Rotherhithe to Canary Wharf crossing · Dogs; To improve connectivity from the Rotherhithe peninsula, particularly the ... proposals for a new river crossing between Rotherhithe and

Rotherhithe to Canary Wharf crossing

Consultation Report March 2018

2

Contents

1. About the proposals ............................................................................................ 5

2. About the consultation ...................................................................................... 10

3. About the respondents ...................................................................................... 16

4. Summary of all consultation responses ............................................................ 25

5. Next steps ......................................................................................................... 74

Appendix A: Detailed analysis of comments ............................................................. 75

Appendix B: Questions that we asked about our proposals .................................... 112

Appendix C: Consultation Postcard ......................................................................... 119

Appendix D Copy of Factsheets .............................................................................. 121

Appendix E Stakeholder List ................................................................................... 137

Appendix F Press and online advertising ................................................................ 141

Appendix G Campaigns and Petitions ..................................................................... 146

3

Executive summary

This document explains the processes, responses and outcomes of the consultation

on the Rotherhithe to Canary Wharf crossing proposal.

Between 8 November 2017 and 8 January 2018, we consulted on proposals for a

new River Thames crossing between Rotherhithe and Canary Wharf for pedestrians

and cyclists.

We received 6,094 responses to the public consultation, of which 93 per cent

strongly supported or supported our proposal for a new crossing between

Rotherhithe and Canary Wharf. Our preferred option of a navigable bridge was

supported by 85 per cent. The Northern Alignment had the strongest support with 79

per cent for this location for the bridge, with many stating this was due to the

convenience and anticipated demand being greater at this location. 55 per cent of

respondents supported the Central alignment and 29 per cent the Southern

alignment.

We also received 47 responses from stakeholders. Summaries of stakeholder

responses are summarised in Section 4.8.

Summary of issues raised during consultation

The main themes are highlighted below, with detailed analysis in Section 4.

Many people who responded to the consultation stated that the crossing would

benefit cyclists and pedestrians, was long overdue and would improve convenience

and connectivity for those living, working or travelling to the area. It was mentioned

that the crossing would alleviate congestion on existing routes, and have a positive

environmental impact, as it would provide a greener travel option.

Whilst the majority of respondents supported a bridge, some questioned whether the

bridge was the best option, asking whether a ferry or tunnel would better serve the

needs of those living, working or travelling through the area. Some were of the

opinion that a crossing was not needed in this location, while others mentioned the

needs of car users, suggesting that a new river crossing should accommodate

vehicles in order to relieve road congestion. While many were excited about the

prospect of an iconic bridge, some also raised concern over whether the bridge

would have a negative visual impact. Others were concerned over the cost of the

bridge.

There was a spread of support for both the high and low bridge, and many people

cited no preference. However, the higher bridge was slightly preferred, in recognition

that the bridge must accommodate the needs of a range of users. Many recognised

that a higher bridge needs longer ramps, or more stairs, making accessing it less

4

convenient for pedestrians and cyclists, but that a lower bridge would result in more

openings, which would cause more frequent disruptions for all. On balance, people

stated that a lower bridge would be more aesthetically pleasing.

For cyclists, the ramp was preferred as a means of access and many respondents

mentioned the need to segregate cyclists and pedestrians on the bridge.

Next steps

We are now reviewing comments made during the consultation. We will publish our

response to issues raised document during the summer.

We will also update as to any changes to the proposals when we publish our

response to issues raised.

5

1. About the proposals

1.1 Introduction

We are investigating the feasibility of providing a new walking and cycling crossing of

the River Thames between Rotherhithe and Canary Wharf. This project is one of a

number of potential new river crossings for London which are intended to improve

cross-river connectivity. These proposed crossings would consist of new public

transport, vehicle, pedestrian and cycle links.

It is forecast that there will be growth in cycling across London, employment growth

in Canary Wharf and population growth, particularly in the Canada Water area due to

new residential and mixed use development. This will generate an increase in

journeys including a greater demand for walking and cycling facilities in the area.

At present there is a lack of infrastructure to accommodate cyclists and pedestrians

wishing to cross the River Thames east of Tower Bridge to access Canary Wharf.

The Jubilee line is also currently operating close to capacity during peak times. A

new river crossing would contribute towards accommodating the growth in Canada

Water and Canary Wharf.

Both Canary Wharf and Canada Water have been identified as Opportunity Areas in

the London Plan which between them are expected to accommodate over 36,000

new homes and 112,000 new jobs. Given the scale and proposed growth in these

two Opportunity Areas, a preferred crossing corridor was identified between

Rotherhithe to Canary Wharf and our recommendation was for a ‘navigable Bridge’

for pedestrian and cyclists. Other options were investigated including a tunnel, cable

car and an enhanced ferry.

The key objectives of the Rotherhithe to Canary Wharf river crossing are:

To connect the two Opportunity Areas of Canada Water and the Isle of

Dogs;

To improve connectivity from the Rotherhithe peninsula, particularly the

area beyond the walking catchment of Canada Water station;

To encourage more people to walk and cycle in the area;

To provide additional capacity and routes for cyclists as an alternative

option to existing crossings in the area;

To produce a well designed and convenient link which achieves value for

money and is fundable; and

6

To provide an alternative link to the Jubilee line between Canada Water

and Canary Wharf.

A new crossing between Rotherhithe to Canary Wharf has been promoted by a wide

number of stakeholders for over a decade and the Mayor included a commitment to

the crossing in his manifesto.

Following the Mayor’s appointment, TfL commenced work to consider the feasibility

and value of different crossing options. The crossing features in ‘A City for All

Londoners’, ‘Healthy Streets for London’ and both the draft and final ‘Mayor’s

Transport Strategy’ and the draft London Plan.

1.2 Purpose

We wanted to establish public and stakeholder views on proposals for a new

crossing over the River Thames for pedestrians and cyclists from Rotherhithe to

Canary Wharf.

We have been working closely with the London Boroughs of Tower Hamlets and

Southwark to explore options for a new crossing between Rotherhithe and Canary

Wharf.

Following our Options Assessment we consulted on the recommended option of a

navigable bridge.

We asked consultees for their views on:

1. Whether they support the proposed river crossing from Rotherhithe to

Canary Wharf

2. Our preferred option of a bridge

3. Possible alignments and landing points

4. The height of the bridge

This consultation report summarises the findings of a public consultation on

proposals for a new river crossing between Rotherhithe and Canary Wharf for

pedestrians and cyclists.

1.3 Detailed description of potential bridge options

While our recommendation is a navigable bridge, it is important to note that no final

decisions have yet been made and we wanted views on this to help finalise this

decision.

7

A navigable bridge is a complex and unique proposal. We have therefore begun

investigating this option in greater detail to better understand a number of factors,

such as the location, design, land requirements, cost and the need for it to open for

larger vessels. To assist this investigation, we sought views on different aspects of a

navigable bridge as part of this consultation, including the location, height and other

considerations.

We consulted on our three preferred bridge location options which are:

Option 1: Northern Alignment

A bridge along the Northern Alignment could land in a new public space around the

Hilton Hotel in Nelson Dock on the south side of the river and connect directly with

Westferry Circus and the Thames Path on the north side.

Pros:

• The Nelson Dock landing site may allow for a more direct route through Pearson’s

Park to Salter Road and the National Cycle Network

• The higher ground level at Westferry Circus allows for potentially shorter ramped

access to a bridge

• Westferry Circus provides a suitable area for a bridge landing with adjacent

commercial activity and good access to the wider transport network

Cons:

• Impacts on private commercial land including the Hilton Doubletree Docklands

hotel

• Adjacent to heritage buildings around Nelson Dock

8

• May require reconfiguration works to the highway at Westferry Circus

Option 2: Central Alignment

A bridge along the Central Alignment would land in Durand’s Wharf Park on the

south side of the river and connect with Westferry Road and the Thames Path

around the existing West India Impound Lock site on the north side of the river.

Pros:

• Space for ramps could be available in Durand’s Wharf Park

• The area above the Impound Lock is not currently used (aside from maintaining the

lock) or proposed for development

Cons:

• This alignment gives the longest movable span and therefore would have the

longest duration for bridge openings

• Close proximity to residential buildings

• Changes to the use of public space at Durand’s Wharf

Option 3: Southern Alignment

A bridge along the Southern Alignment would land in Durand’s Wharf Park on the

south side of the river and in West India Dock Pier on the north side of the river.

Pros:

• Bridge perpendicular to the straightest part of the river reducing construction costs,

risks and opening times

Cons:

• Close proximity to residential buildings

• There is no adequate space for a ramp, so West India Dock Pier would require

additional lift capacity which could impact on adjacent properties

• Vehicle access to adjacent properties and the junction of Cuba Street with

Westferry Road pose a challenge to integrating cyclists/ pedestrians with the existing

road network

• Changes to the use of public space at Durand’s Wharf

• The furthest away from the centre of the commercial activity at Canary Wharf

9

Height

We have been working with the Port of London Authority to investigate different

options for the height and span of the bridge over the river. This heavily influences

how the bridge opens for larger vessels on the river; the frequency and duration of

openings; the visual impact of the bridge; and how easy it is to access for users. We

sought views on the optimum height of a bridge option.

Higher bridge

A higher bridge would open less often for river traffic reducing disruption for both

bridge users and boats, but would be more difficult to access, with taller ramps, lifts

or stairs adding additional time to journeys. A higher bridge could also potentially

have a greater visual impact.

Lower bridge

A lower bridge could be more accessible, have a lesser visual impact, and require

less land either side of the river. However, it would need to open more frequently to

allow vessels to pass causing more regular disruption to journeys.

There were also other bridge options presented on factsheets online and at the

public events that took place. A copy of these factsheets can be found in Appendix

D.

We provided a detailed report online summarising how the project arrived at bridge

option that was consulted on. The report also contained the project objectives and

the transport context for the area. This report can be found by following this link.

https://consultations.tfl.gov.uk/++preview++/rivercrossings/rotherhithe-

canarywharf/user_uploads/r2cw---background-to-consultation-report.pdf

The report is also available in pdf form online.

https://consultations.tfl.gov.uk/++preview++/rivercrossings/rotherhithe-canarywharf/user_uploads/r2cw---background-to-consultation-report.pdf

https://consultations.tfl.gov.uk/++preview++/rivercrossings/rotherhithe-canarywharf/user_uploads/r2cw---background-to-consultation-report.pdf

10

2. About the consultation

2.1 Purpose

The objectives of the consultation were:

To give stakeholders and the public easy to understand information about the proposals and allow them to respond

To understand the level of support or opposition for the proposals

To understand any issues that might affect the proposal of which we were not previously aware

To understand concerns and objections

To allow respondents to make suggestions

2.2 Potential outcomes

The potential outcomes of the consultation are:

Following careful consideration of the consultation responses, we decide to proceed with the scheme as set out in the consultation

Following careful consideration of the consultation responses, we modify the proposals in response to issues raised and proceed with a revised scheme

Following careful consideration of the consultation responses, we decide not to proceed with the scheme

Our conclusion and next steps are set out in Chapter 5.

2.3 Consultation history

This is the first public consultation that has taken place for this project. However,

Pre-consultation engagement, in the form of stakeholder meetings and community

workshops informed the consultation content and approach.

11

2.4 Who we consulted

We consulted the local communities on both sides of the river. This included

residents, neighbourhood groups, land owners and businesses.

We also consulted the wider areas of London on both sides of the river, with the

objective being to give people travelling through the area now and or in the future an

opportunity to view our proposals. We produced a post card which was distributed to

over 147,000 properties. A map of the area we distributed the post card to can be

found in Appendix C

A copy of the post card can also be found in Appendix C.

We also consulted local and London wide stakeholders seeking their views on the

proposals. A full list of the stakeholders we consulted can be found in Appendix E.

2.5 Dates and duration

The consultation was open between 8 November 2017 and 8 January 2018.

2.6 What we asked

Our consultation sought views on the following:

The overall need for a new river crossing

Support or opposition our preferred option of a navigable bridge

Potential locations and alignments for the bridge. Consultees could provide

their views on each of the options

Possible height of the bridge. An image of what the lower and higher bridge

may look like was provided

What was important to them about design aspects of the bridge by providing a

tick box section with various options that could be selected

How people would use the bridge and what was their preference when

accessing the bridge, taking in to consideration ramps and lift options

Views on the standard of the consultation material

We then provided a free text box where consultees could provide feedback on the

proposals.

There were then questions about the consultee, equality monitoring questions, name

and email address information. We also asked for the post code so we could analyse

the results by consultees location.

A full list of the questions we asked can be found in Appendix B.

12

2.7 Methods of responding

We invited consultees to respond via our consultation tool using our online

questionnaire. Respondents could also email replies to [email protected]

[email protected]. People could also write to us at Freepost TfL

consultations. There was also a telephone number set up for people to be able to

call our customer services department and give their views.

2.8 Consultation materials and publicity We used a variety of different methods to seek as many views as possible from

people who may have a view on our proposals or who may be impacted by them.

2.8.1 Website

Our proposals were online at tfl.gov.uk/R2CW-crossing.

2.8.2 Posted material

We publicised the consultation website and proposals by distributing over 147,000

post cards. A copy of the post card can be found in Appendix C and a map of our

consultation distribution area can also be found in Appendix C.

2.8.3 Emails to public

We sent an email to over 350,000 people who have registered with TfL using either

modal or geographical informaiton. A copy of this email can be found in Appendix H.

2.8.4 Emails to stakeholders

We sent an email to all stakeholders from the TfL consultation email address. A

copy of all the stakeholders who the email was sent to can be found in Appendix E

and a copy of the email can be found in Appendix H.

2.8.5 Press and media activity

The proposals and consultation were advertised on the Metro TfL page. A copy of

the press ad used can be found in Appendix F.

There was a press release on the day the consultation launched, a copy of the press

release can be found in Appendix F.

mailto:[email protected]


13

2.8.6 Public meetings, events and exhibitions

We held five public events for the consultation. Near the event venues, people were

handing out the post cards to raise the profile of the consultation and the proposals.

The event details are below.

Saturday 18 November 2017 1230-1630 held at Canada Water Library,

Second floor, Room 5, 21 Surrey Quays Road, London, SE16 7A.

Approximate number of attendees was 91

Thursday 23 November 2017 1100-1900 held at Canada Water Library,

Second floor, Room 5, 21 Surrey Quays Road, London, SE16 7A.

Approximate number of attendees was 65

Thursday 23 November 2017 0800-1000 staff were at Canada Water

Underground station, Jubilee line ticket hall, Deal Porter Way, Surrey Quays,

SE16. Approximately 1000 postcards were handed out with some people

stopping to ask questions. Due to the venue numbers were not able to be

recorded here

Saturday 25 November 2017 1100-1500 held at Alpha Grove Community

Centre, Alpha Grove, Isle of Dogs, London E14 8LH Approximate number of

attendees was 30

Thursday 30 November 2017 08:00-19:00 staff were at Canary Wharf

underground station, Jubilee line ticket hall, Canary Wharf, London E14 5NY.

Approximately 3000 leaflets were distributed. People were stopping to talk to

staff however numbers were not able to be recorded

2.8.7 Campaigns

There was a campaign by London Cycling Campaign (LCC) which provided a

template for respondents to complete and submit using the email address. We

received 100 emails from this campaign.

The LCC campaign strongly supports the proposals for a river crossing. They also

supported a navigable bridge option. The emails also supported the northern

alignment for the bridge.

A copy of the email text can be found in Appendix G.

The Bridge Action Group had a social media campaign on a Facebook Page

“NoRotherhitheBridge” The same group also had a Twitter campaign @bridge_no.

The Bridge Action Group also had a petition on Change.org platform, Thames River

Protection Group Against The Rotherhithe Bridge, this petition is summarised in

section 2.8.8.

The campaign highlighted the consultation and promoted people to take part in the

exercise.

14

2.8.8 Petitions

There were three petitions available for people to sign during this consultation. One

supports the proposals, one is opposed and one proposes a different crossing

alternative. None of the petitions were formally submitted to Transport for London or

the Greater London Authority at the time of producing this report.

All three petitions used Change.org as the platform. The three petitions are

summarised below:

Thames River Protection Group Against The Rotherhithe Bridge’s petition had 519

online signatures. A copy of the petitioning statement can be found in Appendix G.

https://www.change.org/p/london-authorities-canary-wharf-riverside-natural-

landscape-protection-against-the-rotherhithe-

bridge?recruiter=622450511&utm_source=share_for_starters&utm_medium=copyLi

nk

The Canary Wharf River Protection Group’s petition suggest an eco friendly ferry

crossing alternative to the bridge option. The petition had 201 online signatures

https://www.change.org/p/the-london-mayor-and-london-local-authorities-for-an-eco-

ferry-boat-crossing-for-pedestrians-cyclists-between-rotherhithe-canary-wharf

David Mansfield’s petition supports the bridge proposals. The petition had 534 online

signatures.

https://www.change.org/p/sadiq-khan-yes-to-a-rotherhithe-bridge

2.9 Analysis of consultation responses

Due to the amount of open questions asked in this consultation and the predicted

number of responses, analysis of the consultation responses was supported by 2CV

research.

All closed questions were reviewed and the results tabulated and reported.

All open questions, where respondents provided comments were read and analysed

in detail. Each individual comment was attributed to one or more codes according to

the issues raised.

A code frame was developed for each of the open questions, consisting of a series

of themes, which contained detailed comments (or “codes”) capturing the sentiment

of each respondent who left an open text response. During the coding process, each

open text response was analysed and either a new code was created or the

response was added to one or more of the existing codes within the code frame. As

an iterative process, some codes were merged as similar themes emerged. This

https://www.change.org/p/london-authorities-canary-wharf-riverside-natural-landscape-protection-against-the-rotherhithe-bridge?recruiter=622450511&utm_source=share_for_starters&utm_medium=copyLink




https://www.change.org/p/the-london-mayor-and-london-local-authorities-for-an-eco-ferry-boat-crossing-for-pedestrians-cyclists-between-rotherhithe-canary-wharf

https://www.change.org/p/the-london-mayor-and-london-local-authorities-for-an-eco-ferry-boat-crossing-for-pedestrians-cyclists-between-rotherhithe-canary-wharf

https://www.change.org/p/sadiq-khan-yes-to-a-rotherhithe-bridge

http://www.2cv.com/

http://www.2cv.com/

15

process created a quantitative value for each code and theme which were used to

rank themes.

