DOCSLIB.ORG

Review of Lower Thames Crossing Options: Final Review Report

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Review of Lower Thames Crossing Options: Final Review Report April 2013 Review of Lower Thames Crossing Options: Final Review Report Prepared by: .................................................. Checked by: ........................................................... Andrew Currall, Senior Consultant Mark Dazeley, Associate Director Graham Powell, Regional Director Ian Burrows, Regional Director Jameel Hayat, Principal Consultant Mark Dazeley, Associate Director Approved by: .................................................. Paul Hanson, Regional Director Review of Lower Thames Crossing Options: Rev Comments Checked Approved Date No by by 1 Initial draft for comment MJD PAH 2012-11-14 2 Revised draft with updates following initial feedback MJD PAH 2012-11-21 3 As v2 with corrupt tables corrected MJD PAH 2012-11-22 4 Revisions following formal DfT feedback MJD PAH 2012-12-19 5 Further revisions following DfT feedback IB PAH 2013-02-22 6 Further revisions following DfT feedback IB PAH 2013-03-22 7 Further revisions following DfT feedback IB PAH 2013-04-25 8 Draft Issue for publication IB PAH 2013-05-10 9 Issue for publication IB PAH 2013-05-20 AECOM House, 63-77 Victoria Street, St Albans, Hertfordshire, AL1 3ER Telephone: 01727 535,000 Website: http://www.aecom.com Job No 60249197 Reference 09 Reports Date Created April 2013 This document has been prepared by AECOM Limited for the sole use of our client (the “Client”) and in accordance with generally accepted consultancy principles, the budget for fees and the terms of Reference agreed between AECOM Limited and the Client. Any information provided by third parties and referred to herein has not been checked or verified by AECOM Limited, unless otherwise expressly stated in the document. No third party may rely upon this document without the prior and express written agreement of AECOM Limited. Although this report was commissioned by the Department for Transport (DfT), the findings and recommendations are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the views of the DfT. The information or guidance in this document (including third party information, products and services), is provided by DfT on an 'as is' basis, without any representation or endorsement made and without warranty of any kind whether express or implied. p:\uksta1-tp-planning\projects\transport planning - review of lower thames crossing capacity options\09 - reports\output 4-5\130509 ltc review report.docx AECOM Review of Lower Thames Crossing Options: Final Review Report Table of Contents 1 Introduction..................................................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Purpose of this Report........................................................................................................... 1 1.2 Context .................................................................................................................................. 1 1.3 Scope of the Review.............................................................................................................. 2 1.4 Approach ............................................................................................................................... 4 1.5 Report Structure .................................................................................................................... 5 2 Review Methodology...................................................................................................................... 6 2.1 Purpose of Chapter ............................................................................................................... 6 2.2 Business Case Development ................................................................................................ 6 2.3 Specifying the Evidence Requirements................................................................................. 7 2.4 Overview of Developing the Evidence................................................................................... 8 2.5 Identifying Constraints........................................................................................................... 8 2.6 Costing and Engineering Feasibility ...................................................................................... 9 2.7 Development of Demand Forecasting Tools ....................................................................... 10 2.8 Development of Demand Forecasts.................................................................................... 12 2.9 Summary of Chapter ........................................................................................................... 13 3 The Strategic Case ....................................................................................................................... 14 3.1 Purpose of Chapter ............................................................................................................. 14 3.2 Business Strategy ...............................................................................................................14 3.3 The Need for Change.......................................................................................................... 15 3.4 Short to Medium Term Improvements................................................................................. 17 3.5 Objectives............................................................................................................................ 18 3.6 Measures of Success .......................................................................................................... 19 3.7 Scope of a Future Scheme.................................................................................................. 19 3.8 Other Considerations........................................................................................................... 19 3.9 Stakeholders’ Views ............................................................................................................ 21 3.10 Summary ............................................................................................................................. 22 4 The Economic Case ..................................................................................................................... 23 4.1 Purpose of Chapter ............................................................................................................. 23 4.2 Assumptions and Context ................................................................................................... 