Mayor Boris Johnson’s claims to be cleaning up London’s air are meaningless while he’s proposing to build polluting new roads in east and south-east London, campaigners against his Silvertown Tunnel have told MPs.
While the mayor talks up his plans for a low-emissions zone in a limited area of central London, the No to Silvertown Tunnel campaign warns the mayor is “failing to see the connection between traffic levels and air pollution in London’s inner and outer suburbs”.
Johnson’s submission also ignores his lack of action in transport and planning policies, including proposing to load more traffic onto the A102 and A2 through south-east London by building a road crossing between Greenwich Peninsula and Silvertown.
Traffic generated by the Silvertown Tunnel would blight communities south of the river from Eltham to Greenwich, and from Wapping to Silvertown and Canning Town north of the Thames.
The No to Silvertown Tunnel campaign has responded by asking MPs to quiz Johnson on why boroughs such as Tower Hamlets, Lewisham, Greenwich and Newham aren’t in his “ultra-low emissions zone”, and to ask why he is embarking on a road-building programme when studies have shown that building roads simply generates extra traffic and pollution.
The campaign has already undertaken two studies of air pollution in the area, to demonstrate just how bad the situation is currently.
“If the mayor was serious about cutting air pollution, he would be scrapping his road-building programme and expanding public transport connections between east and south-east London so residents did not have to resort to their cars to make relatively short journeys,” campaign spokesman Darryl Chamberlain says.
Transport for London is expected to launch a new consultation on the Silvertown Tunnel later this year. Currently, TfL is consulting on separate plans to build bridges at Gallions Reach and Belvedere, which the campaign is advising supporters to vote against.
Full text of our submission to the Environmental Audit Committee:
Thank you for giving us the opportunity to make observations on City Hall’s written submission to the Committee. As campaigners against a new road tunnel between the Greenwich Peninsula and the Royal Docks, we note that once again, the Mayor is failing to see the connection between traffic levels and air pollution in London’s inner and outer suburbs. Indeed, while his Ultra Low Emission Zone is welcome news for central London, it risks merely exporting pollution to residential districts which are already blighted by illegal levels of nitrogen dioxide in the atmosphere.
The mayor’s submission ignores his lack of action in transport and planning policies, which we will deal with in the answers to your questions.
1) How effective have GLA policies on air pollution been so far?
We believe that as long as the Greater London Authority plans to build new road-based river crossings to the east of London, many of City Hall’s policies on air pollution will be rendered worthless in boroughs such as Greenwich, Bexley, Newham and beyond. These areas in particular are threatened by his proposals for the Silvertown Tunnel, a vehicle-only crossing between the Greenwich Peninsula and the Royal Docks which will add extra traffic to the approaches to the Blackwall Tunnel, which are already congested in both directions.
A more recent study of the widening of the A206 in Crayford – a scheme promoted by the previous mayor – bears this out, this mayor plans to compound the error by adding a nearby river crossing to Rainham. And a study for Newham Council reveals huge increases in traffic through Woolwich, Plumstead, Abbey Wood and Bexleyheath if a road bridge at Gallions Reach goes ahead.
If the mayor was serious about cutting air pollution, he would be scrapping his road-building programme, and expanding public transport connections between east and south-east London so residents did not have to resort to their cars to make relatively short journeys.
Indeed, the mayor appears to be putting too much trust in boroughs on air quality issues. The worst air pollution in Greenwich borough is in the area by Plumstead station, yet that does not appear on his list of focus areas. Nor does Woolwich Road in Charlton, another area blighted by poor air, and one that will suffer if the Silvertown Tunnel is built. It is also surprising to discover that Bexley has just one air quality focus area, in Erith – despite frequent traffic congestion in areas such as Welling.
2) What are the pros and cons of the proposed ultra-low emission zone?
Clearly, the ultra-low emission zone (ULEZ) is great news for those who live in central London. But in practice, it will make little difference to the vast majority of Londoners. Indeed, it risks exporting the problem further out, rather than dealing with the problem. If the mayor wishes to make a tangible difference to Londoners’ lives, he should be extending the ULEZ far beyond central London. But instead, he is happy to encourage polluting traffic from Kent and Essex to use inner London as a rat run, by pressing for the Silvertown Tunnel.
3) What questions should we be asking the mayor?
– Why have you not included the boroughs of Southwark, Lewisham, Greenwich, Tower Hamlets and Newham in the ULEZ?
– What effect would including the boroughs of Southwark, Lewisham, Greenwich, Tower Hamlets and Newham in the ULEZ have on your plans to build road crossings at Silvertown and Gallions Reach?
– Why do you continue to push a road-building programme when studies have proved that building new roads generates more traffic?
– Do you accept studies that show building more roads generates more traffic?
– What are you doing to challenge London boroughs to up their game when it comes to dealing with issues surrounding air pollution?
– What consideration do you give to air quality when assessing planning applications?
– What have you done to address poor air quality outside central London?
We hope the committee finds these observations and questions useful.
If you’re coming from south of the river, you could take the cable car to the Newham Waterfront Festival
We’ll be in Silvertown itself on Saturday 20 September, meeting people at the Newham Waterfront Festival, which begins at 2pm at the Royal Victoria Dock.
There’ll be fun for all the family, with free, themed children’s activities including an interactive bubble show, storytelling and a mermaid dancing show. There’ll be live music from 70s band The Real Thing, and walking tours of the Royal Docks with historian Kathy Chater, before the day ends with a fireworks display at 7.45pm.
You’ll also be able to meet us and talk about the threat to the Royal Docks posed by the Silvertown Tunnel, which would emerge just a few hundred yards from the festival site. We’ll be on land that’s been kindly given to us for the day by the directors of Britannia Village, the housing development that faces onto the dock.
Much has been said about the threat the Silvertown Tunnel poses to communities south of the river, but increased traffic flows generated by the tunnel would also blight areas through Wapping, Limehouse, Poplar, Silvertown and Canning Town.
Britannia Village residents are among those under threat from TfL’s plans for the tunnel, which have been endorsed by Newham Council and its elected mayor Sir Robin Wales. We’re grateful to the BV management for allowing us to join them for the afternoon.
If you’re coming from north of the river, take the DLR to Royal Victoria or buses 147 or 241. If you’re coming from south of the Thames, we’ll be right underneath the cable car – Greenwich and Newham residents can get half-price return tickets.
Transport for London is currently consulting on options for new road-based river crossings at Gallions Reach and Belvedere. This particular consultation does not include the Silvertown Tunnel; that will be subject to a separate consultation, currently expected to start later in September.
As you’d expect, the No to Silvertown Tunnel campaign is focusing on the proposal for a road tunnel between Greenwich and the Royal Docks. But as the issues are inextricably linked, we’re keeping a close eye on all developments, including these. If you’re concerned about the Silvertown Tunnel, we suggest you take an interest in this too and familiarise yourself with both sides of the argument.