Initially, the first 300 comments for each open question were coded to develop initial

code frames based on emerging comments and themes. These were agreed

between 2CV and TfL before all remaining open responses received were coded. To

ensure consistency of coding, checks were made on the coding by 2CV’sProject

Director.

In Chapter 4, responses to open questions are summarised and analysed. To

summarise the results, themes into which responses have been categorised are

displayed, along with any responses made by at least 3 per cent of respondents. A

brief analysis of responses is provided above the table summarising the results of

each open question. Full breakdowns of the results for each open question are

provided in Appendix A.

All results are reported in Chapter 3, Chapter 4, and Appendix A of this report.

16

3. About the respondents

This chapter provides more information on respondents to this consultation, based

on the information they provided in the online questionnaire. For a full list of

consultation questions, see Appendix B.

3.1 Number of respondents

A total of 6,140 respondents responded to the consultation, including 47

stakeholders.

Stakeholder responses are those submitted by individuals who indicate that they are

responding on behalf of a political or other organisation, business or campaign

group. Of the 47 stakeholder responses, 23 responded via the public consultation

online questionnaire and 24 by letter or email.

Stakeholder responses are excluded from the public consultation responses in

Sections 4.1 to 4.7. Summaries of stakeholder responses can be found in Section

4.8.

Respondents Total %

Public responses 6,094 99%

Stakeholder responses 47 1%

Total 6,141 100%

Table 1 Type of respondent.

17

3.2 How respondents heard about the consultation

We asked respondents to tell us how they heard about the consultation. A total of

5,801 out of 6,094 public respondents answered this question.

Table 2 How respondent heard about consultation.

How respondents heard Total %

Received an email from TfL 2,984 51%

Social media 1,110 19%

Received an letter from TfL 453 8%

Read about in the press 442 8%

Saw it on the TfL website 187 3%

From a friend/ neighbour/ acquaintance 181 3%

Through work 112 2%

Received a leaflet from TfL 68 1%

Through cycle groups 54 1%

Word of mouth 33 1%

From family 29 1%

Through a residents’ association 29 1%

By email (unspecified) 22 <1%

Email from London Cycling Campaign 18 <1%

Sustrans 15 <1%

Google 13 <1%

Local councillor 11 <1%

Londonist 7 <1%

Marina Office 6 <1%

Internet (unspecified) 5 <1%

Many sources 5 <1%

Other 47 1%

Total 5,801 100%

18

3.3 Postcodes of respondents

Of the 6,094 public responses submitted to the consultation, 4,946 (81 per cent of

respondents) submitted their postcode. Table 3 lists all postcodes provided by 30 or

more respondents, with percentages given as a proportion of those who answered

the question.

Postcode Total %

SE16 1,411 29%

E14 842 17%

SE8 304 6%

SE1 212 4%

SE10 169 3%

E3 142 3%

SE15 137 3%

E1 114 2%

E1W 110 2%

SE14 95 2%

E16 60 1%

SE13 52 1%

SE5 47 1%

SE22 44 1%

SE4 43 1%

SE17 37 1%

SE3 37 1%

SE18 34 1%

SE23 33 1%

SE11 30 1%

Table 3 Postcodes.

3.4 Distribution of respondents across Greater London

The majority of respondents were from London (4,789, 97 per cent of those who provided a postcode). The map below shows the

distribution of respondents within the Greater London area.

20

The proposed scheme location is between Southwark and Tower Hamlets boroughs. Of the respondents to the consultation who

supplied their postcode, 37 per cent (1,845) were in Southwark and 25 per cent (1,228) in Tower Hamlets.

For maps showing levels of support for the overall scheme by area, go to Section 4.

3.5 Age range of respondents

5,746 out of 6,094 respondents answered the question asking for their age range.

Table 4 shows the breakdown of these age ranges, including those who did not

complete the question or indicated that they did not wish to specify their age range.

Age range Total %

15 or under 8 <1%

16-20 42 1%

21-25 386 6%

26-30 969 16%

31-35 1,092 18%

36-40 890 15%

41-45 620 10%

46-50 421 7%

51-55 362 6%

56-60 264 4%

61-65 163 3%

66-70 87 1%

71+ 72 1%

Prefer not to say 370 6%

Not answered 348 6%

Total 6,094 100%

Table 4 Age of respondent.

22

3.6 Relationship between respondent and scheme area

We asked respondents to describe their relationship to the scheme area using the

categories below. 5,955 out of 6,094 respondents answered the question. Table 5

shows the breakdown of these, including those who did not complete the question.

Total %

A local resident 4,208 69%

A commuter to the area 1,386 23%

Employed locally 1,295 21%

A visitor to the area 804 13%

Not local but interested in the scheme 524 9%

A local business owner 132 2%

Former resident 54 1%

Cyclist 25 <1%

Property owner / landlord 21 <1%

Future / prospective resident 14 <1%

Nearby resident 14 <1%

Walker 8 <1%

River user 4 <1%

Group representative/ leader 2 <1%

Other 17 <1%

Not answered 139 2%

Total 6,094 100%

Table 5 Relationship between respondent and scheme area.

23

3.7 How respondents would use the bridge

We asked respondents how they would use the bridge. This was answered by 5,939

out of 6,094 respondents. Table 6 shows the breakdown of these, including those

who did not complete the question.

Total %

Walk 1,775 29%

Cycle 810 13%

Both walk and cycle 2,935 48%

Neither 324 5%

Not sure 95 2%

Not Answered 155 3%

Total 6,094 100%

Table 6 How respondents would use the bridge.

3.8 Reasons for using the bridge

We asked respondents how they would use the bridge. This was answered by 5,811

out of 6,094 respondents. Table 7 shows the breakdown of these, including those

who did not complete the question.

24

Total %

For leisure 3,389 56%

To get to and from work 2,275 37%

Not sure 305 5%

No reason / would not use it 122 2%

For shopping / restaurants / commercial centres 50 1%

To get around / access / to cross the river 47 1%

To visit friends/family 24 <1%

For cycling 19 <1%

For transport links / access to additional transport links 17 <1%

To exercise (walk, run) 13 <1%

Visiting / travel 6 <1%

As an alternative to current transportation methods 4 <1%

Other 38 1%

Not answered 283 5%

Total 6,094 100%

Table 7 Reasons for using the bridge.

25

4. Summary of all consultation responses

To gain feedback on the scheme, we asked respondents six closed questions,

allowing them to express their opinion on:

Level of support for a river crossing between Rotherhithe and Canary Wharf

for pedestrians and cyclists

Level of support for our preferred option; navigable bridge

Location preference

Bridge height preference

Importance of design aspects

Bridge deck access preference (for cyclists only)

We also asked six open questions allowing them to expand on their reasons for the

above preferences.

Stakeholder responses are excluded from the results in this chapter, and

percentages are calculated from the number of respondents for each question. No

questions were mandatory.

Table 8 shows level of support across the key closed questions: Respondents were

able to select more than one option for some questions meaning there is more than

100 per cent for some totals.

26

NET:

SUPPORT

Strongly

support Support

Neither

support nor

oppose

Oppose Strongly

oppose

NET:

OPPOSE

No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % No. %

Q1 New

crossing (5,977

answered)

5,532 93% 5,095 85% 437 7% 74 1% 75 1% 296 5% 371 6%

Q2 Navigable

bridge (5,971

answered)

5,082 85% 3,843 64% 1,239 21% 378 6% 148 3% 363 6% 511 9%

Q3a Northern

Alignment

(5,557

answered)

4,360 79% 3,321 60% 1,039 19% 815 15% 168 3% 214 4% 382 7%

Q3b Central

Alignment

(4,829

answered)

2,672 55% 677 14% 1,995 41% 1,260 26% 635 13% 262 5% 897 19%

Q3c Southern

Alignment

(4,491

answered)

1,322 29% 573 13% 749 17% 1,807 40% 897 20% 465 10% 1,362 30%

Table 8 Level of support across the key closed questions.

27

4.1 Summary of responses to Question 1: Overarching Question

The overarching question gave respondents the opportunity to express their overall

level of support for the idea of a new river crossing between Rotherhithe and Canary

Wharf. This was answered by 5,977 of the 6,094 respondents.

Do you support a new river crossing between Rotherhithe and Canary Wharf

for pedestrians and cyclists?

The closed question allowed respondents to give one of the following responses:

‘Strongly support’, ‘Support’, ‘Neither support nor oppose’, ‘Oppose’, ‘Strongly

oppose’.

4.1.1 Overall support

Overall, there was strong support for a new crossing, with 93 per cent supporting,

one per cent neither supporting nor opposing and six per cent opposing. Strong

support was high, with 85 per cent strongly supporting the proposal for a new

crossing.

Of the 6,094 people who responded to this consultation, 4,246 (70 per cent) provided

a comment in the open text box about why they support or oppose a new river

28

crossing between Rotherhithe and Canary Wharf. Of these, 3,858 comments were

from those in support of the new river crossing (Section 4.1.3) and 336 from those in

opposition (Section 4.1.4). A detailed analysis of comments is available in Appendix

A.

4.1.2 Map of levels of support for proposed river crossing across Greater London

The map below shows distribution of support and opposition for the new river crossing across Greater London.

30

4.1.2 Map of levels of support for proposed river crossing near crossing location

The map below shows distribution of support and opposition for the new river crossing among those living in the area around

Canary Wharf and Rotherhithe.

4.1.3 Comments by those in support of the scheme

Among those who are in support of a river crossing, there were a number of benefits

cited. Many were of the opinion that the scheme would benefit both cyclists and

pedestrians, decreasing reliance on public transport or vehicles. A number of people

mentioned that the proposed crossing would improve convenience, access and save

time for those who live, work or travel to the area. Many said that it was long overdue

and that there are not currently enough crossings in the area.

In conjunction with this, many said that the scheme would alleviate congestion on

existing routes, especially on the Underground, with the Jubilee line benefitting in

particular.

Supporters also mentioned that the scheme would have a positive impact on the

environment, as it would provide a greener travel option. Having a cheaper or free

alternative to public transport was also appreciated.

Comment Total %

NET: POSITIVE 3,835 99%

Net: Type Of User 2,116 55%

Better for cyclists 900 23%

No reliance on public transport/vehicles 699 18%

Better for pedestrians 561 15%

Encourages cycling 521 14%

Encourages walking 487 13%

Encourages being healthy/fit/active 248 6%

Other type of user mentions 23 1%

Net: Convenience 1,660 43%

Good for people who live/work/travel to the area 821 21%

No waiting/more direct/saves time/would be quicker 655 17%

Ease of access/travel/easier/more convenient 622 16%

Other ease/convenience mentions 12 0%

Net: Overall acceptance 1,466 38%

Agree with it/strongly in favour/it is much needed/long overdue 802 21%

No/not enough crossings/bridges (in the area) 754 20%

A bridge is preferred/is better than others (tunnel, ferry) 64 2%

Other overall acceptance mentions 23 1%

Net: User experience 1,201 31%

Eases/alleviates traffic/congestion on the London Underground line (Jubilee line, Tube)

677 18%

Eases/alleviates traffic/congestion (unspecified type/location) 188 5%

Eases/alleviates traffic/congestion at Canada Water station 152 4%

Eases/alleviates traffic/congestion in Rotherhithe tunnel 148 4%

32

Eases/alleviates traffic/congestion in the Greenwich Foot Tunnel 90 2%

Eases/alleviates traffic/congestion on area bridges (Tower, London Bridge, other bridges)

60 2%

Eases/alleviates traffic/congestion on the Overground/DLR (Docklands Light Railway)

28 1%

Eases/alleviates traffic/congestion on roadways 26 1%

Eases/alleviates traffic/congestion in the Blackwall Tunnel 14 0%

Other user experience mentions 82 2%

Net: Access 1,114 29%

Better connectivity/improves access (all mentions) 937 24%

Improves access to commercial outlets (restaurants, shops) 167 4%

Other means of transport/access are often limited/closed/out of order

34 1%

Other access mentions 80 2%

Net: Environment 498 13%

Better for the environment/greener/cleaner/less cars on the road (all mentions)

280 7%

Rotherhithe tunnel is polluted/fumey/not nice 205 5%

Less pollution for cyclists / more fresh air 20 1%

Other environment mentions 17 0%

Net: Infrastructure 333 9%

Would improve the area/boost economy/development 286 7%

Net: Financial 297 8%

Value for money/cheaper/free method of travel 282 7%

Other financial mentions 19 1%

Net: Safety/security 326 8%

Safer option/less dangerous for cyclists 231 6%

Safer option/less dangerous for pedestrians 79 2%

Safer option/less dangerous 74 2%

Less crime/anti-social behaviour (not safe alone, at night, for women)

7 0%

Table 9 Positive comments by those in support of the scheme.

33

4.1.4 Issues raised by those in opposition to the scheme

Among those in opposition to the scheme, for many the bridge was not seen to be

the best option and many mentioned that alternative options (such as a ferry service

or a tunnel) would be preferable. Others opinion was that existing routes were

sufficient and an additional crossing is not needed.

Another concern raised was the overall project cost, and that the money could be

better spent elsewhere. This included comments that it is not cost effective in

comparison to the cost of a ferry, not value for money if it does not include cars and

that the money would be better spent on road improvements or improvements to the

Overground or Jubilee line.

There was also a concern that the scheme will increase congestion, in general and

particularly for cyclists, without sufficiently alleviating current traffic or congestion

issues. Some of those in opposition to the scheme mentioned that they would prefer

an option that accommodates vehicles.

A number of those in opposition to the scheme were concerned about the negative

visual impact that the bridge could have.

Finally, a number of general negative comments came through, coded in ‘Other’.

These range from concerns of a negative impact on residents while the bridge is

being built and once in operation, a concern over increased pollution in the area, and

comments around cyclists needing further regulation and posing a hazard to

pedestrians.

Issue Total %

NET: NEGATIVE 334 99%

Net: Overall Rejection 180 54%

Prefer other method of crossing (ferry/tunnel/existing routes/ existing ferry service)

101 30%

A crossing here is not needed/important/a bad idea/do not support project

79 24%

Other overall rejection mentions 33 10%


Too expensive/waste of money/money could be better spent 145 43%


Net: User experience 84 25%

Will add to the congestion/increase congestion 19 6%

Will add to cyclist congestion 15 5%

Not sufficiently alleviate current traffic/congestion concerns 13 4%

Will add to/create river traffic congestion 8 2%

Will add to the congestion in residential areas 7 2%

Will add to vehicle congestion 6 2%

Will create parking issues/lack of parking 2 1%

34


Net: Specific alternative suggestions 66 20%

Prefer an option that accommodates cars/buses 33 10%

Other specific alternative locations mentions 34 10%

Net: Aesthetics 52 16%

Would have a negative impact on aesthetics/prefer to see the open stretch of water/like current atmosphere

52 16%

Net: Other 99 30%

Other miscellaneous negative mentions 99 30%

Table 10 Negative comments by those in support of the scheme.

4.2 Summary of Question 2: Options Assessment

Respondents also expressed their level of support for the preferred option of a

navigable bridge between Rotherhithe and Canary Wharf. This was answered by

5,971 respondents.

Do you support our preferred option of a navigable bridge?

The question explained that a navigable bridge ‘allows the movement of vessels on

the river to continue. It may be high level allowing vessels beneath or with an

opening mechanism to allow them through.’



oppose’.

4.2.1 Level of support

Although lower than overall support for a new crossing, support for the preferred

option of a navigable bridge was still high at 85 per cent. Strong support was high,

with 64 per cent strongly supporting the proposal for a bridge.

36

Of the 6,094 people who responded to the consultation, 2,033 (33 per cent) provided

a comment in the open text box about why they support or oppose the preferred

option of a navigable bridge. Of these, 1,548 comments were from those in support

of the bridge (Section 4.2.2) and 336 from those in opposition (Section 4.2.3). A

detailed analysis of comments is available in Appendix A.

4.2.2 Comments by those in support of a navigable bridge

For those in support of the navigable bridge, there were a number of comments

around convenience. It was stated that the bridge should not cause delays and

disruption across all different types of users, and this type of bridge would help

minimise this issue.

Many considered the bridge to be the most practical option and to provide a quicker

and more direct route than the current options. It was seen to be easier and more

convenient to use than the other potential options of a ferry or tunnel.

Supporters also mentioned that the bridge would be particularly good for cyclists and

pedestrians and would be good value for money overall.

Where people had other specific mentions around bridge height and access, there

were a number of suggestions made. These ranged from a floating bridge, a bascule

bridge, a swing bridge, a tilt bridge or escalators to access the bridge.