23 4.3 The Base Case.................................................................................................................... 24 4.4 Direct Impact of New Crossings at Location Options .......................................................... 26 4.5 Appraisal Summary Tables ................................................................................................. 34 4.6 Summary of impacts of all options....................................................................................... 39 4.7 Value for Money Assessments............................................................................................ 45 4.8 Value for Money Assessment: Option A.............................................................................. 46 4.9 Value for Money Assessment: Option B.............................................................................. 48 4.10 Value for Money Assessment: Option C.............................................................................. 49 4.11 Value for Money Assessment: Option Cvariant................................................................... 51 4.12 Comparison of Value for Money Assessments.................................................................... 52 4.13 Summary ............................................................................................................................. 53 5 The Commercial Case .................................................................................................................. 54 AECOM Review of Lower Thames Crossing Options: Final Review Report 5.1 Purpose of Chapter ............................................................................................................. 54 5.2 The Department for Transport’s experience of delivering project using private finance...... 54 5.3 Commercial Risks................................................................................................................54 5.4 Commercial Models............................................................................................................. 57 5.5 Update on the long-term debt funding market – April 2013................................................. 59 5.6 Summary of Key Findings ................................................................................................... 61 6 The Financial Case ....................................................................................................................... 63 6.1 Purpose of Chapter ............................................................................................................. 63 6.2 Methodology........................................................................................................................ 63 6.3 Revenue Collection Assumptions........................................................................................ 63 6.4 Balance Sheet Treatment of the Lower Thames Crossing.................................................. 64 6.5 Summary points on each of the Commercial Models.........................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Response Form
    Lower Thames Crossing Response form July 2021 Community impacts consultation Introduction In July 2020, we carried out a non-statutory design refinement consultation on our proposals for the Lower Thames Crossing, which would connect Kent, Thurrock, Havering and Essex through a tunnel beneath the River Thames. The design refinement consultation sought views on changes to our proposals presented during our supplementary consultation held earlier in January 2020, and updates to the project where further information had become available. After the design refinement consultation, we submitted our Development Consent Order (DCO) application in October 2020, but subsequently withdrew it based on early feedback from the Planning Inspectorate. This consultation explains the impacts of the project and how we plan to reduce them, as well as the changes we have made to the project since the design refinement consultation. These have been informed by feedback received from our stakeholders and ongoing design work. We want to get all aspects of the design, construction and operation of the Lower Thames Crossing right. We are seeking your views to help us shape our proposals further before we submit our DCO application to the Planning Inspectorate later this year. We are asking you a series of questions on the project’s impacts and our proposed mitigations, changes since the design refinement consultation, and our summary of how we have listened to and considered feedback on previous consultations. You are welcome to answer all or only some of the questions in this response form, depending on the issues that are most important to you. There is also an opportunity to comment generally on the project and this consultation.
    [Show full text]
  • Cabinet 8 March 2016 Lower Thames Crossing
    CABINET 8 MARCH 2016 LOWER THAMES CROSSING Portfolio Holder: Councillor Rodney Chambers OBE, Inward Investment, Strategic Regeneration and Partnerships Report from: Richard Hicks, Director Regeneration, Community & Culture Author: Ruth Du-Lieu, Head of Integrated Transport Summary The report sets out the proposals by Highways England to establish a Lower Thames Crossing between East Tilbury and Gravesend linking either to the A2 or the M2. The report outlines the likely impact on the strategic road network and recommends the response from Medway Council to the consultation. 1. Budget and Policy Framework 1.1 The Council’s response to Highways England’s consultation is consistent with the Council Plan 2016/2017 – 2020/2021 (Maximise Regeneration and Economic Growth). 1.2. The consultation by Highways England ends on 24 March 2016. 2. Background 2.1. Highways England (HE) is consulting on proposals for a new road crossing of the River Thames connecting Kent and Essex. The consultation spans 26 January to 24 March 2016. The new crossing is needed to reduce congestion at the existing Dartford Crossing and to unlock economic growth, supporting the development of new homes and jobs in the region. 2.2. For the past 50 years, the Dartford Crossing has provided the only road crossing of the Thames east of London. It is a crucial part of the UK’s major road network carrying local, national and international traffic. 2.3. Congestion and closure of the existing crossing occurs frequently and this, together with a lack of alternative transport links, creates significant disruption and pollution. This impacts communities and businesses locally, regionally and further afield.
