The Mayor and Transport for London have received planning permission from Greenwich and Newham Councils for a proposed 6-lane Thames Gateway road bridge, and there will now be a Public Inquiry to hear arguments for and against the scheme, due to start on 7th June. You should write to the inspector as soon as possible if you are not happy with the scheme.

^{Transport for London finally produced an Environmental Impact Assessment for the bridge when they applied for planning permission, but this shows up many problems with the scheme:}

MORE TRAFFIC. Transport for London (TfL) admits there would be “significant increases in traffic volumes as a result of the scheme” at various places. The 11 roads shown to have the worst increases in traffic volumes are in the south. TfL admit traffic would be generated, that the new bridge would be 80% full going north in the morning rush hour. A total of 20million vehicles a year would use the bridge.

MORE AIR POLLUTION. Extra traffic means the scheme would make already bad air quality even worse, which is bad for health. Transport for London admits that the bridge would add to breaches in Government and European air quality limits. In the south some areas would experience “moderate or large” increases in concentration of an air pollutant.

MORE NOISE. Even with barriers and special road surfaces, Transport for London admit that, particularly in the south, “some residents may need to sleep with windows closed” at night. Three schools in the south for example would suffer a “moderate/substantial adverse effect” from extra noise. Transport for London claim most of the 5,000 people who would be bothered by the noise would eventually get used to it.

NO RELIEF FROM EXISTING CONGESTION. Transport for London admit that the scheme would have “little impact” on traffic flows on existing crossings in the morning rush hour, with traffic through the Blackwall tunnel “remaining more or less unchanged”. Traffic speeds get slower in some areas, and might hardly improve in others in the morning rush hour.

PUBLIC TRANSPORT AT RISK. If Crossrail is built nearby (and the Government is now drafting a bill for this) the public transport usage on the bridge would drop off significantly and this would mean a review of services. Some journeys by public transport in the rush hour might be no quicker with the bridge built.

JOBS CLAIMS DUBIOUS. Transport for London’s claims for potential job increases are based on a dubious comparison with west London – assuming that if east London was as accessible, it could expect similar levels of jobs. This does not take into account if the land is available for businesses to develop, nor how problems like local sewage works (and a new noisy polluting new road itself) could put firms off.

LOCAL CROSSING?

This is a large strategic road, connecting to dual carriageways from the M25 in the south, and directly into the North Circular Road and the M11 in the north. Local roads that would be used by traffic cutting through to the A2 would suffer. Only 36% of the 4,450 cars that would use the bridge in the morning rush hour are relatively “local” (travelling within the 4 nearest boroughs). There would also be 1,100 goods vehicles using the bridge in the rush hour.

WHO IS THIS BRIDGE FOR?

41% of residents in Greenwich and 49% in Newham do not own a car, but a Transport for London Board member said the scale of the scheme was driven by “the needs of the car commuter in peak time”. TfL state “the highway benefits…are the major source of benefit accruing to the scheme” – ie the supposed benefit is mainly to car drivers.

WHY ARE THERE NO CHOICES?

You have not been given any choices of different transport schemes that could help the area and provide the improved access to jobs and services that people want, but without adding to the air quality and traffic problems in the area. A top transport expert has said that there are better and cheaper ways to help the area, and that this scheme would do little or nothing to help local unemployment.