river crossing consultation - citizen space · aecom river crossing consultation 4 table 1.1 shows...

Transport for London October 20014

River Crossing Consultation

Prepared by: .............................. Checked by: .......................................Thomasin Stuart Katrina KeddieAssociate Director Graduate Consultant

Approved by: ...................................Joanne ChristensenRegional Director

River Crossing Consultation

Rev No Comments Checked by Approvedby

Date

2 Final following AJM comments 7/12/14 KK JC 15/12/141 V2 amendments following AJM comments 30/10/14 KK JC 7/11/14

AECOM House, 179 Moss Lane, Altrincham, Cheshire, WA15 8FHTelephone: 0161 927 8200 Website: http://www.aecom.com

Job No Reference Date Created October 20014

This document has been prepared by AECOM Limited for the sole use of our client (the “Client”) and in accordance withgenerally accepted consultancy principles, the budget for fees and the terms of reference agreed between AECOM Limited andthe Client. Any information provided by third parties and referred to herein has not been checked or verified by AECOM Limited,unless otherwise expressly stated in the document. No third party may rely upon this document without the prior and expresswritten agreement of AECOM Limited.

f:\projects\transport planning - tfl river crossing coding\report\river crossing consultation final report.docx

1 Introduction................................................................................................................................................................ 2

2 Option 1: A New Ferry at Woolwich by the early 2020s............................................................................................. 7

3 Option 2: A New Ferry Service at Gallions Reach by 2022-2025 ............................................................................. 14

4 Option 3: Bridge at Gallions Reach ......................................................................................................................... 22

5 Option 4: A Bridge at Belvedere .............................................................................................................................. 29

6 Option to Progress and Other Comments ............................................................................................................... 37

7 Emails and Letters ................................................................................................................................................... 41

8 Summary .................................................................................................................................................................. 47

Appendix A: Questionnaire .................................................................................................................................................. 49

Appendix B: Code Frames .................................................................................................................................................... 52

Table of Contents

Introduction

AECOM River Crossing Consultation 2

1.1 BackgroundTransport for London (TfL) has developed a number of options for new river crossings for east London. In the summer 2014 it rana consultation which included:

- Emails and letters to residents and key stakeholders;- A press release;- Consultation ’roadshow’ events at seven separate venues across east and south-east London;- Dedicated consultation webpage (referred to as ‘the portal’ in this report);- Press advertising and digital marketing to promote the consultation; and- Distribution of consultation leaflets at the Woolwich Ferry and Woolwich and Greenwich foot tunnels.

The proposals were:

- A new modern ferry at Woolwich;- A ferry service at Gallions Reach;- A bridge at Gallions Reach; and- A bridge at Belvedere.

Figure 1.1 Location of proposed crossings

The consultation took place between 7th July and18th September 2014. Those wishing to comment on the options could respondvia the portal, a paper questionnaire or by letter/email. A total of 7,458 responses were received. The majority of responses werereceived via the portal (6,743), a few were received on paper, by respondents completing a pre-printed freepost questionnaire(391) and 324 were received as a letter/email.

1 Introduction


Figure 1.2 shows the location1 of respondents responding via the portal/ on paper.

Figure 1.2 Location of Respondents

1 Where postcode was provided/ postcode could be validated


Table 1.1 shows just over a quarter (26 percent) of respondents were from Greenwich whilst 17 percent were from Bexley.

Table 1.1 Location of Respondents

Count Percent %

Greenwich 1,870 26%

Bexley 1,211 17%

Newham 670 9%

Tower Hamlets 455 6%

Havering 403 6%

Lewisham 372 5%

Barking and Dagenham 237 3%

Southwark 224 3%

Waltham Forest 195 3%

Redbridge 185 3%

Dartford District 119 2%

Bromley 80 1%

Hackney 77 1%

Other area 526 7%

Postcode not provided/validated 510 7%

Total 7,134


1.2 MethodologyTfL handled the return of responses. Web survey open responses were collated by TfL and sent to AECOM on a regular basisfor coding in the form of an excel spreadsheet.

Paper versions were forwarded to AECOM who entered them into the spreadsheet used for the portal responses.

Some of the responses from the public, businesses, other organisations and stakeholders took the form of open responses viaemail or letter and these were forwarded to AECOM as and when they arrived. These were logged by AECOM on arrival toenable a clear audit trail.

The questionnaire contained five open ended questions inviting comments on each of the four options and then a final boxinviting any ‘other comments’ such as the technical content of the reports. A copy of the questions asked can be found inAppendix A.

AECOM created coding frames for each question based around three main headings:

- Positive comments- Negative comments- Suggested amendments to the options.

A copy of the code frames used and the frequency of each comment received can be found in Appendix B.

The findings have been analysed, where the information is available by location and respondents type (member of the public,Local Authority, etc). However, some sub categories have a small number of people in them and so caution should be used. It ishighlighted when this is the case. Where a proportion is less than one percent, a * has been used to indicate this.

1.3 Structure of ReportFollowing this introduction Chapter 2 to Chapter 6 provides the response received via the portal and on paper questionnaires:

- Chapter 2: details the response to Option 1: a new ferry at Woolwich;- Chapter 3: details the response to Option 2: a new ferry at Gallions Reach;- Chapter 4: details the response to Option 3: a bridge at Gallions Reach;- Chapter 5: details the response to Option 4: a bridge at Belvedere;- Chapter 6: gives the response given in the open comments box;- Chapter 7: describes the response received by letter/email; and- Chapter 8: provides a summary of the consultation findings.

Option 1: A new Ferry at Woolwichby the Early 2020s


2.1 IntroductionThe first proposal given to respondents was a New Ferry at Woolwich.

In this chapter we describe respondents:

- Overall level of support;- Key Reasons for Supporting a New Ferry at Woolwich;- Key Reasons for Opposing a New Ferry at Woolwich; and- Suggestions for Changes to the Proposal.

2.2 Overall Level of Support for Option 1Opinion was divided about whether there should be a new ferry at Woolwich but slightly more people were opposed to it (42percent) than supported it (37 percent).

Figure 2.1: Overall level of support for a New Ferry at Woolwich

Base all respondents: 6,877

StronglySupport,

19%

Support, 18%

Neither, 21%

Oppose, 21%

StronglyOppose, 21%

2 Option 1: A New Ferry at Woolwich by the early 2020s.

“A replacement ferry service at Woolwich, with new vessels and terminals, would allow us to continue to operate a crossinghere, although there would be a charge to use the replacement service.

The existing vessels, which are over 50 years old, would be replaced with new, more environmentally-friendly vessels. Thenew vessels would be approximately 30 per cent bigger than those currently in operation. In addition, the land-sideinfrastructure could be simplified and improved.

Pedestrians, cyclists, cars and lorries could all continue to use the ferry. A crossing would take up to 12 minutes on average,including boarding and alighting time, although queuing times would vary. In cases of extreme weather, such as thick fog, theservice might have to be temporarily suspended. The ferry would probably operate similar days and hours as now.”


Support for an improved ferry at Woolwich was highest in Bexley (45 percent) and Greenwich (40 percent). Opposition wasgreatest in:

- Newham (49 percent);- Tower Hamlets (49 percent);- Barking and Dagenham (49 percent); and- Dartford District (49 percent).

Figure 2.2: Response to a New Ferry at Woolwich by area

22%

23%

17%

11%

11%

17%

16%

18%

16%

14%

9%

12%

17%

14%

24%

18%

22%

17%

15%

14%

18%

14%

21%

20%

13%

21%

22%

22%

16%

18%

17%

18%

17%

26%

30%

25%

21%

20%

24%

29%

22%

33%

18%

25%

24%

19%

17%

23%

28%

22%

21%

28%

22%

23%

23%

31%

17%

21%

25%

14%

23%

20%

26%

21%

24%

18%

21%

19%

16%

21%

18%

17%

22%

21%

19%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90%100%

Greenwich (Base: 1829)

Bexley (Base: 1157)

Newham (Base: 647)

Tower Hamlets (Base: 446)

Havering (Base: 395)

Lewisham (Base: 366)

Barking and Dagenham (Base: 223)

Southwark (Base: 215)

Waltham Forest (Base: 188)

Redbridge (Base: 177)

Dartford District (Base: 114)

Bromley (Base: 78)

Hackney (Base: 77)

Other (Base: 516)

Postcode not provided/validated (Base: 449)

Strongly support Support Neither Oppose Strongly oppose


Figure 2.3: Response to a New Ferry at Woolwich by area


Local residents groups/ societies were most in favour (61 percent) of this proposal and Stakeholders such as Local Authoritieswere more likely to oppose the Woolwich Ferry improvements (50 percent). However the number of Stakeholders and Residentsgroups is small and so this data needs to be used with caution.

