To: jim.fitzpatrick.mp@parliament.uk

Cc: neil.coyle.mp@parliament.uk, Mayor

25 Jul at 13:18

Dear Mr Fitzpatrick

Firstly, I would like to thank you for your recent correspondence with the Mayor of London and for forwarding his response, received on the 13 June 2018, regarding the concerns of the Rotherhithe Bridge Business Case; as documented in the report entitled ‘Analytical Review of the Rotherhithe to Canary Wharf Bridge Business Case’ and dated 3 April 2018. Whilst TfL are correct in stating they have been in regular contact with me, my request to meet with fellow Civil Engineers and not the Communications Department, who in my experience lack the skill set required to address my concerns, have been ignored. To date much of the response received from TfL falls far short of my expectations, considering the company claims to be a leader in the field of transport infrastructure. The response from the Mayor is of grave concern as it highlights his lack of understanding of both the fundamentals of civil engineering projects and the analytical assessments required for such a project. Due to the large volume of errors in his response I will break down each point separately below. A: Rotherhithe Bridge Costs Extract in boxed text is from MGLA110418-9049: Letter from the Mayor of London to Jim Fitzpatrick, MP Bold text: Details from ‘Analytical Review of the Rotherhithe to Canary Wharf Bridge Business Case’ dated 03/04/18. Plain text: Extract from the response from Mayor of London, MGLA110418-9049, dated 14/05/18

i) Mayor’s Response: The Business Case includes Operating, Renewal and Maintenance costs

If we were to assume that the above statement from Sadiq Khan is accurate and the costs used in the Benefit Cost Ratio analysis, ‘BCR’, includes operating, renewal and maintenance costs and reduction in fare revenues, in accordance with TfL’s Business Case manual (and therefore in accordance with TfL’s standards and guidance), then the Mayor must believe the Rotherhithe Bridge project will only cost £19m (see table below). That is, £19m will cover all project costs e.g. TfL’s project costs, all professional consultancy fees, build costs of the Bridge etc. This is obviously not correct and Sadiq Khan’s cost estimate of the Bridge is incorrect by, at best, a factor of 10. A more accurate build cost assessment of the Rotherhithe Bridge is likely to be upwards of £190m. Full details can be found in my report – see Section Ai). According to the ‘Draft Isle of Dogs and South Poplar Development Infrastructure Funding Study’ dated November 2017 and produced by the GLA the initial infrastructure costs of the Bridge including risk but excluding optimism bias is £200m. In additional to the £200m cost there will be continued operation costs. It is clear from the above two paragraphs that the Mayor of London, Sadiq Khan, has no grasp of the costings of the Bridge.

It must be stressed that the Bridge crossing option is only viable when the total Bridge project costs over the whole life of the asset is in line with the low estimate of £187m and the total benefits (including disbenefits) are in line with TfL’s maximum estimate of £369m. Where the Bridge costs exceed £19m and the net Benefits are less than £369m, the only viable river crossing option is the Enhanced Ferry. Table of Costs in accordance with TfL’s Business Case manual, highlighting the Mayor’s expected bridge cost of £19m

ii) Mayor’s Response: TFL has developed the business case for the scheme in accordance with its standard guidance and procedures

The TfL Business Case Development manual V103.2017.03 states: 2.5.1 For projects, costs must be calculated for the whole life of the assets involved in the project. Costs should include:

• On-going costs e.g. annual maintenance, fuel, staff, energy, overheads etc.

• Reductions in fares revenue (including during construction)

The Rotherhithe Bridge Business Case does not comply with the above. Assuming we all agree that the costs of the Rotherhithe Bridge project is not £19m, it is clearly not in accordance with its own standard guidance and procedures.

B: Ferry Costs

i) Overstated Costs of the Enhanced Ferry Thames Clippers have assessed the cost of electric roll on roll off ferries to be in the region of £2-3m each. A detailed independent study by ARUP in 2016 has shown the pier and shore side infrastructure needed on both sides could be delivered for up to £10m (with minimal land needed). This is significantly different to the figures estimated by TfL. The London Taxpayers would expect Thames Clippers to be consulted and accurate numbers obtained and represented in the next version of the Business Case.

