Post on 05-Oct-2020
Gallions Reach and Belvedere River Crossings
Strategic Outline Business Case
Date: November 2015
Version: Final
2
3
CONTENTS
1. Executive Summary ....................................................................................... 4
2. The approach to the business case ................................................................. 19
3. The Strategic Case ...................................................................................... 23
4. The Economic Case ..................................................................................... 95
5. The Financial Case ..................................................................................... 136
6. The Commercial Case ................................................................................. 141
7. The Management Case ................................................................................ 144
8. Conclusion ............................................................................................... 151
4
1. Executive Summary
1.1. The proposed scheme and purpose of this document
1.1.1. The East of Silvertown project is proposed to be two fixed link highway crossings in
east London – one at Gallions Reach, connecting Thamesmead and Beckton, and the
other linking Belvedere and Rainham.
1.1.2. The Gallions Reach crossing would link the A2016 Western Way in Thamesmead with
the A1020 Royal Docks Road in the north, which in turn links to the A13 and A406
North Circular Road. The Belvedere crossing would link the A2016 Bronze Age Way in
Belvedere with the A13 Marsh Way junction in Rainham.
Figure 1-1 Proposed river crossings to the East of Silvertown and Opportunity Areas
1.1.3. These crossings are key to unlocking the full potential of east London; supporting
London’s population growth and helping drive its economy by addressing the
severance caused by the Thames.
1.1.4. This project sits within a wider series of new river crossings for London which are
intended to reduce the barrier effect of the Thames. These crossings consist of public
transport, highway, pedestrian and cycle links to improve people’s access to jobs,
facilitate business activity, support housing development, enhance the resilience of
the transport network and encourage more sustainable travel.
1.1.5. This is a Strategic Outline Business Case (SOBC) which is presented in accordance with
the DfT’s Business Case Guidance, using a five case model which considers whether,
and how, the scheme:
is supported by a robust case for change that fits with wider public policy
objectives: the ‘strategic case’;
demonstrates value for money: the ‘economic case’;
is commercially viable: the ‘commercial case’;
is financially affordable: the ‘financial case’; and
is achievable: the ‘management case’.
East of Silvertown crossings
5
1.1.6. The East of Silvertown project is not yet at a stage where a preferred option has been
identified and further detailed feasibility work and informal and formal consultation is
required before a preferred option is put forward. The shortlisted options that could
form part of a preferred option at a later date are presented in this SOBC.
1.1.7. All the options are assumed to provide two lanes in each direction – one for general
traffic and one for public transport. Bus services would use the crossings and link into
the existing local bus networks. Other public transport connections are under
consideration including a new branch of the DLR from Gallions Reach station across to
the southern side of the Thames.
1.1.8. TfL would incorporate pedestrian and cycling facilities into any new crossing as part of
the East of Silvertown project, provided they can be accommodated in a manner that
guarantees the safety and security of users, at a reasonable cost.
1.2. Strategic Case
London’s growth is vital to help tackle the productivity challenge and
drive a strong UK economy
1.2.1. London is a rapidly growing city with a population of 8.6 million people which is
expected to grow to over 10 million by 2036, and to reach 11.3 million by 2050.
London has a highly productive, strong economy and over the next 20 years, the
number of jobs in London is also projected to grow by 700,000 to 6.3 million. This
growth is shown in Figure 1-2 below.
Figure 1-2 Historic trends and projected growth in London’s employment and
population to 2036
1.2.2. The expansion of London’s high value internationally competitive sectors located in
its centre – which drive UK productivity – depends on further growth in other sectors
across the city, including a number of specialist clusters. These provide a wide array
of vital business functions and service the growing population that economic growth
generates.
1.2.3. Delivering this projected growth in London would play a crucial role in supporting the
economic success of the UK as a whole. However there are considerable challenges
and London’s continued success cannot be taken for granted.
6
1.2.4. As set out in the Budget and the Fixing the Foundations report, a central task for this
Government is to create the right conditions for a much more productive national
economy. We must enable London to maximise its contribution to this – and within
this, the role that east London plays.
East London has significant potential to contribute further to the
economic performance of London and the UK
1.2.5. While London is growing as a whole, it is expanding east from the centre at an
especially rapid rate. This eastwards shift is driven by development opportunities,
supportive planning, momentum and a favourable investment climate. The region is
forecast to generate nearly 300,000 more jobs by 2036.
1.2.6. Over the last 15 years regeneration has transformed much of the former Docklands,
particularly in inner east London boroughs. This has been accompanied by a
diversification of the economic base and a substantial increase in employment.
Canary Wharf is now well established as an integral part of the productive core of
London and there are newer economic and employment hubs emerging within the
region like Stratford and Royal Docks as well as clusters of specialist activities like O2
and Excel.
1.2.7. East London also forms part of the Thames Gateway corridor, which extends
eastwards beyond London’s boundaries into Essex and Kent, along the Thames
Estuary. The Thames Gateway corridor represents a significant opportunity for growth
within London and the South East. Sectors of the Thames Gateway economy that
make up the majority of employment are business and other services, construction,
transport and distribution and ‘non-marketed’ services.
1.2.8. There are large areas of land on both sides of the River Thames classified as Strategic
Industrial Locations (SIL). East London contains nearly 40% of London’s industrial
land, and these industrial areas play an important role in servicing businesses based in
the Central Activities Zone (CAZ) and central parts of London.
1.2.9. There is a significant transport and logistics presence within the Gateway, including
the recently opened London Gateway container port, and distribution centres and
warehousing. Some 30% of London’s warehousing space is in the east London sub-
region.
1.2.10. These logistics and distribution centres play a vital and increasingly important role in
supplying consumer and business demand across London as a whole, including within
central London, where land supply is scarce and there is a trend towards denser levels
of development.
1.2.11. East London is particularly suitable for intensification of existing employment land
and new development as it has significant levels of vacant or under-used land. The
areas designated as SIL could become even more important with wider changes in
land use in other parts of London from industrial to residential/mixed use.
7
East London will also need to play a significant role in solving London’s
housing crisis which otherwise threatens to constrain economic growth
1.2.12. Over a prolonged period of time, the rate of delivery of new housing supply in London
has not kept up with demand. As set out in the London Plan, 49,000 new homes
need to be built each year. Indeed, to make up the existing backlog up to 62,000
homes are needed each year to 2025. However, over the last five years, an average of
only 25,000 new dwellings has been delivered.
1.2.13. As a result, London has a chronic housing shortage, resulting in greater crowding
within properties, and increases in housing costs. The median house price to average
annual earnings multiple for London has increased from six times annual average
earnings in 2001 to over ten times average earnings in 2014. If this issue is not
addressed it is likely to constrain London’s economic growth, with major impacts for
the UK as a whole. Providing sufficient housing to meet current and future demand is
therefore a key priority of central Government, the Mayor, and London boroughs.
1.2.14. Opportunity Areas (OAs) are the capital’s main reservoir of brownfield land. The
London Plan highlights the potential of the east London sub-region to deliver a
substantial proportion of the housing growth forecast for the Capital, with 14
designated OAs (shown on Figure 1-3).
Figure 1-3 Location of the 14 Opportunity Areas in east London*
*Potential to accommodate development based on Further Alterations to the London Plan (FALP)
targets
1.2.15. There are also three key Housing Zones in outer east London (Abbey Wood,
Plumstead and Thamesmead (RB Greenwich); Abbey Wood and Thamesmead (LB
Bexley) and Rainham and Beam Park (LB Havering)).
1.2.16. Overall, the sub-region is expected to accommodate nearly a third of London’s
projected population growth.
8
This planned growth will build on change already underway, helping to
tackle areas of deprivation and address wider policy goals
1.2.17. As Figure 1-4 shows, the parts of east London that are within the Thames Gateway
corridor are some of the most deprived areas of the UK. By comparison with the rest
of the wider South East, more people in the Thames Gateway corridor are
unemployed and they have fewer qualifications and skills than the London average.
1.2.18. Regeneration and redevelopment can help to address these issues. As part of a wider
approach, investment in transport infrastructure can provide positive regeneration
benefits in the form of job creation, and inward investment.
Figure 1-4 Areas of deprivation in London and locations of new river crossings
The current lack of cross-river connectivity and capacity, and limited
integration into existing transport networks prevents east London from
fulfilling its strategic potential
1.2.19. It is the transport of people, goods and services that makes cities work. Conversely,
the lack of key connections can significantly inhibit their productivity and success.
1.2.20. As the Thames flows eastwards past the Tower of London, the river widens and
deepens – the distance from bank to bank at Woolwich is five times the distance at
Putney, making the construction of river crossings further east more challenging. With
these conditions, historically the eastern Thames has been the centre of London’s
docks and shipping, and wharves and industrial uses lining the banks of the river, with
residential communities developing behind these, away from the banks.
1.2.21. As a consequence of these geographical and historical conditions, there are far fewer
crossings in east than west London – with only three road vehicle crossings in the
9
23km between Tower Bridge and the M25 – and no crossings in London east of
Woolwich (either highway or public transport), which leaves a gap of some 14km
before the next crossing at Dartford. Figure 1-5 below highlights the large disparity in
cross-river highway connections between east London and the rest of the city.
Figure 1-5 Road river crossings in west and east London
1.2.22. This lack of cross-river connectivity in east London results in journeys that are longer
and more indirect; limits people’s job, education and leisure opportunities and
reduces business to business activities.
1.2.23. There has been major investment in cross-river rail links in inner east London
including the creation and expansion of London Overground, improvements to Tube
and DLR frequencies and further enhancement soon with Crossrail. In contrast, similar
levels of investment have not been made in respect of the cross-river road network in
any part of east London nor in the rail network in outer east London.
1.2.24. Furthermore, as a consequence of the lack of cross-river road connectivity, there is
only a single bus route crossing the river east of Tower Bridge – the 108 between
Stratford and Lewisham via the Blackwall Tunnel. In contrast, 47 bus routes cross the
river west of Vauxhall Bridge.
1.2.25. Cross-river travel times between areas such as Thamesmead and Beckton are long
despite the short ‘as the crow flies’ distance between them. This means that cross-
river trips are constrained, along with the opportunities they lead to. With its much
better provision of river crossings west London has 70% more total cross-river trips
compared to east London.
1.2.26. A particular consequence of this is that east London residents living south of the river
cannot easily access the job opportunities that exist north of the river. The Figure
below sets out very clearly the barrier effect of the Thames on job opportunities for
those living south of the river. TfL analysis shows that people in Beckton, for
10
example, have access to 10 times more jobs by car than those living on the opposite
bank of the river in Thamesmead.
Figure 1-6 Number of jobs accessible within 37 minutes – 20111
1.2.27. With only three road vehicle crossings in London east of Tower Bridge (the
Rotherhithe and Blackwall Tunnels and the Woolwich Ferry), traffic is heavily
concentrated at these places. Further exacerbating this is that the existing crossings
suffer from capacity restrictions leading to widespread delays and resilience issues.
The proposed Silvertown Tunnel would overcome the particular congestion and
resilience issues associated with the Blackwall Tunnel but cannot alone deal with the
issues related to a lack of cross-river connectivity in east London.
1.2.28. It is clear that existing river crossings in east London do not cater adequately for
current cross-river movement. When the scale and pattern of London’s future growth
is taken into account, the need for change becomes even stronger. As set out above,
east London is expected to see a significant increase in population over the next 20
years, with over one third of all London’s growth to be accommodated in the sub-
region.
1.2.29. In percentage terms, the mode share of trips by car in east London is set to continue
to decrease, however as the total population within the sub-region grows, the
absolute number of vehicle trips within the sub-region is forecast to increase.
1 37 minutes is the average driving time to work in the area
11
1.2.30. This is due to the increase in population, and with it, the increase in freight activity
over the medium to long term, to serve the increasing population. This is particularly
important in east London to support the growing population but also as a result of its
strategic role as an international gateway. And with more jobs forecast to be created
within areas on the north side of the river, such as within the Royal Docks, there will
be increased cross-river travel demand (both road and public transport) from those
living on the south side.
The case for change is clear. Work is continuing to develop the specific
options for the East of Silvertown project in order to optimise the
benefits, ensure it is deliverable and maximises value for money
1.2.31. TfL is undertaking a detailed option assessment to determine the scheme that best
meets the needs identified. Assessments of existing and future land uses has
identified two locations that would best meet the objectives and integrate with the
existing transport networks in the area; these are at Gallions Reach and between
Belvedere and Rainham (referred to as Belvedere).
1.2.32. Crossings at these locations would help to ensure that the significant growth planned
in the area can be supported by, for example, linking OAs on either side of the river as
well as helping to improve network resilience.
1.2.33. There are limited alternative viable locations, with large parts of the riverside in east
London having constraints on one side or both, which would make the construction
of a new river crossing unacceptable in terms of property or environmental impacts.
1.2.34. To date, a broad range of options for the crossings at these locations have been
considered for their strategic fit and likely costs, benefits and impact. Sifting
processes to reduce a long list down has been undertaken and the work is presented
in Option Assessment Report (Long List) and Option Assessment Report (Public
Transport Interim List).
1.2.35. These reports have considered whether bridges or tunnels would be most appropriate
and what type of bridge or tunnel would be possible. They have also considered what
public transport facilities could be provided with the crossings as well as whether it
would be feasible to incorporate walking and cycling facilities.
1.2.36. In summary, this assessment process has resulted in a short list of options that are
being presented in this SOBC. These options generally vary slightly in terms of their
transport benefits and impacts but overall, meet the scheme objectives, while
differing in their geographical scope and contribution to new development. Given the
possibility of bridges or tunnels being built at either location, there is combination of
options and Table 1-1sets these out.
12
Table 1-1 East of Silvertown river crossing options
Highway crossing Public transport2 Walk and cycle facilities
Gallions Reach bridge
& Belvedere bridge
Bus
only or
Bus +
Short
DLR
or
Bus +
Long
DLR
or
Bus
+
Tram
Yes
Gallions Reach tunnel
& Belvedere bridge
Bus
only or
Bus +
Short
DLR or
Bus +
Long
DLR or
Bus
+
Tram
To be determined at
Gallions Reach
Yes at Belvedere
Gallions Reach bridge
& Belvedere tunnel
Bus
only or
Bus +
Short
DLR or
Bus +
Long
DLR or
Bus
+
Tram
Yes at Gallions Reach
To be determined at
Belvedere
Gallions Reach tunnel
& Belvedere tunnel
Bus
only or
Bus +
Short
DLR
or
Bus +
Long
DLR
or
Bus
+
Tram
To be determined
New cross-river connections in east London would deliver significant
benefits
1.2.37. These options would all transform highway connectivity between east and southeast
London and deliver a step-change in outer-east London cross-river public transport
provision. They would all improve local firms’ access to markets and increase the size
of retail and leisure catchments.
1.2.38. In terms of access to jobs, there would be a strong positive impact across the area,
with the largest increase for residents in the Borough of Bexley and the Royal Borough
of Greenwich. Residents of Thamesmead would see a 63% increase in the number of
jobs accessible to them within in a 75 minute drive (generalised journey time3).
1.2.39. The crossings would also all deliver wider improvements in the resilience and
reliability of the road network - crucial for many road based sectors.
1.2.40. New river crossings would deliver significant improvements to the cross-river public
transport network, providing the opportunity to link areas on either side of the river
for the first time, and depending on the option chosen, could also provide for
extensions to fixed rail links (e.g., the DLR), which could deliver additional benefits.
2 As the lead times for making bus service changes would be around two years allowing for recent developments and travel
patterns to be taken into account yet enough time to consult and procure the service change. Therefore, plans for the bus
network at this time are indicative and will be subject to further assessment, consultation and amendment.
3 Generalised journey time includes the in-vehicle journey time, walk time to access stops or stations,
interchanges and crowding levels
13
1.2.41. For example, a DLR extension to Thamesmead as part of the East of Silvertown
project (Short DLR) would mean that, with one interchange, people in Thamesmead
would have access to seven different TfL rail lines, as shown in Figure 1-7.
Figure 1-7 TfL rail and Underground network accessible from Thamesmead with one
interchange if DLR forms part of the East of Silvertown project
1.2.42. As well as significant transport benefits, the options would all also unlock housing
and bring forward development that would otherwise not happen - not only because
of the transformed connectivity the crossings would bring about but also by giving
confidence to inward investors that the public sector is prepared to invest in the area
for the long term.
1.2.43. For example, it is estimated that the improvement in cross-river connectivity
delivered by the crossings could alone deliver at least 5,000 new homes and 3,000
new jobs (bus only option).
1.2.44. New transport connections would help to widen the appeal of new development, as
potential residents would be able to access a wider range of jobs, education, retail,
leisure and recreational opportunities. This would change market expectations –
increasing values, hence encouraging further development. Crucially, this could help
overcome viability constraints without raising average land values in the area to the
extent that family and affordable housing could be crowded out.
14
New river crossings would also deliver major benefits to businesses and
the economy
1.2.45. Investment in east London’s cross-river transport networks that would enhance
connectivity and deliver additional capacity, would help to enable greater economic
growth in the following ways:
providing companies with access to a larger and higher quality workforce;
improving access to customers and suppliers and helping supply-chains to work
more cohesively and efficiently;
cutting journey times and providing more direct routes, reducing the costs of
doing business, (with crossing options delivering up to £5bn in journey time
savings);
supporting business investment decisions, with potential expansion as a result
of reduced journey times or reduced crowding levels/ congestion, improved
network resilience and an overall improvement in the perception of east London
as a whole;
expanding retail catchment areas for key centres.
1.2.46. A survey of businesses in the local area4 found that 64% of firms regard
improvements to cross-river journeys as important to the successful operation of
their business and almost half of companies would expect to increase recruitment
with improved river crossings.
1.2.47. Evidence shows that improved connectivity from river crossings can impact
significantly on employment growth, with the authorities in close proximity to the
Dartford Crossing seeing growth rates of 20% above those of the wider sub-region
during the past 20 years.
1.2.48. With its large areas of SIL, the east London sub-region will play an important role in
the servicing and delivery industries. Freight and servicing trips in the sub-region are
mostly undertaken by road and the sector keenly feels the challenges, including
severance and journey time unreliability, as a result of the scarcity of crossings in east
London.
1.2.49. Improved cross-river connectivity would also help tackle key market and economic
inefficiencies. Many occupiers perceive the two areas north and south of the river as
two distinct sub-markets due to the separation caused by the river. Without better
connections that help join up the industrial locations, this distinction will continue.
1.2.50. Cross-river highway connections are not only important for private and commercial
traffic but also for bus services. Buses are a key enabler of access to labour markets
and are an affordable means of transport, playing a key role particularly for lower paid
workers.
4 Business Survey, WSP, May 2014
15
Charging is an integral element of any package and would help ensure
benefits are realised in the most effective way
1.2.51. It is proposed that TfL would charge for the use of the East of Silvertown crossings.
This is to help manage demand for the crossings and also to help pay for the new
infrastructure.
1.2.52. While the provision of additional connectivity is fundamental, the absence of charging
to manage demand would erode or time-limit the benefits. Charging enables the
objectives of the scheme to be met while keeping demand within management limits.
1.2.53. User charging revenue is likely to be a key component of the funding arrangements for
the East of Silvertown project. However, further analysis is required before any
decisions can be made about the precise level of the charge, and therefore the exact
funding arrangements.
1.2.54. Road user charging has the potential to deliver wider benefits in terms of helping
reduce congestion – but it is not an alternative to the river crossings and would not
address the connectivity issues that the crossings are aiming to overcome. While it
may support greater resilience of the network and reduce pressures at other crossings
charging does not deliver the improved connectivity that is fundamental to the
success of east London.
1.3. Economic Case
The analysis demonstrates that new river crossings to the East of
Silvertown can deliver value for money
1.3.1. The project would deliver significant transport user benefits for east London. Of the
four proposed short list public transport options presented in this SOBC, Option A
i.e. bus only has the lowest cost and shows very high potential transport benefits of
£2.8bn to £3.5bn (Net Present Value (NPV), in 2010 prices). This results in a Benefit
Cost Ratio (BCR) of 2.9 to 4.7.
1.3.2. The remaining options include rail-based public transport intended to serve
development areas that are currently characterised by low patronage and therefore
the assessment of transport user benefits is only a partial reflection of the overall
scheme impacts.
In addition to the strong transport user benefits, the scheme would also
deliver significant positive wider economic impacts
1.3.3. The proposed river crossings are expected to have significant impacts on productivity
and the spatial distribution of development impacts. Therefore a full assessment of
the Wider Economic Impacts has also been calculated in terms of agglomeration,
output change in imperfectly competitive markets and tax revenues arising from
labour market impacts.
1.3.4. Considering both the transport user benefits and Wider Economic impacts, over the
60-year appraisal period, the project is estimated to result in an overall net benefit
between £2.8bn and £5.7bn (NPV, in 2010 prices). The BCR for the four options
tested falls into a wide range between 1.9 and 7.1.
16
Table 1-2 Economic Case overview – transport user benefits and wider economic
impacts
Bus only Bus + Short
DLR
Bus + Long
DLR
Bus + Tram
WebTAG
TEE only
NPV (£m) 2,780 to
3,500
2,310 to
3,010 360 to 1,490
1,360 to
2,010
BCR
2.9 to 4.7 2.3 to 3.4 1.1 to 1.7 1.5 to 2.0
WebTAG
TEE + wider
impacts
NPV (£m) 5,000 to
5,720
4,560 to
5,260
2,760 to
3,890
3,830 to
44,80
BCR 4.4 to 7.1 3.5 to 5.1 1.9 to 2.7 2.5 to 3.2
The analysis demonstrates that new river crossings East of Silvertown
can support regeneration in east and southeast London
1.3.5. Options A and B deliver significant transport user benefits to existing communities,
however seen from a development and regeneration perspective, Options C and D
would support the highest growth in housing and jobs. As a result these options are
forecast to have the largest economic impacts with a net contribution to London’s
economy of over £7.5bn.
Table 1-3 Economic Case overview – regeneration impacts
Bus only Bus + Short
DLR
Bus + Long
DLR
Bus + Tram
Net additional homes (000s) 5 18 26 26
Net additional jobs (000s) 3 5 5 5
Regeneration impact (housing
productive and indirect effects,
and Gross Value Added job
effects), present value (£m)5
2,210 6,340 8,710 7,730
1.4. Financial Case
1.4.1. The Financial Case sets out the project cost, the funding available to deliver the
scheme and the proposed / potential financing arrangements. The financial case is
being developed further but we can reasonably expect a contribution from users
through road user charges and passenger fares and the project should be financially
affordable.
5 Housing effects are discounted over a 30-year appraisal period, and GVA job effects are discounted over 10
years in line with additionality guidance assumptions
17
1.4.2. Indicative initial cost estimates (capital and operational) have been produced for the
options in this SOBC, which carry a total cost of around £1bn - £3bn (2010 prices
including optimism bias). However, given the stage of the project, it is not possible to
present an Estimated Final Cost. Detailed cost estimates would follow once the
options have been shortlisted further and more detailed modelling and engineering
work has been undertaken.
1.4.3. While it is not possible to make any decisions on the preferred financing
arrangements, TfL could potentially use a privately financed solution to deliver the
East of Silvertown project. Alternatively, TfL could borrow the necessary money from
a variety of sources using a combination of mechanisms, including bonds, commercial
paper, loans for specific projects from the European Investment Bank and the Public
Works Loan Board.
1.4.4. As part of the project, it is proposed that road user charging is introduced on both
crossings (set at the same or similar level as to be introduced on the proposed
Silvertown Tunnel scheme) and TfL expects that revenue collected would over time
cover a significant proportion of the cost of the scheme.
1.4.5. TfL is also seeking devolution of a proportion of Vehicle Excise Duty (VED) revenues
to London. London has 10% of England’s registered vehicles and devolution of a
consistent proportion of VED would support the modernisation of London’s strategic
road network, including the East of Silvertown project.
1.5. Commercial Case
1.5.1. The project is commercially viable – the commercial case sets out the commercial
structure, the accounting treatment and procurement approach for the project, which
would be developed further when the options are defined.
1.5.2. While there is not yet a preferred approach, the project has characteristics which
make it a suitable candidate for delivery via a privately financed solution e.g., a design,
construction, finance and maintenance (DBFM) agreement. But other delivery
mechanisms, such as “traditional” design and build or a regulatory model would also
be considered.
1.5.3. An assessment of the likely accounting treatment of any commercial structure under
ESA95/10 would need to be undertaken to determine whether the project is likely to
be treated as “off budget” and therefore whether liabilities would score towards TfL
borrowing.
1.5.4. The works contract would need to be competitively tendered via EU compliant means
in the Official Journal of the European Union.
1.6. Management Case
1.6.1. The project is achievable - the ‘management case’ sets out a clear governance,
process and programme for the further development of the project by TfL, an
authority with a very successful experience and record in major project delivery.
1.6.2. TfL has extensive experience in developing, promoting and implementing significant
infrastructure projects. This ranges from modifications to existing infrastructure (such
as repairs to the A4 Hammersmith flyover, modernisation of the London
Underground, extensions to Tramlink and DLR) to major schemes such as Crossrail.
18
1.6.3. Much of TfL’s project development experience would therefore be transferrable to
this scheme, notably support and advice from experienced promoters of the
proposed Silvertown Tunnel project.
1.6.4. The current anticipated key milestones for the project are shown below.
Public consultation: late 2015 to Feb 2016
Report to the Mayor on the outcome of the consultation: March 2016
Brief the next Mayor on the River Crossings programme: May/June 2016
1.7. Conclusions
1.7.1. There is a compelling case for the East of Silvertown project and work will continue
on the current options appraisal, such that a preferred solution is identified and
progressed. The responses to the five key questions raised in the guidance can be
summarised as follows:
• There is a clear case for change in the form of new river crossings in east
London, to address the lack of connectivity across the Thames and to facilitate
vital economic and housing growth. This case is supported by and in turn
supports national, London-wide and local policy;
• The analysis demonstrates that the project is excellent value for money.
Several options are under consideration, with the options considered in this
report showing a very high potential Net Present Value;
• The project should be financially affordable and has the potential for a
contribution from users through user charges and passengers fares;
• The project is commercially viable with a number of procurement and
commercial options, which would be developed further when the options are
defined;
• The project is achievable and TfL has a very strong track record in the
development and delivery of major projects.
1.7.2. This SOBC reports on the majority of the likely impacts of the scheme, however,
further work is required on the air quality, noise and social/distributional impacts in
any future Outline and/or Full Business Case.
1.7.3. In particular, the work undertaken has highlighted several potential combinations of
schemes and assessed their ability to meet the objectives, and their economic and
other impacts. A key component of any final decision will be the views of the public
and affected stakeholders, and therefore a consultation on the new information
contained within this report will allow these options to be considered more fully and
allow decisions on narrowing the options further to be taken.
1.7.4. In addition, this further work would elaborate on the potential commercial case and
charging policy and various sensitivity tests.
19
2. The approach to the business case
2.1. Introduction
2.1.1. Transport for London (TfL) is proposing to construct two new fixed crossings of the
River Thames between the proposed Silvertown Tunnel (Greenwich Peninsula –
Silvertown) and the Dartford Crossing. These crossings are at Gallions Reach and
between Belvedere and Rainham (referred to as Belvedere).
2.1.2. By improving cross-river connectivity, the crossings would strengthen the economy of
east London and its contribution to London as a whole. Importantly, new river
crossings would help to support housing and employment growth in Opportunity
Areas (OAs) on both sides of the river, address issues of deprivation and improve
access to services and opportunities. The crossings would also improve the resilience
of the transport network in east London, filling the long gap between existing road
crossings (a distance of some 14 km).
2.1.3. This project sits within a wider series of new river crossings for London which are
intended to reduce the barrier effect of the Thames. These crossings consist of public
transport, highway, pedestrian and cycle links to improve people’s access to jobs,
facilitate business activity, support housing development, enhance the resilience of
the transport network and encourage more sustainable travel.
2.1.4. This document is the Strategic Outline Business Case (SOBC) for the East of
Silvertown project, and Figure 2-1 below shows the proposed location of the two new
crossings in east London (as well as the location of the proposed Silvertown Tunnel).
Figure 2-1 East of Silvertown crossing locations
2.1.5. The Study Area for this work incorporates the following local authorities – the London
boroughs of Newham, Barking and Dagenham, Havering and Bexley and the Royal
Borough of Greenwich. For wider context, the east sub-region is also referenced
East of Silvertown crossings
20
throughout this document. This incorporates the boroughs listed above as well as
Tower Hamlets, Hackney, Redbridge and Lewisham.
2.1.6. The East of Silvertown project is currently at the feasibility stage, and TfL is assessing
options to improve cross-river connectivity between east and southeast London to
support growth and improve resilience. As such, this document does not present a
preferred option but rather sets out the case for improving connectivity between east
and southeast London and provides a short list of public transport options.
2.2. The five case model for transport appraisal
2.2.1. This business case is based on H.M. Treasury’s advice on evidence-based decision
making as set out in the Green Book6 and uses the best practice five case model
approach.
2.2.2. This approach assesses whether schemes:
are supported by a robust case for change that fits with wider public policy
objectives – the ‘strategic case’;
demonstrate value for money – the ‘economic case’;
are commercially viable – the ‘commercial case’;
are financially affordable – the ‘financial case’; and
are achievable – the ‘management case’.
2.2.3. The evidence gathered as part of the business case preparation process has utilised
the tools and guidance provided by the DfT, notably WebTAG7. This approach ensures
that the evidence produced is robust and consistent for all the options examined in
detail. This applies equally to those options proposed for investment and those,
which following assessment, are not to be developed further.