Figure 2.4: Overall level of support for a New Ferry at Woolwich by Type of Respondent

Base: Member of Public (6679); Local business (145); Local residents group/ society (31); Council/ Local Authority/Union/MP (22)

In total 3,805 people provided comments about the proposal. In section 2.3, 2.4 and 2.5 below we describe the more frequentlymentioned positive and negative comments and suggestions made for improving the proposed service. A full breakdown of allresponses is included in the coding frame in Appendix B.

2.3 Key Reasons for Supporting a New Ferry at WoolwichFewer positive (18 percent) comments were received than negative (71 per cent) comments. 13 percent of respondents included“keep the ferry” in their comments. Key reasons for wanting to maintain the ferry included:

- Ferry part of their heritage/ has always been there (five percent)- Infrastructure already in place (four percent)- Will reduce congestion (three percent)- Currently works well (three percent)- Will provide a better more reliable service (two percent)

19% 23%29%

9%

18% 14%

32%

18%

21%14%

16%

23%

21%24%

10%

9%

21% 26%13%

41%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Member of Public Local business Local residents group/society

Council/ LocalAuthority/Union/MP



2.4 Key Reasons for Opposing a New Ferry at WoolwichThe main aspects respondents did not like about the option included:

- Impact on congestion: A fifth (19 percent) of comments received related to the impact on congestion. These respondents didnot think the option would do anything to reduce the level of congestion and some thought it might even add to the levels ofcongestion.

“I don't think a new ferry will ease the amount of congestion it needs to”“The build-up of traffic waiting to board is an issue now - would be much worse”“Very close to the roundabout junction and small delays have huge traffic impact on and near the roundabout”

- Prefer a fixed crossing such as bridge or tunnel: Almost a fifth (17 percent) of respondents wanted more fixed crossings,either instead of or in conjunction with a ferry service.

“I don't think a replacement ferry service is the best solution, there needs to be another bridge”“We need more bridges for cars, motorcycles and bikes more than anything!!!”“It is great to have a new ferry, but would be more great to build a bridge or tunnel crossing instead of the ferry idea!”

- Unreliable: 17 percent of respondents mentioned the unreliability of ferry services owing to: Weather conditions (nine percent) Technical failure (four percent) Staffing issues (one percent) (three percent simply stated ‘unreliable’)

- Service is too slow: 14 percent of respondents made comments about the amount of time it takes to cross the river usingthe ferry.

“It stills takes a lot of time waiting for the ferry. And don't forget more time when waiting for the cars entering and leaving theferry”“Too slow - permanent queues”“In my opinion ferry is the worst way of getting around it takes ages to cross the river and the queue to the ferry is way toolong sometimes!”

- No significant benefits/ pointless: Many respondents (13 percent) did not feel the proposed changes would make anysignificant difference to the current situation.

“It will make no difference”“Does not improve on the current position”“Would make no significant change”

- Limited capacity/ capacity not significantly increased in proposal: 11 percent of respondents commented on the currentlimited capacity of the ferry and did not feel the option offered any significant improvement in the amount of passengers itcould carry.

“Probably would not provide enough capacity for projected traffic increases and prone to closure due to adverse weatherconditions”“Whilst it's a "nice to have" service, the capacity means this is obviously not a sensible consideration to ease congestionand increase capacity”


“Will not provide much additional cross-river capacity but should be done in conjunction with a new bridge in order topreserve existing link. East London needs far more river crossings than it currently has. New river crossings should not bedependent on the closure of existing links.”

- Waste of money/ not cost effective: 10 percent of respondents did not feel the option offered good value for money. Somerespondents felt although the proposal was cheaper than other options in the long term, the costs of maintaining the ferrymade it a more expensive option. This, combined with other issues associated with the ferry, particularly the fact it is not 24/7;subject to many external factors, and not likely to dramatically increase capacity, meant this was not thought to be a costeffective option.

“It's not cost effective to revamp something if it's going to cost more in the long run and not effectively reduce congestionin the area or improve travel times.”

“A new Woolwich ferry would be a waste of money, the bottle-neck would remain”

“Longer term, there are higher costs”

- Not modern / this is 21st century (eight percent)- Not 24 hours/ limited service (seven percent)- Not a long term solution (five percent)- Inefficient (four percent)

2.5 Suggestions for Changes to Option 1A number of comments were made which related to changes respondents would like to see to option 1/ ferry service;

- Not a solution on its own: Seven percent of respondents felt the proposed changes to the ferry were not a solution on itsown and that there needed to be multiple crossings and measures:

“A useful crossing, but ideally not the main one”“A new ferry should happen, but it cannot be done in isolation. We need a new ferry AND a bridge”“Why not a new ferry and bridge crossing? The ferry run by a private company and the bridge to also give access because

before long they will be as congested as the others!”

- Modernising the ferries (five percent)- Don’t want to pay for service that is currently free (four percent)- Need improvement to road network (e.g. slip road/ improvements to roundabout) (three percent)- Increase number of ferries (one percent)- Need to maintain operations during construction (one percent)

Option 2: A New Ferry Service atGallions Reach by 2022-2025


3.1 IntroductionThe second option given to respondents was a New Ferry Service at Gallions Reach.


- Overall level of support;- Key Reasons for Supporting a New Ferry at Gallions Reach;- Key Reasons for Opposing a New Ferry at Gallions Reach; and- Suggestions for Changes to Option 2.

3 Option 2: A New Ferry Service atGallions Reach by 2022-2025

“A new ferry service at Gallions Reach would provide a link between roads in Thamesmead on the south side and Beckton onthe north side.

Pedestrians, cyclists, cars and lorries could all use the ferry, which could carry around twice as many passengers andvehicles as the existing service at Woolwich.

Boarding, alighting and crossing could take up to around 18 minutes in total, although queuing time would vary. In cases ofextreme weather, such as thick fog, the service might have to be temporarily suspended.

The ferry would likely operate similar hours as the current Woolwich Ferry service.

New bus links would serve the ferry terminals on either side of the river, to allow foot passengers to easily interchange andcontinue their journey.”


3.2 Overall Level of Support for Option 2Over half (57 percent) of respondents were against the proposed option of a ferry at Gallions Reach and just a fifth (21 percent)supported it. Reasons for this response have been coded with key findings included in this chapter and a full breakdown of allresponses provided within the coding frame in Appendix B.

Figure 3.1: Overall level of support for a New Ferry at Gallions Reach

Base: all respondents (6,823)

Response was generally negative but particularly in:

- Bromley (62 percent);- Tower Hamlets (60 percent);- Southwark (59 percent); and- Waltham Forest (59 percent).

Neither, 22%

Oppose, 30%Strongly

oppose, 27%

Stronglysupport, 9%

Support,12%


Figure 3.2: Overall level of support for a New Ferry at Gallions Reach by Area

10%

10%

11%

6%

7%

4%

13%

8%

9%

6%

6%

0%

8%

7%

12%

11%

14%

16%

11%

11%

9%

13%

16%

10%

14%

12%

12%

14%

10%

14%

21%

20%

16%

23%

25%

32%

21%

17%

23%

29%

25%

26%

23%

24%

26%

29%

25%

27%

35%

31%

34%

29%

36%

38%

29%

37%

39%

29%

33%

24%

28%

31%

29%

25%

27%

20%

25%

23%

21%

22%

19%

23%

26%

25%

24%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%


Bexley (Base: 1149)

Newham (Base: 646)









Bromley (Base: 77)

Hackney (Base: 77)

Other (Base: 509)




Figure 3.3: Response to a New Ferry at Gallions Reach by area


Local businesses (63 percent) were more against this option than other respondents.

Figure 3.4: Overall level of support for a New Ferry at Gallions Reach by Type of Respondent

Base: Member of Public (6,625); Local business (144); Local residents group/ society (32); Council/ Local Authority/Union/MP (22)

3.3 Key Reasons for Supporting a New Ferry at Gallions ReachVery few positive comments were received about this option. The most frequently given comments were:

- Want a ferry/ like ferries (four percent)- Will reduce congestion (three percent)- As well as Woolwich/ don't close Woolwich (two percent)- Will help redevelopment of area (two percent)- Needed ASAP (two percent)- Will provide a better, more reliable service (one percent)- More cost effective than a bridge (one percent)- Road infrastructure already in place (one percent)

3.4 Key Reasons for Opposing a New Ferry at Gallions Reach- Unreliable: a quarter of respondents thought the ferry would be unreliable owing to:

Weather dependent/ river conditions/ fog/ tides (ten percent) Not 24 hours/ limited service (eight percent) Ferry subject to technical failure (four percent) Staff issues/ strikes (one percent) (three percent simply stated unreliable)

“Same problems as the current system, it relies on pilots and crew and mechanical suitability of the equipment, plusproblems with bad weather”

“Money wasting. Fog-no ferry. Wind-no ferry. Night-no ferry. High tide-no ferry. No staff- no ferry”

9% 10% 6% 5%

12% 10% 16% 18%

22% 17%25% 27%

30%31%

25% 18%

27% 32% 28% 32%

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%





- Prefer a bridge/ or tunnel: A quarter (24 percent) of respondents preferred a fixed crossing

“A new bridge would be more practical and used 24 hours a day, 7 days a week”

- Won't reduce congestion/ may increase congestion: A fifth (19 percent) of respondents thought it would not reducecongestion and may even add to the problem.