Swing Bridge: Low Cost

Per Annum

Appraisal Period (60

years)

Cost over 60 years (cost per

annum multiplied by 60 years)

Operating, renewal and maintenance costs (£2.2m - £2.4m) 2,200,000 60 132,000,000

Reduction in Fare Revenue (contra of Private Costs detailed as a benefit) 36,000,000

Cost of bridge 19,000,000

Total Cost used in BCR (low) 187,000,000

C: Bridge benefits

i) Mayor’s Response: Users of the Jubilee line should be assessed and are not erroneous.

I agree that benefits to Jubilee line users should be assessed. However, the benefits value attributed to Jubilee line users (£24 - £31m) were derived prior to the announcement from TfL that passenger numbers had fallen. As the benefit value should only be calculated on the overcrowded passenger numbers element, this benefit is overstated, although immaterial when compared to TfL’s overall assessed benefit of the Bridge (£272m - £369m). CityAM “Upgrades planned for the Jubilee Line and Northern Line have gone off track due to an unexpected dip in passenger numbers on the Tube, Transport for London (TfL) said today (8 November 2017)”.

ii) Pedestrian journey savings time (£107-£143m)

The Mayor has not commented on the erroneously included ‘Pedestrian journey time savings’ benefit. This is the most material of all TfL’s assessed benefits and accounts for 39% of the total assessed Bridge benefit. As pedestrian journey times will increase, the correct classification is a disbenefit.

iii) Mayor’s Response: TfL does not believe there are any disbenefits to be applied in this instance

The above comment shows a fundamental lack of understanding of civil engineering projects and the work entailed in constructing a Bridge of this scale in a built up residential and commercial area. I strongly urge the Mayor to consult with a reputable engineering company to improve both the accuracy of the business case and his knowledge of all projects he is endorsing.

D: Ferry benefits

i) Mayor’s Response: TfL’s forecasts suggest higher usage of Bridge than Ferry

TfL has assumed that 1600-1800 pedestrians will use the Bridge vs. 1000-1250 pedestrians using an Enhanced free Ferry, which is not an accurate reflection of pedestrian behaviour. In order to use the Bridge pedestrians will queue for a lift to get onto the Bridge deck; walk across the deck and then queue again for the lift to exit the Bridge. By contrast, pedestrians would wait a few minutes for a Ferry and then enjoy a short ride across a scenic part of the river before disembarking. Furthermore, in bad weather and high winds, the Bridge would be a very unattractive option for pedestrians. The Bridge will also need to open several times a day for river traffic, making the Bridge option for pedestrians even more unattractive. In short, more pedestrians are likely to use an Enhanced free Ferry than a Bridge. As pedestrians will outnumber cyclists by a factor of 3:1, this is an important factor to consider.

ii) Mayor’s response: Support by the public’s response in the consultation

At least 8 of the 10 questions that formed part of the consultation survey were related to the Bridge only. Therefore the consultation was not about finding the best solution to a river crossing. The cycling lobby was very proactive in getting supporters from across the country to complete the consultation survey regardless of whether they would use the Bridge or not. This is highlighted by the fact only 37% (2275 respondents) would use the Bridge to commute to and from work. This number is extremely low and further supports my comment that this expensive Bridge (~£400m) is a folly for the few at the expense of the many. E: The Benefit Cost Ratio, BCR, of the Bridge

i) Mayor’s response: BCR of 0.55 is not correct The table below details the calculation supporting the Benefit Cost ratio of 0.55 including assumptions. As mentioned in the report the BCR of 0.55 excludes disbenefits and therefore this ratio is expected to be lower. The best case scenario uses TfL’s lowest cost estimates and the highest value benefits. The worst case scenario uses TfL’s highest costs estimates and lowest value benefits.

Assumptions: The Costs of the Rotherhithe Bridge is not £19m, as Sadiq Khan has stated, and therefore the £187m Bridge cost represents the initial Bridge costs only. This value is used in the RoRB calculations and is similar to the Initial Cost estimates in TfL’s own Consultation report.

The TfL Business Case Development manual V103.2017.03 states: 2.7.7 Authorising bodies will normally expect the benefit to cost ratio to be greater than one and usually greater than the benchmark for good value for money of 1.5:1.

ii) Mayor’s response: Benefits to pedestrians and people who use the Underground should be included in the assessment

See Ci) above

iii) Mayor’s response: TfL does not believe there are any disbenefits

Adding to Ciii) above, most pedestrians will live in the Canada Water area. Therefore most pedestrian journey times will actually

increase. This is one of many disbenefits and included in my calculation in Ei) above.

