Home / Sources / Select Committees / Transport Committee / Strategic river crossings
Select committee inquiry

Strategic river crossings

Closed

Transport Committee · Opened 12 June 2014 · Closed 24 July 2015

4 recommendations · 7 conclusions
Inquiry on parliament.uk ↗

What the inquiry looked at

“Strategic river crossings: Terms of reference This inquiry looks closely at the planning, financing and any regenerative effects of different river crossings in the UK.”

The committee's words, from the inquiry page on parliament.uk ↗.

What it found

In the committee's words, from the summary of 10th Report - Strategic river crossings ↗

River crossings can provide financial benefits for businesses but it is less clear that benefits extend to people living nearby who may experience higher traffic flows and poorer air quality. We have called on the Government and planners to take those concerns seriously and identify intelligent transport systems to mitigate the negative impacts that may result from new crossings.

River crossings have all too often been planned with a design life that was too short.

Current cost-benefit analysis methods have also underestimated the usage of new crossings during the planning stages. That short-term approach has resulted in the costly duplication of existing crossings. The Department must avoid that in the future by planning for longer-term capacity requirements and improving traffic-modelling forecasts.

We examined the proposals for new crossings in east London and the Lower Thames. A package of new river crossings in east London is long overdue and we have recommended the establishment of a special purpose company with direct responsibility for delivering new crossings in the area. With regards to the Lower Thames proposals, we are disappointed that the Department has made such little progress on delivering a new crossing during this Parliament. We believe the Minister must show more leadership in finding a consensus between the affected local authorities.

The Government’s UK Guarantees Scheme has provided assurance to the private sector and has encouraged it to invest in much needed infrastructure. We are concerned that that has only been achieved by the Government underwriting risk that is best borne by the private sector. We believe the Government should be more transparent on the level of risk that it has assumed on behalf of the taxpayer and how it expects private sector operators to mitigate risks. We have recommended that the Government publish a risk statement accounting for those concerns before authorising new projects for the UK Guarantee Scheme.

It is our view that that the National Infrastructure Plan and the accompanying Infrastructure Pipeline have provided an insight into the Government’s main priorities for investment in the medium term. However, we believe that more can be done to provide confidence to investors and private sector partners. We have recommended that in the next update to the Infrastructure Pipeline, the Government implement a system that clearly identifies the funding status of each project so that the private sector is better able to identify investment opportunities.

We welcome the introduction of free-flow tolling at Dartford, its future implementation on the Mersey Gateway and other river crossings around the UK. We believe that lessons can be learned from the introduction of the Dart Charge. The Department must continue to monitor non-payment rates at the Dartford Crossing and identify how compliance can be raised. That work will provide lessons for when the Mersey Gateway Bridge opens in the autumn of 2017. As the use of free-flow technology expands, the Department must aim for total interoperability between schemes. We have called upon the Department to commission research into how that can be best achieved.

What the government said

The government responded on 24 July 2015.

Summary written by Accountability Index from the government's response.

The Government responds to each of the Committee's recommendations on strategic river crossings, welcoming some findings, pointing to existing work in several areas, and saying it does not believe there is currently a strong business case for toll interoperability.

  • On regeneration guidance, it says the best approach is "likely to differ from case to case" and that it is "not clear that further central guidance could fit the full range of local circumstances".
  • On the Lower Thames Crossing, it states that consultation on proposed solutions "is expected in late 2015 or early 2016".
  • On Dart Charge, it says a Highways England review scheduled for October 2015 will include a "lessons learned" element, with the outcome passed to the Department and the Mersey Gateway team and lessons taken forward "as appropriate".
  • On east London crossings, it says the Greater London Authority "will respond separately" and describes decisions on the delivery mechanism as "a devolved matter".

Read the government's response ↗ Read the report ↗ Report an error

How the inquiry ran

Each dot is a dated item listed on this page, from the inquiry's opening on 12 June 2014 to its close on 24 July 2015.

