to see, particularly a fixed link (bridge/tunnel) at Gallions Reach either instead of a ferry, or replacing the ferry at some point in the future.

Second Consultation 2013 4.4 A second consultation was held on river crossings, running from October 2012 to February 201358. Taking into account the responses from the initial consultation, this second consultation covered a wider package of options:  a new tunnel at Silvertown,  replacement of the Woolwich Ferry at Woolwich,  a new ferry service at Gallions Reach,  a new bridge/tunnel at Gallions Reach by 2021 (instead of a ferry),  a new bridge/tunnel at Gallions Reach by 2031 (if a ferry service does not adequately address the area’s transport needs).

58 See https://consultations.tfl.gov.uk/rivercrossings/consultation

85 TfL Planning River crossings: Assessment of Need and Options East of Silvertown

4.5 The consultation proposed charging of the Blackwall Tunnel and any other new crossings introduced. A user charge would be applied to manage traffic volumes and to help fund the new crossings. The level of these charges, and any associated discounts would be managed to control the overall volume of demand and the wider traffic impacts away from the crossings themselves. A user charge of a magnitude similar to those at Dartford was assumed. 4.6 There were about 6,400 questionnaire responses received including about 80 from identified stakeholder organisations59. There was over 70% support for each of the fixed link (bridge/tunnel) options, with the strongest support for the Silvertown Tunnel (77%). Overall 51% of respondents supported a new ferry at Woolwich and 52% supported a new ferry at Gallions Reach. 55% of respondents opposed a toll for the new crossings and for the Blackwall Tunnel and a third supported it. 4.7 Boroughs, business representative groups and members of the public generally acknowledged the need for new crossings, although there were mixed views about how to approach this. Some respondents (especially those with a concern for transport impacts on the environment) generally opposed any new highway capacity. 4.8 There were again suggestions that TfL should consider alternative crossings and crossing locations, and an indication that the focus on the replacement of the Woolwich Ferry was too narrow in the context of the wider strategic needs of this growing part of London.

59 https://consultations.tfl.gov.uk/rivercrossings/consultation/results/mayoral-briefing.pdf

86 TfL Planning River crossings: Assessment of Need and Options East of Silvertown

5 STUDY OBJECTIVES

Background 5.1 To assess the many schemes and ideas which have been generated either by TfL or others (for instance in response to consultation), a series of study objectives have been developed. 5.2 These study objectives draw from Mayoral policy as set out in the London Plan and MTS, information gathered from the assessment of needs (including the latest information on population growth), and responses to consultation. East of Silvertown crossing study objectives as set out in Chapters 2, 3 and 4 above.

Study objectives 5.3 Based on a broad view of policy, the transport and economic context and the identified needs, as described above, the following have been adopted as the study objectives for the study dealing with consideration of options for roads-based river crossings east of Silvertown. These are:  to improve cross-river connectivity (for local traffic including the movement of goods, buses, cyclists and pedestrians). This relates to the strategic objective for river crossings defined in the London Plan, and relates directly to TfL’s refreshed assessment of the area’s need for improved transport connections across the river set out in Chapter 3.  to improve the resilience of the river crossing network (i.e. the reliable availability of the crossing, and the ability of the cross-river highway network to manage planned and unplanned events and incidents) This also relates to the strategic objective for river crossings defined in the London Plan and also the assessment of the area’s needs set out in Chapter 3 above.  to provide transport measures to support and cater for the anticipated development in east and south east London and emerging growth (including addressing the needs of businesses and housing and population growth). This objective reflects the London Plan’s emphasis on supporting growth, together with more recent data on the pace of growth and the views of those who responded to TfL’s most recent consultation. 5.4 In addition to these objectives, which are described in more detail in 5.7, a successful crossing option or package of options would need to meet a number of other important study requirements arising principally from the programme objectives outlined in the 2012 Assessment of Needs report, but also the criteria defined in the London Plan (and echoed in the MTS) for assessing proposals for new roads. These are:

87 TfL Planning River crossings: Assessment of Need and Options East of Silvertown

 To address the needs of Woolwich Ferry users  To minimise any adverse impacts of proposals on health, safety and the London environment, including any additional traffic (and local effects of this) and changes in congestion60  To ensure where possible that any proposals are acceptable in principle to key stakeholders, including affected boroughs  To consider local and strategic land use policies  To achieve a positive business case 5.5 The assessment should also take into account whether mitigation measures could reduce any adverse effects on the above. 5.6 Together these objectives and requirements are consistent with the Mayoral objectives as set out in the MTS (and therefore the principles of the TfL Strategic Appraisal Framework) and the LP, and with the programme objectives suggested in the 2012 River Crossings Options report61.

Definition of study objectives 5.7 Cross-river highway connectivity refers in this context to a number of criteria:  The spacing of different crossings over the river, which impacts on the links and connectivity between the networks and communities on either side of the river, the way that travel can be dispersed between crossings, and the shortening of journey lengths and times to cross the river  These factors result in a change to the accessibility of the areas either side of the river to each other and to the opportunities for jobs, businesses and facilities on each side of the river  In addition it is evident from the needs analysis above, that in addition to any freight movements any new crossing should focus primarily on catering for ‘local’ traffic, that is, traffic with either an origin or destination (or both) in of the boroughs adjacent to the river (Greenwich, Bexley, Newham, Barking and Dagenham and Havering). Clearly any crossing will be used to some degree by

60 SEE LP policy and MTS policy 6.12 61 River Crossings Options report, TfL, 2012

88 TfL Planning River crossings: Assessment of Need and Options East of Silvertown

traffic that does not have this local origin and destination, but this should not be the majority of traffic attracted to using the crossing. 5.8 Cross-river highway resilience in this context refers to:  The availability of these crossings to local traffic (including the movement of goods), buses, cyclists and pedestrians throughout the day and week  The susceptibility of crossings to closure, for instance their ability to deal with different vehicle types or other operational constraints  The capacity of these links and the demand to use them, and therefore the implications should full or partial closure of one or more crossings be necessary  The number of crossings and the distance between them 5.9 In this context, a resilient cross-river highway network would be composed of a number of different links, spaced regularly along the river, each of which is able to provide an acceptable level of service and is not prone to unplanned closure. 5.10 Support for growth and economic development and emerging growth encompasses some aspects of accessibility as described above, which reflect the ability of residents to access employment, and of firms to hire labour and to interact with other businesses, and to encourage development of various types. It embraces accessibility for freight traffic as an important factor. Support for growth also means accommodating where necessary the increases in traffic and travel which are anticipated to follow from growth.

89 TfL Planning River crossings: Assessment of Need and Options East of Silvertown

6 OPTIONS SHORT-LISTING

Introduction 6.1 This chapter firstly describes the source of options generated and the outline of the two-stage sifting process used. It then describes the categories of options considered in the first stage sift, explaining how they address the study objectives and highlighting the short-listed categories of options. 6.2 The chapter then concludes by comparing various options within each of the short- listed categories against study objectives and requirements and proposes a final short-list of options for consultation.

Option generation 6.3 TfL has reviewed all of the options which could feasibly address the river crossing needs identified in the area east of Silvertown, including some which were identified in the previous ‘Assessment of Options’ consulted upon in 2012, and new options developed following responses to the previous consultation, such as a potential new crossing location between Belvedere and Rainham. 6.4 The options have been examined over the last two years in a variety of technical reports and consultations62 – these have evolved as the study has evolved over time.

The sifting process 6.5 A two-stage sifting process has been used to review potential options (see Figure 36):  First, broad categories of options have been considered in terms of their potential to address the study objectives and requirements. Categories of options which fail to meet one or more of the objectives and/or are unlikely to pass the key project requirements (as described in Chapter 5 above) have not been taken forward from this stage.  Next, the options carried forward from this first stage have been considered against the likely costs and benefits and study requirements. This is followed

62 www.tfl.gov.uk/new-river-crossings

90 TfL Planning River crossings: Assessment of Need and Options East of Silvertown

by a final short-listing of options proposed for further public consultation before any decisions over which option(s), if any, should be taken forward as projects.

Figure 36 – Option sifting process

STAGE 1: ASSESSING CATEGORIES OF OPTIONS

6.6 The options considered fall into a number of broad categories – firstly, various non- highway options, secondly highway. An assessment of how each of these categories of options contributes to the study objectives is summarised below.

Do-nothing 6.7 The ‘do-nothing’ option assumes that the Blackwall Tunnel and Woolwich Ferry continue to operate as at present – the Woolwich Ferry would require significant

91 TfL Planning River crossings: Assessment of Need and Options East of Silvertown

maintenance and refurbishment over time. This option would not satisfy the project objectives and there would likely be strong opposition from all the local boroughs to remaining with the status quo, and it would not accord with London Plan policy to allow for growth in east London.

Reference case 6.8 Under the reference case scenario, it is assumed that the Blackwall Tunnel continues to function as it does currently, with the addition of a Silvertown Tunnel immediately adjacent to accommodate and resolve the identified issues of lack of capacity and unsuitable design. It is also assumed in this scenario that both the Blackwall and proposed Silvertown tunnels would be subject to user charging -this option also assumes that the Woolwich Ferry would be retained as at present remaining free of user charges. 6.9 The tunnel concept is well supported by stakeholders generally, has been safeguarded by the government, and features in the London Plan, MTS, and the relevant boroughs’ local plans. As shown later in paragraph 0 onwards, there would be a significant improvement in cross-river connectivity, and the new crossing would help support and cater for economic development and growth and significantly improve resilience of the cross-river highway network. 6.10 However there would still be dependence on crossings in a relatively small section of the Thames, so while the network resilience in the area around Blackwall will be greatly improved, there remains a need to improve connectivity and network resilience in the long section of the Thames between Silvertown and the M25.

New pedestrian/cycle-only crossings (general) 6.11 The Mayor in the LP and the MTS is supportive of pedestrian/cyclist provision, as shown in recent improvements such as the Emirates Air Line cable car, which has increased connectivity in east London for these users. However while further new foot/cycle crossings could help achieve part of the connectivity objective (as well as potentially serving other policy aims), this approach would not materially improve connectivity for freight, local road traffic and buses; nor would it contribute to the resilience objective, and it would have a very limited effect on promoting the economic development objective. Therefore, a pedestrian/cycle-only crossing has not been taken forward from this stage. However, the aim of improving cross-river provision for pedestrians and cyclists remains part of the study objectives and the needs of these users will consequently be considered as a component of other options.

New public transport-only links 6.12 New public transport-only links are being promoted by TfL as part of the Mayor’s

92 TfL Planning River crossings: Assessment of Need and Options East of Silvertown

Transport Strategy. As has been noted in the policy (chapter 2) and needs (chapter 3) sections of this document, significant improvements to public transport in the area have been implemented over recent years, with a major new public transport- only crossing currently under construction in the form of Crossrail . The Mayor is reviewing public transport opportunities and needs in London as a result of revised growth projections and will consider future enhancements, including a further extension of Crossrail east of Abbey Wood into Bexley Riverside and on into Kent, which will improve cross-river rail connectivity. However such options cannot entirely address overall demand for cross-river movement related to the need to accommodate road freight traffic and other road traffic identified above. 6.13 In terms of achievement of study objectives, a public transport-only road link could not contribute to the cross-river connectivity objective for all identified road users (as it would not cater for vehicular traffic or freight). It would make a very limited contribution to the cross-river highway resilience objective, as only a small proportion of highway trips could be expected to switch to any new public transport link given the existing high road mode share and the wider dispersion of both origins and destinations of journeys in outer London. There would be some contribution to the economic development objective – but this would be highly dependent on the nature and location of the cross-river public transport link, and the freight component would not be catered for. 6.14 This set of options, therefore, does not fully address the study objectives and has therefore been not been taken forward as a stand-alone option. The potential for bus use remains part of the study objectives and the needs of public transport users will consequently be considered as a component of other river-crossing options, where there are opportunities to integrate future public transport enhancements with new highway links, for example by using part of any new fixed highway infrastructure for buses, guided buses, or even rail-based modes.

Road user charging – applied generally, locally, or specifically at crossings 6.15 Although road user charging would make no contribution to the cross-river connectivity objective, there is potential for road user charging to make positive contributions to other study objectives. 6.16 For example, by dampening demand for private road transport in general, or discouraging non-essential road traffic at critical times or points on the highway network such as river crossings, road user charging could make a contribution to the resilience of the cross-river highway network. 6.17 While road user charging could therefore deliver some of the study objectives, it is clear from the MTS (Para 683-685) that some form of demand management in areas beyond the Central London Congestion Charging zone will only be considered

93 TfL Planning River crossings: Assessment of Need and Options East of Silvertown

in the longer-term if congestion becomes an increasing problem or if other objectives (for example, environmental aims or the need for additional investment in transport) cannot otherwise be met. There are other options considered in this report that meet all of the study objectives. General road user charging alone not address the continuing and growing residual need for road traffic to cross the Thames in east London so is not pursued further except as a specific traffic management mechanism as detailed below. 6.18 Accordingly, general road user charging has not been taken forward as a stand- alone option for further consideration in this study. However in light of the strong potential for road user charging to contribute to two study objectives, charging as a complementary measure to the provision of new vehicular river crossing options is considered further as part of those options.

New highway links 6.19 A variety of new or improved highway links have been considered, some of these are outside the study area or do not cross the river.

New/improved radial highway links to central London 6.20 New (e.g. a new toll road between the M25 and central London) improved (e.g. A13) radial highway links to central London would not contribute significantly to the study objectives. By definition they offer no prospect of improving cross-river connectivity or local accessibility; and while there is the potential for some contribution towards the economic development objective, this would be limited and would not improve cross-river economic linkages east of Silvertown. Finally, they would offer little contribution towards the cross-river resilience objective. These options consequently fail to meet the study objectives and have been not been taken forward for further consideration in this consultation.

New highway crossing between Kent/Essex 6.21 The MTS supports the principle of a new crossing between Kent and Essex, which could provide some traffic relief at the Dartford Crossing as well as opening up new connectivity between the Kent and Essex sides of the Thames. 6.22 However, this study is concerned with the possibility of new highway river crossings east of Silvertown within the M25. A new crossing at or to the east of the M25 would not greatly improve east London cross-river highway connectivity, and would be likely to have a much reduced impact on London’s economic development and on improving the resilience of existing river crossings within London. 6.23 The DfT’s study of options for a Lower Thames Crossing is therefore supported, but as it will not address all of this study’s objectives it has therefore not been taken

94 TfL Planning River crossings: Assessment of Need and Options East of Silvertown

forward for further consideration within this study.

Highway crossing in the Isle of Dogs area 6.24 The unreliability experienced at the Blackwall Tunnel is a very significant concern, and strains the resilience of the wider cross-river highway network. However, the implementation of the proposed Silvertown Tunnel is expected to resolve the principal causes of unreliability and poor resilience in this area, so there is likely to be very limited additional transport benefit in providing an additional new crossing in the immediate vicinity. 6.25 Between them, the tunnels at Rotherhithe and Blackwall, and the planned Silvertown Tunnel, will provide alternative means of accessing the Isle of Dogs area from the south, so the connectivity of the road network would be only very slightly increased by a further new crossing here. The proposed Silvertown Tunnel would provide excellent access for some local journeys, while longer-distance trips would benefit from significant improvements to traffic flow conditions at Blackwall. 6.26 With a new crossing providing little benefit to users of the Blackwall tunnel in terms of reduced congestion (as the Silvertown scheme, with charging, is expected to largely eliminate queues), the Silvertown tunnel providing a very significant means of ensuring resilience in the road network, and any crossing being in close physical proximity to other crossings, the journey time savings brought about by a new crossing here would be very small. Therefore such a crossing would be unlikely to promote any significant additional economic development in this part of London compared with other options which substantially reduce journey lengths. 6.27 In light of its limited potential to contribute to study objectives in the context of the planned implementation of the Silvertown Tunnel, this option has not pursued further.

Improvements to the Blackwall Tunnel 6.28 In the light of the planned implementation of the Silvertown Tunnel, potential improvements to the Blackwall Tunnel (such as re-engineering it to accommodate taller vehicles, or reintroducing ‘tidal’ flow) would be of very limited benefit to the study objectives, and this option has not been pursued further.

Highway river crossings in the study area 6.29 TfL has also considered again in this process the broad locations in the study area where new highway crossings in the form of vehicle ferries, tunnels or bridges may be considered appropriate in terms of the potential to link river crossings to suitable locations on the road network, and where the layout of riverside development allows construction of a crossing.

95 TfL Planning River crossings: Assessment of Need and Options East of Silvertown

6.30 Several stretches of the Thames are considered too challenging for a crossing due to either landside constraints (e.g. existing mature development, nature reserves), or physical obstructions (e.g. proximity to the ). However, three potential geographic locations for a highway crossing have been identified which appear to be plausible – in the vicinity of Woolwich, Gallions Reach and Belvedere (see Figure 37). The options at these locations are discussed in the following sections. In each case, no assumption is made at this stage about the specific type of crossing which could be provided. 6.31 The conclusion from the review of the highway options is that only road crossings of the river at 3 locations – Woolwich (A in the figure below), Gallions Reach (B) and Belvedere (C) be likely to contribute significantly to all the project objectives.

Figure 37 Potential river crossing locations in the study area

New or improved crossing at Woolwich 6.32 The Woolwich Ferry was last overhauled in 2009, in line with the MTS, and operations transferred to Briggs Marine in 2013 to continue operating the ferry in the short to medium term. However, the vessels and other infrastructure have a finite life, and a decision will need to be made around further extending the life of the current facility, building a new improved ferry, or withdrawing the service should other crossing options meet the needs and be better value for money. 6.33 Improving the operation of the existing crossing at Woolwich could contribute to the connectivity and resilience study objectives. However, the connectivity provided by the current ferry is limited by its capacity and daytime-only operation and the associated requirement for traffic to wait for an available space on board.

96 TfL Planning River crossings: Assessment of Need and Options East of Silvertown

6.34 Depending on the site specific option identified, a new or improved crossing at Woolwich could go some way to addressing current constraints on the operation of the ferry. Similarly, the lack of resilience of the adjoining highway network could be improved by implementing a more reliable and efficient crossing service (although any ferry would be more unreliable than a fixed link) or by increasing the capacity of the link so that it could accommodate vehicles re-routing from other crossings. A higher capacity link could also go some way to catering for the growth anticipated in the east sub-region. 6.35 Accordingly the options for a new crossing at Woolwich are considered further in Stage 2 of the sifting process described below.

New crossing at Gallions Reach 6.36 A new crossing at Gallions Reach could make significant contributions to all study objectives. The connectivity and resilience of the cross-river highway network would be improved by improving crossing capacity and/or quality, and by providing more evenly distributed crossing points along the river’s length (Gallions Reach lies around six kilometres downstream of the Blackwall Tunnel, and some 13 km upstream of the Dartford Crossing). A crossing at Gallions Reach could also potentially replace and improve upon the service provided currently by the Woolwich Ferry (approximately 2 km away). 6.37 In addition the scope for a new crossing at Gallions Reach to support economic development in the study area appears significant. It would provide new direct routes from the south into rapidly growing areas including Newham north of the river, expand housing and employment catchments and improve reliability; and, if combined with complementary measures such as appropriate user charging, has the potential to reduce delays and congestion on the wider road network. 6.38 In light of the potential for positive contributions to all three study objectives, the options for a new crossing at Gallions Reach are considered further in Stage 2 of the sifting process described below.

New crossing at Belvedere 6.39 A new crossing at Belvedere could make significant contributions to all study objectives. In addition to the general improvements to reliability and resilience which new crossing infrastructure could be expected to bring, the connectivity and resilience of the cross-river highway network would also be improved by increasing the number of available crossings, and/or by more evenly distributing crossing points along the river’s length (Belvedere lies some 10 kilometres downstream of the Blackwall Tunnel, and 8 km upstream of the Dartford Crossing). Should the Woolwich Ferry be closed (subject to changes in the relevant statute), the Belvedere options would provide an alternative crossing, but at some distance

97 TfL Planning River crossings: Assessment of Need and Options East of Silvertown

away for current Woolwich Ferry users, who could also use the Blackwall/Silvertown Tunnels depending on origin/destination. 6.40 The scope for a new crossing at Belvedere to support economic development appears considerable. It would provide new direct routes into the London Riverside area which is set to accommodate significant growth but remains somewhat isolated, and to North Bexley where there is scope for development to be intensified. 6.41 In light of the potential for positive contributions to all three study objectives, the options for a new crossing at Belvedere are considered further in Stage 2 of the sifting process described below.