“I am concerned about the traffic increase in the area as the A2 is already at over capacity so any problems on the ferrywill serious impact the area”

- Inefficient: 19 percent of respondents thought the service would be inefficient mainly owing to the service being too slow/takes too long to cross/ load/ unload (15 percent) and in general (4 percent).

- No significant benefits/ pointless (14 percent)

“Pointless as old technology again”“I see little benefit in a new ferry service”“There will be no significant benefits building a ferry crossing. It will need to be a road bridge”

- Not cost efficient: 13 percent of respondents thought the ferry was an expensive option with high operational costs.

“As with the Woolwich ferry, this would be expensive in the long term, with little or no significant improvement to thecurrent situation”

- Limited capacity (12 percent)

“I can't see how a ferry offers the capacity that a new tunnel or bridge would achieve”

- Location: Nine percent of respondents also queried the location of the proposed new ferry. No point moving from Woolwich/ Woolwich better location (eight percent) Not right location (one percent) Location is not good for pedestrians or cyclists (* percent)

“Need to link North and South Circular so crossing in wrong place”

- Not modern: Six percent of respondents commented that any ferry was not a “21st century solution”“In the age we are living in now to consider a ferry as a modern form of transport that might help relieve congestion isinsane”

- Not a long term solution (five percent):“Ferry isn’t sustainable long term. Bridge is a much better solution”

“A ferry is a temporary solution and doesn’t provide the round-the-clock solution needed”

“I don’t think this solves the long term problem”


3.5 Suggestions for Changes to Option 2Only a few respondents gave suggestions for changes to Option 2, which included:

- Not a solution on its own/ needs to be done in conjunction with other measures/ multiple crossings (three percent)- Need improvements to road network (two percent)

Option 3: A Bridge at Gallions Reach


4.1 IntroductionThe third option given to respondents was a Bridge at Gallions Reach


- Overall level of support;- Key Reasons for Supporting a Bridge at Gallions Reach;- Key Reasons for Opposing a Bridge at Gallions Reach; and- Suggestions for Changes to Option 3.

4.2 Overall Level of Support for Option 3The majority (80 percent) of respondents supported (15 percent) or strongly supported (65 percent) the proposed bridge atGallions Reach. Reasons for this opinion have been coded with key findings included in this chapter and a full breakdown of allresponses provided within the coding frame in Appendix B.

Figure 4.1: Overall level of support for a Bridge at Gallions Reach


Neither, 5%Oppose, 5%

Stronglyoppose, 10%

Stronglysupport, 65%

Support, 15%

4 Option 3: Bridge at Gallions Reach

“A bridge at Gallions Reach would provide a new road link across the river, connecting the highway in Thamesmead on thesouth side and Beckton on the north side.

The bridge would carry two lanes in each direction: one for general traffic, and one for buses and heavy goods vehicles. Themain bridge structure would be about 1,500 metres long.

The bridge would be open to all road users, including cyclists and pedestrians. It would also open up opportunities for newcross-river public transport links.

As with any other public highway, the bridge would be open 24 hours a day under normal conditions.”


The areas with the greatest opposition to Option 3 were Bexley (20 percent) and Dartford (21 percent).

Figure 4.2: Overall level of support for a Bridge at Gallions Reach by Location

68%

49%

75%

83%

49%

72%

72%

71%

78%

78%

48%

70%

64%

70%

56%

12%

18%

9%

9%

29%

13%

16%

15%

10%

15%

20%

10%

13%

21%

17%

4%

6%

4%

12%

4%

7%

5%

12%

11%

4%

6%

4%

6%

7%

5%

14%

6%

10%

5%

5%

11%

24%

8%

4%

7%

4%

4%

5%

5%

7%

9%

6%

10%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90%100%


Bexley (Base: 1149)

Newham (Base: 663)









Bromley (Base: 79)

Hackney (Base: 77)

Other area (Base: 474)




Figure 4.3: Response to a Bridge at Gallions Reach by Location


Most members of the public (80 percent) and local business (86 percent) supported the new bridge at Gallions Reach. However,there is some opposition from local residents groups (49 percent). However, the number of residents groups represented in thedata is small so caution should be used with this data.

Figure 4.4: Overall level of support for a New Bridge at Gallions Reach by Type of Respondent


4.3 Key Reasons for Supporting a Bridge at Gallions ReachThe main reasons respondents supported this option were:

- The best option: 31 percent stated this was their preferred option of the four suggestions. “This is the preferred option as it would provide quick and 24 hour access to the opposite side of the river”

- Will reduce congestion/ relieve other crossings: 21 percent felt the bridge would ease congestion and relieve the pressureat other crossings.

“Any additional road crossings in the East London area will be an absolute godsend due to the consistent trafficcongestion at the existing crossings at Dartford, Blackwall and Rotherhithe”“An extra crossing would greatly relieve peak congestion”

- Will improve access in general/ better links: 17 percent said the bridge would improve access overall, creating better linksand connections.

“Seems to make sense to link up the north / south circulars”“Better access for those from South London in terms of new bridge access”

65% 72%

26%

57%

15%14%

20%

13%

5%3%

6%

9%

5%5%

6%

4%

10% 5%

43%

17%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%





- 24 hour crossings/ reliable: 17 percent supported the bridge as it would provide a crossing which was available 24 hours aday and would be more reliable than a ferry service.

“Will be able to be used 24 hours a day and allow more cars and cyclists over, especially as the ferry may take 18 minutesturnaround”“24 hour access across the river will be important; neither ferry options provide this”

- Will create jobs/ regeneration/ bring economic benefits: 12 percent felt the bridge would develop the surrounding areaand could create jobs.

“A Bridge is perfect. It will help develop areas like Thamesmead, Erith, Bexley Heath and this will reduce congestion intoWoolwich”“This provides the most benefits to the wider area”

Need ASAP: 10 percent said the bridge needed to be built as soon as possible.“My concern is why we have to wait so long to have a new bridge”“Seriously overdue, TfL must not drag their feet on this”

- Good location: 8 percent noted the proposed bridge would be in a good location.“Direct links with the A13 and A406, provides relief for QE2 closures but keeps traffic away from the City”“Traffic improvement, more jobs, good for Kent. Earlier access to London, decongestion of A406 and A12, A13 andDartford Tunnel”

Other reasons included:- Cost effective (eight percent);- Quick to implement (four percent);- Positive environmental impact (people driving less far to get across the river) (two percent); and- Will improve public transport links (one percent).

4.4 Key Reasons for Opposing a Bridge at Gallions ReachThe main concerns raised about option 3 were:

- Increase traffic: 12 percent of respondents were concerned about the congestion caused by an increase in traffic to the area:“Any additional crossings provide an unimaginative solution to the long term issues of transport in London.

Additional crossings only bring more traffic and serious additional environmental issues”

- Local roads/ infrastructure will not be able to cope with increased demand: 11 percent of respondents felt the local roadnetwork was unsuitable for the increased amount of traffic:

“The surrounding narrow roads and housing and schools near Gallions Reach and the lack of infrastructure to supportheavy traffic makes this an unsuitable area for a heavily used bridge”

- Increase air pollution/ environmental damage (Seven percent): Many of the comments received here were about generalair pollution; however several respondents specifically mentioned Oxleas Wood.

“A bridge at Gallions Reach means the ultimate destruction of Oxleas Wood. This is totally unacceptable. I stronglyoppose the creation of facts on the ground that will lead to the need for a road through the woods. These are ancientwoodland and must be protected for future generations. No suggested economic benefit outweighs this”


4.5 Suggestions for Changes to Option 3Respondents made some suggestions for improvements/ changes to option 3 namely:

- Need more than one bridge/ crossing (Six percent)“Need this in addition to everything else to get traffic out of Blackwell Tunnel and from polluting community residentialareas around Trafalgar Road, Greenwich”“As a resident of Welling I believe we need two more river crossings”

- Not right location (Four percent)“Too far into London and won’t help congestion over Dartford Bridge”“I think if you are going to have a bridge it should be more in the middle of the Blackwall QE2 bridges”

- No toll/ don’t want to pay to use bridge (Four percent)“Should be free. Why does East London (poor) pay when West and Central London (rich) go free! If this bridge is tolled,why not all the others?”