    [Show full text]
  • Public-Private Partnerships Financed by the European Investment Bank from 1990 to 2020
    EUROPEAN PPP EXPERTISE CENTRE Public-private partnerships financed by the European Investment Bank from 1990 to 2020 March 2021 Public-private partnerships financed by the European Investment Bank from 1990 to 2020 March 2021 Terms of Use of this Publication The European PPP Expertise Centre (EPEC) is part of the Advisory Services of the European Investment Bank (EIB). It is an initiative that also involves the European Commission, Member States of the EU, Candidate States and certain other States. For more information about EPEC and its membership, please visit www.eib.org/epec. The findings, analyses, interpretations and conclusions contained in this publication do not necessarily reflect the views or policies of the EIB or any other EPEC member. No EPEC member, including the EIB, accepts any responsibility for the accuracy of the information contained in this publication or any liability for any consequences arising from its use. Reliance on the information provided in this publication is therefore at the sole risk of the user. EPEC authorises the users of this publication to access, download, display, reproduce and print its content subject to the following conditions: (i) when using the content of this document, users should attribute the source of the material and (ii) under no circumstances should there be commercial exploitation of this document or its content. Purpose and Methodology This report is part of EPEC’s work on monitoring developments in the public-private partnership (PPP) market. It is intended to provide an overview of the role played by the EIB in financing PPP projects inside and outside of Europe since 1990.
    [Show full text]
  • Lower Thames Crossing Statutory Consultation
    Lower Thames Crossing statutory consultation. Thank you for the opportunity to respond to the Lower Thames Crossing statutory consultation proposals. This response is made for and on behalf of the Dartford and Gravesham Cycling Forum. Introduction. The Dartford and Gravesham Cycling Forum (D&GCF) is a group that campaigns for policies and measures that enable people to choose cycling for their everyday journeys in Dartford and Gravesham. We believe that the best way to enable people to choose to cycle for their everyday journeys is to provide the appropriate infrastructure that enables people to cycle in a safe environment away from the dangers presented by motor vehicles. Ultimately D&GCF believes that congestion cannot be solved by building new roads and D&GCF is opposed to any additional crossing of the Thames that promotes the unrestricted growth of motor vehicle traffic. Our response to the consultation will focus on provision for Non-Motorised Users (NMUs) particularly on that made to enable people to choose to cycle. It will be based upon information provided in the current consultation and will refer to current design standards, principally those outlined in Interim Advice Note 195/16 (IAN 195/16). Our response will be limited to those elements of the scheme that are south of the River Thames. D&GCF believe that to deliver convenient safe and appealing routes that make it as easy as possible for people to walk, cycle or use other forms of active travel, the preferred design standards outlined in IAN 195/16 must be applied throughout the scheme. The scheme offers opportunities to decrease severance created by previous A2 realignment schemes.