Options for short-listed locations 6.42 Options for implementing new crossings at the locations short-listed above – Woolwich, Gallions Reach and Belvedere – are discussed in the following section. Information on the likely environmental impact of options has been taken from the East of Silvertown Crossings: Environmental Options Study.63

STAGE 2 – REVIEW OF OPTIONS AT SHORT-LISTED LOCATIONS

WOOLWICH OPTIONS 6.43 A crossing at Woolwich could simply be a replacement ferry, or could potentially be provided in the form of a tunnel or a bridge – these alternative types of crossing are explored below and assessed against study objectives and requirements in Table 15. 6.44 The options for new crossing infrastructure at Woolwich vary greatly in cost, and there is also considerable difference between the likely impact of a fixed crossing and a replacement ferry crossing. 6.45 Ferry Options. A replacement ferry would maintain the existing connectivity for all ferry users, with modest improvements in capacity which may result in some reduced journey times. However it would not provide a step-change in capacity or journey times. A new ferry would be relatively simple to construct in terms of land

63 Hyder, July 2014

98 TfL Planning River crossings: Assessment of Need and Options East of Silvertown

ownership and planning, although construction could entail a relatively lengthy closure of the service. 6.46 Once operational, a new ferry would likely offer environmental improvements over the existing service in terms of efficiency and reduced emissions. However, these modest benefits could be outweighed by the negative environmental impacts upon the river environment associated with the installation of the new infrastructure. The most significant residual adverse impacts appear likely to be disturbance to marine species during both construction and operation, and the risk of disturbing contaminated soil and associated landfill gas. Appropriate measures would need to be put in place to manage these risks. A summary of these likely environmental impacts is provided in Appendix A. 6.47 Fixed link options. A tunnel or bridge at Woolwich would make a significant contribution to the study objectives in terms of higher connectivity (a new fast and direct link between the communities either side of the river for all vehicle types and significantly improving local accessibility) and resilience (a new crossing capable of use by all vehicles 24/7 and helping to spread the load when planned or unplanned events occur at other crossings). Given the connectivity improvement, a bridge or tunnel would also support economic development and growth by increasing accessibility, providing reduced journey times for freight vehicles and providing new transport capacity for growth. However, a tunnel would likely be considerably more expensive than a bridge, without offering significant additional benefits, and consequently tunnel options have not been considered for further assessment. 6.48 In addition either a tunnel or a bridge would require significant land-take of heavily developed land, including both historic (listed) and very new buildings. Thus, building a bridge across the Thames at Woolwich would have significant environmental impacts and implementation risks, whether built as a fixed high level bridge, or as a low level lifting bridge. The high level bridge option would have significant land take and associated adverse townscape impacts on intensively developed land and listed buildings in Woolwich town centre as there is no safeguarded or other open land corridor for the high clearance required. A tunnel here could be expected to have similar adverse townscape impacts as a bridge, and similar implementation risks given the lack of safeguarded land and the engineering complexity of providing access on either side of the river. 6.49 The alternative of a low-level lifting bridge would have high implementation risks due to the complex nature of constructing a lifting bridge of this scale (the width of the Thames would make it the largest such structure in Europe), while the interruptions for shipping and the limited queuing capacity for vehicles would negatively affect its contribution to the resilience and connectivity objectives. The number of potential bridge-lifts per day / year cannot be known at this point in time with certainty, but the volume of taller ships travelling into and out of London

99 TfL Planning River crossings: Assessment of Need and Options East of Silvertown

today would imply bridge lifts being required to allow the passage of several vessels a day. Since larger vessels travel at times dictated by the tide, it would not be possible to ensure that these lifts did not take place during peak hour traffic periods. 6.50 Pedestrians and cyclists could use a bridge easily, especially a low-level bridge, and could use a ferry. A tunnel is not likely to be accessible, but there is an alternative foot tunnel and DLR link. Bus services could potentially use a tunnel or a high level bridge, but it could be challenging to operate over a lifting bridge given the service impact of long bridge lift durations. 6.51 For the above reasons neither a bridge / lifting bridge, nor a tunnel at Woolwich has been taken forward for further consideration. 6.52 A replacement Woolwich Ferry could be expected to offer up to around 30% more capacity than the existing ferry, and would improve operation and reliability – however the existing issues and concerns with traffic congestion in Woolwich town centre and queuing for the ferry are unlikely to be resolved. Having regard to its relatively low capacity and restricted operation, a replacement ferry at Woolwich would not provide significant additional benefits in terms of local accessibility or connectivity and improved resilience or in terms of supporting economic development. Nonetheless, a replacement ferry at this location is given further consideration in the light of the existing legal obligation to provide a ferry at Woolwich, and its relative ease of implementation and its reduced townscape impacts compared with a fixed crossing structure in this location on the Thames.

100 TfL Planning River crossings: Assessment of Need and Options East of Silvertown

Table 15: Woolwich Options

Study Objectives Other study requirements 64 (Connectivity

Replacement Positive business Land use Economic development of Woolwich Environment Stakeholders Implementation risks case policies

Resilience) Ferry

Outturn cost Outturn per cost Ops year £2,076 High levels of connectivity, A fixed crossing Adverse impacts While some stakeholders Significant risks. No land Significantly higher Not included m resilience and economic in this location of demolition of urged TfL to consider this safeguarded. Engineering cost than high level in London development due to 24/7 would be able to listed buildings option in their responses to complications with length bridge options with Plan or availability, potential use by serve the and community the recent consultation, the of tunnel required. similar benefits. Greenwich buses and high-capacity. majority of the facilities on views of most stakeholders, and Newham £0.5m ferry’s users. south bank and including the directly UDP’s/LDF

Tunnel Pedestrians and dredging during affected local authorities cyclists could construction in- are unknown as this option also use the river. was not consulted on nearby DLR and previously. foot tunnel

64 The capital cost range is due to different ferry or fixed link options. The indicative cost ranges reflect the estimated cost of construction and permanent land purchases, and include an allowance for risk and inflation. The cost of any complementary measures and land required temporarily for construction are not included.

101

TfL Planning River crossings: Assessment of Need and Options East of Silvertown

Study Objectives

Other study requirements

Outt urn Ops cost cost per year 64 (Connectivity £0.9- A high-level bridge would A fixed crossing Adverse impacts While some stakeholders Significant risks. No land A high level bridge Not included £1.0m Economicbring significant development levels of in this location of demolition of urged TfL to consider this available for the clearance would give good in London connectivity, resilience and would be able to listed buildings option in their responses to required for a high level value for money Plan or economicResilience) development due serve the and community the recent consultation, the bridge. The alternative compared to a Greenwich

to 24/7 availability, potential majority of the facilities on views of most stakeholders, could be a lifting bridge, tunnel or bridge in and Newham use by buses and high- ferry’s users. south bank, and including the directly but there are high this location. A UDP’s/LDF. £0.5m

capacity. The performance Pedestrians and construction in- affected local authorities deliverability risks due to lifting bridge would Bridge against objectives would be cyclists could river. are unknown as this option mechanical operation of be significantly more lower with a lifting bridge, also use the was not consulted on bridge, plus implications expensive, with due to interruptions for nearby DLR and previously for traffic management lower benefits. shipping and limited queuing foot tunnel and river operations. capacity. £100m An enhanced ferry service at WF service Impacts relating RB Greenwich and LB No major implementation Relatively low up- Would - Woolwich would provide only would be to construction Newham strongly oppose a risks. front cost but conform with £200m slightly higher benefits than continued in river. new ferry at Woolwich. LB ongoing costs. existing use

the current service in terms of Bexley neither supports nor and policies £5m connectivity, economic opposes a ferry option. LB Ferry development and resilience. Barking and Dagenham are concerned that a ferry would not provide enough capacity.

102

TfL Planning River crossings: Assessment of Options East of Silvertown

GALLIONS REACH OPTIONS 6.53 As with Woolwich, a crossing here could consist of a tunnel, bridge or ferry, and these broad types of crossing have been assessed against study objectives and requirements in Table 16. 6.54 Fixed link options. At Gallions Reach, tunnel or bridge options would perform well against the study objectives. They would offer strong connectivity (a new fast and direct link between the communities either side of the river for all vehicle types and significantly improving accessibility) and improve the resilience of the cross-river highway network (a new crossing capable of use by all vehicles 24/7 and helping to spread the load when planned or unplanned events occur at other crossings). Given the connectivity improvement they would also support economic development and growth by increasing local accessibility, providing reduced journey times for freight vehicles and providing new transport capacity for growth. Bridges and tunnel access routes could make use of the land which is safeguarded for a river crossing. 6.55 Pedestrians, cyclists and buses could use a bridge, albeit that a high bridge may not offer a very pleasant environment for pedestrians and cyclists in inclement weather. Bus services crossing the Thames at this location would link the residential areas of Thamesmead with the growing employment areas of the Royal Docks, so this could be a very beneficial new public transport link. Buses could also use a tunnel, but it would be difficult to provide a suitable crossing for pedestrians and cyclists through a tunnel scheme. 6.56 As illustrated in Table 16, a tunnel option would be considerably more expensive than a bridge option, but would not offer significant additional transportation or environmental benefits over bridges. Hence, tunnel options at Gallions Reach have been discounted and a bridge option is taken forward for further consideration. 6.57 While a ferry would make a more modest contribution to the study objectives compared to a bridge, and would have similar whole life costs, a ferry facility at Gallions Reach would replace the Woolwich Ferry which would be closed (subject to the relevant statutory requirements), providing a more appropriate vehicle assembly location and reducing the impacts of freight vehicles on Woolwich town centre. It is also specifically mentioned in policy in the London Plan and MTS and when previously consulted on received some level of support. Pedestrians and cyclists could use the ferry; bus services could serve the terminals, providing onward links for those crossing the ferry on foot, but bus services are unlikely in practice to operate across the ferry due to the interruptions to the service inherent in the ferry waiting/boarding/alighting operations. For the above reasons the option of a ferry is also taken forward for further consideration.

103 TfL Planning River crossings: Assessment of Options East of Silvertown

Table 16: Gallions Reach Options

Study Objectives Replacement of Woolwich Ferry

Other study requirements

65 (Connectivity Economic Positive Implementation development Environment Stakeholders business Land use policies risks

Resilience) case

Outturn costs costs Outturn year per cost Ops £700- High levels of Would provide 24/7 and much higher Adverse impacts LB Newham, Suitable locations Significantly In line with broad £900m connectivity, resilience capacity facility short distance (approx. due to dredging Greenwich for casting basin for higher cost London Plan and and economic 2km) from the existing ferry location during strongly support immersed tube than bridge Greenwich, development due to 24/7 Better location for crossing vehicles to construction in- fixed link here, tunnel required. options with Newham and availability, potential use assemble. A fixed crossing in this river and Barking and similar Bexley UDP £0.5m by buses and high- location would be able to serve the proximity to Dagenham benefits policies for river

Tunnel capacity. majority of the Woolwich ferry’s users. landfill site. supportive. LB crossing. Would be Pedestrians and cyclists could also use Bexley is strongly using existing the nearby DLR and foot tunnel. Some opposed to a reserved limitations on carrying of hazardous fixed link in this alignment. loads. location.

65 The capital cost range is due to different ferry or fixed link options. The indicative cost ranges reflect the estimated cost of construction and permanent land purchases, and include an allowance for risk and inflation. The cost of any complementary measures and land required temporarily for construction are not included.

104 TfL Planning River crossings: Assessment of Options East of Silvertown

Study Objectives Replacement of Woolwich Ferry

Other study requirements

65 (Connectivity Economic Positive Implementation development Environment Stakeholders business Land use policies risks

Resilience) case

Outturn costs costs Outturn year per cost Ops £400- High levels of Would provide 24/7 and much higher Adverse impacts See comments in Land is safeguarded Better value In line with broad £600m connectivity, resilience capacity facility short distance (2km ) due to relation to for a bridge. An for money London Plan and and economic from existing ferry location construction in- tunnels above. alternative than either Greenwich, development due to 24/7 Better location for crossing vehicles to river and (for alignment would a tunnel or Newham and availability, potential use assemble. some alignments) involve building a ferry. Bexley UDP by buses, high benefits proximity to outside the policies for river

A fixed crossing in this location would for freight vehicles and landfill site. safeguarded area crossing. New be able to serve the majority of the £0.5m high-capacity. Design limitations and would involve alignment would Woolwich ferry’s users. Pedestrians Bridge relating to land on an existing be outside and cyclists could use the nearby DLR London Airport retail park and reserved and foot tunnel flight paths and landfill. alignment. need to accommodate Thames navigation. £200- Low/medium levels of Would provide higher capacity ferry Adverse impacts LB Newham and No major Relatively Conforms to broad £250 improved connectivity, facility short distance (2km) from due to Greenwich implementation low up-front London Plan resilience and economic existing ferry location construction in- opposed to new risks and would be cost but policy. Not development due to Better location for waiting vehicles to river. ferry at Gallions relatively quick to high specifically longer journey times, less queue. A fixed crossing in this location Reach. LB Barking implement. ongoing mentioned in than 24/7 availability, would be able to serve the majority of and Dagenham costs. Greenwich,

£5m unlikely to be used by the Woolwich ferry’s users. Pedestrians concerned that Newham and Ferry buses and lower capacity and cyclists could use the nearby DLR ferries may not Bexley UDP and freight benefits and and foot tunnel have adequate policies for river occasional operational capacity. LB crossing, which suspensions. Bexley no refer to a fixed comment re ferry link. option.

105 TfL Planning River crossings: Assessment of Options East of Silvertown

BELVEDERE OPTIONS 6.58 As with Woolwich and Gallions Reach, a crossing here could consist of a tunnel, bridge or ferry, and accordingly these alternative types of crossing have been assessed against study objectives and requirements in Table 17. 6.59 Fixed link options. At Belvedere, as with Gallions Reach, the fixed link (tunnel or bridge) concepts perform well against the study objectives. They would offer a significant contribution to improved connectivity and local accessibility (a new fast and direct link between the communities either side of the river for all vehicle types) and crossing resilience (a new crossing capable of use by all vehicles 24/7 and helping to spread the load when planned or unplanned events occur at other crossings). In the light of their delivery of connectivity improvements they would also support economic development and growth by increasing accessibility, reducing journey times for freight vehicles and by providing new transport capacity for growth. 6.60 Pedestrians, cyclists and buses could use a bridge, albeit that a high bridge may not offer a very pleasant environment for pedestrians and cyclists in inclement weather. Buses could also use a tunnel, but it would be difficult to provide a suitable crossing for pedestrians and cyclists through a tunnel scheme. However, compared with Gallions Reach this location is more industrial and further from centres of residential development, major centres of employment and onward transport links, so appears to offer fewer benefits for non-motorised users. 6.61 As the table above makes clear, the tunnel options are considerably more expensive than the bridge options, but do not offer significant additional transportation or environmental benefits over bridges. In the absence of compelling reasons to recommend them over the relatively greater cost-effectiveness of bridge options, tunnels in this location are not considered further in this assessment. In the light of the achievement of objectives described above, a bridge option at this location is considered further in Stage 2 below. 6.62 Ferry options. A ferry option at Belvedere would have a relatively high whole life cost and much lower benefits compared to a bridge in terms of connectivity (not available 24/7, lower capacity and journey time and hence accessibility), economic benefit (due to lower accessibility and not being available 24/7 for freight and other business travel) and resilience (lower capacity and availability). 6.63 Pedestrians and cyclists could use the ferry; bus services could serve the terminals, providing onward links for those crossing the ferry on foot, but bus services are unlikely in practice to operate across the ferry due to the interruptions to the service inherent in the ferry waiting/boarding/alighting operations. However as noted above, this location is further from centres of residential development, centres of employment and onward transport links than Gallions Reach, so would not provide

106 TfL Planning River crossings: Assessment of Options East of Silvertown

the same benefits to non-motorised users. 6.64 Accordingly this option is therefore not proposed for further consideration. 6.65 A consideration for any crossing at Belvedere is that it is some distance from Woolwich (approx. 8 km). It is therefore unlikely that any crossing type at this location would function as a replacement for the Woolwich Ferry facility or be accepted as such. Consequently TfL would need to consider whether a crossing in this location should be implemented in conjunction with another option, for example a replacement Woolwich Ferry. Such a combination might increase overall benefits, but only at significant extra cost.

107 TfL Planning River crossings: Assessment of Options East of Silvertown

Table 17: Belvedere options

Replacement of Woolwich Ferry

Study Objectives Other study requirements

(Connectivity Positive Economic development Implement Land use Environment Stakeholders business ation risks policies

Resilience) case

Outturn costs costs Outturn year per cost Ops £1,000 Suitable Would provide much higher capacity Adverse impacts Significantly m locations for Not included

High levels of connectivity, resilience 24/7 facility 8km from existing ferry. due to proximity higher cost casting in LP or and economic development due to If not seen as replacement for to landfill site and Not previously than bridge £0.5m basin for UDP/LDF’s. no 24/7 availability, potential use by buses Woolwich, would not to be combined dredging during consulted on options with Tunnel immersed reserved and high-capacity with another option Some limitations construction in- similar tube tunnel alignment on carrying of hazardous loads. river benefits required. £500- Would provide much higher capacity Adverse impacts Better value Not included

£900 High levels of connectivity, resilience 24/7 facility 8km from existing ferry. due to proximity Land not for money in LP or and economic development due to Not previously £0.5m If not seen as replacement for to landfill site and safeguarded than either a UDP/LDF’s. no 24/7 availability, potential use by buses consulted on Bridge Woolwich, would not to be combined construction in- at present tunnel or a reserved and high-capacity with another option. river ferry alignment

£150- Not likely to Low/medium levels of connectivity, Would provide higher capacity ferry £200m be major resilience and economic development facility a considerable distance (8km) Adverse impacts Not included implementa Relatively low due longer journey times, less than from the existing ferry location. If not due to proximity in LP or Not previously tion risks up-front cost £5m 24/7 availability, unlikely to be used by seen as replacement for Woolwich, to landfill site and UDP/LDF’s. no

Ferry consulted on and would but high buses and lower capacity and freight would not to be combined with construction in- reserved be relatively ongoing costs. benefits and occasional operational another options Better location for river alignment quick to suspensions. crossing vehicle assembly implement.

108 TfL Planning River crossings: Assessment of Options East of Silvertown

SHORT-LISTING OUTCOME 6.66 The options identified have been reviewed against the study objectives, and some have failed to meet these or the other study requirements, or (in the case of tunnel options) provide insufficiently improved outcomes over those achieved by alternative bridge options to justify their significantly higher costs. 6.67 The outcome of the above exercise is the following selection of short-listed options which appear best able to meet the study objectives and requirements, and are therefore put forward for further consultation:  a replacement vehicle ferry at Woolwich;  a new vehicle ferry at Gallions Reach;  a new bridge at Gallions Reach; and  a new bridge between Belvedere and Rainham. 6.68 As noted above, bridges or ferries could be implemented in different ways at these locations. For example, different bridge alignments offer the potential for different types of structure (a bridge close to City Airport would have a restricted height, whereas one further away could be taller). Similarly, there are various ways in which a ferry service might be implemented, a key choice being the type of propulsion: propeller-driven vessels (like the current Woolwich Ferry), or a chain ferries, would have different landside infrastructure requirements and differing environmental, cost and capacity profiles. 6.69 Although it is beyond the scope of this assessment to recommend a preferred implementation approach for each type, Chapter 7 considers the form that these options could take and describes them in more detail so that the variety of design and land use implications can be understood. It also considers the implications of a ‘do-nothing’ baseline and a ‘reference case’ baseline which includes the proposed Silvertown Tunnel.

109 TfL Planning River crossings: Assessment of Options East of Silvertown

7 DESCRIPTION OF SHORT-LISTED OPTIONS

Introduction 7.1 This chapter looks in more detail at the potential form and likely land use and wider effects and impacts of the short-listed river-crossing options identified in the process described in Chapter 6. 7.2 It first briefly describes the analytical approaches used to assess likely impacts on traffic and connectivity, and then for each short-listed option provides more detail in the following areas:  A general description of the option and its location;  Engineering summary and issues arising, including scheme cost;  Transport modelling and accessibility analysis;  Achievement of the study objectives of cross-river highway connectivity, supporting economic development and growth, and cross-river highway resilience;  Consideration of other study requirements including replacement of the Woolwich Ferry, environmental impacts, health and safety implications, implementation risks, stakeholder views, business case and integration with land use proposals; and  Overview and conclusions for each option.