- Request for a segregated/ protected cycle route on bridge and in run up (Two percent)“I would like to see a bridge for cyclists and pedestrians only to reduce the need for car journeys”“Much more sensible as long as you can cycle over it too”

- Request for Public Transport/ DLR routes across bridge (Two percent)“I strongly support a new bridge at Gallions Reach as long as it has proper provision for bus services, properly segregatedcycle and pedestrian facilities”

- Request for a segregated/ protected pedestrian route on bridge and in run up (One percent)“No indication there will be segregated cycling or pedestrian access, not safe to use”

- Larger bridge/ more lanes (One percent)

Option 4: A Bridge at Belvedere


5.1 IntroductionThe final option given to respondents was a Bridge at Belvedere


- Overall level of support;- Key Reasons for Supporting a Bridge at Belvedere;- Key Reasons for Opposing a Bridge at Belvedere; and- Suggestions for Changes to Option 4.

5.2 Overall Level of Support for Option 4Over half (60 percent) of respondents supported a bridge at Belvedere. All responses have been coded with key findingsincluded in this chapter and a full breakdown of all replies provided within the coding frame in Appendix B.

Figure 5.1: Overall level of support for a Bridge at Belvedere


Neither, 16%

Oppose, 11%

Stronglyoppose,

13%

Stronglysupport, 35%

Support, 25%

5 Option 4: A Bridge at Belvedere

“A bridge at Belvedere would provide a new link across the river, connecting to roads in Belvedere and Rainham. Wedeveloped this option following our analysis of the issues raised in our last consultation, which ran from October 2012 toFebruary 2013, and in light of our increased understanding of the growing pressures facing east London.

The bridge would extend the existing local road network across the River. It would carry two lanes in each direction: one forgeneral traffic and one for buses and heavy goods vehicles. The main bridge structure would be about 2,100 metres long.

The bridge would be open to all road users, including cyclists and pedestrians. It would also open up opportunities for newcross-river public transport links and could help to stimulate growth in the North Bexley and London Riverside opportunityareas.

As with any other public highway, the bridge would be open 24 hours a day under normal conditions.”


Support was highest in:

- Havering (77 percent)- Dartford District (76 percent)- Barking and Dagenham (74 percent)

Opposition was greatest in:

- Bexley (34 percent)- Hackney (32 percent)

Figure 5.2: Response to a Bridge at Belvedere by area

30%

43%

25%

27%

61%

28%

52%

27%

26%

32%

49%

35%

21%

42%

35%

27%

18%

28%

33%

16%

31%

22%

31%

25%

25%

27%

24%

25%

26%

25%

18%

7%

24%

21%

7%

21%

12%

18%

24%

25%

12%

15%

22%

11%

13%

13%

8%

12%

10%

6%

12%

7%

14%

13%

11%

3%

17%

14%

11%

12%

13%

27%

11%

9%

9%

9%

8%

10%

12%

7%

9%

9%

18%

9%

15%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90%100%


Bexley (Base: 1152)

Newham (Base: 645)









Bromley (Base: 78)

Hackney (Base: 77)

Other area (Base: 514)




Figure 5.3: Response to a Bridge at Belvedere by area


Local businesses were most in favour of the proposed Bridge at Belvedere (71 percent) but again there are a number of localresidents groups who are against Option 4 (42 percent). The number of local residents groups in the data is small so cautionneeds to be used with this data.

Figure 5.4: Overall level of support for a Bridge at Belvedere by Type of Respondent


35%

47%

15%

35%

25%

24%

18%

30%

16%

13%

24%

17%

11%

11%

9%

9%

14%5%

33%

9%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Member of Public Local business Local residentsgroup/ society




5.3 Key Reasons for Supporting a Bridge at Belvedere

The most frequently mentioned reasons for supporting abridge at Belvedere were:

- Will reduce congestion/ relieve other crossings: 16 percent thought the bridge would reduce congestion and relieve thedemand for other crossings.

“Would most likely reduce pressure on the Dartford Crossing”“I think this option might help to spread out the traffic flows in the affected areas more evenly - by taking heavy trafficaway from a congested part of the middle east/south-east London areas and spreading this on to lighter used roadinfrastructure further east.”“This would assist me as it is nearer to where I live, also it could reduce the traffic at Dartford Bridge / Tunnel which will inturn reduce problems on the M25”

- The best option: 15 percent said this was the best / most preferred option.“Benefits seem greatest of all options”“This is my first preference. I think the impact on the roads is the best with this option””The best and most appropriate solution for the long term. Good location between Dartford Crossing and Blackwall/Rotherhithe tunnels”

- Will improve access in general: 10 percent felt the bridge would improve access in the area in general.“It will provide access to the A13 (for quick city access) from South London while not increasing traffic in the E6 area”“Provides a new direction of linkage for traffic from north London to south east coastal ferry ports”

- 24 hour crossings / reliable (nine percent)“More preferable than the ferries as 24 hour facility”

- Will create jobs/ regeneration/ economic benefits (eight percent)“Again, this would be a real advantage to local and national traffic patterns that would attract much needed work to thearea”“It would improve transport links in the area and provide some regeneration”

- Need ASAP (six percent)“Ideally should be built before 2025-2030”“Just build a bridge as soon as possible”

- Good location (five percent) “I strongly support this. From a public transport view, currently there is no public transport crossings east of theDLR/Crossrail at Woolwich. A bridge at Gallions Reach is too near the DLR/Crossrail to really affect the public transportpatterns of many passengers, especially those in Bexley. The Dartford Bridge doesn't offer an effective non-vehiclecrossing, as the only infrequent scheduled bus service goes to Bluewater, rather than Dartford/Bexley. Therefore a bridgeat Belvedere gives bus, bike and pedestrian users, an excellent further east crossing opportunity, which would reducecrossing times, and reduce some pressure on the DLR/Crossrail at Woolwich Arsenal. Also, I strongly recommend adedicated bike lane crossing this bridge too, in additional to the two lanes of traffic in each direction”.

“What can I say. Whoever thought of this idea is a genius. I have lived in Dartford for the last few years and it only takes adrive through Erith and Belvedere to see the economic potential of the area. Belvedere already has 2 small industrialparks and a few warehouses (including a huge ASDA warehouse). There is quite a bit of land at Belvedere which can bedeveloped into offices and residential (a 300 unit residential development is already underway). Belvedere sits betweenThamesmead and Erith and would benefit both these largely residential hotspots. Because of its industrial makeup theadverse effects of such a bridge and increasing traffic would be minimum on residents. Even the residents of Bexleyheath


would be able to use this bridge and this would relieve the pressure on the Dartford bridge. The volume of traffic meansthat a small toll could net in a fair bit of revenue. Of course having this toll free would be a great benefit. Developments onthe other side (including the new container port) of the river mean that employment opportunities would greatly increasefor the residents of Bexley as well as the amazing tourist potential of a pedestrian bridge coupled with vehicular bridgewith development of a Thames barrier style park would have additional advantages. I understand that the land has notbeen safeguarded but it should be done immediately as this is a project which could change the face of north Bexley andmake it an employment powerhouse. Last but not the least I think London owes it to Bexley as this is the only Londonborough with no TfL presence. Even the crossrail project seems to have overlooked the employment potential ofBelvedere”.

5.4 Key Reasons for Opposing a Bridge at Belvedere

- Increased traffic: 11 percent of respondents thought congestion would invariably increase in the area surrounding the bridge.

“Although a bridge is a better option than a ferry service, this location is not suitable because of the impact of trafficincrease on a mainly residential neighbourhood”

- Will take too long to build / too far in the future (eight percent): the proposed timeframe was a particular issue with thisoption coupled with the issue with securing the land (see later point).

“Too long to complete - I'll probably be dead before completion”

- Not cost effective/ too expensive (ten percent)- Proposed location not easily accessible/ too far out (nine percent)

“This option is a little bit far from the main city and will not impact very much where the density is actually increasing. This is because most of the traffic is heading into London and therefore roads get busier as you travel inward”

“Too far away from East London, might as well use Dartford”

- Local roads/ infrastructure will not be able to cope with increased demand/ local roads need improvement (eightpercent)

“Unless the link roads to the A406 to the north and to the M25 or A2 to the south were upgraded, I think the increase intraffic volume would cause congestion problems.”

- Increase air pollution/ environmental damage (six percent). Several respondents were concerned about the environmentalimpacts of the bridge.

-

“Rainham is far too small a network to support the level of infrastructure required for such a large bridge and is too closeto the marshes/ wildlife however a ferry service for HGV's only linking the trading estates/ business parks (Tesco’s -Dagenham, Sainsbury's & Asda - both Dartford to name but a few) on both sides of the water would ease congestionbetween Dartford bridge & Gallions and minimise impact on the land. Havering & Belvedere council may support this butthe residents will not, more affordable housing, less motorways!


