Councillor Darren Johnson AM, a Green Party member of the London Assembly said:
"The London Mayor’s proposal for the Thames Gateway Bridge tried to show that a six lane, strategic road running through East London would have virtually no negative effects on the environment of local people. Thankfully, the Government isn’t convinced and agrees with us that it needs looking at carefully. The last time the planners tried to build this bridge, it was thrown out after a public enquiry and we look forward to the same result this time."
Notes to editors
Assembly Member, Jenny Jones, is already appealing to the European Commission to block the proposed bridge because it will take some roads and areas over the legal limits on air quality which come into force next year. The objection outlines 12 reasons why they believe the bridge should be blocked:
1) We believe that the bridge will lead to an increase in traffic and pollution on roads and in areas already designated as being likely to breech the European Union’s limit values for certain pollutants and that this therefore contravenes the Council Directive 96/62/EC of 27th September on ambient air quality. 2) We believe that the claimed regeneration benefits are spurious. The SACTRA study showed that there was no evidence that new transport infrastrcuture automatically had economic benefits. A study by Professor John Whitelegg makes clear that there is no specific evidence that the proposed bridge will have regeneration impacts and no attempt was made to examine alternative models for job creation and regeneration. 3) Our belief is that this bridge will benefit relatively well off suburban car commuters, whilst having economic and environmental disbenefits on the social deprived communities living nearest to the bridge. The promoters assessment of the bridge’s regeneration impacts does not define the social and geographical groups who are meant to benefit from this public investment and their claims of regeneration benefits are over reliant upon the reductions in journey times for motorised private vehicles. This goes against the Government’s guidance on best value analysis which requires an analysis of whether the target group of socially excluded people would directly benefit from such public investment. It also goes against the London Mayor’s own policies on social inclusion.4) The EIA directive requires alternatives to the bridge to be examined. However, the intention and spirit behind this re quirement has been effectively negated by narrowly defining this ‘alternative’ as alternative designs for the bridge, or the bridge alignments or the bridge vs. a tunnel. 5) We believe that the traffic modelling has dramatically under estimated the level of induced traffic which will result from the construction of the bridge. The report by John Elliot questions the traffic modelling, the level of induced traffic and therefore the subsequent level of congestion. This has direct impacts on the expected level of noise and pollution. 6) Given that the cost benefit analysis of the bridge is very reliant upon time savings for motorised vehicles, the level of congestion also has a decisive impact upon the economic case. We believe that a realistic traffic model would take account of increase congestion, raise the journey times accordingly and force the cost benefit analysis into the red.7) We believe that the proposed system of tolls is flawed and without it, the bridge would be rejected by the local communities in the surrounding area. The system of differential tolls has been a major factor in convincing many local people that the bridge is an acceptable local road, rather than the strategic throughway which has been promoted on this site for over twenty years. 8) We consider that the inclusion of public transport on this bridge is merely an attempt to disguise the true nature of this bridge as a strategic route for long distance traffic. The bridge is designed to be part of the national trunk road network.9) The promoters of the bridge highlight the need for increased accessibility for the Thames gateway area, whilst ignoring the increasing success of public transport in achieving this in a less damaging and more sustainable way. These improvements diminish the social and economic case for a road bridge. The improvements include the Silvertown Link, extensions to the Docklands Light Railway, Crossrail and new bus ways in East London which are being planned by Transport for London.10) The building of this bridge directly conflicts with the section in the London Mayor’s transport strategy requiring local authorities to take action on reducing traffic. The expenditure on the bridge contrasts with the under funding of other measures which would reduce traffic, congestion and pollution in the Thames Gateway area. 11) There is no longer a safeguarded link to the A2 Rochester Way through Oxlies Wood, but as the Mayor points out, he can not be held responsible for a future Mayor or Minister creating such a link. 12) We believe that the TfL consultation was flawed as: no attempt was made to present local people with an alternative to the road bridge proposal; despite having more than enough time, the Mayor failed to produce an Assessment of the Environmental Impacts as part of this consultation and key sections of the information presented to the public (relating to traffic numbers) changed during the course of the consultation.