Transport modelling analysis 7.3 TfL has used a suite of traffic models to forecast the impact of options for providing a new vehicular river crossing in east London66 - see Appendix B for more information. The focus here is on the weekday morning peak hour (08:00-09:00); however, results are also provided for the average one hour inter-peak (from 10:00-16:00), and for the afternoon peak hour (17:00-18:00). The tests reported on in this report are for a 2012 base year and 2021 future scenario. Further work is ongoing to assess a 2031 scenario. 7.4 The key modelling analyses presented for each option are:

66 River Crossing Modelling, Base Year Development and Validation Report, Mott McDonald, February 2014

110 TfL Planning River crossings: Assessment of Options East of Silvertown

 Highway journey time changes to/from key destinations;  The resultant changes in accessibility for access to jobs and access to economically active population;  The origins of vehicles using the crossing option;  The change in flows arising from the crossing; and  The change in delays arising from the crossing option. 7.5 It should be noted that the modelling undertaken is strategic in nature and is used to identify broad changes in traffic patterns across the highway network, as well as the magnitude of such changes. The results should not be taken as a definitive forecast of future flows, especially on minor roads or at individual junctions. Also the models do not account for any mitigation measures that might be introduced such as changes to junction capacities or possible traffic calming or control measures 7.6 The model results do not include any land use changes that could occur as a result of changes in travel accessibility brought about by new or replacement crossings. The model however does take into account how trips would redistribute between the locations of future population and job changes, and how mode share would change. As part of the modelling work to date, no changes to bus routes have been assumed; however if any of the fixed link schemes were constructed it is assumed that the bus network would be altered to take advantage of this new cross river highway infrastructure. Therefore, these model forecasts represent a ’worst case’ in terms of impact on the highway network, as it would be expected that some cross river trips would transfer from car to bus as a result of new services or extensions to the bus network. Estimates of potential mode shift will be generated in future iterations of modelling once potential changes to the bus network are identified and included in the model forecasting matrix. 7.7 The approach has been independently audited67 and is regarded as appropriate for this stage of the appraisal process. The model has also been constructed to provide information used in the accessibility analysis described below, and to give an estimate of the extent of ‘local traffic’ as defined in 5.7. 7.8 The model has been used to estimate the impacts of a number of potential river crossing options for the year 2021, namely:

67 River Crossings Modelling Review, Base Year Model Audit Report, SDG, arch 2014

111 TfL Planning River crossings: Assessment of Options East of Silvertown

 A higher capacity ferry service at Woolwich (30% additional capacity each direction);  A ferry at Gallions Reach (double the capacity of the existing Woolwich Ferry) together with the removal of Woolwich Ferry;  A bridge at Gallions Reach (comprising of one general traffic lane and one lane for HGV / buses in each direction) together with the removal of the Woolwich Ferry;  A bridge at Belvedere (comprising of one general traffic lane and one lane for HGV / buses in each direction) with the Woolwich Ferry remaining in place. 7.9 For all of the above options it was assumed that a new crossing (a tunnel) at Silvertown would be built connecting the North Greenwich Peninsula with the Royal Docks, with both the new crossing and Blackwall Tunnel being user charged. The charge that was applied at Blackwall and Silvertown, and to all the potential new river crossings (including any replacement Woolwich Ferry) was set at the Dartford Crossing rate for cash payments for the morning and afternoon peak directions, and half the rate in the inter-peak and in the contra-peak direction in the morning and evening peak (early tests indicated that using a full rate would discourage much of the contra-peak direction traffic). It should be noted that further work on the appropriate level of charge would be undertaken if any of these schemes are taken forward, including potential discounts to any charge. 7.10 To enable comparisons, TfL also forecast what highway conditions would be like in 2021 if:  no new river crossings were implemented at either Silvertown or further east along the River Thames compared to 2012 (‘do-nothing baseline’);  only the Silvertown Tunnel was built and both it and the Blackwall Tunnel were user charged (‘reference case baseline’).

Accessibility analysis 7.11 One of the most significant impacts of any new transport connection is the change in accessibility it can bring about, in this case by road. This measure is relevant to the achievement of the connectivity objective and is also the objective of supporting and catering for economic development and growth. In this chapter, the analysis of

112 TfL Planning River crossings: Assessment of Options East of Silvertown

accessibility has been based on two metrics68:  Accessibility to jobs by road within 37 minutes (which is the average travel to work time for the study area)69. Since access to jobs is a fundamental consideration when choosing where to rent or buy a home, this provides an indication of how attractive a place might be as a residential location, particularly in outer London, where travel by road to work is high;  Access to economically active population by road within 37 minutes (average journey to work time in the study area). This is a measure of how attractive a place might be to businesses in terms of being able to widen access to their potential labour catchment. 7.12 The maps are designed to show changes in connectivity across the study region for a series of variables derived from the GLA population and employment forecasts for 2021 and disaggregated to the ELHAM transport zoning system. 7.13 From each scenario a travel time matrix was extracted and imported into Excel together with the zone based catchment variables. For each zone the variables were aggregated using the travel time catchment definitions given above and whether the value was based on travel time to or from the individual transport zone. 7.14 The final report diagrams, map the difference in the results between the reference case and each individual scenario’s river crossings. 7.15 Note that these metrics are based on overall highway access and do not, for example, take into account the availability of parking facilities at destinations. Further, they are concerned with population and jobs in London, not in adjacent counties. However, even with these simplifications, they give a very useful indication of the comparative change in accessibility between options.

DO-NOTHING BASELINE 7.16 The following paragraphs describe a ‘do-nothing’ baseline. (Note that because the Silvertown Tunnel is a proposed scheme in the River Crossings programme, a ‘reference case’ baseline which includes the Silvertown Tunnel is also described below in section 7.20. 7.17 Under this scenario it is assumed that the Blackwall Tunnel continues to function as it

68 TfL analysis, 2014 69 37 minutes is the average travel to work time for the east London sub-region as identified in the LTDS

113 TfL Planning River crossings: Assessment of Options East of Silvertown

does currently. In relation to the Woolwich Ferry, the vessels and landside infrastructure currently in use, which were built in the early 1960s, are in need of significant maintenance and refurbishment. The risks associated with continued operation are also increasing over time; for example, in the event of a major mechanical failure, there would be a need to procure bespoke parts and probably to close the service until repairs could be affected. However any potential closure of the ferry requires a change in legislation, as there is a statutory obligation on TfL to operate the Woolwich Ferry service70. For the purposes of this scenario it has been assumed that the Woolwich Ferry would be retained as at present for as long as is practicable – it would remain free of user charges for that time. Section 7.30 onwards describes an option where the ferry is upgraded in the existing location. 7.18 Table 18 summarises the impact of the ‘do-nothing’ option against the study objectives – neither the MTS policies nor the study objectives would be satisfied. There would likely be strong opposition from all the local boroughs to remaining with the status quo, and it would not accord with London Plan policy to allow for growth in east London. 7.19 The modelled consequences of this option were described above from section 3.92, with significant increases in volume of traffic and delays in the study area.

Table 18: Do –Nothing option: Assessment against study objectives

Objective Do-Nothing 1. To improve cross-river The gradual degradation would decrease cross-river highway connectivity. highway connectivity 2. To support economic There would be no change or a reduction in the transport infrastructure development available to support and cater for economic development and growth as the ferry become more unreliable. Journey times for cross-river traffic including freight, would increase. 3. To improve the resilience of The gradual degradation would decrease the ability of the network to cope the highway river crossing with planned and unplanned events. network

REFERENCE CASE BASELINE 7.20 Under the reference case scenario, it is assumed that the Blackwall Tunnel continues

70 The Woolwich Ferry is operated according to the Metropolitan Board of Works (Various Powers) Act 1885, with the obligations being transferred to TfL by the Greater London Authority Act 1999 and the Woolwich Ferry Order 2000. However if a suitable alternative crossing is adopted in accordance with relevant statutory procedures, it is probable that this legal obligation would be repealed.

114 TfL Planning River crossings: Assessment of Options East of Silvertown

to function as it does currently, with the addition of a Silvertown Tunnel immediately adjacent to accommodate and resolve the identified issues of lack of capacity and unsuitable design. It is also assumed in this scenario that both the Blackwall and proposed Silvertown tunnels would be subject to user charging to ensure overall traffic volumes and any associated congestion could be managed, the charge levels being assumed to be broadly in line with those levied currently at the Dartford Crossing in the peak direction, and half that in the off-peak and against the peak flow. 7.21 This option also assumes that the Woolwich Ferry would be retained as at present remaining free of user charges. 7.22 A bored tunnel at Silvertown is proposed following the safeguarded alignment running below the main development sites. The bored tunnel requires some excavation for cut and cover tunnels where the tunnel depth is shallow, with twin bored tunnels dug between the two portals. 7.23 The new tunnel would be built to accommodate a full highway gauge of just over 5 metres headroom and standard lane widths. As such, it would accommodate all standard road vehicles and therefore be highly resilient, and would be able to make a very significant contribution to the reduction in the number of incidents occurring in the Blackwall Tunnel. When incidents did occur at Blackwall, the presence of the Silvertown Tunnel would provide a very clear diversionary route for Blackwall traffic, to ensure that the effects of disruption were contained and did not cause the levels of congestion as currently occur. 7.24 Should Blackwall be closed, this traffic would be diverted to the Silvertown Tunnel, which would provide two lanes in place of the three lanes normally available across the two crossings (this assumes that in normal operation one lane of the Silvertown Tunnel would be a priority lane for goods vehicles and buses). 7.25 The tunnel concept is well supported by stakeholders generally, has been safeguarded by the government, and features in the London Plan, MTS, and the relevant boroughs’ local plans.

Modelling: Blackwall + Silvertown Charged 7.26 Figure 38 shows the change in traffic flows in the morning peak hour in 2021 due to the implementation of Silvertown Tunnel and charging at both Silvertown and Blackwall. It can be seen that there are increases in flows northbound on the Blackwall and Silvertown approach roads due to the extra capacity that the Silvertown Tunnel provides. However, there are decreases southbound due to the charging regime included in the model (1/2 Dartford rate for southbound vehicles).

115 TfL Planning River crossings: Assessment of Options East of Silvertown

Figure 38: Flow changes due to the implementation of Silvertown Tunnel and charging both Blackwall and Silvertown Tunnels in the morning peak hour in 2021

7.27 Figure 39 shows the impact of the reference case on junction delays. The plot shows that significant reductions in junction delay are achieved on the northbound approaches to Blackwall and Silvertown Tunnels. The implementation of the Silvertown Tunnel assists in removing a ‘bottleneck’ for northbound traffic in the North Greenwich Peninsula; and charging both Blackwall and Silvertown Tunnels helps to manage overall traffic levels using these two crossings so that significant delays do not occur elsewhere on the highway network as a result of additional capacity being provided. The Dartford Crossing and Woolwich Ferry also benefit from small reductions in delay at junctions due to trips transferring to use the less congested Blackwall / Silvertown cross-river route.

116 TfL Planning River crossings: Assessment of Options East of Silvertown

Figure 39: Junction delay changes in the morning peak hour due to the implementation of Silvertown Tunnel and Blackwall both charged in the morning peak hour in 2021

7.28 The Silvertown Tunnel and Blackwall Tunnel both being user charged in operation results in a decrease in congested hours across the highway network from 50,660 to 49,738 (-2%) in the morning peak hour in 2021. At a borough level delay declines by 23% in Greenwich, increases by 5% in Tower Hamlets and remains broadly unchanged in Bexley, Havering, Newham and Barking & Dagenham.

117 TfL Planning River crossings: Assessment of Options East of Silvertown

7.29 Table 19 summarises the impact of the ‘reference case’ option against the study objectives. There would be a significant improvement in cross-river connectivity, and the new crossing would help support and cater for economic development and growth and significantly improve resilience of the cross-river highway network. However there would still be dependence on crossings in a relatively small section of the Thames, so while the resilience in the area around Blackwall will be greatly improved, there remains a need to improve connectivity and resilience in the long section of the Thames between Silvertown and the M25.

118 TfL Planning River crossings: Assessment of Options East of Silvertown

Table 19: Reference Case option: Assessment against study objectives

Objective Reference case 1. To improve cross-river The introduction of a new tunnel at Silvertown would improve cross-river highway connectivity connectivity, particularly in the South Newham and North Greenwich areas. However areas further east in London would still have relatively poor cross-river highway connectivity. 2. To support economic There would be an increase in the transport infrastructure available to support development and cater for economic development and growth. Journey times for cross-river traffic including freight, would decrease. Some cross-river journey lengths from areas east of Silvertown would continue to be long. 3. To improve the resilience A new tunnel at Silvertown would significantly improve the resilience of the of the highway river crossing cross-river network, relieving the Blackwall Tunnels and offering a new route network northbound for over-height vehicles. However it would still focus river crossings in a relatively narrow length of the river, restricting network resilience.

SHORT-LISTED OPTION 1: NEW VEHICLE FERRY AT WOOLWICH

Option description 7.30 The existing Woolwich Ferry is operated by TfL under a legal obligation dating from 1885. The current ferries and pier started service in 1963, over 50 years ago, and are becoming increasingly difficult and costly to maintain, with enhanced risks of failures such that the only feasible option for the long-term maintenance of the ferry is to completely replace the current marine and land infrastructure. 7.31 Replacement infrastructure could be constructed for a new vehicle ferry service on the existing alignment. There is funding set aside in TfL’s Business Plan for this option. 7.32 Although the Woolwich Ferry has a much reduced function as part of the public transport network since the DLR extension to Woolwich, it does still provide a link between the bus networks on either side of the river for some passengers. However, queuing for the ferry can adversely affect current bus operations on the adjoining highway network.

119 TfL Planning River crossings: Assessment of Options East of Silvertown

Figure 40: Woolwich Ferry, with potential new service on upstream side

7.33 Cross-river travel times for a replacement ferry would likely be similar to the existing Woolwich Ferry, although there may be some scope to streamline the boarding and alighting processes. 7.34 The capacity of a replacement service would likely be higher than the current service. The detailed specification of boats and the configuration of, pontoons/linkspans/slipways and approach roads (which are not yet known) would be needed in order to define the increased capacity accurately, but based on advice from TfL’s consultants, it has been assumed that the service would offer around 10- 30% more capacity than the current ferry. A new ferry is also likely to have the ability to carry high-sided HGVs. 7.35 It is estimated that the timescales to implement a replacement service would be around five years (including planning permission, other consents, procurement, design and construction). The earliest a replacement service could be in operation is in the early 2020s. 7.36 Assuming implementation of the Silvertown Tunnel, the need for over-height northbound vehicles to use the Woolwich Ferry is likely to reduce in the future with less demand arising from heavy goods vehicles to use the ferry service.

Managing demand 7.37 TfL is considering user charging traffic to use all new river crossings, including any new ferry at Woolwich. This would help to ensure that demand remained within

120 TfL Planning River crossings: Assessment of Options East of Silvertown

manageable limits, and that any journey time or resilience benefits were not eroded by excessive increases in demand. Net revenues would be used to support improvements in transport in London. Detailed proposals for user charging would be the subject of a future consultation. For the purposes of the modelling of options, charges were assumed to be similar to those levied at Dartford in the peak direction, and half that in the off-peak and against the peak flow.

Engineering summary and issues71 7.38 The existing service at Woolwich is a propeller-driven ferry and a similar propeller- driven ferry could replace the existing service. Although the ferry crossing route itself is within specified bounds, propeller-driven craft have the capability to manoeuvre freely and, in the case of the existing Woolwich ferries, turn in their own length. Flexibility in manoeuvrability is functionally important in this relatively narrow and sensitive reach of the River Thames. 7.39 Boarding and alighting would be likely to use floating pontoons rather than the current mechanically lifting linkspans. Connected to the land via a hinged bridge, pontoons would float up and down with the tide; ferries would have moving, hinged ramps which would lower onto the pontoon to enable traffic to board and alight. This mechanism would reduce energy consumption considerably. 7.40 A feasible alternative to a propeller-driven ferry in this location is a chain ferry (similar to those at Torpoint and Poole). Chain ferries pull themselves along static cables/chains slung across the river. The chains also guide the vessel along a pre- determined path and into its terminal location, typically a slipway on the shore in line with the direction of travel. As chain ferries cannot share the same path across the river, slipways would need to be wide enough to accommodate the number of ferries provided. The weight of the chains keeps them on the river bed and means that they pose no hazard to deep draft vessels, unlike a cable alternative. Chain ferries are cheaper to operate than propeller-driven ferries. 7.41 Replacing the ferry infrastructure would provide an opportunity to re-examine the arrangements for assembling vehicles waiting to board the ferry to avoid the current situation of frequent congestion to the surrounding highway network at peak times. 7.42 The decommissioning of the existing ferry terminals at Woolwich could be a difficult process with several unknown factors. The major constraint on programme would be

71 Woolwich Ferry Replacement and Gallions Reach Ferry Feasibility Study Final Report; Halcrow, February 2010

121 TfL Planning River crossings: Assessment of Options East of Silvertown

to ensure that the Port of London Authority (PLA) radar facility on the existing northern lift tower is relocated and operational before demolition could begin. 7.43 If a new ferry was built in the current location, the existing ferry could need to close for some time during the construction works for a new ferry, possibly up to around two and a half years. If there was a requirement to keep existing facilities open while new ones are constructed, pontoons might need to be built upstream. This would put the new ferry operation closer to residential properties on the southern side but by this means the existing ferry could remain in service for at least part of the construction process. Alternatively, to reduce the impact on local residents, the ferry could replicate the existing arrangements on the eastern side; however this could entail a fairly lengthy closure of the crossing facility.

Transport modelling analysis 7.44 Table 20 shows the number of minutes saved for selected journeys in each direction across the River Thames in the morning peak hour in 2021 with the 30% capacity increase of Woolwich Ferry (with a user charge) compared to the existing ferry service (which has no charge). 7.45 For northbound journeys reductions of 13 mins from Thamesmead to Barking, 13 mins from Belvedere to Barking and 13 mins from Thamesmead to the Royals and 17 mins from Belvedere to the Royals are achieved. Due to slightly less congestion for southbound trips in the morning peak, lower time savings are delivered with a reduction of 7 mins from Barking to Belvedere, 7 mins Barking to Thamesmead and 7 mins from the Royals to Thamesmead, but 16 mins from Dagenham to Thamesmead.

Journey Time Savings Table 20: Journey time savings with Woolwich Ferry replacement (minutes saved, morning peak hour, 2021)

Northbound To Stratford To Royals To Barking To Dagenham

Woolwich 0 13 13 13 Thamesmead 0 13 13 0 Belvedere 0 17 13 0

Bexleyheath 0 0 0 0 Southbound To Woolwich To Thamesmead To Belvedere To Bexleyheath

Stratford 0 0 0 0 Royals 7 7 8 0 Barking 7 7 7 4 Dagenham 4 16 0 0

122 TfL Planning River crossings: Assessment of Options East of Silvertown

Accessibility 7.46 For the other short-listed options, maps have been produced showing changes in access to jobs and economically active population. This analysis has not been presented for the Woolwich Ferry enhanced capacity option as:  only a limited number of additional vehicles would be able to use the crossing,  the time savings from the ferry option are relatively low, and accessibility is not expected to change significantly from the existing situation.

Origins of trips using a new Woolwich Ferry

7.47 Figure 41, below shows the morning peak hour origins for vehicles using Woolwich Ferry. It can be seen that the crossing is mainly used by residents from North Bexley, north east Greenwich, south east Newham and south Barking & Dagenham. 100% of trips are local (defined as one or both ends of a trip being in Tower Hamlets, Newham, Barking & Dagenham, Havering, Lewisham, Greenwich or Bexley).

Figure 41: Origins of vehicles using a new ferry at Woolwich, morning peak hour

Routing and volume of trips using the new crossing in the morning peak hour 7.48 Traffic flow and junction delay plots have not been presented for the charged higher capacity Woolwich Ferry scenario as in total the enhanced ferry only provides additional capacity for approximately 60 vehicles per direction over the existing ferry service. Given the strategic nature of the model used, it would not be appropriate to

123 TfL Planning River crossings: Assessment of Options East of Silvertown

forecast the more detailed impacts of such small changes. 7.49 The model does forecast that the two-way combined flow on the ferry will fall by approximately 10% (50 vehicles) due to the charge that is applied to the service – this is not expected to have a significant impact on the network.

Achievement of study objectives 7.50 Table 21 below summarises the assessed performance of a new vehicle ferry at Woolwich against the study objectives. The assessment is equally applicable to both propeller and chain ferry options.

Table 21: New vehicle ferry at Woolwich: Achievement of study objectives

Objective A new vehicle ferry at Woolwich

1. To improve A replacement vehicle ferry at Woolwich would not provide significant improved connectivity. cross-river Accessibility would not increase significantly. There could be some increase in capacity (30%) highway but capacity would remain low compared to a fixed link. The ferry would continue to provide connectivity connectivity for pedestrians and cyclists, but not for public transport. 2. To support While a new ferry at Woolwich would offer 30 per cent more capacity than the current service, economic and would very likely be more reliable, it is unlikely that it would have a significant impact in development reducing cross-river journey times or creating new opportunities to cross the river. Therefore, a new ferry service at Woolwich would not be likely to provide significant support for economic development or cater for the significant levels of growth predicted. 3. To improve A new ferry would be more reliable than the current ferry which suffers a certain amount of the resilience of unreliability due to its age, but as with all ferry crossings it would remain subject to disruption the highway for example due to adverse weather, such as fog. An increase in capacity is unlikely to be river crossing sufficiently great to make the crossing more attractive at handling diverted traffic in the event network of another crossing such as the Blackwall Tunnel being closed. At times when delays are occurring – such as due to a reduced ferry service, or the impacts of traffic diverting to the ferry from another crossing – queues are likely to have an adverse effect on the free flow of traffic on the wider highway network. These impacts can be severe, affecting local traffic which is not seeking to cross the river, including local bus services.

Consideration of study requirements 7.51 Following on from the assessment against study objectives above, a summary of how a new vehicle ferry would address the study requirements is described below.

To address needs of Woolwich Ferry users

7.52 As this option would involve implementing a new and enhanced Woolwich Ferry, along with new infrastructure, to replace the existing service at the same location, it would clearly address the river-crossing needs of existing users. However, being a replacement in situ, the service may need to be closed during construction.