2.3. The decision making process
2.3.1. The decision making process usually takes place in three phases. Each phase includes
the preparation of a business case followed by an investment decision point. Each
business case builds upon that previously prepared. Evidence is reviewed to ensure
that it remains up to date, accurate and relevant. The SOBC is in Phase One of this
iterative process; an Outline Business Case will be prepared at a later date once a
preferred option has been identified. This will be followed by the development of a
Full Business Case as shown below.
6
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/220541/green_book_complete.p
df accessed 5 September 2014 7 See https://www.gov.uk/transport-analysis-guidance-webtag accessed 5 September 2014
21
Figure 2-2 Stages of development
2.3.2. The current Phase One of this process focusses on articulating the need for the
intervention and summarising the range of options developed and considered. This
phase:
is used to set out the strategic fit of the project in line with relevant national and
London Mayoral and TfL policy objectives;
confirms the strategic fit and the case for change;
scopes out the initial investment/intervention proposal; and
provides details of the project’s overall balance of benefits and costs against
objectives.
2.3.3. The next stage, Phase Two, would follow in 2016. TfL will reconfirm the conclusions
from Phase One and will focus on a more detailed assessment of the options to find
the best solution, culminating in the preparation of an Outline Business Case, which
would build on this SOBC.
2.3.4. The final phase in the process, Phase Three, will result in the production of the Full
Business Case – this will accompany application for powers for the project.
2.4. The role of the Mayor of London and TfL
2.4.1. This investment proposal is made by TfL, acting as the body responsible for planning,
organising, controlling and, in some instances, operating transport within London for
the Mayor. The Mayor is charged with setting the policy and strategy for transport
which he has done by the publication of the Mayor’s Transport Strategy (MTS).
2.4.2. TfL is also responsible for improving the transport network in London, including the
majority of River Thames crossings for vehicular traffic (bridges, tunnels and the
Woolwich Ferry) within the Greater London area.
2.4.3. TfL’s business strategy is decided by the Mayor through the MTS. The MTS is the
principal policy tool through which the Mayor exercises his responsibilities for the
planning, management and development of transport in London, for both the
movement of people and goods. It takes into account the policies in the London Plan
and the Mayor’s Economic Development Strategy (EDS). It provides the policy context
for the more detailed plans of the various transport-related implementation bodies,
particularly TfL and the London boroughs.
2.4.4. The legislative framework for the MTS is laid down by the GLA Act 1999, as amended
by the GLA Act 2007. The GLA Act 1999 sets out the general transport duties of the
22
Mayor and the GLA. It specifies that the transport strategy must contain policies for
‘the promotion and encouragement of safe, integrated, efficient and economic
transport facilities and services to, from and within Greater London’, and proposals
for securing the transport facilities and services needed to implement the Mayor’s
policies over the lifetime of the MTS, with regard to the movement of people and
goods. TfL is under a duty to use its powers to facilitate and implement the policies
and proposals of the MTS.
23
3. The Strategic Case
3.1. Introduction
3.1.1. The Strategic Case is the first of the five cases forming this SOBC.
3.1.2. The Strategic Case demonstrates the need for an intervention (investment in new river
crossings East of Silvertown). It sets out London’s key role in the UK economy, the
characteristics of the east London economy and gives an overview of the significant
growth opportunities that exist in this part of London. It articulates the problems that
limited cross-river connectivity cause and why change is needed. It analyses the
possible solutions to the problems. It describes the rationale for making the
investment in fixed link river crossings, and how the investment furthers the aims and
objectives of TfL as the sponsoring organisation.
3.1.3. This strategic case is set out in five sections, these are:
Part A: The economic and spatial context for growth in east London
Part B: The problem identified and the case for change
Part C: Scheme objectives and measures of success
Part D: Option development
Part E: Overview of options
Part F: Travel patterns in east London and the strategic policy context
PART A: THE ECONOMIC AND SPATIAL CONTEXT FOR GROWTH IN EAST
LONDON
3.2. The importance of London’s growth to the UK
London’s role as a world city and its’ growth is vital to the UK economy
3.2.1. London plays a unique economic role in the UK as a highly competitive world city. It
contributes unique functions to the UK economy and the value of activity in London is
particularly high. London accounts for over one-fifth of the UK economy and one-
third of the UK’s exports of services.
3.2.2. Economic activity in London is concentrated in financial services, information and
communication and professional and real estate activities. These are high value
sectors but also sectors that benefit from agglomeration.
3.2.3. Productivity in London is much higher than the UK average. In 2013, in London Gross
Value Added (GVA) per head was £40,215, compared to a UK average of £23,394.
London contributes 22 per cent of the UK’s output despite having just 17 per cent of
its employment and 13 per cent of its population.
3.2.4. London is a rapidly growing city with a population of 8.6 million people which is
expected to grow to over 10 million by 2036, and to reach 11.3 million by 2050.
London has a highly productive, strong economy and over the next 20 years, the
24
number of jobs in London is also projected to grow by 700,000 to 6.3 million. This
growth is shown in Figure 3-1below.
Figure 3-1 Historic trends and projected growth in London’s employment and
population to 2036
3.2.5. The growth of London has made a critical contribution to UK finances. In 2010/11,
London generated over £100bn in tax revenue to the UK Exchequer with London and
the South East the only regions to make a net fiscal contribution to the UK public
finances. Investing in the future growth of London is essential to build strong public
finances.
3.2.6. Some people argue that this growth should not be encouraged – but London’s growth
matters for the UK as a whole. With economic growth driving population growth, it is
not possible to simply choose the former but reject the latter. Without supportive
policies to maintain growth in London’s labour supply, the likely outcome is falling
living standards.
London’s ability to grow is central to the national economy and
providing sufficient housing for people is a core requirement
3.2.7. London needs 49,000 new homes per year but has delivered an average of only
around 25,000 over the last 10 years. Indeed, to make up the existing backlog up to
62,000 homes are needed each year to 2025. As a result of this shortfall in supply of
housing to meet rising demand, the affordability of housing has worsened.
3.2.8. Between 2009 and 2014, house prices in Greater London have increased by 44 per
cent. Over the same period earnings growth has been weak, and so housing
affordability has inevitably worsened with the affordability gap increasing. Average
prices have increased faster in those boroughs closest to central London.
25
3.2.9. OAs are the capital’s major reservoir of brownfield land with significant capacity to
accommodate new housing, commercial and other development linked to existing or
potential improvements to public transport accessibility.”8
3.2.10. If London can’t grow by maximising development opportunities at these locations, the
alternative is not stability, but decline and a loss of its role and status as a world city.
3.3. The role of east London in supporting London’s growth through meeting
demand for new housing
East London has undergone a structural change and has a number of
distinctive characteristics that set it apart from the rest of London
3.3.1. The east London sub-region comprises the nine boroughs of Hackney, Tower
Hamlets, Newham, Redbridge, Barking and Dagenham, Havering, Bexley and Lewisham
and the Royal Borough of Greenwich, as set out in Figure 3-2 below.
Figure 3-2 The east London sub-region
3.3.2. East London has distinctive characteristics which are a crucial part of the London and
national economy. East London forms part of the Thames Gateway corridor, which
extends eastwards beyond London’s boundaries into Essex and Kent, along the
Thames Estuary.
8 London Plan, Para 2.58
26
3.3.3. The Thames estuary was once the main artery for the export and import of goods to
London and the Greater South East, and the backbone of a thriving manufacturing
sector that grew around it. While many manufacturing industries have moved out of
the area, resulting in structural change to the economy, a strong industrial presence
remains. Today, the sectors that make up the majority of employment in east London
are business and other services, construction, transport and distribution and ‘non-
marketed’ services. These sectors are heavily reliant on the highway network.
3.3.4. There are large areas of land on both sides of the river classified as Strategic Industrial
Locations (SIL). East London contains nearly 40% of London’s industrial land.
Industrial sectors such as wholesaling and warehousing, and support services play an
important role in servicing businesses based in central parts of London. Wharves on
the Thames still perform a function for handling aggregate imports and other bulk
commodities.
3.3.5. This SIL includes a significant transport and logistics presence within east London and
the wider Thames Gateway corridor, including the recently opened London Gateway
container port, and distribution centres and warehousing. Some 30% of London’s
warehousing space is in the East sub-region.
Changes to the structure of east London’s economy has left a legacy of
significant amounts of under-utilised brownfield industrial land able to
accommodate housing development
3.3.6. Over the last three decades, parts of east London have seen substantial levels of new
housing and employment growth (with substantial new development taking place on
brownfield sites) and regeneration has transformed much of the former Docklands. As
a result, many previously derelict sites such as the Olympic Park in Stratford now have
successful new uses. Nevertheless, a significant stock of brownfield land remains
underutilised or vacant and this represents an opportunity for meeting much of
London’s housing need.
3.3.7. This however requires unlocking through investment in infrastructure, a process that is
supported by the London Plan and boroughs.
East London is experiencing rapid population growth. The population of
east London is set to increase by 650,000 people by 2036
3.3.8. Forecast population growth in all but two of the nine boroughs in the east and
southeast sub-region is expected to exceed the total London growth of 22 per cent,
and the boroughs in the east sub-region are expected to account for over one third of
London's total population growth between 2011 and 2036. Figure 3-3 shows the
forecast spatial distribution of population growth by 2036.
3.3.9. Three of the five Study Area boroughs9 will experience population growth higher than
the sub-region as a whole - Barking and Dagenham is forecast to see a 42 per cent
increase in its population, and there is expected to be a 36 per cent increase in both
9 The five ‘Study Area’ boroughs are Barking and Dagenham, Bexley, Greenwich, Havering and Newham.
27
Greenwich and Newham.
Figure 3-3 Population growth 2011-2036
3.3.10. The London Plan highlights the potential of the east London sub-region- with its large
areas of brownfield land - to deliver a substantial proportion of the housing growth
forecast for the Capital. The area is set to meet a third of London’s new housing
requirements. This growth is driven by opportunity, planning, momentum and a
favourable investment climate.
3.3.11. However, there can be a high up front cost of remediating sites that were in former
industrial use so that they can be made suitable for other uses, such as residential
development.
3.3.12. House prices in several of the nine boroughs within the east London sub-region have
risen at a slower rate than in London as a whole, making this area one of the most
affordable parts of London to live in.
28
3.4. The role of east London in accommodating employment growth and the
need to improve its economic performance
By 2036, it is forecast that east London will accommodate a growth in
employment of 300,000 more jobs
3.4.1. In contrast to the significant share of London’s total population growth which the sub-
region is expected to accommodate, the share of total employment growth in the east
sub-region is expected to be smaller at around 17 per cent. The scale of employment
growth across London is shown in Figure 3-4. The largest absolute growth in
employment in the sub-region is expected in Tower Hamlets, with an additional
33,000 jobs expected by 2031.
Figure 3-4 Employment growth 2011-2036
3.4.2. Disparities between the amount and location of forecast population and employment
growth will generate increased commuter travel demands outside residents’ home
boroughs, including increased cross-river travel demand.
3.4.3. For example, an increase in the number of jobs located in the Royal Docks will increase
the number of journeys from Greenwich. Improving access to jobs is an important
element of the convergence agenda in east London.
29
Light industrial land uses will continue to be an important part of the
east London economy
3.4.4. Despite the expected land use changes in the future, the need for industrial land uses
in the sub-region will remain and freight movement in the sub-region is expected to
grow significantly in the future as it adapts to a growing population, and as a result of
the strategic role of the sub-region within an international gateway.
3.4.5. As outlined earlier, there are large areas of land on both sides of the river in the Study
Area that have been classified as SIL. This means that these sites are reserved for
industrial, distribution and logistics land uses. As other parts of London (e.g. Old Oak
Common, Nine Elms) undergo a change in land use from industrial to residential/mixed
use, the SILs in the Study Area could become even more strategically important to
London and freight and servicing trips to/from these locations would increase further.
Capacity will need to be provided for these additional light goods vehicle (LGV) and
heavy goods vehicle (HGV) trips, along with better access to the strategic road network
for these industries to continue and to expand.
3.4.6. This implies that the development of OAs, both to the north and south of the Thames,
in the east sub-region is also unlikely to be accomplished without the facilitation of
access for deliveries, servicing and freight.
If London is to continue to grow successfully, then there needs to be
convergence between the more economically strong parts of outer
London and those parts of outer London which currently underperform
3.4.7. Figure 3-5 below shows the GVA value of jobs across London. It shows that two parts
of London – outer east and northeast London and outer south London – perform
significantly below the London average in terms of this productivity measure.
Figure 3-5 London Gross Value Added per filled job
3.4.8. Rather than seeing convergence, the relative productivity performance of these two
areas has instead worsened significantly in the 10 years to 2012. Over that period
30
GVA/job in outer east and northeast London fell from 77 to 74 percent of the London
average. Similarly, for outer south London the ratio fell from 71 to 68 percent.
3.4.9. This also highlights the increasing inequality of job opportunities across the capital in
response to the changing nature and structure of the London economy. Inner east
London has attracted higher value jobs to the city fringe and Isle of Dogs in recent
years, sufficient to move productivity levels above the London average, the same
cannot be said for all parts of outer London.
3.4.10. The London Plan sets out how the outer London boroughs can accommodate
economic growth in Policy 2.7.This policy states that constraints and opportunities in
the economic growth of outer London should be addressed in order to improve on
outer London’s economic trend.
3.4.11. The policy suggests that this could be achieved by enabling existing growth sectors to
perform better by increasing the competitive attractiveness of outer London
locations, enhancing capacity to support viable local activities, coordinating
investment by the public sector to complement private sector investment, and
addressing deprivation and housing shortage in order to attract new employees.
3.5. The significant role that Opportunity Areas in east London will play in
accommodating future growth
3.5.1. The London Plan also states that outer London has important strategic functions as a
place to live, and it will be important to ensure the area continues to provide a range
of homes in sufficient numbers to support its own economic success, and that of
inner and central London.
The Opportunity Areas in east London can accommodate significant
levels of housing and employment growth
3.5.2. Within east London, 14 OAs have been designated, which together provide a major
opportunity to deliver more housing to help meet growth objectives of the London
Plan. Figure 3-6 shows the scale of population and employment growth they are
anticipated to accommodate, based on London Plan targets.
31
Figure 3-6 London Plan targets for housing and employment growth for the 14
Opportunity Areas in the east sub-region
3.5.3. The GLA forecasts the future distribution of employment growth across London based
on the triangulation of three sources of information, namely historic trends,
development site capacity and future changes in employment connectivity.
3.5.4. While the forecast levels of growth that the 14 east London OAs can accommodate is
already large, there are expectations that it could be much higher, with intensification
of existing sites and development of new ones not taken account of in the figures
presented above. Therefore, the level of growth seen in areas such as the Royal Docks
could well be higher in terms of both employment and population.
3.5.5. The East of Silvertown Study Area is characterised by large areas of potential
development/intensification, which could be unlocked through a number of
interventions including those that deliver improved connectivity.
3.5.6. The GLA projections for the study area demonstrate scope for ambitious levels of
growth for the study area boroughs, supported by further infrastructure. The East of
Silvertown project has therefore adopted a compatible methodology to assess the
impact the contribution of highway and public transport connectivity improvements
have in terms of meeting these growth projections.
TfL, through the River Crossings Development Study, has estimated the
development capacities within distinct Property Market Areas for housing
and employment
3.5.7. TfL commissioned the River Crossings Development Study (Atkins, 2014) that
identified all major development sites within the study area of the proposed Silvertown
Tunnel and East of Silvertown crossings. The identified sites were appraised in terms
of their viability of potential development, taking into account various constraints such
as market demand, physical site factors, policy alignment and current access.
32
3.5.8. Following on from this work, in 2015 TfL has re-assessed the capacity database in
more detail for the East of Silvertown study area with a focus on distinct Property
Market Areas (PMAs). The results of this assessment are shown in Figure 3-7. This
suggests that many of the PMAs in the vicinity of the proposed fixed river crossings
have the capacity to accommodate significant levels of housing development.
Figure 3-7 Estimated development capacity by PMA
33
PART B: THE PROBLEM IDENTIFIED AND THE CASE FOR CHANGE
3.6. East London’s transport network has poor cross-river connectivity
In east London there are fewer crossings of the River Thames than in the
rest of the city
3.6.1. The River Thames historically provided the essential means by which London was
linked to the rest of the world. At the same time, it has acted as a barrier to travel
between north and south London.
3.6.2. In west London, the river is narrower and unsuitable for larger vessels, so there are
frequent bridges over the Thames. East of Tower Bridge, the river broadens and
deepens. The flight paths of aircraft to/from London City Airport in the Royal Docks
also place constraints on the height of any new bridge structures in the vicinity. As a
result of the width of the river and the need to have higher clearances for bigger ships,
there are far fewer river crossings for vehicular traffic (including buses and freight as
well as cars) in east than west London – with only three road vehicle crossings of the
River Thames in the 23 km between Tower Bridge and the M25 – the Rotherhithe and
Blackwall Tunnels and the Woolwich Ferry. Only one low capacity cross-river bus
service operates in London to the east of Tower Bridge.
3.6.3. The river has shaped and influenced the spatial development of east London. Both
banks of the Thames are characterised by lower cost industrial land, with relatively
self-contained town centres such as Barking, Woolwich and Bexleyheath serving them.
3.6.4. The structural changes that have accompanied the decline in manufacturing and port-
related activities have provided an opportunity for regeneration of under-utilised
brownfield sites.
3.6.5. However, the high availability of land for redevelopment represents a huge opportunity
to accommodate the growth generated by London’s role as a thriving world city, and
to do so in a sustainable manner, creating high quality places to live.
3.6.6. Therefore there is a need to unlock the full growth potential of east London within the
overall vision for the future of London.
The lack of cross-river connectivity in east London is a significant barrier
to movement which limits people’s job and leisure opportunities,
restricts access to labour markets and negatively affects business to
business activities
3.6.7. In outer east London, businesses based on one side of the river are unable to
efficiently or cost-effectively serve customers on the other bank of the river, reducing
economies of scale and scope for expansion. This reduced pool of potential
customers adversely impacts on both levels of recruitment and investment in training.
3.6.8. An additional 1.5 million people are forecast to be living in the Capital by 2031 – and
with over one third of this growth expected in east London, it is imperative that the
conditions exist to facilitate this growth to ensure that London remains a key driver of
the UK economy. If the economy does not thrive, then the forecast level of population
growth will not be realised. Improved cross-river infrastructure in east London is
needed to facilitate the forecast growth.
34
3.6.9. The three existing highway river crossings in east London do not adequately cater for
current cross-river travel needs. Without investment in new crossings to improve
levels of connectivity, then outer east London’s potential contribution to growth will
be constrained. Businesses in the area may find it challenging to compete and grow as
their access to customers will remain more limited than businesses located in other
parts of London.
3.6.10. There are also severe resilience problems, which while in part would be addressed by
the proposed Silvertown Tunnel, will continue to impact on journey time reliability and
result in some journeys being long and indirect.
3.6.11. The composition of businesses in east London, with clusters of logistics, distribution,
support services and construction-related industries means that east London is
particularly dependent on its road network.
3.6.12. A solution to overcome the barrier effect of the Thames and improve transport
network resilience in east London needs to be delivered within the next 10-15 years to
ensure that the substantial growth planned in the area can be supported.
Local businesses currently see the river as a barrier to the development
of their business
3.6.13. TfL commissioned a Business Survey10 in 2013 to seek views on proposals for east
London river crossings. This was a stratified survey of 850 businesses based on the
sectoral and size distribution of businesses in Tower Hamlets, Newham, Barking and
Dagenham, Havering, Southwark, Lewisham, Greenwich and Bexley.
3.6.14. The first key finding of the research was that businesses expect the east London River
Crossings Programme to generate a strong positive economic effect, with 83 per cent
of businesses expecting the local economy to improve overall as a result of better
cross-river connections.
3.6.15. Another key finding of the research was that businesses value improvements to cross-
river journeys, with 64 per cent of firms regarding the ability to cross the River Thames
as important to the successful operation of their business with only 18 per cent
agreeing or strongly agreeing that current crossing options are adequate.
3.6.16. Around a third of businesses see the river as a barrier to the development of their
business. Again, this was particularly an issue for businesses in Greenwich (49 per cent)
as well as Newham (47 per cent) and Bexley (40 per cent).
3.6.17. Around two thirds of firms anticipate an increase in business from the other side of
the river should the investment package be implemented.
3.6.18. In the long term, businesses anticipate that staff recruitment would be enhanced
following delivery of new river crossings. Almost half of businesses would expect to
recruit additional staff as a result. In the construction sector, this proportion jumps to
59 per cent.
10 Business Survey, WSP, May 2014
35
3.6.19. Freight and logistics businesses are expected to benefit from the east London River
Crossings Programme. More efficient use of supplies and deliveries is anticipated by 65
per cent of firms as a result of the programme.
3.6.20. Some 59 per cent of firms would be prepared to pay a reasonable user charge to cross
the river, if journey times became more reliable.
3.6.21. In terms of business development, businesses are currently more concerned about
accessibility than site-specific characteristics or staffing. ‘Congestion and time wasted
in traffic’ were the main concerns relating to choice of business location in east
London.
3.6.22. If cross-river transport connectivity were to be improved, then this would facilitate
economic growth in a number of ways through:
Improving business efficiency through time savings and reliability, expanding
labour markets and increasing competition through improving access to
customers and suppliers;
Increasing the attractiveness and image of a location, thereby increasing demand
and property values (hence encouraging further development) and drawing
potential inward investors; and
Improving the resilience and reliability of the transport network reducing costs to
logistics operators and supply businesses.
3.6.23. Evidence from elsewhere demonstrates that improved connectivity from river
crossings can impact significantly on employment growth, with the authorities in close
proximity to the Dartford Crossing seeing growth rates of 20 per cent above those of
the wider sub-region during the past 20 years. A study carried out for the DfT
suggested that the original Severn Bridge (opened in 1966) contributed to the creation
of between 23,940 and 34,140 jobs over the 20 years since its construction. It was
estimated that this equates to an increase in economic activity and employment in
industrial south Wales of about 4%.
3.6.24. Analysis of the spatial distribution of the Dartford Crossing employment impacts
suggests that these are most likely to be felt in authorities directly linked by the new
crossing, although there may be some displacement effects with new employment
choosing to locate closer to the crossing at the expense of other authorities in
reasonable proximity to the crossing.
3.6.25. The impact of new crossings on housing growth is less certain, and is much more
aligned to local authority planning policy. However, analysis from the Dartford
Crossing suggests that dwelling growth rates in both Thurrock and Dartford have been
above the regional averages by 28 per cent and 34 per cent respectively since the
crossing opened.
36
3.7. Most improvements in cross-river connectivity have been focussed on
public transport and within inner east London
There has been substantial investment to improve cross-river
connectivity by public transport in inner east London but none in
highway nor in public transport connectivity in outer east London
3.7.1. As Figure 3-8 shows, there has been a period of sustained investment in public
transport capacity in inner east London over the past 20 years including Crossrail 1.
Prior to 1999, London Underground’s east London line represented the only rail
crossing of the River Thames in east London, providing a local shuttle from New Cross
to Shoreditch.
Figure 3-8 Public transport and highway capacity, 1992-2022
3.7.2. Since 1999, new cross-river rail links have been or will shortly be provided on the
following routes in inner east London:
Jubilee line (opened 1999, and subsequently upgraded with more frequent and
longer trains);
Docklands Light Railway (extended to Greenwich and Lewisham in 1999, and
subsequently enhanced with longer trains, and extended to Woolwich in 2009);
High Speed 1, which started operating frequent high speed trains between Kent
and east London in 2009;
London Underground’s East London line, which was transferred to the London
Overground network, with new services to a much wider range of destinations
from 2010, and further services from 2012;
Crossrail, now under construction, which will provide a new high frequency cross-
river link from Abbey Wood and Woolwich to the Royal Docks, Canary Wharf and
beyond from 2018.
In addition, the Emirates Air Line provides a direct link between North Greenwich
and the Royal Docks.
37
This improved connectivity and capacity has unlocked and enabled
significant levels of regeneration in inner parts of east London.
3.7.3. Investment in the DLR network and then the Jubilee line extension and the fixed cross-
river public transport links mentioned above serving inner east London, has helped
enable many high value services which would traditionally have been confined to
central London to now have bases in Canary Wharf. The same public transport links
have also enabled a major concert arena (the O2 Arena) on the Greenwich Peninsula
and an international conference centre (ExCeL) at the Royal Victoria Dock to be
established.
3.7.4. Most recently, the Olympic Park at Stratford occupies former industrial land within the
Lea Valley, slightly to the north of the Docklands area but closely linked to it by the
River Lea, the A12 and the DLR and Jubilee line.
Many development sites in outer east London do not have the public
transport networks and capacity required to enable higher densities of
housing that would maximise their contribution towards growth
3.7.5. The new cross-river public transport connections that have been provided are all
located in inner east London and there have been no new connections provided east
of Woolwich.
3.7.6. Whilst the PMAs in the vicinity of the proposed river crossings (set out in Figure 3-7)
have both the capacity and availability of land to accommodate significant levels of
growth, this is not by itself any guarantee that the additional housing will be delivered.
Alongside costs associated with remediation of industrial land, these areas of
development opportunity within outer east London will only fulfil their maximum
growth potential if there is upfront investment in infrastructure, including utilities,
schools, transport and open space.
3.7.7. This need for infrastructure investment, coupled with low land values affects the
viability of redevelopment. Private sector investment in property will be attracted
towards areas that offer attractive commercial returns on investment.
3.7.8. In recent years, the boroughs in outer east London have seen some minor
employment growth, although this has largely been in population-related sectors,
which expand as the population grows, and has masked a decline in the wider
economy. In contrast to the strong employment growth within central London, the
more limited employment opportunities available in outer east London boroughs
mean only those development opportunities that have good transport connectivity to
other parts of London are in high demand and are coming forward. Currently many
brownfield sites do not have the public transport networks and capacity to support
these areas sufficiently to support the densities of homes to maximise this
opportunity (see Figure 3-15 for public transport accessibility levels in the Thames
Gateway).
3.7.9. Therefore, improved development site access is needed in many cases to better link
them in to existing road and public transport networks. This is necessary in order to
help make them appealing and attractive locations to prospective residents or for
businesses. If development sites are seen to be difficult to reach from existing
networks or if travel times are longer than for surrounding areas, then this is likely to
reduce the level of interest.
38
3.8. Current cross-river provision in east London for vehicular traffic
The limited number of highway crossings in east London does not cater
adequately for the travel needs of vehicular traffic
3.8.1. However, there has been no corresponding increase in cross-river highway provision
within London since the construction of the southbound Blackwall Tunnel in the
1960s (although just outside London’s boundary the Queen Elizabeth II Bridge on the
M25 corridor at Dartford opened in 1991), despite the significant growth experienced.
Figure 3-9 illustrates the difference in the availability of road crossings over the
Thames in east, central and west London (noting those with restrictions on use), from
the M25 London orbital motorway in the west to the M25 Dartford Crossing in the
east. Discounting crossings within the Central London Congestion Charging Zone, in
west London between Vauxhall Bridge and the M25 there are 17 crossings in 29 km
yet in east London between Tower Bridge and the M25 there are just three crossings
in 23 km.
Figure 3-9 Tower Bridge to M25: three crossings in 23 km
39
There is significant freight/business use of the existing crossings in east
London
3.8.2. In addition to private vehicle trips, the east sub-region also accommodates a
significant proportion of London’s freight industry. As per the rest of London, around
90% of freight and servicing trips in east London are undertaken by road. As stated
earlier, some 30 per cent of London’s warehousing space is in the sub-region – a
similar proportion to the west sub-region, which has 32 per cent.
3.8.3. One third of vehicles using the Blackwall Tunnel and over half of those using the
Woolwich Ferry are goods vehicles, highlighting the importance of these crossings for
freight and servicing trips. Traffic counts undertaken in 2012 for TfL’s river crossings
Highway Assignment Model found that 35 per cent of Passenger Car Units (PCU) at
Blackwall Tunnel during the peak hour were goods vehicles (LGVs and HGVs). For the
Woolwich Ferry, 52 per cent of PCUs were LGVs/HGVs.
3.8.4. The nature of these freight trips involves servicing of retail and industrial premises,
deliveries of materials and supplies to construction sites and business to business
services. The lack of storage space on many premises require frequent deliveries and
the wide range of types of goods mean that road based freight using HGVs and LGVs
is the only realistic option. There are a limited number of rail freight terminals and
wharves, which are well suited to handling high volume bulk freight movements.
Therefore there is a continued need for these freight journeys to be undertaken by
road and with the planned increase in population in east and southeast London, the
proportion of freight related cross-river journeys is likely to increase.
3.8.5. The freight sector is subject to the same issues as other road users, including
severance and journey time unreliability – both of which are exacerbated by the
scarcity of Thames crossings in east London.
All three river crossings in east London (east of Tower Bridge) experience
capacity constraints and have restrictions on the type of vehicles that can
use them – which particularly affect HGV freight trips
3.8.6. Of the three east London crossings between Tower Bridge and Dartford, one is the low
capacity Woolwich Ferry (which does not operate 24/7)11 and the other two are the
Rotherhithe and Blackwall Tunnels which both have restrictions on use by large
vehicles. This means that for certain categories of road users, commercial traffic in
particular, the highway river crossing opportunities available in the Study Area is limited
not only by number but also by restrictions on weight, height, length and/or width. For
safety reasons, there are also restrictions on the nature of loads which may be carried
in tunnels12.