We’ll be responding to this consultation, and we’ll be publishing our draft response. If you’re responding too, we’ve put together this guide to the consultation, with suggestions for answers to particular questions. The deadline’s 18 September (it’s been extended from its original closing date because of technical problems with TfL’s website).
Please note that this is only a guide based on our own reading of the proposals. We will, of course, be publishing guidance on how to respond to the Silvertown Tunnel consultation once it is launched.
THE QUESTIONS
The online consultation has 15 questions. Questions 1-8 asks for views on the 4 options that TfL has proposed:
1-2: a new ferry at Woolwich by the early 2020s,
3-4: a new ferry service at Gallions Reach by the early 2020s,
5-6: a bridge at Gallions Reach by 2022-2025,
7-8: a bridge at Belvedere by 2025-2030.
Each of the options has a space where respondents can write in comments.
Question 9 asks respondents to select the option(s) they think TfL should progress. Including an option that says “I do not agree that there is a need for more river crossings”
Question 10 gives space for further comments
Question 11 asks for name, question 12 email address, question 13 home postcode, and question 14 if responding on behalf of an organisation its name.
Question 15 asks how respondents heard about the consultation.
SUGGESTED RESPONSES
QUESTIONS 1-2.
Option 1 – Select support or strongly support. We believe a free ferry, open to pedestrians and cyclists as well as motor traffic, is an essential part of Woolwich’s character – and the current proposals threaten its future.
QUESTIONS 3-4.
Option 2 – Select oppose. Under current plans, a ferry at Gallions Reach would mean the loss of the Woolwich Ferry. It could also be precursor to a road bridge between Beckton and Thamesmead.
QUESTIONS 5-6.
Option 3 – In light of the questions in the consultation and the options provided, the No to Silvertown Tunnel campaign has decided its position for the consultation should be to oppose the building of a bridge at Gallions Reach.
We appreciate that not everyone who opposes the construction of the Silvertown Tunnel would also necessarily oppose the construction of other river crossings in the area, so we strongly recommend that you read the documents and make up your own mind. Our opposition to the bridge at Gallions Reach is based on the fact that the principles of extra traffic brought about by road building apply equally to this proposal as they do to the Silvertown Tunnel. Building a bridge at Gallions will also increase pressure for a road linking it to the A2, putting homes in Plumstead and ancient Oxleas Woods under threat.
QUESTIONS 7-8
Option 4 – Again, based on the information given in the consultation documents, we have decided to oppose the proposal for a bridge between Belvedere and Rainham. In our opinion, the same issues of traffic growth apply here as with Gallions – and have been proved by a recent study into the widening of the A206 in Crayford, that showed both increased traffic and pollution once the road was widened. This is the road that would carry traffic to any new bridge. Once again, we recommend you review the information and assess the pros and cons yourself.
QUESTION 9 – Select the box for the ferry at Woolwich. We believe action should be taken to reduce traffic coming into London, and public transport connections improved, before any new road-based crossings are considered.
QUESTION 10 – Please use this space to express your opposition to the Silvertown Tunnel. In particular, please express your objection to the proposals’ assumption that the Silvertown Tunnel will already have been built – meaning that these proposals are, in part, an ill-conceived attempt to repair the damage that the Silvertown Tunnel will cause.
Stumped for words? Try these:
“I object to this consultation on the basis that it mistakenly assumes that the Silvertown Tunnel will be built. The Silvertown Tunnel has not been fully consulted on, and it is not clear that it will ever be built. Transport for London has not made an economic case for the Silvertown Tunnel and has not justified its case that a tunnel would alleviate the congestion and air pollution on the approaches to the Blackwall Tunnel. It is wrong to base this consultation and the underlying traffic projections on an insecure assumption and it is therefore entirely flawed.
“Indeed, all studies of road-building done over many years show that building roads brings new traffic, so these proposals would increase congestion and consequently pollution.
“I also object to the proposals, which appear to be an ill-conceived attempt to relieve the congestion that is being caused by lack of public transport and provisions for pedestrians and cyclists.
“It should be a much higher priority to get polluting traffic off the road altogether, by improving public transport and pedestrian and cycle connections in east and south-east London, and to make existing crossings more efficient by dropping the tolling at the Dartford Crossing and improving traffic flow at the Blackwall Tunnel.”
Questions 11-15 complete as appropriate.
While this consultation does not directly involve the Silvertown Tunnel, the more people take the opportunity to object to the proposals, the better. We’d also ask that you copy your responses to your local councillors, MP and London Assembly members to remind them of the huge opposition to the Silvertown Tunnel.
Southbound queues on the A102 will be even more common if the Silvertown Tunnel is built
We’re holding a public meeting on 20 October to update supporters on our progress and to hear your opinions on the Silvertown Tunnel and related issues.
It’s possible TfL will have launched a new consultation into its proposals by them, so we’re keeping the format flexible. But whatever happens, please clear a space in your diary and come along to say hello on 20 October – it’ll be good to see you.
It’ll be held at Mycenae House, 90 Mycenae Road, SE3 7SE on Monday 20 October at 8pm.
Our Lewisham People’s Day stand in Mountsfield Park
Here’s the latest news from the No to Silvertown Tunnel campaign.
COME AND MEET US AT CHARLTON’S HORN FAYRE THIS SUNDAY
We’ve been out and about this summer, meeting new supporters and letting people know exactly what Boris Johnson is planning for east and southeast London. We had a great time at both the Plumstead Make Merry festival on 7 June, and Lewisham People’s Day on 12 July.
We’re not stopping there. Come and see us at the Horn Fayre in Charlton Park this coming Sunday (27 July, 11am-4pm). And in September we’re hoping to be at an event in Britannia Village, Silvertown – we’ll have more details nearer the time.
NEW RIVER CROSSINGS CONSULTATION – GALLIONS AND BELVEDERE
You may have heard about a new public consultation launched by Transport for London into new Thames road crossings at Gallions Reach, between Beckton and Thamesmead, and further downriver between Belvedere and Rainham.
The No To Silvertown Tunnel campaign is focusing on the existing proposal, for a road tunnel between Greenwich and the Royal Docks. We don’t have a policy on other river crossings, real or imagined.
But as the issues are inextricably linked, we’re keeping a close eye on all developments, including these ones for Gallions and Belvedere. If you’re concerned about the Silvertown Tunnel, we suggest you take an interest in this too and familiarise yourself with both sides of the argument.
No to Silvertown Tunnel campaign members are currently wading through the small print of TfL’s official consultation documents, and have uncovered some interesting assumptions that simply don’t stack up.
The public consultation closes in September, and TfL may release more details through the summer. So, for the time being, we suggest that you hold fire with any responses.
Well before the consultation period closes, we will come back with detailed thoughts on the TfL proposals that you may wish to include in any response.