To minimise any adverse impacts of any proposals on health, safety and the London environment

7.53 Once operational, a new ferry has the potential to offer environmental 124 TfL Planning River crossings: Assessment of Options East of Silvertown

improvements over the existing service in terms of efficiency and emissions. However, these localised benefits are likely to be outweighed by the negative environmental impacts upon the river environment associated with the implementation of the new infrastructure. The most significant residual adverse impacts are likely to be disturbance to marine species during both construction and operation, and the risk of contaminated soil/ground gas. Appropriate measures would need to be put in place to manage risk. 7.54 Given the potential need (depending on ferry option) for demolition on the south bank of the river there is potential for adverse impacts on Listed Buildings and communities facilities on the south bank of the river. 7.55 There are also ongoing energy issues associated with the operation of the pontoons and the running fuel required for a ferry. 7.56 It is unlikely that the scheme would provide any significant new access to walking and cycling routes or health facilities 7.57 There is potential to improve the townscape/landscape appearance in the area from improved modern facilities replacing those that currently exist. 7.58 There may be slight increases in noise from traffic on main approach roads, although overall a neutral impact on other vehicular emissions. 7.59 A summary of the likely environmental impacts of a replacement ferry at Woolwich is provided in Appendix A.

To ensure where possible that any proposals are acceptable in principle to key stakeholders, including affected boroughs

7.60 The Woolwich Ferry is valued by many stakeholders, including the local boroughs. However, there are adverse traffic impacts with the current operations, in particular the presence of queues on the southern side and large vehicles in narrow streets on the northern side, which are not likely to be entirely overcome by its replacement in situ. The Royal Borough of Greenwich, and LB Newham, both support an alternative crossing solution down-river at Gallions Reach.

To consider local and strategic land use policies

7.61 Replacing the ferry at Woolwich could benefit regeneration plans for the local areas to an extent. Although, arguably, the removal of unsuitable traffic from local roads in the vicinity of the terminals (which are located directly adjacent to several residential properties and amenity facilities) brought about by the closure of the service would enhance the appearance and character of the local area.

To achieve a positive business case

7.62 Initial estimates put the capital cost of implementing a replacement ferry at 125 TfL Planning River crossings: Assessment of Options East of Silvertown

Woolwich £200-£250 million in outturn prices (including risk and inflation). Annual operating costs are estimated to be around £5 million per annum (which is slightly lower than at present attributable to the replacement service being more efficient to operate and maintain). 7.63 Although little tangible benefit would likely accrue in terms of the achievement of the study objectives from the replacement of the ferry, if the ferry was closed without the crossing service being replaced (either at Woolwich or nearby), the effect on users’ journey times could be significant, with diversions to busy alternative crossings. Accordingly, the replacement could be expected to have a positive business case.

Overview and conclusion

7.64 The existing Woolwich ferry service could be replaced by an enhanced service with new terminal infrastructure. The new ferry would have up to around 30% more capacity than at present. The new ferry could be implemented as either propeller- driven or chain-driven. Assessed against the study objectives in summary, the replacement ferry option has the following impacts:  Connectivity – a new ferry service at Woolwich would have higher carrying capacity, but would not generate significant improvements in connectivity over the river.  Economic Development – this option would not provide significant support for economic development in the study area  Resilience – a new fleet of ferries would provide greater reliability compared to the existing service, but would still be subject to delays and cancellations, and would be unable to provide significant additional resilience when other crossings faced disruption.

SHORT-LISTED OPTION 2- A VEHICLE FERRY AT GALLIONS REACH

Option description 7.65 A ferry at Gallions Reach would provide a link between Thamesmead on the southern side and Beckton on the northern side. The access roads would run within the corridor of land which has been safeguarded for provision of a river crossing in this location.

126 TfL Planning River crossings: Assessment of Options East of Silvertown

Figure 42: Location and indicative route of proposed crossing and access links at Gallions Reach

7.66 It is likely that efficiencies enabled by the implementation of a ferry facility in this relatively unconstrained site would allow a vehicle carrying capacity of up to double that currently offered by the Woolwich Ferry, with the ability to carry high-sided HGVs. The new ferry assets would be expected to have a useful operating life of 30 years or more. 7.67 It is possible to build a chain ferry at Gallions Reach, although it would have greater adverse environmental impacts, particularly on the foreshore, than a self-propelled ferry. It would be cheaper to operate compared with self-propelled ferries, as chain ferries can be operated with fewer staff and are more energy-efficient. 7.68 Journey times across the Thames for a ferry at Gallions Reach would likely be similar to the existing Woolwich Ferry. The approach roads would be marginally longer compared with Woolwich, but would link in to the wider road network at locations which better serve a majority of the traffic on the network seeking access to ferry services. Accordingly, overall the relocation of the ferry to Gallions Reach would reduce journey times for most users. 7.69 A new ferry at Gallions Reach would not be likely to provide direct new cross-river public transport services because while the vessels could accommodate buses, the operational implications of creating dependent bus services over the river in this way

127 TfL Planning River crossings: Assessment of Options East of Silvertown

are significant. 7.70 However, a ferry at Gallions Reach would be suitable for use by pedestrians and cyclists, so with the provision of walking and cycling routes to the terminals and the extension of bus routes to the terminals, new cross-river public transport and walking/cycling options would be made available in an area which is currently relatively isolated. Pedestrians and cyclists at Woolwich would continue to be able to make use of the Woolwich foot tunnel and the Woolwich Arsenal DLR. Because construction of the ferry at Gallions Reach would take place some distance from the existing service, continuity of service at Woolwich could be retained up until the opening of the new service. 7.71 A crossing at Gallions Reach would be further east from the South Circular route than Woolwich, but would connect to higher capacity dual carriageway routes on both sides of the river improving the wider network connection over the river compared with that existing at Woolwich. 7.72 A feeder route would be constructed from the A2016 on the south side. The 1 km access road would have sufficient capacity to act as a ferry queuing facility providing ‘in-line’ stacking space for all motorised users, and access to the ferry terminal for buses. Dedicated space would be made available on the north side to ensure sufficient vehicle queuing capacity.

Managing demand 7.73 TfL is considering charging traffic to use new river crossings, including a ferry at Gallions Reach, to help ensure that demand stays within manageable limits. Net revenues would be used to support improvements in transport in London. Detailed proposals for user charging would be the subject of a subsequent consultation. For the purposes of the modelling of this option, charges were assumed to be similar to those levied at Dartford in the peak direction, and half that in the off-peak and against the peak flow.

Engineering summary and issues 7.74 Two ferries would operate between a terminal located east of Atlantis Ave on the northern side and a terminal located west of the Tamesis Point site on the southern side. There could be passive provision for a third ferry. The ferries would have a maximum length of 80m and would have the capacity to carry 90 cars in 6 lanes with a passenger lounge for pedestrians and cyclists on one side of the vessel. 7.75 As at Woolwich, a new vehicle ferry could take different forms: either propeller- driven or a chain ferry. 7.76 Propeller-driven vessels would dock at a pontoon on each side of the river, connected to the shore by a hinged linkspan. The pontoon would remain at a

128 TfL Planning River crossings: Assessment of Options East of Silvertown

constant level in the water, with tidal movements accommodated by articulation of the linkspan without the need for any powered mechanical systems. 7.77 A chain ferry would use slipways on each side of the river. The ferry would pull itself along chains running along each side of the vessel and would be anchored and tensioned on the shore. The length of each chain would be approximately 700m, therefore creep in the chain plus wear on the links during use could be expected to lengthen the chain significantly over time. Regular maintenance of the chain would involve a regime of checking for wear and extension with removal of links as necessary to achieve a relatively consistent total length.

Transport modelling analysis 7.78 Preliminary highway traffic forecasts for a ferry at Gallions Reach have been produced72. The forecasts assume that the proposed Silvertown crossing is in place, and that the proposed Silvertown and Blackwall Tunnels and the ferry at Gallions Reach have similar user charges to Dartford in the peak direction, and half that in the off-peak and against the peak flow. The tests assume that the ferry at Gallions Reach replaces the existing Woolwich Ferry.

Journey Time changes 7.79 Table 22 shows the number of minutes saved for selected cross-river journeys in each direction in the morning peak hour in 2021 with the introduction of a ferry at Gallions Reach. Greater time savings are achieved for cross-river journeys through the introduction of a higher capacity ferry at a new location, than by increasing the capacity of Woolwich Ferry alone. These areas would benefit from a greater change in accessibility around Gallions Reach as the new crossing point is further removed from the existing crossings points of Silvertown/ Blackwall than is Woolwich. 7.80 For northbound journeys, reductions of 27 mins from Thamesmead and Belvedere to Barking and 24 mins from Thamesmead and Belvedere to the Royals are achieved. Due to less congestion for southbound trips in the morning peak, smaller time savings are delivered with a reduction of 18 mins from Barking to Belvedere and Thamesmead, 14 mins from the Royals to Thamesmead and Belvedere, and 15 mins from Dagenham to Thamesmead.

72 East of Silvertown: Traffic Impact Report, Transport for London, July 2014

129 TfL Planning River crossings: Assessment of Options East of Silvertown

Table 22: Journey time savings (minutes) with a Gallions Reach ferry (morning peak hour, 2021)

Northbound To Stratford To Royals To Barking To Dagenham

Woolwich 0 14 14 17 Thamesmead 1 24 27 4 Belvedere 1 24 27 1 Bexleyheath 1 0 -3 0 Southbound To Woolwich To Thamesmead To Belvedere To Bexleyheath

Stratford 0 0 0 0 Royals 7 14 14 0 Barking 7 18 18 3 Dagenham 6 15 0 0

Accessibility 7.81 Figure 43 shows the change in the number of jobs accessible within 37 minutes by zone in the morning peak hour in 2021 as a result of introducing a ferry at Gallions Reach (compared to the reference case). It can be seen that increases in accessibility occur south of the Thames in North Bexley and East Greenwich, with a few zones gaining access to over 200,000 additional potential jobs. There is limited change to the number of jobs accessible north of the Thames, e.g. in Newham and Barking & Dagenham, as existing and forecast employment is mainly concentrated north of the river.

130 TfL Planning River crossings: Assessment of Options East of Silvertown

Figure 43: Change in jobs accessible within 37 mins by zone as a result of Gallions Ferry (morning peak period, 2021)73

7.82 Figure 44 shows the change in the number of economically active people accessible within 37 mins by zone resulting from introducing a ferry service at Gallions Reach (compared to the reference case), a proxy for attractiveness for business location to the labour market. The largest gains are south of the River Thames in North Bexley and north of the river in parts of Newham, the two areas closest to the crossing.

73 When interpreting the plot it should be noted that the impact of a person’s willingness to pay a toll on the crossing is not included in the results.

131 TfL Planning River crossings: Assessment of Options East of Silvertown

Figure 44: Change in economically active population within 37 mins by zone as a result of a ferry at Gallions Reach (morning peak period, 2021)

7.83 Both Figure 43 and Figure 44 show the potential of Gallions Ferry to assist regeneration in East London, with south of the River Thames gaining improved access to a larger jobs market, and businesses to a larger potential workforce. Areas north of the River Thames primarily gain access to a larger potential workforce south of the Thames. 7.84 Analysis has not been provided for the interpeak and evening peaks, as the morning period is when the majority of people begin their outward trip to reach their workplace.

Origins of trips using new river crossings 7.85 Figure 45 shows the morning peak hour origins for vehicles using a Gallions Reach Ferry. It can be seen that the crossing is mainly used by residents from North Bexley, north east Greenwich, south east Newham and south Barking & Dagenham. The vast majority of trips are local (defined as one or both ends of a trip being in Tower Hamlets, Newham, Barking & Dagenham, Havering, Lewisham, Greenwich and Bexley).

132 TfL Planning River crossings: Assessment of Options East of Silvertown

Figure 45: Origins of vehicles using a new ferry at Gallions, morning peak hour

Volume of traffic on the highway network in the morning peak hour 7.86 Figure 46 shows the change in flows in the morning peak in 2021 with the introduction of a Gallions Reach ferry (with the Silvertown Tunnel and Blackwall Tunnel, both user charged) compared with just Silvertown Tunnel and Blackwall Tunnel (both charged) – the existing Woolwich Ferry is assumed not to operate. 7.87 There is some reduction in traffic in Woolwich, Bexleyheath and on the M25. There are also increases in the Thamesmead area, notably on the A2016 Eastern Way and small increases on the A406 North Circular.

133 TfL Planning River crossings: Assessment of Options East of Silvertown

Figure 46: Gallions Reach ferry- change in flows in the morning peak in 2021

Delays on the highway network in the morning peak hour 7.88 Figure 47 shows the change in delay at junctions for the morning peak hour in 2021 with the introduction of a Gallions Ferry (plus Silvertown Tunnel and Blackwall Tunnel both charged) compared with only Silvertown Tunnel and Blackwall Tunnel (both charged) in operation. 7.89 The delay that was previously experienced at the location of the Woolwich Ferry would be removed, and while similar delays would then occur at Gallions Reach, these would be isolated from the local road network on the south side by the long approach roads and vehicle assembly areas.

134 TfL Planning River crossings: Assessment of Options East of Silvertown

Figure 47: Gallions Ferry - change in delay at junctions for the morning peak hour in 2021

Achievement of study objectives 7.90 Table 23 below summarises the performance of a ferry at Gallions Reach against the study objectives. The assessment applies to both propeller and chain ferry options in this location.

Table 23: Ferry at Gallions Reach: Assessment against study objectives

Objective A Ferry at Gallions Reach

1. To improve cross- A new ferry at Gallions Reach would improve links into and out of Thamesmead and river highway Beckton which currently suffer from poor cross-river connectivity. Modelling indicates that connectivity the vast majority of vehicles using the ferry would be local traffic and local freight vehicles. Pedestrians and cyclists would be able to use the ferry, which would provide a connection across the river to the Docklands Light Railway at Gallions Reach station. However it is likely that it would replace the Woolwich Ferry, with corresponding reductions in connectivity. So net overall cross-river connectivity is not likely to be significantly better, 2. To support Businesses in east London would become more accessible to their customers, suppliers and economic to the labour market via the ferry. For example, a firm in Thamesmead would be able to development access 20,000 more businesses within 30 minutes via the ferry. The ferry would also make it easier for residents of east London to cross the river and take advantage of employment or education opportunities across London. For example, a resident in Thamesmead would be able to travel to 304,000 extra jobs within 37 minutes as a result of the introduction of the ferry. However it is likely that it would replace the Woolwich Ferry, with corresponding reductions in connectivity. Therefore overall net benefits to economic development are unlikely to be significant , 3. To improve the A ferry would by its nature be more reliable than the existing ferry service at Woolwich due

135 TfL Planning River crossings: Assessment of Options East of Silvertown

Objective A Ferry at Gallions Reach resilience of the to its age; but as with all such crossings it would remain subject to disruption due to highway river weather. An increase in capacity is unlikely to be sufficiently great to make the crossing any crossing network better at handling diverted traffic in the event of alternatives crossings such as Blackwall Tunnel / Silvertown Tunnel, being closed. Compared with Woolwich, however, this location offers the potential for vehicle assembly to take place away from the main road network, thus minimising the impacts of any service delays on the wider network and community. However it is likely that it would replace the Woolwich Ferry, with corresponding reductions in resilience. Consequently overall net cross-river resilience is not likely to be significantly improved ,

Consideration of study requirements 7.91 Following on from the assessment against study objectives above, a summary of how a new vehicle ferry would address the study requirements is described below.

To address needs of Woolwich Ferry users

7.92 Given the origins/destinations of existing Woolwich Ferry users (see 3.70) a ferry service at Gallions Reach could be a practical replacement for the existing ferry service at Woolwich. Pedestrians and cyclists, who might not be as able to switch to the new service would be able to use the foot tunnel or DLR link at Woolwich to cross the river. The ferry at Woolwich could continue to operate during construction of the ferry infrastructure at Gallions Reach. 7.93 TfL currently has a legal obligation to operate the Woolwich Ferry. In the event that it formally proposed the introduction of a ferry at Gallions Reach, TfL would address the question of whether to continue running the ferry service at Woolwich.

To minimise any adverse impacts of any proposals on health, safety and the London environment

7.94 As with the Woolwich ferry option, the most significant environmental impacts associated with a new ferry crossing at Gallions Reach arise from disturbance of potentially contaminated soil during construction (due to proximity to landfill), and disturbance to marine habitats during both construction and operation. Appropriate mitigation measures would need to be developed to minimise potential risks. 7.95 There may be slight increases in noise from traffic on main approach roads, although overall a neutral impact on other vehicular emissions. 7.96 A summary of the likely environmental impacts of a new ferry at Gallions Reach is provided in Appendix A.

To ensure where possible that any proposals are acceptable in principle to key stakeholders, including affected boroughs

7.97 There is a lack of strong support from relevant local authorities for a ferry service at 136 TfL Planning River crossings: Assessment of Options East of Silvertown

Gallions Reach. 7.98 The Royal Borough of Greenwich and the London Borough of Newham, within which the scheme would be located, are opposed to a ferry service in this location. The London Borough of Barking and Dagenham is not specifically opposed to the prospect of a ferry at Gallions Reach but expresses concern that a ferry service may not provide sufficient capacity. The London Borough of Bexley neither supports nor opposes ferry options at Gallions Reach. 7.99 TfL is working with the Port of London Authority and Environment Agency to take into account their views at the earliest stage.

To consider local and strategic land use policies

7.100 There is land safeguarded at Gallions Reach, originally destined for a new bridge, which could be used for new ferry terminal infrastructure, and the scheme is outlined in the London Plan. 7.101 Provision of a ferry at Gallions Reach could result in queuing of traffic on local roads on the north side of the Thames. This would require careful planning to ensure compatibility with current land use policies.

To achieve a positive business case

7.102 A vehicle ferry at Gallions Reach would cost in the order of £150-250 million in outturn prices (including risk and contingency). Around £5 million would be required per annum in operating costs (slightly lower than the current Woolwich Ferry). Even with a delay to board and cross the river, given the increase in crossing capacity and how this option reduces journey times for those local vehicles using it this option is likely to have a positive business case.

Overview and conclusions

7.103 A vehicle ferry service provided at Gallions Reach could offer some modest improvements on the current Woolwich Ferry service. Locating a ferry at Gallions Reach would be likely to cost more than replacing the Woolwich Ferry in situ, but would provide extra benefits in providing a new cross river link in an area of poor current connectivity, particularly Thamesmead on the southern side. Woolwich would remain connected to the Royal Docks by the foot tunnel and DLR, and shortly by Crossrail. 7.104 This option has been assessed against the study objectives and in summary it achieves:  Connectivity – a ferry service at Gallions Reach would allow the existing cross- river connectivity between the Blackwall and Dartford crossings to be maintained and enhanced, with particular benefits for the hinterland on either 137 TfL Planning River crossings: Assessment of Options East of Silvertown

side of the river in and around the ferry terminals  Economic Development – this option would promote local development and allow increased employment and education opportunities  Resilience – introducing a ferry in this location would have traffic benefits over a replacement ferry at Woolwich, due to additional space for waiting vehicles to queue away from the main road network.

SHORT-LISTED OPTION 3: BRIDGE AT GALLIONS REACH

Option description

7.105 Previous proposals for a bridge at Gallions Reach (the Thames Gateway Bridge or TGB) generated support for its contribution to regeneration, but also concerns regarding the capacity and strategic function of the study which was intended to serve as both a local and a strategic link (the latter to relieve the Blackwall Tunnel) over the river, and which had, as a consequence a high-capacity as well as direct high-capacity connections to the strategic road network including the A406. 7.106 In the light of the current proposal for a road tunnel crossing at Silvertown to address the problems at the Blackwall Tunnel, a smaller scale bridge with local connections at Gallions Reach could deliver local cross-river connectivity benefits without the traffic impacts associated with the TGB. Such a crossing would also be cheaper to construct than the TGB. 7.107 A further significant change in the context since the TGB was proposed is that the lack of resilience of the Blackwall Tunnel crossing would have been addressed by the construction of the Silvertown Tunnel, while the government’s proposals for free- flow charging and a planned new Lower Thames Crossing could be expected in due course to relieve congestion at Dartford. This means that the risk of longer-distance traffic using those crossings diverting to a fixed link at Gallions Reach would be much reduced. 7.108 In light of the above, the design of a bridge at Gallions Reach ( see Figure 37) would be based on the principal objective of its use being primarily by local traffic (with an origin or destination in one of the boroughs along the river to the east of Silvertown, namely Greenwich, Bexley, Newham, Barking and Dagenham and Havering). In practice this would mean:  A single lane in each direction would be sufficient for general traffic use, with a second lane in each direction potentially being reserved for buses and goods vehicles only  Appropriate lower capacity road connections to the local highway networks  User charging to manage the traffic use – this would be the subject of a

138 TfL Planning River crossings: Assessment of Options East of Silvertown

separate later consultation if this was chosen as a preferred option. 7.109 A bridge at Gallions Reach would provide better functionality than the existing Woolwich Ferry, providing for example shorter journey times and accommodating all classes of vehicle, so it is likely that the latter would close upon the opening of the bridge.