“I am concerned about environmental damage to the local area particularly the habitat of Bostall Heath and the ancientwoodland. I am also concerned that existing roads which border the heathland may be widened. I feel that this localityalready lacks green spaces and that the air quality of the area would be further undermined”

- Land not in place/ concern about length of time will take to sort land (three percent)

“Cost and land access issues are a big challenge for this option”“Would be ideal if the land was available, I can see endless troubles with acquiring the needed land”

5.5 Suggestions for Changes to Option 4Very few changes were suggested (24% of comments related to changes). The most frequently mentioned comments were:

- Prefer other bridge option/ second choice (fifteen percent)- Need more than one bridge/ crossing (nine percent)- Not right location/ should be in another location (eight percent)- Don’t want to pay to use bridge (three percent).- “Tolls should not be used as a mechanism to control cross river traffic, there should be no charge for any of the new river

crossings proposed, it should be free and not used as a cash generator either to initially finance the project or to fill. TfLcoffers when the project has been paid off. Despite the promise that charging to cross the river would end when the capitalexpenditure was recouped, the motorist has already paid for the Dartford Crossings many times over and is still paying.”

Option to Progress and OtherComments


6.1 IntroductionRespondents were given the opportunity to say which of the options detailed in the consultation they felt TfL should progress andto give any other comments they had.

6.2 Preferred OptionJust two percent of respondents did not feel there was a need for any more river crossings. The preferred options were a bridgeat Gallions Reach (29 percent) or both bridges (28 percent).

Figure 6.1 Preferred Option to be Progressed


6 Option to Progress and Other Comments


6.3 CommentsRespondents were given the opportunity to give any other comments. Comments were received from 1,997 people and theywere wide ranging from comments about the consultation, general issues, re-iterating their response to the options andsuggestions for new options. The main responses are summarised below:

Comments about the consultation process

- Waiting a long time/ implement sooner (16 percent)- Good consultation (three percent)- Consultation documents are missing information/ need more information; bigger picture (three percent)- Too many consultations/ reports (get on with it) (two percent)- Consultation documents are biased/ skewed (two percent)

“Action is urgent and should have been taken years ago”“Can you hurry up and build them now?”“If the bridge can be built in 4 years, why won’t it be ready until 2022?”

General comments about the options

- London needs more crossings (28 percent)- Bridge is a better option than ferry/ open 24 hours (13 percent)- More crossing will ease congestion (eight percent)- Crossings should be free (seven percent)- Need more public transport in general/ reduce car demand (six percent)- Bridges need to have provision for bus, cycling, walking, DLR, rail (six percent)- Concerns about increase in pollution caused by new crossings (four percent)- Concerns local roads will not cope with increase capacity (four percent)- New crossings will create more traffic (four percent)

“I believe that both a ferry service and a fixed link crossing will be required”“I think it is great that an additional crossing point is being worked on”“I only support the building of a new bridge if there is adequate and safe option for bicycle travel on the bridge”“Please ensure you build sufficient capacity into any of your projects. It will be far cheaper in the long run”

Comments specifically about the options

- Keep a ferry at Woolwich (seven percent)- Ferry not efficient (three percent)- Ferry a better option than bridge (one percent)- Option 3: Bridge at Gallions Reach preferred bridge option (11 percent)- Option 4: Bridge at Belvedere preferred bridge option/ better long term solution (four percent)

“Maintain the Woolwich ferry and build a bridge at Gallions Reach. We need more crossings not just replacement optionsin order to cope with the growing capacity in East London”“Bridge at Gallions Reach is best approach”“I hope that a bridge at Belvedere becomes a reality”


Suggestions for other options

- Look at other locations (four percent)- Bridge/ tunnel at Silvertown (three percent)- Remove toll at Dartford/ QE2 (three percent)- DLR to Thamesmead/ extend DLR/ Crossrail (two percent)- New tunnel (two percent)

“We also need a foot/cycle bridge connecting Canary Wharf to North Greenwich”“What about the Silvertown tunnel? That is the solution. We need an extra tunnel by Blackwall tunnel”“I would prefer to see Crossrail and the DLR extended rather than any new road scheme, including bridges/tunnels.People really need to have viable public transport options to make it better, easier and cheaper for them to travel insteadof getting into their car”

Emails and Letters


7.1 IntroductionRespondents also had the option of providing a written response to the consultation. Overall 323 letters or emails were receivedby Transport for London (TfL). These were from:

- Member of public (n=262, 81%)- Business (n=11, 3%)- Resident Group/interest group (n=10, 3%)- Councillor/LA/MP (n=41, 13%)

Within these responses 19 were general correspondence with TfL requesting further information or meetings about the proposalsand have been omitted from any analysis.

In this section we describe the written comments received under the following headings:

- Comments about the consultation- Comments about current issues- Comments about proposals in general- Comments about each specific proposal

- Option 1: A new modern ferry at Woolwich;- Option 2: A ferry service at Gallions Reach;- Option 3: A bridge at Gallions Reach; and- Option 4: A bridge at Belvedere

- Alternative suggestions

7.2 Comments about the consultationThe most frequently mentioned comments about the consultation were:

- Consultation documents are missing information/ need more information (17 percent). Included here are commentsabout the consultation documents:- In general (Seven Percent)- Needing more traffic flow information/ Want more modelling work to be done (Six Percent)- Missing an Environmental impact assessment/ more information on projected pollution levels (Three Percent)- Requiring more information on funding (one percent)Councillors/ Local Authorities and MPs were the most likely to feel the consultation documents were missing information.Example of comments received includes:

“A confirmation and details of the proposed exits through Belvedere and are required as well as traffic Modelling”“All the extra traffic that is accepted as being generated does not apparently take into account traffic from any actualregeneration that would take place “

- Waiting a long time/ implement sooner measures sooner (15 percent)“Given the ongoing delay on the issue, the timetable for delivery should now be accelerated

“30 years late, but better late than never”

- Consultation documents are biased/ skewed (seven percent). Included here is- General comments (Four Percent)- Misleading about the number of jobs created (one percent)- Misleading about the creation of housing (one percent)- Trust issues with TfL/ Data/ Decision already made (One percent)

7 Emails and Letters


- Concern about rising cost/ unfactored costs in proposals (less than one percent)

Examples of comments given include:

“A misleading, one-sided picture has been presented and discussion of the potential negatives of new road crossings isminimised”

“the council has serious reservations of the proposals as currently presented and seeks further information on the impactsof the proposals”

- Need for more consultation/ a wider consultation (four percent). A few respondents thought there needs to be a widerconsultation including :- Need to consult on schemes based around sustainable modes (three percent)- Consult on toll/ impact of tolling (one percent)

“TfL did not include in its options generation a package of non-road vehicle measures (rather separately walking andcycling, public transport and road-user-charging – which were dismissed) - and the questionnaire does not even includeany options to state a preference for non-road vehicle option(s)/a package of them”

- Could not access website to respond to online questionnaire. Two percent of comments were reporting issues with theportal.

7.3 Comments about current issuesMany of the comments received were about the current issues in general and some overall comments about the proposedoptions. Comments included:

- Concern about the increase in traffic: Two thirds of comments related to a potential increase in traffic.- 27 percent raised concerns about the potential increase in traffic on the run up to any new crossing and that traffic from

outside the area would travel to it in order to use crossings and this in turn would cause rat running. For example;

“The traffic impact report accompanying the consultation indicates a worryingly high additional traffic loading to Junctions30/31 especially in the evening peak”

“Much research from John Elliot, Simon Birkett and Jenny Bates shows that new transport routes in East London actuallyincrease traffic and congestion”

“there is, and will continue to be apprehension locally concerning increased road traffic and congestion on roads”

- 25 percent were also concerned that local roads will not cope with increase in demand or recognised the need for roadinfrastructure improvements.

“Our local roads would be overwhelmed with massive increases in traffic”

“These roads are already heavily congestion and I believe that a bridge at Gallions Reach will add to the congestion to thepoint where road safety is compromised”

“None of our local roads were built to take such heavy traffic”


- Additionally 13 percent of respondents felt new crossings will induce traffic

“facilities for cars only increased numbers of cars “

“We are also concerned that there is strong evidence that increasing road capacity simply attracts more traffic rather thanreducing congestion”

- Proposals don't allow for incidents on crossings (one percent)- Crossings need to be able to increase capacity in future/ be future proof (one percent)

- London needs more crossings / better connections (36 percent): A third of respondents recognised the need for morecrossings and better connections in the area.

“I fully support the idea of new river crossings in East London, we need at least two or three crossings and they are longoverdue”

“[we] support the intention to improve connectivity in East London”

- More crossings will ease congestion (37 percent): Over a third of respondents also mentioned that more crossing wouldease congestion in the area and on other crossings. Some respondents also made general comments about other crossingsas follows:- More crossing will ease congestion general and on other crossings (22 percent)- Blackwall tunnel is very congested (14 percent)- QE2 is very congested (one percent)

“It is long overdue and the traffic misery caused by the Blackwall tunnel congestion needs to be eased”

“Would help satisfy the acute need to increase connectivity between London and Essex, which would, in turn, reducecongestion on the Dartford crossings.”