HAVE YOU BEEN AFFECTED BY POLLUTION? TELL US YOUR STORIES
We are looking for stories about how traffic and pollution have affected your life. If your health has suffered, or you simply cannot hang washing outside owing to the filthy air, please drop us a line at info@silvertowntunnel.co.uk. Your story could be valuable in building up the case against the Silvertown Tunnel.
KEPT AWAKE BY TRAFFIC? HELP US MEASURE NOISE
Another effect of an increase in traffic on the Blackwall Tunnel approaches and other roads would be an increase in noise levels. Noise pollution blights local communities, contributing greatly to stress and other health problems.
Take, for example, the A102, which passes right next to people’s homes and gardens. Would you be willing to record sound levels for us, using free applications available for smartphones and tablets? If your street is affected by traffic noise, and you would like to take part in this citizen science exercise, please drop us a line at info@silvertowntunnel.co.uk.
Summer’s here and has brought with it all sorts of fêtes and festivals to our part of town. We’re keen to talk to as many people in our area as we can so we thought we’d go along to the Plumstead Make Merry. The Make Merry’s a fabulous community event – all kinds of people are represented, from political parties to local companies, to groups like us – 7,000 people turned up to have a look around, have their face painted, hook a penguin or listen to the bands.
Things did not get off to a very auspicious start: it was raining stair-rods as we turned up to put our stall up and we trudged about trying to put our balloons, badges and leaflets in order. The weather is obviously on Plumstead’s side, though, and just as the fête opened to the public the sun broke through and it was wonderful for the rest of the day.
As you know, one of our biggest concerns about the planned tunnel is the effect it will have on South East London’s air quality. As air pollution is largely invisible, we thought we could all do with some help trying to visualise what it might look like, so we enlisted some very talented children to draw us some pictures:
Meanwhile we spoke to their parents about our concerns about the Silvertown Tunnel. Time and again we were telling people about plans they knew nothing about. We’re not really surprised – this has been our experience so far when talking to people round and about – but we are concerned. We know the public won’t have much time to consider the proposals when the consultation on the development starts later in the year, so we need to keep putting our message out. We handed out our No to Silvertown Tunnel badges – this season’s must-have accessory – to as many people as we could, and we hope they find as many chances to wear them as they can.
Our stall wasn’t the only thing happening last Saturday: Darryl Chamberlain and Stewart Christie of our committee were presented with Clean Air in Cities Awards for 2014 by Simon Birkett, the Director of Clean Air in London to recognise their contribution to improving air quality in London. It’s always good to see hard work rewarded – well done, Darryl and Stewart!
We’ll be out and about again over the summer: you can find us next at Lewisham’s People Day on 12th July 2014. Come down and join in the fun – we hope to see you there!
This morning’s fire close to the Blackwall Tunnel approach has revealed the “insanity” of plans by the Mayor of London to build a new road across the Thames from there to the Royal Docks, campaigners against the Silvertown Tunnel have warned.
A fire in a repair yard at Peterboat Close has caused closures on the A102 as the London Fire Brigade works to put the blaze out, with smoke billowing across the area earmarked for a Silvertown Tunnel approach road.
Transport for London, Greenwich Council and Newham Council claim a Silvertown Tunnel would provide an alternative route for drivers affected by delays at the Blackwall Tunnel.
But today’s fire shows their claims to be misleading, as it has resulted in the closure of the A102 as far south as the Sun-in-the-Sands roundabout, causing frustration for thousands of drivers – a closure that would also hit the increased levels of traffic that would also be using the Silvertown Tunnel.
The site of the fire is adjacent to where Transport for London wants to build the slip roads for the Silvertown Tunnel.
At 10am on Thursday, queues were fanning out across south-east London – something a new road tunnel would only make worse.
Transport for London has predicted a 20% increase in traffic using the tunnel approaches if a Silvertown Tunnel is built, while mayor Boris Johnson has said the capacity would be “doubled”. Greenwich Council and Newham Council have backed TfL’s plans.
“We’re pleased to hear nobody has been injured in the incident, but today’s fire has shown the insanity of TfL’s plans for a new road tunnel at Blackwall – the road network simply can’t cope with it,” No to Silvertown Tunnel spokesperson Darryl Chamberlain said.
“It’s a sad fact that the A102 and A2 are often closed by accidents and other incidents – yet Boris Johnson, Greenwich Council and Newham Council want to rely on these roads more and more to get people across the river. None of them have even put together an economic case for the tunnel.
“The Silvertown Tunnel’s just a lazy cop-out of an idea. We should be looking at getting more traffic off the roads and building more public transport and making it easier and safer to walk and cycle, instead of encouraging more traffic and wondering why there’s gridlock when something goes wrong.”
The fire comes as No to Silvertown Tunnel releases the results of its second “citizen science” survey of air quality, conducted in association with Don’t Dump on Deptford’s Heart and Network for Clean Air.
The readings, which were taken at sites across five London boroughs in January, show horrifying pollution levels right where people live, work, shop, and go to school.
Results included levels of over two-and-a-half times the EU air pollution limit next to the A102 at Bramshot Avenue, Charlton, a favourite route for children to walk to school, and levels well above the EU limit at schools in Deptford and Charlton.
Smog and traffic which can only get heavier: Charlton Road, 5pm on 2 April
Welcome to the April update from the No to Silvertown Tunnel campaign.
You can’t have failed to notice the recent grotty air in London. Dust from Saharan sand has made the problem of pollution all too visible, but it’s home made motor vehicle traffic that causes most of the problem. We’re calling on Transport for London as well as Newham and Greenwich Councils to ‘get the sand out of their eyes’and accept that building new roads such as the Silvertown tunnel will only make this worse.
We’ve submitted evidence to two official consultations. One was on amendments to the Mayor’s London Plan, which would swing planning policy in London behind building more new roads. The other was from the London Health Commission, on how transport impacts our health.
We’re now up and running with our bank account. If you would like to support our work, the details are:
Sort code: 08-92-99
Account number: 65714195
Account name: NO TO SILVERTOWN TUNNEL CAMPAIGN
Would you or your community group like to carry out your own study of air pollution in your area? Mapping for Change is offering funding to help four community groups to undertake air quality mapping projects, similar to the ones we have carried out. Applications need to be with them by 30 April.
Did you know there are local elections coming up next month? If you get a candidate on your doorstep, or one of their helpers, ask them what they think of the Silvertown Tunnel. Are they going to fight it? Then please tell us what they said – info@silvertowntunnel.co.uk.
Do you want to see more spaces for cycling in your neighbourhood? You can use the London Cycling Campaign’s #space4cycling campaignto ask your local councillors and candidates to help push for cycle safety – and why not add a message about the Silvertown Tunnel as well?
Is there something else you’d like to know or would you like to be involved in any future volunteer projects that we run? You can drop us a line at info@silvertowntunnel.co.uk, or find us on Facebook orTwitter.
Thanks for all your support so far,
from all of us at the No to Silvertown Tunnel Campaign
The Isle of Dogs from Shooters Hill, taken at 1pm on Wednesday 2 April
Politicians in Greenwich and Newham need to “get the sand out of their eyes”, and accept that building new roads will only make air pollution worse, says the No to Silvertown Tunnel campaign.