11 The Woolwich Ferry operates 6.10am to 8pm Monday to Saturday (incl. most public holidays) and 11.30am to
7.30pm on Sundays. 12 Restrictions under the European Agreement on the International Carriage of Dangerous Goods
40
3.8.7. This means that certain road vehicles with origins or destinations in east London, may
need to take very lengthy diversionary routes, possibly on inappropriate roads, in order
to cross the River Thames. The Woolwich Ferry provides a useful function in this
context. Despite carrying a relatively small number of vehicles, it affords a river
crossing opportunity for certain goods vehicles that are unable to use the other
crossings. Unfortunately, its role is reduced through the ferry being closed in the
evenings and overnight, together with limited Sunday operating hours. The age of the
current ferries used on the route also means that they suffer from reliability problems.
The limited number of river crossings means that many local trips to
reach destinations the other side of the river must travel over longer
distances, resulting in longer journey times.
3.8.8. The current lack of connectivity and the resultant lengthy routes for certain journeys is
shown on Table 3-1 and Figure 3-10 shows the route that a vehicular trip between
Thamesmead and Beckon would take via either the Blackwall Tunnel or the Dartford
Crossing. In practice, the journey times by vehicle under free flow conditions are not
experienced during the morning peak and therefore journey times are, in reality, longer.
3.8.9. While there are alternative routes to cross the river, these are in all cases significantly
greater than the as the crow-fly distances involved. This means in the current situation
that existing or potential trips incur a significant distance and time ‘penalty’ in these
cross-river journeys and even with the addition of the proposed Silvertown Tunnel,
these lengthy diversion requirements will still exist. Due to the length of the journeys,
the time taken to get between these places is long.
Table 3-1 Journey pair distance/time estimates13
Thamesmead – Beckton Journey distance (km) Freeflow time (min)
As the crow flies 4 n/a
Via Blackwall Tunnel 18 25
Via Woolwich Ferry 9 35
Via Dartford Crossing 36 34
Belvedere – Rainham Distance (km) Freeflow time (min)
As the crow flies 4 n/a
Via Blackwall Tunnel 28 34
Via Woolwich Ferry 20 45
Via Dartford Crossing 24 23
13 Estimated journey times measured by Google maps – TfL analysis
41
Figure 3-10 Current vehicular trips between Thamesmead and Beckton via Blackwall
Tunnel and Dartford Crossing
3.8.10. A corollary of this is that in areas where developed highway networks each side of the
river are separated from one another by a lack of cross-river links, the provision of
even a single new link has the potential to dramatically alter access to networks and
the social and economic opportunities this offers.
Route via the Blackwall Tunnel
Route via the Dartford Crossing
18 km journey distance with a
minimum 25 minute journey time
36 km journey distance with a
minimum 34 minute journey time
42
The river can be a significant barrier to accessing employment
opportunities by car - Beckton residents have access to 10 times more
jobs within a 45 minute drive than Thamesmead residents
3.8.11. As set out in Figure 3-11, the river acts as a real barrier to job opportunities, with a
much smaller number of jobs available to people living south of the river in east
London when compared to most other parts of London.
Figure 3-11 Number of jobs accessible within 37 minutes - 2011
3.8.12. The barrier effect of the Thames is also clearly evident when using TfL’s Travel
Options Pie assessment tool.
3.8.13. Figure 3-12 shows that for people who live in Thamesmead, there are fewer jobs
accessible north of the river within a 30 minute journey by either car or public
transport. This contrasts with the significantly larger number of jobs that are accessible
within 30 minutes from Beckton, directly across the river from Thamesmead, as shown
in Figure 3-13.
43
Figure 3-12 Jobs accessible within 30 minutes travel time of Thamesmead, 2011
Figure 3-13 Jobs accessible within 30 minutes travel time of Beckton, 2011
3.8.14. This differential in cross-river highway provision has had a significant effect on the
relative extent of cross-river travel in the eastern and western halves of the Capital by
influencing whether, how and where people travel. This issue is looked at in detail
within Part F of the Strategic Case. The limited number and location of crossings in
east London is also likely to have influenced the type of land uses in various locations.
44
3.9. Cross-river connectivity within outer east London
There is a strong disparity in the number of cross-river bus services
between west and east London, reflecting the limited number of river
crossings in east London, resulting in fewer opportunities for travel by
public transport
3.9.1. Bus travel is the dominant public transport mode in outer London and yet the lack of
cross-river connectivity means there are no bus services east of the Blackwall Tunnel.
3.9.2. Figure 3-14 highlights the notable disparity in cross-river bus route coverage between
east and west London, which is a consequence of the very limited cross-river road
connections.
3.9.3. The figure shows all cross-river bus routes in red - there are 47 bus routes which cross
the river west of Vauxhall Bridge and only a single route crossing the river east of
Tower Bridge - the 108 between Stratford and Lewisham via the Blackwall Tunnel14.
3.9.4. The barrier to the provision of cross-river bus services in east London is two-fold; on
the limited number of crossing options and congestion relating to the Blackwall Tunnel
combine to make journeys by bus less attractive due to longer travel distances, long
journey times and poor service reliability.
14 Routes which cross the river in central London, using Vauxhall Bridge, Tower Bridge, or crossing points in
between these two are coloured light pink. Routes which cross the river outside these two bridges are coloured
red.
45
Figure 3-14 Contrast in cross-river bus services between east and west London
3.9.5. The one bus service that crosses the river in east London can suffer from significant
disruption when the Blackwall Tunnel is congested or temporarily closed. While the
proposed Silvertown Tunnel, with much improved reliability, offers the opportunity to
recast services in the area and radically improve cross-river bus journeys in inner east
London, there still will not be any bus services linking the east and southeast of outer
London, despite bus travel being the dominant public transport mode in outer London.
3.9.6. In addition to road and rail-based public transport, some river bus services operate in
the eastern section of the Thames. They provide a useful radial link between east
London and parts of central London, and also serve cross-river trips along the inner
section of the Thames but do not provide any crossing opportunities in areas east of
Greenwich Pier.
Despite recent investment, Public Transport Accessibility Levels (PTAL)
in significant parts of east and southeast London remain very low
3.9.7. The very low PTAL levels within areas of east London are indicated by the large areas
of blue and grey in Figure 3-15 below – with only a small number of areas, largely
around key centres such as Stratford, Woolwich and Barking, where connectivity levels
by public transport are high.
46
Figure 3-15 Public Transport Accessibility Levels London Thames Gateway, 2031
Current provision for cross-river movements by walking and cycling is
poor
3.9.8. The scale and role of the River Thames as a major shipping navigation channel in east
London makes the provision of convenient pedestrian and cycle links across the river
significantly more challenging and costly compared with areas of London to the west
of Tower Bridge.
3.9.9. Cross-river routes for cyclists and pedestrians are provided via dedicated foot tunnels
at Greenwich and Woolwich (see Figure 3-16). Built in the early twentieth century,
these have recently undergone refurbishment by the Royal Borough of Greenwich.
3.9.10. In addition, there are some rail links which cyclists can use to cross the Thames, and
the Emirates Air Line provides a cross-river cable car link for pedestrians and cyclists
between the Greenwich Peninsula and Royal Docks.
3.9.11. Cyclists have more restricted public transport options than pedestrians, due to
restrictions on the carriage of (non-folded) cycles on peak services on the Jubilee line
and DLR and in future on Crossrail. However, cyclists can take their cycles through the
foot tunnels and on the Woolwich Ferry free of charge. As noted above, bicycles may
also be carried on the Emirates Air Line.
47
Figure 3-16 Fixed river crossings in the Study Area for pedestrians and cyclists
3.9.12. There are low pedestrian and cycle flows across the river east of Tower Bridge, with
the highest being those on the ferry that connects Rotherhithe to and Canary Wharf
(on the western edge of the study area) and the Greenwich foot tunnel.
3.10. Highway network resilience
3.10.1. The term ‘resilience’ in this context describes the ability of the transport network to
provide and maintain an acceptable level of service in the face of both planned and
unplanned incidents. For cross-river highway network this is a function of:
The number of crossings and the distance between them;
Their capacity to meet demand and the consequent implications should full or
partial closure of one or more crossings be necessary, including the ability of
operating crossings to handle traffic diverted from non-operational crossings; and
Their susceptibility to closure; for instance, an inability to accommodate all
vehicle types, maintenance needs for old assets and/or susceptibility to adverse
weather causing closures.
48
The lack of resilience of the cross-river highway network is a significant
issue for businesses
3.10.2. Resilience is a significant issue for businesses, increasing costs and uncertainty –
recent research on behalf of TfL found that 67 per cent of firms located in the Study
Area consider that poor reliability of cross-river travel acts as a constraint on or
disruption to their business15. The same research found that 44 per cent of firms think
predictability of cross-river journey times is poor or very poor, compared to 12 per
cent who regard it as good or very good. Journey time reliability is a particular issue for
firms in Greenwich and 80 per cent of firms anticipate more predictable journey times
as a result of the east London River Crossings Programme.
3.10.3. Resilience is an issue for individual crossings, but is also applicable across the wider
road network, where the overall number of links between different parts of the
network and the distances between them are significant. In east London, the overall
resilience of the road network is sub-optimal due, in part, to the small number of river
crossings and the significant distances between them.
3.10.4. The lack of river crossings means commuter and business traffic travelling from south
of the river to the north side must converge on the three river crossings on a stretch of
15km of the river in east London. This reliance on a small number of crossings
significantly reduces network resilience and compounds traffic congestion and safety
problems when incidents occur. These problems are likely to have a particularly
pronounced impact on commercial traffic, which faces restrictions on the crossings it
can use.
3.10.5. Incidents at crossings causing obstruction and delay are excessively frequent and have
significant adverse impacts across the wider road network. Between November 2012
and November 2013 there were a total of some 1,100 unplanned incidents in the
Blackwall tunnel– around 55 per cent of these were in relation to overheight vehicles,
and a further 24 per cent were caused by vehicle breakdowns16.
3.10.6. The potential for serious and severe incidents at the Blackwall Tunnel to have a far-
reaching impact on London's road network can be illustrated through an analysis of an
incident which occurred on the evening of Sunday 29 November 2009. On this
occasion, a vehicle fire in the northbound bore of the Blackwall Tunnel caused the
closure of the tunnel in both directions on Sunday evening and the closure of the
northbound bore most of Monday 30 November. The closure caused considerable
delays to traffic across large sections of the road network, and particularly in southeast
London as drivers sought alternative routes and river crossings.
3.10.7. The proposed Silvertown Tunnel project aims to address the existing lack of resilience
experienced at the Blackwall Tunnel. The proposed tunnel would provide an important
cross-river link not only to help to serve the projected growth in east London but
crucially to address existing congestion and reliability issues at the Blackwall Tunnel,
15 East London River Crossings – Business Survey, WSP, published June 2014 16 TfL Network Performance Data, 2012/3
49
which currently present a substantial cost both to individuals and businesses. It would
also transform cross-river bus connectivity in this part of east London – providing new
bus routes across the Thames.
3.10.8. However, despite the improvements to the resilience of the river crossing network in
east London that the proposed Silvertown Tunnel would deliver, large connectivity
gaps would remain between Silvertown and the Dartford Crossing, due to the absence
of any other fixed road crossings.
3.10.9. Further east, there are also current network resilience issues relating to the Woolwich
Ferry. At busy times, the queue for traffic wishing to board the Woolwich Ferry often
builds up considerably, sometimes significantly obstructing and delaying other road
users, particularly on the southern side of the river.
3.10.10. Figure 3-17 below illustrates an occasion where the queue for the Ferry extended back
through the roundabout and caused significant queuing on the eastbound and
northbound approaches to the junction.
Figure 3-17 Woolwich Ferry queues blocking back through the roundabout (south side)
3.10.11. A large majority of traffic on these roads is not seeking to use the Ferry, but associated
queuing and congestion is causing significant delays to other local traffic around
Woolwich town centre. Other analysis17 showed that bus journey times in the area can
be significantly affected by this queuing, which impacts on bus users over a wide area.
3.10.12. The Dartford Crossing also has some characteristics that impede its’ resilience. During
high winds or icy weather, the bridge can be required to close. Moreover, neither the
bridge nor the tunnels have hard shoulders and so the crossings need to be closed to
facilitate recovery of broken down vehicles or to undertake maintenance. This is due to
17 TfL iBus data
50
there being safety-related restrictions on vehicle recovery being undertaken or on
maintenance staff working alongside traffic.
3.10.13. The Department for Transport and Highways England are currently considering
proposals for a new Lower Thames Crossing, which would go some way towards
alleviating congestion currently associated with the Dartford Crossing, while recently
implemented free-flowing tolling is intended to improve capacity and reduce the
delays that were experienced at the toll barriers.
3.10.14. Initial indications are that the free-flow tolling scheme has been successful in reducing
delays, but the scheme was not designed to have a significant effect on the overall
capacity or resilience of the crossing.
3.11. Deprivation
3.11.1. While significant regeneration has already taken place, the east London boroughs that
lie on the River Thames together still form one of the most deprived areas not only of
London but of the whole of the UK, as illustrated by Figure 3-18.
3.11.2. The lack of good transport connections and capacity is a major barrier to the economic
growth which is needed in this wider area, with the lack of cross-river connectivity
limiting people’s job and education opportunities.
3.11.3. As the experience of areas of London’s Docklands and the Olympic Park site has
shown, investment in improved transport infrastructure can provide positive
regeneration benefits, across the economic cycle, in terms of job creation/location and
inward investment.
Figure 3-18 Index of Multiple Deprivation 2010 showing clustering in east London
51
3.11.4. The population in this part of London is expected to grow at a faster rate than
employment because the boroughs within the Study Area will continue to be among
the most affordable places in London to live. This growing population of working age
people will therefore need to travel beyond the Study Area and within it, including
commuting across the river, in order to reach areas of employment opportunities. If
cross-river travel remains difficult, particularly for low income workers, then it is
possible that the level of deprivation in the east sub-region could in fact be further
exacerbated, if people are unable to access job opportunities at a reasonable cost and
travel time.
3.11.5. With the current lack of cross-river connectivity, many of these new jobs on the north
side of the river will not be accessible to those living on the south side.
3.12. Summary of the case for change
3.12.1. A summary of the case for change is given below.
London needs to capitalise on development opportunities for it to continue to grow
and succeed
To retain London’s world city status, the supply of housing needs to be increased or
affordability and quality of life will continue to worsen, threatening the city’s ability to
continue to attract investment and skilled workers.
Based on current planning policies, east London is able to play a vital role as a
location for significant new housing development
East London contains 14 OAs, with land available that can meet a large proportion of
London’s future housing need. A number of these OAs, including London Riverside
and Bexley Riverside are amongst the largest of the 38 OAs across London in terms of
both land area and capacity to accommodate development.
The East of Silvertown Study Area is characterised by large areas of land which have
the potential for development/intensification. Development within such areas could
be unlocked by investment in transport infrastructure that addresses the existing lack
of connectivity.
East London’s forecast growth cannot be realised without investment in transport
infrastructure including improvements to cross-river connectivity.
The poor cross-river transport connections in east London affect the perception of
the area, potentially impacting on developers’ willingness to invest in the area,
meaning that land is either underutilised or not developed at all.
The lack of cross-river highway links in east London reduces connectivity and acts as
a major constraint both on businesses and on residents’ access to employment and
other opportunities
The geography of the Thames and the historical development of east London has
resulted in few road-based river crossings, and this has led to the concentration of
road travel movements on the small number of available river crossings and routes
leading to them.
This limited cross-river connectivity constrains travel between large populations and
businesses located on either side of the river.
52
Survey work suggests that businesses in east London: (i) value improvements to
cross-river; (ii) are not satisfied with current crossing options; (iii) are concerned about
the constraints and disruptions placed on their business by poor reliability of cross-
river journey times; and (iv) see the river as a barrier to the development of their
business.
It also limits the number of jobs people can access, reducing leisure and education
opportunities and restricting access to markets for businesses. It also results in longer
and more indirect journeys for many, which increases the costs of business.
Disparities between the amount and location of forecast population and employment
growth will generate increased travel demands outside residents’ home boroughs,
including increased cross-river travel demand. For example, an increase in the number
of jobs located in the Royal Docks will increase the number of journeys from
Greenwich. It is desirable that existing and future residents of all boroughs in east and
southeast London have access to the largest number of jobs possible, which means
improved connectivity across the river, including new cross-river public transport
options.
East London is an important employment location for businesses that are heavily
reliant on a reliable strategic highway network, and this will remain so in the future
East London plays an important function as a key strategic location for light industrial
employment in sectors such as warehousing, distribution and wholesaling, which are
all vital to the functioning of the city. These businesses are especially dependent on
the road network.
Demand for freight movement in London (for which in many cases the opportunity to
shift mode does not exist) will also continue to increase over the medium to long
term as the overall population grows. East London, with its large areas of SIL, will play
an important part in the servicing and delivery industries, which will generate demand
for cross-river travel to service areas such as Canary Wharf.
The current lack of cross-river highway connectivity has an adverse impact on road
network performance and resilience
The small number of river crossings in east London has led to severe congestion and
resilience issues, particularly at the Blackwall Tunnel. The proposed Silvertown Tunnel
is designed to overcome some of these pressures, but would not address the broader
problem of poor connectivity.
While public transport mode share is increasing as a result of this investment, road
based travel in absolute numbers continues to increase and remains a very important
mode of transport for many – particularly where the opportunity to shift modes does
not exist (e.g., servicing and delivery trips).
And despite this investment there remains a distinct lack of connectivity in east
London, for both highway and public transport, with the Woolwich Ferry being the
only highway crossing between the proposed Silvertown Tunnel and the Dartford
Crossing – a distance of some 20 km.
Cross-river highway connections are not only important for private and commercial
traffic but also for bus services and the lack of highway crossings means that there are
no bus connections east of the Blackwall Tunnel. Additionally, there are no rail
connections east of Woolwich.
53
While car mode share is forecast to continue to decrease across London, the
numbers travelling by private vehicle are forecast to continue to grow due to
population growth.
Outer east London has poor cross-river public transport connectivity – addressing
this will enable denser development.
There has been significant investment by TfL in cross-river public transport
connectivity in inner east London, shown in Figure 3-8, which has unlocked
regeneration and development opportunities. There has been no investment east of
the DLR extension to Woolwich. Similar investment is now needed in outer east
London. Investment to improve levels of public transport connectivity within OAs and
other growth areas, including better cross-river connectivity can support delivery of
higher housing densities.
Given forecast levels of population growth, public transport will continue to play an
important part of travel in the sub-region and its mode share is expected to increase.
New river crossings conform with regional and national policy
The MTS identifies the need for additional crossings in east London (further detail on
relevant policy is set out in Part F). These crossings are essential to delivery of the
overall package of river crossings and are necessary to provide the levels of
connectivity required to support the long term growth of the area.
Similarly, the Department for Transport is currently considering proposals for a new
Lower Thames Crossing to alleviate congestion associated with the Dartford Crossing.
The Dartford Crossing provides a strategic function as part of the UK motorway
network and any enhancements here would not remove the need for enhancements
in east London.
3.13. Impact of not changing
3.13.1. The levels of housing growth proposed for east London are dependent on there being
supporting infrastructure to facilitate this growth. Without additional connectivity
between east and southeast London in the form of new fixed river crossings, it is
unlikely that the growth targets for a number of OAs would be met. The impacts of
not changing are set out below
If cross-river connectivity levels are not improved, then employment opportunities
would remain restricted, reducing the likelihood of outer east and southeast London
being able to converge towards the higher productivity levels found in the rest of
London
3.13.2. As outlined above, the river acts as a barrier to people’s job opportunities, with a
noticeable difference in the number of jobs accessible from southeast London
compared to other parts of the Capital. The reduced access to employment
opportunities and business customers acts as a constraint on economic growth in east
London.
3.13.3. In the future, the boroughs with the highest absolute increase in jobs lie north of the
river and so the disparity between the amount and location of forecast population and
employment growth will continue. If residents in boroughs south of the river have poor
connections to the jobs north of the river, it restricts employment opportunities and
54
hinders the potential for regeneration in this area of London, which has, in parts, very
high levels of deprivation.
The lack of cross-river highway connectivity would continue to act as a barrier to
business development and as a consequence of this, GVA growth would be lower
3.13.4. As highlighted by the research undertaken by TfL, 65 per cent of firms surveyed
considered that poor reliability of cross-river travel acts as a constraint on or
disruption to their business. Additionally, a significant number of firms considered the
river to be a barrier to the development of their business on the other side. Without
improved cross-river connectivity in east London, the Thames will continue to be a
barrier to business development.
3.13.5. Within London, the Thames Gateway area extends through Newham, Barking and
Dagenham and Havering on the north side of River Thames and from Greenwich/
Charlton, to Belvedere/ Erith on the south side but many occupiers perceive these as
two distinct sub-markets due to the separation caused by the river. Without
connections that help join up the industrial locations north and south of the river, this
distinction will continue and without a crossing, the opportunity to help to strengthen
the higher value employment will be missed. This is likely to result in lower levels of
GVA growth.
Opportunity Areas on the south side of the river in east London would continue to
be poorly connected to employment opportunities on the north side of the river,
reducing the attractiveness of these OAs as a place to live, potentially reducing the
contribution they can make to delivery of new housing
3.13.6. London needs to build 49,000 new homes per year between 2015 and 2036 to
accommodate the growing population and meet the backlog of need18. However, it is
unlikely that all that development would be brought forward where land values are low
and sites are not commercially viable.
3.13.7. East London is expected to accommodate around a third of London’s forecast
population growth over the next twenty years, but if connectivity between east and
southeast London remains poor and inhibits business development as well as limits
residents’ employment and education opportunities, developers may invest less in the
area resulting in housing being built to lower densities, which would mean that housing
growth targets are less likely to be achieved. While much of the land in the area is
zoned for housing, unless transport connectivity is improved, it is unlikely to be
developed.
3.13.8. Overall, therefore, the impact of not changing the poor cross-river connectivity in east
London would be to restrict people’s employment, education and leisure
opportunities, deter development in the area and supress business activity. Combined,
these impacts jeopardise the ability to meet strategic housing targets for London,
which in turn would mean growth forecasts cannot be met.
18 Further Alterations to the London Plan, March 2015
55
PART C: SCHEME OBJECTIVES AND MEASURES OF SUCCESS
3.14. Objectives
3.14.1. To assess the schemes and ideas that have been generated either by TfL or others (for
instance in response to consultation), objectives for the East of Silvertown project
have been defined.
3.14.2. These objectives are based on Mayoral policy as set out in the London Plan and MTS
(further detail on relevant policy is set out in Part F), information gathered from the
assessment of needs (including the latest information on population growth) and
responses to consultation.
3.15. River crossings programme objectives
3.15.1. The East of Silvertown project forms one element of the wider River Crossings
programme. Objectives have been developed for the River Crossings programme that
are aligned with the London Plan objectives for east London and the policies set out in
Proposal 39 of the MTS19. These objectives are as follows:
To improve the efficiency of the highway network in the London Thames
Gateway, especially at river crossings, and provide greater resilience for all
transport users
To support the needs of existing businesses in the area and to encourage new
business investment
To support the provision of public transport services in the London Thames
Gateway
To integrate with local and strategic land use policies
To minimise any adverse impacts of any proposals on health, safety and the
environment
To ensure where possible that any proposals are acceptable in principle to key
stakeholders, including affected boroughs
To achieve value for money.
3.16. East of Silvertown project objectives
3.16.1. As set out above, the principal reasons for improving cross-river connectivity are to
address issues concerning:
Lack of connectivity between east and southeast London, which constrains
development, restricts business to business activities and limits people’s job,
leisure and education opportunities.
19 Greater London Authority: Mayor’s Transport Strategy, May 2010
56
Poor transport network resilience and the requirement for long, indirect routes
between locations on opposite sides of the river.
3.16.2. The objectives for the East of Silvertown project are based on the need to address
these issues and based on a broad view of policy, the transport and economic context
and the identified issues (as well as the overarching programme objectives set out
above) the following project objectives have been adopted:
to support population and employment growth;
to improve cross-river connectivity; and
to improve the resilience of cross-river transport links.
3.16.3. In addition to these objectives, which are described in more detail below, a successful
crossing option or package of options would need to meet a number of other
requirements arising principally from the River Crossings programme objectives
referenced above and also from a range of other sources including the criteria defined
in the London Plan (and echoed in the MTS) for assessing proposals for new roads (as
described in Chapter 2), Department for Transport WebTAG guidance and as a result of
discussions with stakeholders. These are:
To minimise any adverse impacts of any proposals on communities, health, safety
and the environment
To ensure, where possible, that any proposals are acceptable in principle to key
stakeholders, including affected boroughs
To align with local and strategic land use policies
To achieve value for money and, through road user charging, to manage traffic.
3.16.4. Together, these objectives and requirements are consistent with the Mayoral
objectives as set out in the MTS and the London Plan, and with the programme
objectives and will be used to assess the river crossing options at locations east of the
proposed Silvertown Tunnel.
3.17. Definition of objectives
3.17.1. Supporting population and employment growth reflects the London Plan’s emphasis
on enabling growth. The recent Further Alterations to the London Plan (FALP) is based
on the latest data, and suggest a more rapid rate of population growth. The objectives
for the crossings reflect this and the take account of themes that emerged from TfL’s
public consultations on river crossings as outlined elsewhere in this document.
Definition of ‘cross-river connectivity’
3.17.2. Cross-river connectivity relates to the strategic objective for river crossings defined in
the London Plan. It refers in this context to:
The opportunities for east and southeast London residents to access employment
and local facilities, and of firms to hire labour and interact with other businesses
and consumers, enabling a change to the accessibility of and connectivity
between the areas either side of the river
57
Any new crossing focussing primarily on catering for ‘local’ traffic, that is, traffic
with either an origin and/or destination in one of the boroughs in the Study Area
(Greenwich, Bexley, Newham, Barking and Dagenham and Havering). Clearly any
crossing would be used to some degree by traffic outside of this area, but this
should not be the majority of traffic attracted to using the crossing.
Definition of ‘cross-river transport network resilience’
3.17.3. Cross-river transport network resilience in this context also relates to the strategic
objective for river crossings defined in the London Plan. It refers to:
The number of crossings and the distance between them, impacting on the way
that travel can be dispersed between crossings, reducing the journey lengths and
time taken to cross the river
The availability of these crossings to local traffic (including the movement of
goods), public transport, cyclists and pedestrians throughout the day and week
The susceptibility of crossings to closure and the ability of the cross-river
transport network to cope with planned and unplanned events and incidents
Long term crossing security, allowing long term investments in housing or
business premises to be made with confidence
The ability of the crossings to deal with different vehicle types or other
operational constraints
The capacity of these links and the demand to use them, and therefore the
implications should full or partial closure of one or more crossings be necessary.
3.17.4. A resilient cross-river transport network, therefore, would consist of a number of
different links, spaced regularly along the river, each of which is able to provide an
acceptable level of service for all vehicle types and is not prone to unplanned closure.
3.18. Core project requirements
3.18.1. In order to meet the project objectives, a successful preferred crossing option
developed in response to the MTS would also need to meet a number of other core
project requirements.
3.18.2. The initial core project requirements for the East of Silvertown project are:
Crossings to be generally available for use all day, every day, except for routine
maintenance works;
Dedicated public transport lanes to be included on both of the crossings – at a
minimum bus lanes;
Any new bridges to be accessible for pedestrians and cyclists and for this
provision to link safely to local walking/cycling networks at each end;
To provide efficient connections to the local distributor road network – Royal
Docks Road and Western Way (for the Gallions Reach crossing) and Eastern
Way/Bronze Age Way and Marsh Way/A13 junction (for the Belvedere
crossing);
To take account of known adjacent land-use and development proposals and
minimise impacts on the surrounding network; and
58
Road user charging to be implemented at the crossings to provide a tool to
help maintain an appropriate mix and volume of traffic, as well as to provide a
contribution to the cost of the crossings.
3.18.3. These requirements will continue to be refined as option development continues and
a final list of requirements will be set out at a later date.
59
PART D: OPTION DEVELOPMENT
3.19. Introduction
A sifting process to narrow down a long list of 30 potential river crossing
options has been carried out using multi-criteria analysis
3.19.1. To date, a broad range of options to address the needs set out above have been
considered. As time has progressed, these lists of options has been reduced. Early
work (for example, that which formed content of the July-September 2014
consultation) looked at fixed (i.e., bridge) and non-fixed (i.e., ferry) links at a number of
locations including Woolwich and Gallions Reach.
3.19.2. Following the consultation in 2014, it was decided to progress fixed link options at
Gallions Reach and Belvedere as these best met the objectives defined for the
scheme. Since this point, and as a result of feedback received from the consultation,
TfL has investigated the options further, considering bridge and tunnel options as well
as a range of public transport concepts.
3.19.3. Firstly long lists of highway, active travel and public transport options were
investigated. This is covered in the Option Assessment Report (Long List). The sifting
process of the long-list of options was undertaken using TfL’s Strategic Assessment
Framework (SAF) which is aligned with the DfT’s Early Assessment and Sifting Tool
(EAST). SAF is a multi-criteria assessment tool, which scores projects against a series
of criteria relevant to a range of organisational goals and objectives.