Comment Total %

Net: Convenience 634 41%

Bridge should not cause disruption/delays for any methods of travel (cars/boats/cyclist/pedestrians)

327 21%

Bridge is easier/more convenient than others (ferry/tunnel) 177 11%

A quicker/more direct route/saves time 176 11%

A ferry is less easy / inconvenient / slower (e.g. a ferry has long waiting time)

19 1%

A tunnel is less easy / inconvenient / slower 8 1%

Other convenience mentions 75 5%

Net: Overall acceptance 599 39%

A bridge is preferred / is better than others (tunnel, ferry) 340 22%

A bridge is the most sensible / realistic option / it is needed 233 15%

A navigable bridge is better 19 1%

A high bridge is better 11 1%

A low bridge is better 10 1%

A low bridge with opening mechanism causes less disruption for users

4 0%

A tunnel will deter cyclists because of the danger when it is dark 1 0%

A tunnel will deter pedestrians because of the danger when it is dark

1 0%


37

Net: Option (bridge/ferry/tunnel) 352 23%

A tunnel is not preferred / is worse than others (ferry, bridge) 8 1%

Other specific mentions of bridge height and access (types of bridges - high/low/ramp/steps/lift/other)

344 22%

Net: Type of user (cyclist, pedestrian) 321 21%

A bridge is better for cyclists 262 17%

A bridge is better for pedestrians 195 13%

Better for people with disabilities (wheelchairs) 20 1%

A ferry will deter cyclists / pedestrians 3 0%



A bridge is cheaper / the less expensive option / value for money 252 16%

A tunnel is expensive / a more costly option 13 1%

A ferry is expensive / a more costly option 9 1%



A bridge is more pleasant / nicer to use / offers better views / picturesque

227 15%


Would prefer a time table/scheduled opening/closings 35 2%

Other specific alternative mentions of frequency/length of opening times

120 8%

Net: Other 134 9%

Added attraction/tourist point/landmark 55 4%

Other miscellaneous positive mentions 87 6%


A bridge is the safer option/less dangerous/less crime 89 6%

Net: Location 61 4%

Other specific location for bridge (e.g. Northern Alignment option, Greenwich - all mentions)

61 4%

Table 11 Comments by those in support of a navigable bridge.

4.2.3 Issues raised by those in opposition to a navigable bridge

For those in opposition to the navigable bridge, in general they stated that the bridge

was less preferable to other options. Many of those in opposition were concerned

over the cost, suggesting that the bridge was an expensive option. Many also

mentioned the visual impact of the bridge, citing concern that it could obstruct the

view over the river or be aesthetically unpleasing.

In addition to this, there was some concern over the bridge causing disruption and

delays for both vehicles and water vessels.

38

For some, a ferry was the preferred option, seen to be better able to flex according to

demand, and a more practical option overall. Others cited a tunnel as the preferred

option instead of the bridge.

For those coded as ‘Other negative comments’ there was mention of a range of

issues such as strong winds being a potential concern with a high bridge, investment

needed at other locations, and a concern that infrastructure such as lifts and lights

will break down.

Issue Total %



A bridge / navigable bridge / high bridge is not preferred / is worse than others (tunnel, ferry)

196 57%

A tunnel is preferred / tunnel is better than others (bridge, ferry) 8 2%

Net: Other 127 37%

Negative impact on lives of local residents (lack of privacy, increase in noise)

22 6%

Prefer a more immediate solution 15 4%

Other negative mentions 101 29%


A bridge is expensive / a more costly option 96 28%

A ferry is cheaper / the less expensive option / value for money 9 3%

A tunnel is cheaper / the less expensive option / value for money 2 1%



A bridge is an eyesore / negative visual impact / obstruct views 87 25%

A bridge has an environmental impact (all mentions) 18 5%

A bridge will cause elimination/destruction of land/trees/natural spaces 15 4%

Net: Access 81 24%

A bridge causes disruption / delays (road and water vessels) 67 20%

A tunnel causes less disruption / delays (road and water vessels) 20 6%

A ferry causes less disruption / delays (road and water vessels) 1 0%

Net: Prefer another option 44 13%

A ferry is preferred / ferry is better than others (bridge, tunnel) 29 9%

A ferry is more flexible/scalable to need/use 11 3%

A ferry is the most sensible / realistic option / it is needed 5 2%

Net: Type Of User (cyclist, pedestrian) 38 11%

A bridge is exposed to the weather 19 6%

A bridge will deter cyclists / pedestrians 18 5%

A ferry is better for cyclists / pedestrians / non-vehicle users 3 1%

A tunnel is better for cyclists / pedestrians / non-vehicle users 2 1%

Net: Specific Alternative Suggestions 32 9%

39

Other specific alternative suggestions mentions 32 9%


A bridge is less easy / inconvenient / slower (e.g. a bridge has long waiting time)

15 4%

A ferry is easier / more convenient / quicker / no waiting to use it / ease of access

6 2%

A tunnel is easier / more convenient / quicker / no waiting to use it / ease of access

2 1%

Table 12 Issues raised by those in opposition to a navigable bridge.

4.3 Summary of Question 3: Bridge Location

Respondents were asked their opinion of each of the three potential bridge locations.

As none of the questions were compulsory, the number answering varied for each

location: 5,557 for the Northern Alignment, 4,829 for the Central Alignment and

4,491 for the Southern Alignment.

Considering our preferred option of a navigable bridge, we would like to know

your views on the following potential crossing locations?



oppose’ for each of the 3 locations: Northern Alignment, Central Alignment and

Southern Alignment.

A map of the three potential locations is shown below:

40

4.3.1 Level of support for each alignment

The Northern Alignment had the highest level of support at 79 per cent overall

support, with 55 per cent supporting the Central Alignment and 29 per cent the

Southern Alignment.

Those who would use the bridge to cycle were particularly likely to support the

Northern Alignment option (85 per cent compared to 79 per cent of those who would

walk).

Those living south of the river were more likely than those living north of the river to

support the Central and Southern Alignments.

41

Support for alignments by respondents’ relationship to the area is shown in table 13:

Alignment support by relationship to area Base

Net: Support

Strongly support Support

Neither support

nor oppose Oppose

Strongly oppose

Net: Oppose

Northern Alignment

Local resident 3,901 77% 59% 18% 15% 3% 4% 8%

Local business owner

120 73% 54% 19% 13% 4% 9% 13%

Employed locally 1,228 82% 65% 17% 12% 3% 3% 6%

Visitor to area 762 86% 68% 19% 11% 1% 2% 3%

Commuter to area 1,324 83% 64% 19% 13% 2% 2% 4%

Not local 476 81% 60% 21% 15% 2% 3% 5%

Central Alignment

Local resident 3,436 56% 15% 41% 24% 14% 6% 20%


105 52% 18% 34% 24% 17% 7% 24%


Visitor to area 663 55% 11% 44% 29% 13% 3% 16%

Commuter to area 1,164 59% 15% 44% 27% 10% 4% 14%

Not local 394 53% 10% 42% 28% 15% 5% 19%

Southern Alignment

Local resident 3,185 31% 14% 16% 39% 19% 11% 30%


94 28% 12% 16% 32% 23% 17% 40%


Visitor to area 618 25% 7% 18% 44% 21% 10% 31%

Commuter to area 1,087 28% 11% 17% 45% 20% 8% 28%

Not local 371 29% 11% 18% 40% 22% 9% 31%

Table 13 Respondents’ relationship to the area.

4.3.2 Comments by those in support of the Northern Alignment

For those in support of the Northern Alignment, many chose this simply because it

best meets their personal needs such as proximity to their home or work. However,

many also stated that this route would be where most demand is and that it would be

most convenient for the majority of bridge users.

The ease of getting to Canary Wharf and Westferry Circus as well as better links to

existing transport infrastructure were also mentioned in the Northern Alignment’s

favour. For some, connectivity to the cycle network was also a factor.

42

The Northern Alignment was viewed by some to be the least disruptive to residential

areas.

Comment Total %

NET: POSITIVE ABOUT NORTHERN ALIGNMENT 1,372 90%

Net: Location 677 45%

Northern Alignment is better/more useful/my preferred location 509 33%

Closer to commercial outlets (stores, restaurants) 53 4%

Close to lodging/hotels 41 3%

Close to my house/work 15 1%

Northern Alignment has less impact on residential units 10 1%

Northern Alignment/Location close to Hilton hotel/Doubletree Hilton (all positive mentions)

5 0%

Northern Alignment requires less development 3 0%

Other location mentions 88 6%


Easy/convenient for getting to Canary Wharf 328 22%

Westferry Circus is better/more convenient (is already a stop) 184 12%

I support the quickest option 105 7%

Northern Alignment option is better/further north is better for people/more useful

32 2%

Northern Alignment/Westferry is better/more convenient for people to get to / closer to shops & restaurants

7 1%

Central Alignment option is better/more central is better for people/more useful

3 0%



Connectivity to cycle network/national cycle network is most important

150 10%

Least disruptive option/less residential impact 117 8%

Should be close to transport networks/near public transport 56 4%

Other infrastructure mentions 67 4%

Net: Option (Northern/Central/Southern) 161 11%

Any option would work/I like all options/happy with all options/do not mind

140 9%

A bridge is a good idea/we need a bridge 28 2%

Net: Type Of User 140 9%

Better/easier for cyclists 94 6%

Better/easier for pedestrians 77 5%

Northern Alignment is better/easier for cyclists and pedestrians 11 1%


Net: Access 129 9%

Ramps are a good idea/ramps make it easier to access 83 5%


43


Other specific location for bridge crossing (e.g. Durand’s Wharf, Columbus Circle etc. - all mentions)

60 4%

Other specific alternative suggestions 4 0%

Net: Other 143 9%

Miscellaneous other positive mentions 143 9%

NET: NEGATIVE ABOUT OTHER LOCATIONS 292 19%

Net: Other 161 11%

Ruin / lose open/green space at Durand's Wharf 27 2%

Location (all mentions) 16 1%

Central Alignment is too expensive / not worth the additional cost 12 1%


Net: Access 125 8%

Disagree with any option that uses lifts/dislike lifts/should be lift-free access

86 6%

Issues with traffic / congestion 17 1%

Potential impact on residential areas 11 1%


Table 14 Comments by those in support of the Northern Alignment.

4.3.3 Comments by those in support of the Central Alignment

Among those who supported the Central Alignment, the Northern Alignment was still

the preferred location for many (25 per cent). There were mentions of supporting all

the options with some saying they would support the quickest option. As for the

Northern Alignment, ease of getting to Canary Wharf was a factor in their support for

the Central Alignment.

Comment Total %

NET: POSITIVE ABOUT CENTRAL ALIGNMENT 743 88%



Central Alignment is better/more useful/my preferred location 86 10%

Southern Alignment is better/more useful/my preferred location 53 6%





2 0%








12 1%


11 1%

Southern Alignment option is better/further south is better for people/more useful

5 1%


4 1%




61 7%






92 11%


45



78 9%


Net: Access 78 9%









Net: Other 73 9%


Survey issues / forced answers / unable to select options as I wanted

7 1%



Net: Access 59 7%


46 6%




Table 15 Comments by those in support of the Central Alignment.

4.3.4 Comments by those in support of the Southern Alignment

Even among those who supported the Southern Alignment, many stated that the

Northern Alignment would be their preferred location of the options. Again, there

were mentions of supporting all the options with some saying they would support the

quickest option. Ease and convenience for getting to Canary Wharf was also

mentioned. Connectivity to the cycle network and minimal disruption to residents was

important to some.

Issue Total %

NET: POSITIVE ABOUT SOUTHERN ALIGNMENT 371 89%









1 0%







6 1%


5 1%


3 1%




25 6%






48 12%



47


56 14%







I support the cheapest option 17 4%


Net: Access 24 6%



Net: Other 54 13%



Net: Other 49 12%


7 2%




Net: Access 16 4%


4 1%




Table 16 Comments by those in support of the Southern Alignment.

4.4 Summary of Question 4: Bridge Height

The question about preferred bridge height was answered by 5,949 respondents.

Considering the information provided, which would you prefer?

The question explained that ‘we have been working with the Port of London Authority

to investigate different options for the height and span of the bridge over the river.

This heavily influences how the bridge opens for larger vessels on the river, the

frequency and duration of openings, the visual impact of the bridge and how easy it

is to access for users.’


‘Higher bridge, ‘Lower bridge’, ‘Have no preference, ‘Neither’, ‘Not sure’.

4.4.1 Bridge height preference

The preference for bridge height was less clear-cut than the other questions around

the crossing as a whole and the navigable bridge. While 35 per cent preferred the

higher bridge option, 27 per cent preferred the lower bridge, with the remainder

expressing no preference, being unsure of their preference or preferring neither

option.

49

Of the 6,094 people who responded to this consultation, 2,645 (43 per cent) provided

a comment in the open text box about why they prefer the bridge height selected. Of

these, 1,078 comments were from those in support of a higher bridge (Section 4.4.2)

and 954 from those in support of a lower bridge (Section 4.4.3). A detailed analysis

of comments is available in Appendix A.

4.4.2 Issues raised by those who prefer higher bridge

The most common reasons for preferring a higher bridge was that it would mean less

frequent openings and closings which would cause less disruption to pedestrians,

cyclists and river users, making it a route that can be relied on. Some said that a

steeper incline would be preferable to having to wait for the bridge to open and

close.

Some also were of the opinion that a higher bridge would be more visually attractive

than a low bridge.

Comment Total %

NET: POSITIVE ABOUT A HIGH BRIDGE 1,057 98%

Net: Access 957 89%

A high bridge would mean fewer openings & closings 594 55%

A high bridge would cause less disruption to pedestrian/cyclist traffic

349 32%

A high bridge would cause less disruption to river traffic / leave the river navigable

287 27%

Can access by stairs/lift/ramp 78 7%

A high bridge has easier access / easier to use 40 4%

Would not require lifts/stairs 24 2%

Would require lower/shorter ramps 19 2%



A high bridge would be visually attractive/less obtrusive/look elegant/beautiful

189 18%

Other aesthetics mentions 31 3%


Good/better for cyclists 114 11%

Good/better for pedestrians 98 9%

Good for disabled people 18 2%

50


Net: Other 76 7%

Would encourage more/increased use 16 2%

No/less maintenance required 12 1%

Big ships do not cross often 5 1%



A higher bridge is better / prefer a high bridge 52 5%


Opening schedules could be published so users can plan accordingly

10 1%

Do not mind waiting/openings/closures are not an issue 5 1%

Stop bridge openings at peak commuter hours 3 0%

Leaves the river navigable/less disruption to river traffic 2 0%


Table 17 Issues raised by those who prefer higher bridge.

4.4.3 Issues raised by those who prefer lower bridge

For those who preferred the option of a lower bridge, ease of use and access was

the key concern. Many were of the opinion that a lower bridge would be better for

accessibility and that a high bridge could present greater barriers to pedestrians and

cyclists. Some also mentioned better accessibility for those with disabilities.

For many respondents, increased opening and closing would be less of a concern

than the inconvenience of having to use stairs, a ramp or a lift to access a higher

bridge. Some stated that large ships do not travel up the Thames very frequently, so

a low bridge would not need to open often. Some also said that they would not mind

waiting for the bridge to open and close.

A lower bridge was seen by some to be better for cyclists and for pedestrians, as it

would not require a lift or stairs.

51

Many were also of the opinion that a lower bridge would be less visually obstructive

than a higher bridge.

Comment Total %

NET: POSITIVE ABOUT A LOW BRIDGE 932 98%

Net: Access 646 68%

A low bridge has easier access / easier to use 274 29%

A low bridge would cause less disruption to pedestrian/cyclist traffic

177 19%



A low bridge would cause low/minimal disruption to river traffic / leave the river navigable

64 7%

A low bridge would open & close infrequently/not often enough to cause issues

60 6%

A low bridge is easier for cyclists & pedestrians to use/better access for cyclists

30 3%

A low bridge provides easier access for disabled people/wheelchairs

6 1%




A low bridge would be visually attractive/less obtrusive/look elegant/beautiful

276 29%

A low bridge is less visually obtrusive / less visual impact 30 3%



Good/better for cyclists 266 28%







36 4%



Continuous (non-water) traffic flow/quick/direct/no delays 3 0%


Net: Other 110 12%






52

Cost savings/cost effective option 63 7%


Lower impact on the area/environment 54 6%


More sheltered/better protected from winds 34 4%

Safer option 4 0%

Safer for cyclists 4 0%

Safer for pedestrians 4 0%

Less risk of suicides 2 0%

NET: NEUTRAL GENERAL 52 6%

Depends on the frequency with which the bridge will be opened/closed

43 5%

Details on fact sheets are not sufficient/need additional information

1 0%

Other neutral mentions 10 1%

Table 18 Issues raised by those who prefer lower bridge.

4.5 Summary of Question 5: Bridge Design

Respondents were asked which aspects of bridge design are important to them,

answered by 5,880 respondents:

We have been exploring a number of other aspects that influence the design of

a bridge option. Which of the following aspects are important to you?

Respondents were able to select as many options as applied

4.5.1 Importance of bridge design elements

Segregation between cyclists and pedestrians was seen as one of the most

important elements of the bridge design (61 per cent of those who answered),

particularly for cyclists (selected by 71 per cent who said they would use the crossing

by cycling).

Access to the bridge deck was also seen as very important (61 per cent), again

cyclists were more likely to find this issue important (69 per cent of those who said

they would use the crossing by cycling).

Opening frequency and length of opening also ranked among the aspects

respondents were most concerned about.

Issues such a bridge height, width, operation and opening system were seen as less

important by potential bridge users.

54

Of those who answered ‘Other’, the most frequent responses were not wanting a

bridge or wanting to explore other options (one per cent, 85 responses), accessibility

for cyclists (one per cent, 72 responses), visual appeal or impact (one per cent, 42

responses), cost (one per cent, 34 responses) and construction time (one per cent,

30 responses).

55

Respondent type Leisure Commuting Walk Cycle Both walk and cycle

Base 3,389 2,275 1,751 806 2,913

Segregation between cyclists and pedestrians

63% 65% 61% 71% 63%

Access to the bridge deck (by ramps, lifts, stairs or other means)

63% 64% 53% 69% 67%

Accessibility and inclusivity for all types of user

61% 56% 56% 54% 62%

Opening time frequencies 54% 60% 53% 60% 57%

Architectural design and materials 58% 48% 55% 42% 55%

Opening time length 52% 57% 49% 57% 54%

Environmental impacts 50% 43% 47% 44% 48%

Onward journey connections 48% 50% 45% 51% 50%

Safety and security 48% 45% 56% 34% 44%

Urban realm and landscaping around the bridge landing sites

40% 30% 37% 25% 38%

Width of the bridge deck 27% 30% 22% 34% 30%

Bridge height (height of the deck for users)

23% 20% 18% 23% 23%

Operation and maintenance of the bridge 23% 20% 23% 15% 22%

Bridge opening system 21% 20% 21% 18% 21%

Construction impacts 15% 12% 16% 7% 14%

Bridge height (overall height of the structure/towers)

14% 10% 13% 8% 12%

Table 19 Importance of bridge design elements.