Dust from a sandstorm in the Sahara has all too visibly contributed this week to air pollution in London and elsewhere, but by far the biggest airborne hazard to our and our children’s health is invisible. This pollution is man-made, and comes in the form of vehicle exhaust emissions.
Children, walkers, joggers and cyclists eager to enjoy the welcome spring warmth and sunshine have been advised to stay indoors, but no politician has so far had the courage to warn people against driving in London during the latest pollution incident. Contrast this with Paris, which imposes temporary driving restrictions to protect the population.
London mayor Boris Johnson, supported by borough councils in Greenwich, Newham and Bexley, is enthusiastically backing plans for a Silvertown road tunnel linking Greenwich and the Royal Docks. Unashamedly dubbed by Johnson “Blackwall 2”, the proposed Silvertown Tunnel will bring more yet traffic to the already highly congested Blackwall Tunnel approaches and Lower Lea Crossing.
It will blight local communities, worsening the quality of life in areas such as Greenwich, Eltham, Charlton, Blackheath, Kidbrooke, Canning Town, Poplar and beyond.
Smog and southbound traffic which can only get heavier if the Silvertown Tunnel is built: Charlton Road, 5pm on 2 April
A wealth of traffic engineering studies show that roadbuilding tends to increase traffic levels and congestion rather than smooth existing traffic flow. Increased air pollution then follows, and as a result we all suffer, with our children experiencing the worst of it. Their bodies are still forming, and are thus especially susceptible to long-term damage from the environmental toxins in motor vehicle exhausts.
Other London boroughs, including Lewisham and Tower Hamlets, have expressed grave concerns about the effect of a Silvertown Tunnel. However, Greenwich and Newham councils are strongly in favour of a new road tunnel.
The No to Silvertown Tunnel campaign says locals should be quizzing candidates in next month’s council election about whether they back a road-building project which will blight their neighbourhoods.
No to Silvertown Tunnel spokesman Darryl Chamberlain says: “The Saharan dust cloud is natural, but the pollution caused by traffic is man-made.
“Joggers have been told not to take their exercise, but nobody is addressing the root cause of air pollution. That is motor traffic.
“Instead, we have local politicians who want to make matters worse by building a Silvertown road tunnel, even though there is not a shred of evidence that it will bring real economic benefits. A Silvertown Tunnel will only add to traffic congestion which is already unbearable.
“Politicians need to get the sand out of their eyes. A Silvertown tunnel is no solution to our pollution.”
One of London’s great views blighted by smog. Greenwich Park, 8pm on 2 April
Over the last few months we’ve been working away on our campaign:
January saw us carry out an even bigger citizen science project: our volunteers placed pollution monitoring equipment in 100 locations across south east and east London. We joined forces with Don’t Dump On Deptford’s Heart, who conducted their own tests at the same time at another 50 locations, supported by Network for Clean Air. The project will give us a much better picture of the current levels of nitrogen dioxide pollution in our neighbourhoods – particularly as our last experiment was carried out in the summer, and past experience shows that pollution is generally higher in the winter. We’re waiting for the results now, and we’ll let you know what we find out.
We arranged for Dr Ian Mudway of King’s College London – you may remember hearing him speak at our public meeting last October – to extend his survey of the respiratory health of primary school children to Fossdene School, Charlton. This is important work that will show how children are affected by London’s air quality, and no data had been collected from south east London before now.
We also formally constituted our group and elected our committee and officers. Our constitution’s available to anyone that would like to see it – let us know and we’ll send it on if you’re interested.
Air quality in our local area has been in the news quite a bit recently. You might have seen some of the coverage:
Transport for London are currently carrying out a survey on air quality: it closes on 13 April. Please do respond and tell them that you don’t want a Silvertown tunnel adding to air pollution in our area!
Is there something else you’d like to know or would you like to be involved in any future volunteer projects that we run? You can drop us a line at info@silvertowntunnel.co.uk, or if you’re the Twitter type, you can find us at @NoSilvertownTnl
We will soon be up and running with a Bank account. If you think you would like to contribute to the funding of our campaign, please also get in touch at info@silvertowntunnel.co.uk.
The people of London know all too well the foul state of the air they breathe, and scientific studies confirm that air pollution from motor vehicle exhausts routinely exceeds statutory limits designed to protect our health. Pollution from vehicle fumes can lead to respiratory illness and premature death, and the problem is particularly acute in many British cities.
Following persistent breaches of regulations governing air-borne pollutants such as nitrogen oxides and particulate matter produced in the burning of fossil fuels, the European Commission las month launched legal proceedings against the UK for failing to deal with poor air quality. As with all EU regulations, the 2008 air pollution directive was drawn up with full and equal participation from the UK government.
As concerned residents of southeast London, we in the No to Silvertown Tunnel campaign have in the past year conducted two citizen science experiments looking at nitrogen dioxide levels near to major roads, including those linked with the Blackwall Tunnel. In the first of these studies, concentrations of nitrogen dioxide were found to exceed legal limits at around half of the monitored locations. In the worst case, the pollution level was nearly twice the permitted maximum. Results from the second, more extensive survey are due soon – watch this space.
Given the perilous and worsening state of our air, the Mayor of London and other local politicians should do away with plans to bring even more traffic congestion and pollution to the region. We are calling on them to scrap plans for a Silvertown road tunnel, and instead support sustainable Thames river crossings which prioritise public transport, pedestrians and cyclists.
It’s two months since we revealed the results of our first pollution study along the approaches to the Silvertown Tunnel. Our findings have prompted a debate that neither the Mayor of London nor Greenwich Council wanted to have – about pollution and congestion in our part of south-east London.
We’ve changed minds, too – with Labour hopefuls to be their candidate in Greenwich & Woolwich speaking out against the tunnel, and local Liberal Democrats have come out against it as well. And only a fortnight ago, Lewisham Council restated its worries about a tunnel that its neighbours in Greenwich are blindly backing.
It’s clear that the backers of the Silvertown Tunnel have no evidence that it will do any good. We have evidence that it will do harm. But we need to persuade more people of this – the tunnel still appears in TfL’s new business plan, released last week.
So we’re planning a new pollution study, to take place in January. And we’d like you to get involved. You can either help us fit tubes, or help us fund them, or both.
This study will be bigger than the one we carried out this summer. It’ll stretch out further along roads which will be affected by the Silvertown Tunnel. This will give us more comprehensive results, and will enable us to get wider media attention.
It’ll run along the A2 into Welling, Sidcup and Bexleyheath. Homes here face onto a motorway-style dual carriageway which will have to accommodate more traffic if the Silvertown Tunnel is built. Despite this, Bexley Council backs the new crossing.
We’ll be surveying along the A200 Creek Road and Evelyn Street, through Deptford and up to the Rotherhithe one-way system. If the Silvertown Tunnel is built, these streets face a huge increase in traffic.