F: BCR range for the Bridge is from 0.7 to 1.97

TfLs Assessment (best

case scenario) £m

TfLs Assessment (worst

case scenario) £m

RoRB* Assessment

(best case scenario) £m

RoRB* Assessment,

including only 1 of

many disbenefits £m

Benefits

Pedestrian journey savings time 143 107 0 (107)

Jubilee line crowding reduction 31 24 0 15.5

Cyclist journey time ambience impacts 24 13 24 24

Private Costs (fare savings to passengers and other business impacts) 45 36 45 45

Physical activity - walking 110 80 110 110

Physical activity - cycling 16 12 16 16

Total as per consultation paper 369 272 195 103.5

Costs

Cost of Rotherhithe bridge project

Operating, renewal and maintenance 132 144 132 132

Reduction in Fare Revenue (contra of Private Costs benefit) 36 45 36 36

Cost of bridge 19 198 187 187

Total as per consultation paper 187 387 355 355

BCR (Benefits / Costs) as per consultation paper 1.97 0.70 0.55 0.29

* RoRB - Residents opposing the Rotherhithe Bridge

Benefit Cost Ratio, BCR, of Navigable Bridge

i) Mayor’s response: Bridge BCR reflects the range of uncertainty at the time of appraisal.

To accurately assess the Benefit Cost ratio, a full list of costs and benefits should be itemised and then a numerical high and low estimated value allocated to each item. TfL have not done this for the best case scenario, instead ignoring many costs for the whole life of the asset. I have assumed at this stage that the reader does not believe a Bridge will cost only £19m – see table in Ei) above. G: TfL have declined to run a free Ferry

i) Mayor’s Response: Trialling a free Ferry would not provide any significant new information of cyclists using a new Bridge

TfL estimates that 63-77% of users of the Bridge will be pedestrians. As most of the pedestrians will live around Canada Water where most of the development is taking place, trialling a free Ferry would provide an understanding of whether pedestrians are likely to use the Underground or walk the journey, which will take longer, as well as obtaining an accurate pedestrian count. There is no evidence to support the theory that pedestrians are more likely to use a Bridge than a Ferry. In fact, as already highlighted above, the opposite is more likely. The below table shows TfL’s assessed expected user percentages of the Rotherhithe Bridge in 2021 and 2031

Low estimate 2021 High estimate 2021 Low estimate 2031 High estimate 2031

Pedestrians 76.92% 63.16% 75.68% 64.00%

Cyclists 23.08% 36.84% 24.32% 36.00%

H: Location selected by Mayor without an feasibly study

It is clear from the above that the Mayor chose the location without conducting a feasibly study. TfL have therefore been instructed to substantiate the reasons why this location is appropriate, rather than determining the most appropriate location to connect the north and side sides of the river. TfL does not have the expertise to undertake this work and no specialists have been consulted. Spending £400m of Taxpayers’ money without any experts undertaking a location assessment is irresponsible at best. I: Rotherhithe Bridge is not a viable option

i) Mayor’s Response: The BCR is in accordance with its Business Case Manual and related guidance. Material costs have been ignored in the costs assessment of the Bridge; The Enhanced Ferry costs have been overstated; The benefits of the Bridge have been overstated; Disbenefits of the Bridge have been ignored; The benefits of the Enhanced Ferry have been understated; No feasibly study has been commissioned to determine the most suitable river crossing location. The above is not in accordance with the Business Case Development manual V103.2017.03. If an updated version of the Business Case manual allows for such data manipulation, please do forward the relevant extracts.

All of the above proves the Mayor’s statement is wholly inaccurate. It is clear the Mayor has not read or fully understood the content of the report. I urge him to take the time to re-read the report and fully digest its contents. Finally, having read the attached report, the response from the Mayor and my response to his letter, can you please confirm you still support the Rotherhithe Bridge? I hope you recognise that your support of the Bridge is not in line with the majority of residents of Tower Hamlets. I suspect the few that do support the Bridge would be horrified to discover that the data has been manipulated and the Rotherhithe Bridge Business Case is not fit for purpose. As you may already know, Westminster Council is suing TfL for misleading cost-benefit assessments regarding the CS11. As already highlighted to you, the Rotherhithe Bridge Business case also suffers from a misleading cost-benefit assessment. Can you confirm whether you would support the residents of Tower Hamlets and bring a similar legal case against TfL to stop the Rotherhithe Bridge project and if not, why not? Regards On behalf of the Residents opposing the Rotherhithe Bridge