Respondents who would use the bridge for commuting were more likely to be

concerned about bridge opening time frequencies and length of opening time than

those who would use it for leisure.

Respondents who would use the bridge for leisure were more likely than commuters

to state that such accessibility and inclusivity for users were important. They also

more highly ranked the importance of aesthetic elements, such as architectural

design and materials, environmental impacts and urban realm and landscaping

around the bridge landing sites.

Cyclists were more likely to be concerned about the segregation of cyclists and

pedestrians, access to the bridge deck and opening time frequencies.

4.6 Summary of Question 6: Further comments about proposal

Further comments about the proposal for the Rotherhithe to Canary Wharf crossing

were given by 2,720 respondents.

4.6.1 Further comments

The majority of further comments about the proposal were positive in nature; with

respondents re-iterating that a crossing here is much needed and expressing a wish

for the bridge to be completed as soon as possible:

Respondents also noted the benefit of improved connectivity in the area, allowing

development and improvements.

Among those who had negative further comments, this centred around preferring a

ferry or tunnel option and concerns about the financial cost and potential waste of

money that the project could incur.

Ensuring separation of cyclists and pedestrians was a concern for some, both for

safety reasons and in order to ensure a convenient route for cyclists, particularly for

commuting.

Those coded as ‘miscellaneous negative mentions’ covered a range of topics, with

no topic mentioned by enough respondents to form an individual code. Topics raised

included: asking for reconsideration on location (no specific suggestions), request for

an additional Underground line between North Greenwich and Elephant and Castle,

underutilisation of the Emirates Airline, congestion in the Blackwall Tunnel, banning

cyclists in the Greenwich Foot Tunnel, responsibility for funding the bridge, concern

about increases in rent, concern about increased crime in the Isle of Dogs and

impact on green spaces.

57

Comment Total %



A crossing here is much needed/important/a good idea/brilliant idea/support project

1,228 45%

Do it as quickly as possible/as soon as possible/asap 401 15%

Will benefit the community/good for the community 22 1%


Net: Miscellaneous Positive 538 20%

Eases/alleviates traffic/congestion (all mentions) 181 7%

Better for the environment/greener/cleaner/less cars on the road 114 4%

Would boost economy/good for the area/development 101 4%



Better connectivity/encourages travel/tourism/improves access 331 12%

Good for people who live/work in the area 100 4%

A bridge is needed around Canary Wharf/will be beneficial for access to Canary Wharf

36 1%

Will improve connectivity in East London/make East London more accessible 28 1%

I live in the area (unspecified) 14 1%

Will benefit Rotherhithe 5 0%

I work in Canary Wharf 5 0%


Net: Option (bridge, ferry, tunnel) 205 8%

A bridge is preferred/is better than others (tunnel, ferry)/build a bridge 125 5%

A Bascule bridge is preferred 57 2%

A bridge is needed/badly needed/long overdue/a good addition/welcome 24 1%

Net: Type Of User (cyclist, pedestrian, car) 203 8%

Need better crossing for cyclists 100 4%


Need better crossing for pedestrians 44 2%

Encourages pedestrians 39 1%




A ferry is preferred / is better than others (tunnel, bridge) 150 6%

A tunnel is preferred/is better than others (ferry, bridge) / build a tunnel 104 4%

A bridge is not needed/not a good idea 88 3%

Net: Miscellaneous Negative 247 9%

Not really a consultation / biased survey / decision has already been made 29 1%



58

Any project is a waste of money/taxpayers money will be wasted/money could be better spent

96 4%

Go with the cheapest option 2 0%



Cyclists should be kept separate from pedestrians/a separate cycle path 99 4%


Table 20 Further comments.

4.7 Summary of Question 9: Cyclist access preference

Preference for how to access the bridge deck as a cyclist, was answered by 3,680

respondents:

If you chose ‘Cycle’ for the previous question, how would you prefer to access

the bridge deck (as a cyclist)? The bridge deck could be at a height of 10-20m,

equivalent to a building of 3-6 storeys.

4.7.1 Bridge deck access preference (cyclists)

59

The majority preference for cyclists is to access the bridge via a ramp (81 per cent),

with stairs the least popular option. For those who suggested other access options,

these included a combination of the three options, a travellator, with a few

mentioning more innovative solutions such as an escalator for bikes, paternoster lift,

or design similar to the Falkirk Wheel (rotating boat lift).

Of the 3,680 cyclists who answered about their preference for bridge deck access,

1,321 provided a comment in the open text box about their reasons for this

preference. Of these, 1,079 comments were from those who would prefer a ramp

(Section 4.7.2), 178 from those who would prefer a lift (Section 4.7.3) and 69 from

those who would prefer stairs. A detailed analysis of comments is available in

Appendix A.

4.7.2 Reasons for ramp preference

The majority of cyclists preferred a ramp option for accessing the cycle deck. This

was mostly for convenience reasons, with cyclists suggesting that a ramp would be

the most user friendly and easiest to use. Cyclists liked the idea that with a ramp

they would not need to interrupt their journey by dismounting, as would be necessary

with either stairs or a lift. This would make the ramp option the quickest to use, with

no waiting and would also allow a continuous flow of users.

Some also referenced that a ramp would require less maintenance and therefore be

more reliable than a lift. Stairs with a gutter were thought by some to be difficult to

use. A few also mentioned that a ramp would be preferable for those using a bike

with a trailer.

Comment Total %

NET: POSITIVE ABOUT RAMP 1,030 96%


A ramp would be most user-friendly/easiest to use 385 36%

Cyclists would not need to dismount using a ramp/uninterrupted journey

333 31%

Allows the best/continuous flow of traffic/maximum number of users

249 23%

Fast/quick/no waiting to use 218 20%

A ramp would be quickest to use/the fastest option for cyclists 24 2%

Lift is most convenient/easiest option to use 4 0%


Net: Option (ramp/lift/stairs) 763 71%

A ramp would be good/best option 730 68%

Lift would be good/best option 17 2%

Stairs would be good/best option 4 0%

Other option mentions 33 3%

NET: Miscellaneous Positive 181 17%

60

Most reliable/less maintenance required 131 12%

Could use the exercise/good exercise 13 1%


NET: NEGATIVE ABOUT OTHER OPTIONS 125 12%


Maintenance issues with lifts 36 3%

Dislike stairs/stairs option is the least preferable 21 2%



Lift would need to be large / capacity concerns about lift 28 3%

Less maintenance 3 0%



Waiting for a lift creates a bottleneck 26 2%

Lifts are too slow/slow down your journey 12 1%

Stairs create a bottleneck 3 0%

Stairs are too slow/slow down your journey 2 0%


Table 21 Reasons for ramp preference.

4.7.3 Reasons for lift preference

Those who preferred the option of a lift stated that this would be the most convenient

and easiest option to use. Cyclists mentioned ease of accessibility for both cyclists

and pedestrians, with mentions of ease for children, older people, wheelchair users

and parents with buggies. A lift was also preferred by some cyclists with disabilities

or mobility issues.

There were concerns about ease of getting a bike up a ramp to a height of three to

six storeys and that this might put off those who cycle for commuting. Some thought

that a ramp would have the potential to cause tension between pedestrians and

cyclists, and between cyclists travelling at varying speeds and that this could also

pose a safety risk. There were also concerns that the long length of ramp would

impact more negatively on the neighbouring areas. Several cited the Greenwich Foot

Tunnel as an example of a lift system that works well.

Comment Total %

NET: POSITIVE ABOUT LIFT 165 93%





61






11 6%


Stairs are most convenient/easiest option to use 1 1%


1 1%






A lift would cause less impact on surrounding areas/landing area 1 1%



Lift is safer / less likely to cause injury/accidents 6 3%

Safer than a lift / security is a concern in a lift 1 1%

Other safety mentions 2 1%












Table 22 Reasons for lift preference.

4.7.4 Reasons for stairs preference

Some of those with a preference for stairs also mentioned the environmental impact;

with stairs impacting less on the surrounding area particularly the park, rather than a

ramp which has the potential to take up a lot of space in the area surrounding the

bridge. Concerns were that a lift would slow their journey down, could have

maintenance issues, lack cleanliness and cost more.

62

Comment Total %

NET: POSITIVE ABOUT STAIRS 64 93%










5 7%




Environment mentions 14 20%

















Table 23 Reasons for stairs preference.

63

4.8 Summary of stakeholder responses

This section provides summaries of the feedback we received from stakeholders. We

sometimes have to condense detailed responses into brief summaries. The full

stakeholder responses are always used for analysis purposes.

Stakeholders have been grouped into the following categories:

Local authorities and statutory bodies

Local business, land owners and interest groups

Politicians and political organisations

Transport and active travel groups

4.8.1 Local authorities and statutory bodies

Port of London Authority (PLA)

The PLA’s position is that the maintenance of river navigation is paramount. They

support an enhanced ferry service, which they anticipate would have much less

impact on navigational safety in Limehouse Reach than a navigable bridge. The PLA

raises concerns over each of the three alignment options and states no preference.

A higher bridge is preferred to ensure tall vessels can pass. The PLA has no fixed

views on a particular opening mechanism, but has a strong preference for a bridge

design that, when open, maintains unrestricted airdraft .

London Borough of Southwark

Strongly support for the proposed crossing and opportunity to comment via the

consultation. The borough supports the preferred option of the navigable bridge and

states that it will improve connectivity in the area, promote active travel and

encourage new homes and jobs. The borough wants to see improvements to

existing ferry services in the short-term and a final bridge design that minimises the

impact on residences near to landing locations.

64

London Borough of Tower Hamlets

The borough acknowledges the need for improved river connectivity east of Tower

Bridge and supports investment that promotes sustainable, active forms of travel and

the use of zero emission transport. They raise doubts about the location and whether

the Greenwich Peninsula would be better given the relative significance of housing

and business growth in that area. They state their support for a navigable bridge

option to be taken forward for further analysis over an enhanced ferry or tunnel, but

highlight that further information relating to cost-benefit analysis is required. In terms

of alignment, the Northern Alignment is preferred. The council expects TfL to deliver

a scheme that minimises detrimental visual impact and engages residents.

Environment Agency

The Environment Agency (EA) note that the crossing between Canary Wharf and

Rotherhithe has been identified as a priority within the Mayor’s draft Transport

Strategy and that it aligns with the ‘Healthy Streets’ approach which the EA support

in principle. They state that it is important that environmental risks associated with

the project are understood to meet the Mayor’s objective of protecting and enhancing

the environment and delivering a net positive impact for biodiversity (Policy 7

Mayoral Transport Strategy).

London TravelWatch

Strong support for the bridge and strong support for the Northern Alignment. There is

no preference for a higher or lower bridge height. A ramp is preferred for cyclists to

gain access to the bridge because lifts are considered to be unreliable. Accessibility

and inclusivity for all users, as well as safety and security are cited as key

considerations.

Historic England

Support the proposal of a new river crossing and recognise the potential benefits for

improved foot and cycle access. No preferred type of crossing is stated but final

bridge design is important to ensure no negative impact on nearby assets or their

settings. Historic England note the potentially beneficial opportunities a bridge

crossing could have by opening up access to new riverside views and enhancing the

setting of certain heritage assets through careful design and landscaping.

Canal & River Trust

Supportive of the bridge as an improved facility for walking and cycling in London.

However, they raise concerns relating to the Central Alignment as it would involve

building on land owned and managed by the Canal & River Trust, disturbing an area

of historical importance and interest. There are no concerns raised about the other

proposed crossing locations.

65

4.8.2 Local business, land owners and interest groups

AECOM

There is strong support for the bridge, which they state offers good value and an

attractive transport choice for regular users. They also state that the bridge will

become an iconic addition to the London landscape. The Northern Alignment is

supported due to the vertical topography of the Westferry Circus landing site.

The lower bridge height is favoured because it has potential to offer the most cost

effective option, minimising disruption to users, whilst becoming an asset to

London’s transport network.

Albion Street Group Practice

Overall, there is strong support for the bridge with the Northern Alignment preferred.

The favoured option is for a lower bridge. The bridge will allow patients to register at

the surgery from the North side of the river. A ramp is considered to be the most

convenient option for cyclists to access the bridge. However, a long ramp is likely to

discourage use. In particular, it is essential that cyclists have seamless access to

roads and that the bridge remains open during rush hour.

Bike Taxi LTD

There is support for a river crossing however a preference for a tunnel rather than a

bridge is stated. The Bike Taxi LTD states a preference for the Northern Alignment

and for a ramp due to the fact it would be the most convenient option for cyclists to

access the bridge. The ramp is preferred because some bikes can be too heavy for

stairs, whilst lifts can be unreliable.

British Land/BL CW Holdings LTD

There is support for the navigable bridge however, it is also proposed that there may

be a role for an enhanced ferry service in the short term, prior to completion of the

bridge in order to establish better connections and encourage new cycling trips.

There is a slight preference for a higher bridge because this is less likely to disrupt

pedestrian and cycle movements, providing greater certainty for bridge users.

Ramps are favoured for providing cyclists access to the bridge deck. Although, it is

also noted that lifts may be appropriate for mobility-impaired users.

66

London Chamber of Commerce (LCCI)

Supports a new river crossing provided the project is fully integrated into existing

plans for further road river crossings across east London to secure the region’s

future growth and prosperity and accommodate London’s growing population. LCCI

states that TfL’s existing proposals for fixed road crossings in east London should be

prioritised and raise a concern that they have been overlooked under the draft

Mayor’s Transport Strategy. They would like to see a full costing for the project.

Canary Wharf Group

There is support for new river crossings, but state the first priority should be

improvements to the Jubilee line. They neither support or oppose the option of a

navigable bridge, but propose the option of a ferry crossing is reconsidered. Of the

proposed bridge locations, they support the Southern Alignment but raise a concern

about the potential impact on residential properties on Westferry Road and the

impact of adjoining roads on both sides of the river. A lower bridge is preferred

because it is considered to be less intrusive, cheaper, and easier to access for

users.

MBNA Thames Clippers

Welcomes the opportunity to comment but regrets that they were not consulted

sooner given their valuable marine expertise. They acknowledge the need to

improve river crossings in the area. However, do not support the proposed bridge

option as they state there is an insufficient business case. An enhanced ferry is

stated to be able to accommodate the same demand for less cost whilst also

delivering a unique and enhanced customer experience. They further state the

consultation process misrepresents the ferry option and overestimates the cost.

They also question the weighting given to the waiting and crossing time assumed for

cyclists using a free ferry service since cyclists will lose a comparable amount of time

cycling up to the proposed bridge.

Mackenzie Wheeler

There is strong support for the bridge to reduce reliance on road links, whilst being

important for growth on the north and south banks of the river. The Northern

Alignment is preferred because it will link desirable destinations, whilst being able to

link with existing transport facilities. The higher bridge is desirable because it is

important to minimise compromising the use of the Thames as a public transport link.

67

Poplar HARCA

Support the navigable bridge and state that it will be beneficial in terms of reducing

commuter traffic in the Blackwall Tunnel and encouraging more active travel

amongst residents in Poplar. They raise the point that bridge opening must allow

larger vessels to pass through. They also state the need for TfL to investigate

transport connections for walkers and cyclists beyond the bridge landing points, for

example wider links with Poplar and Bow.

reForm Architects

Are delighted that the much needed Rotherhithe Bridge project has been adopted by

TfL. However, they raise several concerns relating to the procurement process in

terms of it needing to be transparent, non-discriminatory, fair and providing value.

They question the value for money nature of the proposed bridge design and state

that the reForm / Elliot Wood proposal would be significantly cheaper. reForm also

state that they should have been consulted earlier in the process and that their

design should be considered alongside others.

Mindful Smile

There is strong support for the bridge with the Northern Alignment being preferred.

The higher bridge option is preferred as it will allow pedestrians, cyclists and vessels

to all use the bridge at the same time, avoiding long waiting times which is of

particular concern for commuters. In relation to width, they highlight the need to

allow casual walkers, cyclists and runners to be segregated from one another and for

the bridge to absorb runners’ vibrations to ensure it does not shake.

Surrey Docks Farm

Overall, there is strong support for a bridge, to improve access and reduce the cost

of crossing the river, with the Northern Alignment being preferred. Potential concerns

are the noise of opening and closing and the impact on street parking around Surrey

Docks Farm, as the area is currently permit free. There is particular concern over the

potential impact on those with disabilities who are dropped off to use the farm, and

they ask whether reserved street parking could be considered here.

Hallsville school of Ballet

Overall, there is strong support for the bridge with the Northern Alignment strongly

supported. The preferred option is for a higher bridge. The bridge provides the

opportunity to discover different areas of London, and a potential boost of customers

to the ballet school.

68

JP Morgan Chase Bank

Supports the crossing between Rotherhithe and Canary Wharf and do not have a

strong view on the three proposed alignments for the crossing. They acknowledge

the merits of a navigable bridge compared with other crossing options. In terms of

height, it should be minimised and an appropriate design solution should be

proposed that will mitigate the negative impacts of a ramp. JP Morgan consider that

a ramp could be visually and physically detrimental to the local environment.

They raise the issue that all of the proposed alignments will have an impact on their

Riverside South site and therefore request a full assessment of the future design and

feasibility work. Should the landing sites encompass JP Morgan land, then they

would oppose the bridge proposal. However, for the moment they look forward to

working with TfL and wish to be informed on project progress.

St Katherine Docks Marina

Supports a new river crossing between Rotherhithe and Canary Wharf, to support

cross-river connectivity for cyclists and pedestrians. Their preferred option is a ferry

service, however, if this has been discounted then they support the navigable bridge,

providing it does not discourage or hinder marine traffic to the Marina. They have no

strong views on location, again, so long as there is no negative impact on marine

leisure traffic wishing to berth at SKD. They would like to be informed of progress

and welcome the opportunity to attend events and acquire more information.