Our study will also look further along the South Circular Road, towards Catford, to look at the impact on a road which is already busy and bears the brunt whenever there is a problem on the Blackwall Tunnel approach.
Think your area should be involved? Then get in touch. We already have community groups in Deptford pledging to get involved – the results will also come in useful for their campaigns against the Convoys Wharf development and Thames Water’s sewage tunnel works.
Whether you’re on your own (we’ll find you someone to work with) or there’s a couple of you, or you’re in a community group, we’d like the widest possible number of people to take part, whether north or south of the river Thames.
All we ask is that you put the tubes up on a weekday between 6-10 January, leave them there for four weeks, and take them down between 3-7 February. (We have to pick weekdays to make them fit in with existing air pollution studies carried out by local councils.) All you’ll need is a stool or stepladder, a pair of scissors, and a camera – we’ll show you the rest.
Can’t spare the time but would like to help? We’re looking for funding for the tubes, which cost £7 each which includes the cost of processing at the laboratory. We’re also looking for business sponsorship, to prove to Greenwich Council that local firms actually do care about their area.
We’ll also be meeting on January 12th to formalise our campaign’s constitution and talk a bit more about the shape that the campaign will take in the future. If you’d like to know more about what we’re suggesting or if you’d like to join us at that meeting, drop us a line at info@silvertowntunnel.co.uk
If you can spare time or money, please get in touch. We appreciate it’s a busy time – but helping us stop the Silvertown Tunnel might be the best New Year’s resolution you’ve made in years.
On October 16th, 2013 the “No to Silvertown Tunnel” campaign held a public meeting at The Forum in Greenwich to announce the results of our NO2 air pollution monitoring experiment. The following post features transcripts, slides and video from that meeting.
Chris Taylor: Many thanks to everybody for bearing with us so far. I hope you’ve still got your questions stored up.
First of all, we’d like to introduce Andrew Wood from Clean Air UK, the Network for Clean Air. He has given our campaign valuable support and guidance.
Andrew Wood, Clean Air UK – Network for Clean Air
Thank you, and good evening.
My name is Andrew Wood, and I work with Network for Clean Air. We network people and communities for better air quality and less air pollution. Last year we organised a conference: ‘Cities for Clean Air: London 2012’ – immediately prior to the London Olympics, and this year we organised a programme of citizen science – both in London and elsewhere.
There were three groups that were part of the London programme: No to Silvertown Tunnel (Greenwich) – which you heard about earlier, Stop City Airport in Newham, and Friends of the Earth who surveyed the area around Gallions Reach in Newham. For the London programme we provided: over £1,000 worth of materials and equipment, staff time, information, co-ordination and assistance in whatever way was necessary for the three projects to complete successfully – which they all have. A couple of weeks ago, the results for Newham were presented at City Hall; this evening we heard the results for Greenwich.
The Greenwich citizen science project is particularly inspiring because it genuinely engaged the community. There were 13 volunteers – 10 from Greenwich, 2 from Bexley and one from Lewisham. This is very good indicator of an active and vibrant civil society – exactly what is needed to stop the proposed Silvertown Tunnel. It wouldn’t be the first time a traffic crossing of the Thames was turned around. The Thames Gateway Bridge was canceled by Boris Johnson after a strong public campaign and defeat at public inquiry. Other road schemes have been stopped by residents – for example, the Salisbury Bypass.
Clearly, the Silvertown Tunnel is more than a local road scheme – it’s already designated a national infrastructure project, and it would expand the present crossing from 4 to 8 lanes – a motorway. That will bring traffic blight to Greenwich and neighboring boroughs. It thelonger term it could see a motorway corridor spanning the capital – which would be a complete disaster for London.
There are a whole set of measures which are needed at a regional level to tackle traffic: congestion charging, a workplace parking levy for example or similar demand management measures as they’re known. We also need to put in place infrastructure for a healthy city. We need to engineer health into London. That means for example, a dedicated cycle and pedestrian bridge spanning the Thames at Greenwich. What provision is there, at the moment for cycling? None. We need to make space for cycling. That retains the things which make Greenwich special, and promotes levels exercise – as part of our everyday lives – which are needed to maintain a healthy population.
I would urge you, if you live in Greenwich, Newham ,Lewisham, Tower Hamlets or elsewhere, to join with No to Silvertown Tunnel and articulate your voices – because that way, you will be heard and this motorway crossing will be stopped.
“No to Silvertown Tunnel” would like to thank Andrew Wood and the Network for Clean Air for taking the time to come to Greenwich this evening, and for the invaluable support he has given our citizen science monitoring project.
Our seventh, and final, post will feature the remainder of the meeting with the public Q&A session.
On October 16th, 2013 the “No to Silvertown Tunnel” campaign held a public meeting at The Forum in Greenwich to announce the results of our NO2 air pollution monitoring experiment. The following post features transcripts, slides and video from that meeting.
Chris Taylor: So, you’ve heard a little bit about what we’ve done, a little bit about the pollutants in the atmosphere, about the effects of increased traffic and even, counter-intuitively, how the tunnel is likely to attract even more traffic, and now we’re going to talk about the campaigning aspect, and how we can start to move things forward for ourselves.
I’d like to introduce Siân Berry. Siân’s a sustainable transport campaigner at the Campaign for Better Transport and has been running the campaign ‘Roads to Nowhere’. She was also the Green candidate for Mayor, previously, and has been successful in contributing to defeating the previous Thames Gateway project. So over to you, Siân, thank you.
Siân Berry, Campaign for Better Transport
Hi, thanks for having me.
As introduced, I’m a campaigner, and I work for a group called the Campaign for Better Transport. We were called Transport 2000 when we were involved in campaigning in this area before. My job is basically to look after people who are local campaigners who want to try and stop new roads being built in their areas. I also work on other roads campaigns around the country, and just to talk a little bit more about what Simon and Ian were talking about:
Simon [Birkett] talks about there being powerful laws against breaches of air quality limits, and there really, really are. We know that at a national level, the government is getting very very worried about some of its road building plans being challenged by people who have found places that are just below the limits that are going to be pushed over the limits by new road building plans.
I spent most of this morning talking to local radio and papers and TV in the east of England, because the A14 scheme, which aims to put a giant new road between Cambridge and Huntingdon will deliver traffic directly into two Air Quality Management Areas (LAQM) that are hovering on the border. Nothing like the figures that you already have here in London, but the government and the Highways Agency are worried about the challenge that we’re putting up to that road, because of these very strong laws on air quality. So I think the things we’ve seen here today: the awful air quality you already live in, the fact that this road will put loads more traffic into your area – just dump it into this existing soup of air pollution – is a really strong aspect of what can campaign on.