3.19.4. Following this, another assessment of an interim list of public transport options was
undertaken given the large number of options considered. This is covered in the
Option Assessment Report (Public Transport Interim List). It is through this work that
the short list of public transport options that is presented in this document has been
identified.
3.19.5. Following this consultation and further work on options appraisal, the public transport
short list of feasible options will be considered alongside equivalent highway and
active travel lists. The aim is then to identify the preferred multi-modal packages and a
preferred solution identified and progressed.
3.19.6. Figure 3-19 outlines the stages that will be undertaken.
60
Figure 3-19 Assessment chart for the East of Silvertown project
3.19.7. The following sections summarise the sifting processes undertaken thus far.
3.20. Location
3.20.1. Large parts of the riverside in east London have constraints on one side or both, which
would make the construction of a new river crossing unacceptable in terms of property
or environmental impacts. In identifying suitable locations for the crossings, several
factors need to be taken into account including property, environmental and river
navigation impacts, access to the highway and public transport networks as well as
existing town centre locations, infrastructure, safeguarded land and protected open
space.
3.20.2. Assessments of existing and future land uses has identified two locations that would
best help meet the objectives set out for the river crossings as well as tie-in with the
existing transport networks in the area; these are at Gallions Reach and between
Belvedere and Rainham. This is discussed in the Option Assessment Report (Long List).
3.20.3. Crossings at these locations can help to ensure that the significant growth planned in
the area can be supported by, for example, linking OAs on either side of the river as
well help to improve network resilience in event of incidents at other crossings by
ensuring the distance between crossings is reduced.
61
3.20.4. In order to ensure that these were the optimum locations, infrastructure options at
Woolwich were also included in the Option Assessment Report (Long List), but ruled
out.
3.21. Infrastructure options
3.21.1. There are five different infrastructure options that have been considered for the
crossings:
a high-level bridge;
an opening bridge;
a bored tunnel;
an immersed tunnel; and
a vehicle ferry.
3.21.2. The fixed infrastructure options are all assumed to be two lanes in each direction –
one for general traffic and one for public transport.
3.21.3. The long-list of potential highway river crossings was considered in the Option
Assessment Report (Long List). It concludes that high-level bridges and immersed
tunnels are the most appropriate options to consider in further detail.
3.22. Public transport options
3.22.1. Consideration has been given to how public transport provision can be best integrated
into the proposals for any new crossing. A long list of around 30 options was initially
considered, which made use of either the Gallions Reach or Belvedere crossing, or
both. Further options requiring a separate tunnel linking Barking and Abbey Wood were
also considered for comparison.
3.22.2. The assessment of the long-list of options suggested that the case for a medium-
capacity public transport link is weaker on the Belvedere crossing than on the Gallions
Reach crossing, due to the much lower current and future population density in the
surrounding areas and a lack of a clear passenger objective (such as a major interchange
station or town centre) nearby. Further information on the public transport options
considered at this stage is available in the Option Assessment Report (Long List).
3.22.3. Following this assessment, further work was undertaken to narrow the public transport
options further. The work is set out in the Option Assessment Report (Public
Transport Interim List). The report concludes that the most appropriate options to take
forward for further assessment are – bus network, a DLR extension from Gallions
Reach station to Thamesmead, a DLR extension from Gallions Reach station north to
Barking and south across the crossing to Abbey Wood (via Thamesmead) and a tram
network serving Barking, Thamesmead, Woolwich and Abbey Wood, utilising the
Gallions Reach crossing.
3.22.4. Plans for the public transport provision on the crossings at this time are largely
indicative and will be subject to further assessment and consultation before a
preferred option or options is identified.
62
3.23. Walking and cycling
3.23.1. As set out above, cross-river connectivity in east London is poor for all transport
users, including pedestrians and cyclists and therefore there is a clear opportunity for
pedestrians and cyclists to be catered for alongside other modes on the East of
Silvertown crossings at a much lower cost than a standalone facility.
3.23.2. However, providing such facilities in a tunnel is much more challenging – due to the
need to separate these facilities from traffic, the costs would be significantly higher
and the environment much less attractive for users compared to a bridge. In light of
this, the benefits of provision for pedestrian and cycle facilities in a tunnel solution
would need to outweigh the costs of doing so. Further work is required to determine if
this would be the case.
3.23.3. Ultimately, TfL would incorporate pedestrian and cycling facilities into any new
crossing as part of the East of Silvertown project provided they can be accommodated
in a manner that guarantees the safety and security of users, at a reasonable cost.
3.23.4. These facilities would link into local walk and cycle networks on either side of the
crossing.
3.23.5. Consideration of incorporating pedestrian and cycle facilities on the crossings is
discussed in the Option Assessment Report (Long List).
63
PART E: OVERVIEW OF OPTIONS
3.24. Introduction
Work to identify a preferred option for river crossings East of Silvertown
is underway
3.24.1. As set out above, more consultation and work is required before a single preferred
solution for the East of Silvertown project can be identified.
3.24.2. This work relates to a number of fundamental matters including what form the
crossings should take (e.g. tunnel or bridge), which public transport option should be
included and, if a tunnel is to be constructed at either or both of the locations,
whether cycle and pedestrian provision should be made.
3.24.3. The project is at such a stage, where the assessments have resulted in a short list of
highway and public transport options for the Gallions Reach and Belvedere crossings.
3.24.4. The highway short list concludes with crossing infrastructure options, which could be a
high-level bridge at both locations, immersed tunnels at both locations or one of each
at either location.
3.24.5. A charge would operate on both crossings – the exact price of which would be
determined at a later date but would be intended to manage demand and maximise
user benefits.
3.24.6. Both crossings would have cross-river bus routes serving them irrespective of any rail-
based public transport option. There is potential for one of three rail-based public
transport options to also be incorporated (at Gallions Reach).
3.24.7. The public transport options are as follows:
Table 3-2 Public transport options
Mode Origin/Destination
Bus only A network of new and extended routes between locations on either side
of the river, utilising both crossings (indicative only at this stage)
Plus one of the following:
Short DLR Extension from existing Gallions Reach station to Thamesmead, utilising
Gallions Reach crossing
Long DLR DLR between Barking and Abbey Wood via existing Gallions Reach
station, utilising Gallions Reach crossing
Tram Tram from Barking to Abbey Wood and Woolwich, utilising Gallions
Reach crossing
64
3.24.8. The crossings and potential destinations served by public transport services using the
crossings are set out in Figure 3-20.
Figure 3-20 East of Silvertown crossing locations and potential public transport
destinations
3.24.9. There are therefore a variety of combinations possible, depending on both the highway
crossing infrastructure and the public transport mode. The combination of options is
summarised in Table 3-3 on the following page.
65
Table 3-3 East of Silvertown river crossing options
Highway crossing Public transport Walk and cycle facilities
Gallions Reach bridge
& Belvedere bridge
Bus
only or
Short
DLR +
bus
or
Long
DLR +
bus
or
Tram
+
bus
Yes
Gallions Reach tunnel
& Belvedere bridge
Bus
only or
Short
DLR +
bus or
Long
DLR +
bus or
Tram
+
bus
To be determined at
Gallions Reach
Yes at Belvedere
Gallions Reach bridge
& Belvedere tunnel
Bus
only or
Short
DLR +
bus or
Long
DLR +
bus or
Tram
+
bus
Yes at Gallions Reach
To be determined at
Belvedere
Gallions Reach tunnel
& Belvedere tunnel
Bus
only or
Short
DLR +
bus
or
Long
DLR +
bus
or
Tram
+
bus
To be determined
3.24.10. The transport benefits delivered by a bridge or a tunnel are generally the same. For the
purposes of the following section, bridges are assumed but tunnels at either location
could be introduced without materially impacting on the benefits.
3.24.11. There are a number of other factors that need to be considered when looking at the
option of bridges or tunnels; the areas needing further investigation to determine
which option provides the most cost effective solution include:
The land available for other uses
The impact on the environment, including visual amenity
The impact on surrounding property
The capability of incorporating sustainable modes
3.24.12. Another factor that needs to be taken into account when considering bridge and tunnel
options is the costs of meeting the requirements stipulated by London City Airport
and Port of London Authority.
3.24.13. Once these areas have been investigated further and a greater understanding of the
relative impacts of bridge and tunnel options at each location is made, a decision can
be taken as to the most appropriate infrastructure solution.
3.24.14. More generally, the benefits of the various options in Table 3-3 are relatively similar
and are presented in the following section. The differences between these benefits will
be highlighted but not discussed in detail. Further detail on the comparison between
the public transport options is presented in the Option Assessment Report: Interim list
and the Public Transport Connectivity Analysis reports.
66
3.25. Summary of impact of the crossings at Gallions Reach and Belvedere
3.25.1. Option A assumes bridges at Gallions Reach and Belvedere, with cross-river bus routes
using both crossings. It is referred to as ‘Do-Minimum’ as irrespective of the rail-based
public transport options being considered, buses would be provided and therefore this
scenario represents the base public transport provision.
3.25.2. In summary, this option would:
Increase the number of jobs, consumers, businesses and the workforce that could
be accessed to/from areas such as Thamesmead and North Bexley due to better
connections.
Improve journey times and journey time reliability for those who cross the river,
this includes the vast majority of people who currently use the Woolwich Ferry as
users would no longer need to queue to wait for the next ferry.
Improve transport network resilience by providing alternative river crossing options
in the event of planned or unplanned disruption at existing crossings.
Transform cross-river bus provision in east London and provide a variety of new
public transport links between housing, employment and key public transport
interchanges.
Provide improved access to the strategic road network for businesses in areas
south of the river and join up SILs on either side of the river.
Bring forward development that would otherwise not happen not only because of
the transformed connectivity the crossings would deliver but also by giving
confidence to inward investors that the public sector is prepared to invest for the
long term.
Provide the opportunity to deliver high quality sustainable mode connections, with
the incorporation of cycling and walking facilities in to the bridge design.
Have an adverse impact on the townscape in the immediate vicinity of the
crossings, with the bridge structure being close to current and proposed housing,
particularly at Gallions Reach.
Once operational, likely to have localised traffic and air quality impacts that would
require mitigation.
3.25.3. Option B comprises of Bus and Short DLR at Gallions Reach to link Thamesmead with
the Gallions Reach DLR station on the north side of the river and onwards to Crossrail
(interchange at Custom House). In summary, it would:
Deliver similar benefits and have similar impacts as those out outlined for the
Option A.
Tie Thamesmead into the DLR network, providing links from the area to the Royal
Docks, Stratford, Canary Wharf and the City, thereby adding the area to the TfL
rail network helping to further improve the image of the area and encourage more
development than Option A.
Lead to a reduction in local traffic and emissions in adjacent areas compared to
building a crossing without rail provision.
Provide the opportunity to ensure the DLR is well-integrated into the urban fabric
of areas such as Thamesmead as these undergo re-development.
Offer less road use flexibility than Option A or tram options as the incorporation
of DLR prevents this lane being used by any other mode.
67
3.25.4. Option C comprises Bus and Long DLR between Barking and Abbey Wood via the
existing Gallions Reach station, utilising Gallions Reach crossing and, in summary,
would:
Deliver similar benefits and have similar impacts as those out outlined for Options
A and B.
Increase the number of jobs accessible from some places compared to Option B.
Supports more housing than options A and B.
Addresses other non-crossing related gaps such as connectivity between Barking
and Royal Docks.
3.25.5. A Bus and Tram scheme (Option D) using the Gallions Reach crossing, would, in
summary:
Deliver very similar benefits and have similar impacts as those out outlined for
Option C.
Runs at ground level and share road space with other vehicles, making it easier and
less expensive to create new links beyond the crossing itself, such as a link
between Thamesmead and Woolwich.
Offer the same level of road space flexibility as Option A, Bus only.
Provide the opportunity to ensure the tram is well-integrated into the urban fabric
of areas such as Thamesmead as these undergo re-development.
3.25.6. The following sections set out some of the quantified benefits of the East of
Silvertown crossings
New river crossings in east London would deliver a step-change in
highway and public transport cross-river connectivity
3.25.7. Under all shortlisted options, the crossings would deliver enhanced highway and public
transport connectivity and improved transport network resilience.
3.25.8. These benefits would support growth by improving local firms’ access to markets,
increasing the size of retail and leisure catchments and expanding residents’ access to
employment opportunities. These tangible benefits mean places that are better
connected are more attractive, both for businesses and as residential locations.
3.25.9. The improvements in the resilience and reliability of the transport network delivered by
the crossings can be as important as improvements in connectivity, especially for
many road based sectors. While this is difficult to measure accurately, it is an
important consideration in terms of the wider beneficial impacts of the project.
3.25.10. New river crossings would facilitate faster and/or more direct journeys between
locations north and south of the river, reducing trip length and vehicle kilometres
driven for these trips.
3.25.11. Modelling suggests that there would be significant highway journey time savings for a
variety of origin/destination pairs. For example, the would be a 39 minute saving for
trips between Thamesmead and Barking in the AM peak and a 30 minute reduction
between Belvedere and Royal Docks. The Traffic Impact Report sets out a range of
journey time changes as a consequence of the crossings.
68
3.25.12. Meanwhile, in terms of job accessibility, the Travel Options Pie analysis, presented in
Figure 3-21, sets out the number of jobs in London accessible within 45 minutes from
Thamesmead without and with Option A, Bus only.
Figure 3-21 Travel Options Pie comparison of 2031 Reference Case and Option A –
number of London jobs accessible within 45 minutes travel time of Thamesmead, AM
peak, 2031
3.25.13. It clearly demonstrates how the introduction of the crossings overcomes the barrier
effect of the Thames in this area, significantly increasing the number of jobs accessible
to residents of Thamesmead by both car and bus.
3.25.14. The substantial change in access to jobs and labour market brought about by the
crossings is also evident from the below tables (Table 3-4 and Table 3-5), which
demonstrate the actual and percentage change in access at a number of key locations
in the Study Area and demonstrates that even in locations north of the river, which do
69
not feel the barrier effects of the Thames as much as those in the south, see increases
as a result of the crossings.
Table 3-4 Change in number of jobs accessible within 75 mins generalised time from
selected origins, highway, 2031 (000s)
Location 2031 Reference Case With crossings Difference
Thamesmead 1,400 2,300 63%
Belvedere 1,600 2,290 47%
Barking Riverside 2,600 2,600 -1%
Rainham 2,200 2,300 5%
Table 3-5 Change in number of workers accessible within 75 mins generalised time from
selected origins, highway, 2031 (000s)
Location 2031 Reference Case With crossings Difference
Advanced Business Park 5,200 5,200 1%
Barking 5,300 5,600 6%
Belvedere Industrial Area 3,400 5,000 29%
3.25.15. The crossings would also deliver a step-change in cross-river public transport
connections in outer east London and enable the provision of high-quality sustainable
mode options.
3.25.16. Buses form the Do-Minimum public transport option for the crossings and while the
exact routes would not be detailed until later, the crossings provide the opportunity to
link places such as Barking, Beckton and the Royal Docks to Thamesmead, Woolwich
and Abbey Wood and Dagenham, Rainham and Romford to Belvedere, Erith and
Bexleyheath.
3.25.17. The specific type of bus infrastructure is also yet to be determined, but could involve
dedicated busways.
3.25.18. Meanwhile, delivery of a rail-based public transport link via the Gallions Reach crossing
(either DLR or tram) could improve public transport opportunities further as well as
enhancing the perception of the area further by adding it to the TfL Tube map.
3.25.19. Currently, those living in some areas south of the river such as Thamesmead do not
have direct access to the TfL Underground/rail network, and introducing a rail
connection would transform the connectivity of this area.
3.25.20. Figure 3-22 illustrates the London Underground lines accessible with just one
interchange if the Short DLR Option were to be introduced. This would mean that
people using the DLR from there would, with one interchange, have access to seven
different TfL rail lines including the Jubilee, District, Hammersmith and City and
Central, Crossrail, DLR and sections of the London Overground (to Richmond and
Clapham Junction).
70
Figure 3-22 Underground network accessible with one interchange (Option B)
3.25.21. The introduction of a rail-based public transport link would enhance the job
accessibility benefits outlined in Table 3-4 and Table 3-5 further. The table below sets
out the number of jobs accessible from particular locations in the Study Area with the
public transport options in place.
Table 3-6 Number of jobs within 75 mins generalised time from selected origins, 2031
(000s)
Origin area 2031
Reference
Case
Bus only
(Option A)
Bus + Short
DLR (Option
B)
Bus + Long
DLR (Option
C)
Bus +Tram
(Option D)
Thamesmead 60 134 159 154 131
Belvedere 49 63 63 63 67
Abbey Wood 783 788 788 838 810
Plumstead 197 214 214 214 217
Beckton 340 343 336 363 351
Gallions Reach 632 680 632 756 689
Barking Riverside 37 37 37 37 37
Beam Park 38 63 63 63 63
Rainham 41 51 51 51 51
3.25.22. Table 3-7 below sets out the change in labour market access as a consequence of the
public transport elements (i.e., bus network, DLR and Tram options), showing the
access for businesses to a much larger potential workforce as a result of the crossings.
71
Table 3-7 Number of workers within 75 mins generalised time from selected
destinations (000s)
Origin area 2031
Reference
Case
Bus only
(Option A) Bus + Short
DLR (Option
B)
Bus + Long
DLR (Option
C)
Bus +Tram
(Option D)
Advanced
Business Park
(Royal Docks) 746 785 785 894 811
Barking 943 965 965 973 1,027
Sustainable
Industries Park 93 94 94 94 94
Beam Park 60 113 113 113 113
Woolwich 821 821 821 819 836
Abbey Wood 476 485 484 557 517
Belvedere
Industrial Area 59 47 47 47 47
The expansion of economic activity facilitated by the new crossings
would help enable significant development in the area.
3.25.23. The expansion of economic activity facilitated by the provision of new river crossings
would help to enable the delivery of the significant development planned for the area.
Improved river crossings would also enhance the image of the areas they connect and
give confidence to investors that the public sector is prepared to invest for the long
term.
3.25.24. It is estimated that the improvement in cross-river connectivity delivered by the
crossings could alone support to the delivery of at least 5,000 new homes and 3,000
new jobs (Option A). The resulting growth in homes is concentrated in the riverside
OAs and their immediate hinterland.
3.25.25. The growth in jobs is split between central London, which benefits from a marginal
improvement in access to the labour market, and local jobs in areas of population
growth. More detail on the approach used to generate these estimates of housing and
employment impacts arising from the two new river crossings is set out within the
Economic Case.
Further detailed traffic modelling will take place
3.25.26. All shortlisted highway options are likely to have an impact on the road network, with
the strategic modelling undertaken thus far indicating that an increase in delay is likely
at some locations, with reductions at others.
3.25.27. More detailed traffic modelling will be undertaken once the design of the crossings has
progressed but Figure 3-23 below gives an indication of the possible locations of
change in junction delay.
72
Figure 3-23 Junction delay changes as a result of the proposed East of Silvertown
crossings, AM peak hour (08.00-09.00)
3.25.28. The Traffic Impact Report provides more detail on the high-level traffic impacts of the
East of Silvertown crossings.
3.26. The role of road user charging
TfL is proposing to charge for the use of the East of Silvertown river
crossings both to manage demand and to help pay for the new crossings
3.26.1. TfL would use charging as a way to manage demand and therefore levels of traffic
using the crossing. This would help TfL manage overall traffic levels to within
acceptable limits and support its wider objectives.
3.26.2. While the provision of additional connectivity is fundamental to addressing the
problems in east and southeast London, the absence of charging to manage demand
would mean that the benefits would in all likelihood be short-lived. As journey times
improve with the introduction of the crossings, new demand attracted from the
network would at some point take up the additional capacity up to a level where the
approach roads (both north and southbound) would reach capacity. At this point,
congestion on the road network surrounding the crossing would increase, offsetting
the benefits of the scheme.
3.26.3. TfL would also use revenue generated by the user charging scheme to help to fund the
delivery of the new river crossings infrastructure. While no decision has been made on
how the East of Silvertown project would be funded, it is possible that, as with the
proposed Silvertown Tunnel, TfL may propose to enter into an agreement with a
private sector party for the design, construction, finance and maintenance of the works
73
comprised in the project. While the costs of the scheme would be met by TfL, revenue
collected from charging the crossings would over time be used to balance out any
impact this has on TfL’s overall budget.
3.26.4. User charging revenue is therefore likely to be a key component of the financial
arrangements for the East of Silvertown project, however, further analysis is required
before any decisions can be made about the precise level of the charge, and therefore
the exact financial arrangements that would be made to fund the scheme.
3.27. Constraints
There are some constraints that may have a bearing on the type of
crossing at Gallions Reach and between Belvedere and Rainham.
3.27.1. At this stage of the optioneering process, a high-level assessment of constraints that
are likely to arise has been carried out. These are summarised in Table 3-8 below.
Once a preferred option has been identified, Quantified Risk Assessment (QRA)
workshops will be undertaken to specify the project constraints.
Table 3-8 Potential constraints
Constraint Type of constraint Description/issue Potential mitigation
Navigational
channel
Physical/
environmental
The right of shipping that
exists along the stretch of
the River Thames where
the two crossings are
proposed, including large
vessels.
Design of:
i) A tunnel so that no
interaction exists
between the crossing
and the navigational
channel; or
ii) A bridge to be over a
certain height to allow
ships to pass
underneath i. e. a high-
level bridge with an air
draft of around 50
metres across the
navigational channel; or
iii) An opening bridge.
Existing road
network
Physical The crossings must tie in
appropriately to the
existing road network and
not cause unacceptable
disruption to existing land
use.
Logical points of
connection to the
existing highway
network and routes
which can
accommodate a 5%
gradient in order to tie
into the junctions at
ground level at either
end will be selected.
74
Constraint Type of constraint Description/issue Potential mitigation
London City
Airport
Physical/
environmental
As a result of the
proximity of Gallions
Reach crossing alignments
to London City Airport,
the Flight Protection
Surface needs to be
considered for the height
and design of bridge,
should that be taken
forward. This is a safety
zone intended to offer an
adequate margin,
including anticipated
lateral deviations, during
the climb out phase of
missed approach and
emergency procedures.
A concrete box girder
bridge design has been
developed, since the
required aviation
clearance rules out a
cable stayed or arched
solution.
Existing
stations such
as the DLR
station at
Gallions
Reach
Physical The proposed public
transport link would need
to be accommodated
within the existing
network.
Any interchange would
be carefully designed to
ensure optimum
operation and station
design, with designated
bus slips etc.
Existing
houses/
residential
area
Planning The river crossings may
have an impact (visual and
noise) on existing
residential property and
community assets or
infrastructure, and
planned residential
development.
Ensure the crossings
are as far away as
possible from the
existing residential
units, taking into
account other
constraints.
Consideration of noise
mitigation e.g., track
lubrication, noise
barrier, etc.
Proposed
Masterplans
in Study Area
Planning A number of masterplans
exist in the Study Area
with committed and
proposed developments
outlined.
Ensure the proposals
adhere to development
already outlined in
existing masterplans.
The options proposed
at Gallions Reach can
be contained within the
safeguarded area of
land. No land is
safeguarded for a
crossing at Belvedere
and further work would
be required to identify
the land requirements
for a link at this
location.
75
Constraint Type of constraint Description/issue Potential mitigation
Crossing
locations are
restrained by
existing land
uses
Planning Large parts of the
riverside in east London
have constraints on one
side, or the other, or
both, which would make
the construction of a new
river crossing
unacceptable in terms of
property or environmental
impacts.
Essential infrastructure,
including sewage works,
safeguarded land,
committed
developments,
protected open space,
wharves, and existing
residential and
industrial land have
been mapped and
factored in to crossing
alignment
considerations.
3.28. Inter-dependencies
3.28.1. There are a number of dependencies with other projects and work streams that may
affect the timely delivery of East of Silvertown crossings. These include:
The continued safeguarding of the route has been identified as an external
dependency for the delivery of the Gallions Reach crossing.
The legal requirement that TfL operate the Woolwich Ferry. A road link at Gallions
Reach would be likely to negate the need to continue to run the ferry at
Woolwich. In the event that TfL formally proposed the introduction of a road
crossing at Gallions Reach, TfL would address the question of whether to
continue to operate the ferry service at Woolwich and identify the steps required
to address the legal obligation.
The interaction with the existing DLR network if a DLR option is taken forward.
The interaction with the existing road network.
3.28.2. Note however that, given the stage the option development that the East of
Silvertown project is at, this list of inter-dependencies is only indicative and will evolve
and be refined as the work progresses.
76
PART F: TRAVEL PATTERNS IN EAST LONDON AND STRATEGIC POLICY
CONTEXT
3.29. Introduction
3.29.1. In this section current and future travel patterns will be summarised and it will be
demonstrated how existing national, regional and local policies give general and
specific support for the East of Silvertown river crossing proposals to address strategic
and local needs, notably population and employment growth, improvement in
connectivity and enhanced resilience. A number of the national and regional policy
documents also contain ‘criteria’ that will be taken into account in the assessment of
the East of Silvertown project.
3.30. Current travel behaviour in east London and comparisons of levels of
cross-river trips in west and east London
40% of commuting trips in east London make use of the road network
3.30.1. Travel to work mode shares within the five Study Area boroughs (Barking and
Dagenham, Bexley, Greenwich, Havering and Newham), show that commuting by road;
whether by car, van, bus, coach, taxi or motorbike, is important for many people and
accounts for around 40 per cent of all journey to work trips. The proportion of
commuting by road based modes is highest in the outer boroughs of Bexley, Barking
and Dagenham and Havering (with road-based mode shares of 64% to 71%).
3.30.2. While there will be increasing opportunity for mode shift to rail in parts of the Study
Area once Crossrail opens, road transport will continue to play a significant part in
travel in east London. Table 3-9 shows how road based vehicle use has been rising (by
over 40,000 trips between 2001 and 2011) due to population and employment growth,
although the mode share is decreasing.
77
Table 3-9 Change 2001-2011 of borough residents using road-based method of travel
to work20
Resident
borough
2001 road use 2011 road use Change
(000s / %) Number
(000s)
Share (%) Number
(000s)
Share (%)
Newham 45 (56%) 59 (46%) +15 (-10%)
Greenwich 56 (65%) 66 (59%) +11 (-7%)
Bexley 70 (73%) 75 (71%) +5 (-2%)
Havering 70 (72%) 77 (71%) +7 (-1%)
Barking and
Dagenham
44 (71%) 47 (64%) +3 (-7%)
Totals 321 382 +41 (13%)
The absolute number of residents commuting to work by car has
increased by 13% in the ten years to 2011
3.30.3. The proportion of residents using a road-based vehicle to travel to work has reduced in
all five of the Study Area boroughs, indicating the impact of considerable investment in
rail infrastructure. While the share of commuting taking place by road based modes has
fallen, the absolute number of residents commuting by road has risen in all boroughs,
by a total of 13 per cent, as a result of population and employment growth.
3.30.4. Table 3-10 shows the overall mode share for personal travel by residents in the
boroughs in the Study Area and compares these to inner London, outer London and
London as a whole (this excludes freight and non-resident travel). While other modes
are important, road-based travel (including bus, car, taxi and cycle – but excluding
walking) accounts for more than two thirds of all travel in four out of the five boroughs.
The exception is Newham, where it accounts for 48 per cent.
3.30.5. While road-based mode share is expected to decrease over time, it is clear that, given
this dominance of road-based travel and the growth of population and employment
expected in east London, a significant proportion of highway travel is inevitable.
20 http://www.neighbourhood.statistics.gov.uk – 2001 census dataset UV39 – 2011 census dataset QS701EW. All
figures rounded to nearest 100
78
Table 3-10 Study Area trips by borough of origin, trips per day and shares by main
mode, average day (7-day week) 2011/12 to 2013/1421
Area Trips
(000s)
Rail Under-
ground/
DLR
Bus/
tram
Taxi/
Other
Car/
motor-
cycle
Cycle Walk
Newham 715 3% 11% 19% 1% 27% 1% 38%
Barking &
Dagenham
330 3% 5% 17% 1% 44% 3% 29%
Bexley 476 4% 0% 10% 1% 60% 1% 24%
Greenwich 581 5% 3% 16% 1% 44% 25 28%
Havering 477 4% 2% 11% 0% 60% 1% 22%
Inner
London
8,761 6% 13% 17% 2% 21% 4% 38%
Outer
London
10,407 4% 4% 13% 1% 49% 2% 28%
All London 19,168 5% 8% 15% 1% 36% 3% 32%
Cross-river connectivity in west London is significantly better than in
east London. Residents of west London undertake ten times as many
cross-river trips than by residents of east London
3.30.6. An analysis of the latest (2011) London Travel Demand Survey (LTDS) has been
undertaken to examine the extent of existing cross-river personal travel by residents in
east London22, and so as to enable a comparison of both inter- and intra-borough trips
to those in west London23.
3.30.7. The patterns identified are obviously affected by existing and historic land use patterns
as well as the prevalence of crossings, but it gives an indication of the level of cross-
river travel that can result from the availability of crossings which in turn influences
land use. Table 3-11 shows that, relatively, cross-river trips represent a small
proportion of all resident-based personal trips: some 6.4 per cent in east London and
10.8 per cent in west London, including those in central London. However, the overall
volume of daily trips is still high: 322,500 in east London and 566,400 in west London.
21 Borough Local Implementation Plan (LIP) performance indicators,
http://www.tfl.gov.uk/cdn/static/cms/documents/borough-lip-performance-indicators.pdf - personal trips only 22 East London River Crossings – LTDS Analysis Note, TfL – data used for 2005 to 2011 23 It should be noted that this data excludes all non-resident travel in the area including freight, which constitutes
a significant proportion of cross-river highway travel as described previously.