    [Show full text]
  • Identification of Hedonomic Road Landscape in Lithuania
    Aplinkos tyrimai, inžinerija ir vadyba, 2010. Nr. 4(54), P. 72-78 ISSN 2029-2139 Environmental Research, Engineering and Management, 2010. No.4(54), P. 72-78 (On-line) Identification of Hedonomic Road Landscape in Lithuania Irina Matijošaitienė Department of Architecture and Land Management, Kaunas University of Technology (received in November, 2010, accepted in December, 2010) Hedonomics is quite a new branch of science which is closely related to ergonomics – where ergonomic needs, such as safety, functionality, usability, and hedonomic needs such as pleasurable experience and personal perfection just begin. Further analysis of the subject literature, and comparison of the facts about hedonomics allow us perceive hedonomic roadscape as a pleasurable roadscape. Since it is not clear how to identify hedonomic or pleasurable roadscape, the interdisciplinary roadscape evaluation method is proposed in the paper. The method is based on an assumption of a concept of hedonomic road landscape as an aspiration. The proposed method consists of a preparatory field research of roadscape including road landscape research and photo-fixation on the site, a survey method selection, questionnaires formation using Kansei engineering and SD (semantic differential) technique and a main research including sociological research and using cluster and contingency analysis. The author also identifies hedonomic and non- hedonomic landscape of main Lithuanian arterial roads which are labeled as European arterial roads and corridors of the network of European roads except for bypasses. Key words: road landscape (roadscape), hedonomic, cluster analysis, contingency analysis, Kansei engineering method, semantic differential method (SD technique). 1. Introduction A distinctive culture of travelling by car started to look wider at roadscape and its identification, and to develop in the USA at the beginning of the 20th to develop a solution at psychological, economic, century.
    [Show full text]
  • Lower Thames Crossing
    Lower Thames Crossing What is the Lower Thames Crossing? The Lower Thames Crossing is a proposed new road connecting Kent, Thurrock and Essex through a tunnel beneath the River Thames. It would provide much-needed new road capacity across the river east of London. On the south side of the River Thames, the new road would link to the A2 and M2 in Kent. On the north side, it would link to the A13 in Thurrock and the M25 in Havering. The tunnel crossing is located to the east of Gravesend on the south of the River Thames and to the west of East Tilbury on the north side. The Lower Thames Crossing proposals include: approximately 14.3 miles (23km) of new two 2.6-mile (4.3km) tunnels crossing roads connecting the tunnel to the existing beneath the river, one for southbound road network traffic, one for northbound traffic three lanes in both directions, apart from a free-flow charging system, where drivers the southbound connection between the do not need to stop but pay remotely, M25 and A13, where it would be two lanes, similar to that at the Dartford Crossing and around junctions traffic regulation measures that include technology providing lane control and prohibiting use by pedestrians, low- variable speed limits up to 70mph powered motorcycles, cyclists, horse riders upgrades to the M25, A2 and A13 where it and agricultural vehicles connects to those roads provision of environment mitigation and new structures and changes to existing replacement of special category land ones including bridges, viaducts and utilities such as electricity pylons.
    [Show full text]
  • Options for a New Lower Thames Crossing: Consultation Document
    Options for a New Lower Thames Crossing Consultation Document May 2013 The Department for Transport has actively considered the needs of blind and partially sighted people in accessing this document. The text will be made available in full on the Department’s website. The text may be freely downloaded and translated by individuals or organisations for conversion into other accessible formats. If you have other needs in this regard please contact the Department. Department for Transport Great Minster House 33 Horseferry Road London SW1P 4DR Telephone 0300 330 3000 Website www.gov.uk/dft General email enquiries [email protected] © Crown copyright 2013 Copyright in the typographical arrangement rests with the Crown. You may re-use this information (not including logos or third-party material) free of charge in any format or medium, under the terms of the Open Government Licence. To view this licence, visit www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open­ government-licence/ or write to the Information Policy Team, The National Archives, Kew, London TW9 4DU, or e-mail: [email protected]. Where we have identified any third-party copyright information you will need to obtain permission from the copyright holders concerned. Contents 1. Executive summary 4 2. Scope 6 3. Context 8 4. The need for change 11 The current problem 11 The future problem 12 5. The options 14 6. The review approach 16 Approach 16 Assumptions 18 Base case 18 7. The review findings 19 Common features 19 Comparison of impacts of the options 20 Costs, affordability and value for money 25 8.