2000 Community Action Centre

Opposes the river crossing because it should be located at Convoys Wharf to

facilitate new residents in Deptford. Additionally, the bridge is opposed and they

state a preference for a tunnel. The group highlight accessibility and inclusivity for all

types of users as important and stress that a tunnel should be built to avoid the

problems of a bridge.

The Peckham Coal Line

There is strong support for the bridge, with a high bridge preferred, to ensure that the

bridge is open as much as possible. This will ensure it is a reliable & dependable

way to navigate the city, in order to maximise use. Strong support for the Central

Alignment, in order to connect into the Peckham Coal Line via Russia dock. The

suggestion put forward is that a high navigable bridge could pass over Rotherhithe

Street to connect directly into the existing footpath and cycleway from the Salter

Street footbridge. The response highlighted that they felt that the success of the

Peckham Coal Line is linked closely with that of the Rotherhithe Bridge.

69

Team London Bridge – Business Improvement District

Strongly supports the bridge under the condition that the bridge is navigable to allow

ships access to Tower Bridge. The Northern Alignment is supported under the

condition that it links with CS4. Uncertain about the bridge height, however, it is

crucial the large vessels that use Tower Bridge are able to pass through. A key issue

that is important is onward journey connections. Additional information needs to be

provided about ongoing journeys because it is currently unclear about links to other

transport interchanges.

PPM Production Limited

Strongly supports the proposal of the bridge, with a preference for the Northern

Alignment and a higher bridge height. A ramp is the preferred way for cyclists to gain

access to the bridge as dismounting is likely to impact the uptake by cyclists.

4.8.3 Politicians and political organisations

Southwark Liberal Democrats

Overall, there is strong support for bridge for a number of reasons. These include

easing overcrowding on the Jubilee line and East London Overground, creating an

alternative route for Rotherhithe tunnel users, enable more cycling, improving access

to jobs and decreasing air pollution. The Northern Alignment is preferred. However,

the group note that there is risk of affecting a heritage building at Nelson’s Dock on

Rotherhithe Street and cyclists merging at Westferry Circus could cause congestion.

It is suggested that a segregated merging lane for cyclists heading north could

minimise this. A higher bridge is favoured because fewer bridge openings will be

required, resulting in minimal delays.

Southwark Green Party

Overall, there is support for the bridge with the Northern Alignment being favoured

for location. However, it is important that Durand’s Wharf is not impacted. A lower

bridge height is preferred for shorter journey times and to improve energy/efficiency.

Neil Coyle MP, Labour Bermondsey and Old Southwark

Strong support for the bridge proposal, over a tunnel or ferry options. The bridge

offers more to the local community and will cause less disruption. The Central or

Southern Alignment options are preferred, linking to Durand’s Wharf and a low

bridge is preferred in order to prevent public space being lost, but it is recognised

that this would only work if feasible from a safety and navigability perspective. The

impact of integrating with the existing roads and cycle ways is raised., especially

noting traffic issues on Rotherhithe Street. There is a desire to engage the local

community in this process and ensure their contribution is reflected in the final

designs.

70

Caroline Pidgeon, Liberal Democrat London Assembly Member

Fully supports a pedestrian and cycle crossing between Rotherhithe and Canary

Wharf, stating that it is long overdue and plays a critical role in making east London

more accessible by foot and bike, helping to deliver many economic, environmental

and health benefits for local residents and future Londoners. The Northern

Alignment is preferred as it will have lowest impact on residents and provide the best

connections. The need for the bridge to be built to a high architectural standard and

have an aesthetically pleasing design, ensuring that it is an attraction in itself is

raised. Supports the bridge providing segregation for pedestrians and cyclists and

being on the higher range of the height options, whilst ensuring a well-designed

bridge that local residents find acceptable.

GLA Conservatives

Raise concerns relating to the amount of detailed cost-benefit analysis provided by

TfL and question whether there is a strong enough business case for the bridge.

They raise doubt over the consultation process itself given this lack of detailed

information and oppose the proposal. They state the proposal is weak on demand

analysis for a walking and cycling bridge in this location. They suggest that TfL

considers subsidising the existing ferry service for six months as a means of properly

assessing the level of demand. They further stress the opportunity cost of the bridge

and that TfL spending could be better targeted at existing development demands in

the Isle of Dogs area.

4.8.4 Transport and active travel groups

TfL Youth Panel

Overall, there is general support for a navigable bridge. While there is not a general

consensus on the best location, the North and Central Alignment were preferred due

to desirable onwards connections. They prefer a higher bridge stating it should be

10-15 metres in height to reflect river traffic usage. Ramps are considered to be the

most convenient option for cyclists to access the bridge, but they should not be too

steep or too long.

Stop Killing Cyclists

Strong support for the navigable bridge as part of their own efforts to get more

people cycling safely and to help meet the targets around cycling set out by the draft

Mayor’s Transport Strategy. Aspects of the design deemed important include,

allowing for the use of accessible bicycles, including cargo bikes, mobility bicycles

and also providing ample cycle lane width to avoid any potential conflict with

pedestrians. Connecting either end of the bridge to the wider cycle network is critical

in relation to cyclist safety. Here, fully protected cycle lanes are the preferred option.

71

The Ramblers Inner London Area

Strong support for the bridge as it provides a new crossing for pedestrians, linking to

the Thames Path, which will encourage walking by providing new routes for leisure

walking, and link communities. Particular benefits are a bridge being a more reliable

option than a ferry, due to waiting times, and safer than a tunnel for walkers. While

all three location options are supported, strongest support is for the Northern

Alignment, as this will have the least impact on local public space. There is not a

preference for the bridge height, as there are pros and cons for each option.

Better streets for Tower Hamlets

Strongly support the proposed bridge. The bridge facilitates active travel between

Canary Wharf and the London Borough of Southwark and support the Mayor’s aim

for 80 per cent of Londoners trips to be by foot/ cycle or public transport by 2041.

The Northern Alignment is preferred, due to convenience and the fact that Westferry

Circus is at an elevated level, therefore they anticipate that no access ramp is

needed on the north side of the bridge. It also better respects privacy, as on the

northern side it lands further from residential developments. The lower bridge is

preferred due to access benefits and note that this is important for those with

disabilities and for facilitating inclusive cycling.

The Inland Waterways Association Freight Group (IWAFG)

Supportive of a new river crossing for pedestrian and cyclists as it addresses a very

urgent need. However, they underline the need to recognise the potential impact of

a pedestrian and cyclist bridge on river traffic and shipping and want to see London’s

role as a port city preserved. They strongly support a navigable bridge allowing

passage upstream to large vessels. They consider the Southern Alignment most

satisfactory for reasons of both visibility and ship control as it involves the longest

and straightest approach and avoids river bends. The Southern Alignment also

avoids adding congestion on both sides of the Northern Alignment and it is shortest

in terms of length and slope of bridge and approach ramps.

Sustrans

Strongly support the proposal of the bridge with a preference for the Central

Alignment, as it creates the optimum crossing point; meets the needs or river traffic

and has sufficient space for access ramps at the landing site. A lower bridge is

supported, but on the condition that the Port of London Authority improves

navigational efficiencies on the river and minimises the number of openings. Ramps

are preferred for cyclists to gain access to the bridge deck.

72

Campaign for Better Transport London

There is strong support for the bridge, with the Northern Alignment and lower bridge

height being preferred. However, as a lower level bridge has the disadvantage of

being opened too frequently a medium level bridge is favoured. A ramp is preferred

for cyclists to access the bridge due to ease of use.

Lewisham Cyclists

Strongly support the river crossing and the proposal of the bridge, but would prefer a

tunnel. Of the potential bridge options, the Northern Alignment is favoured due to

shorter ramp access to Westferry Circus and better connectivity to the National

Cycle Network on the west side. It is proposed that a 15-20m height for the bridge

would be appropriate, as Lewisham Cyclists would prefer minimal opening times.

Ramps are preferred for cyclists to gain access to the bridge deck.

Living Streets

Strongly support the river crossing, due to the prioritisation of active travel and the

potential of reducing congestion on the Jubilee line. The Northern Alignment and

lower bridge height is favoured. It is crucial that stairs and lift are not the only way to

provide access to the bridge. It is preferable that ramps are located on both sides of

the bridge.

London Cycling Campaign

Overall, there is support for the bridge with the Northern Alignment being preferred.

This option should directly connect to both Thames Path and Westferry Road. The

preferred height of the bridge is dependent on the amount of time it is required to be

closed annually and how much effort it will take for users, particularly those with

mobility impairments, to ascend/descend from the bridge. Northern Alignment is

favoured because this option features a direct connection into the employment

centres of the Isle of Dogs and better onward connections to other cycling/walking

routes.

Railfuture - London & South East regional branch

There is strong support of the bridge and there is no preference stated for any of the

potential locations. There is a preference for a lower bridge so it is accessible to all

potential users. For cyclists, ramps are favoured to access the bridge.

73

Tower Hamlet Wheelers

Overall, there is strong support for the bridge due to the benefits to Tower Hamlets

residents. They suggest links to the existing cycling network alongside the

development of new cycling routes in the borough, in order for the proposal to be

mutually beneficial. The Northern Alignment is preferred because it enables good

links to Canary Wharf, wider destinations in Tower Hamlets and beyond. There

should be a direct cycle link from the bridge to National Cycle Route 1 in addition to

a direct link to Westferry Road. Separation of pedestrians and cyclists is proposed if

the width allows for this.

Watermen and Lightermen of the River Thames

Unsupportive of the bridge and request the budget should be spent on expanding

river services and facilities. A ferry service is preferred. If a bridge is built, a higher

bridge is preferred; its design should be high enough to allow vessels with the

highest possible air draught to pass underneath it. It is suggested that the bridge

should be as high above the river as the QE2 crossing. Current ferry service

between Surrey Quays and Canary Wharf provides adequate capacity for the current

footfall and could be increased at little public cost.

Wheels for Wellbeing

Strongly support the crossing. There is support for the bridge with Northern

Alignment being preferred due to the potential of the crossing being shorter in length.

A lower bridge is favoured because it is more accessible for users. However, there is

a potential risk of high winds on the bridge. Wind shielding should be considered for

the bridge and the ramps to ensure they are accessible when the wind is raised.

Ramps are favoured for cyclists to access the bridge because they have the

potential to be inclusive to all users.

Alliance of British Drivers

Oppose the bridge as they consider the the costs are too high for the number of

pedestrians and cyclists that will benefit. Another reason cited is that the Rotherhithe

tunnel is considered to be little used by pedestrians and cyclists. While they are in

opposition, and oppose the Central Alignment in particular, they have the strongest

support for the Southern Alignment. They do not have any preference on the height

of the bridge and state that a ferry is preferable, as it is a cheaper option and more

flexible in terms of coping with variable demand or inaccurate forecasts of usage.

They consider the cost of building the bridge would be better spent on a road

crossing further downstream.

74

5. Next steps

We are now reviewing comments made during the consultation. We will publish our

response to issues raised document during the summer.

We will also update as to any changes to the proposals when we publish our

response to issues raised.

75

Appendix A: Detailed analysis of comments

Analysis of the most commons themes of the open questions is shown in Section 4.

The tables below provide a full summary of all responses to open questions provided

by members of the public.

Q1: Overarching Question

Do you support a new river crossing between Rotherhithe and Canary Wharf

for pedestrians and cyclists?



oppose’.

Issues raised by those in support of the scheme

Table 24 shows the full list of coded open responses from the 3,858 respondents

who were in support (strongly support or support) of a new river crossing, and gave

an open response about the reasons for their support.

Comment Total %


Net: Type Of User 2,116 55%

Better for cyclists 900 23%


Better for pedestrians 561 15%


Encourages walking 487 13%

Encourages being healthy/fit/active 248 6%


Net: Convenience 1,660 43%


No waiting/more direct/saves time/would be quicker 655 17%

Ease of access/travel/easier/more convenient 622 16%





A bridge is preferred/is better than others (tunnel, ferry) 64 2%


Net: User experience 1,201 31%

76

Eases/alleviates traffic/congestion on the London Underground Line (Jubilee Line, Tube)

677 18%

Eases/alleviates traffic/congestion (unspecified type/location) 188 5%

Eases/alleviates traffic/congestion at Canada Water station 152 4%

Eases/alleviates traffic/congestion in Rotherhithe tunnel 148 4%

Eases/alleviates traffic/congestion in the Greenwich Foot Tunnel 90 2%

Eases/alleviates traffic/congestion on area bridges (Tower, London Bridge, other bridges)

60 2%

Eases/alleviates traffic/congestion on the Overground/DLR (Docklands Light Railway)

28 1%

Eases/alleviates traffic/congestion on roadways 26 1%

Eases/alleviates traffic/congestion in the Blackwall Tunnel 14 0%


Net: Access 1,114 29%

Better connectivity /improves access (all mentions) 937 24%

Improves access to commercial outlets (restaurants, shops) 167 4%

Other means of transport/access are often limited/closed/out of order

34 1%




280 7%

Rotherhithe tunnel is polluted/fumey/not nice 205 5%

Less pollution for cyclists / more fresh air 20 1%



Would improve the area/boost economy/development 286 7%


Value for money/cheaper/free method of travel 282 7%



Safer option/less dangerous for cyclists 231 6%

Safer option/less dangerous for pedestrians 79 2%

Safer option/less dangerous 74 2%

Less crime/anti-social behaviour (not safe alone, at night, for women)

7 0%

Net: Other 124 3%

Potential to create a new / attractive area feature/landmark 18 1%



Includes a route to Canary Wharf 65 2%

I live in the area 37 1%


Includes a route to Canada Water 7 0%

77

Should connect directly into CS3 to the North 6 0%

Consideration should be given to connect with National Cycle Route 1 which passes North & South through the Greenwich Tunnel

5 0%

NET: NEGATIVE 84 2%

Large increase in population/growth to the area 56 2%





NET: NEUTRAL 22 1%

Prefer other/existing method of crossing/existing ferry service 20 1%


3 0%

Other miscellaneous neutral mentions 22 1%













4 0%

Net: Other 19 1%


Total 3,858 100%

Table 24 Issues raised by those in support of the scheme.

Issues raised by those in opposition to the scheme

Table 25 shows the full list of coded open responses from the 336 respondents who

were in opposition (strongly oppose or oppose) to a new river crossing, and gave an

open response about the reasons for their opposition. There were five people who

were in overall opposition to the scheme who had positive or partially positive

comments about it.

Issue Total %

NET: POSITIVE 5 2%











1 0%



Prefer other method of crossing (ferry/tunnel/existing routes/existing ferry service)

101 30%


79 24%






Will add to the congestion/increase congestion 19 6%

Will add to cyclist congestion 15 5%

Not sufficiently alleviate current traffic/congestion concerns 13 4%








Other specific alternative locations mentions 34 10%

79



52 16%

Net: Other 99 30%


Total 336 100%

Table 25 Issues raised by those in opposition to the scheme.

80

Q2: Options Assessment

Do you support our preferred option of a navigable bridge?

The question explained that a navigable bridge ‘allows the movement of vessels on

the river to continue. It may be high level allowing vessels beneath or with an

opening mechanism to allow them through.’



oppose’.

Issues raised by those in support of a navigable bridge


who were in support (strongly support or support) of a navigable bridge, and gave an

open response about the reasons for their support.

Comment Total %



Bridge should not cause disruption/delays for any methods of travel (cars/boats/cyclist/pedestrians)

327 21%



A ferry is less easy / inconvenient / slower (e.g. a ferry has long waiting time)

19 1%

A tunnel is less easy / inconvenient / slower 8 1%





A navigable bridge is better 19 1%

A high bridge is better 11 1%

A low bridge is better 10 1%

A low bridge with opening mechanism causes less disruption for users

4 0%

A tunnel will deter cyclists because of the danger when it is dark 1 0%

A tunnel will deter pedestrians because of the danger when it is dark

1 0%




344 22%

A tunnel is not preferred / is worse than others (ferry, bridge) 8 1%


81




A ferry will deter cyclists / pedestrians 3 0%




A tunnel is expensive / a more costly option 13 1%

A ferry is expensive / a more costly option 9 1%




227 15%



Other specific alternative mentions of frequency/length of opening times

120 8%

Net: Other 134 9%

Added attraction/tourist point/landmark 55 4%



A bridge is the safer option/less dangerous/less crime 89 6%

Net: Location 61 4%

Other specific location for bridge (e.g. Northern Alignment option, Greenwich - all mentions)

61 4%


Less impact on the environment/air quality 44 3%

A ferry has an environmental impact (all mentions) 3 0%

A tunnel has an environmental impact (all mentions) 2 0%

A ferry is an eyesore / negative visual impact / obstruct views 1 0%

Net: Overall rejection 16 1%

A ferry is not preferred / is worse than others (tunnel, bridge etc.) 16 1%

NET: NEUTRAL 37 2%


NET: NEGATIVE 90 6%



44 3%




Other specific suggestions for tunnel (e.g. new ideas - all mentions)

2 0%

82

Net: Access 15 1%


A tunnel causes less disruption / delays on traffic (road and water vessels)

5 0%






Net: Other 13 1%



2 0%




A tunnel is the most sensible / realistic option / it is needed 2 0%








A tunnel will deter cyclists because of the pollution 1 0%




Net: None/nothing 19 1%

None/nothing 19 1%

Total 1,547 100%

Table 26 Issues raised by those in support of a navigable bridge.

Issues raised by those in opposition to a navigable bridge


were in opposition (strongly oppose or oppose) to a navigable bridge, and gave an

open response about the reasons for their opposition. There were nine people who

were in overall opposition to the navigable bridge but had positive or partially positive

comments about it.