  1. Oral evidence 3 sessions
  2. Report 17 Mar 2015
  3. Government response 24 Jul 2015

What it recommended 4 recommendations · 7 conclusions

1It is clear that new river crossings can have genuine financial benefits for local businesses...
Concluded (the committee's words)
It is clear that new river crossings can have genuine financial benefits for local businesses in terms of lower vehicle costs, time efficiencies and greater access to labour and consumers. It is less clear that those benefits extend to local people who should benefit from the development of new housing and the regeneration of their communities. The Minister has promised to send the Committee research that demonstrates the link between enhanced cross-river connectivity and urban regeneration. That research should be provided with the Government’s response to this report. The Department must then use that research as a foundation for further guidance, aimed at transport planners, that demonstrates how river crossings should be exploited to deliver opportunities for new housing and local regeneration.
2It is clear to us that new river crossings have both benefits and impacts on...
Concluded (the committee's words)
It is clear to us that new river crossings have both benefits and impacts on communities located nearby. Local concerns on the environmental impact of new crossings must be taken seriously. We welcome Transport for London’s Transport Emissions Roadmap and hope measures are taken forward to mitigate the impacts of any new river crossings in London. When consulting on new river crossings the Department must use the process to identify how technology and design can be used as effective tools for mitigating the impact of new road capacity on air quality.
3River crossings have all too often been planned with a design life that was too...
Concluded (the committee's words)
River crossings have all too often been planned with a design life that was too short. That has resulted in the costly duplication of existing crossings, often decades after the original crossing has exceeded capacity. That provides a limitation on both the local and national economy and such short-termism brings an opportunity cost to the taxpayer. The Department must avoid that in the future by planning for longer- term capacity requirements. Such planning should also provide future-proofing for the requirements of 21st century infrastructure, including the potential for driverless vehicles that could revolutionise driving behaviour. Short-term planning has been exacerbated by cost-benefit analyses that underestimate the usage of new crossings. The Government’s current survey of cost-benefit analysis methods must include an examination of ways to improve traffic-modelling forecasts to ensure that the proposed design life of new crossings accurately reflect their usage by motorists.
4It is our view that a package of new river crossings in east London is...
Concluded (the committee's words)
It is our view that a package of new river crossings in east London is long overdue. Without new crossings, the congestion on the Blackwall Tunnel will only get worse and the area’s development potential will never be realised. However, the Silvertown Tunnel must not be built in isolation. Instead it must be part of a package of river Strategic river crossings 23 crossings. That will ensure that the benefits new crossings bring, such as increased connectivity, access to jobs and greater resilience on the road network, are spread across east London. At the same time, the negative impacts of larger traffic flows will be limited as they are shared across a greater area.
5We welcome the package of river crossings proposed by TfL, but successive GLA administrations have...
Recommended (the committee's words)
We welcome the package of river crossings proposed by TfL, but successive GLA administrations have identified the need for new river crossings in east London only for progress to stall because of the timescale required which expands beyond the electoral cycle. We accept that major infrastructure projects require long periods of time to plan so that value for money and opportunities for connectivity and economic regeneration are maximised. However, it is not credible to expect that to be completed between elections. To prevent a repeat of the Thames Gateway experience, the Government should now work with the GLA to establish a special purpose company with direct responsibility for delivering new crossings in east London. A deadline should be set for the start of construction and the Mayor should have the power to appoint a chief executive with strong experience of delivering major infrastructure projects.
6We are disappointed that the Department for Transport has made such little progress on delivering...
Concluded (the committee's words)
We are disappointed that the Department for Transport has made such little progress on delivering a new river crossing in the Lower Thames during this Parliament. We do, however, welcome the Department’s attempts to build consensus on the location for the new crossings. It is unfortunate, however, that both Kent County Council and Thurrock Borough Council, supporters and opponents of Option C (which connects the M2 with the A13 and the M25 between junctions 29 and 30) respectively, have criticised the Department for working in isolation and without proper consultation. The Minister must show more leadership in finding a consensus between the affected local authorities by investigating what mitigations can be provided to limit the environmental impact of the new crossing and any increased traffic that results from it. The Department should take an active role in facilitating “joined-up thinking” between Local Enterprise Partnerships. The Department for Transport must work with the Department for Communities and Local Government to identify how Local Enterprise Partnerships can increase their effectiveness by working together to identify regional priorities for development.