    [Show full text]
  • Appendix a to the Council Minutes – 23 October 2019
    Appendix A to the Council Minutes – 23 October 2019 Item 6 – Questions from Members of the Public. There were 6 questions submitted from members of the public. 1. From Mrs Saunders to Councillor Watkins I would like to ask the Council why so many trees are being removed in Thurrock in particular Dell Road, this is near where I live, I’m in Rectory Road, the Orsett Cock roundabout, Rectory Road, Chadwell Road and we noticed some had been taken down near Coalhouse Fort whilst out walking. Thank you. Mayor Councillor Watkins, please respond to the question. Councillor Watkins Thank you very much Mr Mayor, and thank you to yourself as well Mrs Saunders. Trees can be removed for a multitude of different reasons, such as development or issues specifically related to that tree or for particular safety issues as well. I would just like to point out, and I’m not sure how you feel, but I don’t like seeing trees being taken down. They will only ever get taken down if there was ever an actual need to do so. In case you were wondering where, Cabinet in February, thanks to a motion which was passed actually through Council, approved of a Tree Planting Strategy, which would replace trees taken down on public land, tree planting within that was also back-dated as well, so there were sixty six trees being replaced in total. There’s also been additional ones, since the storm for example we’ve had this year, and in which trees which came down within that, those ones will equally be replaced.
    [Show full text]
  • Lower Thames Crossing Annexes 1-7 Technical Assessment
    Annex 1 Development (‘red line’) boundary Annex 2: Current Lower Thames Crossing Scheme Proposals Annex 3 Housing development quantities Table 1: Comparison of LTC model development inputs with adopted and emerging local plans and Government’s standard local housing need calculation (as at 2017) Local Core Scenario Phasing Comments Authority Assumptions (Housing only) – totals are cumulative (Figure is number of 2026 2031 2041 2051 dwellings 2009 – 25 used in LTC V2 model) Basildon 3,444 6,885 6,885 6,885 LTC not showing any housing development in Basildon post 2031. (6,800) Revised publication version of Local Plan (2014 – 34) going to Council 18 October 2018 with housing target of 17,791 or 889 dpa + area of search post 2031. See http://www.basildonmeetings.info/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=216&MId=6436 . Local Housing Need based on standard methodology (according to report) should now be around 991 dpa. If this figure is correct, then the local housing need over the period to opening of LTC (2016 -26) would be around 9,900 dwellings compared to 3,444 used in modelling. For period to design year (2016 – 41) the local housing requirement based on 991 dpa would be 24,775. The modelling therefore is based on a housing figure that is around 17,890 below what might reasonably be expected for the design year if growth targets are met. Even if the lower 889 dpa was to be rolled forward over the period 2016 – 41, this would result in a housing requirement of 22,225 with the 6,885 figure used in the modelling representing a 15,340 dwelling shortfall.
    [Show full text]
  • Barking and Dagenham from High Road to Longridge Road
    i.i—^Ufcflikmr R|LONDON^THE LQIVDON BOROUGHS NDTHE DAGENHAM v^-m NEWHAM IB, HAVERING LB 'Ii "^1 « HAVERING DAGENHAM •*'j&* J$! «V^v • REPORT NO. 660 LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOUNDARY COMMISSION FOR ENGLAND REPORT NO 660 LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOUNDARY COMMISSION FOR ENGLAND CHAIRMAN Mr K F J Ennals CB MEMBERS Mr G R Prentice Mrs H R V Sarkany Mr C W Smith Professor K Young -4 ,« CONTENTS Paragraphs Introduction 1-5 Our approach to the review of Greater London 6-10 The initial submissions made to us 11 Our draft and further draft proposals letters and the responses to them 12-18 Barking & Dagenham/Redbridge/Havering boundaries: the salient between Chadwell Heath and Marks Gate 19-20 The salient and Marks Gate 21-37 Chadwell Heath and East Road area 38-44 Crow Lane 45-52 Barking & Dagenham/Redbridge boundary St Chad's Park 53-55 The Becontree Estate 56-72 South Park Drive 73-74 Victoria Road 75-79 Barking & Dagenham/Newham boundary River Roding and the A406 80-93 Electoral Consequentials 94 Conclusion 95 Publication 96-97 THE RT HON MICHAEL HOWARD QC MP SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE ENVIRONMENT LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT 1972 REVIEW OF GREATER LONDON, THE LONDON BOROUGHS AND THE CITY OF LONDON THE LONDON BOROUGH OF BARKING & DAGENHAM AND ITS BOUNDARIES WITH THE LODON BOROUGHS OF REDBRIDGE, NEWHAM AND HAVERING (AT MARKS GATE AND CROW LANE ONLY) COMMISSION'S FINAL REPORT INTRODUCTION 1. This is our final report on the boundaries between the London Borough of Barking & Dagenham and its neighbouring local authorities.