Issue Total %

NET: POSITIVE 9 3%



2 1%
















1 0%

Net: Financial 1 0%


NET: NEUTRAL 5 2%





196 57%


Net: Other 127 37%


22 6%



84









A bridge will cause elimination/destruction of land/trees/natural spaces

15 4%

Net: Access 81 24%


A tunnel causes less disruption / delays on traffic (road and water vessels)

20 6%

A ferry causes less disruption / delays on traffic (road and water vessels)

1 0%











Other specific alternative mentions of frequency/ length of opening times

32 9%


A bridge is less easy / inconvenient / slower (e.g. a bridge has long waiting time)

15 4%

A ferry is easier / more convenient / quicker / no waiting to use it / ease of access

6 2%

A tunnel is easier / more convenient / quicker / no waiting to use it / ease of access

2 1%

Net: User Experience 4 1%

A ferry is more pleasant / nicer to use / offers better views / picturesque

3 1%

A tunnel is more pleasant / nicer to use 1 0%

Net: Safety/Security 1 0%

A tunnel is the safer option / less dangerous / less crime 1 0%


None/nothing 1 0%

Total 343 100%

Table 27 Issues raised by those in opposition to a navigable bridge.

85

Q3: Bridge Location

Considering our preferred option of a navigable bridge, we would like to know

your views on the following potential crossing locations?



oppose’ for each of the 3 locations: Northern Alignment, Central Alignment and

Southern Alignment.

Issues raised by those in support of the Northern Alignment


who were in support (strongly support or support) of the Northern Alignment, and

gave an open response about the location of the bridge. Because the Q3 open

response question asked ‘Do you have any comments on the location of a bridge?’

and respondents were able to express support for more than one option,

respondents reasons may be in support of another alignment.

Comment Total %











5 0%

Northern Alignment requires less development 3 0%







32 2%


7 1%

86


3 0%




150 10%






140 9%







Net: Access 129 9%





60 4%





Net: Overall Acceptance 9 1%


Net: Other 143 9%


NET: NEUTRAL 20 1%



Net: Other 161 11%



18 1%




Net: Access 125 8%

87


86 6%





Central Alignment is too long / longer close times 24 2%

Southern Alignment is not good / impractical / least favourable 23 2%

If the Northern Alignment is chosen, Westferry Circus should be completely redesigned and private vehicles should be banned from its upper deck

1 0%


Do not agree with it/a bridge is a bad idea/not the best solution/do not want a bridge/do not like any location

7 1%

Prefer a ferry/ferry option is better 2 0%

Prefer a tunnel/tunnel option is better 2 0%



None/nothing/no thoughts on it/do not care 32 2%

Total 1,523 100%

Table 28 Issues raised by those in support of the Northern Alignment.

Issues raised by those in support of the Central Alignment


were in support (strongly support or support) of the Central Alignment, and gave an

open response about the location of the bridge. Because the Q3 open response

question asked ‘Do you have any comments on the location of a bridge?’ and

respondents were able to express support for more than one option, respondents

reasons may be in support of another alignment e.g. 25 per cent of those in support

of the Central Alignment said that the Northern Alignment was their preferred

location.

Comment Total %

NET: POSITIVE 743 88%









2 0%

88








12 1%


11 1%


5 1%


4 1%




61 7%






92 11%




78 9%


Net: Access 78 9%













Net: Other 69 8%


89

NET: NEUTRAL 23 3%



Net: Other 73 9%



7 1%



Net: Access 59 7%


46 6%









4 1%






Total 843 100%

Table 29 Issues raised by those in support of the Central Alignment.

Issues raised by those in support of the Southern Alignment


were in support (strongly support or support) of the Southern Alignment, and gave an

open response about the location of the bridge. Because the Q3 open response

question asked ‘Do you have any comments on the location of a bridge?’ and

respondents were able to express support for more than one option, respondents

reasons may be in support of another alignment e.g. 18 per cent of those in support

of the Southern Alignment said that the Northern Alignment was their preferred

location.

Issue Total %

NET: POSITIVE 371 89%









1 0%







6 1%


5 1%


3 1%




25 6%






48 12%


91



56 14%









Net: Access 24 6%





Net: Other 54 13%


NET: NEUTRAL 11 3%



Net: Other 49 12%


7 2%




Net: Access 16 4%


4 1%









4 1%





92


Total 416 100%

Table 30 Issues raised by those in support of the Southern Alignment.

93

Q4: Bridge Height

Considering the information provided, which would you prefer?

The question explained that ‘we have been working with the Port of London Authority

to investigate different options for the height and span of the bridge over the river.

This heavily influences how the bridge opens for larger vessels on the river, the

frequency and duration of openings, the visual impact of the bridge and how easy it

is to access for users.’


‘Higher bridge, ‘Lower bridge’, ‘Have no preference, ‘Neither’, ‘Not sure’.

Issues raised by those who prefer higher bridge


who preferred a higher bridge, and gave an open response about the reasons why.

Comment Total %

NET: POSITIVE ABOUT A HIGH BRIDGE 1,057 98%

Net: Access 957 89%

A high bridge would mean fewer openings & closings 594 55%

A high bridge would cause less disruption to pedestrian/cyclist traffic

349 32%

A high bridge would cause less disruption to river traffic / leave the river navigable

287 27%


A high bridge has easier access / easier to use 40 4%





A high bridge would be visually attractive/less obtrusive/look elegant/beautiful

189 18%



Good/better for cyclist 114 11%




Net: Other 76 7%





94


A higher bridge is better / prefer a high bridge 52 5%



10 1%






Either would work/like both options/as long as there is a crossing 10 1%







Safer option 1 0%






1 0%



15 1%


NET: NEGATIVE ABOUT A HIGH BRIDGE 12 1%

Net: Access 9 1%

A high bridge would require steep ramps / too difficult to go up steep ramps

7 1%

A high bridge would restrict access / make access difficult / more difficult

1 0%

A high bridge would require long ramps 1 0%


A high bridge would have a negative visual impact / look horrible / an eyesore

5 1%

NET: NEGATIVE GENERAL 33 3%

Net: Access 10 1%

Would require more opening & closing 2 0%

Delays/interruptions/no flow 2 0%



95

Disagree with any type of bridge/shouldn't have a bridge 5 1%

Prefer to have a tunnel/tunnel option is better 4 0%

Prefer to have a ferry crossing/ferry option is better 1 0%

Net: Financial 4 0%

Too expensive/needless expense 4 0%


Not easy/not convenient to use/no access 1 0%

Net: Other 19 2%



None/nothing 3 0%

Total 1,078 100%

Table 31 Issues raised by those who prefer higher bridge.

Issues raised by those who prefer lower bridge


preferred a lower bridge, and gave an open response about the reasons why.

Comment Total %


Net: Access 646 68%

A low bridge has easier access / easier to use 274 29%

A low bridge would cause less disruption to pedestrian/cyclist traffic

177 19%



A low bridge would cause low/minimal disruption to river traffic / leave the river navigable

64 7%

A low bridge would open & close infrequently/not often enough to cause issues

60 6%

A low bridge is easier for cyclists & pedestrians to use/better access for cyclists

30 3%

A low bridge provides easier access for disabled people/wheelchairs

6 1%





276 29%

A low bridge is less visually obtrusive / less visual impact 30 3%



Good/better for cyclist 266 28%

96







36 4%



Continuous (non-water) traffic flow/quick/direct/no delays 3 0%


Net: Other 110 12%










More sheltered/better protected from winds 34 4%

Safer option 4 0%



Less risk of suicides 2 0%


A lower bridge is better / prefer a low bridge 26 3%


Either would work/like both options/as long as there is a crossing 5 1%




43 5%

Details on fact sheets are not sufficient/need additional information

1 0%


NET: NEGATIVE ABOUT A HIGH BRIDGE 26 3%

Net: Access 21 2%

A high bridge would require steep ramps / too difficult to go up steep ramps

12 1%

A high bridge would require long ramps 7 1%

A high bridge would restrict access / make access difficult / more 5 1%

97

difficult

A high bridge would be more difficult for cyclists/put cyclists & pedestrians off

1 0%


A high bridge would have a negative visual impact / look horrible / an eyesore

7 1%

NET: NEGATIVE ABOUT A LOW BRIDGE 9 1%

Net: Access 9 1%

A low bridge would require more opening & closing 9 1%

NET: NEGATIVE GENERAL 23 2%


Disagree with any type of bridge/shouldn't have a bridge 4 0%

Prefer to have a tunnel/tunnel option is better 4 0%

Prefer to have a ferry crossing/ferry option is better 2 0%


Net: Access 5 1%

Delays/interruptions/no flow 1 0%


Net: Financial 1 0%

Too expensive/needless expense 1 0%


Not easy/not convenient to use/no access 1 0%

Net: Other 7 1%



None/nothing 7 1%

Total 954 100%

Table 32 Issues raised by those who prefer lower bridge.

Issues raised by those who have no preference/ prefer neither height


had no height preference for the bridge and the 188 who preferred neither, and gave

an open response about the reasons why.

No preference Neither

Comment Total % Total %

NET: POSITIVE ABOUT HIGH BRIDGE 13 5% 0 0%

Net: Access 12 4% 0 0%

A high bridge would mean fewer openings & closings 3 1% 0 0%

A high bridge would cause less disruption to pedestrian/cyclist traffic 1 0% 0 0%

A high bridge would cause less disruption to river traffic / leave the river navigable 1 0% 0 0%

A high bridge has easier access / easier to use 8 3% 0 0%

Net: Aesthetics 3 1% 0 0%

A high bridge would be visually attractive/less obtrusive/look elegant/beautiful 3 1% 0 0%

Net: Option (bridge/ferry/tunnel) 2 1% 0 0%

A higher bridge is better / prefer a high bridge 2 1% 0 0%

NET: POSITIVE ABOUT LOW BRIDGE 33 12% 8 4%

Net: Access 29 11% 8 4%

A low bridge has easier access / easier to use 11 4% 2 1%

A low bridge would cause less disruption to pedestrian/cyclist traffic 0 0% 0 0%

A low bridge would open & close infrequently/not often enough to cause issues 18 7% 6 3%

A low bridge would cause low/minimal disruption to river traffic / leave the river navigable 0 0% 0 0%

A low bridge is easier for cyclists & pedestrians to use/better access for cyclists 2 1% 0 0%

A low bridge provides easier access for disabled people/wheelchairs 0 0% 0 0%


A low bridge would be visually attractive/less obtrusive/look elegant/beautiful 3 1% 0 0%

A low bridge is less visually obtrusive / less visual impact 1 0% 1 1%

Net: Option (bridge/ferry/tunnel) 1 0% 0 0%

A lower bridge is better / prefer a low bridge 1 0% 0 0%

NET: POSITIVE GENERAL 211 78% 21 11%

Net: Overall Acceptance 105 39% 13 7%

Either would work/like both options/as long as there is a crossing 89 33% 0 0%

Other overall acceptance mentions 17 6% 13 7%

99

Net: Convenience 70 26% 3 2%

Do not mind waiting/openings/closures are not an issue 10 4% 0 0%

Opening schedules could be published so users can plan accordingly 6 2% 0 0%

Other convenience mentions 13 5% 0 0%

Leaves the river navigable/less disruption to river traffic 31 11% 1 1%

Continuous (non-water) traffic flow/quick/direct/no delays 17 6% 2 1%

Stop bridge openings at peak commuter hours 5 2% 0 0%

Net: Type Of User (cyclist, pedestrian) 48 18% 2 1%

Good/better for cyclist 33 12% 1 1%

Good/better for pedestrians 20 7% 1 1%

Good for disabled people 7 3% 0 0%

Other type of user mentions 6 2% 2 1%

Net: Access 34 13% 2 1%

Would not require lifts/stairs 15 6% 1 1%

Would require lower/shorter ramps 8 3% 1 1%

Can access by stairs/lift/ramp 7 3% 0 0%

Other access mentions 12 4% 0 0%


Visually attractive/less obtrusive/looks elegant/beautiful 20 7% 3 2%

Other aesthetics mentions 11 4% 0 0%

Net: Other 19 7% 2 1%

Big ships do not cross often 2 1% 1 1%

No/less maintenance required 4 2% 0 0%

Would encourage more/increased use 4 2% 0 0%

Other miscellaneous positive mentions 10 4% 1 1%

Net: Financial 11 4% 2 1%

Cost savings/cost effective option 11 4% 2 1%

Net: Environment 5 2% 4 2%

Lower impact on the area/environment 5 2% 4 2%

Net: Safety/security 4 2% 2 1%

More sheltered/better protected from winds 1 0% 1 1%

Safer for cyclists 1 0% 0 0%

Safer option 2 1% 0 0%

Safer for pedestrians 0 0% 0 0%

Less risk of suicides 0 0% 1 1%

NET: NEUTRAL GENERAL 65 24% 9 5%

Depends on the frequency with which the bridge will be opened/closed 25 9% 2 1%

Details on fact sheets are not sufficient/need additional information 4 2% 1 1%

Other neutral mentions 40 15% 6 3%

100

NET: NEGATIVE ABOUT HIGH BRIDGE 8 3% 12 6%


A high bridge would require steep ramps / too difficult to go up steep ramps 5 2% 5 3%

A high bridge would restrict access / make access difficult / more difficult 1 0% 1 1%

A high bridge would require long ramps 0 0% 0 0%

A high bridge would be more difficult for cyclists/put cyclists & pedestrians off 1 0% 0 0%


A high bridge would have a negative visual impact / look horrible / an eyesore 2 1% 9 5%

NET: NEGATIVE ABOUT LOW BRIDGE 5 2% 8 4%


A low bridge would require more opening & closing 5 2% 8 4%

NET: NEGATIVE GENERAL 31 11% 169 90%

Net: Overall Rejection 11 4% 145 77%

Disagree with any type of bridge/shouldn't have a bridge 6 2% 96 51%

Prefer to have a tunnel/tunnel option is better 3 1% 36 19%

Prefer to have a ferry crossing/ferry option is better 0 0% 41 22%

Other overall rejection mentions 2 1% 6 3%

Net: Access 10 4% 16 9%

Delays/interruptions/no flow 5 2% 8 4%

Would require more opening & closing 2 1% 6 3%

Other access mentions 3 1% 7 4%

Net: Convenience 5 2% 3 2%

Not easy/not convenient to use/no access 5 2% 3 2%

Net: Financial 3 1% 20 11%

Too expensive/needless expense 3 1% 20 11%


Would have a negative visual impact/unattractive/an eyesore 1 0% 12 6%

Net: Other 8 3% 48 26%

Other miscellaneous negative mentions 8 3% 48 26%

Net: None/nothing 3 1% 6 3%

None/nothing 3 1% 6 3%

Total 272 100% 188 100%

Table 33 Issues raised by those who have no preference/ prefer neither height.

Q5: Bridge Design

We have been exploring a number of other aspects that influence the design of

a bridge option. Which of the following aspects are important to you?

Respondents were able to select as many options as applied, and specify ‘other’

aspects that were important to them. Table 34 shows the full list of responses,

including coded responses from the ‘Other’ option.

Comment Total %

Segregation between cyclists and pedestrians 3,595 61%

Access to the bridge deck (by ramps, lifts, stairs or other means) 3,564 61%

Accessibility and inclusivity for all types of user 3,365 57%

Opening time frequencies 3,183 54%

Architectural design and materials 3,079 52%

Opening time length 3,015 51%

Environmental impacts 2,798 48%

Onward journey connections 2,766 47%

Safety and security 2,724 46%

Urban realm and landscaping around the bridge landing sites 2,076 35%

Width of the bridge deck 1,623 28%

Bridge height (height of the deck for users) 1,298 22%

Operation and maintenance of the bridge 1,287 22%

Bridge opening system 1,215 21%

Construction impacts 919 16%

Bridge height (overall height of the structure/towers) 786 13%

Do not want a bridge / want to explore alternative options (tunnel/ferry)

85 1%

Accessibility for cyclists 72 1%

Visual appeal / impact 42 1%

Cost / how it is paid for / who pays for it 34 1%

Construction time 30 1%

Open 24 hours / all day and night 24 0%

Impact on residents / residential area 23 0%

Lighting / light impact 21 0%

Protection from wind / weather 20 0%

Vehicle access 17 0%

Noise impact 14 0%

Accessibility for pedestrians 13 0%

Accessibility / easy to access 11 0%

Impact on boats / ships / river access 11 0%

102

Shelter / seating / rest / viewing areas on bridge 10 0%

Location impact 8 0%

Accessibility for elderly / handicapped / wheelchair bound 7 0%

Free access / no toll 7 0%

Make a landmark / tourist attraction 7 0%

Traffic impact 7 0%

App / email / website with bridge info 6 0%

Everything / all 6 0%

Kiosks / shops / cafes / cycle rental stores 6 0%

Efficient / practical 5 0%

Speed limit 5 0%

Other 47 1%

Total 5,880 100%

Table 34 Other option

103

Q6: Further comments about proposal


who had further comments about the proposal for the Rotherhithe to Canary Wharf

crossing

Comment Total %



A crossing here is much needed/important/a good idea/brilliant idea/support project

1,228 45%

Do it as quickly as possible/as soon as possible/asap 401 15%

Will benefit the community/good for the community 22 1%


Net: Miscellaneous Positive 538 20%

Eases/alleviates traffic/congestion (all mentions) 181 7%

Better for the environment/greener/cleaner/less cars on the road 114 4%

Would boost economy/good for the area/development 101 4%



Better connectivity/encourages travel/tourism/improves access 331 12%

Good for people who live/work in the area 100 4%

A bridge is needed around Canary Wharf/will be beneficial for access to Canary Wharf

36 1%

Will improve connectivity in East London/make East London more accessible 28 1%

I live in the area (unspecified) 14 1%

Will benefit Rotherhithe 5 0%



Net: Option (bridge, ferry, tunnel) 205 8%

A bridge is preferred/is better than others (tunnel, ferry)/build a bridge 125 5%

A Bascule bridge is preferred 57 2%

A bridge is needed/badly needed/long overdue/a good addition/welcome 24 1%


Need better crossing for cyclists 100 4%


Need better crossing for pedestrians 44 2%

Encourages pedestrians 39 1%


Net: Access 6 0%


Net: Financial 5 0%

A tunnel would be expensive/cost a lot to build 5 0%

104

NET: GENERAL 4 0%

Net: Organisations Involved 4 0%

Mention of Elliott Wood/Reform/Sustrans 4 0%

Mention of The Bridge Action Group 1 0%



A ferry is preferred / is better than others (tunnel, bridge) 150 6%

A tunnel is preferred/is better than others (ferry, bridge) / build a tunnel 104 4%

A bridge is not needed/not a good idea 88 3%


Not really a consultation / biased/corrupt survey / decision has already been made

29 1%



Any project is a waste of money/taxpayers money will be wasted/money could be better spent

96 4%

Go with the cheapest option 2 0%



Cyclists should be kept separate from pedestrians/a separate cycle path 99 4%


Net: Overall rejection 91 3%

The Garden Bridge was a waste of money 3 0%


Net: Garden Bridge 6 0%

The Garden Bridge was a vanity project 4 0%

The Garden Bridge was a negative political move 1 0%

The Garden Bridge should never have been considered 1 0%


None/nothing 56 2%

Total 2,720 100%

Table 35 Further comments.