- Bridge a better option than ferry/ open 24 hours/ Greater Capacity (17 percent): Following on from the above pointalmost a fifth of respondents stated they would prefer a bridge over a ferry as a bridge has greater capacity and operated24/7.

“Far more sensible to build a bridge that won’t be subject to mechanical failure, weather or human intervention”

“bridge because it can easily provide a contact flow of traffic compared to the ferry service”

- Environmental impact (21 percent): A fifth of comments received related to the impact on the environment any new crossingwould bring including:- Concerns about increase in pollution caused by new crossings/ environmental damage/ noise pollution (18 percent)- Any proposal needs to consider natural heritage sites and Woodlands (two percent)- Must protect bio diversity of River (one percent)

“A vast increase in pollution and disturbance to local wildlife”

“We live in an area with unacceptable levels of pollution as can be seen by the evidence collected by the SilvertownTunnel Pollution Study. According to this survey, parts of Plumstead already have two and a half times the EU acceptedlevels of NO2”


“We believe there is a genuine risk that the much-touted economic benefits of new bridges may well be offset by thenegative effects of increased air pollution, as investors and employers become increasingly concerned about this threat tothe health of Londoners”

- Sustainable modes (25 percent): A quarter of comments related to the need for more sustainable options including:- Need more provisions for sustainable transport in general and on the approach to crossings (nine percent)- London does not need any more crossings/ crossing for motor vehicles ( eight percent)- Request that crossings need to have provision for PT, cycling, walking, DLR, Rail (Segregated) (eight percent)

“We want to ensure that the bridge welcomes London buses; coaches; cyclists, with dedicated cycle lanes; andpedestrians”

“Would favour a fixed river crossing (rather than a ferry crossing) which also allowed for public transport provision. Wouldencourage reappraisal of the current fixed river crossing options … to incorporate an improved public transport provision,in particular a DLR link to the network north of the river”

- Tolling (13 percent): There were several comments about tolling including:- Crossings should be free/ oppose toll (6 percent)- Tolling some crossings and not others causes traffic to divert (5 percent)- Remove toll at Dartford/ QE2 (Four percent)- Need to toll crossings to encourage use of sustainable modes (2 percent)- Reduced toll/ no toll for local residents (two percent)- Better technology for tolls to keep traffic moving/ use DART TAG (one percent)

- Will bring regeneration/ economic benefits (five percent).

- A few people raised concern about the planned sites including:- Concern about compulsory purchases and the destruction of homes/ businesses (Gallions Reach Retail Park) (one

percent)- Proposed bridges are based in Airport Obstacle Limited areas (one percent)- Concern about flooding/ Themes Barrier (one percent)- Contaminated Land (less than one percent)

7.4 Option 1 & 2: A new modern ferry at WoolwichRelatively few comments were received about either ferry option. Comments included:

- Ferry not efficient/ reliable/ limited capacity (nine percent)- Support Woolwich Ferry Improvements/ Historical (eight percent)- keep Woolwich open whilst bridge is being built (two percent)- Oppose Ferry at Gallions Reach (two percent)

“This (Woolwich ferry) is also part of the history… how can you think of getting rid of the present ferry?”

7.5 Option 3: A bridge at Gallions ReachA quarter (26 percent) of comments made about option three and the majority of comments were simply stating their support (19percent) or opposition (three percent) to this option. There were some specific comments received from stakeholders that thegeneral public may not be aware of and therefore the number of responses in each category is small.

- Potential impact on National Heritage sites (n=1)- Need to safeguard Capital Ring (n=1)


- Concern about impact on STW (n=1)- Concern over site proximity to navigation channel (n=1)

7.6 Option 4: A bridge at BelvedereThe majority of comments about Belvedere Bridge were to support it (10 percent). However, Belvedere bridge was generallysecond choice against a bridge at Gallions Reach. There were some specific comments received from stakeholders that thegeneral public may not be aware of and therefore the number of responses in each category is small.

- Bridges need to allow river traffic/ concern about height of bridge (n=3)- Concern of route: Health and Safety issue with Foundry (n=1)- Possible impact on heritage assets (n=1)- Potential conflict with Cory Riverside facility (n=1)- Concern about higher turbulence - location near sensitive receptors (n=1)- potential for S106 improvements (n=1)

7.7 Alternative suggestionsSeveral respondents suggested TfL look at other locations (four percent) and a further 11 percent gave their own suggestions foralternative locations including:

- Bridge/ tunnel at Silvertown (six percent)- New tunnel/ tunnel at Gallions reach (three percent)- Bridge/ tunnel at Woolwich (one percent)- Another bridge at Dartford (less than one percent)

Suggestion was also made about how to improve the use of sustainable modes:

- DRL to Thamesmead/ extend DLR/ Cross rail (six percent)- Pedestrian/ cycle only bridge/ tunnel (four percent)- Additional Piers East of Woolwich/ extend Clipper Service (one percent)- Welcome HGV and Bus lane (one percent)- Upgrade current crossings to allow Bike/ Pedestrian access (one percent)

Summary

8.1 IntroductionDuring the summer of 2014 Transport for London (TfL) consulted on a number of options for new river crossings comprising:

- A new modern ferry at Woolwich;- A ferry service at Gallions Reach;- A bridge at Gallions Reach; and- A bridge at Belvedere.

In this summary chapter we describe overall support for the options presented and the main reactions to each option in turn.

8.2 Overall SupportFigure 8.1 illustrates the level of support shown for each option. A bridge at Gallions Reach was the most supported option with80 percent of respondents either supporting (15 percent) or strongly supporting (65 percent) it. A bridge at Belvedere was alsoliked with 60 percent of respondents supporting this option.

Less support was given to the two ferry options with 42 percent opposing the improvements at Woolwich and 57 percentopposing a new ferry at Gallions Reach.

Figure 8.1 Support for each Proposed Option

Base: Ferry at Woolwich (6,877); Ferry at Gallions Reach (6,823); Bridge at Gallions Reach (6,981); Bridge at Belvedere (6,887)

8.3 A new modern ferry at WoolwichThe main reasons for choosing this option related to the historical nature of this service. However, the opposition felt this optionwould not reduce congestion, found the current service to be unreliable due to adverse weather, mechanical failure and staffingissues which would not be resolved with any of the proposed improvements. A bridge was felt to offer a higher capacity.

19%9%

65%

35%18%

12%

15%

25%21%

22%

5%

16%21%30%

5%11%

21% 27%10% 13%

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

A new modernferry at Woolwich

A ferry service atGallions Reach

A bridge atGallions Reach

A bridge atBelvedere


8 Summary

8.4 A ferry service at Gallions ReachA ferry at Gallions Reach was the least favoured of all the options with just 21 percent supporting it. The perceived unreliability offerry services coupled with its limited capacity and not offering a 24 hour service were the main reasons respondents wereopposed to this option.

8.5 A bridge at Gallions ReachThis was by far the most popular option with 80 percent of respondents supporting it. Respondents felt it would help reducecongestion and alleviate the issues on other crossings, will generally improve access to/from the area and will create jobs andbring economic benefits to the area.

However, some local residents were concerned about the negative impact such as increased traffic on local roads and theincrease in air pollution and environmental damage.

8.6 A bridge at BelvedereA bridge at Belvedere was the second favourite option but many (35%) wanted to see both bridge options implemented.

8.7 ConclusionAlmost all respondents felt there was a need for more crossings across the Thames with the majority supporting the bridgeoptions over the ferries mainly because of the greater capacity and the 24 hour availability of a fixed crossing.

However, residents are concerned about the impact on the local road network and the increase in air pollution any new crossingwould bring.

Appendix A: Questionnaire

Appendix B: Code Frames


Option 1

Count Percentage

Negative Won't reduce congestion/ may increase congestion/ already causes congestion/queues

741 19%

Prefer a bridge/ bridge a better option (or tunnel) 6535 17%

Service too slow/ takes too long to cross 5316 14%

No significant benefits/ pointless 480 13%

Limited capacity/ capacity not significantly increased in proposal 439 11%

Waste of money/ not cost effective 396 10%

Weather dependent/ river conditions/ fog/ tides 340 9%

Not modern/ this is 21st century 299 8%

Not 24 hours/ limited service 282 7%

Not a long term solution/ not a solution 185 5%

Inefficient 166 4%

Don't want to pay for service that is currently free 160 4%

Ferry subject to technical failure 149 4%

Unreliable 131 3%

Will not help develop the area/ will not improve access 113 3%

Not environmentally friendly/ causes pollution (Idling traffic) 67 2%

Inconvenient 29 1%

Staffing issues/ staff unreliable 29 1%

Does not/ will not encourage mode shift 8 *%

Doesn't accommodate buses 5 *%

No one would use it 2 *%

Safety concerns; could sink 2 *%

Has been significant improvement in public transport in the area 2 *%

Not an option for commuters 1 *%

Locals have suffered enough disruption 1 *%


Count Percentage

Positive Keep ferry 513 13%

Ferry part of heritage/ traditional 188 5%

Infrastructure already in place 136 4%

Will reduce congestion 106 3%

Currently works well 104 3%

Will provide a better more reliable service 83 2%

More cost effective than a bridge 56 1%

Needed asap 55 1%

Will help redevelopment of area 40 1%

Tourist attraction 22 1%

Environmentally friendly/ less impact on local area 20 1%

Convenient 16 *%

Closing it would increase problems at other crossings 2 *%


Count Percentage

Improvements Not a solution on its own/ in conjunction with other measures/ multiple crossings 287 7%