7We accept that the introduction of the UK Guarantees Scheme has provided assurance to the...
Recommended (the committee's words)
We accept that the introduction of the UK Guarantees Scheme has provided assurance to the private sector and has encouraged it to invest in much needed infrastructure, such as the Mersey Gateway Project. Through the Scheme, the Government underwrites risks, such as the non-payment of tolls, which should be borne by the private sector. The Government creates a situation in which there is no incentive for the private sector to mitigate such risks. Before authorising a project for the UK Guarantee Scheme the Government should publish a statement that indicates the level of risk that it has agreed to take on, on behalf of the taxpayer. This statement should make clear the mitigations the Government expects any private sector partner to take to address the risks.
8It is our view that that the National Infrastructure Plan and the accompanying Infrastructure Pipeline...
Recommended (the committee's words)
It is our view that that the National Infrastructure Plan and the accompanying Infrastructure Pipeline have provided an insight into the Government’s main priorities for investment in the medium term. While that is a good start, more must be done to provide confidence to investors and private sector partners. We recommend that in the next update to the Infrastructure Pipeline, the Government implements a system that clearly identifies the funding status of each project so that the private sector is better able to identify investment opportunities.
9We welcome the introduction of free-flow tolling at Dartford, its future implementation on the Mersey...
Concluded (the committee's words)
We welcome the introduction of free-flow tolling at Dartford, its future implementation on the Mersey Gateway and other river crossings around the UK. The Department must investigate what lessons can be learned from the introduction of the Dart Charge, following reports that 15% of users failed to pay during the first month after implementation. If free-flow technology commonly results in high rates of non-compliance from users, the private sector will wish to charge more to accept the risk of collecting its revenue from tolls. The Department must continue to monitor non-payment rates at the Dartford Crossing and identify how compliance on free-flow systems can be raised. Lessons should be made available by the end of 2015 so that plans can be arranged for the scheduled opening of the Mersey Gateway Bridge in the autumn of 2017.
10As free-flow technology is implemented on more river crossings we believe that the Department must...
Recommended (the committee's words)
As free-flow technology is implemented on more river crossings we believe that the Department must aim for total interoperability. Now is the ideal time to act before a mix of different systems become ingrained on the road network. Interoperability means less administration costs and higher compliance for all road users; but the technology would benefit the road haulage industry most of all, helping to maintain the sector’s competitiveness with its European counterparts. The Department should commission research into how best to introduce the technology needed for toll operators to create an interoperable system of payments. That would be an ideal project for the Government’s Digital Service during the next Parliament.
11Each of the case studies that we examined during this inquiry held lessons on how...
Concluded (the committee's words)
Each of the case studies that we examined during this inquiry held lessons on how new river crossings should be designed, operated or financed. Over the next Parliament important decisions will be made on where to locate new river crossings in east London and the Lower Thames. This report makes recommendations that will help to ensure those crossings can transform local areas and the Strategic Road Network for the better. At the same time, we recognise new crossings can have environmental impacts on the areas where they are situated. We have called on the Government to investigate how technology, design or intelligent transport systems can mitigate those impacts. Free-flow technology is one way to increase traffic flows and we welcome its implementation at Dartford; however, the technology will never reach its potential if it is not made interoperable with similar toll systems. We are also concerned that the Government is not being sufficiently mindful of risk. Free- flow technology might have an impact on how river crossings are financed, as they Strategic river crossings 25 increase the risk that some motorists will not pay tolls. The Government is also standing behind risk that we believe should rightly be allocated to the private sector. We have called upon the Government to conduct more work in assessing those risks and to be clearer on how they can be mitigated.

Evidence

Oral evidence sessions 3