105

Q9: Cyclist access preference

If you chose ‘Cycle’ for the previous question, how would you prefer to access

the bridge deck (as a cyclist)? The bridge deck could be at a height of 10-20m,

equivalent to a building of 3-6 storeys.

Reasons for ramp preference

Table 36 below shows the full list of coded open responses from the 1,079

respondents who said they would prefer a ramp to access the bridge as a cyclist and

gave an open response about why.

Comment Total %

NET: POSITIVE ABOUT RAMP 1,030 96%




333 31%


249 23%


A ramp would be quickest to use/the fastest option for cyclists 24 2%













Ramp is safer / less likely to cause injury/accidents 13 1%





A spiral ramp would be a good idea 1 0%



Environment mentions 9 1%


106












Stairs create a bottleneck 3 0%

Stairs are too slow/slow down your journey 2 0%



Lifts are prone to vandalism/theft 12 1%


None/nothing 1 0%

Total 1,079 100%

Table 36 Reasons for ramp preference.

Reasons for lift preference


said they would prefer a lift to access the bridge as a cyclist and gave an open

response about why.

Comment Total %

NET: POSITIVE ABOUT LIFT 165 93%










11 6%



107


1 1%






A lift would cause less impact on surrounding areas/landing area 1 1%




















None/nothing 1 1%

Total 178 100%

Table 37 Reasons for lift preference.

Reasons for stairs preference


said they would prefer stairs to access the bridge as a cyclist and gave an open

response about why.

Comment Total %

NET: POSITIVE ABOUT STAIRS 64 93%




108







5 7%























Total 69 100%

Table 38 Reasons for stairs preference.

109

Q16: Quality of consultation

The majority rated the consultation as good (87 per cent).

Q18: Ethnic group

Ethnic group Total %

Asian or Asian British – Bangladeshi 37 1%

Asian or Asian British – Chinese 147 2%

Asian or Asian British – Indian 185 3%

Asian or Asian British – Other 65 1%

Asian or Asian British – Pakistani 17 0%

Black or Black British – African 44 1%

Black or Black British – Caribbean 30 1%

Black or Black British – Other 8 0%

Mixed – Other 82 1%

Mixed – White and Asian 71 1%

Mixed – White and Black African 13 0%

Mixed – White and Caribbean 23 0%

Other Ethnic Group 27 0%

Other Ethnic Group – Arab 17 0%

Other Ethnic Group – Kurdish 2 0%

Other Ethnic Group – Latin American 39 1%

Other Ethnic Group – Turkish 11 0%

White – British 2,851 47%

White – Irish 135 2%

White – Other 1,381 23%


Not Answered 361 6%

Net: White 4,367 72%

Net: Other 818 13%

Total 6,094 100%

Table 39 Ethnic group.

Q20: Sexual orientation

Table 40 Ethnic group.

Q21: Religious faith

Ethnic group Total %

Christian 1,529 25%

Hindu 107 2%

Muslim 94 2%

Buddhist 63 1%

Jewish 40 1%

Sikh 6 0%

Other 93 2%

No religion 2,780 46%


Not Answered 435 7%

Total 6,094 100%

Table 41 Religious faith.

Sexual orientation Total %

Heterosexual 3,971 65%

Bisexual 119 2%

Gay man 447 7%

Lesbian 39 1%

Other 45 1%

Prefer not to say 1,017 17%

Not Answered 456 8%

Total 6,094 100%

112

Appendix B: Questions that we asked about

our proposals

1. Do you support a new river crossing between Rotherhithe and Canary

Wharf for pedestrians and cyclists?

Strongly support Support Neither support nor oppose Oppose

Strongly oppose

Please tell us why below

Options

2. Do you support our preferred option of a navigable bridge?

A navigable bridge allows the movement of vessels on the river to continue. It may

be high level allowing vessels beneath or with an opening mechanism to allow them

through.

Strongly support Support Neither support nor oppose Oppose

Strongly oppose

Do you have any further comments on TfL’s preferred option, other options or

the selection process?

113

Bridge Location

3. Considering our preferred option of a navigable bridge, we would like to know your

views on the following potential crossing locations? Please tick a different option

for each alignment, for example, do not tick “Support” for all three alignments.

This will help us to understand your preference when we analyse the

responses.

Do you have any comments on the location of a bridge?

Bridge height

We have been working with the Port of London Authority to investigate different

options for the height and span of the bridge over the river. This heavily influences

how the bridge opens for larger vessels on the river, the frequency and duration of

openings, the visual impact of the bridge and how easy it is to access for users.

4. Considering the information provided, which would you prefer?

Higher bridge Lower bridge Have no preference Neither

Please tell us why below

114

Bridge design

We have been exploring a number of other aspects that influence the design of a

bridge. More information can be found in Factsheet 3: Bridge options.

5. Which of the following aspects are important to you? (tick all that apply):

Access to the bridge deck (by ramps, lifts, stairs or other means)

Accessibility and inclusivity for all types of user

Architectural design and materials

Bridge height (height of the deck for users)

Bridge height (overall height of the structure/towers)

Bridge opening system

Construction impacts

Environmental impacts

Onward journey connections

Opening time frequencies

Opening time length

Operation and maintenance of the bridge

Safety and security

Segregation between cyclists and pedestrians

Urban realm and landscaping around the bridge landing sites

Width of the bridge deck

Other (please specify below)

Other

115

General comments on the project as a whole

6. Do you have any further comments you would like to make about our

proposals?

7. Are you (please tick all boxes that apply):

A local resident

A local business owner

Employed locally

A visitor to the area

A commuter to the area

Not local but interested in the scheme

Other (please specify)

Other

8. How would you use the bridge?

Walk Cycle Both walk and cycle Neither Not sure

9. If you chose 'Cycle' for the previous question, how would you prefer to

access the bridge deck (as a cyclist)?

The bridge deck may be at a height of 10-20 metres, equivalent to a building of 3-6

storeys.

Ramp (the ramp may require some detour from the direction of travel to reach

this height with a comfortable cycling gradient)

Lift (cyclists may be required to dismount, although the lift could be designed as

a ‘through-lift’ to make it easy for cyclists to push the bicycle in one door and out the

opposite door)

Stairs (dismount and push the bicycle up/down a ‘gutter’ on the stairs)

116

Other Please tell us why below r (please specify below)

11. Why would you use the bridge?

For leisure To get to and from work Not sure Other (please specify

below)

Other

12. What is your name?

13. What is your email address?

14. Please provide us with your postcode?

15. If responding on behalf of an organisation, business or campaign group,

please provide us with the name:

16. How did you find out about this consultation?

Received an email from TfL Received a letter from TfL Read about in the

press Saw it on the TfL website Social media Other (please specify)

Other

17. What do you think about the quality of this consultation (for example, the

information we have provided, any printed material you have received, any

maps or plans, the website and questionnaire etc.)?

Very good Good Acceptable Poor Very poor

Do you have any further comments about the quality of the consultation

material?

117

Equality Monitoring

Please tell us about yourself in this section. All information will be kept confidential and used for analysis purposes only. We are asking these questions to ensure our consultations reach all sections of the community and to improve the effectiveness of the way we communicate with our customers. You do not have to provide any personal information if you don’t want to.Top of Form

18. Gender:

Male Female Trans female Trans male Gender neutral Prefer

not to say

19. Ethnic Group:

Asian or Asian British – Bangladeshi Asian or Asian British – Chinese

Asian or Asian British – Indian Asian or Asian British – Other

Asian or Asian British – Pakistani Black or Black British – African

Black or Black British – Caribbean

Black or Black British – Other Mixed – Other Mixed – White and Asian

Mixed – White and Black African Mixed – White and Caribbean

Other Ethnic Group Other Ethnic Group – Arab Other Ethnic Group –

Kurdish

Other Ethnic Group – Latin American Other Ethnic Group – Turkish

White – British

White – Irish White – Other

20. Age:

Under 15 16-20 21-25 26-30 31-35 36-40 41-45 46-50

51-55 56-60 61-65 66-70 71+ Prefer not to say

118

21. Sexual Orientation:

Heterosexual Bisexual Gay man Lesbian Other Prefer not to

say

22. Religious faith:

Buddhist Christian Hindu Muslim Sikh Jewish Other

No religion Prefer not to say

23. Are your day-to-day activities limited because of a health problem or

disability which has lasted, or is expected to last, at least 12 months? (Please

include problems related to old age)

Yes, limited a lot Yes, limited a little No Prefer not to say

Thank you for taking the time to give us your views

119

Appendix C: Consultation Postcard

Copy of postcard that was distributed.

120

Distribution map

Below is the area the post card was delivered to, over 147,000 addresses.

121

Appendix D Copy of Factsheets

Factsheet 1 Overview

For a hard copy of this factsheet, please visit


canarywharf/user_uploads/r2cw-factsheet-1---overview.pdf

A new river crossing between

Rotherhithe and Canary Wharf:

Factsheet 1 – Overview

Introduction

We would like your views on our proposals for a new river crossing for pedestrians and

cyclists from Rotherhithe to Canary Wharf.

This project is one of a number of proposed new river crossings for London which are

intended to improve cross-river connectivity.

Please see Figure 1 for the section of the River Thames under consideration for the new

crossing.

Why are we proposing a new Thames Crossing?

It is forecast that there will be significant growth in cycling across London, employment

growth in Canary Wharf, and population growth particularly in the Canada Water area, due to

new residential and mixed use development.

This will generate an increase in journeys and a demand for walking and cycling facilities in

the area

The Jubilee line is currently operating close to capacity during peak times and there is a lack

of appropriate or sufficient infrastructure to accommodate cyclists and pedestrians wishing

to cross the Thames east of Tower Bridge to access Canary Wharf.

A new river crossing would provide a more direct and attractive route for pedestrians and

cyclists travelling between south and east London. This will help to improve the share of

local trips being made by walking and cycling, in line with the Mayor’s aim for 80 per cent of

Londoners’ trips to be on foot, by cycle or by using public transport by 2041.

The Mayor also specifically referenced the crossing in the draft Mayor’s Transport Strategy

2017 and committed to investigate its feasibility.

https://consultations.tfl.gov.uk/++preview++/rivercrossings/rotherhithe-canarywharf/user_uploads/r2cw-factsheet-1---overview.pdf

https://consultations.tfl.gov.uk/++preview++/rivercrossings/rotherhithe-canarywharf/user_uploads/r2cw-factsheet-1---overview.pdf

122

Figure 1: (left) Section of the River

Thames under consideration for a new

river crossing.

Options for a new river crossing

We investigated several options for a

new river crossing in this location. Some

were discounted at an early stage as

they were not feasible, leaving us with a

short list of three options; a tunnel,

improvements to the existing ferry

service and a bridge. These three

options were further assessed to

consider their ability to meet the

scheme’s objectives, their likely costs, potential benefits, and possible impacts.

Preferred option

Based on the studies that we have carried out so far, we propose a bridge as our preferred

option for a river crossing between Rotherhithe and Canary Wharf but we want to hear your

views.

Any option taken forward is likely to be subject to further Environmental Assessment. This

will examine the proposals and describe the likely significant environmental effects, as well

as potential mitigation measures. It will be reported in an Environmental Report for

submission as part of any consents application.

We will work closely with statutory stakeholders, such as the Local Authorities, Port of

London Authority, Environment Agency and Historic England to ensure that any likely

significant impacts are carefully considered and appropriately mitigated.

More information on our shortlisted options can be found in Factsheet 2.

What are the next steps?

We have allocated funds for the development of the crossing in our business plan and are

also exploring opportunities for third party funding. Following incorporation of your feedback

into the scheme we anticipate consulting again in 2018 before submitting a consents

application in 2019.

To find out more: Visit tfl.gov.uk/R2CW-crossing

where you can view our other factsheets and supporting information about the scheme.

Public Exhibitions: Alternatively, come along to one of our public exhibitions where you will

have the opportunity to speak to TfL staff about our proposals.

123

Rotherhithe:

Saturday 18 November 2017

At Canada Water Library, Room 5, 21 Surrey Quays Rd, London SE16 7AR

o from 12:30 to 16:30

Thursday 23 November 2017

Canada Water underground station, Jubilee line ticket hall, Deal Porter Way, Surrey Quays

SE16

o from 08:00 to 10:00

Canada Water Library, Room 3, 21 Surrey Quays Rd, London SE16 7AR

o from 11:00 to 19:00

Canary Wharf:

Saturday 25 November 2017

Alpha Grove Community Centre, Alpha Grove, Isle of Dogs, London E14 8LH

o from 11:00 to 15:00

Thursday 30 November 2017

Canary Wharf underground station, Jubilee line ticket hall, Canary Wharf, London E14

5NY

o from 08:00 to 19:00

Have your say

This public consultation will be open until 8 January 2018.

To have your say about our proposals please visit tfl.gov.uk/R2CW-crossing

Or Email: [email protected]

• Phone: 0343 222 1155*

• Post: FREEPOST TFL CONSULTATIONS

If you would like a paper copy of our consultation plans and questionnaire, please contact

us using the details above.

*Service and network charges may apply. See tfl.gov.uk/terms for details


124

Factsheet 2: Crossing options



canarywharf/user_uploads/r2cw---factsheet-2---crossing-options.pdf


Rotherhithe and Canary Wharf

Factsheet 2 – Crossing options

Introduction

We are investigating the feasibility of providing a new river crossing for pedestrians and cyclists

between Rotherhithe and Canary Wharf. This crossing seeks to increase travel by sustainable

modes, improve the health of Londoners, and support growth in the opportunity areas of Canada

Water and the Isle of Dogs. Figure 1 shows the section of the River Thames under consideration

for a new crossing.

A new river crossing would provide a more direct and attractive route for pedestrians and cyclists

travelling between south and east London helping to improve the share of local trips being made

by walking and cycling in line with the Mayor’s aim for 80 per cent of Londoners’ trips to be on

foot, by cycle or by using public transport by 2041.

Options Assessment

We carried out a number of assessments to explore possible crossing options. Some options (such

as a cable car) were discounted at an early stage as they were not feasible. Three potential options

were shortlisted for further assessment, appraisal and review; a navigable bridge (a bridge which

still allows shipping to pass), a tunnel and an enhanced ferry (note there is an existing ferry service

in this location).

These three options were assessed to consider their ability to meet the need for a new crossing,

the project’s objectives, their likely costs, potential benefits, and possible impacts. We also

engaged with stakeholders, including landowners and the local community, to understand what

they thought of the crossing options from an early stage. This factsheet outlines a summary of this

assessment.

https://consultations.tfl.gov.uk/++preview++/rivercrossings/rotherhithe-canarywharf/user_uploads/r2cw---factsheet-2---crossing-options.pdf

https://consultations.tfl.gov.uk/++preview++/rivercrossings/rotherhithe-canarywharf/user_uploads/r2cw---factsheet-2---crossing-options.pdf

125

Figure 1: The section of the River Thames under consideration for a new crossing

Bridge

Option description: A navigable bridge can be built in a number of ways to enable the passage of

vessels on the river to continue. For example, a high-level bridge could be built, or a bridge could

be constructed at a lower-level with a movable span to allow the bridge deck to be opened for

passing vessels.

Cost1: Approximately £225-300 million (Net Present Value (2016 base year).

1 This represents whole life costs expressed as a Net Present Value (2016 base year). This

means the total of all costs involved in designing, constructing, operating and

maintaining that option over a 60 year appraisal period, reduced to 2016 prices.

126

Forecast demand: In 2031 approximately 1.5 million pedestrian trips are forecast per year and

between 450,000 and 900,000 cycling trips.

Availability: A crucial consideration with this option is the need to open for larger vessels on the

river. An opening might mean the bridge is unavailable to users for as little as 10 minutes typically,

however, this might increase up to 60 minutes if, for example, a large war ship requires

synchronised opening with Tower Bridge. The time of day when it has to open will change as many

vessels move with the changing tides, however, it may be possible to communicate these

openings to users to mitigate any impact on their journeys. The frequency of opening is dependent

on the height of a bridge above the water. A bridge is easier to access if it is at a lower level but it

would have to open for river vessels more often. A higher bridge is more difficult to access (with

taller ramps/lifts/stairs) but would open less. For a navigable bridge to never have to open for

vessels, it would need to be up to 60m clear of the water (similar to the Emirates Air Line).

Feasibility: A pedestrian and cycle bridge of the span needed to cross the river at this location

would be unusual and therefore relatively high risk. However, early engagement with the

engineering and construction industry suggests it is feasible.

Environment: Subject to further assessment, some impacts are anticipated in the river around

piers and possibly visual impacts for nearby residents (these could be positive, or negative,

depending on design). Construction impacts, such as noise, are likely but mitigation measures

could be employed. Impacts on land will depend on the height of the bridge deck and the extent

and design of any ramps.

Value for money: The cost: benefit assessment for this option appears to be similar to the ferry

option, but with the potential for a more transformative impact and realisation of wider long-term

economic benefits. A bridge achieves similar benefits at a significantly lower cost than the tunnel.

Summary: A bridge would provide a permanent cross river link for walking and cycling in this

location, helping to encourage a change in behaviour and supporting sustainable growth. The key

challenges will be to develop a cost effective solution that minimises the impact on the

environment, local residents, and balances the needs of those using the bridge with those using

the river.

