No, London is not getting 13 new river crossings

Two of east London's proposed road crossings. Image: TfL.

A rule of thumb when looking at London news – if it sounds too good to be true, it probably isn't.

So when the capital’s news outlets trumpet “plans for 13 new London bridges and tunnels”, it's wise to take it with a pinch of salt. In fact, it’s worth having a whole silo of the stuff on hand.

On Tuesday, Transport for London (TfL) began a new consultation into its plans for new road river crossings at Gallions Reach and Belvedere – one either side of Thamesmead. This builds on work already done on the Silvertown Tunnel, another road crossing between Greenwich and the Royal Docks.

All three are controversial – TfL claims they will clear jams and spark economic regeneration, opponents point at a limited road network south of the river and fear induced traffic and yet more jams. (Full disclosure: I am one of the founders of the No To Silvertown Tunnel campaign.)

How to avoid repeating a row, and make it all sound fresh to weary editors?

When is a plan not really a plan?

To make the crossings issue palatable, TfL also launched a report into potential and actual new crossings called Connecting The Capital.

This report outlined 13 locations where crossings – either rail, road, foot or cycle – could be built, may be built, or are being built.

The plan for the crossings. Click to expand. Image: TfL.

The Evening Standard faithfully reported these as “plans” from the mayor, as did the the BBC's regional desk. They weren’t the only ones who implied these were some kind of grand mayoral masterplan.

It’s nothing of the sort. Many of these schemes have little to do with TfL. Some may not be built at all – or may just be opportunities for commercial operators to provide ferry services.

So, what are the 13 “crossings”?

The uncontroversial crossings

One's definitely coming – the Abbey Wood branch of Crossrail 1 , crossing the river at Woolwich from December 2018.

There’s a walking and cycling crossing that has planning permission: the Diamond Jubilee Bridge at Wandsworth. Small problem: it doesn’t have the funding.

Then there are two that lack both planning permission and full funding: the Nine Elms to Pimlico bridge and the Brunel Bridge between Rotherhithe and Canary Wharf. None of these walking/cycling projects have had much to do with TfL – these are down to developers, councils, and in the case of the Brunel Bridge, infrastructure charity Sustrans.

More controversial crossings

The highly controversial pedestrian-only Garden Bridge – arguably more a tourist attraction than a crossing – has planning permission and is part-funded by TfL.

TfL hopes to submit the contentious Silvertown Tunnel, effectively a third Blackwall Tunnel, for planning permission next year. TfL sees this as a magic bullet for notorious Blackwall Tunnel queues; opponents say it’ll just create new jams instead.

The Belvedere Crossing could be a bridge... Click to expand. Image: TfL.

After that, we get to the Gallions Reach Crossing and Belvedere Crossing – still very much in the early planning phase, as shown by TfL deciding that they could be tunnels rather than the earlier-proposed bridges, and deciding to lob some public transport options into this new consultation. Again, highly controversial, especially as Mayor Boris Johnson scrapped Gallions Reach’s earlier incarnation, the Thames Gateway Bridge, in 2008.

Then there's the Lower Thames Crossing, deferred by the last government and nothing to do with TfL – this is a Highways England project. TfL's material implies this will be a fourth Dartford crossing, not a popular option in the town. But another option is an M2-M25 link much further downriver, which involves going through open countryside. Again, still very much on the drawing board.

To 2030 – and beyond

Then things get even hazier for the tenth crossing. Crossrail 2 is due to cross at Chelsea around 2030, and going through another consultation process.

Then we’re going beyond 2030 – because we're down to the ones TfL really isn’t taking seriously.


Councils and campaigners will be delighted to see a London Overground extension from Barking Riverside to Thamesmead in the river crossings document. This would link two huge residential development areas, and two neighbourhoods with some of the worst public transport in London. But they’ll be less happy to see the brand new Gallions Reach Crossing consultation documents claiming it won't offer good value for money as the line can only manage four trains per hour.

That said, only having four trains per hour isn't stopping TfL steaming ahead with an extension from Barking to a station at Barking Riverside that will have to be demolished if the line ever does cross the river. Some new housing schemes are evidently more valuable to City Hall than others.

The crossings that could just be river bus stops

Then, and only then, we're into almost-uncharted territory. The only genuinely new link suggested is a pedestrian and cycle crossing between Charlton and the Royal Docks – two areas set for huge changes in future decades. But it admits the (fairly costly) link is purely conceptual, at least 15 years off, and suggests it could be a location for a ferry, which seems to be a pitch for business for London’s river bus operator, Thames Clippers, rather than a piece of transport infrastructure.