Managing demand 7.110 TfL is considering charging traffic to use all new river crossings, including a new bridge at Gallions Reach. This would provide a traffic control mechanism to help ensure that traffic demand remains within manageable limits on the bridge and the adjoining network. Net revenues would be used to support improvements in transport in London. Detailed proposals for user charging would be the subject of a future consultation. For the purposes of the modelling of options, charges were assumed to be similar to those levied at Dartford in the peak direction, and half that in the off-peak and against the peak flow.

Engineering overview and issues 7.111 A bridge at Gallions Reach would broadly follow the route of the previously proposed road crossings at this location, linking the A2016 Western Way in Thamesmead with the A1020 Royal Docks Road. However, as noted above, the connections to the road network would be smaller in scale than under the previous proposal. 7.112 If a bridge at this location is selected, further more detailed work would be undertaken to establish the most cost effective detailed alignment and highway connections.

7.113 Concept designs for a 256m main span concrete box girder bridge have been developed. In addition, a steel arch bridge concept with a 287m main span has also been developed as an alternative structural form, although this would need to be located slightly further to the east to avoid the City Airport flight protection zone. 7.114 For each of the proposed bridge concepts, highways alignments have been developed to tie in to the existing road network at Western Way to the south. At the north end, designs using the safeguarded corridor tie into the Eastern Gateway Grade Separation Bridge, while designs taking the more easterly alignment would tie into Royal Docks Road. Roundabouts, signalised junctions and direct link connections have been considered for the junction designs at tie-ins. 7.115 A dual carriageway in each direction would allow slower large vehicles climbing up the long gradient to be passed by other traffic. In addition it would also be highly desirable for buses to be protected from any congestion. It is therefore proposed that the bridge would be managed with a bus and goods vehicle lane in each 139 TfL Planning River crossings: Assessment of Options East of Silvertown

direction as well as a general traffic lane. This configuration also allows continued operation in both directions in most maintenance or emergency conditions, and would allow future flexibility, for example should very low-emission vehicles also be allowed to use the priority lane. 7.116 Single carriageway options have also been explored to identify potential cost savings in minimising the bridge cross section. While the conclusions from this study indicate an approximate average saving of around 20% in construction cost, this approach would not provide priority for buses and goods vehicles, and the configuration would force complete closures during maintenance and incidents. This would directly undermine the resilience and connectivity benefits that a new crossing is intended to provide, and would not meet operational expectations or provide for future flexibility. The environmental impacts of one lane bridges appear very similar to the two-lane options. For these reasons one-lane options are therefore not considered further. 7.117 The existing Woolwich Ferry could be kept in operation while the new bridge is being built.

Transport modelling analysis 7.118 Preliminary highway traffic forecasts for a bridge at Gallions Reach have been produced - at this early stage, the forecasts are assumed to apply to any fixed link crossing at Gallions Reach (i.e. all alignment and infrastructure options) and assume that the proposed Silvertown crossing is in place, and that the proposed Silvertown and Blackwall Tunnels and the Gallions Reach Bridge have similar user charges to Dartford in the peak direction, and half that in the off-peak and against the peak flow.

Journey Time changes 7.119

140 TfL Planning River crossings: Assessment of Options East of Silvertown

7.120 Table 24 shows the number of minutes saved for journeys south to north of the River Thames and vice versa in the morning peak hour in 2021 with the introduction of Gallions Bridge - there are significant time savings indicated. 7.121 For northbound journeys reductions of 43 mins from Thamesmead to Barking, 40 mins from Belvedere to Barking and 39 mins from Thamesmead to the Royals are achieved. Due to less congestion for southbound trips in the morning peak, significant but smaller time savings are delivered with a reduction of 31 mins from Barking to Belvedere, 30 mins from Barking to Thamesmead and 26 mins from the Royals to Thamesmead and Belvedere.

141 TfL Planning River crossings: Assessment of Options East of Silvertown

Table 24: Journey time savings with a Gallions Reach bridge (morning peak hour, 2021)

Northbound To Stratford To Royals To Barking To Dagenham

Woolwich 2 18 22 22 Thamesmead 15 39 43 20 Belvedere 10 36 40 8 Bexleyheath 2 7 11 1 Southbound To Woolwich To Thamesmead To Belvedere To Bexleyheath

Stratford 0 8 7 0 Royals 10 26 26 2 Barking 14 30 31 10 Dagenham 11 27 4 4

Connectivity 7.122 Figure 48 shows the change in the number of jobs accessible within 37 mins by zone in the morning peak hour in 2021 resulting from introducing a road bridge at Gallions Reach (compared to the reference case). It can be seen that large increases in accessibility occur south of the Thames in North Bexley and East Greenwich, with many zones gaining access to over 200,000 additional potential jobs. The increase is significantly less north of the Thames, e.g. in Newham and Barking & Dagenham, as these boroughs have better access by road to jobs in areas such as Canary Wharf and the City. Also the River Thames does not act as a barrier to these locations compared to those locations south of the River Thames.

Figure 48: Change in jobs accessible within 37 mins by zone as a result of Gallions Bridge (morning peak period, 2021)

142 TfL Planning River crossings: Assessment of Options East of Silvertown

7.123 Figure 49 shows the change in the number of economically active people accessible within 37 mins by zone following the opening of a bridge at Gallions Reach (compared to the reference case). This measure can be used as a proxy as to the potential attractiveness of a location for businesses being able to access a large workforce. The largest gains are south of the River Thames in east Greenwich and North Bexley; however, large increases are also seen north of the River Thames in parts of Newham, Barking & Dagenham and Redbridge. This is due to these areas gaining access to the large population catchment south of the River Thames. Figure 49: Change in economically active population within 37 mins by zone as a result of Gallions Bridge (morning peak period, 2021)

7.124 Both plots show the greater potential of Gallions Bridge (compared to Gallions Ferry) to assist regeneration in East and South East London, with areas south of the River Thames gaining improved access to a larger jobs market, and businesses to a larger potential workforce. 7.125 Areas north of the Thames primarily gain access to a larger potential workforce south of the Thames. Significantly more areas gain from the increased improvement in accessibility provided by a bridge rather than a ferry at Gallions Reach, due to the bridge offering a higher capacity and faster way to cross the river.

Origins of trips using new river crossings 7.126 Figure 53 below shows the morning peak hour origins for vehicles using Gallions Bridge. It can be seen that the crossing is mainly used by residents from north Bexley, north east Greenwich, south east Newham and south Barking & Dagenham. Other areas that generate trips are Havering and North Kent. In total the vast majority of

143 TfL Planning River crossings: Assessment of Options East of Silvertown

car trips are local with 93% of car trips defined as such for northbound movements across Gallions Bridge, and a slightly lower figure of 87% for southbound car trips. Figure 50: Origins of vehicles using Gallions Bridge, morning peak hour

Volume of traffic on the highway network in the morning peak hour 7.127 Figure 51 shows the change in flows in the morning peak in 2021 with the introduction of Gallions Reach Bridge (with Silvertown Tunnel and Blackwall user charged) compared with only implementing Silvertown Tunnel and charging Blackwall. 7.128 It can be seen that there is a large increase in traffic on roads approaching the new crossing, on Eastern Way, Bronze Age Way and on the North Circular. 7.129 However, there is a reduction in flows in Woolwich town centre and part of the Royal Docks due to the removal of Woolwich Ferry. Blackwall Tunnel, Silvertown Tunnel and Dartford Crossing also see falls in traffic due to the new crossing at Gallions offering a more direct / less congested route for some journey. 7.130 Traffic flows are also reduced on strategic roads such as on sections of the M25, A2 and A13. In the north of Bexley some minor roads see reductions and increases in flows as traffic shifts from using the Woolwich Ferry to the new crossing at Gallions Reach. 7.131 These changes in flows would require specific traffic mitigation, which has not yet been included in the modelling. This could, for example, take the form of restrictions

144 TfL Planning River crossings: Assessment of Options East of Silvertown

on certain type of vehicles (e.g. width restrictions) to protect residential areas or narrow roads from large vehicles, traffic calming or 20mph zones to improve road safety and discourage through traffic, improved junctions and/or pedestrian crossings where traffic flows may increase. In addition, there is potential for the charging strategy to influence traffic demand, both in terms of overall volume as well as encouraging local use at the expense of longer distance traffic.

Figure 51: Gallions Bridge- change in flows in the morning peak in 2021

Delays on the highway network in the morning peak hour 7.132 Figure 52 below shows the change in delay at junctions for the morning peak hour in 2021 with the introduction of Gallions Bridge (plus Silvertown Tunnel and Blackwall both charged) compared with only implementing Silvertown Tunnel and Blackwall both charged. As noted previously the RXHAM is strategic in nature and smaller changes in delay at junctions may not be attributable to the introduction of a new crossing. 7.133 The figure shows that the largest reductions in delay at individual junctions are in Woolwich Town Centre due to the removal of the Woolwich Ferry and the associated vehicles which used the crossing. Smaller falls are also seen on the southern approaches to the Blackwall and Silvertown Tunnels as traffic diverts away from these routes. However, due to the introduction of a bridge at Gallions Reach, junction delay increases on the approaches to this crossing. As described above, mitigation measures have not yet been designed or modelled, and are likely to reduce delays. 145 TfL Planning River crossings: Assessment of Options East of Silvertown

Figure 52: Gallions Bridge - change in delay at junctions for the morning peak hour in 2021

7.134 The introduction of a new charged river crossing reduces congestion by relieving alternative cross river routes with congestion hours falling by 310 hours. At a borough level, Greenwich (9%) and Barking Dagenham (4%) experience falls in congested hours, while delay in Newham (7%) increases due to a larger volume of traffic now being able to cross the river in the peak hour direction. Delay in Bexley increases by 1%.

Achievement of study objectives 7.135 The table below summarises the performance of a bridge at Gallions Reach against the study objectives. The assessment applies to either of the bridge alignment options in this location.

Table 25: Gallions Reach road bridge: assessment against study objectives

Objective A Bridge at Gallions Reach

1. To improve By filling a major gap in the road network, the overall potential journey time savings from a bridge cross-river highway would be much greater than a ferry in the same location. Modelling indicates that the vast majority connectivity of vehicles using the bridge would be local traffic and local freight vehicles, but it would also be available for use by pedestrians and cyclists. A bridge at Gallions Reach would provide potential for public transport connections across the river. 2. To support A new bridge at Gallions Reach would significantly improve access and opportunities for local economic businesses and residents, particularly those in Bexley. For example, by reducing travel time to centres development of employment and business across the river, it could bring over 100,000 more businesses and over 800,000 more jobs within 37 minutes’ journey of Thamesmead. 3. To improve the A bridge would by its nature be significantly more robust in its operations than either the current resilience of the Woolwich Ferry or a Gallions Reach ferry. It would be open 24 hours a day, and much less likely to be

146 TfL Planning River crossings: Assessment of Options East of Silvertown

Objective A Bridge at Gallions Reach highway river subject to closure or disruption through poor weather and or technical failures. It would also provide crossing network considerable capacity as a diversion route in the event of an incident at another crossing, although its ability to do this would be limited by the capacity of the wider network and the requirement to operate in this way should be minimised through developments at Silvertown and Dartford. Together with a new Silvertown Tunnel and a potential Lower Thames Crossing, the opportunities for alternative routeing should there be problems at any one crossing would be substantially enhanced.

Consideration of study requirements

To address needs of Woolwich Ferry users

7.136 A road bridge at Gallions Reach would provide a river crossing that would negate the need to continue to run the ferry at Woolwich. TfL has a legal obligation to operate the Woolwich Ferry. In the event that TfL formally proposed the introduction of a road bridge at Gallions Reach, TfL would address the question of whether to continue running the ferry service at Woolwich.

To minimise any adverse impacts of any proposals on health, safety and the London environment

7.137 There is an active landfill site at Tripcock Point, which brings risks of contaminated land on the new alignment route. The risks associated with contamination on this route can be mitigated, however, by increasing the length of the approach viaducts and minimising intrusion from embankment construction with discrete bridge foundations. The reserved scheme alignment circumvents this issue. 7.138 Building a new bridge would lead to some disturbance of natural habitats. This would require careful planning and mitigation. 7.139 Changes in traffic would lead to changes in noise, particularly on the A1020 on the north bank and on the south bank when approaching the bridge. A bridge is likely to have a neutral impact on other vehicular emissions overall. TfL would carefully consider mitigation measures to address any local impacts 7.140 More detail concerning these environmental impacts is provided in Appendix A.

To ensure where possible that any proposals are acceptable in principle to key stakeholders, including affected boroughs

7.141 The local boroughs have markedly different views on the option for a bridge at Gallions Reach. 7.142 The Royal Borough of Greenwich and the London Borough of Newham, within which the scheme would lie, are strongly in favour of a bridge. The London Borough of Barking and Dagenham is also supportive of a fixed link at Gallions Reach. 7.143 The neighbouring London Borough of Bexley, however, strongly opposed a fixed link 147 TfL Planning River crossings: Assessment of Options East of Silvertown

(bridge or tunnel) in this location at the last consultation.

To consider local and strategic land use policies

7.144 Land has been safeguarded at either end of the reserved alignment for a river crossing.

To achieve a positive business case

7.145 The outturn cost estimates for the bridge varies between £400m for a concrete box bridge on the safeguarded alignment to £450 for a similar bridge on a new alignment, with a steel arch bridge on the new alignment estimated at £550m – these figures include inflation and risk. Annual operating and maintenance costs are expected to be approximately £0.5m per annum. 7.146 The significant reductions in journey times resulting from the construction of a road bridge over the river at this location would generate large social and economic benefits and is therefore likely to demonstrate a positive business case.

Overview and conclusion

7.147 A bridge providing connectivity across the river for the local areas on either side could be built between Beckton and Thamesmead at Gallions Reach, in conjunction with the proposed road tunnel at Silvertown. It would, among other things, be likely to replace the Woolwich Ferry. 7.148 This option has been assessed against the study objectives and in summary it achieves:  Connectivity – a bridge would significantly increase connectivity by road in the area, with major positive changes in terms of cross-river access opportunities, network connectivity and local accessibility.  Economic Development – given its impact in significantly increasing accessibility to jobs, retail and business catchment areas s and the exploitation of associated land use capacity, the bridge would make a significant contribution to London’s sustainable development and regeneration including improved connectivity and increased economic activity particularly in this part of east and south-east London.  Resilience – the bridge would bring about a significant improvement to cross- river highway resilience. 7.149 There are alternative alignments that the bridge could take, which would offer the potential for different forms of structural design. The reserved TGB alignment has constraints, necessitating a concrete box bridge. A slightly alternative alignment could allow consideration of alternative design options, either a concrete box

148 TfL Planning River crossings: Assessment of Options East of Silvertown

structure or a more aesthetically interesting steel arch, but there are implications relating to cost, land-take and environmental contamination that needed to be taken into account.

SHORT-LISTED OPTION 4: Bridge at Belvedere

Option description 7.150 During and following the 2012/13 River Crossings programme, there were consultation responses and stakeholder comments regarding the possibility of a new fixed link in the Belvedere area. While this location is not mentioned in current policy, it was decided to include it in the short-listed options because it appeared capable of addressing the study objectives and, therefore, warranted detailed examination alongside the other short-listed options. 7.151 The site of a bridge at Belvedere is further downstream along the Thames, linking Belvedere and Rainham over the river. – see Figure 53. This site is 10 km downstream of the Blackwall Tunnel, and 8km upstream of the Dartford Crossing.

Figure 53: Belvedere Bridge

7.152 On the north side of the River Thames the bridge would be located in the London Borough of Havering, very close to the eastern boundary of the London Borough of Barking & Dagenham. On the southern side, the bridge would be located within the London Borough of Bexley.

149 TfL Planning River crossings: Assessment of Options East of Silvertown

7.153 The bridge would extend the existing local road network across the river. It would carry two lanes in each direction: one for general traffic and one potentially reserved for buses and heavy goods vehicles. The main bridge structure would be about 2,100 metres long. 7.154 The bridge would be open to all road users, including cyclists and pedestrians. It would also open up opportunities for new cross-river public transport links and could help to stimulate growth in the North Bexley and London Riverside opportunity areas. As with any other public highway, the bridge would be open 24 hours per day under normal conditions. 7.155 New roads would be constructed to link the bridge to the existing road network. On the north side of the river, the new road would connect to the A13 at the Marsh Way junction. On the south side, a new access road would connect to the A2016 at the Picardy Manorway junction. 7.156 Due to the increased distance from London City Airport, the height available in which to build the structure is less restricted than Gallions Reach and Woolwich. This means a wider range of bridge forms is possible and early design work has shown that a more conventional cable-stayed bridge (similar to the Queen Elizabeth II Bridge at nearby Dartford) would likely be the preferred type of bridge in this location. 7.157 Both banks of the River Thames at the location of the proposed bridge are currently industrial land, with a number of business premises and factories. 7.158 There would need to be consideration given to whether the Woolwich Ferry would continue to operate with the construction of a bridge at Belvedere or would be replaced by the bridge. As noted above, there is currently a statutory obligation for TfL to operate the Woolwich Ferry.

Managing demand 7.159 TfL is considering charging traffic to use new river crossings, including any road bridge at Belvedere. This would enable control to be exercised to ensure that demand stays within manageable limits. Net revenues would be used to support improvements in transport in London. Detailed proposals for user charging would be the subject of a future consultation. For the purposes of this traffic modelling, charges were assumed to be similar to those levied at Dartford in the peak direction, and half that in the off-peak and against the peak flow.

Engineering overview 7.160 Three types of bridge could be constructed at Belvedere: cable-stayed, concrete box girder or steel arch. 7.161 A cable-stayed bridge is likely to have the lowest cost and risk profile. The box girder 150 TfL Planning River crossings: Assessment of Options East of Silvertown

bridge would require a higher alignment and the arch bridge is technically more complex. The land required would create some disruption to existing businesses. 7.162 The required navigational clearances have been assumed to be the same as those required at Gallions Reach, which is approximately 6km upstream. The site is far enough from London City Airport for the flight path not to present a constraint to any form of bridge or bridge construction. 7.163 The logical points of connection to the existing highway network are: Marsh Way junction on the A13 at the eastern end of the Dagenham Ford Motor Works site, and Picardy Manorway (B253) / Bronze Age Way (A2016) roundabout (the “Belvedere Cob”).

Transport modelling analysis 7.164 Preliminary highway traffic forecasts for a bridge at Belvedere have been produced - and assume that the proposed Silvertown crossing is in place, and that the proposed Silvertown and Blackwall Tunnels and the Gallions Reach Bridge have similar user charges to Dartford in the peak direction, and half that in the off-peak and against the peak flow.

Journey Time changes 7.165 The table below shows the number of minutes saved for selected journeys south to north of the River Thames and vice versa in the morning peak hour in 2021 with the introduction of Belvedere Bridge. Substantial time savings can be achieved for cross- river journeys through the construction of a bridge at Belvedere. 7.166 For northbound journeys, reductions of 26 mins from Thamesmead to Barking and to Dagenham, 33 mins from Belvedere to Barking and 29 mins from Woolwich to Dagenham are achieved. Significant time savings are also delivered for southbound journeys with this option, with reductions of 41 mins from Dagenham to Thamesmead, 30 mins from Barking to Belvedere, and 24 mins from Barking to Thamesmead. Table 26: Journey time savings due to Belvedere Bridge (morning peak hour, 2021)

Northbound To Stratford To Royals To Barking To Dagenham

Woolwich 0 14 15 29 Thamesmead -1 13 26 26 Belvedere 0 18 33 24 Bexleyheath 0 0 3 11 Southbound To Woolwich To Thamesmead To Belvedere To Bexleyheath

Stratford 0 -1 7 0 Royals 7 12 18 0 Barking 8 24 30 9 151 TfL Planning River crossings: Assessment of Options East of Silvertown

Dagenham 17 41 23 15

Connectivity 7.167 Figure 54 below shows the change in the number of jobs accessible within 37 minutes by zone in the morning peak hour in 2021 resulting from implementing Belvedere Bridge (with Silvertown and Blackwall user charged) compared to just implementing Silvertown and Blackwall charged. It can be seen that large increases in accessibility occur south of the Thames in North Bexley and West Greenwich, with some zones gaining access to over 150,000-200,000 additional potential jobs. The increase is less north of the Thames, e.g. in Newham and Barking & Dagenham, but more extensive than with either Gallions Ferry or Gallions Bridge. Figure 54: Change in jobs accessible within 37 mins by zone as a result of Belvedere Bridge (morning peak period, 2021)

7.168 Figure 55 below shows the change in the number of economically active people accessible within 37 mins by zone from implementing Belvedere Bridge (with Silvertown and Blackwall charged) compared to just implementing Silvertown and Blackwall charged. As with the previous plots for access to jobs the largest gains are south of the River Thames in east Greenwich and North Bexley, however, large increases are also seen north of the River Thames in parts of Newham, Barking & Dagenham and Havering. This is due to these areas gaining increased access to the large population centres south of the River Thames. Compared with a bridge at Gallions Reach, a bridge at Belvedere can be seen to be benefitting locations further east to the north of the River Thames due to its more easterly location, while providing less benefit to boroughs such as Greenwich and Tower Hamlets. 152 TfL Planning River crossings: Assessment of Options East of Silvertown

Figure 55: Change in economically active population within 37 mins by zone as a result of Belvedere Bridge (morning peak period, 2021)

7.169 Both plots show the potential of Belvedere Bridge to assist regeneration in East London, with south of the River Thames gaining improved access to a larger jobs market, and businesses to a larger potential workforce. North of the Thames areas primarily gain access to a larger potential workforce south of the Thames.