Improvements to ferries/ needs updating 203 5%

Need improvement to road network (e.g. slip road/ improvements to roundabout) 99 3%

Increase number of ferries 48 1%

Need to maintain operations during construction 21 1%

Needs better cycle lane/ cycle provision 19 *%

Needs public transport in area/ more DLR 13 *%

Make it a pedestrian/ cycle only service 12 *%

Not the best location 11 *%

Quicker/ more efficient service 8 *%

HGVs should not be allowed to use ferry 8 *%

Only commuters/ local residents should be able to use it 6 *%

Needs improvements to pedestrian access/ repair foot tunnel 6 *%

New ferries should be battery operated changed by wind/ solar/ tidal energy 5 *%

Should have peak charging 4 *%

Keep old ferries for HGV only 4 *%

Better waiting area 3 *%

Want additional crossings outside of London 2 *%

Re-use old ferries as cycle parks 2 *%

Should allow HGVs 3 *%

Oyster card system 2 *%

Speed up implementation 1 *%

Use the savings made elsewhere 2 *%

Open longer hours 1 *%

Sign to say if running on approach 1 *%

Roll on Roll off Preferred 1 *%

Chain Link Ferry would not be Environmentally friendly 1 *%

Part of River bus service 1 *%

Concern about employees 1 *%

Other No difference to me 1 *%

Stop removing lanes and adding cycle lanes 1 *%

Impact on river traffic 1 *%

What about motorbikes 1 *%

Decision already made 1 *%

Total 3,824


Option 2

Count Percentage

Negative Prefer a bridge/ bridge a better option (or tunnel) 814 24%

Won't reduce congestion/ may increase congestion/ queues 655 19%

Service too slow/ takes too long to cross/ load/ unload 506 15%

Inefficient 123 4%

No significant benefits/ pointless 474 14%

Waste of money/ not cost effective/ high operational cost 439 13%

Limited capacity 425 12%

Weather dependent/ river conditions/ fog/ tides 342 10%

Not 24 hours/ limited service 281 8%

Ferry subject to technical failure 130 4%

Unreliable (general) 100 3%

Staff issues/ strikes 27 1%

No point moving from Woolwich/ Woolwich better location 261 8%

Not right location 21 1%

Location is not good for pedestrians or cyclists 12 *%

Not modern/ this is 21st century 222 6%

Not a long term solution/ not a solution 178 5%

Not environmentally friendly/ causes pollution (Idling traffic) 101 3%

Will not help develop the area/ will not improve access 91 3%

Don't want to pay for service that is currently free/ should be free for somegroups

58 2%

Inconvenient 27 1%

Concern about noise pollution 19 1%

Doesn't accommodate buses 15 *%

Does not/ will not encourage mode shift 13 *%

Concern about river safety 5 *%

No Infrastructure 5 *%

Worried it’s a pre-curser for bridge 4 *%

Ferries don't work 4 *%

Don't like travelling by ferry 2 *%

Volume of traffic not high enough to support it 1 *%

Has been significant improvement in public transport in the area 1 *%


Count Percentage

Positive Want a ferry service 153 4%

Will reduce congestion 108 3%

As well as Woolwich/ don't close Woolwich 74 2%

Will help redevelopment of area 67 2%

Needed asap 57 2%

Will provide a better more reliable service 49 1%

More cost effective than a bridge 35 1%

Infrastructure already in place 32 1%

Ferry part of heritage/ traditional 12 *%

Good location 10 *%

Convenient 5 *%

Currently works well 5 *%

Better for pedestrian/ cyclists 5 *%

Environmentally friendly 6 *%

Less noise pollution/ quiet at night 4 *%

Least disruption to residents during construction 4 *%

Improvement from Woolwich 3 *%

Support anything to improve situation 3 *%

Purpose built terminal would be advantage 2 *%

Better value for money than Option 1 2 *%

Only if replacing Woolwich ferry 2 *%

Improvements Not a solution on its own/ in conjunction with other measures/ multiplecrossings

115 3%

Need improvement to road network 54 2%

Improvements to ferries/ needs updating 18 1%

Needs PT in area/ more DLR 18 1%

Needs better cycle lane/ cycle provision 15 *%

Increase number of ferries from 2 to 4 11 *%

Can’t decide/ not familiar with area 3 *%

Passenger only ferry 8 *%

Use the latest technology 2 *%

Charge some groups/ peak times 2 *%

Have Ferry while bridge being built 2 *%

HGVs only/ allow HGB 2 *%

No HGVs 1 *%

Future proof (allow for an increase in capacity) 1 *%

Extend Clipper Service 1 *%


Allow Oyster Cards 1 *%

Other General comment about area 1 *%

Criticism of information provided 1 *%

Bring back Ford Ferry 1 *%

As long as locals approve 1 *%

No benefit to me 1 *%

Decision already made 1 *%


Total 3,450


Option 3

Count Percentage

Positive The best option/ bridge preferred option 1,268 31%

Will reduce congestion/ relieve other crossings 865 21%

Will improve access in general/ good connections/ better links 687 17%

24 hour crossings/ reliable/ better than ferry 679 17%

Will create jobs/ regeneration/ good for business/ economic benefits 496 12%

Need asap/ should never have been cancelled 400 10%

Good location/ preferable location 343 8%

Cost effective 338 8%

Quick to implement 180 4%

Positive environmental impact (people driving less far to get across the river) 91 2%

Will improve PT links 58 1%

Good infrastructure already in 1 *%

Good for HGV 1 *%

Land already safeguarded 1 *%

Negative Increase traffic/ congestion in local area 485 12%

Local roads/ infrastructure will not be able to cope with increased demand/local roads need improvement

461 11%

Increase air pollution/ environmental damage 265 7%

Keep the Woolwich ferry/ prefer ferry/ use the river 71 2%

Need more public transport options/ won't encourage mode shift 58 1%

Increase noise pollution 50 1%

Not cost effective/ too expensive 47 1%

Not needed 45 1%

Won't have regeneration benefits/ No economic benefits 34 1%

Too slow to build/ implement 26 1%

Concern about local residential area/ safety for children 17 *%

Bridge subject to weather conditions 5 *%

Don't want disruption during building 3 *%

No benefits to residents 1 *%

Too close to other crossings 1 *%

Concern over contaminated land that will be unearthed during construction 1 *%

Unsure it will work 1


Count Percentage

Improvements Need more than one bridge/ crossing/ in conjunction with other crossings 235 6%

Not right location/ should be in another location 153 4%

No toll/ don’t want to pay to use bridge 142 4%

Request for a segregated/ protected cycle route on bridge and in run up 97 2%

Request for public transport/ DLR routes across bridge 87 2%

Request for a segregated/ protected pedestrian route on bridge and in run up 58 1%

Prefer other bridge option/ second choice 55 1%

Larger bridge/ more lanes 38 1%

Would prefer a tunnel/ better as a tunnel 20 *%

Higher toll for larger vehicles to encourage modal shift 12 *%

Needs to be higher for tall boats 12 *%

HGVs directed elsewhere/ concern about HGV on local roads 9 *%

Smart bridge/ managed bridge (i.e. change traffic flow etc. to meet demand) 6 *%

Pedestrian/ cycle only (Sustrans proposal) 5 *%

Concern about flight path 3 *%

Not convenient for me/ would not use 2 *%

Payment system that doesn't slow traffic 2 *%

Concern about flight path 2 *%

Support anything 1 *%

Priority lane for residents 1 *%

What happened to Thames Gateway 1 *%

Criticism about consultation docs 1 *%

What about Motorbikes 1 *%

As long as locals approve 1 *%

Want more information 1 *%

Want Victoria Dock to look like St Katherine Dock 1 *%

Remove toll at Dartford 1 *%

Concern about technical demands 1 *%

Gallions Reach to look like Belvedere 1 *%

No roads 1 *%

Total 4,037


Option 4Count Percentage

Positive Will reduce congestion/ relieve other crossings 573 16%

The best option/ bridge preferred option 542 15%

Will improve access in general/ good connections/ better links 348 10%

24 hour crossings/ reliable/ better than ferry 312 9%

Will create jobs/ regeneration/ good for business/ economic benefits 300 8%

Need asap/ Need more crossings 352 10%

Good location/ preferable location 182 5%

Positive environmental impact (people driving less far to get across the river) 45 1%

