Delaying gives Louise Haigh the chance to think long term
The Dartford Crossing is one of the most unreliable sections of our road network. Something needs to be done, but the solution is not the Lower Thames Crossing.
By delaying the planning decision, we hope Louise Haigh will realise the £9bn road scheme (likely to cost well over £10bn) would be an incredibly expensive short term sticking plaster. It would take seven years to build, and only provide five years of relief at Dartford. Plus the billions spent on it would deprive other areas around the country of much needed public transport and active travel infrastructure.
Shift freight from road to rail
150,000 vehicles use the Dartford Crossing every day. Many are lorries. So instead of building another road crossing, the government could and should focus on shifting road freight onto rail. Eurotunnel is only operating at one tenth of its capacity, and could be utilised more. And with the Office for Rail and Road recommending that freight access charges are halved on HS1 (the line from Folkestone to St Pancras) this makes this more feasible
As well as reducing congestion, rail freight produces 76% less carbon per tonne, compared to road. So shifting more HGVs off our roads would not only deliver on Labour’s decarbonisation mission, but also help deliver its ambition for more freight on rail. Rather than decreasing carbon, National Highways estimate the Lower Thames Crossing would result in an extra 6.6 million tonnes of carbon from its construction and extra traffic.
Scheme fails on its own objectives
It is no surprise that National Highways wants to build another road crossing. With a purely roads based remit, it is in no position to consider the transport needs of an area, let alone deliver non-road alternatives which provide better solutions. Even then you would at least expect it to design the road to pass its own tests. Yet, despite working on the Lower Thames Crossing for over a decade, the project fails on all seven of its own objectives:
- Relieve congestion (at the Dartford Crossing) – it would only provide relief for five years.
- Improve safety – National Highways’ projections show it would increase deaths and serious injuries. The scheme has been controversially designed to Smart Motorway standards, which are universally unpopular.
- Support sustainable development (growth) – it only increases the economy by 0.03% and inhibits local development, including at Tilbury Port.
- Be affordable – is more expensive per kilometre than HS2.
- Achieve value for money – adjusted benefit to cost ratio of only 1.22, classed as low value for money (even this is an overestimate with so many hidden costs not included).
- Minimise environmental impact – ancient woodland is under threat, local residents would have to put up with high levels of air and noise pollution, plus six million tonnes of additional carbon dioxide.
- Be delivered on time and on budget – costs are likely to exceed £10bn and it is already years behind schedule.
Also fails on Labour’s Missions
Labour have been clear about their five missions underpinning everything they do in government. Yet it is hard to see how the Lower Thames Crossing meets any of them. The scheme would only deliver sluggish growth, inhibit port expansion, while undermining net zero. Streets would become less safe with more traffic and HGVs, while pressure on the NHS would worsen as the scheme results in more people being killed and seriously injured. It would 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. At the same time they would be exposed to increased noise and air pollution.
Unpopular locally
The scheme has been designed so that local bus services are unable to use it without huge detours, making them unviable. National Highways refused to make changes to the scheme to address this. As a result, it does little to help the many local people with no access to a car.
Unsurprisingly, local politicians are opposed to the Lower Thames Crossing.
“In my view, investing billions in road expansion is not the answer,” Jen Craft MP (Labour, Thurrock) said. “Instead, we should focus on improving other forms of transport by expanding bus services, enhancing rail links including freight to take lorries off the road and delivering on cross river public transport solutions like the proposed KenEx tram service. These options collectively offer cleaner, longer-term solutions to congestion while benefiting local communities.”
Dr Lauren Sullivan MP (Labour, Gravesham) has been opposed to the scheme from the start and has called for more sustainable solutions instead: “We need to see more focus on public transport solutions, in line with our environmental goals, such as an expanded river crossing service, more affordable bus travel and a fit for purpose train network to encourage less cars on the road.”
Sustainable solutions to the Dartford Crossing congestion problem
The reality of the situation at the Dartford Crossing is that a package of measures to address the many and varied issues in the area is needed. There is no silver bullet. As well as shifting freight on to rail, better public transport links for local residents would open up opportunities and reduce pressure on the existing crossing. One example is a new tram link between Gravesham and Thurrock, as proposed by KenEx Tram. Lauren Sullivan MP is also calling for more river buses.
A new road link across the Thames might still be needed (or improving the existing tunnel and bridge at Dartford), but it should only be considered after implementing more sustainable, long-term solutions which are likely to cost less than the £9 billion Lower Thames Crossing. They are more likely to reduce congestion over the long term too, and some could be implemented quickly and start making a difference sooner.
If Labour decides in May 2025 (or sooner) to give the Lower Thames Crossing the go-ahead, short term excitement and relief will no doubt be expressed by road hauliers and others. Yet how long will it be before that turns to frustration as they suffer seven years of disruption due to its construction (the scheme won’t be open until 2032 at the earliest)?
Worse still, congestion is predicted to increase across local roads, including at least one junction, Orsett Cock on the A13 (where the Lower Thames Crossing meets the A13), which will be over capacity as soon as the scheme is opened. This is one reason why DP World, the owners of London Gateway port on the north bank of the Thames, have objected to the scheme as designed. They are investing £1bn in the port, which will include a new rail freight terminal. The Lower Thames Crossing does not serve London Gateway and neither does it connect with Tilbury docks. The tunnel position could also prevent Tilbury port’s expansion, limiting economic growth in the area. The two ports’ opposition to the scheme was outlined in a joint statement with the Port of London Authority.
Louise Haigh has said she will ‘move fast and fix things’. Putting the Lower Thames Crossing out of its misery would be a good start. It would allow the government to move ahead quickly with looking at a suite of alternative solutions which are both more affordable and better deliver on their missions. If Labour is really about change it needs to do things differently and leave a positive legacy for future generations to enjoy. Or it can create an expensive sticking plaster that will offer little respite to Dartford residents, let alone alleviate the traffic issues at the crossing.
Further reading
We’ve recently published an independent expert report on the Lower Thames Crossing by Dr Colin Black, who was the strategic lead at Thurrock Council during the examination. This outlines how the Lower Thames Crossing fails on all its objectives, including promoting economic growth and increasing road safety.
National Highways were inappropriately attempting to influence the decision making process for the Lower Thames Crossing. Our complaint to the Office for Rail and Road is here.
The Thames Crossing Action Group has been campaigning against the scheme since 2016. They have compiled an A to Z of the impacts the Lower Thames Crossing would have, and describe how the scheme is not fit for purpose.
JOIN OUR NETWORK
Signing up will allow you to access our monthly newsletter and the latest actions and events