Origins of trips using new river crossings 7.170 Figure 56 shows the morning peak hour origins for vehicles using Belvedere Bridge. It can be seen that the crossing is mainly used by residents from north Bexley, north east Greenwich, south east Newham and south Barking & Dagenham. Other areas that generate trips are Havering and North Kent. In total the vast majority of car trips are local with 97% of car trips defined as such for northbound movements across Belvedere Bridge, and a slightly lower figure of 91% for southbound car trips.

153 TfL Planning River crossings: Assessment of Options East of Silvertown

Figure 56: Origins of vehicles using Belvedere Bridge, morning peak hour

Volume of traffic on the highway network in the morning peak hour 7.171 Figure 57 shows the change in flows in the morning peak in 2021 with the introduction of Belvedere Bridge (plus Silvertown Tunnel and Blackwall both charged) compared with only implementing Silvertown Tunnel and Blackwall both charged. In this scenario Woolwich Ferry remains but is charged and operates with an extra 30% capacity compared to today’s levels. 7.172 Belvedere Bridge reduces traffic at Blackwall, Silvertown, Woolwich and most notably Dartford. This does however increase traffic in Bexley, most notably on the A2016 Eastern Way and the B253 Picardy Manorway/Picardy Road. There are also increases on the A13 east of the new crossing due to the transfer of traffic from the Dartford Crossing to the Belvedere Bridge.

154 TfL Planning River crossings: Assessment of Options East of Silvertown

Figure 57: Belvedere Bridge- change in flows in the morning peak in 2021

Delays on the highway network in the morning peak hour 7.173 Figure 58 shows the change in delay at junctions for the morning peak hour in 2021 with the introduction of Belvedere Bridge (plus Silvertown Tunnel and Blackwall both user charged) compared with only implementing Silvertown Tunnel and Blackwall both charged and a charged Woolwich Ferry. 7.174 There are relatively small amounts of increased delay on the approach routes to the Belvedere Bridge crossing in North Bexley and also in Barking & Dagenham. There are some reductions in delay at the A406 and Dartford due to traffic moving away from these routes.

155 TfL Planning River crossings: Assessment of Options East of Silvertown

Figure 58: Belvedere Bridge - change in delay at junctions for the morning peak hour in 2021

7.175 The introduction of a new charged river crossing reduces congestion in the morning peak by relieving alternative cross river routes with congested hours falling by 277 hours. At a borough level, Bexley (2%), Barking & Dagenham (1%) and Newham (3%) experience falls in congested hours, and delays in Thurrock (7%) also fall.

Achievement of study objectives 7.176 The table below summarises the performance of a bridge at Belvedere against the study objectives. The assessment applies to all three bridge options in this location.

Table 27: Bridge at Belvedere: Assessment against study objectives

Objective A Bridge at Belvedere

1. To improve A road bridge at Belvedere would provide cross-river connectivity in an area which has no existing cross-river highway crossings and would bring large journey time savings, particularly between Thamesmead/Belvedere connectivity and Barking and Dagenham. Modelling indicates that the majority of vehicles using the bridge would be local traffic and local freight vehicles, but the bridge would also be available for use by pedestrians and cyclists. A bridge at Belvedere would provide potential for public transport connections across the river. 2. To support Analysis suggests that businesses in east London would become more accessible to their economic customers, suppliers and to the labour market if TfL were to build a new bridge at Belvedere. For development example, a firm in Belvedere would be able to access 121,000 more businesses within 30 minutes as a result of providing the bridge. The crossing would also make it easier for residents of east London to cross the river and take advantage of employment or education opportunities across London. For example, a resident in Belvedere would be able to travel to 192,000 extra jobs within 37 minutes as a result of the bridge connection. On the north side, a resident in Rainham would be able to travel to 22,000 extra jobs. 3. To improve the A bridge in this location would by its nature be significantly more robust in its operations than resilience of the either the current Woolwich Ferry or a Gallions Reach ferry. It would be open 24 hours a day, and 156 TfL Planning River crossings: Assessment of Options East of Silvertown

Objective A Bridge at Belvedere highway river much less likely to be subject to closure or disruption through poor weather and or technical crossing network failures. It would also provide considerable capacity a diversion route in the event of an incident at another crossing, although its ability to do this would be limited by the capacity of the wider network and the requirement to operate in this way should be minimised through developments at Silvertown and Dartford. Together with a new Silvertown Tunnel and a potential Lower Thames Crossing, the opportunities for alternative routing should there be problems at any one crossing would be substantially increased.

Consideration of study requirements

To address needs of Woolwich Ferry users

7.177 TfL has a legal obligation to operate the Woolwich Ferry. In the event that it formally proposed the introduction of a new bridge at Belvedere, TfL would need to consider the question of whether to continue running the ferry service at Woolwich.

To minimise any adverse impacts of any proposals on health, safety and the London environment

7.178 There are historic landfills in the proposed area of construction on the north bank of the River Thames at Belvedere. Significant piling or excavation works have the potential to create a pathway for migration via contaminated perched groundwater to the chalk aquifer. In addition, the site is a likely source of ground gas. There is potential for gas to build up in any excavations during construction and potential for the bridge foundations and access roads to alter existing gas migration pathways. In order to ensure that hazardous waste materials associated with the historic landfill site are managed appropriately, a mitigation strategy would be required. 7.179 There is the potential for disturbance or mortality to marine species during construction of a bridge. Further surveys of the area are required to confirm the presence or absence of protected species in the footprint of the scheme. 7.180 The quantum of materials used to construct the bridge, and the amount of waste this would generate, could have a negative impact on existing waste management processes. 7.181 There may be slight increases in noise from traffic on main approach roads, although overall a neutral impact on other vehicular emissions. 7.182 More detail on the environmental impacts of constructing and operating a road bridge at Belvedere is provided in Appendix A.

To ensure where possible that any proposals are acceptable in principle to key stakeholders, including affected boroughs

7.183 The views of stakeholders, in particular local London boroughs, is not yet known

157 TfL Planning River crossings: Assessment of Options East of Silvertown

because this is a newly identified option, but the planned forthcoming consultation is an opportunity to set out the pros and cons and allow stakeholders to form a view as to the merits of this option.

To consider local and strategic land use policies

7.184 The Belvedere alignment is not safeguarded and does not feature specifically in local plans and policies. However there is strategic support for new river crossings in east London generally in the London Plan, MTS and local plans, and this crossing may be able to meet the same or similar objectives as the other options which have been specifically mentioned in policy.

To achieve a positive business case

7.185 The outturn costs (including inflation and risk) of a bridge at Belvedere have been estimated at £850m and operating and maintenance costs are estimated at £0.5m per year. (A bridge at this location would need to be longer than a bridge at Gallions Reach, which would mean a higher cost.) 7.186 The significant reduction of journey times resulting from a new bridge at this location would be likely to generate economic benefits and a positive business case.

Overview and conclusion

7.187 A local road bridge could be built between Belvedere and Rainham in conjunction with a new road crossing at Silvertown. 7.188 This option has been assessed against the study objectives and in summary achieves:  Connectivity – a bridge would significantly increase connectivity by road in the area, with positive changes for cross-river access opportunities, network connectivity and accessibility.  Economic Development –in bringing about a significant improvement in accessibility to jobs, retail and business catchments and capacity, the bridge is likely to contribute towards an increase in economic activity in the study area.  Resilience – the bridge would be a significant improvement to cross-river highway resilience.

COMPARING THE OPTIONS – MODELLED USE AND ACCESSIBILITY 7.189 This section compares the options by reference to their effects on the river crossing screenline, and on overall accessibility levels by road.

Overall modelling results - Cross-River Demand 7.190 Figure 59 and Figure 60 show the number of vehicles crossing the river by direction in

158 TfL Planning River crossings: Assessment of Options East of Silvertown

each of the scenarios in the morning peak hour. It can be seen that as a total across all eastern river crossings, from Rotherhithe to Dartford, the variation in total demand is less than 1000 vehicles in each direction. This is due to the charge that is applied to Blackwall and all new crossings managing overall cross river demand. The results demonstrate that the majority of trips using the proposed new crossings have changed their choice of crossing to complete their journey, rather than the new crossings encouraging significant numbers of new trips to cross the river.

Figure 59: Cross-river flows all options morning peak hour northbound

159 TfL Planning River crossings: Assessment of Options East of Silvertown

Figure 60 : Cross-river flows all options morning peak hour southbound

7.191 Similar analysis of the inter-peak shows that overall total flow variance (approx. 500 vehicles) for all scenarios is less than in the morning peak hour; however, the pattern of demand between crossings in each scenario is similar to the morning peak. 7.192 Figure 61 and Figure 62 below show the number of vehicles crossing the river by direction in each of the scenarios in the evening peak. The two graphs below show the number of vehicles crossing the river by direction in each of the scenarios in the evening peak. Overall total flow variance (over 1000 vehs in each direction) for all scenarios is higher than in the morning peak hour due to the additional traffic that is attracted to use Belvedere Bridge in the counter-peak direction (south to north) in the evening peak. Under the charging assumptions in this test Belvedere becomes a much more attractive route for some traffic that previously used Dartford to complete their journey, as Belvedere is charged at ½ the rate of the Dartford cash rate. It is also noted that the same increase occurs in the counter peak direction in the morning peak which again is also charged at ½ the rate of Dartford. This may warrant further consideration.

160 TfL Planning River crossings: Assessment of Options East of Silvertown

Figure 61: Cross-river flows all options evening peak northbound

Figure 62: Cross-river flows all options evening peak southbound

7.193 Table 28 below shows the volume of traffic that is carried by each crossing (within their own scenario) for all three time periods. As expected larger changes in demand result from the introduction of the high-capacity bridge crossings at Gallions and Belvedere. In terms of traffic volumes accommodated there is a clear difference between the lower capacity ferry options and the higher capacity fixed links.

161 TfL Planning River crossings: Assessment of Options East of Silvertown

Table 28: Summary of cross-river trip volumes and additional trips all options74

Northbound Southbound Morning Peak hour Woolwich Ferry 150 150 Gallions Ferry 350 200 Gallions Bridge 1350 700 Belvedere Bridge 1100 1500 Interpeak hour Woolwich Ferry 100 100 Gallions Ferry 100 100 Gallions Bridge 750 750 Belvedere Bridge 1250 900 Evening peak hour Woolwich Ferry 100 250 Gallions Ferry 100 400 Gallions Bridge 1000 1600 Belvedere Bridge 1650 1350

7.194 The increase in cross-river demand demonstrates that despite vehicles being charged to use existing and new crossings, the extra connectivity provided and journey time saving offered outweighs the cost of paying the currently modelled user charge for some motorists.

Comparative accessibility results 7.195 The change in connectivity between options is measured by comparing the effects of the different options, with details provided in the technical report referenced in the footnote below.75

74 Rounded to the nearest 50 7575 River Crossings Development Study, Atkins, 2014

162 TfL Planning River crossings: Assessment of Options East of Silvertown

Change in accessibility to jobs 7.196 The assessed changes in accessibility to jobs as between crossing options are shown in Table 29. Under all crossing scenarios, areas south of the river stand to gain the most in terms of additional access to jobs as a result of the provision of new cross- river highway infrastructure east of Silvertown. This outcome primarily reflects the fact that currently there are more jobs on the north side of the river than the south rather than indicating differential gains in actual journey times. 7.197 The areas with the highest increases in accessibility to jobs under all options include Greenwich Peninsula & Charlton, Woolwich, Thamesmead, the rest of Greenwich, Erith and Belvedere, and the rest of Bexley. The bridge options are shown to generate a significantly higher increase in accessibility than the ferry options. 7.198 Under all options, there are some offsetting negative impacts in terms of increases in congestion from the additional traffic crossing to the north of the river in southern Newham. However, there is shown to be a clear net gain in accessibility to jobs overall. It is also important to note that current option testing has not yet included any traffic mitigation measures such as adjustments to junctions to take account of changes in local traffic patterns in the area, which could be expected to manage and minimise any negative impacts. Table 29: Change in Accessibility to Jobs as result of river-crossing options76

Silvertown Gallions Gallions Belvedere

Only Ferry Bridge Bridge

Canada Water & 1% 1% 1% 0% Rotherhithe Rest of Southwark 1% 2% 2% 1% Deptford New Cross 3% 3% 3% 0% Lewisham & Catford 12% 12% 14% 9% Rest of Lewisham 16% 16% 17% 13% Greenwich Peninsula & 64% 65% 72% 64% Charlton Woolwich 89% 116% 148% 128% Thamesmead 56% 109% 231% 103% Rest of Greenwich 69% 72% 81% 71% Erith and Belvedere 7% 40% 211% 69%

76 River Crossings Development Study – Final Report, Atkins June 2014. Options for Gallions Ferry and Bridge include Silvertown as well, option for |Belvedere includes Silvertown and Woolwich ferry.

163 TfL Planning River crossings: Assessment of Options East of Silvertown

Rest of Bexley 57% 65% 99% 71% Isle of Dogs -3% -4% -5% -4% Rest of Tower Hamlets 0% -1% 0% 0% Lower Lea Valley -2% -3% -3% -3% Royal Docks -8% -7% -10% -6% Rest of Newham -5% -4% -5% -2% Barking 2% -1% 4% 8% Barking Riverside -2% -1% 1% 11% Rest of B&D -1% -3% 6% 18% London Riverside -1% -1% 0% 16% Rest of Havering 0% -1% 0% 15% *No. of jobs accessible within 37 minute journey time **% change from base case option i.e. Blackwall and Woolwich Ferry only

Accessibility to economically active population 7.199 The assessed changes in accessibility to the economically active population are shown below, in Table 30. 7.200 Erith and Belvedere show significant increases in accessibility with the bridge options, while the Isle of Dogs/Tower Hamlets, Newham, Barking and London Riverside and much of Barking and Havering show more modest increases. Table 30 Change in accessibility to economically active population

Silvertown Gallions Gallions Belvedere

Only Ferry Bridge Bridge

Canada Water & Rotherhithe 1% 2% 2% 0% Rest of Southwark 0% 0% 0% 0% Deptford New Cross -1% -1% 0% -1% Lewisham & Catford 0% 0% 1% 1% Rest of Lewisham -1% -1% 1% 0% Greenwich Peninsula & Charlton 0% 1% 1% 3% Woolwich -4% 1% 11% 9% Thamesmead -3% 9% 47% 38% Rest of Greenwich 0% 0% 1% 2% Erith and Belvedere 0% 14% 62% 69% Rest of Bexley 2% 3% 11% 17% Isle of Dogs 16% 18% 23% 16% Rest of Tower Hamlets 5% 6% 9% 7% Lower Lea Valley 17% 18% 22% 18% Royal Docks 18% 26% 26% 26% Rest of Newham 11% 14% 21% 13%

164 TfL Planning River crossings: Assessment of Options East of Silvertown

Silvertown Gallions Gallions Belvedere

Only Ferry Bridge Bridge

Barking 9% 14% 20% 15% Barking Riverside 7% 10% 18% 19% Rest of B&D 5% 6% 14% 18% London Riverside 6% 7% 12% 13% Rest of Havering 0% 1% 2% 12% *No. of economically active population within 37 minute journey time **% change from base case option i.e. Blackwall and Woolwich Ferry only

Conclusion and summary 7.201 The table below summarises the likely achievement of study objectives and requirements by the 4 short-listed options. It is evident that the bridge options at Gallions Reach are likely to have a higher level of achievement of the study objectives and requirements. Table 31: Summary of options against study objectives and requirements

Woolwich Ferry Gallions Ferry Gallions Bridge Belvedere Bridge

Study Objectives 1. To improve cross-river No significant Replaces existing Fast, direct new Fast, direct new highway connectivity increase in ferry, small net connection, connection, connectivity effect significant increase significant increase 2. To support economic Would not provide Some benefits, Significant new Significant new development significant replaces existing accessibility accessibility additional support ferry, small net benefits benefits effect 3. To improve the Improved on As above 24/7 crossing at 24/7 crossing at resilience of the highway existing service, but new location, new location, river crossing network no significant significant significant improvement improvement improvement overall Study Requirements To address needs of Same location as Within 2km of Within 2km of Within 8km of Woolwich ferry users existing existing ferry, existing ferry, existing ferry, much higher capacity higher capacity higher capacity 24/7 24/7 Minimise impacts on Some construction Some Some construction Some construction health. Safety and and operational construction and and operational and operational environment impacts but unlikely operational impacts impacts to be significant impacts but unlikely to be significant Acceptability to key Valued by many Directly RB Greenwich/LB Not yet known stakeholders users, boroughs concerned Newham/Barking & support Gallions boroughs oppose Dagenham Reach options ferry in favour of supportive, LB fixed link Bexley opposes Local and strategic land Existing use Policy in London Land safeguarded, Land not Plan, land potential noted in 165 TfL Planning River crossings: Assessment of Options East of Silvertown

Woolwich Ferry Gallions Ferry Gallions Bridge Belvedere Bridge use policies safeguarded London Plan safeguarded Achieve a positive Likely to be positive Likely to be Likely to generate Likely to generate business case although benefits positive although positive business positive business not significant as benefits not case due to scale of case due to scale of above significant as benefits benefits above

166 TfL Planning River crossings: Assessment of Options East of Silvertown

8 CONCLUSIONS

Policy conclusions 8.1 Current regional and local policy gives general and specific support to new road- based river crossings in east London to (1) improve public transport and (2) to address identified significant strategic and local needs for cross-river accessibility. Policies include specific references to the consideration of a new ferry at Gallions Reach, and a longer-term fixed link at this location; other locations may also meet river crossing policy requirements and are not precluded. The policy also sets out the ‘criteria’ to be taken into account in the assessment of new transport infrastructure proposals.

Needs in the study area 8.2 There are only three east London vehicular river-crossings in the 23 km between Dartford and Tower Bridge; the low-capacity Woolwich Ferry (which does not operate 24 hours a day) and the Rotherhithe and Blackwall Tunnels both which have restrictions on use by large vehicles and lack resilience to disruption. These circumstances mean many local cross-river road trips have to travel further to reach destinations the other side of the river, which restricts and constrains local accessibility and the links between the communities. In addition river-crossing traffic being channelled to these few locations, causes frequent congestion and delays due to the limitations and lack of resilience of these crossings. The number and location of crossings in east London clearly influences whether, how and where people travel and the type and location of land uses. 8.3 Despite recent reductions in road-base mode share, road-based travel remains a significant and necessary component in overall travel with typically more than half of all travel taking place by road, and in outer London boroughs two-thirds; and it is the majority travel to work mode in all Boroughs in the study area with the exception of Newham (49%). While as a proportion of overall travel road based travel has decreased, the absolute number of trips to work by road has risen sharply over the past ten years as the population has increased, generating additional demand for highway capacity and for more effective links between growing economic and residential areas. This demand would increase further in future as population and employment are forecast to grow rapidly in the period 2011-2031. 8.4 A comparison of overall travel in west London and east London, particularly with central London boroughs excluded, identifies that a far higher proportion of cross- river travel takes place in west London, where the opportunities for crossings are far greater. Current east London crossings suffer from excessive congestion due to high demand, and this is likely to increase as forecast development takes place. All of these factors combine to indicate that there is the need to accommodate increased 167 TfL Planning River crossings: Assessment of Options East of Silvertown

and necessary road based cross-river travel in east London to enable local accessibility to current and future economic and social opportunities including housing developments and opportunities either side of the river. 8.5 Sustained investment in public transport in east London has resulted in a step change in cross-river rail links over the last 20 years, with a further high capacity rail crossing in the form of Crossrail still to come and no evidence of unduly limited capacity arising in the foreseeable future. By contrast, road crossings are at present at or in excess of their peak hour capacity and provide very limited cross-river bus services. A new road crossing would provide opportunities to connect and expand the existing bus networks either side of the river, helping to connect those living in the more residential areas to the south of the river more closely to the many employment opportunities which are found to the north. 8.6 Local pedestrian and cyclist trips across the river can be undertaken by means of one of several public transport links, including the Emirates Air Line and the foot tunnels. While not a driving factor in pursuing a new road crossing compared with other highway needs, there would be an opportunity to connect the cycle networks either side of the Thames via a new road bridge. 8.7 Accessibility comparisons clearly show that the barrier of the river restricts and constrains local accessibility to economic and social opportunities available to residents and businesses on both sides of the river east of Tower Bridge at present and would continue to do so in the future in the absence of the provision of additional road based crossing facilities. 8.8 Forecast population growth, particularly in Tower Hamlets, Barking & Dagenham, Greenwich and Newham, would increase travel demands, including for cross-river travel. 2011 census data indicates that population growth has been more rapid than the GLA previously forecast. This rapid population growth, happening sooner than expected in many areas, confirms the growth patterns estimated in the London Plan and indicates that the transport infrastructure forecast to be required by 2031 in the MTS is now needed sooner. 8.9 Employment growth is forecast to be greatest in Tower Hamlets and Newham, however growth in population is focused elsewhere (refer to paragraph 3.43). This disparity between the location of forecast population growth and the location of forecast employment growth would generate increased travel to work demands with destinations outside residents’ home boroughs, including increased cross-river travel demand. This demand is modelled to increase traffic congestion, particularly at locations in wards adjacent to the River Thames in east London. 8.10 Overall two thirds of businesses report that the ability to cross the river by road in East London is important to their business (65%), with a third rating it as very important or essential and only 17% reporting current crossings are adequate.