79
West London therefore has some 70 per cent more total cross-river trips compared to
east London.
Table 3-11 Summary of all inter and intra-borough trips in Study Area and west
London24
East London West London
Trips
(000s)
% Trips
(000s)
%
Entirely north 2,751 55% 2,882 55%
Entirely south 1,962 39% 1,793 34%
North-south crossing 160 3% 285 5%
South-north crossing 163 3% 282 5%
Total cross-river 323 6% 566 11%
Total 5,036 100% 5,241 100%
3.30.8. However when trips into central London are excluded (see Table 3-12 below), cross-
river trips in east London total decrease to 33,900, or just 0. 6 per cent of all trips that
originate in or are destined for this part of London. This compares with 313,700 trips
that cross the river in west London – 10 times the east London figure, and a clear
demonstration of the effect of the difference in cross-river connectivity between the
two locations.
Table 3-12 Comparison of all inter and intra-borough trips in east London and
westLondon – excluding central London (Average daily trips 2005 – 2011)
East London West London
Trips (000s) % Trips (000s) %
Entirely north 1,544 31% 1,831 35%
Entirely south 1,582 31% 1,793 34%
North-south crossing 17 <1% 151 3%
South-north crossing 17 <1% 163 3%
Total cross-river 34 <1% 314 6%
Total 3,160 63% 3,937 75%
3.30.9. The analysis also shows that current cross-river trips in east London are
overwhelmingly made by public transport, with car trips as a proportion of all cross-
river trips standing at just 2 per cent25.
3.30.10. This reflects the good availability of cross-river public transport options within inner
east London and the general lack of road-based crossings. Cross-river trips that
24 For this purpose, east London boroughs were defined as Newham, Barking and Dagenham, Havering, Redbridge,
Bexley, Bromley, Greenwich and Lewisham, and west London boroughs were Richmond and Kingston on Thames,
Merton , Hounslow, Ealing, Wandsworth, Tower Hamlets and Lambeth. Central London included Kensington and
Chelsea, Hammersmith and Fulham, the City of London, Southwark, Tower Hamlets and Westminster.
25 East London River Crossings – LTDS Analysis Note, TfL – data used for 2005 to 2011
80
exclude central London are much more likely to be made by Underground or the DLR
than other modes, given the current availability of the public transport network in the
Study Area. Trips into central London are much more likely to take place by National
Rail (including Overground) given the availability of radial National Rail routes.
3.31. Forecast future travel patterns
Absolute numbers of car and freight trips in east London are forecast to
grow – resulting in an 18% increase in vehicle delays by 2041
3.31.1. Two important trends in future transport needs have been identified. Firstly, the
numbers travelling by private vehicle is forecast to continue growing due to population
growth (despite car mode share decreasing across London, particularly inner London) in
line with MTS mode shift objectives. Secondly, demand for freight movement in
London is expected to continue to increase over the medium to long term as will the
trend in the use of smaller vans for servicing and delivery.
3.31.2. Table 3-13 shows the number of morning peak trips in the Study Area boroughs. The
definition of car trips includes those driving a car or van and those travelling as
passengers. The definition of public transport (PT) trips includes travel by bus, DLR,
Underground and National Rail (including Overground). The mode share proportions
refer to share of travel excluding active travel modes.
Table 3-13 Morning peak trips (and mode share) 2011 and 2031 Reference Case
Study Area
borough
2011 2031
Car PT Car PT
Barking and
Dagenham
63,500 (61%) 40,900 (39%) 70,600 (54%) 60,800 (46%)
Bexley 98,700 (68%) 45,700 (32%) 96,200 (64%) 53,700 (36%)
Greenwich 84,300 (53%) 73,500 (47%) 96,900 (45%) 116,300 (55%)
Havering 97,000 (67%) 47,300 (33%) 101,500 (61%) 65,600 (39%)
Newham 67,400 (37%) 114,700 (63%) 79,400 (31%) 173,600 (69%)
3.31.3. The forecasts suggest that the total volume of travel will continue to rise in line with
increases in the number of residents and jobs in east and southeast London. Between
2011 and 2031, the rise in public transport trips is forecast to be greater than car trips
due to the ongoing improvements in public transport connectivity and capacity.
3.31.4. The data demonstrates that despite the forecast mode shift from car to public
transport trips in the east and southeast sub-region, there is still predicted to be an
increase in car and other road-based trips (e.g., freight) arising from the population
increases forecast, and already being realised, in the area.
3.31.5. This increase in the absolute number of trips will have an impact on the road network
and journey times with an expected 18 per cent increase in delay per kilometre
travelled across the east sub-region – the highest increase of all sub-regions (as Figure
3-24 below shows).
81
Figure 3-24 Forecast change in vehicle delays per km by sub-region, 2011-2041
3.31.6. Figure 3-25 illustrates this forecast increase in trip demand in the period to 2041, with
the modal share for public transport increasing across all boroughs, but with a larger
number of actual car trips due to the higher volume of population and therefore trip
volumes overall.
82
Figure 3-25 Estimated mode split and trip volume changes 2011-2041
3.32. National policy context
3.32.1. The Department for Transport’s nine priorities for the transport network are:
1. continuing to develop and lead the preparations for a high speed rail network
2. improving the existing rail network and creating new capacity to improve services
for passengers
3. tackling congestion on our roads
4. continuing to improve road safety
5. encouraging sustainable local travel
6. promoting lower carbon transport, such as walking and cycling as well as
introducing more environmentally-friendly buses and trains
7. supporting the development of the market for electric and other ultra-low
emission vehicles
8. supporting the development of aviation, improving passenger experience at
airports
9. maintaining high standards of safety and security for passengers and freight.
3.32.2. The proposal for river crossings at Gallions Reach and between Belvedere and
Rainham could contribute towards priorities 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7.
3.32.3. The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) published in 2010 sets out a policy
framework for how the land-use planning system should function.
83
3.32.4. The NPPF seeks to secure economic growth to create jobs and prosperity. The
Government is committed to ensuring that the planning system does everything it can
to support sustainable economic growth and a competitive economy and so
significant weight should be placed on the need to support economic growth through
the planning system.
3.32.5. The National Policy Statement for the National Road and Rail Networks published in
December 2014 states “Well-connected and high-performing networks with sufficient
capacity are vital to meet the country’s long-term needs and support a prosperous
economy”26. It also states that “Improved and new transport links can facilitate
economic growth by bringing businesses closer to their workers, their markets and
each other.” By inference the lack of such connections and capacity is a major barrier
to economic growth.
3.33. Regional and sub-regional policy context
3.33.1. Within London, a number of key strategic planning documents are integrated at the
regional level. The MTS and London Housing Strategy have been developed so as to
be consistent with each other and integrated.
The London Plan recognises that in order to achieve London’s growth
ambitions, investment in infrastructure, including roads infrastructure
and improved cross-river connectivity, will be required
3.33.2. The London Plan, first published in 2011, is the statutory spatial plan for London,
providing the overall strategic plan for the Capital, setting out an integrated economic,
environmental, transport and social framework for the development of London over
the next 20–25 years. It considers the strategic issues arising from the scale of growth
that London would need to accommodate over the next two decades, and considers
alternative spatial development policies that could be adopted to meet the forecasts
for population and employment growth.
3.33.3. The conclusion is that east London – with its large areas of ex-industrial brownfield
land, OAs and improving transport links – should play a major role in London’s growth
and that with further investment in infrastructure, many of London’s new jobs and
homes can be accommodated in the east and southeast sub-region. This sub-region is
projected to increase by 650,000 people with 286,000 more jobs by 2036, which is
nearly a third of London’s projected growth overall. However, it is recognised that
achieving this growth is likely to require investment in infrastructure, including road
infrastructure and improved cross-river connectivity.
3.33.4. A number of policies and statements in the London Plan refer directly to the need for
further east London river crossings:
26 https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/387222/npsnn-print.pdf page 9
84
Policy 6. 1 (Strategic Approach) discusses the need for more crossings and the
Mayor’s approach
Paragraph 6. 20 states that these new and enhanced river crossings are aimed at
improving accessibility and the resilience of local transport networks, supporting
economic growth in the area and linking local communities, and include:
consideration of ferry-based options east of a crossing at Silvertown; and
consideration over the longer-term of a fixed link at Gallions Reach
Paragraph 6. 41 highlights the need for additional road-based river crossings to
address resilience and congestion issues at existing crossings and to support a
growing economy in east London
Policy 6. 12 (Road Network Capacity) states that the Mayor supports the need for
limited improvements to London’s road network to ‘address clearly identified
significant strategic or local needs’, and sets out the criteria (Policy 6. 12B) that
should be taken into account when assessing these proposals.
River crossings would help support the goals of the London’s
Housing Strategy (increase delivery of new housing) and the Mayor’s
Economic Strategy (regeneration)
3.33.5. The London Housing Strategy, which was formally adopted in October 2014, sets out
that London needs to nearly double the rate of house-building and build a minimum
of 42,000 new homes a year, every year, for the next 20 years’. This requires a level of
house building unseen in the capital since the 1930s, and can only be achieved by the
various parties – the boroughs, the government, the Mayor, the private sector and the
public sector – working together towards a common goal.
3.33.6. The strategy emphasises the importance of bringing forward land for development,
particularly the OAs. If all the OAs were developed to their full potential over the next
ten years, it would represent nearly seventy percent of the 420,000 new homes
needed in London over the coming decade. Barking Riverside is part of the London
Riverside Opportunity Area, and is identified in the strategy as London’s largest
brownfield regeneration project, and a twenty first century garden suburb.
3.33.7. The conclusion is that east London, with its large areas of ex-industrial brownfield
land and high potential for growth, should play a major role in London’s growth and
that with investment in infrastructure, many of London’s new jobs and homes can be
accommodated in the east and southeast sub-region. This sub-region is projected to
increase by 600,000 people with 160,000 more jobs by 2031, which is nearly a third of
London’s projected growth overall.27 However, it is recognised that achieving this
growth is likely to require investment in infrastructure, including road infrastructure,
and improvements in public realm and connectivity.
3.33.8. The Mayor’s Economic Development Strategy (EDS) emphasises (in para 5. 9) how
‘east London will continue to be a particular spatial priority, to ensure existing
27 East and South East London Sub Regional Transport Plan, 2014
85
development and regeneration needs are met and in particular to promote greater
convergence of social and economic chances with the rest of the capital’.
The need for new river crossings is set out within the Mayor’s Transport
Strategy and other Mayoral documents
3.33.9. The Mayor’s Transport Strategy (MTS) was developed in tandem with the London Plan
and was published in 2010 following wide consultation. The MTS sets out the
transport strategy for London up to 2031 including the strategy for delivering the
transport infrastructure needed to facilitate growth in the east and southeast sub-
region, a key part of the London Plan’s strategic vision. It contains proposals reflecting
the London Plan policies and sets out in section 5.8 the strategic need and case for
improving river crossings in east London, and Proposal 39 specifically references a
new crossing east of Silvertown. In Proposal 130, the MTS notes that charges or tolls
to support specific infrastructure improvements, such as river crossings, may be
considered.
3.33.10. The sub-regional transport plan (SRTP) for east and southeast London, updated in
2014, lists the Gallions Reach and Belvedere crossings as a proposal that will improve
connectivity in east and southeast London.
3.33.11. The London Infrastructure Plan28 sets out the Mayor’s long-term aspirations (to 2050)
for the infrastructure to support London’s future growth. The central projection is a
37 per cent increase in population from 2011 to 2050, with a resident population of
11.3 million by mid-century. It notes that the road network caters for 80 per cent of
people’s journeys and 90 per cent of freight journeys; and it is vital for the continued
economic success and functioning of the city.
3.33.12. The Plan includes proposals for a series of new river crossings in east London beyond
the proposed Silvertown Tunnel to overcome the major barrier effect which constrains
travel between Thamesmead, Belvedere, Barking Riverside and Rainham.
The need for new river crossings is supported within the Roads Task
Force report
3.33.13. Supplementary to the policies and strategies set out in the MTS, is the report of the
Roads Task Force (RTF). This is an independent body which brought together a wide
range of interests and expertise to consider the strategic needs of the road network
across London. The RTF report, published in July 2013, sets out a vision of how
London can cope with major population growth, and remain one of the most vibrant,
accessible and attractive world cities. It highlights as presented in the Figure below
‘inadequate cross Thames connectivity and capacity’ as a key connectivity issue that
inhibits growth and regeneration in east and southeast London.
28 The London Infrastructure Plan, GLA, 2014
86
Figure 3-26 Roads Task Force - Connectivity issues for London’s growth areas
Better cross-river connectivity would help meet the TfL Surface
Transport Plan outcomes
3.33.14. The Surface Transport Plan sets out how TfL will manage those transport networks
that utilise the highway network. This encompasses TfL’s bus, taxi, coach and river
networks, freight deliveries, the Santander cycle hire, Congestion Charge and Low
Emission Zone schemes and the approach towards the management of the TfL Road
Network (TLRN). New river crossings would form part of the TLRN and would affect
corridors within outer east London.
3.33.15. The Plan sets out a goal: ‘to keep London working, growing and to make life in London
better’. Alongside this goal, the Plan has an ambition: ‘to provide, manage and
improve the services, streets and places that connect London for all, sustaining its
position as a world leading city’. The Plan has identified ten outcomes for surface
transport in London, set out overleaf.
87
Table 3-14 Surface Outcomes
Surface Outcome
1. Quality bus network:
Maintaining and enhancing a reliable, safe, accessible bus network and supporting
coach operations, across all of London.
2. Reliable roads:
Ensuring a reliable and resilient road network for all of London by managing
congestion and improving connectivity.
3. Improving the environment:
Continuing to deliver environmental improvements, by reducing pollutants from
ground based transport and enhancing the natural environment.
4. More and safer cycling:
Enabling more people to cycle, more safely, more often.
5. Better places to walk:
Creating and supporting safe attractive, accessible streets and places that people
can use, enjoy and choose to walk more.
6. Reduced casualties:
Continuing the downward trend in casualties on London’s roads and public
transport networks
7. Sustainable freight:
Enabling safer, cleaner and more efficient delivery and servicing activity to support
London’s economy.
8. Quality door-to-door transport:
Supporting provision of safe, reliable, accessible door-to-door services, including
regulating London taxi and private hire services and operating Dial-a-Ride services.
9. Reduced crime:
Continuing the downward trend in crime, antisocial behaviour and fear of crime on
London’s transport networks.
10. Realising rivers’ potential:
Harnessing the potential of London’s rivers and waterways to carry people and
goods.
3.33.16. The river crossings would contribute directly to the delivery of Outcomes 1, 2 and 7,
and the depending on the option selected, may support Outcomes 4 and 5.
The new crossings East of Silvertown would serve three Housing Zones
and improve highway access to and from Strategic Industrial Locations
3.33.17. The Mayors’ Housing Strategy, formally adopted in October 2014, aims to address
the linked challenges of funding, land availability and development capacity that must
be addressed to achieve the targets on increasing the supply of housing. It puts
forward the proposal for Housing Zones – an initiative to accelerate housing delivery
in areas with high development potential. Three of the areas identified as Housing
Zones would be directly served by the East of Silvertown river crossings, these are:
Abbey Wood, Plumstead and Thamesmead (RB Greenwich)
Abbey Wood and Thamesmead (LB Bexley) and
Rainham and Beam Park (LB Havering)
88
3.33.18. River crossings at Gallions Reach and Belvedere would serve a number of London’s
SILs. These SILs are “designated …. , as London’s main reservoirs of industrial and
related capacity, including general and light industrial uses, logistics, waste
management and environmental industries (such as renewable energy generation),
utilities, wholesale markets and some transport functions”29.
3.33.19. These are the sites which are reserved for the critical functions of servicing London’s
growing economy by providing the necessary industrial and logistical services to keep
it functioning and good road accessibility is vital to these activities. As Figure 3-27
demonstrates, there is a cluster of SILs either side of the Thames in east London and
the efficient operation of these sites is key to economic development of this area.
Figure 3-27 London Strategic Industrial Locations
3.33.20. London’s industrial / warehouse market comprises a number of sub-markets which
vary in their degree of self-containment and relationship to one another. Several also
extend beyond London’s boundaries. Figure 3-28 illustrates the extent of SIL land and
shows how these can be grouped into a number of broad PMAs. Two of these
industrial PMAs: Thames Gateway and the Lea Valley intersect near the Thames in
east London.
29 Policy 2.17
89
3.33.21. The Industrial and Warehousing Demand Benchmarks study highlighted the
significance of the east sub-region in terms of accommodating demand for larger units
(i.e., 10,000 m2 and over). Between 2006 and the first half of 2011 inclusive, the east
sub-region accounted for just under half of all floorspace taken-up for occupation in
units of 10,000 m2 and over across London.
Figure 3-28 Industrial and logistics Property Market Areas
Source: Industrial Land Demand and Release Benchmarks in London
3.34. Local policy context
There is significant support for new river crossings from boroughs
3.34.1. References to east London river crossings in local planning documents and transport
policy from London local authorities are summarised in Table 3-15. There is
significant support for addressing the lack of cross-river connectivity in east London
from the local boroughs and many other adjacent boroughs, subject to various
concerns over local impact.
90
Table 3-15 Local policy context summary
Local authority Core Strategy LIP/Local Transport Plan
East of Silvertown boroughs
LB Barking and
Dagenham
Policy CM4: ‘Transport Links’
states that ‘land will be
safeguarded for transport
infrastructure schemes that
could be implemented within the
lifetime of the Plan’ and that the
Council would continue to press
for and support the transport
infrastructure improvement
projects including a Docklands
Light Railway (DLR) extension, a
river crossing at Galleon’s Reach,
the expansion of East London
Transit, a Barking to Royal Docks
Bus Corridor and an improved
transport interchange at
Dagenham Dock.
In paragraph 4. 4. 7, support for
the previously proposed Thames
Gateway Bridge is expressed.
The concept of a river crossing
at this location is described as ‘a
vital link between the north and
south banks of the Thames’ and
‘an opportunity [ ] to create a
Thames Gateway Transit
System’.
LB Bexley Support for improvements to
ease congestion, improve
connectivity and enhance
resilience at Blackwall. Support
new river crossings providing
local traffic flows not increased
(para 4. 7. 12)30.
The Council ‘supports, in principle,
a crossing at Silvertown, and is
generally supportive of a further
crossing east of Silvertown, but in
an appropriate location. In this
context, the Council is seeking
crossing locations that bring real
regeneration to the area while
protecting the environment and
residential amenity and avoiding
congestion on the local road
30 LB Bexley: Bexley Core Strategy, February 2012
91
Local authority Core Strategy LIP/Local Transport Plan
network’ (para. 2. 50).
RB Greenwich Policy IM3 on Critical Physical
Infrastructure states that
Greenwich will ‘advocate and
work in partnership with relevant
agencies to deliver a new
package of Thames river
crossings in east London,
including the continued
safeguarding of the Silvertown
Link Tunnel and the Gallions
Reach Crossing’.
Furthermore, Policy IM3 also
states that Greenwich will
‘support the intensification of
the use of the river for transport
of people and freight, including
upgrades to the Woolwich Ferry
service’.
The supporting statement (para.
4. 8. 17) clarifies this position in
terms of prioritisation of a river
crossings package:
‘It is recognised that there is a
need to improve cross-river
links. A package of measures
that can help to deliver this
improvement is supported,
although the exact nature of
these is yet to be determined.
Any new crossings should ensure
that they are fully integrated for
use with public transport,
walking and cycling. A cable car
for pedestrians and cyclists has
improved access by these
means. Although the
development of fixed river
crossings remain the Royal
Borough's priority, in the shorter
term support will also be given
to cross-river ferry services,
which can provide improved
connectivity at a lower cost than
a fixed crossing’.
Greenwich continues to
safeguard the required land for
Gallions Reach crossing (para. 4.
Second Local Implementation Plan
(LIP) discusses river crossings in
Section 3 and gives support in
principle to ‘a vehicle tunnel from
the A102 on Greenwich Peninsula
to Silvertown’.
92
Local authority Core Strategy LIP/Local Transport Plan
8. 18).
LB Havering Commitment to working with
relevant authorities to secure
provision of the Thames
Gateway Bridge (section 1. 3)31.
Notes road freight congestion
challenges caused by severance and
few river crossings (section 2. 5)32.
LB Newham It states that ‘The Council
supports the development of
bridge, tunnel or ferry crossings
at these locations [Gallions
Reach and Silvertown] to provide
resilience to the Blackwall
Tunnel and to support future
growth’ (6. 197).
The LIP sets out the Council’s
support for strategic transport
proposals that will contribute
towards Newham’s regeneration
and economic and physical
development.
Adjoining boroughs and other relevant local authorities
LB Hackney It makes no reference to river
crossings to the east of
Silvertown, however, in its
response to the TfL consultation
on crossings to the east of
Silvertown in summer 2014,
Hackney is generally supportive
of the Gallions Reach bridge as
long as it is a multi-modal
crossing and traffic demand is
managed to mitigate the impact
on residents of adjoining
boroughs.
References ‘east London SRTP
(2010)’ including need to reduce
physical barriers including River
Thames and improving resilience
(para 3. 2. 14)33.
LB Lewisham It makes no reference to river
crossings to the east of
Silvertown and but in its
response to the 2014 east of
Silvertown consultation, the
borough stated that it supports
the principle of increasing
capacity across the river to
unlock economic potential in the
southeast region of London and
that careful consideration of
traffic, environmental and
economic impacts is required.
31 LB Havering: Core Strategy and Development Control Policies Development Plan Document, 2008 32 LB Havering: Local Implementation Plan, December 2011 33 LB Hackney: Hackney Local Implementation Plan 2 2011/12 - 2013/14, October 2011
93
Local authority Core Strategy LIP/Local Transport Plan
LB Redbridge It makes no reference to river
crossings to the east of
Silvertown, however in its
response to the TfL consultation
on crossings to the east of
Silvertown in summer 2014,
Redbridge supports further
examination of the Gallions
Reach Ferry, the Gallions Reach
Bridge and the Belvedere Bridge
options. The Borough expresses
concern about potential impacts
on the strategic network in
adjoining boroughs, notably the
A406.
LB Southwark It makes no reference to river
crossings to the east of
Silvertown and the Borough did
not respond to the TfL
consultation on crossings to the
east of Silvertown in summer
2014.
Thurrock Council It makes no specific reference to
river crossings in east London.
In its response to the TfL
consultation on crossings to the
east of Silvertown in summer
2014, Thurrock Council
recognises that the Belvedere
Bridge could be supported in
principle, but expresses concern
about the potential traffic
impacts on the M25 junction
30/31.
LB Tower
Hamlets
It makes no reference to river
crossings to the east of
Silvertown, however, in its
response to the TfL consultation
on crossings to the east of
Silvertown in summer 2014,
Tower Hamlets affirmed its
support for the proposed
bridges, in particular for the
Gallions Bridge to be developed
in parallel with the proposed
Silvertown Tunnel. The Borough
is strongly supportive of future
proof, multi-modal fixed links.
The Council’s second LIP sets out
the Council’s support for improving
the provision of river crossings to
relieve pressure on the borough’s
road network, particularly the
Blackwall Tunnel (page 38).
94
Local authority Core Strategy LIP/Local Transport Plan
LB Waltham
Forrest
It makes no reference to river
crossings to the east of
Silvertown and the Borough did
not respond to the TfL
consultation on crossings to the
east of Silvertown in summer
2014.
3.35. Internal drivers of change
The Woolwich Ferry
3.35.1. The Woolwich Ferry is approaching the end of its useful life as a ‘local’ crossing, and
decisions need to be made on its future. The vessels and other infrastructure have a
finite life, and a decision will need to be made around further extending the life of the
current facility, building a new improved ferry, or withdrawing the service.
Investigations are therefore being undertaken to determine if other crossing options
meet the needs identified and are better value for money.
3.36. External drivers of change
3.36.1. The boroughs in the Study Area have all identified the need for improved cross-river
connections between east and southeast London and the specific policy documents
which set this out are described above in the local policy context.
3.36.2. The issues associated with a lack of cross-river connectivity have also been recognised
by a range of stakeholders, with groups such as the London Chamber of Commerce
and Industry, London First, Freight Transport Association and London City Airport,
calling for additional crossings to support growth and enable regeneration in the area.
3.36.3. London First, for example, says:
“Congestion and poor connectivity continue to hold back housing and employment
opportunity in east London. The distance between Abbey Wood and Beckton is 5km as
the crow flies, yet takes 45 minutes by road. New river crossings will transform journey
times and open up housing and employment opportunities on both sides of the
Thames.”
3.37. Strategic policy context conclusion
3.37.1. Existing national, regional and local policies thus give both general and specific support
to new river crossings in east London, to address strategic and local needs for
enhanced cross-river connectivity and to relieve congestion and improve resilience. A
number of the national and regional policy documents contain ‘criteria’ that will be
taken into account in the assessment of new river crossings east of Silvertown, while
local planning documents also set out some concerns about local impacts.
95
4. The Economic Case
4.1. Introduction
DfT transport appraisal guidance (WebTAG) and HMT Green Book
guidance has been followed in the economic appraisal of the four
shortlisted options
4.1.1. The Economic Case for the East of Silvertown project has been prepared following the
guidance set out in the DfT’s WebTAG34 documents. WebTAG sets out, for transport
schemes, the requirements of HM Treasury’s Green Book (A Guide to Investment
Appraisal in the Public Sector)35. The Green Book is used across government for
investment decisions through identification, selection and appraisal of options.
4.1.2. The purpose of the economic case is to determine whether the East of Silvertown
project demonstrates value for money. Measures used to express the economic case
for each assessed option include the Net Present Value (NPV) and the Benefit to Cost
Ratio (BCR).
4.1.3. All options assessed are compared to the same reference case and the benefits and
costs are calculated in terms of changes from the reference case. The 2031 Reference
Case for the East of Silvertown project comprises the likely highway and public
transport networks in the Study Area in the future (including Crossrail, the proposed
Silvertown Tunnel and Barking Riverside Overground extension), and takes into account
population growth and travel changes in the east sub-region.
4.1.4. The East of Silvertown project presented in this SOBC is defined as two fixed link
crossings at Gallions Reach and Belvedere, which could take the form of bridges or
tunnels. The core economic case figures are based on high-level bridges at each
location. Section 4.8 presents a comparison of BCR results with bridges and tunnels.
34 WebTAG – Web (internet) base Transport Appraisal Guidance – https://www.gov.uk/transport-analysis-
guidance-webtag accessed 13 May 2015 35 https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/the-green-book-appraisal-and-evaluation-in-central-governent
accessed 13 May 2015
96
4.1.5. Following public consultation in autumn 2014, TfL has reviewed a long list of options
for river crossings and has prepared an Option Assessment Report in two phases to
document the decision-making process. The shortlisted Public transport packages are
presented as options in this SOBC:
Option A – Bus only on both crossings;
Option B – Bus on both crossings and Short DLR from Gallions Reach to
Thamesmead town centre on the Gallions Reach crossing;
Option C – Bus on both crossings and Long DLR from Barking to Abbey Wood on
the Gallions Reach crossing; and
Option D – Bus on both crossings and a Tram network serving Barking, Woolwich
and Abbey Wood on the Gallions Reach crossing.
4.1.6. These options are assessed for an appraisal period of 60 years from implementation to
enable the comparison with the 2031 Reference Case to be made.
4.1.7. At this stage of business case development, the benefits of each option are assessed
in terms of Transport Economic Efficiency benefits, comprising changes in user travel
times, vehicle operating costs, user charges and greenhouse gas emissions (CO2e). The
change in Indirect Tax Revenue (principally VAT and fuel duty) – treated as a ‘benefit’ –
has been assessed. The assessment of user benefits does not include journey time
reliability, health, public realm or accident impacts at this stage of the analysis. Costs
assessed at this stage include estimates of the infrastructure, land and operating costs
of the highway and public transport options but will be refined as the scheme
continues to be developed.
4.1.8. The monetised highway benefits included in the present economic appraisal are
derived from the highway assignment model prepared by TfL to estimate the effects of
the implementation of alternative river crossings and road user charging. The model
determines likely traffic flows on each main road in the east sub-region. The
differences in journey times and costs for all trips between origin and destination
zones in the traffic model between the reference case and ‘Do Something’ scenarios
have been calculated using the DfT TUBA computer program which expresses the
results in monetised form. The monetisation is carried out using standard values
published by the DfT in the WebTAG data book.
4.1.9. The monetised public transport benefits included in the present economic appraisal
are derived from TfL’s Railplan model. This model determines likely flows on the
public transport network in London and its commuter belt. The changes in journey
characteristics (journey time, crowding, costs etc.) for all trips between origin and
destination zones in the traffic model between the reference case and ‘Do Something’
scenarios have been calculated using a bespoke spreadsheet-based tool developed
specifically to produce TUBA-comparable monetised outputs. The monetisation also
uses the standard values published by the DfT in the WebTAG data book.
4.1.10. The proposed river crossings are expected to have significant impacts on productivity
and the spatial distribution of development impacts. Therefore a full assessment of
the Wider Economic Impacts has also been calculated in terms of agglomeration,
output change in imperfectly competitive markets and tax revenues arising from labour
market impacts. The assessment of the value for money of the East of Silvertown
97
project has been carried out by calculating the project’s NPV and BCR. Sections 4.5 to
4.8 summarise the appraisal of user benefits and wider impacts.
