Is the Lower Thames Crossing the world’s most expensive sticking plaster? – Inside track

This post is by Chris Todd, director of Transport Action Network.

No one would dispute that the Dartford Crossing is one of the most unreliable sections of our road network. With 150,000 vehicles using it every day, 40 per cent of them lorries, the slightest problem can cause severe delays. The tunnels (northbound route) require traffic to be stopped to allow hazardous goods vehicles to be escorted through, while high winds can close the Queen Elizabeth II Bridge (southbound route). It is little wonder that many people want something done. The question is what?

The project fails on all seven of its objectivesNational Highways, the government’s roads company in charge of the strategic roads network, wants to build another road crossing, the Lower Thames Crossing, seven miles east of the existing ones. It has spent over a decade developing its plans and has produced seven objectives for the project: relieve congestion (at the Dartford Crossing); improve safety; support sustainable development (growth); be affordable; achieve value for money; minimise environmental impact; and be delivered on time and on budget.

Yet, according to work done by international consultants Stantec for Thurrock Council, which is strongly opposed to the crossing, National Highways plans fail on all seven objectives. The scheme would only provide five years’ relief of congestion at Dartford and is unaffordable at £9 billion. That’s after many other connecting roads were removed from the project to reduce costs. However, these roads will still need to be built for the crossing to function as planned, so all National Highways has done is to hide its true cost. Even then, it barely washes its face with an adjusted benefit to cost ratio of only 1.22, classed as low value for money.

Its negative impacts are hugeAdditionally, the route threatens ancient woodland, exposes local residents to high levels of air and noise pollution, messes up local housing delivery and would result in the emission of over six million tonnes of additional carbon dioxide. There are other issues too, such as National Highways deliberately designing the crossing so that local bus services cannot use it without having to go on huge detours, making them unviable.

In this situation, it is hard to see how the Lower Thames Crossing meets any of Labour’s five missions. It will only deliver sluggish growth, while undermining net zero. Streets will become less safe with more traffic, while pressure on the NHS will worsen as the scheme results in more people being killed and seriously injured. It will do little for opportunities, with many people in the communities either side of the Thames having no access to a car and so unable to benefit from the crossing.

In this situation it is hardly surprising that National Highways has found its claims hotly contested, from the Thames Crossing Action Group representing thousands of local residents, to the The Woodland Trust, amongst many others. So why does National Highways appear to have got it so wrong?

Other solutions would be cheaperPart of the issue is the siloed way the Department for Transport operates. It is seemingly incapable of looking holistically at transport through a multi-modal lens and has subsequently failed to bring forward a package of measures to address the many and varied issues in the area.

In the first instance, the government needs to get more freight on rail and to address the paucity of freight using Eurotunnel which is only operating at one tenth of its capacity. There are also some relatively low cost interventions that would help move that freight beyond London. In terms of opportunities, more needs to be done to provide public transport links across the Thames which could include a new tram link between Gravesham and Thurrock, as proposed by KenEx Tram. All of these measures would do far more for Labour’s missions at lower cost than the £9 billion Lower Thames Crossing and are more likely to reduce congestion too. There may still be a need for a new road link across the Thames but that should be reviewed in light of the new Silvertown tunnel.

Decisions haven’t been open or democraticHowever, National Highways needs to shoulder its share of the blame. It has operated in a secretive and arrogant way, withholding information from the examination into its Development Consent Order. This has undermined the democratic scrutiny of the project and could lead to an unsound decision being taken. These issues are set out by Dr Colin Black, who worked for Thurrock Council, in his report on the Lower Thames Crossing, commissioned by Transport Action Network (TAN). TAN has also complained to the Office for Rail and Road about National Highways’ lobbying for the scheme and its use of statistics which contradict the evidence it gave to the examination and which have not been produced following government guidelines.

Unsurprisingly, road hauliers have rallied around in support of the scheme as they are desperate to see any improvement at Dartford. Yet, even if the scheme is given the go ahead, it won’t open until 2032. Given there are no quick fixes, Labour should take the time to review what the underlying transport needs are for the area, locally, regionally and nationally, before blowing £9 billion on a sub-optimal solution that will provide few benefits but create many problems. Keir Starmer promised not to be a government of easy answers. He needs the courage to say no to the Lower Thames Crossing and demand something better.