Finally, one that's definitely not a bridge or tunnel, even though one would be very handy here – a ferry between North Greenwich and the Isle of Dogs. Despite the misleading headlines, there's no mention at all of building anything – this would just be some extra stops on Thames Clippers services. This popped up in the Greenwich Peninsula masterplan earlier this year.

...or the Belvedere Crossing could be a tunnel. Click to expand. Image: TfL.

Neither TfL nor Greenwich Council have taken calls for a fixed pedestrian/cycle link between the two locations seriously. When TfL was planning the Emirates Air Line cable car, it rejected a walking/cycling bridge to Canary Wharf because it wanted to make an income out of a crossing. Greenwich dismissed calls to consider a fixed link in its Greenwich Peninsula masterplan – even though the planning gain on it could have covered the £100m cost of a bridge.

The one that’s missing – the Inner Ring Road tunnel

It's telling that the plan to stick the Inner Ring Road in a tunnel doesn't feature in Connecting The Capital, despite appearing in City Hall’s 2050 transport document issued last year. Maybe it’s too controversial ahead of an election.

So what we have is an ragbag of stuff that's happening, stuff that might happen, and stuff that may never happen. At best, this document’s a set of options for the next mayor to mull over. At worst, it’s just a bit of a PR diversion.

Effectively, the only new proposal here is the walking/cycling link at Charlton that's at least 15 years off. Boris Johnson used to criticise Ken Livingstone for promoting unfunded, uncertain schemes, but everyone's forgotten about that these days.

Should river buses be included?

It also seems misleading to bracket river buses in with fixed river crossings. The great thing about walking or cycling is that it's incredibly cheap. River transport in London isn't.

While it's true that some cities include ferries as part of their usual public transport offering – Hamburg, for example – TfL has been reluctant to cough up to bring them into the zonal system because of the large subsidies and relatively limited benefits. Interestingly, this 2009 report from Policy Exchange calling on TfL to do just that has 2016 mayoral candidate Zac Goldsmith as one of its authors.

But for now, Thames Clippers markets the ferries as a premium service – it has to, it needs to turn a profit – and even the Rotterdam ferries cited in TfL's report charge higher fares.

London needs a river crossings plan – and an honest debate on roads

Save for the odd belligerent who refuses to cross the Thames, there isn’t a Londoner alive who doesn’t want to see more crossing points on the river.


The vexed question is what kind of crossings, and how they should be paid for. Tough decisions need an honest debate. A road crossing that might be the saviour of the haulage industry in Erith could help mess up traffic and pollution miles away. You don’t get that risk with a cycle bridge at Rotherhithe.

Leaving the Inner Ring Road Tunnel out of the list suggests TfL isn’t quite ready for that debate, at least on roads and how they fit into the wider network.

And should anyone – including cyclists and pedestrians – be paying more to cross the river in Woolwich rather than Wandsworth, simply because the river’s wider there?

None of these questions appear in Connecting The Capital. It’s not brought us any closer to a more linked-up London.

But it’s achieved its aim in giving TfL and the mayor boundless good publicity. For developers and campaigners, the real hard work is yet to come.

You can like us on Facebook, if you like.

 
 
 
 

The Adam Smith Institute thinks size doesn’t matter when housing young professionals. It’s wrong

A microhome, of sorts. Image: Wikimedia Commons.

The Adam Smith Institute has just published ‘Size Doesn’t Matter’, a report by Vera Kichanova, which argues that eliminating minimum space requirements for flats would help to solve the London housing crisis. The creation of so-called ‘micro-housing’ would allow those young professionals who value location over size to live inside the most economically-active areas of London, the report argues argues.

But the report’s premises are often mistaken – and its solutions sketchy and questionable.

To its credit, it does currently diagnose the roots of the housing crisis: London’s growing population isn’t matched by a growing housing stock. Kichanova is self-evidently right in stating that “those who manage to find accomodation [sic] in the UK capital have to compromise significantly on their living standards”, and that planning restrictions and the misnamed Green Belt are contributing to this growing crisis.