4.1.11. In addition to the WebTAG appraisal, further analysis has been undertaken to
understand the spatial distribution of regeneration effects, their net economic
contribution at the London-wide level and the economic value this represents to the
capital. This goes beyond the standard WebTAG regeneration analysis as part of an
attempt to align the strategic and economic cases, in line with the recommendations
from the Transport Investment and Economic Performance (TIEP) research36.
4.1.12. Sections 4.10 to 4.13 summarise the estimates of additional housing and employment
growth supported by the public transport options and the assessment of the economic
impacts thereof. Furthermore the assessment of the options in the context of
dependent development is discussed.
4.2. Costs
4.2.1. Capital and operating costs for all crossing options are presented consistently within
the two Option Assessment Reports (OAR) and this business case, although the cost
definitions between these documents are not the same. As summarised in Figure 4-1,
the draft OAR contains low and high cost estimates in 2013 prices. The business case
documentation presents low and high cost estimates in 2010 prices with optimism
bias (OB) of 66% applied to land and infrastructure costs.
36 The TIEP research can be found at https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/transport-investment-and-
economic-performance-tiep-report
98
Figure 4-1 Summary of cost estimates
Capital costs
4.2.2. Infrastructure cost estimates for a range of potential crossings were prepared in a
number of engineering feasibility studies, and were collated into a single comparative
report within the evidence provided for the consultation undertaken in autumn 2014.
The costs presented outline an estimate cost for construction including oncosts (e.g.
design, general items, overheads, profits and testing), permanent land acquisition,
construction inflation considerations and Woolwich Ferry infrastructure demolition
(including opportunity and risk) in a price range (low to high).
4.2.3. Table 4-1 presents a summary of the estimated capital cost of the bridge and tunnel
options at Gallions Reach and Belvedere. The assumed opening year for all
infrastructure is 2025. The highway infrastructure construction period is based on the
engineering estimates of the required duration. A construction period of 48 months is
assumed for the rail-based public transport options.
4.2.4. The marginal costs associated with public transport operations on the different river
crossings were estimated in the first phase of the engineering feasibility study (Table
4-2). Changes to Gallions Reach bridge to accommodate DLR tracks on the bridge deck
are estimated to cost around £25m. In the case of an immersed tunnel at Gallions
Reach, it is expected that DLR would be accommodated in a completely separate cell
adding around £110m to the infrastructure costs (2013 prices). Tram tracks could be
accommodated in the dedicated lanes for buses. As such there is no additional cost in
the immersed tunnel, and an additional £5m on the bridge due to the need for local
strengthening of the track slab.
Option Assessment Reports (2013 prices)
Business Case (2010 prices)
Highway capital cost
estimates
Public transport capital
cost estimates
Public transport operating
cost estimates
Define a low and
high risk
contingency range
Adjust to common
price base
Adjust for
construction
inflation
Adjust to
WebTAG
price base
Apply optimism
bias
99
Table 4-1: Summary of capital costs (£m, rounded)
Option Appraisal costs
(2010 prices incl.
OB)
2013 costs incl. risk
and construction
inflation but no OB
Outturn costs
Gallions Reach
concrete box bridge
425-675 250-400 325-525
Gallions Reach
immersed tunnel
650-1,050 400-625 550-800
Belvedere cable-
stayed bridge
550-950 300-550 400-725
Belvedere immersed
tunnel
600-1,100 350-625 475-850
4.2.5. For the remainder of the public transport infrastructure costs, estimates have been
taken from a number of sources. These include case studies of past implemented
schemes as well as relevant feasibility work undertaken on new infrastructure options,
such as estimates for other extensions considered by TfL for other DLR extensions or
busway schemes. The estimates include allowance for the cost of track, station
upgrades, depots, rolling stock, signalling and construction, but they exclude land
costs beyond the immediate crossing.
Table 4-2: Summary of public transport costs (£m, rounded)
Option Appraisal costs
(2010 prices
incl. OB)
2013 costs incl.
risk and
construction
inflation but no
OB
Outturn costs
Option B – Bus
+ Short DLR
Bridge 275-300 225-250 325-350
Tunnel 400-425 300-325 475-500
Option C – Bus
+ Long DLR
(long)
Bridge 1,100-1,200 850-950 1,300-1,400
Tunnel 1,200-1,300 950-1,050 1,400-1,550
Option D – Bus
+ Tram
Bridge 550-600 425-475 650-700
Tunnel 550-600 425-450 600-700
4.2.6. There would potentially also be some capital costs associated with providing bus tie-
ins to the river crossings, and an indicative marginal cost of £30m (2013 prices
excluding OB) has been assumed for Option A.
4.2.7. This work forms the basis for the costs of the options presented in this SOBC. Table
4-3 summarises the estimated capital cost range for each of the options with each of
the combinations of bridge or immersed tunnel.
100
Table 4-3: Summary of option capital cost ranges (£m, rounded, 2010 prices,
discounted)
Option A - Bus
only
Option B – Bus
+ Short DLR
Option C – Bus
+ Long DLR
Option D – Bus
+ Tram
Gallions bridge /
Belvedere tunnel
600-1,000 800-1,150 1,300-1,750 1,000-1,450
Gallions tunnel /
Belvedere bridge
800-1,200 1,050-1,500 1,550-2,100 1,150-1,650
Gallions bridge /
Belvedere tunnel
700-1,100 850-1,250 1,350-1,850 1,050-1,500
Gallions tunnel /
Belvedere tunnel
850-1,300 1,100-1,600 1,600-2,150 1,200-1,750
Operating costs
4.2.8. The capital costs for the highway infrastructure options include an operation and
maintenance cost. This is estimated at around £0.5m per annum for the bridge
options, or £4-5m annually for the immersed tunnel options (2013 prices).
4.2.9. Public transport operational costs have also been calculated by multiplying the
forecast vehicle-km operated by average unit costs by mode across London (see Table
4-4). The AM peak hour estimates are annualised using a single operating multiplier for
each transport mode.
Table 4-4 Public transport operating cost estimates
Mode Costs per vehicle-km
operated (2014 prices)
Operating multiplier
AM peak hour to
annual
Risk contingency
Bus £4.04 6,120 +/- 10%
DLR £19.33 6,734 (single service
on branch) or 5,830
(multiple services on
branch)
The two estimation
methods represent
low and high
operating cost
estimates
DLR (assuming
50% related to
infrastructure and
50% related to
operations)
£1.3m per annum per
track km + £10 per
train-km operated
Tram £9.67 5,829 +10% to +25%
4.3. Assumptions
4.3.1. The business case is accompanied by an Appraisal Specification Report (ASR), which
outlines all of the modelling and appraisal assumptions used. WebTAG guidance has
been followed in undertaking the economic appraisal. Throughout the appraisal,
standard values of time and operating costs have been used, which were consistent
with the May 2014 WebTAG databook and TAG Unit A1.3 – User and Provider
Impacts.
101
4.3.2. The highway models were undertaken using a version of TfL’s LoRDM model, which
has not yet been updated in line with the FALP population and employment
projections. Three time periods (AM peak, inter-peak and PM peak) have been
modelled. At this stage of the project the opening year and design year results are
extrapolated from 2021 and 2031 models. Updated versions of the 2021, 2031 and
2041 models will, however, be available for future stages of analysis.
4.3.3. The public transport modelling was undertaken using TfL’s Railplan 7 model, which has
been updated in line with the FALP population and employment projections. At this
stage in the project, all estimates have been extrapolated from an AM peak model.
Only a single year 2031 has been modelled and all other years derived from this year
using London growth factors.
4.3.4. The 2031 Reference Case uses the standard 2031 LTS demand matrices but the
Railplan assignment includes the bus network changes proposed as part of the
proposed Silvertown Tunnel and the Barking Riverside Overground Extension. The
accompanying ASR contains more information on the model scenarios and
assumptions used.
4.3.5. The East of Silvertown project includes road user charging, which has been assumed
(for the purposes of the appraisal) to be applied on a ‘free-flow’ basis. The traffic
modelling and costs have been carried out and prepared in accordance with DfT
guidance that all users are assumed to pay the charge due, and that the costs of
ensuring that they do so – the Penalty Charge Notice (PCN) system – are included up
to the point of being able to issue the first PCN . The level of user charges at the
Gallions Reach and Belvedere crossings has not yet been updated in line with the
Blackwall and Silvertown proposals. The user charge rates modelled were originally
derived from the autumn 2014 cash rates at the Dartford Crossing.
4.3.6. Public transport revenue is estimated in a simplified manner based on an average yield
per km for different transport modes.
4.3.7. The use of inputs from two different strategic models in the economic case is a
proportionate approach given the relatively early stage of option assessment.
However, the ASR does stress that the highway and public transport modelling inputs
to the economic case are not directly comparable, and care must be taken in their
interpretation:
The growth assumptions in the two models are not comparable. The LTS public
transport results include the latest FALP projections of population/employment
growth and the central estimate of a range of car growth scenarios. The 2014
LoRDM highway results are from an older version of the model that has lower
population/employment growth overall and a higher car mode share in central
and inner London.
The 2014 RXHAM outputs are not based on the latest user charging
assumptions, nor do they include improvements to cross-river public transport.
Consequently, the modelled impacts are likely to over-estimate demand for the
two crossings.
The highway and public transport inputs are derived from two different variable
demand models that have been calibrated independently, and the mode choice
and re-distribution effects may differ.
102
4.4. Sensitivity tests
4.4.1. The appraisal of transport user benefits has used London values of time (VoT).
Sensitivity tests have also been conducted to present the appraisal results using DfT
national values of time.
4.4.2. Further sensitivity tests will be carried out during later phases of analysis to assess the
impact of external influences upon the economics of the East of Silvertown project.
The analysis will need to consider the cumulative effects of other planned or
committed transport investment. On the highways side, this is expected to include a
sensitivity test with the Lower Thames Crossing. On the public transport side, this
could involve sensitivity tests with other proposed schemes to serve the relevant
growth areas.
4.4.3. There is forecasting uncertainty with regards to the actual levels of population and
employment for a specific point in the future, and therefore land use sensitivity tests
(e.g. further intensification of employment land or conversion of industrial land to
residential) can be employed to understand how different land use scenarios would
affect the findings for all the modelled years.
4.4.4. LonLUTI is a land-use and transport interaction model covering London and the South
East. This will be employed for sensitivity testing purposes, but in only a subsequent
phase of work once a preferred scheme option has been selected.
4.5. Headline scheme transport user benefits
4.5.1. Table 4-5 shows a summary of the scheme benefits for options A to D.
Over the 60 year appraisal period the scheme would generate a total user
benefit of £5.0 to £5.7bn
Table 4-5 User benefit summary (Net Present Value, £m, rounded)
Description Option A - Bus
only
Option B – Bus +
Short DLR
Option C –
Bus + Long
DLR
Option D –
Bus + Tram
Travel time 4,820 4,980 5,400 5,510
Vehicle operating
costs
190 190 190 190
User charges -30 -30 -30 -30
Total user
benefits
4,980 5,140 5,560 5,670
103
(a) User benefits and charges by mode and journey purpose
4.5.2. Table 4-6 shows the user benefits by class of business transport system user.
4.5.3. The user charge is negative for car and taxi users as these are net monetary costs.
However, the scheme provides additional benefits that outweigh the charge incurred
by users. The user charge impact for road freight users is marginally positive for many
HGVs and LGVs since the modelled off-peak charge at Gallions Reach and Belvedere is
lower than the Dartford Crossing.
Table 4-6 Business user benefits and charges (£m)
Business
users
Benefit type Option A -
Bus only
Option B –
Bus + Short
DLR
Option C –
Bus + Long
DLR
Option D –
Bus + Tram
Car and
taxi
Travel time 900
Vehicle operating
costs
36
User charges -30
LGV and
HGV
Travel time 855
Vehicle operating
costs
139
User charges 7
Public
transport
Travel time 417 477 574 647
Vehicle operating
costs
0 0 0 0
User charges 0 0 0 0
Total business user benefits
(rounded)
2,020 2,320 2,380 2,480
104
4.5.4. Table 4-7 shows the user benefits broken down by other classes of transport
system user.
Table 4-7 Other user benefits and charges (£m)
Other
users
Benefit type Option A -
Bus only
Option B –
Bus + Short
DLR
Option C –
Bus + Long
DLR
Option D –
Bus + Tram
Car
commuting
Travel time 455
Vehicle operating
costs
12
User charges -8
Public
transport
commuting
660 716 957 928
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
Car other Travel time 1,083
Vehicle operating
costs
13
User charges 2
Public
transport
other
Travel time 457 496 628 642
Vehicle operating
costs
0 0 0 0
User charges 0 0 0 0
Total other user benefits
(rounded)
2,660 2,760 3,080 3,120
(b) Benefits by year
4.5.5. Some elements of the user benefits described above have been derived from a single
year model and extrapolated over the 60 year appraisal period. A full assessment of
the breakdown of benefits and charges by time period will be prepared as part of the
work for the Full Business Case when the full set of required model years is available.
(c) Benefits and charges by time period
4.5.6. Some elements of the user benefits described above have been derived from an AM
peak model only and therefore a full analysis of benefits and charges by time periods is
not justified at this stage. A full assessment of the breakdown of benefits and charges
by time period will be prepared as part of the work for the Full Business Case when
models for all periods will be available.
(d) Assessment of traffic delays during construction and maintenance
4.5.7. An assessment of traffic delays during construction and maintenance will be prepared
as part of the work for the Full Business Case.
105
(e) Monetised environmental assessment
4.5.8. An assessment of the monetised environmental implications of the scheme will be
prepared as part of the work for the Full Business Case.
(f) Transport economic efficiency (TEE)
4.5.9. The transport economic efficiency results for option A (for a range of costs from low
to high cost estimates) are shown in Table 4-8. Total user benefits (excluding transport
provider impacts) are estimated at £5bn, with some £2.3bn of this being attributable to
business users. The highway benefits are shown after taking into account the charges
paid by users. The impact of the user charges is net across all charged crossings
including Blackwall, Silvertown (proposed) and Dartford Crossings.
4.5.10. The public transport user benefits do not take into account fare impacts since these
are not considered in the Railplan model. However, as indicated by the revenue loss,
the transfer of passengers from longer rail to shorter bus journeys would represent an
additional financial saving to many users.
Table 4-8 Transport economic efficiency – Option A (£m)
106
4.5.11. The transport economic efficiency results for Option B is shown in Table 4-9 (again for
a range of costs from low to high cost estimates). Total user benefits (excluding
transport provider impacts) are estimated at around £5.1bn, with some £2.4bn of this
being attributable to business users.
Table 4-9 Transport economic efficiency – Option B (£m)
107
4.5.12. The transport economic efficiency results for Option C is shown in Table 4-10 (again
for a range of costs from low to high cost estimates). Total user benefits are estimated
at around £5.6bn, with some £2.5bn of this being attributable to business users. The
overall present value of TEE benefits is lower than Option B as a result of the
significantly higher public transport investment and operating costs.
Table 4-10 Transport economic efficiency – Option C (£m)
108
4.5.13. The transport economic efficiency results for Option D is shown in Table 4-11 (again
for a range of costs from low to high cost estimates). Total user benefits are estimated
at around £5.7bn, with some £2.6bn of this being attributable to business users. The
overall present value of TEE benefits is similar to Option C with high user benefits but
also high public transport investment and operating costs.
Table 4-11 Transport economic efficiency – Option D (£m)
(g) Public accounts (PA)
4.5.14. All new river crossings in east London would apply user charging for two reasons:
Traffic demand management - TfL would use charging as a way to manage
demand and therefore levels of traffic at the crossings at different times of the
day.
Funding - TfL would also use revenue generated by the user charging scheme to
help pay for river crossings and associated transport infrastructure.
4.5.15. The exact level of charge is not yet known. TfL is consulting on the proposed user
charging scheme for the Blackwall and proposed Silvertown Tunnels in October-
November 2015. The user charges for the proposed Gallions Reach and Belvedere
crossings would need to be coordinated with the Blackwall, Silvertown and Dartford
Crossings to ensure incentives are insufficient to cause significant numbers of drivers
to undertake detours to avoid charges.
109
4.5.16. The modelled level of user charges at the Gallions Reach and Belvedere crossings has
not yet been updated in line with the Blackwall and Silvertown proposals. The user
charge rates modelled were originally derived from the autumn 2014 cash rates at the
Dartford Crossing, namely £2.50 for cars, £3.00 for LGVs and £6.00 for HGVs. Under
the central case tested, the Blackwall, Silvertown, Gallions Reach and Belvedere
crossings assume a charge at the same level as the Dartford Crossing in the morning
peak northbound and the evening peak southbound. A charge (50 per cent of the
Dartford charge) has been assumed to apply to vehicles travelling in the contra-peak
directions, and in both directions in the inter-peak period, at weekends and Bank
Holidays, and is free between 22.00 and 06.00 daily. The current expectation is that
the user charging revenue would only cover a proportion of the total capital
expenditure required for the crossings.
4.5.17. WebTAG guidance on the Public Accounts assessment is that the present value of
costs (PVCs) “should only comprise Public Accounts impacts (i.e., costs borne by
public bodies) that directly affect the budget available for transport”. The guidance
notes further that “Where a scheme leads to changes in public sector revenues (for
example tolling options) careful consideration should be given to whether they will
accrue to the Broad Transport Budget and all assumptions, and their justifications,
should be clearly reported”.
4.5.18. In this case, the revenue from user charges is only expected to cover a proportion of
the total cost borne by TfL in implementing the project. Furthermore, the public
transport revenue impacts vary significantly depending on whether bus or rail-based
solutions are adopted. Under all options, there is a significant funding gap between the
combined net revenue and cost. In these circumstances, it is appropriate that the
revenue impacts be accounted for on the PVC side of the BCR calculation.
Direct cost savings to businesses and freight
4.5.19. Evidence from previous improvements in river crossings shows there can be major
cost savings for business. This can range from opportunities to centralise depots (no
need to have one on each side of the river), gains of economies of scale from being
able to serve a larger market, and reductions in fleet size due to time savings. These
impacts are difficult to quantify and there is a danger of double counting as time
savings and reliability savings are already captured in the appraisal.
4.6. Option appraisal
4.6.1. The overall effects of the four options are shown in the Public Accounts (PA) and
Analysis of Monetised Costs and Benefits (AMCB) tables below (presenting ranges of
costs from lower end estimates to high end estimates). All revenues, operating costs
and investment costs are expected to accrue to TfL.
4.6.2. Option A has a NPV of £2.8-3.5bn and consequently a BCR of 2.9 to 4.7.
110
Table 4-12 Public accounts – Option A (£m)
Table 4-13 Analysis of monetised costs and benefits – Option A (£m)
4.6.3. With the introduction of a DLR extension on the Gallions Reach crossing, Option B has
a higher investment cost than Option A but this is partially offset by the greater public
transport revenue impacts. Consequently Option B has a NPV of £2.3-3.0bn and a BCR
of 2.3 to 3.4.
111
Table 4-14 Public accounts – Option B (£m)
Table 4-15 Analysis of monetised costs and benefits – Option B (£m)
112
4.6.4. Option C has a much higher cost than options A and B due to the capital and operating
costs of the longer DLR extension. The longer DLT extension is targeted at potential
development areas with little potential patronage in the 2031 Reference Case, and
consequently the user benefits are relatively low. Therefore Option C has a NPV of
£0.4-1.5bn and a BCR of 1.1 to 1.7.
Table 4-16 Public accounts – Option C (£m)
Table 4-17 Analysis of monetised costs and benefits – Option C (£m)
113
4.6.5. While the tram network in Option D has a wider coverage than the DLR in Option C,
the capital and operating costs are estimated to be marginally lower. Yet as with
Option C, a large proportion of the tram network is targeted at development areas with
little potential patronage in the 2031 Reference Case and thus low user benefits.
4.6.6. Option D has a NPV of £1.4-2.0bn and a BCR of 1.5 to 2.0.
Table 4-18 Public accounts – Option D (£m)
Table 4-19 Analysis of monetised costs and benefits – Option D (£m)
114
Results of value of time sensitivity test
4.6.7. Tables 4-5 to 4-19 use London Values of Time (VoT) Table 4-20 shows a comparison
of the NPVs and BCRs using London and national values of time.
Table 4-20 Comparison of appraisal results by London and national values of time
London values of time National values of time
NPV (£m) BCR NPV (£m) BCR
Option A – Bus
only
2,780 to 3,500 2.9 to 4.7 1,430 to 2,150 2.0 to 3.0
Option B – Bus +
Short DLR
2,310 to 3,010 2.3 to 3.4 920 to 1,620 1.5 to 2.3
Option C – Bus +
Long DLR
360 to 1,490 1.1 to 1.7 -1,160 to -30 0.6 to 1.0
Option D – Bus +
Tram
1,360 to 2,010 1.5 to 2.0 -190 to 460 0.9 to 1.2
Appraisal summary table
4.6.8. A full appraisal summary table will be prepared as part of the work for the Full
Business Case.
Value for money statement
4.6.9. Reference has already been made above to the DfT’s Value for Money Guidance. This
provides a table to place the scheme, on the basis of its Benefit to Cost Ratio, into one
of the DfT’s Value for Money categories.
Table 4-21 Value for money
Benefit to cost ratio range Value for money scale
Less than 1.0 Poor value for money
Between 1.0 and 1.5 Low value for money
Between 1.5 and 2.0 Medium value for money
Between 2.0 and 4.0 High value for money
Greater than 4.0 Very high value for money
4.6.10. Using London VoT, the mid-point of the range for Options A and B fall into the High
Value for Money range (between 2.0 and 4.0). This means that the social welfare
benefits are greater than the net cost borne by the public sector project sponsor. The
mid-point of the range for Option C falls into the Low Value for Money range. The
range for Option D into the Medium Value for Money range.
4.6.11. The rail-based public transport options, in particular Options C and D, are intended to
serve development areas that are currently characterised by low patronage and
therefore the assessment of user benefits is only a partial reflection of the overall
scheme impacts. As described in the following section, there are substantial wider
economic benefits that have not been taken into account in this BCR estimate.
115
4.7. Wider Economic Impacts
4.7.1. The DfT defines “Wider Impacts” as the economic impacts of transport that are
additional to transport user benefits. Transport schemes are likely to have impacts not
only in the transport market but also in the labour, product and land markets. A key
objective of the East of Silvertown river crossings is to support growth in east and
southeast London by providing cross-river transport links for residents, businesses and
services.
4.7.2. The types of Wider Impacts that DfT includes in transport appraisals are:
WI1 – Agglomeration;
WI2 - Output change in imperfectly competitive markets; and
WI3 - Tax revenues arising from labour market impacts (from labour supply
impacts and from moves to more or less productive jobs).
4.7.3. The Wider Impacts calculations have followed the guidance contained in TAG Unit
A2.1. Further details of the exact methodology used can be found in the
accompanying ASR.
WI1 Agglomeration
4.7.4. Agglomeration refers to the concentration of economic activity within an area.
Transport can alter the accessibility of firms in an area to other firms and workers,
thereby affecting the level of agglomeration. Businesses derive productivity benefits
from being close to one another and from being located in large labour markets. If
transport investment brings firms closer together and closer to their workforce this
may generate an increase in labour productivity above and beyond that which would be
expected from the direct user benefits alone. Knowledge and technology spillovers are
also important aspects of agglomeration effects.
4.7.5. The change in proximity of firms to other firms and workers is measured using the
change in generalised costs for commuting and business trips. The generalised costs
for each mode contain the following:
Public transport: journey time and fares
Highway: journey time, user charges, fuel and non-fuel operating costs
Active modes: journey time
4.7.6. The scale of the change in public transport/highway journey times and access to the
labour market is discussed in the accompanying Public Transport Connectivity Analysis
report and Traffic Impacts Report.
4.7.7. Average daily generalised costs weighted by mode, journey purpose and time period
are calculated between all local authorities in the study area. In order to provide an
indication of the scale of the impacts, Tables 4-22 to 4-24 show the percentage
change in daily generalised cost by mode between the five study area boroughs that
would experience the greatest change. For illustrative purposes, the change estimated
for Option C is shown. (N) and (S) denote boroughs located north and south of the
River Thames.
116
Table 4-22 Change in highway average generalised cost (£, 2031, weighted by journey
purpose and time period, Option C)
Newham (N) Barking and
Dagenham
(N)
Havering (N) Bexley
(S)
Greenwich
(S)
Newham (N) +2% +1% +1% -32% -13%
Barking and
Dagenham (N)
-1% -1% +1% -45% -21%
Havering (N) -3% -1% - -33% -38%
Bexley (S) -32% -41% -27% +2% +1%
Greenwich (S) -15% -27% -26% +1% -1%
Table 4-23 Change in public transport average generalised cost (£, 2031, weighted by
journey purpose and time period, Option C)
Newham (N) Barking and
Dagenham
(N)
Havering (N) Bexley
(S)
Greenwich
(S)
Newham (N) - - - -3% -4%
Barking and
Dagenham (N)
-1% - - -21% -9%
Havering (N) - - - -22% -7%
Bexley (S) -5% -22% -23% -1% -1%
Greenwich (S) -5% -11% -12% - -1%
117
Table 4-24 Change in active modes average generalised cost (£, 2031, weighted by journey
purpose and time period, Option C)37
Newham (N) Barking and
Dagenham
(N)
Havering (N) Bexley
(S)
Greenwich
(S)
Newham (N) - - - -18% +2%
Barking and
Dagenham (N)
- - - -17% -
Havering (N) - - - -48% -31%
Bexley (S) -22% -20% -53% - -
Greenwich (S) +6% +11% -30% - -
4.7.8. The change in generalised costs is used to measure the change in effective density for
each scenario. This measure estimates the mass of economic activity across the 33
London boroughs that comprise the study area and the accessibility of firms to
workers and vice versa, and of firms to other firms. Since the effect of proximity has
different accessibility and productivity impacts by sector, the effective densities are
calculated for four different sectors: manufacturing, construction, consumer services
and producer services.
4.7.9. In order to provide an indication of the likely scale of the agglomeration impacts by
market sector, Table 4-25 shows the estimated 2031 agglomeration impact by sector
for the five study area boroughs. For illustrative purposes, the change measured for
Option C is shown. In addition to these study area boroughs, there is also a significant
negative agglomeration impact of -£19m in Tower Hamlets due to a small increase in
highway congestion affecting a large number of high value producer services jobs
(although in practice this sector is much more highly dependent on public transport
connectivity).
37 Active modes include both cycling and walking journey times derived from LTS. In cases where new river
crossings reduce the distance between origins and destination to less than the walking distance threshold, this
can result in an increase in weighted average journey time when compared to a cycling-only journey times without
the crossing.
118
Table 4-25 Agglomeration impact by sector (£m, 2031, 2010 prices, Option C)
Borough Manufacturing Construction Consumer
services
Producer
services
Total
Newham (N) - - -0.2 -0.8 -1.0
Barking and
Dagenham (N) 0.2 0.1 0.4 1.5 2.3
Havering (N) 0.2 0.6 1.4 7.8 10.0
Bexley (S) 0.5 0.7 1.5 8.0 10.7
Greenwich (S) 0.2 0.3 0.8 3.8 5.1
4.7.10. Table 4-26 summarises the agglomeration benefits of the four options discounted
over the 60-year appraisal period. The TAG guidance on wider impacts also
recommends a sensitivity test including LGVs and HGVs in the definition of business
travel demand.
Table 4-26: WI1 – Agglomeration (PV, £m, 2010 prices)
Option A - Bus
only
Option B – Bus +
Short DLR
Option C – Bus +
Long DLR
Option D – Bus +
Tram
Personal
business travel 1,880 1,900 2,030 2,080
Sensitivity test
including
HGVs/LGVs
2,340 2,360 2,500 2,570
WI2 Output change in imperfectly competitive markets
4.7.11. This is the welfare impact that results because increases in the output of goods and
services are valued more highly by consumers than the cost of producing this output.
This impact is estimated as a proportion of total user benefits for business journeys,
calculated as a 10 per cent uplift to business user benefits (car, freight and public
transport). Based on the current economic appraisal, this additional benefit would
equate to £230-260m PV for the options over the 60 year appraisal (Table 4-27).
Table 4-27: WI2 – Output change in imperfectly competitive markets (PV, £m, 2010
prices)
Option A - Bus only Option B – Bus +
Short DLR
Option C – Bus +
Long DLR
Option D – Bus +
Tram
230 240 250 260
119
WI3a Tax revenues arising from labour market impacts
4.7.12. The provision of new river crossings would have significant effects on the costs and
benefits to some individuals from working. In deciding whether to work, an individual
would weigh the costs of working, including travel costs, against the wage rate of the
job travelled to. The calculation of the labour supply impact estimates the additional
value that is generated if a transport improvements changes travel costs, and therefore
affects the number of people attracted into work.
4.7.13. This impact is measured using the change in round-trip commuting average generalised
costs. Similar to the calculation of WI1, average daily generalised costs weighted by
mode and time period are calculated between all local authorities in the study area.
4.7.14. The tax revenues are calculated by measuring the change in commuting generalised
costs, the resulting change to the quantity of workers in the market, and the effect of
this on GDP. TAG Unit A2.1 states that 40% of the change in GDP is estimated to
accrue to the Exchequer as tax revenues. Table 4-28 summarises the labour market
supply impacts of the four options discounted over the 60-year appraisal period.