168 TfL Planning River crossings: Assessment of Options East of Silvertown

Businesses in Newham, Bexley and Greenwich and businesses in the construction sector rate their ability to cross the river in east London highly. The top three issues of importance to businesses at present are additional delay (81.5%), daily congestion (78.5%) and journey time reliability (77%). 8.11 East London contains areas of high deprivation and its population is rising rapidly. The London Plan identifies London’s reservoir of brownfield land and particularly the larger sites in the east as the key to accommodating its growth requirements over the next 20 years. The east sub-region contains 14 opportunity areas and areas for intensification, accounting for 27 percent of London’s overall land use potential. The development of transport infrastructure of all types is essential to the support for development and to cater for associated increased travel movements. As noted above, road based transport is by far the most important mode in the study area.

Study objectives and requirements 8.12 Taking account of current strategic and local transport and planning policy, forecast growth and the transport and economic context of east London including the present restricted and constrained local cross-river accessibility described above, the following are identified and adopted as the study objectives for the element of the cross-river study dealing with consideration of options for roads-based river crossings east of Silvertown. These are:  to improve cross-river connectivity (for freight, local traffic, buses cyclists and pedestrians)  to improve the resilience of the river crossing network (i.e. the ability of the cross-river highway network to manage planned and unplanned events and incidents)  to provide transport measures to support and cater for the anticipated development in east London (including addressing the needs of businesses and housing and population growth) 8.13 In addition to these objectives a successful crossing option would need to meet a number of other important study requirements including addressing the needs of Woolwich Ferry users; to minimise any adverse impacts of any proposals on health, safety and the London environment; to ensure where possible that any proposals are acceptable in principle to key stakeholders, including affected boroughs; to consider local and strategic land use policies and to achieve a positive business case.

Option generation 8.14 A range of schemes and locations have been put forward as options for consideration as part of the River Crossings programme, identified by TfL or proposed by

169 TfL Planning River crossings: Assessment of Options East of Silvertown

stakeholders and the public in response to TfL’s consultations on the River Crossings programme. The options have been examined over the last 2 years in a variety of technical reports and consultations77 – these have evolved as the study has evolved over time.

The sifting process 8.15 A 2 stage sifting process has been used:  First, broad categories of options have been considered in terms of their potential to address the study objectives and requirements. Categories of options which fail to meet one or more of the objectives and/or are unlikely to pass key viability and acceptability requirements have not been taken forward from this stage.  Next, the options available within each option category carried forward from the first stage have been considered to determine if any of these fail to meet objectives and/or study requirements. This exercise has resulted in a final shortlisting of options proposed for further public consultation.

Short-listing outcome 8.16 A number of options have been reviewed in the light of the study objectives, and a number have failed to meet these or the other study requirements. 8.17 The outcome of this analysis is the following shortlisted options which appear best able to meet the study objectives and requirements, and are therefore proposed for further consultation:  a replacement vehicle ferry at Woolwich;  a vehicle ferry at Gallions Reach;  a road bridge at Gallions Reach; and  a road bridge at Belvedere

170 TfL Planning River crossings: Assessment of Options East of Silvertown

APPENDIX A – ENVIRONMENTAL SUMMARY OF SHORT-LISTED OPTIONS78

Woolwich Ferry Likely residual Nature of Impact Mitigation Options impact significance Community and Private Assets Moderate adverse Some demolition may be required on both sides of the river to Compensation measures may be required if demolition is remove existing structures and some buildings, depending on the needed, this will depend on the option. option. During construction, accessibility to community facilities located in Woolwich Town Centre will be restricted for pedestrians and cyclists particularly in the area of Thames cycle path and near Woolwich High Street roundabout. Cultural heritage Neutral/ There is a high potential for archaeological remains dating from the For a chain ferry, it is likely that a Deposit Model and Sonar Slight adverse prehistoric period until the post-medieval period to be located on the Scar Survey would be required. This would be to determine banks of the Thames in the Woolwich area. The Royal Arsenal the potential for significant archaeological remains within this Conservation Area is located on the south bank of the river and area, and presence of potential marine assets which might be includes 20-30 listed buildings, several which are located within close impacted. These surveys would inform an appropriate proximity the crossing location. They would not be physically programme of mitigation, if necessary. impacted by the proposed works but would require careful consideration. The new infrastructure can be placed on a similar footprint to the existing infrastructure. There would therefore be limited impact to the potential archaeological resource located within the river bank. There are no known archaeological remains which would be impacted by implementation of a chain ferry. However, excavations on the northern and southern river banks have the potential to impact regionally or nationally significant archaeological

78 Summarised from East of Silvertown Crossings: Environmental Options Study, Hyder, July 2014

171 TfL Planning River crossings: Assessment of Options East of Silvertown

Woolwich Ferry Likely residual Nature of Impact Mitigation Options impact significance remains located within the deposits. Ecology and Marine Large/ Potential disturbance or mortality to protected marine species. The Ensure appropriate measures are put in place to control Nature Moderate adverse footprint of the works is likely to cover an area known to support contaminant release from the sediment. Where possible, Conservation Victorella sp. And would therefore result in the direct loss of habitat ensure adequate measures are put in place to avoid adverse for this species. Disturbed water movement could arise from new hydrological effects during the construction and operational structures in the water and could result in potential disturbance to phases of the option. Use of design measures such as deflector marine species. boards to reduce wash from the new structures in the water. Review the footprints to see if adjustments are possible to avoid direct impacts on habitats which support protected species. Translocation/habitat enhancements/ compensatory habitat provision where appropriate. Terrestrial Neutral No significant adverse impacts on terrestrial ecology are identified at Where possible, carry out construction works outside of the this stage. The footprint of the bridge would occupy areas of intertidal winter period to minimise disturbance/ displacement of habitat used by foraging and roosting birds during the winter months). foraging and wintering birds. Given the amount of other suitable foraging and roosting If possible, align the access route to avoid impacts on the opportunities in the vicinity it is unlikely a small loss of intertidal Thamesmead Historic Area and Wetlands SBI. If this is not habitat would have a significant impact. possible, new habitat would need to be created to compensate for the loss. Where possible, align the option to avoid impacts on habitats potentially important for terrestrial invertebrates. Further surveys would be required to confirm the presence/absence of reptiles, great crested newts, black redstart, bats and badgers from within habitats affected by the option; and therefore confirm the need for mitigation. Effects on All travellers Slight beneficial Journey times across the river would be improved and community During construction, provide a safe and clear diversion for severance alleviated. pedestrians and cyclists in consultation with relevant During construction, pedestrians and cyclists only are likely to be authorities, together with appropriate signage. affected by construction traffic and associated diversions. Driver Ensure that procedures are implemented to minimise the stress may be increased due to construction traffic and related impact of construction, such as a Construction Workers Travel activities. Potential significant impact for severance on east-west Plan, a Construction Traffic Management Plan and diversions movements during construction. to minimise conflicts with road users. During operation, the environment for pedestrians and cyclists would During operation, an alternative pedestrian route would be be improved, providing a river crossing linking routes on both sides of required around the slipway for a chain ferry. the river. Waiting times for the ferry may exacerbate driver frustration (the chain ferry option should allow more frequent crossings and

172 TfL Planning River crossings: Assessment of Options East of Silvertown

Woolwich Ferry Likely residual Nature of Impact Mitigation Options impact significance shorter waiting times). Ground Conditions Moderate adverse Areas of contaminated soil are likely to be encountered within the Adoption of appropriate health and safety practices and footprint of the works of the ferry terminals. During construction, completion of Health and Safety Risk Assessment, training for direct contact with or inhalation of contaminated soil or sediment onsite workers. Mitigation such as damping down dust during would cause harm to human health of construction workers or site construction or remediation of soil before construction users. Construction works (dredging, pilling etc.) into contaminated commences. A piling risk assessment should be carried out and ground may create pathways, resulting in leeching and migration of detailed method statements should be prepared. Impacts contaminated soil/sediment or groundwater to the underlying arising from pilling works and construction of access roads aquifers or surface water. There is potential for gas to build up in should be managed to ensure any surface runoff is collected excavations during construction and alter existing gas migration and prevented from entering water receptors. If dewatering of pathways. The risk of encountering UXO is considered to be possible excavations is required, treatment of contaminated water may in this location therefore injury/death to construction workers is a be required before discharge. A limited intrusive ground gas risk. Aggressive ground conditions (corrosive ground gases etc.) could investigation is recommended. Detailed UXO mitigation cause damage/deterioration to buildings and structures. strategy required and specialist banksmen present. Intrusive UXO clearance in piling locations. Specification of resistant materials in design if aggressive chemicals/ground gas present. Materials Slight adverse Based on the amount of materials used and the impact of waste With appropriate planning, the majority of key wastes would generated on existing waste management, a ferry in this location have the potential to be re-used or recycled off-site, would have a slight adverse impact. minimising the need for any waste arising to be sent to landfill. Water environment Neutral/ Surface and groundwater quality: Demolition of the existing ferry Implementation of best practice environmental management Slight Adverse terminals carries a pollution risk. General construction phase pollution protocols on site for pollution prevention. risk at works sites associated with accidental spills (fuels/oils), use of concrete and earthworks. Use of silt curtains to limit mobilisation of sedimentation Construction phase piling resulting in deterioration of surface and whilst working in-channel. groundwater quality due to mobilisation of contaminants in river bed sediments, contaminated soils and release of sediments into the Maintain the integrity of the flood defences. water column. In addition, during the operational phase, movement of the chain as the ferry crosses the Thames has the potential to Afflux is estimated to be negligible and would not require disturb and release small amounts of sediment and any associated mitigation. contaminants into the water column. More extensive highway works, to link the ferry service to the local road network, are also required for this Option, with an increased risk of pollution. Flood risk: The northern approaches are located in Flood Zone 3 and are at risk of flooding during a defence failure/breach event. On shore tie-ins to pass over existing flood defences with potential for restricting access for future maintenance/improvement and

173 TfL Planning River crossings: Assessment of Options East of Silvertown

Woolwich Ferry Likely residual Nature of Impact Mitigation Options impact significance compromising their integrity.

River flow velocity, scour and accretion: Scheme components built out into the river banks would have a minor and localised impact on flow dynamics. Townscape and Visual Impact Slight beneficial Potential for moderate adverse impact due to large structures resulting in High quality terminal/infrastructure design to enhance local townscape and visual disruption that conflicts with regional level policy (Blue townscape and views. Ribbon Network/Thames Policy Areas) for the protection of townscape and views. Energy Slight/ This option is considered to represent a medium embodied carbon impact. The The major section of this option would already be pre-fabricated and Moderate adverse major impact relative to energy and embodied carbon is construction of hence low impact. However where the linkspans and pontoons require pontoons and linkspan, material used during construction and the removal of to be constructed then minimisation of onsite construction would be redundant infrastructure from Woolwich Ferry. beneficial to reduce the construction energy demands. The lighting, other electronic equipment and indirect use of running fuel to Selection of construction material with low embodied carbon where operate the ferry are all the key drivers of this option. possible, plus locally and sustainable sourced wherever practical The propeller driven ferry has even greater energy consumption than a chain would reduce impact. The use of recyclable material would also be ferry option (as it works against currents and makes berthing manoeuvres). beneficial. The removal of the redundant infrastructure of Woolwich ferry should be disposed of in a sustainable manner would minimise the impact of this option. Utilise energy efficient lighting. Fuel efficient ferries should be proposed to minimise the energy demands. The use of biofuels should be further explored. Ensure all buildings are built to energy efficient standards. Noise and Vibration More detailed Minor changes expected Specification of ferry vehicles to minimise noise emissions assessment required Air Quality More detailed Neutral impact overall across boroughs. No mitigation required but user charging could manage demand. assessment required

174 TfL Planning River crossings: Assessment of Options East of Silvertown

Gallions Reach Ferry Likely residual Nature of Impact Mitigation Options impact significance Community and Private Assets Slight/ A ferry crossing will increase the connectivity between the residents None required. Moderate of Thamesmead and Beckton allowing them to use the community beneficial facilities on both sides of the river. No residential properties are located within the area of temporary or permanent landtake. The chain ferry is expected to take significantly more land in the immediate area of the flood defence wall than a conventional propeller ferry, to accommodate a slipway wide enough for two vessels. Cultural heritage Slight adverse This option would impact two World War II pill boxes on the south Extant above ground sites (HN20 and 23) could be fully bank of the Thames. It would also potentially impact medieval river mitigated by preservation through a combination of design walls identified on the southern bank through documentary modification and construction methods e.g. relocation of evidence. These assets are of local significance. construction elements, fencing off the sites from construction The southern approach road crosses undeveloped land previously activities etc. Where this is not possible, the effect could be occupied by part of the Royal Arsenal. Evidence suggests there could mitigated through a programme of detailed recording of the be remains of the former arsenal cannon cartridge factory and cap structures prior to their loss. and detonator factories shown on map of 1899. There is also Impact on possible medieval river walls could be mitigated potential for remains associated with the Royal Arsenal firing range through the implementation of an archaeological Watching Brief within this area. Both of these remains are of little surviving during the construction process archaeological interest. To determine the presence of the paleochannel (HN31) There is also the potential to impact archaeological deposits and borehole transects and core analysis could be carried out to palaeoenvironmental remains associated with the former gauge age dates of deposits. The results of this survey could palaeochannel/tributary located on the north bank. Activity is likely inform the need for further evaluation, which would be to be located in the vicinity of (rather than simply within) the determined in consultation with GLAAS. Mitigation measures channel. Such resources have potential to be of regional would be determined following all such evaluation. significance. The validity of the paleochannel needs to be A Watching Brief Recording should be maintained on all other ascertained. ground breaking activities which would produce an observable Excavations for the linkspans on the river banks have the potential archaeological face. to impact regionally significant archaeological remains located If the construction technique used in the areas of potential within the river bank deposits. regionally significant archaeological remains (i.e. along the banks There is a small potential for the piling to impact debris of maritime of the Thames), does not allow for an observable archaeological archaeological interest buried within the alluvial silts at the channel face, then archaeological evaluation may be required prior to edges. These archaeological assets would be of little or local construction. This would inform an appropriate programme of significance. mitigation, if necessary. There is a risk of discovering unexploded ordnance resulting from Impact to the regionally significant wreck site could be mitigated extensive bombardment during the Second World War. through a programme of recording as deemed appropriate by The construction of the slipway required for a chain ferry has a GLAAS. larger footprint than a conventional ferry, giving a slightly increased

175 TfL Planning River crossings: Assessment of Options East of Silvertown

Gallions Reach Ferry Likely residual Nature of Impact Mitigation Options impact significance risk of a significant effect. A regionally significant wreck site lies within the line of the chain and could therefore be impacted. Ecology and Marine Moderate Potential disturbance or mortality to protected marine species. The Ensure appropriate measures are put in place to control Nature adverse footprint of the works is likely to cover an area known to support contaminant release from the sediment. Where possible, ensure Conservation Victorella sp. And would therefore result in the direct loss of habitat adequate measures are put in place to avoid adverse for this species. Disturbed water movement could arise from new hydrological effects during the construction and operational structures in the water and could result in potential disturbance to phases of the option. Use of design measures such as deflector marine species. boards to reduce wash from the new structures in the water. Review the footprints to see if adjustments are possible to avoid direct impacts on habitats which support protected species. Translocation/habitat enhancements/compensatory habitat provision where appropriate. Terrestrial Slight adverse No significant adverse impacts on terrestrial ecology are identified Where possible, carry out construction works outside of the /Neutral at this stage. The footprint of the bridge would occupy areas of winter period to minimise disturbance/ displacement of foraging intertidal habitat used by foraging and roosting birds during the and wintering birds. winter months). Given the amount of other suitable foraging and If possible, align the access route to avoid impacts on the roosting opportunities in the vicinity it is unlikely a small loss of Thamesmead Historic Area and Wetlands SBI. If this is not intertidal habitat would have a significant impact. possible, new habitat would need to be created to compensate for the loss. Where possible, align the option to avoid impacts on habitats potentially important for terrestrial invertebrates. Further surveys would be required to confirm the presence/absence of reptiles, great crested newts, black redstart, bats and badgers from within habitats affected by the option; and therefore confirm the need for mitigation. Effects on All travellers Slight/ Connectivity across the river would be improved, journey length A detailed Transport Assessment would be required. Moderate with be reduced and community severance alleviated, with access to During construction, provide a safe and clear diversion for beneficial community facilities improved. pedestrians and cyclists in consultation with relevant During construction, National Cycle Network Route 1 and footways authorities, together with appropriate signage. are likely to be affected during construction on the south side of the Ensure that procedures are implemented to minimise the river. Driver stress may be increased due to construction traffic and impact of construction, such as a Construction Workers Travel related activities. Limited severance likely to be caused due to the Plan, a Construction Traffic Management Plan and diversions to lack of community facilities in the immediate vicinity, with the minimise conflicts with road users. exception of the area of open space. During operation, the environment for pedestrians and cyclists would be improved, providing a river crossing linking routes on both

176 TfL Planning River crossings: Assessment of Options East of Silvertown

Gallions Reach Ferry Likely residual Nature of Impact Mitigation Options impact significance sides of the river. Waiting times for the ferry may exacerbate driver frustration (the chain ferry option should allow more frequent crossings and shorter waiting times). Ground Conditions Slight/ Areas of contaminated soil are likely to be encountered within the Adoption of appropriate health and safety practices and Moderate adverse footprint of the works. During construction, direct contact with or completion of Health and Safety Risk Assessment, training for inhalation of contaminated soil or sediment would cause harm to onsite workers. Mitigation such as damping down dust during human health of construction workers or site users. Construction of construction or remediation of soil before construction foundations into contaminated ground may create pathways, commences. A piling risk assessment should be carried out and resulting in leeching and migration of contaminated soil/sediment detailed method statements should be prepared. Impacts arising or groundwater to the underlying aquifers or surface water. The from pilling works and construction of access roads should be area is adjacent to a landfill, a likely source of ground gas. There is managed to ensure any surface runoff is collected and potential for gas to build up in excavations during construction and prevented from entering water receptors. If dewatering of alter existing gas migration pathways. The risk of encountering UXO excavations is required, treatment of contaminated water may is considered to be medium/high in this location (adjacent to Royal be required before discharge. Detailed UXO mitigation strategy Arsenal and Beckton Gasworks) therefore injury/death to required and specialist banksmen present. Intrusive UXO construction workers is a risk. Aggressive ground conditions clearance in piling locations. (corrosive ground gases etc.) could cause damage/deterioration to buildings and structures. Materials Slight adverse Based on the amount of materials used and the impact of waste With appropriate planning, the majority of key wastes would generated on existing waste management, a ferry in this location have the potential to be re-used or recycled off-site, minimising would have a moderate adverse impact. the need for any waste arising to be sent to landfill. Water environment Neutral/slight Surface and groundwater quality: General construction phase Implementation of best practice environmental management adverse pollution risk at works sites associated with accidental spills protocols on site for pollution prevention. (fuels/oils), use of concrete and earthworks. Construction phase piling resulting in deterioration of surface and Use of silt curtains to limit mobilisation of sedimentation whilst groundwater quality due to mobilisation of contaminants in river working in-channel. bed sediments, contaminated soils and release of sediments into the water column. In addition, during the operational phase, Flood defences provide a high standard of protection and actual movement of the chain as the ferry crosses the Thames has the risk is low. Manage residual risk through emergency planning. potential to disturb and release small amounts of sediment and any Compliance with EA Flood Defence Consent conditions to ensure associated contaminants into the water column. More extensive that flood defence provisions are not compromised. highway works, to link the ferry service to the local road network, are also required for this Option, with an increased risk of pollution. Afflux is estimated to be negligible and would not require Flood risk: The northern approaches are located in Flood Zone 3 and mitigation. are at risk of flooding during a defence failure/breach event. On shore tie-ins to pass over existing flood defences with potential for

177 TfL Planning River crossings: Assessment of Options East of Silvertown

Gallions Reach Ferry Likely residual Nature of Impact Mitigation Options impact significance restricting access for future maintenance /improvement and compromising their integrity. River flow velocity, scour and accretion: Scheme components built out into the river banks would have a minor and localised impact on flow dynamics. Townscape and Visual Impact Slight beneficial Potential for moderate adverse impact due to large structures High quality infrastructure design to enhance local townscape resulting in townscape and visual disruption that conflicts with and views. regional level policy (Blue Ribbon Network/Thames Policy Areas) for the protection of townscape and views. Energy Slight/ This option is considered to represent a medium embodied carbon The major section of this option would already be pre-fabricated Moderate adverse impact. Energy consist of construction of pontoons and linkspan, and hence low impact. However, where the link spans and materials used during construction, the structural components for pontoons require to be constructed then minimisation of onsite the terminals are likely to embody a significant amount of energy in construction would be beneficial to reduce the construction their production. energy demands. Utilise the energy efficient lighting. Fuel efficient ferries should The lighting, other electronic equipment and indirect use of running be proposed to minimise the energy demands and explore use fuel to operate the ferry are all the key drivers of this option. of biofuels. Ensure all buildings are built to energy efficient The propeller driven ferry has even greater energy consumption standards. than a chain ferry option (as it works against currents and makes berthing manoeuvres).