I’m here partly because my organisation – and when it was called Transport 2000 – was involved in the campaign against the Thames Gateway Bridge. This was proposed for the Gallions Reach site – as John said – since the Dark Ages! But the last time was in the early 2000s, mid 2000s. I’ve been going through our files in the office this, and I’ve got a document that dated back to 2002 on our computers, so presumably we had some before we had computers as well.
So this is the last incarnation of that bridge, and what’s unique about that is a number of things, but mainly that when it came up to go through the planning system the campaigners were given a gift by the promoter of the scheme, the Mayor of London. Not out of the goodness of his heart, but because there were Green Assembly Members there on the Assembly who had a casting vote on his budget. And he wasn’t going to give up on putting the Thames Gateway Bridge into his future budget, and they basically said, “well, if you’re going to do that, can we have tens of thousands of pounds, please, to put towards people objecting to roads so that they can get expert help?”
And that was absolutely decisive.
I heard from Jenny Bates here from Friends of the Earth, who was involved in that, earlier on, that the barristers and QCs on the other side, the barristers working for TfL, were actually very pleased to have people on the other side who were equally knowledgeable and equally able to argue.
The inspector himself – I’m assuming it was a man – said that it was helpful to receive the evidence of the expert witnesses, and that it was novel to see that it came from funds for the promoters. So all of those expert witnesses managed to pick the biggest holes ever in the case for the Thames Gateway Bridge.
So just going back to the previous slide, these were some of the factors concerning the bridge that were actually given within TfL’s own documents. 94% of the benefits would go to car drivers, and only 6% to public transport users. This is despite the fact that, in the areas that were supposed to be regenerated and helped by the scheme – which is what they were claiming – only a quarter to a third of them were car owners. It would increase traffic across a very wide area, lots of boroughs would be affected by extra traffic. Traffic would more than double – as John [Elliot]’s studies show. On many roads, the next junction along would just jam up. So we’ve got the same type of thing going on, and that’s just in terms of TfL’s own assessments.
The objectors gave evidence for about a year, I think, between 2005 and 2006. And eventually in 2007 the inspector wrote his report and they got to see what he thought. And according to my summaries that I’ve got from the campaigners that were working on it at the time, he roundly condemned the scheme. And there’s lots of really good quotes in his report. We’ve produced a summary of the best bits.
But there’s some brilliant examples of exactly the things that we’ve been talking about: the road would cause increased congestion, there’d be loads more traffic, the benefits are not used to relieve the problems you currently have, it would encourage people to make longer journeys, there’s more trips generated by the scheme, it wouldn’t improve safety, it would reduce travel by cycling and walking, public transport would be less well used with the scheme than without it. And those are trends that are just completely alien to London in the last twenty years.
The Thames Gateway Bridge would have set things backwards.
Air quality, well, it was an important issue there, but it’s more important now; we have stronger laws, we have more people campaigning on air quality. But even at the time, he drew this point to the Secretary of State’s attention, that air quality would be worse.
“In an area in which air quality has historically been low…[he] did not regard that as acceptable.”
And we know more now than we did then about the effects of air quality and air pollution, so again, then it was a decisive thing.
There were a lot of economic benefits claimed at the time – you always get this, and we’re going to get it again on the Silvertown tunnel: the city needs growth and therefore needs more traffic. This was thoroughly examined during the enquiry. It’s difficult to make a case against because often they don’t give concrete reasons to back up the case they’re making for. But in the end, the inspector didn’t consider their case to be strong enough or reliable enough to outweigh the disbenefits of the scheme. So even on their own terms, even if you strongly believe that new traffic would create growth, it just doesn’t work out – the inspector thought that was not a good reason.
So basically, what happened then? Five thousand people objected to the scheme as a result of the various campaigners who were funded and who were working long before they were funded, in fact, to raise awareness of the thing. The inspector’s report kind of sat on the shelf for a little while, if I’m not mistaken, and the Secretary of State, TfL wondered what to do about this fact. Eventually the government announced it was going to re-open the enquiry, but then the election intervened – in which I was involved, I was the Green candidate. I didn’t have to think very hard about this, about what was my policy – my policy was to cancel the Thames Gateway Bridge. Boris’s policy was to cancel the Thames Gateway Bridge as well, thanks to heavy lobbying from campaigners so when the election happened in May 2008, he did cancel it.
But before that, while they were waiting for the inspector’s report, campaigners also managed to get funds together to commission a set of consultants to look at alternatives. And that’s well worth a look at because these are alternatives that mostly haven’t happened since 2008 and are really good things to promote.
When you’re going through a consultation, promoting alternatives, trying to ensure that TfL has looked at those alternatives properly can be really decisive in going through the planning process, so I’d highly recommend having a look at it. It did some calculations on benefits and different things, and it did come up with a cable car. Now those of you who complain about the current cable car – it was looking at the actual location of Gallions Reach, as a place that arguably could do with more crossings to get people across, not cars, and that was what was proposed. The one that’s there now is possibly not in the right place – in the middle of a crash zone – and hardly anyone uses it, so don’t blame my colleagues and the consultants for that!
They compared it to a large road scheme, and above the road scheme came all these other sustainable transport options. A ferry, a bridge for walking, cycling and buses: the picture at the bottom there is of a bridge that does this in Vienna, crossing about the same amount of river, and it started off as a bus-only, walking and cycling, and I think you can see on it, just about there, there’s actually been a metro line extension put on it. So it’s provided really good links much much cheaper than a road bridge because of the different weights and things. They also proposed the same thing, a light rail bridge, with walking and cycling alongside, and because it’s quite a long way, they also assessed the costs and benefits of a travelator across the bridge. So I think we’d all prefer to have a nice walking, cycling and travelator bridge against a new tunnel or a new bridge at that point.
And third, ahead of building anything at all, was improve transport policies, better public transport in general and traffic management. So the demand management measures that John talked about earlier: park and ride, congestion charge, that sort of thing, are all far better value and far more effective than building new roads.
So hopefully that cheers you up a bit that this thing can be defeated. It has to go through quite a few more stages of planning. It’s been designated a Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project. You get a sort of halfway house with that, you don’t get a full public enquiry. There won’t necessarily be that courtroom yearlong thing. The Nationally Significant Infrastructure planning process is supposed to be finished within six months, but before it starts, the idea is that the promoter has to get out of the way all the consultation, and do the consultation really properly.
The local councils get to sign off that the consultation’s been done properly, local people get to campaign and raise awareness and get their objections in early. You can do quite a lot of back-and-forth challenging them for their business cases and things beforehand. If they don’t do all of that, and haven’t done the consultation properly, the examiners are trained to treat that as a bad thing.
I’ve been through a couple of road things under this new process – it is quite new. The first examination last year was quite shoddily done, and it was given approval – it was the Heysham M6 Link up in Lancashire – and we did take it to the High Court to object to the processes that went through, and the High Court did rule that it was pretty inadequate, the way they’d done it, but wasn’t prepared to go as far as overturning the approval. But some of the comments about how improperly it was done were very useful.