Table 4-28: WI2 – Tax revenues arising from labour market outputs (PV, £m, 2010
prices)
Option A - Bus only Option B – Bus +
Short DLR
Option C – Bus +
Long DLR
Option D – Bus +
Tram
110 110 120 130
WI3b Move to more productive jobs
4.7.15. People will move to more productive jobs if the earnings obtained from the job move
exceed the additional generalised cost of travel to those jobs. River crossings can open
up new job opportunities for people due to improved connectivity by both public
transport and car. Table 4-29 shows that median wages vary quite considerably across
the Thames from just under £21k in Bexley to £43k in Tower Hamlets and £51k in the
City, and wages on the south side appear to be markedly lower than on the north. The
Tower Hamlets figure is higher than surrounding inner London boroughs due to the
Canary Wharf financial services cluster.
120
Table 4-29 Median wages in the study area (2013)38
Side of the
river
Borough Jobs within borough
(000s)
Median wage all employees
(£)
North City of London 289 50,816
Tower Hamlets 189 43,501
Newham 53 23,896
Barking and
Dagenham
48 29,964
Havering 56 23,230
South Southwark 140 32,168
Lewisham 38 23,169
Greenwich 55 23,825
Bexley 58 20,640
4.7.16. DfT recommend use of a LUTI model to assess the move to more productive jobs
impacts and it is proposed that this will be undertaken for the Full Business Case.
4.7.17. In the case of the East of Silvertown project there is a clear disparity between wages in
boroughs north and south of the river, with the exception of Southwark, part of which
is located within the Central Activities Zone (CAZ). As set out in the Strategic Case, the
boroughs south of the river are characterised by poor access to jobs and also by lower
median wages in the local job market. In the absence of LUTI modelling, the forecast
scale of the re-distribution of morning peak public transport and highway trips is
discussed in the accompanying Public Transport Connectivity Analysis report.
Summary of Wider Impacts Appraisal calculations
4.7.18. Table 4-30 shows a summary of the wider impacts appraisal (all figures shown as 60-
year NPV). The conclusion from this analysis of wider economic impacts demonstrates
that there are substantial additional benefits of the East of Silvertown project, which
are not yet captured in the user benefits appraisal. Indeed the wider economic impacts
are central to the overall rationale for the project.
38 Annual Survey of Hours and Earnings 2013 Revised results, ONS
121
Table 4-30 Summary of wider impacts appraisal (PV, £m, 2010 prices)
Option A -
Bus only
Option B –
Bus + Short
DLR
Option C –
Bus + Long
DLR
Option D –
Bus + Tram
WI1 Agglomeration 1,880 1,900 2,030 2,080
WI2 Output change in
imperfectly competitive
markets
230 240 250 260
WI3a Tax revenues arising
from labour market
impacts
110 110 120 130
WI3b Move to more
productive jobs Not calculated
Total 2,220 2,250 2,400 2,470
Wider impacts as % of
user benefits (excl
operator costs)
45% 44% 43% 44%
4.8. Summary of user benefits and Wider Economic Impacts appraisal
4.8.1. Table 4-31 summarises the NPV and BCRs with and without assessment of the Wider
Economic Impacts of the four options. These figures are based on the assumption that
both crossings are in the form of bridges.
Table 4-31 Summary of economic Benefit to Cost Analysis and growth performance
Option A -
Bus only
Option B –
Bus + Short
DLR
Option C –
Bus + Long
DLR
Option D –
Bus + Tram
WebTAG TEE
only
NPV (£m) 2,780 to 3,500 2,310 to 3,010 360 to 1,490 1,360 to 2,010
BCR 2.9 to 4.7 2.3 to 3.4 1.1 to 1.7 1.5 to 2.0
WebTAG TEE
+ wider
impacts
NPV (£m) 5,000 to 5,720 4,560 to 5,260 2,760 to 3,890 3,830 to 44,80
BCR 4.4 to 7.1 3.5 to 5.1 1.9 to 2.7 2.5 to 3.2
Summary of appraisal by bridge or tunnel
4.8.2. No decision has yet been made about whether bridge or tunnel crossings would be
more appropriate at Gallions Reach and Belvedere. As shown in Table 4-3, the
estimated capital costs for the crossings vary depending on the type of crossing.
Conversely the modelled transport and wider impacts do not distinguish between the
type of crossing. Table 4-32 sets out how the calculated benefit to cost ratios of the
122
options vary by the different bridge and tunnel combinations. The BCRs are based on
the WebTAG definition of TEE user benefits and wider economic impacts.
Table 4-32: Summary of Benefit to Cost Ratios by bridge and tunnel combinations
Option A - Bus
only
Option B – Bus +
Short DLR
Option C – Bus
+ Long DLR
Option D – Bus
+ Tram
Gallions bridge /
Belvedere bridge 4.4 to 7.1 3.5 to 5.1 1.9 to 2.7 2.5 to 3.2
Gallions tunnel /
Belvedere bridge 3.8 to 6.1 3.0to 4.3 1.7 to 2.5 2.3 to 3.0
Gallions bridge /
Belvedere tunnel 4.1 to 6.7 3.4 to 4.9 1.9 to 2.7 2.4 to 3.1
Gallions tunnel /
Belvedere tunnel 3.6 to 5.8 2.9 to 4.2 1.7 to 2.4 2.2 to 2.9
4.9. Further supplementary analysis proposed for later stages
4.9.1. Several further impacts have not yet been monetised in the appraisal but will be
included in the Full Business Case. These are summarised in the following paragraphs.
Journey time reliability
4.9.2. The assessment of transport user benefits does not yet include a quantification of
journey time reliability impacts. This can be undertaken using the methodology set out
in WebTAG Unit A1.3.
Health
4.9.3. The Option Assessment Report includes a discussion on options for including walking
and cycling provision as part of any new river crossing. Depending on the outcome of
this workstream, the river crossings are likely to have either a moderate negative or a
strong positive impact on physical activity levels. These impacts will be assessed using
the World Heath Organisation’s HEAT tool guidance as part of the Full Business Case.
Public realm
4.9.4. The new river crossings are expected to have positive and negative impacts on the
public realm in different parts of the study area. For example, parts of Woolwich town
centre would be relieved of the effects of traffic queues forming near the Woolwich
Ferry. Conversely, some of the traffic management measures required at the Belvedere
crossing are likely have a negative impact on the quality of the public realm near to the
tie-ins of the crossing with the existing network. Once a preferred option (with
accompanying mitigation measures) has been identified, the most significant public
realm impacts can be quantified and monetised using TfL’s Valuing Urban Realm
toolkit.
Accident benefits
4.9.5. TUBA does not calculate benefits that are due to changes in accident costs. Accident
benefits are calculated using the DfT’s COBALT (Cost and Benefit to Accidents – Light
123
Touch) software tool. COBALT assesses the safety aspects of road schemes using
inputs of either (a) separate road links and road junctions that would be impacted by
the scheme; or (b) combined links and junctions. The assessment is based on a
comparison of accidents by severity and associated costs across an identified network
in ‘Without-Scheme’ and ‘With-Scheme’ forecasts, using details of link and junction
characteristics, relevant accident rates and costs and forecast traffic volumes by link
and junction.
4.9.6. No COBALT analysis of the East of Silvertown project has yet been undertaken.
4.10. Potential development impacts
4.10.1. The options represent four public transport packages to serve different areas around
the proposed Gallions Reach crossing. There is considerable development land
available in this part of London, and as highlighted above, understanding these
development impacts and their contribution to regeneration is a crucial element of the
economic case. Two methods have been employed to understand the level of
additional housing and jobs growth supported by the options.
4.10.2. Some of the areas served by the proposed public transport links are currently either
vacant or utilised for relatively low density industrial and logistics operations. These
areas could contribute to meeting London’s housing needs since they present
opportunities for medium density residential and mixed used development. However,
they are characterised by very low levels of public transport accessibility, which limits
their development potential. Section 4.11 describes how the potential uplift in public
transport accessibility has been used to calculate the number of homes that could be
defined as dependent development.
4.10.3. The proposed crossings would also lead to wider network connectivity improvements
in the surrounding boroughs. Section 4.12 sets out the evidence on the relationship
between transport connectivity and density. It describes how the potential
improvement in access to jobs and access to the labour market is used to forecast the
uplift in population and employment density in the local area.
4.10.4. Section 4.13 describes how the regeneration benefits associated with these
development impacts have been calculated.
4.11. Dependent development
4.11.1. The DfT (TAG Unit A2-3) provides guidance for assessing a transport intervention
which unlocks housing development. Dependent development refers to new
development that is dependent on the provision of a transport scheme and for which,
with the new development but in the absence of the transport scheme, the existing
transport network would not provide a reasonable level of service to existing and/or
new users. This has the implication that the development would not be delivered in
the absence of the transport scheme.
4.11.2. A precise definition of reasonable level of service is not provided by the guidance.
However, it does state that if additional traffic can be accommodated by the network
without significant increases in the costs of travel for existing users, then the network
can be assumed to be providing a reasonable level of service.
124
4.11.3. The guidance recommends a four step approach to assessing the value for money of
transport interventions that unlock a housing development:
Step 1: Determine the quantity of new housing development that should be
regarded as dependent on a transport intervention;
Step 2: Identify the minimum transport scheme required to restore a reasonable
level of service;
Step 3: Assess the transport user benefits of the transport intervention in
isolation (that is, in the absence of the dependent housing development);
Step 4: Assess the benefits of the dependent housing development assuming the
transport intervention is provided.
Step 1 – Determine the quantity of new housing development that should be regarded
as dependent on a transport intervention
4.11.4. As set out in the Strategic Case, the proposed East of Silvertown river crossings
improve connectivity between four OAs. The focus in many of these areas has
previously been on the intensification of employment land uses but it is recognised
that Strategic Industrial Land (SIL) could be released for residential and mixed use
development.
4.11.5. The definition of dependency focuses on the impact of housing development on the
existing transport network. Housing development may be dependent on a wide variety
of other factors, but, for a transport authority the key issue in determining whether a
transport scheme is required is the impact of new housing on the current transport
network.
4.11.6. In order to sustainably accommodate growth within the constraints of the existing
transport network, the London Plan places considerable weight on Public Transport
Accessibility Levels (PTAL)39 as a measure to guide higher density development to
suitable locations. Table 4-33 shows the London Plan density standards.
Table 4-33 London Plan density (dwellings per hectare)
PTAL 0-1 2-3 4-6
Suburban 35-75 35-95 45-130
Urban 35-95 45-170 45-260
Central 35-110 65-240 140-405
4.11.7. Although the river crossings would serve a number of sites that could accommodate
housing, it is Thamesmead and the Lower Roding Valley where the existing transport
network presents the greatest barrier to housing growth.
39 For further information on the PTAL methodology please refer to the accompanying Public Transport
Connectivity Analysis report
125
Thamesmead
4.11.8. Thamesmead is characterised by poor highway and especially rail connectivity. While
Thamesmead South will benefit greatly from the improved connectivity that Crossrail
services from Abbey Wood station will provide, the impact of Crossrail on
communities in Thamesmead North will be more limited. In light of this situation, the
Thamesmead and Abbey Wood Opportunity Area Framework (OAPF) makes provision
for 3,000 new homes and 4,000 new jobs. However, the more recent FALP projections
include over 3,000 new homes in Thamesmead North in the 2031 Reference Case (as
shown in Table 4-34).
Table 4-34 Projections of Thamesmead housing growth
Thamesmead North Thamesmead South
Dwellings Dwellings per
ha
Dwellings Dwellings per
ha
2011 estimate* 5,300 12 3,300 20
2031 Reference
Case estimate*
8,400 19 3,900 23
Change 2011-
2031
+3,100 +7 +600 +3
Development
capacity study
(unconstrained
residential
capacity)
2,600 36 1,900 31
Previous proposal
for Tamesis Point
2,000 60-70 - -
* Households from Railplan 7 model (including FALP)
4.11.9. Additional housing in Thamesmead can be accommodated through the densification of
existing neighbourhoods, new development on the Tamesis Point site and mixed use
development in Thamesmead town centre. A large proportion of these areas are in the
hands of Peabody, who produced an emerging vision document in January 201540.
Tamesis Point and Thamesmead town centre combined represent an area of 43
hectares.
4.11.10. Without significant improvements in public transport connectivity, housing
development in this area will be dependent on the existing transport network, which as
stated above is characterised by poor highway and public transport connectivity.
Tamesis Point is a suburban site with PTAL ratings of around 1b. The existing
Thamesmead Retail Park has a PTAL value of 3.
40 Peabody (2015) Thamesmead Futures Plan: A discussion paper
126
4.11.11. The previous proposal to develop the Tamesis Point site at a density of 60-70
dwellings per hectare is at the top end of what would be permissible in this location
with the current PTAL rating. It is questionable whether the site is viable at a density of
60-70 dwellings per hectare and the Peabody vision document makes reference to a
number of potential public transport improvements to facilitate higher densities. For
the purpose of estimating dependent development, it is assumed that the maximum
growth without additional transport improvements is 2,000 new homes.
Lower Roding Valley
4.11.12. There are large parcels of land located between Gallions Reach and Barking that are
predominantly used for low density industrial, warehousing, retail and leisure uses, and
include some vacant undeveloped land. The entire area is characterised by low PTAL
values of 2 or less.
4.11.13. The area falls within the Royal Docks and Beckton Opportunity Area, for which there is
a target of 11,000 new homes covering the whole OA. The most recent FALP
projections include over 2,000 homes in the Lower Roding Valley area. This increase
could be delivered by building out planned development sites near to Gallions Reach
station.
Table 4-35 Projections of Lower Roding Valley housing growth
Armada Junction, Claps Gate Lane and Jenkins
Lane
Dwellings Dwellings per ha
2011 estimate* 4,000 12
2031 Reference Case estimate* 6,100 18
Change 2011-2031 +2,100 +6
Development capacity study
(unconstrained residential capacity)
2,100 16
* Households from Railplan 7 model (including FALP)
4.11.14. Local accessibility in this area is constrained by Royal Docks Road, the A13, the DLR
and the Northern Outfall Sewer. As a result, the conversion of additional parcels of
land to residential or mixed use development is unlikely to occur in the absence of
high-quality public transport links to penetrate into development sites. Proposals for a
public transport link through this area linking Barking to the Royal Docks are not new.
For example, previous proposals for the East London Transit identified an alignment
through the Lower Roding Valley corridor.
4.11.15. Note that the detailed site-based assessment in this section is assumed to replace the
more strategic assessment of potential development impacts above since both
assessments cover the same area.
127
Step 2 – Identify appropriate transport interventions
4.11.16. The proposed East of Silvertown river crossings provide an opportunity to significantly
enhance public transport connectivity for Thamesmead and the Lower Roding Valley.
4.11.17. Option A includes new bus connectivity improvements for Thamesmead:
New direct bus links to the Royal Docks and Barking providing access to jobs and
services;
Increased capacity and frequency on bus feeder services to Crossrail at Abbey
Wood and Woolwich; and
PTAL increases from 1b to 3 in areas within 5-minutes of walk of Thamesmead
Town Centre.
4.11.18. Objectively, the package of cross-river bus improvements represents a significant
increase in connectivity that would justify a higher density of development. However,
the experience of Barking Riverside suggests that bus-only solutions do little to instil
confidence in the site and to raise land values. It is therefore concluded that a limited
increase of up to 2,800 new homes would be possible in Tamesis Point. This equates
to a density of around 95 dwellings per hectare, which is at the top end of the PTAL 2-
3 standard for suburban areas.
4.11.19. Option B includes new bus and DLR connectivity improvements for Thamesmead:
New DLR links to Royal Docks, Canary Wharf, Stratford, the City and Custom
House (for interchange to Crossrail);
Thamesmead would appear on the tube map;
New direct bus links to the Royal Docks and Barking providing access to jobs and
services;
Increased capacity and frequency on bus feeder services to Crossrail at Abbey
Wood and Woolwich;
PTAL increases from 1b/2 to 3/4 in areas within 5-minutes of walk of
Thamesmead Town Centre; and
The experience of Barking Riverside suggests that this would generate investor
confidence and improve site viability.
4.11.20. Cumulatively, the Option B improvements represent both a major step change in
connectivity for Thamesmead and a strong signal to developers. This level of
connectivity would warrant high density development around the stations, although
the maximum densities over the area as a whole are likely to be constrained by rain
water attenuation requirements. It is therefore concluded that an increase of up to
4,400 new homes would be possible in Tamesis Point along with a further 2,100 within
a higher density mixed use re-development of Thamesmead town centre. This equates
to a density of around 150 dwellings per hectare, which is a reasonable assumption for
a local mixed use centre based around a PTAL 3/4 hub.
4.11.21. Option B would also provide connectivity improvements to the area around the
proposed Armada Junction station, which would have a PTAL value of 3. At a density
128
of around 95 dwellings per hectare, there is scope for around 4,500 new homes
around this station.
4.11.22. Therefore it is calculated that a total of 8,200 new homes are dependent on the Short
DLR connectivity provided in Option B.
4.11.23. Option C include a wider range of improvements for both Thamesmead and the Lower
Roding Valley:
New DLR links from Thamesmead and Lower Roding to Royal Docks, Canary
Wharf, Stratford, the City providing access to jobs and services;
New DLR links to Custom House or Abbey Wood (for interchange to Crossrail)
and to Barking (for interchange to Underground and national rail services);
Thamesmead and Lower Roding Valley on the tube map;
PTAL increases from 1b/2 to 3/4 in areas within easy walking distance of
Thamesmead West and Thamesmead Town Centre;
PTAL increases from 1b/2 to 3/4 in areas within easy walking distance of new DLR
stations in the Lower Roding Valley; and
The experience of Barking Riverside suggests that this would generate investor
confidence and improve site viability.
4.11.24. These improvements would represent a major change in connectivity for Thamesmead
and the Lower Roding Valley, and a strong justification for the conversion of land to
residential and mixed use development. It is calculated that 19,500 new homes are
dependent on the Long DLR connectivity in Option C.
4.11.25. The connectivity improvements associated with Option D vary slightly from Option C,
with better links to Woolwich and less connections via Custom House. However, the
overall increase in PTAL values is actually very similar to Option D and the same net
increase in homes is assumed.
4.11.26. Table 4-36 summarises the net number of dependent homes for each of the four
options. The provision of high quality public transport on the crossings will increase
connectivity levels, which is expected to enable the delivery of between10,000 and
20,000 additional homes in the study area (for options B, C and D).
Table 4-36 Summary of dependent development (net number of dependent homes)
Thamesmead Lower Roding
Valley
Total
Option A – Bus only 800 0 800
Option B – Bus + Short DLR 4,500 4,500 9,000
Option C – Bus + Long DLR 4,500 15,000 19,500
Option D – Bus + Tram 4,500 15,000 19,500
4.11.27. The development of housing in Thamesmead would be focussed on areas of currently
vacant land and town centre intensification, and is therefore not expected to lead to a
reduction in employment. Conversely, it is likely that medium-density mixed use
development in the Lower Roding Valley would lead to a reduction in land available for
lower density employment uses. As such, it is assumed that 40% of existing jobs in the
129
Lower Roding Valley would be lost but that this is partially offset by new population-
based employment (assumed ratio one job per ten residents).
Step 3 - Assess the transport user benefits of the transport intervention in isolation
(that is, in the absence of the dependent housing development)
4.11.28. Public transport options for the East of Silvertown project have been modelled in
Railplan using a 2031 Reference Case. The reference case includes growth of around
3,100 dwellings in Thamesmead North (see Table 4-34).
4.11.29. The transport user benefits for options A to D are presented in this document. Table
4-37 summarises marginal cost of providing the public transport options and the public
transport user benefits. The benefits are presented in the absence of the dependent
housing development. As stated earlier the public transport options would serve areas
of vacant land, and as a result the marginal transport case for the public transport
options is weak in the absence of development.
Table 4-37 Summary of public transport user benefits (£m, 2010 prices, 60-year
appraisal, discounted)
Marginal PVC PVB NPV BCR
Option A – Bus only 580 to 770 760 to 950 180 1.2 to 1.3
Option B – Bus + Short DLR 910 to1,090 600 to 770 -310 0.7
Option C – Bus + Long DLR 1,890 to
2,280 -170 to 220 -2,060 -0.1 to 0.1
Option D – Bus + Tram 1,680 to
1,840 380 to 540 -1,300 0.2 to 0.3
Step 4 – Assess the benefits of the dependent housing development assuming the
transport intervention is provided
4.11.30. In order to assess the full benefits of the dependent housing with the public transport
options, it is necessary to run a further scenario with the additional dependent
development. The rail-based public transport options (Options B, C and D) have been
modelled in Railplan with the dependent development added to the relevant zones.
4.11.31. The distribution of trips associated with the dependent development has been derived
through an aggregation process. Since some of the affected Railplan zones currently
have very low housing numbers, it is not appropriate to apply the existing trip
distribution based on a very small sample to future housing, which may differ
significantly from the existing. In order to overcome this, a sectored trip distribution
was calculated for a number of zones surrounding Thamesmead and the Lower Roding
Valley (with a range of spatial and housing tenure characteristics), and applied to the
net additional housing in the ‘with dependent development’ model runs.
4.11.32. For each of the rail-based public transport options (Options B, C and D), the Railplan
model runs with and without dependent development have been undertaken, and the
total Transport External Costs (TEC) of each calculated. As set out in WebTAG Unit
A2.3, TEC refers to the sum of the trips multiplied by the costs.
130
4.11.33. Table 4-38 summarises the calculation of the TECs with and without dependent
development for the three rail-based public transport options.
Table 4-38: Transport External Costs arising from dependent development (AM peak,
2031, all costs in 000’s minutes)
Option B – Bus
+ Short DLR
Option C – Bus
+ Long DLR
Option D – Bus
+ Tram
(A) Total TEC with dependent
development and transport scheme 302,598 302,583 302,691
(B) Total TEC without dependent
development and with transport
scheme
302,404 302,344 302,333
(C) = (A) – (B) 194 239 359
(D) TEC of dependent development
generated trips 178 252 330
Net residual impact on public
transport users from existing land
uses = (C) – (D)
16 -13 28
For comparison: total journey time
saving for public transport users
(without dependent development) in
TEE
275 352 363
4.11.34. The net residual impact on public transport users from existing land uses varies by
option. Overall, the residual impacts represent a small fraction of the journey time
savings estimated for public transport users in the TEE calculation of user benefits.
4.11.35. The net external costs associated with the public transport links supporting the
dependent development are therefore negligible when compared to the private and
wider societal planning gains to be derived from the development.
4.12. The relationship between transport connectivity and density
4.12.1. In the GLA study Accessibility Employment Projections for London (SKM Colin
Buchanan, 2013) the relationship between transport connectivity and employment
density in London was calculated and used to forecast future changes in employment
distribution.
4.12.2. Relationships were found for highways and public transport connectivity to
employment and population measured as generalised time and clock time. A similar
methodology to the above study has been applied to the East of Silvertown study
area.
4.12.3. High density office employment in London is dependent upon the connectivity and
capacity of the public transport network. Other sectors such as manufacturing and
construction are highly road dependent. Population density increases in line with
131
improved access to jobs by public transport until the CAZ where residential use
diminishes as other employment uses dominate. Outer London is much more reliant
on road based connectivity than inner and central London.
Figure 4-2 Connectivity and employment/population density (2031 Reference Case)
Development impacts
4.12.4. The observed relationships between density and connectivity were used to predict the
potential increase in density of homes and jobs in the PMAs under the four public
transport options. It is estimated that the improvement in cross-river connectivity
alone could lead to 6-11,000 new homes and 3-6,000 new jobs. The resulting growth
in homes is concentrated in the riverside OAs and their immediate hinterland. The
growth in jobs is split between central London, which benefits from a marginal
improvement in access to the labour market, and local jobs in areas of population
growth.
4.12.5. The connectivity modelling estimates the net effect on delivery of housing units and
jobs. This incorporates the impacts of additional population on local jobs to service
them. The net additional jobs and houses attributable to the project within this area
are shown in Table 4-39.
4.12.6. Option B generates about 15 per cent more net housing and about 25 per cent more
jobs then Option A within the Study Area boroughs in response to the higher quality
public transport offer. Options C and D offer yet further public transport connectivity.
Option C with the DLR extension connecting the Royal Docks to Barking generates
most jobs and homes in Newham. Option D generates the most jobs and homes in
Greenwich by providing a high quality public transport offer between Thamesmead and
Woolwich.
132
Table 4-39 Study Area development impacts
Borough Option A - Bus
only
Option B – Bus +
Short DLR
Option C – Bus +
Long DLR
Option D – Bus +
Tram
Jobs Houses Jobs Houses Jobs Houses Jobs Houses
Newham 610 -580 750 -290 2,030 1,750 1,440 560
Barking and
Dagenham
160 1,310 150 1,260 170 1,750 200 1,840
Havering 170 1,550 170 1,520 180 1,680 190 1,760
Greenwich 410 2,220 640 2,780 760 3,000 1,950 3,430
Bexley 290 2,000 350 2,200 330 2,480 480 2,510
TOTAL 1,640 6,500 2,060 7,470 3,470 10,660 4,260 10,100
4.12.7. The project is of more than local significance, however, and the analysis suggests there
are two countervailing factors in operation beyond this immediate area:
there are spillover positive effects as connectivity improvements extend to other
parts of London
there are displacement effects as the increased activity in the regeneration area
prevents or delays economic activity elsewhere
4.12.8. The net impact of these two effects is set out in Table 4-40 for adjacent boroughs and
the CAZ.
Table 4-40 Wider area development impacts
Borough Option A - Bus
only
Option B – Bus +
Short DLR
Option C – Bus +
Long DLR
Option D – Bus +
Tram
Jobs Houses Jobs Houses Jobs Houses Jobs Houses
CAZ 1,430 0 630 0 2,160 0 760 0
Tower Hamlets 270 -620 160 -570 650 -500 470 -570
Southwark 0 330 -20 360 -10 330 20 360
Other 10 20 20 20 10 90 40 150
TOTAL 1,710 -270 790 -190 2,810 -80 1,290 -10
TOTAL across
London
3,350 6,230 2,850 7,280 6,280 10,580 5,550 10,090
4.12.9. This shows that for job impacts, the spillover effects are significant for central London
and Tower Hamlets but minimal elsewhere. However, for the CAZ, job impacts are
extremely sensitive to small changes in public transport connectivity. The job impacts
are more important under Option A than Option B due to the network effects of
reconfiguring the DLR service patterns. Likewise the job impacts on the CAZ of Option
133
C, which offers direct DLR links from new areas, are much greater than Option D,
which offers greater local connectivity with the tram.
4.12.10. For the expectation of new housing, the effects are much smaller as the displacement
effect dominates overall. The positive exception is in Southwark where additional
housing is stimulated by the connectivity gains. Tower Hamlets would see housing
growth come forward more slowly as displacement effects prioritise better
opportunities south of the river for house building resources.
4.13. Regeneration benefits
4.13.1. Building on the development impact analysis set out above, further high-level analysis
has been undertaken to start to understand the spatial distribution of regeneration
effects, their net contribution at the London-wide level and the economic value this
represents to the capital. This goes beyond the standard WebTAG regeneration
analysis as part of an attempt to align the strategic and economic cases, in line with
the recommendations from the Transport Investment and Economic Performance
(TIEP) research.
4.13.2. The study area represents the regeneration area for the East of Silvertown project: the
London boroughs of Newham, Barking and Dagenham, Bexley and Havering, and the
Royal Borough of Greenwich, as well as the CAZ and several inner London boroughs
that are affected.
Cumulative development impacts
4.13.3. The cumulative estimate of homes and jobs is based on the sum of the net additional
homes defined as dependent development in the areas immediately adjacent to the
Gallions Reach crossing (see section 4.11) and the net homes and jobs derived from
the connectivity-density calculations (see section 4.12). The latter figures exclude the
Thamesmead and Gallions Reach PMAs to avoid double-counting.
134
Table 4-41 Cumulative development impacts
Borough Option A - Bus
only
Option B – Bus +
Short DLR
Option C – Bus +
Long DLR
Option D – Bus +
Tram
Homes Jobs Homes Jobs Homes Jobs Homes Jobs
CAZ 0 1,430 0 1,350 0 2,160 0 760
Tower
Hamlets
(exc CAZ) -620 270 -510 620 -500 650 -520 470
Newham -770 610 5,240 310 15,450 1,020 14,570 400
Barking and
Dagenham 1,310 160 1,690 200 1,750 170 1,840 200
Redbridge 50 10 400 630 100 10 140 40
Havering 1,550 170 1,800 80 1,680 180 1,760 190
Greenwich 1,670 410 4,650 940 4,670 760 4,920 1,950
Bexley 1,830 290 4,790 1,290 2,990 330 2,970 480
Southwark
(exc CAZ) 330 0 320 -80 330 -10 360 20
Lewisham -30 0 -40 20 -10 0 10 0
TOTAL 5,320 3,350 18,340 5,360 26,460 5,270 26,050 4,510
Economic impact
4.13.4. The net housing and job impacts have been converted into an equivalent GVA effect,
using the direct and indirect effects of new housing and GVA per job filled at the
borough level. Table 4-42 summarises these impacts upon the London economy as a
whole. Housing effects are discounted over a 30-year appraisal period, and GVA job
effects are discounted over 10 years in line with HCA additionality guidance
assumptions.