    [Show full text]
  • A13 Road Widening (Stanford-Le-Hope Bypass)
    A13 Road Widening (Stanford-le-Hope Bypass) The A13 connects central London with the southeast coast of Essex via Thurrock. Whilst designated a local road, it is a critical arterial route in the east of England, and a vital part of the UK’s national road network. A13 Widening (Stanford-le-Hope Bypass) The road is currently a two-lane dual-carriageway between its junctions with the A128 and A1014. Increasing its capacity will increase its potential to accommodate growth, supporting long-term local investment and national productivity. What is planned? Plans are underway to widen the A13 Stanford-le-Hope Bypass from two to three lanes in both directions, from the junction with the A128 (Orsett Cock roundabout) in the west and the A1014 (The Manorway) to the east. This widened section of road will tie-in with the existing three-lane section of the A13 to the west of the junction with A128. It will also link with work already carried out at the junction with the A1014. Works will begin once £80million of committed government funding is secured. A further £10million will be provided by DP World London Gateway. What will happen? Construction work will involve the demolition and re-building of four bridges across the widened road. The new bridges will be built next to where the current ones stand, allowing traffic to flow normally for as long as possible. The junction at the Orsett Cock roundabout would be rebuilt to tie in with the new bridge locations. Other road widening plans include: • widening the central reservation and verges for better visibility on bends • relocation of noise barriers • new embankments • new safety fencing • new drainage and flood control • new road lighting • public utility diversions • new landscaping There will be no demolition of properties next to the A13.
    [Show full text]
  • London Borough of Newham
    LONDON BOROUGH OF BARKING & DAGENHAM PLANNING COMMITTEE 14 September 2020 Application for S73 Variation to an Outline Planning Permission Case Officer: Nasser Farooq Valid Date: 17/06/2020 London Borough of Barking Applicant: Expiry Date: 16/09/2020 and Dagenham Application Number: 20/01251/VAR Ward: Gascoigne Ward Address: Gascoigne Estate East King Edwards Road, Barking, Barking And Dagenham, The purpose of this report is to set out the Officer recommendations to Planning Committee regarding an application for a Section 73 Variation to an outline planning permission relating to the proposal below at Gascoigne Estate East King Edwards Road, Barking. Proposal: Application for variation of condition 2 (approved parameter plans) in respect of permission 19/00310/FUL. To amend approved parameter plans in relation to Development Parcels I and J. Consented development 19/00310/FUL Hybrid (part full/part outline) application for the phased comprehensive redevelopment of the site for a maximum of 1,575 residential dwellings (Use Class C3); 21,550 sq. m of Education (Use Class D1); 1,355 sq. m Medical facility (Use Class D1); 1,200 sq. m of Employment (Use Class B1); 1,400 sq. m of Community facilities (Use Class D1/D2); 1,850 sq. m of flexible commercial floor space (within Use Classes A1, A2, A3, and B1); 1,000 sq. m to be used as a place of worship (Use Class D1) or employment (Use Class B1); and Energy Centre (all figures given as maximum gross external area); with associated means of access, car parking, landscaping, service infrastructure and other associated works and improvements.
    [Show full text]