The next one that’s going through the same process is in George Osborne’s constituency, in Cheshire, it’s called the A556. For that we’ve identified exactly the air quality problem, with the air quality being slightly below and going slightly above. Their own assessment of it accepts this, it says ‘we must acknowledge that this potential breach is occurring’ so we’ve raised that very strongly with the inspector there, so we’ll see how we do with that, it’s kind of a test case. You have the very strongest case for raising these issues here I think.
To cheer us all up, here’s a picture of all the campaigners – this is more or less the same panel from a meeting at City Hall a couple of weeks ago: we’ve got Simon [Birkett], Ian [Mudway], John [Elliott], Jenny Bates from Friends of the Earth, Darren Johnson of the Greens, and Alan [Haughton] from the Stop City Airport campaign, we’ve got the Network for Clean Air, Friends of the Earth: fantastic experience with exactly this area.
Also, we have other experts on hand – there’s Campaign for Better Transport – as I said, I’m here to help with campaigning. And all these organisations – these national and London transport organisations – joined us in a joint response to last year’s consultation, and we’re all firmly against it as well, and will be helping to campaign against it.
So I think with the ideas we’ve got, with the laws that there are, with the resources that we can get together – I mean, we’re not going to be given £50,000 by Boris, but we can raise money through grant organisations, through fund-raising – and I think we can get a comparable set of experts together to challenge this and beat it again.
This is: “New roads equal new traffic” you must always remember that – it doesn’t equal […] it just equals new traffic. And this is Alan and me crashing the launch of the Bridge the Gap campaign with a giant banner, so we can handle things like that as well!
I’m @Roads2Nowhere – I’ve been tweeting from that account this evening – there’s links to documents there that I’ve recommended.
So I hope you’ll be interested to check it out, that you’ll follow the campaign, that you’ll make sure you join in with our events, and if we all work together we can I think defeat this one, because it’s one of the worst ideas I’ve ever seen. Thank you very much!.
“No to Silvertown Tunnel” would like to thank Siân Berry for taking the time to come to Greenwich and discuss some of the issues around new river crossings with us.
Subsequent posts will feature the remainder of the meeting and presentations from Andrew Wood, along with the public Q&A session.
On October 16th, 2013 the “No to Silvertown Tunnel” campaign held a public meeting at The Forum in Greenwich to announce the results of our NO2 air pollution monitoring experiment. The following post features transcripts, slides and video from that meeting.
Chris Taylor: So now you’ve heard from two speakers regarding the issues of air quality and you may still think, “Well, surely, more river crossings; more dispersal might help this problem.”
But unfortunately we don’t believe that to be the case. We have here John Elliott, an independent transport consultant with over 40 years’ experience in all aspects of transport planning. John has worked at the GLC, and is an expert in traffic management and the impact of building new roads. Obviously, as the No to Silvertown Tunnel campaign, we would beg you to pay close attention to what John has to tell us. Some of it is almost counter-intuitive and it’s also quite startling.
John Elliott, Independent Transport Consultant
Thank you. Good evening. First of all, if anybody needs to get in touch with me the [bottom of this page] has contact details, so if people have queries, do come back.
What I wanted to cover was:
The schemes and their history – their history is very very long indeed.
Traffic generation from new roads – which as has been explained, I’ve done a lot of work on. But I’m not the only one to have done work on this. There is such a body of evidence that shows that new roads, especially in big urban areas, generate phenomenal volumes of traffic. The comment was made that perhaps TfL understands this better than central government, because some of the policies coming out of central government in the rest of the country are even worse.
TfL case and report on consultation – I wanted to cover that, and what the traffic committee of the London Assembly said about that consultation, which was quite informative, and the results of the TfL report on the consultation which had some quite interesting things.
Effects of traffic management tolls, etc. – our case, my case and TfL’s case – They’re very much the same if you sort out the words properly.
Anyway, the Silvertown scheme doubles the capacity across the Thames. I don’t know what’s going to happen to that road [points to A2] because it’s full at the moment, and it’s regulated by the Blackwall Tunnel – if it has twice the capacity, it’ll have twice the volume perhaps. The Silvertown link – I’ve fought two enquiries on it, one for Ken Livingstone and one against Ken Livingstone, because he was in favour of it when it was the Thames Gateway Bridge, well it was the East London River Crossing.
It could be a ferry, which I don’t think would cause a big problem with air pollution where a road certainly would. And the case was made that this scheme would extract traffic from the Blackwall Tunnel and make it work.
The London plan of roads in 1970: Ringway 1 included the Blackwall Tunnel and its approaches. Interestingly, I was involved afterwards, and the modelled flows on that link of road in 1968 were 340,000 vehicles a day on a four-lane road in each direction. It wouldn’t fit; it just wouldn’t, it was physically impossible. And of course this other Ringway [Ringway 2], when you looked at the detail, was exactly where Gallions Reach is now. And that scheme, Gallions Reach – whether it’s renamed a bit like Sellafield – it’s been there since 1944 in various guises.
When I joined the Greater London Council, I was told by the politicians there that roads generate traffic. This was a matter of policy. The government said traffic will increase regardless, and that was a matter of policy. So I tried to be professional, and civil engineers think you build a bypass, it takes traffic away from the area, so it’s good to build bypasses. So I had this difficult situation where the politicians were my masters but I wanted to keep being professional.
So I found all these bits of road had been built, and the GLC had the data. That section of the M25, the M1 extension of the North Circular Road, the M3 and A316, Westway – just off the end of Marylebone Road, Blackwall Tunnel and its northern tunnel approaches, and the M11.
I looked at all of those, and I had really good traffic data between 1966 and 1986 on all those schemes, and they’re sizeable schemes. So what actually happened? I’ll just take a couple of these.
That’s what happened with Westway. This is the Westway corridor, not just the road. Bayswater Road was just as full five years afterwards as it was before. But for the whole corridor, the traffic levels have doubled. This is just on the fringe of central London. Two sort of controls – they’re not ideal controls – the Brompton Road corridor which was Brompton Road, Old Brompton Road, Fulham Road, and the Finchley Road corridor, which was Finchley Road, Abbey Road and St John’s Wood Road. So you can see what happens in other corridors where there’s less road improvements. And you can see there’s very little change, but interestingly there was a change in this period. Both those roads – the Swiss Cottage gyratory was built, and the Earls Court one-way system was changed – so even there, there’s generated traffic but this is the nearest you can get to a control.
That’s the reference to my report, which was re-published by a transport magazine, so anyone can refer to that and it’s a public document that you can get hold of. It was hushed up when the GLC closed.
The Blackwall tunnel: this is peak traffic. It doubles within – this is a before and after study which I think was about six months apart. The total flow on the Blackwall tunnel doubled. Where did it come from? Nowhere, really, it’s all new. Unless there were a lot of amphibious vehicles before, it’s all new traffic. That’s peak.
I think for the Blackwall tunnel it was about three years before the all-day traffic doubled, where it was five years for Westway, it was only about three years for Blackwall. It was really an enormous increase.