135
Table 4-42 Net housing and Gross Value Added jobs effects (NPV, £m, 2010 prices)
Option A - Bus
only
Option B – Bus
+ Short DLR
Option C – Bus
+ Long DLR
Option D – Bus
+ Tram
Housing productive
effect 750 2,700 3,980 3,910
Housing indirect
employment effect 350 1,390 2,170 2,130
GVA jobs effect 1,110 2,250 2,550 1,690
Total 2,210 6,340 8,710 7,730
Comparison of alternative approaches
4.13.5. Assessing the economic impacts of the net additional housing and jobs represents an
alternative method of appraising the four options.
4.13.6. Under the WebTAG transport user benefits and wider impacts appraisal framework,
Option A represents the best value for money. This option deliver significant benefits
to existing communities while the marginal cost of the public transport element is
relatively low. Yet this option is not expected to make a significant contribution to
housing growth and regeneration, and therefore the forecast of £2bn economic
impacts is considerably lower than the value of the WebTAG user and wider benefits.
4.13.7. Seen from a development and regeneration perspective, Options C and D would
support the highest growth in housing and jobs and as a result are forecast to have the
largest economic impacts with a net contribution to London’s economy of over
£7.5bn. Yet the marginal costs of these public transport schemes are much higher and
are not justified by the benefits under the WebTAG transport user benefits and Wider
Economic Impacts appraisal framework alone.
4.13.8. Option B has a lower marginal public transport cost than Options C and D, yet it could
deliver significant housing and regeneration benefits. As such it is expected to produce
a net contribution of over £6bn to London’s economy, a similar value to the transport
user benefits and Wider Economic Impacts appraisal.
136
5. The Financial Case
5.1. Introduction
5.1.1. The Financial Case sets out the project and ongoing operating costs and financing and
funding arrangements to deliver the scheme.
5.2. Project costs
Cost estimates suggest that the total capital cost of the delivering the
river crossings would be between £1bn and £3bn
5.2.1. Indicative cost estimates (capital and operational) have so far been produced for a long
list of potential East of Silvertown options. A proportionate process has been used to
assess the long list of options and produce a shorter list of the most feasible options
which can be taken forward for more detailed analysis including modelling and
engineering assessments. However, as there remain a number of options and
combinations of options, it is not possible at this stage to present an Estimated Final
Cost for the project.
5.2.2. The transport benefits delivered by a bridge or a tunnel are generally the same. For the
purposes of this report, bridges are assumed but tunnels at either location could be
introduced without materially impacting on the benefits. The incorporation of the
public transport short list of options has resulted in four options to consider; A, B, C
and D.
5.2.3. As set out in the previous sections and summarised in Table 5-1, a number of
shortlisted options have been presented, which carry a total cost of between around
£1bn and £3bn (2010 prices including optimism bias).
137
Table 5-1 Summary of capital and operating costs
Costs Cost basis Option A
- Bus
only
Option B –
Bus + Short
DLR
Option C
– Bus +
Long DLR
Option D
– Bus +
Tram
River
crossing
capital
costs
Appraisal cost (2010 prices,
including optimism bias)
1,000-2,150
2013 costs incl. risk and
construction inflation but
without optimism bias
550-1,250
Outturn costs 725-1,650
Public
transport
capital
costs
Appraisal cost (2010 prices,
including optimism bias)
50* 275-425 1,100-
1,300
550-600
2013 costs incl. risk and
construction inflation but
without optimism bias
n/a 225-325 850-1,050 425-475
Outturn costs n/a 325-500 1,300-
1,550
650-700
Operating
costs
Estimated annual operating
costs (2013 prices)
20-25 4-7
(+20-25
buses)
35-45
(+20-25
buses)
20-25
(+20-25
buses)
5.2.4. Section 4.2 contains further information on how these cost estimates have been
derived. Capital and operating costs for all crossing options are presented consistently
within the Option Assessment Report (Long List) and Option Assessment Report
(Public Transport Interim List) and this business case, although the cost definitions
between these documents are not the same. The OAR contains low and high cost
estimates in 2013 prices. The business case documentation presents low and high
cost estimates in 2010 prices with optimism bias (OB) of 66 per cent applied to land
and infrastructure costs.
Risk allowance and optimism bias
Engineering assessments have informed the development of option costs
5.2.5. Engineering assessments have informed some, but not all, of these options. The costs
presented outline an estimate for construction including oncosts (e.g., design, general
items, overheads, profits and testing), permanent land acquisition and Woolwich ferry
infrastructure demolition in outturn prices (including opportunity and risk) in a price
range (low to high). Moreover, an operation and maintenance cost (including lifecycle) is
also presented.
5.2.6. Public transport costs have been taken from a number of sources including case
studies of past examples, previous DLR extension feasibility studies and a previous
transit studies. Prices exclude land costs beyond the immediate crossing allowance.
The prices do generally include the cost of track, station upgrades, depots, rolling
138
stock, signalling and construction. The costs also account for marginal additional
infrastructure costs. All prices are factored to 2013 prices by applying an ‘ALLCON -
All Construction Tender Price Index’ conversion41. Operational costs have also been
calculated based on current operating costs on the TfL transport networks.
5.2.7. In the appraisal an additional allowance has been made for Optimism Bias. This has
been applied to all options at a rate of 66 per cent given the stage of project
development. This is expected to reduce as the schemes are taken forward and
become better defined.
5.2.8. Detailed cost estimates will follow once the combination of options have been
shortlisted to an appropriate number (2~3 options) and more detailed modelling and
engineering work has been undertaken.
Spend profile
The construction costs would be likely to arise between 2021 and 2025
5.2.9. It is too early in the assessment process to outline a breakdown and timeframe for
costs. However, assuming an opening year of 2025, it is expected that any option
would be constructed over the period 2021 to 2025, and this has been used in the
appraisal. Operating costs and revenue from users in the form of charges or fares has
been applied for a 60 year period from 2025.
5.3. Funding
User charging and funding contributions from new development would
form part of any funding package to enable the delivery of the new
crossings
5.3.1. As with the question of how the new crossings would be financed, the means by
which the crossings would be funded (i.e., the source of the funds to repay a
concessionaire, bondholders, etc.) can only be answered when there is greater clarity
around the preferred option. It is likely that the funding would come from a
combination of sources.
5.3.2. A key part of the revenue-earning potential of the new crossings is road user charging.
It is considered necessary to charge the crossings in order to manage user demand,
and in particular to ensure that traffic volumes on the new crossings are not sufficient
to cause any significant traffic or environmental problems in the communities on either
side or for crossing users themselves, as to do so would negate the benefits of the
investment. While traffic management is the primary purpose of charging, it clearly
also delivers a revenue stream which would contribute to the repayment of the
investment.
41 Note that 2014/15 indexes are not yet available
139
5.3.3. Further work will be undertaken to develop an appropriate charging strategy. This will
include sensitivity tests, for example related to the Lower Thames Crossing options,
which could have a significant impact on revenue at the Belvedere crossing.
5.3.4. Passengers on the public transport services using the crossings would also provide a
revenue stream. Further work is needed to understand whether these revenues would
be sufficient to generate a surplus above the operating costs, and what the net impact
on TfL would be. Some of forecast patronage on the new orbital links is made of up
passengers who are able to avoid longer radial routes through fare zones 2-3. While
this may generate time and cost savings for these passengers and free up capacity on
radial routes, the revenue impact of this re-routing may be negative.
5.3.5. Road user charging and passenger revenue are highly unlikely to cover the whole of the
funding of the crossings, and other means of covering the costs would need to be
considered.
5.3.6. Given the significant amount of development committed and planned for the local
areas, there is potential for development related funding to be captured, either through
existing mechanisms or by introducing new local levies in the areas benefitting from
the investment. The scale of development supported by the crossings is summarised
in section 4.13 of the economic case.
5.3.7. Other options include other governmental funding, on the basis that the scheme
would generate economic benefits to the nation which cannot be fully captured by
TfL.
5.3.8. In addition, TfL could also seek devolution of a proportion of Vehicle Excise Duty
(VED) revenues to London. London has 10% of England’s registered vehicles and
devolution of a consistent proportion of VED would support the modernisation of
London’s strategic road network, including the East of Silvertown project.
5.3.9. All these options will need to be further considered as the project progresses.
5.4. Financing
There is potential for the financing of the crossings to be through a
privately financed solution
5.4.1. It is not possible to make any final decisions on the preferred financing arrangements
until a preferred option has been selected and its capital and operational costs and
associated revenues are known.
5.4.2. TfL could potentially use a privately financed solution to deliver the East of Silvertown
river crossings project. The value of the scheme is large enough to attract interest from
the markets and road, bridge and tunnel risks are well understood by financing markets
which should ensure a competitive cost of capital.
5.4.3. A privately financed solution would see the private sector take on the responsibilities
for design, construction and other risks of the project, in return for a series of
payments by TfL.
5.4.4. Other financing options could include grant funding which is received from central and
local government.
5.4.5. Alternatively, TfL could borrow the necessary money from a variety of sources using a
combination of mechanisms, including bonds, commercial paper, loans for specific
140
projects from the European Investment Bank and the Public Works Loan Board. TfL’s
borrowing is based on considerations including the cost of borrowing, market
conditions and the level of flexibility offered.
5.4.6. Although the use of private finance may mean that the base projected cost of the
scheme is greater for TfL than if it finances the scheme itself, the use of a privately
financed solution has a number of advantages:
Risk is effectively transferred to a private party who is best placed to manage it;
Total costs are minimised by transferring the responsibility to the private sector
for the design, construction and ongoing responsibility for the asset; and
There are greater opportunities for innovation through an outputs based contract.
5.4.7. There are also advantages for TfL in that repayment of private finance can be deferred
until the scheme is operational, which frees up funds for investment in other schemes
which may not be suitable candidates for a privately financed solution. Repayment of
private finance can also be spread out over time, allowing TfL to use revenues
generated from user charging to cover repayment charges (although charging levels and
the impact on traffic behaviour needs to be considered).
141
6. The Commercial Case
6.1. Introduction
6.1.1. This section provides details on the commercial structure, procurement approach and
accounting implications of the project.
6.2. Procurement strategy and sourcing options
6.2.1. The new river crossings are being promoted by TfL and will be developed through
close working with the other stakeholders (outlined below), who are already aware of
the project.
6.2.2. It is being promoted by TfL, the public sector body responsible for delivering transport
services of all types in London, with an investment portfolio of £12bn.
6.2.3. As a public body, TfL has to meet the requirements of the Mayor of London’s
Responsible Procurement Policy consisting of the following themes:
Environmental sustainability;
Supplier diversity;
Community benefits;
Skills and employment;
Sustainable freight;
Fair employment; and
Ethical Sourcing.
6.2.4. In compliance with the responsible procurement policy, all potential suppliers would
be asked to consider these elements in their bid as part of the Invitation to Tender
(ITT) for the design and build contract. Each appointed consultant or contractor would
be subject to a supplier performance plan.
6.2.5. The project may be delivered using a privately financed solution which meets the
objectives and constraints set out in the following table.
142
Table 6-1 Objectives and Constraints
6.3. Proposed commercial structure
Construction procurement/management
The crossings project has characteristics which make it a suitable
candidate for delivery via a privately financed solution such as DBFM
6.3.1. While it has not yet been confirmed as the preferred approach, the project has
characteristics which make it a suitable candidate for delivery via a privately financed
solution e.g. a Design-Build-Finance-Maintain (DBFM) agreement. A private sector party
would then be responsible for the financing of the project and undertaking the detailed
design, construction and on-going maintenance of the new infrastructure for around 30
years (based on debt repayment profile and time to generate target shareholder return).
At the end of the contract the asset would be handed back to TfL. Other delivery
mechanisms, such as “traditional” design and build or a Regulatory model would also
be considered.
6.3.2. Given the relationship of the East of Silvertown project to other river crossings and the
wider London strategic and local road network, TfL may decide to retain control of
setting of user charges and traffic network management at the new crossing. These
operations may fall under existing contracts such as that which exists for the
congestion charging scheme and The London Highways Alliance Contract (LoHAC).
The decision on the aspects TfL would control depend on a number of factors,
including the modes provided as part of the crossing.
6.3.3. Any contracts over the threshold values would need to be competitively tendered via
EU compliant means in the Official Journal of the European Union (OJEU).
Objectives – the solution must: Constraints – the solution must:
Be affordable over the long-term
Ensure integration of the crossing
operations with the wider road
transport operations
Achieve value for money – ensuring
that risk transfer is justified and
worthwhile
Have support from key internal and
external stakeholders
Match responsibilities with
management and organisational
capability
Have strong confidence of delivery
within the current market
Achieve “off budget” status to
meet affordability constraints
Ensure TfL remains principal on
charge levying to achieve
favourable treatment on VAT on
charges
Ensure TfL retains control of
charging strategy to achieve traffic
management objectives
Ensure TfL retains control of traffic
management operations to meet
provisions under the Traffic
Management Act
Consider integration with existing
contractual arrangement where it
makes sense operationally and is
deemed value for money
143
Accounting implications
6.3.4. An assessment of the likely accounting treatment of any commercial structure under
ESA95/10 would need to be undertaken to determine whether the project is likely to
be treated as “off budget” and therefore whether liabilities would score towards TfL
borrowing.
Procurement route
6.3.5. Any contracts for the East of Silvertown project would need to be competitively
tendered via EU compliant means in the Official Journal of the European Union
(OJEU).
TfL utilises supply chains from across the UK – work for new crossings
would support many jobs outside of London
6.3.6. Although TfL undertakes procurement for projects implemented in the capital, the
wider benefit to the UK is extensive, with over 60,000 jobs estimated to be supported
by services TfL procures from outside of London. The construction of new river
crossings would add to the pipeline of capital investment that supports jobs across the
UK.
6.3.7. The procurement strategy for this stage of the project will be refined and improved as
the scheme is further developed.
144
7. The Management Case
7.1. Introduction
7.1.1. The purpose of the Management Case is to assess whether a proposal is deliverable. It
reviews evidence from similar projects, sets out the project planning, governance
structure, risk management, communications and stakeholder management, benefits
realisation and assurance.
7.2. Evidence of similar projects
TfL would make full use of best practice within the organisation and
from industry
7.2.1. While the preferred option is not yet determined, the options include a number of
similarities in terms of delivering a large highway crossing of the Thames, and some
options include provision of rail alongside the highway.
7.2.2. TfL has extensive experience in developing, promoting and implementing significant
infrastructure projects. This ranges from modifications to existing road infrastructure
(such as the Hammersmith flyover refurbishment) to building major new infrastructure.
7.2.3. Major schemes developed, promoted and implemented by TfL in recent years include
the A23 Coulsdon By-Pass, a major programme of extensions to the DLR, the London
Overground Network, the Emirates Air Line cable car and Crossrail. These projects
have been progressed through the planning system using a range of routes including
Transport and Works Act Orders (TWAO) and the Private Member’s Bill Process.
7.2.4. There is some experience with major highway projects in London, but none with tolled
road bridges or tunnels, although TfL has extensive experience of user charging with
the Central London Congestion Charging scheme. Moreover, the proposed Silvertown
Tunnel project is recommended to be charged.
7.2.5. Therefore, much of TfL’s project development experience would be transferrable to
this scheme, including support and advice from experienced promoters of the
proposed Silvertown Tunnel project. Other promoters of major highway schemes and
operators of similar projects would also be consulted, including Highways England and
the operators of the Mersey and Tyne Tunnels.
7.3. Linkages
Programme linkages
The East of Silvertown crossings scheme has a link with the delivery of
the proposed Silvertown Tunnel Project and both are part of a wider
series of river crossings for London
7.3.1. The project is linked to the proposed Silvertown Tunnel project, which seeks to build a
road tunnel that would provide resilience and congestion relief to the Blackwall Tunnel
and support local regeneration. TfL is progressing proposals for the proposed
Silvertown Tunnel through a Development Consent Order. A statutory consultation on
the proposed Silvertown Tunnel was held between 5 October and 29 November 2015.
145
Key project assumptions
7.3.2. TfL would rely on user charging for the crossings as a means of managing traffic
demand; this would also provide a source of funding for the project. TfL has a budget
for planning and development stages up to securing powers and consents but does not
have a budget for the main design and build costs.
7.3.3. In addition to user charging, TfL is considering delivering the project via a Private
Finance Initiative, whereby the Contractor with private sector funding would be
responsible for the detailed design, construction, financing and maintenance of the
tunnel over a suitable concession period (typically 30 years).
7.3.4. The land for the potential Gallions Reach crossing is safeguarded and continuation of
this has been identified as an external dependency for the delivery of a potential
crossing at this location.
7.3.5. Consideration will be given as to whether safeguarding will be sought for the
Belvedere-Rainham crossing location.
7.4. Powers to construct the project
Development Consent Order
The river crossings East of Silvertown could be considered a nationally
significant infrastructure project
7.4.1. The Secretary of State designated the proposed Silvertown Tunnel as a Nationally
Significant Infrastructure Project, and therefore TfL is developing a Development
Consent Order application for that project.
7.4.2. It is TfL’s view that the Thames crossings to the east of Silvertown could also be
considered nationally significant, for the important role they could play in allowing east
London’s economy to grow, and due to the very important role the London’s
economy plays in the wider UK, as outlined in the Strategic Case.
7.4.3. TfL could therefore request that crossings east of Silvertown be designated by the
Secretary of State as schemes of national significance, allowing TfL to use the same
powers process for these crossings as for the proposed Silvertown Tunnel. By using
the same consenting route, TfL would be able to directly apply lessons learnt from the
Silvertown project, and reduce planning risk.
146
7.5. Governance, organisational structure and roles
Internal governance
7.5.1. The East of Silvertown project has a Programme Board, chaired by the Managing
Director of TfL Planning and attended by senior managers from across TfL, including
representatives from Rail and Underground, Surface Transport and Corporate Finance.
This board has been established to guide and oversee delivery of the project and the
realisation of its benefits.
7.5.2. TfL has also appointed a Technical Sponsor River Crossings from Surface Transport to
ensure Surface have a key oversight role throughout the planning stages of the project
prior to future handover of the project for delivery.
7.5.3. Following Silvertown Tunnel’s work with Infrastructure UK on the Project Initiation
Routemap, a similar approach would be followed for this project.
Independent peer review group
7.5.4. An Independent Peer Review Group (IPRG) would be established to provide
independent expert scrutiny of the East of Silvertown project, initially regarding the
selection of a preferred crossing option and to review the proposed ground
investigation works.
7.5.5. The IPRG would remain in place to undertake reviews on technical and engineering
matters at key stages during the design, procurement and delivery of the project.
Programme/Project Plan
7.5.6. Some key future milestones for the project are shown in Table 7-1 below.
Table 7-1 Key future project milestones
Milestone description Date
Public consultation Late 2015
Report to the Mayor on the outcome of the
consultation
March 2016
Brief the next Mayor on the River Crossings
programme and seek direction
May/June 2016
Assurance and approvals plan
Rigorous assurance processes would provide close scrutiny and
challenge of risk management and decision-making throughout the
project
7.5.7. The assurance and approvals process would follow TfL’s established project assurance
procedures, which include assurance at three levels: internal, Programme Management
Office (PMO) and external.
7.5.8. Internal assurance is provided through Pathway (TfL’s project management
methodology) project stage gates and/or peer reviews staffed by the sponsor and
delivery personnel either from within the project or from a peer project. Underlying
these stage gates are a number of assurance activities conducted by both TfL and the
147
suppliers and include activities such as design reviews, safety assessments, risk
reviews, commercial assessments, estimate validation, material testing, site
inspections and product testing.
7.5.9. The number and timing of the stage gates are established by the delivery organisation,
based on guidance in Pathway, and informed by a characterisation tool that considers
such things as scale, complexity, novelty, project team experience and the strategic
importance of the project. A number of Products are required to be completed to
provide evidence at the stage gate that the project is fit to proceed to the next stage.
7.5.10. Products are outputs that are signed off by authorised individuals, and include such
documents as project execution plans, risk management plans, project estimates and
design compliance certificates.
7.5.11. The PMO is part of TfL but is not accountable for delivery. These reviews are typically
Integrated Assurance Reviews (IAR), staffed by a combination of PMO staff, consultant
external experts (EE) or peer groups from outside the delivery organisation.
7.5.12. The EEs are selected on the basis of their relevant experience and suitability to the
project under review. Each review is covered by a Terms of Reference that sets the
scope and the brief to the EE, who is procured from a TfL consultancy framework. The
Terms of Reference is based on the Pathway IAR Lines of Enquiry, aimed at generating
a comprehensive review. Each Line of Enquiry includes up to 20 detailed challenges,
devised to match the maturity of the project at its particular point in its lifecycle.
7.5.13. The Lines of Enquiry were developed as part of the Corporate Gateway Approval
Process (CGAP) in 2008, following a comprehensive benchmarking process that
assessed the assurance regimes in other organisations and the Office of 3 Government
Commerce who produced gateway processes and guidance (now part of the Cabinet
Office). Some additions have been made since 2008, including more explicit challenges
covering cost benchmarking following consultation with the Independent Investment
Programme Advisory Group (IIPAG).
7.5.14. The IAR report is considered by appropriate bodies prior to seeking authorisation. For
projects over £50m, the Finance and Policy Committee and Board are informed of the
assurance reviews carried out.
7.5.15. IARs are conducted at key stages of the project:
Initiation;
Option selection;
Pre-tender;
Contract award;
Project close out;
Benefits delivery; and
Annual review (where no other IAR would happen within 12 months).
7.5.16. The involvement of the IIPAG is determined on both a risk based approach and a
project value threshold. The IIPAG reviews are normally commissioned on projects
with a value of £50m or more. The IAR process is as detailed above and the IIPAG then
attends the Gate Review Meeting once the EE Interim Report has been produced. The
IIPAG then produces its own reports, which are submitted at the relevant approval
148
meetings alongside the PMO Report, based on its review of the IAR material and
discussions at the final Gate Review Meeting.
7.6. Communications and stakeholder management
Summary of consultations to date
Public consultations carried out demonstrate there is support for new
fixed river crossings at Gallions Reach and between Belvedere and
Rainham
7.6.1. Since the publication of the MTS in 2010, there have been four non-statutory
consultations held on the River Crossings programme. These have been held between
February- March 2012, October 2012-February 2013, July-September 2014 and
October-December 2014.
7.6.2. The February-March 2012 consultation presented options for a new tunnel at
Silvertown and a new ferry at Gallions Reach. Over 90 per cent of the 4,000 people
who responded agreed that there was a need for more river crossings between east
and southeast London. Of the respondents, 80 per cent were in favour of the
proposed Silvertown Tunnel, with 60 per cent supporting the Gallions Reach ferry.
Several key stakeholders as well as some other respondents stated that they would
like to a see a fixed link at Gallions Reach either instead of a ferry, or replacing the
ferry at some point in the future.
7.6.3. Between October 2012-February 2013 a second non-statutory consultation was held,
which covered a wider package of options than the first. These were:
A new tunnel at Silvertown
Replacement of the Woolwich Ferry at Woolwich
A ferry at Gallions Reach
A fixed link at Gallions Reach by 2021
A fixed link at Gallions Reach by 2031.
7.6.4. This consultation proposed charging any new crossing introduced, as well as the
Blackwall Tunnel, in order to manage traffic and to help fund the new crossings.
7.6.5. Around 6,400 responses were received, with over 70 per cent support for each of the
fixed link options, 51 per cent for a new ferry at Woolwich and 52 per cent for a new
ferry at Gallions Reach. Boroughs, business groups and members of the public
generally acknowledged the need for new crossings, although there were differing
views on how to approach this.
7.6.6. The third consultation, held between July and September 2014, related to proposals
for crossings east of Silvertown. These were:
A new ferry at Woolwich
A ferry at Gallions Reach
A bridge at Gallions Reach
A bridge at Belvedere.
149
7.6.7. Around 7,500 responses were received to this consultation, with over 90 per cent of
respondents agreeing that there was a need for new river crossings in east London.
There was varying levels of support for the individual proposals – 37 per cent
supported a new ferry at Woolwich, 21 per cent supported a ferry at Gallions Reach,
80 per cent supported a bridge at Gallions Reach and 60 per cent supported a bridge
at Belvedere.
7.6.8. A fourth river crossings consultation was held between October and December 2014,
relating specifically to proposals for a new tunnel at Silvertown.
A Stakeholder Strategy has been prepared for the project
Internal stakeholders
7.6.9. The Project Manager for the East of Silvertown project is responsible for keeping
internal stakeholders appropriately engaged and informed. Surface Transport have
appointed a senior shadow sponsor, responsible for ensuring the early involvement of
Surface Transport in the development of the project.
External stakeholders
7.6.10. A Stakeholder Engagement Lead will be appointed for the project. A Stakeholder
Engagement Strategy will also be prepared for the project to provide a brief on the
objectives of the stakeholder engagement, target audience and methodology.
7.6.11. As described above, TfL has carried out three non-statutory consultations on the east
London River Crossings Programme. For the consultations, stakeholders were
identified as belonging to several broad groups:
Statutory Stakeholders, comprising the Highways Agency, the Environment
Agency, the Port of London Authority, the Crown Estates and the Marine
Management Organisation;
Affected boroughs, comprising the elected members and officers in the London
Borough of Newham, the Royal Borough of Greenwich, the London Borough of
Barking and Dagenham, the London Borough of Bexley and the London Borough of
Havering;
Interested local authorities, comprising the elected members and officers of all
other London boroughs, the surrounding District, County and Unitary authorities,
the elected members of the London Assembly, local Members of Parliament,
London TravelWatch, the Local Government Ombudsman and the London
Thames Gateway Development Corporation;
National trade associations and interest groups, such as Emergency Services,
Motorists organisations (AA, RAC, Green Flag), the Confederation of Passenger
Transport, the Road Haulage Association, the Freight Transport Association, the
National Motorcycle Council, the London Cycling Campaign, Living Streets, the
Institute of Advanced Motorists, English Heritage, Sustrans, Road Peace, BIDS,
London First, the Confederation of British Industry, the Institute of Directors and
Environmental Groups; and
Local networks and groups (within the affected boroughs), comprising residents,
businesses, public service institutions (schools, hospitals, etc.), pedestrians,
cyclists, motorists, public transport users, people with disabilities, people with
mobility issues (including older people), people who work, deliver or collect in the
area and national and international businesses that rely on transportation.
150
7.6.12. There will be ongoing liaison with these stakeholders in relation to the project, and
mapping of views and requirements and where these could conflict.
7.6.13. A Stakeholder Strategy has been prepared by TfL, and identifies the statutory and
other stakeholders, and sets out how they will be engaged as the project progresses
including sharing of information, coordination and cooperation arrangement.
7.6.14. A document library has been created to store and share project related documents.
Programme/Project reporting
TfL would develop programme controls supported by robust reporting
processes
7.6.15. TfL would develop programme controls supported by robust reporting processes that
align with the Project governance framework, integrating key stakeholder requirements,
facilitating continuous monitoring, and incorporating accurate performance
measurement. The purpose is to provide accurate project information in a timely way
to ensure well informed decisions are made and appropriate action is taken.
7.6.16. The project management model would be designed to deliver a robust reporting
regime, including:
governance meetings, which form part of the reporting process as the forum
where performance issues are raised, possible mitigation is discussed and key
decisions required are made; and
reporting requirements that would be fully defined, together with content
requirements, target audience and timing.
7.7. Implementation of work streams
7.7.1. There are a number of different workstreams for the project, and responsibilities and
resources for each of these have been identified.
Engineering design and technical studies;
Transport assessment and traffic modelling;
Environmental assessment;
Funding and procurement;
Contract management;
Commercial and Legal;
Land assembly;
Risk management strategy;
Monitoring and evaluation
Sponsorship and governance; and
Project management.
151
8. Conclusion
8.1. Conclusion
8.1.1. The recommendation of this Strategic Outline Business Case is that the current work
on options appraisal continues, such that shortlisting of feasible options continues and
the preferred multi-modal packages and a preferred solution is identified and
progressed.
8.1.2. In particular, the work undertaken has highlighted several potential combinations of
schemes and assessed their ability to meet the objectives, and their economic and
other impacts. A key component of any final decision will be the views of the public
and affected stakeholders, and therefore a consultation on the new information
contained within this report will allow these options to be considered more fully and
allow decisions on narrowing the options further to be taken.
8.1.3. The responses to the five key questions raised in the guidance can be summarised as
follows:
there is a clear robust case for change in the form of new river crossings in east
London, to address the lack of connectivity across the Thames and to cater for
the needs of future economic growth. This ‘strategic case’ is closely related to
national, London-wide and local road policy objectives, with a particular reference
to the London Plan and the Mayor’s Transport Strategy.
the analysis demonstrates that the project is excellent value for money. Several
options are under consideration, and four public transport options considered in
this report show a very high potential net present value, and it is a project with the
potential for a contribution to its costs from road user charges and passengers
fares.
options for procurement of the crossings have been identified – the report sets
out some procurement and commercial options, which would be developed
further when the options are defined.
the project is financially affordable – the ‘financial case’; the analysis sets out the
range of likely project costs, describes the possible private funding mechanisms
available to deliver the scheme and potential financing arrangements.
the project is achievable - the ‘management case’ sets out a clear governance,
process and programme for the further development of the project by TfL, an
authority with a very successful experience and record in major project delivery.
8.1.4. Following the conclusion of the current work on the options and consultation on the
contents, a more detailed Strategic Outline Business Case will be prepared to support
any decisions on the preferred option(s), based on the material contained within this
report.
8.1.5. Delivery of the project could be aided, and risks reduced, if crossings of the Thames
east of the proposed Silvertown Tunnel were to be designated Nationally Significant
Infrastructure Projects.
152