But the problems start on page 6, when Kichanova states that “the land in central, more densely populated areas, is also used in a highly inefficient way”, justifying this reasoning through an assertion that half of Londoners live in buildings up to two floors high. In doing so, she incorrectly equates high-rise with density: Kichanova, formerly a Libertarian Party councillor in Moscow, an extraordinarily spread-out city with more than its fair share of tall buildings, should know better.

Worse, the original source for this assertion refers to London as a whole: that means it includes the low-rise areas of outer London, rather than just the very centrally located Central Activities Zone (CAZ) – the City, West End, South Bank and so forth – with which the ASI report is concerned. A leisurely bike ride from Knightsbridge to Aldgate would reveal that single or two-storey buildings are almost completely absent from those parts of London that make up the CAZ.

Kichanova also argues that a young professional would find it difficult to rent a flat in the CAZ. This is correct, as the CAZ covers extremely upmarket areas like Mayfair, Westminster, and Kensington Gardens (!), as well as slightly more affordable parts of north London, such as King’s Cross.

Yet the report leaps from that quite uncontroversial assertion to stating that living outside the CAZ means a commute of an hour or more per day. This is a strawman: it’s perfectly possible to keep your commuting time down, even living far outside of the CAZ. I live in Archway and cycle to Bloomsbury in about twenty minutes; if you lived within walking distance of Seven Sisters and worked in Victoria, you would spend much less than an hour a day on the Tube.

Kichanova supports her case by apparently misstating research by some Swiss economists, according to whom a person with an hour commute to work has to earn 40 per cent more money to be as satisfied as someone who walks. An hour commute to work means two hours travelling per day – by any measure a different ballpark, which as a London commuter would mean living virtually out in the Home Counties.

Having misidentified the issue, the ASI’s solution is to allow the construction of so-called micro-homes, which in the UK refers to homes with less than the nationally-mandated minimum 37m2 of floor space. Anticipating criticism, the report disparages “emotionally charged epithets like ‘rabbit holes’ and ‘shoeboxes,” in the very same paragraph which describes commuting as “spending two hours a day in a packed train with barely enough air to breath”.


The report suggests browsing Dezeen’s examples of designer micro-flats in order to rid oneself of the preconception that tiny flats need mean horrible rabbit hutches. It uses weasel words – “it largely depends on design whether a flat looks like a decent place to live in” – to escape the obvious criticism that, nice-looking or not, tiny flats are few people’s ideal of decent living. An essay in the New York Times by a dweller of a micro-flat describes the tyranny of the humble laundry basket, which looms much larger than life because of its relative enormity in the author’s tiny flat; the smell of onion which lingers for weeks after cooking a single dish.

Labour London Assembly member Tom Copley has described being “appalled” after viewing a much-publicised scheme by development company U+I. In Hong Kong, already accustomed to some of the smallest micro-flats in the world, living spaces are shrinking further, leading Alice Wu to plead in an opinion column last year for the Hong Kong government to “regulate flat sizes for the sake of our mental health”.

Amusingly, the Dezeen page the ASI report urges a look at includes several examples directly contradicting its own argument. One micro-flat is 35 m2, barely under minimum space standards as they stand; another is named the Shoe Box, a title described by Dezeen as “apt”. So much for eliminating emotionally-charged epithets.

The ASI report readily admits that micro-housing is suitable only for a narrow segment of Londoners; it states that micro-housing will not become a mass phenomenon. But quite how the knock-on effects of a change in planning rules allowing for smaller flats will be managed, the report never makes clear. It is perfectly foreseeable that, rather than a niche phenomenon confined to Zone 1, these glorified student halls would become common for early-career professionals, as they have in Hong Kong, even well outside the CAZ.

There will always be a market for cheap flats, and many underpaid professionals would leap at the chance to save money on their rent, even if that doesn’t actually mean living more centrally. The reasoning implicit to the report is that young professionals would be willing to pay similar rents to normal-sized flats in Zones 2-4 in order to live in a smaller flat in Zone 1.

But the danger is that developers’ response is simply to build smaller flats outside Zone 1, with rent levels which are lower per flat but higher per square metre than under existing rules. As any private renter in London knows, it’s hardly uncommon for landlords to bend the rules in order to squeeze as much profit as possible out of their renters.

The ASI should be commended for correctly diagnosing the issues facing young professionals in London, even if the solution of living in a room not much bigger than a bed is no solution. A race to the bottom is not a desirable outcome. But to its credit, I did learn something from the report: I never knew the S in ASI stood for “Slum”.