Transport Action Network (TAN) is warning the government that the Lower Thames Crossing would make a poor investment and deliver little economic growth compared to its huge cost. TAN has uncovered official DfT figures showing the claimed economic benefits have fallen by a third to £3bn, while its costs have increased to £9bn [1]. This comes ahead of the Chancellor Rachel Reeves’ speech on Wednesday (29 January).
TAN is concerned that in an attempt to be seen to be doing something to promote growth, Rachel Reeves risks making a terrible mistake with the Lower Thames Crossing. The road makes little economic sense, would take seven years to build, during which time there would be additional delays and costs to businesses and hauliers. Even when opened it would only provide 5 years of traffic relief at Dartford.
By approving the LTC, The Chancellor risks becoming a block to much needed public transport improvements in the area and could damage the existing market and potential growth of cross-Channel rail freight. TAN is due to publish a report on the public transport and rail freight opportunities shortly.
While private finance has been mooted to pay for the road, if used the ultimate cost to the taxpayer would be higher, with tolls at both the LTC and Dartford Crossing rising significantly. This could create a perverse incentive to get more cars and HGVs using the crossings to keep tolls down or generate more profit. This would have a knock on negative impact on congestion in the wider region and undermine public transport with more people encouraged to drive.
Chris Todd, TAN’s Director, said:
“The business case for the Lower Thames Crossing was already bad, but these latest figures, which the government sat on for months, demonstrate why it should be scrapped. If the Chancellor is serious about growth, she needs to make sure she isn’t a blocker to investment in a new rail crossing and cross-Channel rail freight. Both would be put at risk by approval of the Lower Thames Crossing.”
Rebecca Lush, TAN’s roads campaigner said:
“The economic case for the Lower Thames Crossing is falling apart. Using private finance to prop it up will only saddle the public with more debt and higher tolls for years. Approval of the scheme would smack of an act of desperation which risks making things worse. Construction will result in years of delays and extra costs for very little benefit a long way off in the future. It’s time to call a halt to this white elephant and turbo charge growth by investing in public transport and rail freight instead.”
– ENDS –
Notes for Editors
[1] The Infrastructure and Projects Authority (IPA) 2023-24 annual report was published on 16 January 2025 (although had been due to be published in July 2024). The IPA reports on the Government Major Projects Portfolio (GMPP), which includes the LTC.
Behind the IPA’s annual report is the supporting data. In the DfT’s data spreadsheet, the reduced benefits (cell 14S) are described:
“Compared to financial year 22/23-Q4, the project’s departmental-agree monetised benefits at 2324-Q4 decreased from 4313m. to 3009m.The project’s departmental-agree monetised benefits at 23/24-Q4 is 3009m”.
The reasons for the LTC cost increase are given (in cell 14Q):
“Compared to financial year 22/23-Q4, the project’s departmental-agree Whole Life Cost at 23/24-Q4 increased from 8309m. to 8950m. This is primarily due to the following factors. This is primarily due to the following factors, inflation, and prolongation costs. This figure is the Most Likely capex cost in outturn prices.”
[2] TAN has produced a briefing on the LTC
[3] TAN has produced a Myths and Facts page about the Lower Thames Crossing
[4] Dr Colin Black wrote a report about the Lower Thames Crossing showing how it failed on all its scheme objectives
JOIN OUR NETWORK
Signing up will allow you to access our monthly newsletter and the latest actions and events