Cost effective 41 1%

Improved public transport links 25 1%

Land in area is commercial/ not residential 16 *%

Quick to implement 6 *%

Good infrastructure already in place 2 *%

Good for local area 1 *%


Benefits all road users 1 *%

Better capacity 1 *%

Prefer other bridge option/ second choice 553 15%

Negative Increase traffic/ congestion in local area/ won't reduce congestion 418 11%

Will take too long to build/ too slow to build/ implement/ too far in the future 401 11%

Not cost effective/ too expensive 374 10%

Proposed location not easily accessible/ too far out 334 9%

Local roads/ infrastructure will not be able to cope with increased demand/local roads need improvement

301 8%

Increase air pollution/ environmental damage 223 6%

Land not in place/ concern about length of time will take to sort land 122 3%

No toll/ don’t want to pay to use bridge 107 3%

Keep the Woolwich ferry/ prefer ferry/ use the river 100 3%

Won't have regeneration benefits/ No economic benefits 74 2%

Not needed 71 2%

Ned more public transport options/ won't encourage mode shift 50 1%

Increase noise pollution 34 1%

Will have to take away residential property/ compulsory purchase 6 *%

Subject to weather conditions 3 *%

Will make me leave the area 2 *%


Count Percentage

Improvements Need more than one bridge/ crossing/ in conjunction with other crossings 336 9%

Not right location/ should be in another location 282 8%

Will require road/ infrastructure improvements 96 3%

Request for public transport/ DLR routes across bridge/ not for cars 55 1%

Request for a segregated/ protected cycle route on bridge and in run up/concern about HGV and cycle mixing

43 1%

Request for a segregated/ protected pedestrian route on bridge and in run up 26 1%

Need more lanes/ wider/ future proof 20 1%

Would prefer a tunnel/ better as a tunnel 18 *%

Higher toll for larger vehicles to encourage modal shift 16 *%

General comment of consultation/ want more information 11 *%

Smart bridge/ managed bridge (i.e. change traffic flow etc. to meet demand) 7 *%

Remove toll from Dartford/ increase capacity at Dartford 6 *%

Need toll that doesn't affect traffic flow 3 *%

Fast track for local residents 2 *%

More HGV lanes 2 *%

Other Doesn't affect me 3 *%

Needs to swing/ to allow tall ships 2 *%

Combined with more substantial Themes Barrier 1 *%

Concern about impact on current developments 1 *%

Option of local residents to be taken seriously 1 *%

Future bridge 2040/2050 1 *%


As long as local population approve 1 *%

Concerned about height – aircraft 1 *%

Would people who drive support this 1 *%

Who thought this up needs to see a doctor 1 *%

Should be integrated into other infrastructure changes 1 *%

Land needs investigating for contamination 1 *%

Prefer supports to be below water 1 *%

Benefits all road users 1 *%


Total 3678


Other Comments

Count Percentage

Comments aboutthe consultationprocess

Waiting a long time/ implement sooner/ asap 316 16%

Good consultation 60 3%

Consultation documents are missing information/ need more information -bigger picture

58 3%

Too many consultations/ reports (get on with it)/ no more consultations 41 2%

Consultation documents are biased/ skewed 43 2%

Some people have a too big an influence e.g. councillors/ rich/ Boris 24 1%

Consultations are costly/ costing tax payer 11 1%

Trust issues with TfL/ data/ decision already made 8 *%

Technical reports have too much jargon/ not easy to read/ understand 7 *%

Have not received any direct communications from TfL 7 *%

No means to show priority of preference at Q9 4 *%

Wanted more events 9 *%

No mention of Motorcycles 2 *%

Consult cyclists separately 1 *%

Disabled travellers need to be consulted 1 *%

QE2 QE2 congested 6 *%

Blackwall Tunnel Blackwall tunnel very congested 98 5%

Blackwall takes traffic too far into city 1 *%

Blackwall - Reinstate contra flow 9 *%

Blackwall - Needs work/ consider a bridge over the tunnel 8 *%

Increase capacity of Blackwall 1 0%

Current Provision Only ever has one ferry running/ very limited service 3 *%

Need more public transport in general/ encourage more public transport use/reduce car demand

116 6%

TfL behind on current developments 1 *%

Disagree with the Silvertown Tunnel 6 *%

Improve HGV facilities at Woolwich 2 *%


Count Percentage

Generalcomments aboutproposals

London needs more crossings/ need more than one crossing 559 28%

Bridge is a better option than ferry/ open 24 hours 255 13%

More crossing will ease congestion/ traffic jams 152 8%

Crossings should be free 140 7%

Bridges need to have provision for public transport, cycling, walking, DLR, Rail 119 6%

Concerns about increase in pollution cause by new crossings 90 4%

Concerns local roads will not cope with increase capacity/ need roadinfrastructure improvements

87 4%

New crossings will create more traffic/ not dilute it 77 4%

London does not need any more crossings 64 3%

Concerns about increase in traffic / traffic from outside the area travelling in touse crossings

46 2%

Cost to implement should be shared not footed by East London/ concern aboutcost

42 2%

Crossings need to be able to increase capacity in future (e.g. be wide enoughfor additional lane to be added)

37 2%

Need to toll crossings (to encourage public transport use) 25 1%

Bridges must be architecturally brilliant 2 *%

Must allow tall ships 2 *%

Only one bridge not two 1 *%

Bridge greater economic benefits than ferry 1 *%

Option 1& 2:replacement ferryat Woolwich

Keep a ferry at Woolwich 144 7%

Ferry not efficient 58 3%

Ferry a better option than bridge 14 1%

Will bring regeneration/ economic benefits 14 1%

Ferry quickest to implement 9 *%

Ferry higher running costs than bridge 8 *%

Ferry less environmentally friendly than bridge 5 *%

More to get HGV off the road/ HGV crossing 5 *%

Ferry closed too easily 4 *%

More ferry services 3 *%

Only one bridge not two 1 *%

Bridge still subject to adverse weather conditions 1 *%

Woolwich ferry to be run by community group 1 *%

Name ferry after Prince Philip 1 *%

Increase capacity of ferry 1 *%


Count Percentage

Option 3: Bridgeat Gallions Reach

Gallions Reach Preferred bridge option 230 11%

Gallions Reach Good road links already 5 *%

Gallions Reach - Better road links/ infrastructure will be needed 2 *%

Gallions Reach Better plan than previous themes gateway 1 *%

Gallions Reach Needs to allow DLR 1 *%

Oppose Gallions Reach 1 *%

Gallions Reach bridge more cost effective than Ferry in long term 1 *%

Gallions Reach will provide jobs/ employment sites 1 *%

Option 4: Bridgeat Belvedere

Belvedere Preferred bridge option/ better long term solution 70 4%

Belvedere - already good road infrastructure 5 *%

Option 4 - why take longer than option 3 1 *%

Will have negative effect for locals 1 *%

Conflict with new rail station 1 *%

Suggestions forother proposals/options

Look at other locations 85 4%

Bridge/ tunnel at Silvertown 59 3%

Remove toll at Dartford/ QE2 55 3%

DLR to Thamesmead/ extend DLR/ Cross rail 43 2%

New tunnel 40 2%

Pedestrian/ cycle only bridge/ tunnel 14 1%

Bridge/ tunnel at Woolwich 12 1%

Upgrade current crossing to allow bike/ pedestrian access 10 1%

Another bridge at Dartford 9 *%

Better technology for toll to keep traffic moving 6 *%

Park & Ride outside London with strong public transport into London 4 *%

Repair Rotherhithe Tunnel 4 *%

Comment about area in general 4 *%

Comment on cable car 3 *%

Comment on Toll 3 *%

Comment about Boris 2 *%

Amphibious service/ hover craft 2 *%

Want to be kept up to date 2 *%

Bridge at Lowestoft (Sussex) 1 *%

Ferry at Belvedere 1 *%

Keep Woolwich ferry as a museum 1 *%

HGV only ferry at Gallions reach 1 *%

Ferry for cyclist and pedestrians only. Bridge for motor vehicles 1 *%

Height of bridge would put of cyclists and pedestrians 1 *%

Restrict navigation up the Themes to the early hours 1 *%

I live in Woolwich 1 *%


Count Percentage

Other Concern over contamination of ground water 1 *%

Relocate Sewage works 1 *%

Thank you for dropping tunnel option 1 *%

Concern about contaminated land 1 *%

Need good compensation 2 *%

Request changed in Public Transport 1 *%

Extend congestion charge 1 *%

ITSO SEFT card used like Oyster 1 *%

Check out over engineering at Blackwall 1 *%

Will have to move 1 *%

Stop immigration 1 *%

Bear locals in mind 2 *%

Concern about cost 1 *%

Build more hospitals instead 1 *%

Total 2019

river crossing consultation - citizen space · aecom river crossing consultation 4 table 1.1 shows...

Documents