Going on to TfL’s reasons that they gave for the scheme in the consultation document:
‘More river crossings will help our city grow’: the claims are all about reducing road congestion and improving reliability and opportunity to enhance environment and access for pedestrians and cyclists. I’ve very slightly paraphrased what they said but you can go back to the document, that’s roughly what they said.
London has grown very substantially in the last twenty years, it has increased by about 2 million, I think. Traffic volumes, even in outer London, are now going down, while there’s been a big increase in population, so do we need more roads to cover less traffic?
More and large roads increase traffic and increase congestion elsewhere – and pedestrian and cyclists! I don’t know how they used that in the consultation.
The second one was ‘improving public transport’ and here they describe extensive improvements to public transport in the region, but state that not every journey can be made by public transport. Well, yeah, you can’t. And in East London a lot has been done on public transport, but also a lot has been spent on roads: the A13 has been upgraded, the route along the south bank through Thamesmead and all that’s been upgraded, Lee Highway (?) has been built. There’s a lot of road-space that’s been added, mainly in a radial direction.
What’s the real evidence more capacity is needed and helpful at either Blackwall/Silvertown or Gallions Reach in particular – if it’s needed? Existing roads are still available. They presently carry a number of commuters into Central London, some of which will transfer with continued improvements to public transport, and if people transfer then there’s more space for essential traffic.
That was their slide to say of network capacity across, road network capacity has only increased a little bit where public transport capacity has increase a lot. All I can say is that’s good, anyway, as far as I can see.
The third case – and somewhat overlapping cases were given by the consultation – ‘the problems we’re trying to solve:’
Regular, long delays at the Blackwall tunnel, particularly during peak times – so that is where there’s no evidence that it’ll solve it.
Frequent closures of the Blackwall tunnel.
The need to replace the Woolwich ferry infrastructure – that was said in 1986, when the East London River Crossing came up.
And the need for additional road connections to support growth – maybe it would be nice to cross the Thames more often, but do we need to cross it with a big road? And even if you separated London at the Thames, North of the Thames and South of the Thames have probably got better connectivity than anywhere else in the country. So you might want more, but do we actually need it for those stated reasons? Will additional capacity address these problems? I do not think it will. It’s more likely to exacerbate by generating additional traffic on the road network, with delays, congestion and of course pollution with more traffic in many other places across the whole of East London.
Are there any other real solutions to traffic problems in the east and throughout London? I would suggest:-
Continuing public transport, cycle and pedestrian improvements that have been successful.
A congestion charge at the M25 hasn’t been tried yet, but there’s an awful lot of people who do commute from outside London into London, and do they really need to come in by car? If they left their cars at the London boundary you’d get rid of quite a lot of the traffic.
So park and ride at the M25 – I’m not totally in favour of park and ride as really, preferably, you should be on the rail or bus all the way, but having got to where we are, East London could be protected with a congestion charge and park and ride.
More local pedestrian, cycling and transport connections throughout East London. There’s a big area, Dagenham to Erith, there’s a very long stretch of river there that hasn’t got a single crossing and none are planned.
London Assembly response on the consultation: I think it would be helpful to look at this. They made these three bullet points
“TFL should set out clearly the objectives of its proposals for new river crossings, and their different impacts” It’s quite telling that this is obviously a group that still believe – or most of them believe – that road improvements could help. “It would be important therefore for TfL to define the purpose and differential benefits of both proposals under consideration, including a wider range of options beyond the principal proposals of these two road schemes” So: no other proposals.
“Consultation material on potential schemes should acknowledge the different impacts the proposed options could have on local communities in east and south-east London”
“We would like to see more information on the delivery implications. We would also welcome evidence of TfL’s work to manage demand for the crossings.”
That was under principle 1, the first bullet point.
Principle 2: TfL’s consultation process must be transparent. “The information used to underpin the Mayor’s and TfL’s proposal [?] should be available for the duration of the consultation process. The more information TfL provides on the impacts of the crossing, the more legitimate it will make the consultation process. TfL should learn from the successes and failures of other schemes,” and they said that the inspector’s report from Thames Gateway Bridge, where the inspector was very doubtful about the economic regeneration with Thames Gateway Bridge, and he also commented about the second Blackwall Tunnel doubling the flows.
So the summary of the report on the consultation – this is TfL’s comments on their consultation –
“the comments we received highlighted these are issues TfL needs to address in the ongoing river crossings programme” – shame it wasn’t addressd before the consultation.
“The range of opinions for replacing the Woolwich Ferry highlighted that further consultation would be necessary” – there were a lot of opinions there.
“Strong appetite within the public and stakeholders for TfL to consider crossings for cyclists, pedestrians and public transport users” that were not included in the proposals.
And finally, last but not least:
“Highlighting potential issues associated with a user charging regime, including how it might work, when it might apply and who would pay.” It seemed there were an awful lot of people who were strongly against the charging regime. And the scheme will not work, and is not worth engaging in at all without some sort of charging regime, I don’t believe.
So what sort of charging regime would you have? This is where I go back to my forty years of dealing with these sorts of things. But trying to break it down:
Scenario 1: Tolls high enough not to increase traffic at all. That would mean diversion of the existing traffic to the existing crossings, negligible benefit – because you wouldn’t get any more traffic through than you’ve got at the moment – for enormous cost, but still traffic gets to the next congestion point quicker, and there are different places for queuing traffic. Now there’ll always be queueing traffic, there’s always an insatiable demand […] There’s the same amount of traffic around, it’ll queue somewhere else if it doesn’t queue at Blackwall.
Scenario 2: No tolls. And the evidence is that you’ll get 100% – or thereabouts – more traffic. Because you’ve got 100% extra capacity.
So, what did TfL say about it in the Report on the Consultation? They go further than just the tolls: “it will be necessary to understand the specific traffic impacts of the potential new crossing options at Silvertown before we could determine whether any further traffic management schemes might be necessary elsewhere in London rather than simply on the approach roads to any new crossing point” It’d never work.
“However in the absence of charging, this additional capacity could attract excessive volumes of traffic” – same thing as I’ve just said.
The funding I haven’t mentioned – obviously – they’ve got to fund it, and funding is an important reason for the tolls.
But then there’s “no decision to be made”, but without some decision, without some ideas about how it’d work, the scheme in my book is dead in the water, and they shouldn’t be consulting on something that can’t go ahead.
So that’s what I hope I’ve covered, and obviously I’ll be open to questions. Thank you.
“No to Silvertown Tunnel” would like to thank John Elliott for taking the time to come to Greenwich and discuss issues of transport planning and induced traffic with us.
John can be contacted by telephone on 01227 765 626 and 07810 204 400 or through his website at www.johnelliottconsultancy.co.uk
Subsequent posts will feature the remainder of the meeting and presentations from Sian Berry and Andrew Wood, along with the public Q&A session.
You must be logged in to post a comment.