Noise and Vibration More detailed No significant impact expected Mitigation options could include: assessment required Specification of ferry vehicles to minimise noise emissions Use of low noise surfacing and acoustic screening to reduce / attenuate noise emissions from traffic Management of waiting / boarding / disembarking traffic to minimise noise (turning off vehicle engines, efficiency of vehicle movements). Air Quality More detailed Negligible change in emissions overall across boroughs, No mitigation required but user charging could manage demand assessment required

178 TfL Planning River crossings: Assessment of Options East of Silvertown

Gallions Reach Bridge Likely residual Nature of Impact Mitigation Options impact significance Community and Private Assets Slight/ No residential properties are located within areas of temporary or None required Moderate permanent landtake. The crossing would improve connectivity beneficial between Thamesmead and Beckton allowing them to use community facilities on both sides of the river. Cultural heritage Slight adverse There is a high potential for archaeological remains dating from Potential impact to the setting of the Grade II* Listed Structure the prehistoric period until the post-medieval period to be located could be mitigated through high quality bridge/infrastructure design on both banks of the Thames. Therefore, there is a risk of to enhance local townscape. disturbance. The northern approach road crosses the area of the former Beckton Gas Works. These remains are of little surviving archaeological interest. There is a risk of discovering unexploded ordnance resulting from extensive bombardment during the Second World War. New alignment crosses older foundations of Tripcock Ness lighthouse and some maritime archaeological interests. This Option also has the potential impact to the setting of the Grade II* Listed Gallions Hotel, which is located on the northern bank of the Thames. This is due to construction of a substantial structure resulting in townscape and visual disruption across the Thames. Ecology and Marine Moderate/Sligh Potential disturbance or mortality to protected marine species. Ensure appropriate measures are put in place to control Nature t adverse The footprint of the works is likely to cover an area known to contaminant release from the sediment. Where possible, ensure Conservation support Victorella sp. And would therefore result in the direct loss adequate measures are put in place to avoid adverse hydrological of habitat for this species. Disturbed water movement could arise effects during the construction and operational phases of the from new structures in the water and could result in potential option. Use of design measures such as deflector boards to reduce disturbance to marine species. wash from the new structures in the water. Review the footprints to see if adjustments are possible to avoid direct impacts on habitats which support protected species. Translocation/habitat enhancements/compensatory habitat provision where appropriate. Terrestrial Slight adverse No significant adverse impacts on terrestrial ecology are identified Where possible, carry out construction works outside of the winter /Neutral at this stage. The footprint of the bridge would occupy areas of period to minimise disturbance/ displacement of foraging and intertidal habitat used by foraging and roosting birds during the wintering birds. winter months and could involve the loss of a proportion of Where possible, align the option to avoid impacts on habitats Thamesmead Historic Area and Wetlands SBI. Given the amount potentially important for terrestrial invertebrates. of other suitable foraging and roosting opportunities in the vicinity Further surveys would be required to confirm the it is unlikely a small loss of intertidal habitat would have a presence/absence of reptiles, great crested newts, black redstart,

179 TfL Planning River crossings: Assessment of Options East of Silvertown

Gallions Reach Bridge Likely residual Nature of Impact Mitigation Options impact significance significant impact. bats and badgers from within habitats affected by the option; and therefore confirm the need for mitigation. Effects on All travellers Moderate Connectivity across the river would be improved, journey length A detailed Transport Assessment would be required. beneficial with be reduced and community severance alleviated, with access During construction, provide a safe and clear diversion for to community facilities improved. pedestrians and cyclists in consultation with relevant authorities, During construction, National Cycle Network Route 1 and together with appropriate signage. footways are likely to be affected on the south side of the river. Ensure that procedures are implemented to minimise the impact of Driver stress may be increased due to construction traffic and construction, such as a Construction Workers Travel Plan, a related activities. Severance between communities on the south Construction Traffic Management Plan and diversions to minimise side of the river may occur, where previous east-west non- conflicts with road users. motorised movements to the Thamesmead area were made through the area of open space. Particularly as a number of schools are located in this area. During operation, the environment for pedestrians and cyclists would be improved, providing a river crossing linking routes on both sides of the river. There would be an open view from the bridge to industrialised and visually unattractive area (Beckton Gas Works) in the north section and residential area in the south section. Ground Conditions Moderate/Large Areas of contaminated soil are likely to be encountered within the Adoption of appropriate health and safety practices and completion adverse footprint. During construction, direct contact with or inhalation of of Health and Safety Risk Assessment and training for onsite contaminated soil or sediment would cause harm to human health workers. Mitigation such as damping down dust during construction of construction workers or site users. Construction of bridge pier or remediation of soil before construction commences. A piling risk foundations into contaminated ground may create pathways, assessment should be carried out and detailed method statements resulting in leeching and migration of contamination to the should be prepared. Impacts arising from pilling works and underlying aquifers or surface water. The area is adjacent to a construction of access roads should be managed to ensure any landfill, a likely source of ground gas. There is potential for gas to surface runoff is collected and prevented from entering water build up in excavations during construction and alter existing gas receptors. If dewatering of excavations is required, treatment of migration pathways. The risk of encountering UXO is considered to contaminated water may be required before discharge. Detailed be medium/high in this location (adjacent to Royal Arsenal and UXO mitigation strategy required and specialist banksmen present. Beckton Gasworks) therefore injury/death to construction workers Intrusive UXO clearance in piling locations. is a risk. Aggressive ground conditions (corrosive ground gases etc.) could cause damage/deterioration to buildings and structures. Materials Moderate adverse Based on the amount of materials used and the impact of waste With appropriate planning, the majority of key wastes would have generated on existing waste management, a bridge in this location the potential to be re-used or recycled off-site, minimising the need

180 TfL Planning River crossings: Assessment of Options East of Silvertown

Gallions Reach Bridge Likely residual Nature of Impact Mitigation Options impact significance would have a moderate adverse impact. for any waste arising to be sent to landfill. It is noted that the footprint for this option encompasses made ground included some historic hazardous waste. This waste would need to have a mitigation strategy put in place to ensure these materials are managed appropriately. Water environment Slight/ Construction: works within the river could result in mobilisation of Use of silt curtains to limit mobilisation of sedimentation. Moderate adverse contaminants in river bed sediments and release of sediments into Implementation of environmental management protocols. the water column. Remedial works, guided by results of further site investigations and Earthworks within proximity of Tripcock landfill and Beckton Gas risk assessments, for example, on site treatment of contaminated Works could disturb contaminated soils, producing contaminated soils, cover systems and removal of contaminated materials. runoff with risk of pollution of the Thames and other nearby Construction works and waste management undertaken in waterbodies. Dewatering and disturbance of underlying accordance with EA best practice pollution prevention guidelines contaminated soils during construction (pilling) could result in a Limit potential for creational of pollution pathway through use of pollution pathway to the aquifer & increasing the risk of intrusion. selectively placed cohesive backfill material or by use of ground Accidental spills could occur (fuels/oils), use of concrete, membranes. earthworks and the management of the large volumes of material Drainage design to incorporate adequate spillage containment and arising from pilling activity. treatment of highway runoff prior to discharge to the water Operation: risks to water quality due to disposal of highway environment. drainage from the bridge deck and approaches. Flood defences provide a high standard of protection and actual risk Flood risk: Northern bridge approaches located in Flood Zone 3 is low. Manage residual risk through emergency planning. are at risk of flooding during a defence failure/breach event, Detailed hydraulic assessments to inform design of scour protection southern approach located in Flood Zones 1 and 3. measures River flows, velocity, scour and accretion: Temporary structures impacting on flow dynamics and permanent bridge piers causing localised changes to water levels & flow velocities, with increased risk of scour. Townscape and Visual Impact Moderate Potential for large adverse impact due to the substantial structure High quality bridge/infrastructure design to enhance local beneficial resulting in townscape and visual disruption that conflicts with townscape and views. regional level policy (Blue Ribbon Network/Thames Policy Areas) for the protection of townscape and views. Energy Neutral This option is considered to represent a medium embodied carbon Selection of construction materials with low embodied carbon impact. The impacts derive from the level of construction required where possible, plus locally and sustainable sourced wherever which utilises extensive energy. The carbon footprint would be practical would reduce impact. Use of recyclable materials would approx 107,066 tonnes. also be beneficial. This bridge option does not contain any significant energy related The street lighting has the potential to increase the likely energy systems except street lighting, surveillance and traffic control demands of this option, therefore the implementation of energy

181 TfL Planning River crossings: Assessment of Options East of Silvertown

Gallions Reach Bridge Likely residual Nature of Impact Mitigation Options impact significance systems. In addition, energy use relative to control and any efficient lighting would be beneficial for this option and also the day ancillary buildings. time sensors to control the energy waste would minimise the likely CO2 emissions. Ensure service buildings are built to energy efficient standards. Noise and Vibration More detailed Increases in noise on principal routes approaching the bridge on Acoustic screens and the use of low noise road surface could be assessment both side of the river incorporated into the design. required

Air Quality More detailed Overall impact broadly neutral No mitigation required but user charging could manage demand assessment

required

Belvedere Bridge Likely residual impact Nature of Impact Mitigation Options significance Community and Private Assets Slight adverse The proposed approach road to the bridge on the northern Compensation measures likely to be required for the side would be routed over land within the Ford Estate and demolition of buildings/private assets on the south side of would cut through the areas of hard standing and vegetated the River Thames. land. Existing roads and junctions would require realignment. On the south side of the river, the proposed approach road would require land take on industrial and undeveloped land. The proposed option is likely to have an impact on one planning application which has been submitted. The outline planning application for six industrial units on the land adjacent to Burt’s Wharf Resource Park. No community facilities or residential properties are within the areas of temporary or permanent land-take. The proposed option would improve the connectivity between the residents/commuters on both sides of the river.

182 TfL Planning River crossings: Assessment of Options East of Silvertown

Belvedere Bridge Likely residual impact Nature of Impact Mitigation Options significance Cultural heritage Slight adverse Evidence suggests there is a high potential for archaeological Further archaeological investigations will be required to remains dating from the prehistoric to post-medieval periods assess the potential impact the option will have on to be present on both side of the river within the Belvedere archaeological resources prior to the commencement of area. Excavations on both sides of the river have the potential construction. This will allow the formulation of any required to impact locally or regionally significant archaeological mitigation measures such as archaeological excavation in remains located within sub-surface deposits. The advance of construction works and the maintenance of archaeological remains, if present, are considered to be of archaeological watching briefs during construction works. local to regional significance. Two World War II anti-aircraft guns are located to the northern side of the river in this location. Ecology and Marine Large/Moderate adverse Potential for mortality to, or disturbance of protected marine Further surveys would be required to confirm the presence/ Nature species. absence of protected marine species from within the Conservation footprint of the options. Terrestrial Slight adverse /Neutral No significant adverse impacts on terrestrial ecology are Where possible, carry out construction works outside of the identified at this stage. The footprint of the bridge would winter period to minimise disturbance/ displacement of occupy areas of intertidal habitat used by foraging and roosing foraging and wintering birds. birds during the winter months). Given the amount of other Where possible, minimise the loss of valuable habitats, in suitable foraging and roosting opportunities in the vicinity it is particular intertidal habitats, Lower River Beam and For unlikely a small loss of intertidal habitat would have a Works Ditches SBI and Belvedere Dykes SBI. If this is not significant impact. possible, new habitat would need to be created to compensate for the loss. Where possible, align the option to avoid impacts on habitats potentially important for terrestrial invertebrates. Where possible, minimise the loss of valuable habitats, in particular intertidal habitats. Further surveys would be required to confirm the presence/absence of reptiles, great crested newts, black redstart, water voles, bats and badgers from within habitats affected by the option; and therefore confirm the need for mitigation. Effects on All travellers Moderate beneficial Connectivity across the river would be improved, journey During construction, provide a safe and clear diversion for length with be reduced and community severance alleviated drivers, pedestrians and cyclists in consultation with and improve access to community facilities. relevant authorities, together with appropriate signage. The road will offer elevated views over the lower Thames and adjacent industrial areas of Bexley and Havering. Driver stress may decrease if the congestion issues on the main roads in Bexley and Havering are addressed through the provision of a new bridge.

183 TfL Planning River crossings: Assessment of Options East of Silvertown

Belvedere Bridge Likely residual impact Nature of Impact Mitigation Options significance During construction, National Cycle Network Route 1 and footways are likely to be affected during construction on the south side of the river. Due to the predominantly industrial area and relatively high percentage of residents using private cars as their main mode of transport, it is anticipated that the number of potential receptors affected during the construction of the bridge is negligible. Construction will cause increased traffic due to construction deliveries and travel of operatives, and traffic disruption during works to increase the capacity of the connecting roads and junctions. Ground Conditions Moderate adverse Areas of contaminated soil are likely to be encountered within Adoption of appropriate health and safety practices and the footprint. During construction, direct contact with or completion of Health and Safety Risk Assessment, training inhalation of contaminated soil or sediment would cause harm for onsite workers. Mitigation such as damping down dust to human health of construction workers or site users. during construction or remediation of soil before Construction of bridge pier foundations into contaminated construction commences. A piling risk assessment should be ground may create pathways, resulting in leeching and carried out and detailed method statements should be migration of contamination to the underlying aquifers or prepared. Impacts arising from pilling works and surface water. The area is adjacent to a landfill, a likely source construction of access roads should be managed to ensure of ground gas. There is potential for gas to build up in any surface runoff is collected and prevented from entering excavations during construction and alter existing gas water receptors. If dewatering of excavations is required, migration pathways. The risk of encountering UXO is treatment of contaminated water may be required before considered to be high in this location therefore injury/death discharge. Detailed UXO mitigation strategy required and to construction workers is a risk. Aggressive ground conditions specialist banksmen present. Intrusive UXO clearance in (corrosive ground gases etc.) could cause piling locations. Specification of resistant materials in design damage/deterioration to buildings and structures. if aggressive chemicals/ground gas present. Materials Moderate Adverse Based on the amount of materials used and the impact of With appropriate planning, the majority of key wastes waste generated on existing waste management, a bridge in would have the potential to be re-used or recycled off-site, this location would have a moderate adverse impact. minimising the need for any waste arising to be sent to landfill. It is noted that this option would require the demolition of various existing structures. It is suggested that a pre- demolition audit is carried out prior to demolition to identify key waste materials and support the beneficial re- use and recycling of these materials. Water environment Slight adverse Pilling and earthworks associated with construction within Use of silt curtains to limit mobilisation of sedimentation. contaminated land would result in a risk of mobilising Implementation of environmental management protocols. contaminated sediments within the river, runoff of Remedial works, guided by results of further site

184 TfL Planning River crossings: Assessment of Options East of Silvertown

Belvedere Bridge Likely residual impact Nature of Impact Mitigation Options significance contaminated sediments to waterbodies and create pollution investigations and risk assessments, for example, on site pathways to groundwater aquifers. The use of pre-fabrication treatment of contaminated soils, cover systems and off site of several components of this design reduces the risk removal of contaminated materials. of pollution on site. Drainage design to incorporate adequate spillage Flood risk: Northern bridge approaches are largely located in containment and treatment of highway runoff prior to Flood Zone 1 (low risk); the southern approaches are located discharge to the water environment. Construction works in Flood Zone 3 and are at risk of flooding during a defence and waste management undertaken in accordance with EA failure/breach event. The bridge and approaches would span best practice pollution prevention guidelines over existing flood defences but diversion of the unnamed Limit potential for creational of pollution pathway through watercourse that drains the small catchment between the use of selectively placed cohesive backfill material or by use Beam and Ingrebourne Rivers would be required to facilitate of ground membranes. the works along the northern approach. Flood defences provide a high standard of protection and River flow velocity, scour and accretion: The alignment is actual risk is low. Manage residual risk through emergency located just upstream of a bend in the Thames channel where planning. flow velocities and depth of flow are less uniform, making the Detailed hydraulic assessments to inform design of scour effects of bridge piers more pronounced. protection measures Temporary berthing and access jetties would be required during the construction phase that would potentially significantly reduce the cross sectional area of flow through the stretch of river, affecting flow, velocity and water level locally. Townscape and Visual Impact Slight beneficial Structures could result in townscape and visual disruption that Bridge/infrastructure design to enhance local townscape conflicts with regional level policy (Blue Ribbon and views. Network/Thames Policy Areas) for the protection and enhancement of townscape and views. However, given the existing industrial context, including tall structures. Energy Neutral Potential impacts will be associated with the construction The utilisation of pre-fabricated components for arch activities required for this option including site compounds at connection and procuring the sustainable construction both river banks, construction of steel concrete composite material would mitigate the overall energy requirements bridge deck and pylons including the transportation of during construction. Also locally and sustainably sourcing of construction materials and on-site construction equipment. construction material would reduce the construction The bridge option does not contain any significant energy embodied emissions. related systems except street lighting, surveillance and traffic Energy efficient lighting should be used combined with day control systems. In addition, energy use relative to control and time sensors to control the energy wastage, this would any ancillary buildings – Low Impact benefit in reducing the likely CO2 emissions associated with this option. Ensure all buildings are built to energy efficient standards.

185 TfL Planning River crossings: Assessment of Options East of Silvertown

Belvedere Bridge Likely residual impact Nature of Impact Mitigation Options significance Noise and Vibration More detailed assessment Increases in noise on principal routes approaching the bridge Noise absorptive surfaces. Acoustic screens and the use of required on both side of the river low noise road surface could be incorporated into the design of the approach-roads. Air Quality More detailed assessment Overall impact broadly neutral No mitigation required but user charging could manage required demand

186 TfL Planning River crossings: Assessment of Options East of Silvertown

APPENDIX B - MODELLING Transport for London (TfL) has used a suite of traffic models to forecast the impact of several options to provide a new river crossing in East London. TfL’s London Regional Demand Model (LoRDM) uses population and employment figures (as contained in the Mayor’s London Plan) as well as assumptions from Government on economic growth to predict overall travel demand on both public transport and the highway network. This highway demand is then input into TfL’s River Crossings Highway Assignment Model (RXHAM), which represents the highway network in greater detail (than in LoRDM), to determine the routing of trips between their origins and destinations on the highway network.

TfL has modelled the impact of a number of potential river crossing options for the year 2021. The focus provided is on the weekday morning peak hour (08:00-09:00), however, results are also provided for some indicators for the average one hour interpeak (from 10:00-16:00), and for the afternoon peak hour (17:00-18:00).

It should be noted that the RXHAM is strategic in nature and is used to identify broad changes in traffic patterns across the highway network, as well as the magnitude of this change. The results should not be taken as a definitive forecast of future flows, especially on minor roads or at individual junctions. Also the models do not yet assume any mitigation measures that might be introduced such as changes to junction capacities or new traffic calming measures

Further models which would more accurately represent traffic flows and individual junctions closer to the proposed river crossings are currently being developed by TfL.

The model results do not include any land use changes that could occur as a result of changes in travel accessibility. The model however does take into account how trips might redistribute between the locations of future population and job changes, and how mode share might change.

Description of options tested The scenarios that were tested are outlined below:

1. A higher capacity ferry service at Woolwich Ferry (30% additional capacity each direction);

2. A ferry at Gallions Reach (double the capacity of the existing Woolwich Ferry) and the removal of Woolwich Ferry;

3. A bridge at Gallions Reach (comprising of one general traffic lane and one lane for HGV / buses in each direction) and the removal of the Woolwich Ferry;

4. A bridge at Belvedere (comprising of one general traffic lane and one lane for HGV / buses in each direction).

For all of the above options it was assumed that a new crossing (a tunnel) at Silvertown would be built connecting the North Greenwich Peninsula with the Royal Docks, with both the new crossing and Blackwall Tunnel being charged. The charge that was applied at Blackwall and Silvertown and to all the potential new river crossings (including any replacement Woolwich Ferry) was set at the Dartford crossing rate for cash payments for the morning and afternoon peak directions, and half

187 TfL Planning River crossings: Assessment of Options East of Silvertown

the rate in the inter-peak and in the contra-peak direction in the morning and evening peaks. It should be noted that further work on the appropriate level of charge would be undertaken including work on potential discounts to any charge.

To enable comparisons, TfL also forecast what highway conditions would be like in 2021 if:

1. no new river crossings were implemented at either Silvertown or further east along the River Thames compared to 2012;

2. just Silvertown Crossing was built and Blackwall were both charged.

188