127

Enhanced ferry service

Option description: One crossing option is to enhance the existing cross river ferry connecting the

DoubleTree Docklands Hotel with Canary Wharf. Pier upgrades at Canary Wharf and Nelson Dock

could make them more accessible and able to accommodate new roll-on/roll-off cycle vessels to

provide faster boarding and alighting. New vessels could provide a higher frequency service than

the current service through provision of two or even three vessels to reduce waiting times. The

existing ferry service has a fare for users but this could be altered, or removed entirely.

Cost1: Approximately £75-120m (Net Present Value (2016 base year).

Forecast demand: In 2031 between 850,000 and 1.1 million pedestrian trips are forecast per year

and up to 340,000 cycling trips.

Availability: A ferry would provide good availability as the impact of passing vessels on ferry

operations would be minimal. However, there would always be a wait associated with the service

even if multiple boats were provided to reduce waiting times. Given the running costs and lower

demand, a multiple boat service could be reduced at night or outside commuting periods.

Feasibility: No significant constructability issues are foreseen.

Environment: Subject to further assessment, minor impacts are anticipated during construction,

for example, visual and noise impacts around the piers and some temporary impacts on river

habitats. Construction impacts are likely but mitigation measures would be employed.

Value for money: For assessment purposes, we considered a free service and a fare charged

service, the free service generating a higher forecast demand. This produced a comparable cost

benefit assessment to a navigable bridge option, although the lower cost reflects the lower

benefits of reduced number of users.

Summary: An Enhanced ferry service is cheaper and faster to implement than the bridge or tunnel

alternatives, but is unlikely to encourage as many walking or cycling trips.

128

Tunnel

Option description: A tunnel could provide a reliable link which would be accessed by lifts or

potentially by ramps. We based this option on an immersed tube tunnel2 as we determined this to

be the most effective tunnel solution; unlike other tunnel types this could provide a more efficient

square cross section and could be shallower underground to reduce the height change for users.

Further we concluded that an immersed tube tunnel would be cheaper than alternative tunnel

options. A tunnel option could be relatively flexible in location with no need to construct

entrances directly on the riverbank, although a longer length of tunnel may cost more.

Cost1: Approximately £440 million (Net Present Value (2016 base year)).

Forecast demand: In 2031 approximately 1.6 million pedestrian trips are forecast per year and up

to 900,000 cycling trips.

Availability: A tunnel would provide very good availability to users 24 hours a day, regardless of

weather or shipping movements.

Feasibility: This approach would be a complex engineering challenge as an equivalent immersed

tube tunnel has not been built before in London, however, it is not uncommon elsewhere and

early engagement with the engineering and construction industry suggests it is feasible.

Environment: Subject to further assessment, impacts are anticipated on aquatic ecology and

riverine habitat during construction associated with an immersed tube tunnel. Construction

impacts are likely, such as visual and noise but mitigation measures would be employed. A tunnel

would have little visual impact on the river and surrounding landscapes in its final state.

Value for money: This option offers poorer benefits compared to its overall cost than the ferry or

bridge options, due to its higher construction cost.

Summary: : A tunnel would provide a 24/7 solution, but would be the highest cost option. An

immersed tube option, which we believe would be the most viable form of tunnel, could also have

significant environmental impacts on the river.

2 An immersed tube tunnel is located at the bottom of a body of water consisting of multiple sections

which are floated into position and sunk to their specified location and subsequently connected

129

Our preferred option

Based on the studies that we have carried out so far, we propose a navigable bridge as our

preferred option for a river crossing between Rotherhithe and Canary Wharf.

It is important to note that no final decisions have yet been made and we want your views on our

initial options assessment.

To find out more: Visit tfl.gov.uk/R2CW-crossing where you can view and download our other

factsheets and supporting information about the scheme.

Have your say This public consultation will be open until 8 January 2018.


Or

• Email: [email protected]

• Phone: 0343 222 1155*



You can also request paper copies of plans and a consultation questionnaire in Braille, large text or

another language using the above contact information, or calling 0343 222 1155*.


130

Factsheet 3 Bridge Options



canarywharf/user_uploads/r2cw---factsheet-3---bridge-options.pdf


Rotherhithe and Canary Wharf:

Factsheet 3 – Bridge options

Introduction

We are investigating the feasibility of providing a new Thames river crossing between

Rotherhithe and Canary Wharf for pedestrians and cyclists.

Options for a new river crossing

We considered several options for a new river crossing in this location, including a tunnel,

enhanced ferry and bridge.

Based on the studies we have carried out so far, we propose a navigable bridge (i.e. a bridge

that allows vessels on the river to pass) as our preferred option. Further information on our

initial options assessment is provided in: Factsheet 2 - Crossing Options

Bridge options

In order to inform future decisions we have been investigating the navigable bridge option in

greater detail. As part of this work, we would like your views on different aspects of a bridge

including the location, height and other considerations.

We will work closely with statutory stakeholders, such as the Local Authorities, Port of

London Authority, Environment Agency and Historic England to ensure that any likely

significant impacts are carefully considered and appropriately mitigated.

Location

We would like your views on three preferred bridge alignments which are illustrated in Figure

1.

https://consultations.tfl.gov.uk/++preview++/rivercrossings/rotherhithe-canarywharf/user_uploads/r2cw---factsheet-3---bridge-options.pdf

https://consultations.tfl.gov.uk/++preview++/rivercrossings/rotherhithe-canarywharf/user_uploads/r2cw---factsheet-3---bridge-options.pdf

131

Figure 1 – Possible crossing alignments

Northern Alignment: Nelson Dock Pier to Westferry Circus

Pros:

The Nelson Dock landing allows for a more direct route through Pearson’s Park to Salter

Road and the National Cycle Network

The higher level at Westferry Circus allows for potentially shorter ramped access to the

bridge

Westferry Circus provides a suitable area for a bridge landing with adjacent commercial

activity and good access to the wider transport network

Cons:

Impacts on private commercial land including the Hilton Doubletree Docklands hotel

Adjacent to heritage buildings around Nelson Dock.

May require reconfiguration works to the highway at West Ferry Circus

Central Alignment:

Durand’s Wharf to Impound Lock

Pros:

Space for ramps could be available in Durand’s Wharf Park

The area above the Impound Lock is not currently used (aside from maintaining the lock)

or proposed for development

There are opportunities to provide ramps at both ends of the bridge

Cons:

This alignment gives the longest movable span and thus the longest duration for bridge

openings

Close proximity to residential buildings

Changes to the use of public space at Durand’s Wharf

132

Southern Alignment:

Durand’s Wharf to West India Dock

Pros:

Bridge perpendicular to the straightest part of the river reducing construction costs, risks

and opening times

Cons:

Close proximity to residential buildings

There is no adequate space for a ramp and so West India Dock Pier would require

additional lift capacity which could impact on adjacent properties

Vehicular access to adjacent properties and the junction of Cuba Street with Westferry

Road pose a challenge to integrating cyclists/ pedestrians with the existing road network.

Changes to the use of public space at Durand’s Wharf

We would like to know your views on the possible alignments.

Height

We have been working with the Port of London Authority to investigate different options for

the height and span of the bridge over the river. This heavily influences the design of the

bridge, how easy it is to access, its potential visual impact and how often/for how long it

opens for larger vessels on the river.

We have been surveying the river to understand the height and frequency of vessels

navigating along this section of the river. These surveys will continue to assist future stages

of design but initial findings suggest a bridge of10, 15 or 20m above the water, during the

busiest summer months, would have an average 15, 8 or 4 vessels passing beneath per day

respectively.

An opening might mean the bridge is typically unavailable to users for as little as 10 minutes,

however, this may take up to 60 minutes for the very largest vessels. The time of day when it

has to open will change as many vessels move with the changing tides, however, it may be

possible to communicate these openings to users to mitigate any impact on their journeys.

Higher bridge

Pros: A higher bridge would open less often for river vessels

Cons: Would be more difficult to access (with taller ramps/lifts/stairs) and could potentially

have a greater visual impact.

133

Lower bridge

Pros: More accessible and a lesser impact on the existing communities

Cons: Would need to open more frequently to allow vessels to pass.

A key implication of the bridge height decision is how users will access a bridge. A

combination of ramps, lifts and stairs could be used to get users up to the main bridge

section on the river. The higher the bridge, the longer the ramps need to be. This results in

longer journeys and requires a greater amount of space.

The height decision will not only affect how users cross the bridge, but also how vessels

navigate underneath it. As such it is essential that the height of the bridge strikes a balance

between these two characteristics of the bridge.

We would like your views on how to develop an optimum bridge height.

How the bridge could open

There are different ways that a bridge could open and the main examples we are considering

are presented in Figures 2, 3 and 4.

Figure 2: Vertical Lift

134

Pros:

Relies on a single opening mechanism that is energy efficient

Gives the shortest moving span and a potential for incremental height changes

The size of the bridge piers would be the smallest of the options

Cons:

Vertical clearance has an ultimate limit (the maximum lifting height)

Towers (possibly up to 80m above the river) will be required to hold the mechanism and

lift the bridge in the air. This may have a greater visual impact. Other bridge options will

likely also require towers for cables supporting the main span, but these might be shorter.

Figure 3: Bascule

Pros:

The height of towers above the bridge deck are less than for a lift bridge

Counter balancing the bridge would reduce energy use

Provides unlimited height clearance for vessels when fully open

Cons:

A bascule bridge of the size required in this location would be at least 40% longer than the

largest currently existing bridge of this type

In the maximum open position the end of each deck would be up to 80m above the river.

This may have an impact on views and also poses a significant engineering challenge.

The wind and other loads on the structure in the open position are greater than for other

options, which will require a greater amount of energy

135

Figure 4: Swing

Pros:

Counter balancing the bridge may reduce energy use

Provides unlimited height clearance for vessels when fully open

Could potentially have a lower visual impact than other bridge options

Cons:

The area of bridge moving for the swing will be larger than for other bridge types. It will

take more time to clear people before opening therefore increasing the waiting times.

Ends of the swing spans can be vulnerable to ship impact and may require additional

protection and parking structures in the river in the fully open position

We would like your views on these different opening mechanisms as well as a number of

other design considerations for a bridge.

Further detail on our work to date investigating a bridge, and the crossing in general, is

provided in the Background to Consultation Report which can be viewed at:

tfl.gov.uk/R2CW-crossing

Have your say This public consultation will be open until 8 January 2018.


Or

• Email: [email protected]


136

• Phone: 0343 222 1155*


If you would like a paper copy of our consultation plans and questionnaire, please contact us

using the details above.


137

Appendix E Stakeholder List

Below is the full list of stakeholders we contacted regarding the consultation

London boroughs

City of Westminster Tower Hamlets

Southwark

Members of Parliament

Dr Rosena Allin-Khan MP (Tooting) Chris Grayling MP (Epsom and Ewell)

Andrew Jones MP (Harrogate and Knaresborough)

Harriet Harmen QC MP (Camberwell and Peckham)

Helen Hayes MP (Dulwich and West Norwood)

Neil Coyle MP (Bermondsey and Old Southwark)

London Assembly Members

Valerie Shawcross Deputy Mayor for Transport

Gareth Bacon AM Nicky Gavron AM

Andrew Boff AM Tom Copley AM

Joanne McCartney AM Fiona Twycross AM

Shaun Bailey AM Sian Berry AM

David Kurten AM Caroline Russell AM

Peter Whittle AM Susan Hall AM

Unmesh Desai AM Abbie Cooper AM

Florence Eshalom Caroline Pidgeon AM

GLA Conservatives

Business Groups & Local Business

ICE –London Canary Wharf Management Ltd

South Bank Employers' Group Northbank BID

138

Northbank BID Victoria Business Improvement District

Better Bankside BID London Bridge Team

South Bank Employers' Group Federation of Small Businesses

South Bermondsey Partnership Camden Town Unlimited

Canary Wharf Group Capita

FXpansion Audio UK Ltd. Hallsville School of Ballet

Livett's Group Mackenzie Wheeler Architects

Thames Clippers Mindful Smile

PPM Production Limited

London Chamber of Commerce and Industry

Residents & Community Groups

One Housing Group Herne Hill Society

Friends of Russia Dock Woodland group Canada Water Library

Evolution Quarter Residents' Association Bankside Residents' Forum

Docklands Sailing and Watersports Centre Docklands Community Centre

Alpha Grove Community Centre 2000 Community Action Centre

Poplar HARCA Tower Hamlets Wheelers

Accessibility Groups

Independent Disability Advisory Group Parkinson's UK

National Autistic Society Action on Hearing Loss

Leonard Cheshire Disability Disability Rights UK

London Older People's Strategy Group Alzheimer's Society

London Forum for the Elderly London Visual Impairment Forum

Wheels for Wellbeing RNIB

Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee

British Deaf Association (BDA) National Pensioners Forum

Transport for All Thomas Pocklington Trust

139

Scope Trailblazers, Muscular Dystrophy UK

Royal Society of Blind Children Guide Dogs

Royal London Society for the Blind (RLSB) Age UK Camden

Age UK Camden Disability Action

Whizz Kidz Vision 2020

Asian People's Disability Alliance Brent MenCap

Transport Groups

London TravelWatch Sustrans

Clapham Transport User Group Friends of Capital Transport

Highways Agency Campaign for Better Transport

London Cycling Campaign Department for Transport

Better Streets for Tower Hamlets Cruising Association

Lewisham Cyclists Greenwich Cyclists

TfL Youth Panel

Railfuture - London & South East regional branch

London Group of Campaign for Better Transport

Other Organisations

London Councils Port of London Authority

Redriff Primary School Canal and River Trust Historic

England

Natural England Clean Air London

London Wildlife Trust Living Streets

Friends of the Earth Centre for Cities

London Ambulance Service Royal Mail British Waterways

National Grid Met Police Community Policing EDF UKPN

NHS Care Commissioning Group Thames Water

AECOM Albion Street GP

140

Bike Taxi Ltd Environment Agency

Historic England JPMorgan Chase Bank

London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority

The Inland Waterways Association London Living Streets

Reform Southwark Green Party

Southwark Liberal Democrats Stop Killing Cyclists (SKC)

Surrey Docks Farm The Peckham Coal Line

The Ramblers Inner London Area

Watermen and Lightermen of the River Thames

141

Appendix F Press and online advertising

Below is the press ad that appeared in the Metro newspaper in the TfL page on

various days during the consultation

142

Below is the press release at the launch of the consultation

PN-137 8 November 2017

Londoners’ views sought on plans for new Rotherhithe to Canary Wharf crossing

Consultation now underway on a new crossing in east London,

providing a dedicated pedestrian and cycling route across the Thames

Subject to consultation responses, a second consultation on final

preferred design will take place in 2018 – paving the way for application

for planning consents in early 2019.

Transport for London (TfL) has begun an eight-week consultation on plans for a new

pedestrian and cycling crossing across the Thames between Rotherhithe and

Canary Wharf.

The proposal forms part of the Mayor’s wider package of river crossings and new

walking and cycling infrastructure in east London set out in his Manifesto and draft

Transport Strategy. It could see a new much-needed river crossing linking thousands

of people directly between Canada Water and Canary Wharf, and supporting new

jobs and homes in the area.

The crossing would link into existing and planned cycle routes on both sides of the

river. With a dedicated walking and cycling bridge being TfL’s preferred option, it

would directly encourage more people to cycle and walk in the local area, supporting

143

the Mayor’s aim for 80 per cent of Londoners’ trips to be on foot, by cycle or by

public transport by 2041.

TfL’s recently published Strategic Cycling Analysis showed how the route from

Peckham, through Rotherhithe and across the river to Canary Wharf and Hackney,

should be looked at in more detail to help encourage more cycling. The latest

modelling by TfL suggests that, with future growth and development in the local area,

by 2031 more than two million pedestrian and cyclist journey every year are

expected to be made using the bridge. This could increase further if walking and

cycling improvements are delivered across the wider area.

Pedestrians and cyclists currently have very limited opportunities to cross the river

east of Tower Bridge easily and safely - restricting access to key destinations such

as Canary Wharf. The Greenwich Foot Tunnel is already operating at capacity at

peak times and the Rotherhithe Tunnel, which is the only other permanent crossing

option across the river at this point, is regularly avoided by pedestrians and cyclists.

A new river crossing would contribute towards dealing with the substantial growth in

east London in recent years, and would provide an easy alternative to the Jubilee

line and other river crossings for those trips that could be made on foot or by bike.

Over the past year, TfL has worked with the engineering consultants Arcadis and

Knight Architects to review the need for a new crossing and explore different

crossing options to ensure the development of a value for money solution. This has

included looking at the design and engineering considerations as well as modelling

demand for different crossings at this location, and speaking to local residents and

stakeholders. This work led to the creation of a shortlist of three options - an

enhanced ferry service, a bridge or a tunnel. These options were further assessed to

consider their ability to meet the scheme’s objectives, their likely costs, potential

benefits, and possible impacts.

Based on the studies carried out so far, a navigable bridge is TfL’s preferred option,

and it has begun to investigate this option in greater detail (this is a bridge that

allows the movement of vessels on the river to continue). As part of the consultation,

144

TfL is seeking views on the selection of this preferred option and different aspects of

a navigable bridge. These include the specific location of a bridge option, the height

that the bridge would be, as well as other considerations such as the overall design

and considerations about how a bridge would open for large ships to pass on the

river.

While a navigable bridge is TfL’s preference, no final decisions have yet been made

and Londoners are welcome to recommend alternative designs or options as part of

the consultation process.

Val Shawcross, Deputy Mayor for Transport, said: “It’s great news that we’ve started

the formal process for a new walking and cycling crossing between Rotherhithe and

Canary Wharf. This area of east London has seen huge growth in recent years, and

our desire for a dedicated crossing for cyclists and pedestrians shows our real

commitment to greener forms of transport across London. It will provide vital new

connections to work, shopping and leisure facilities for thousands of local residents

and provide a new route for commuters into Canary Wharf. We now want everyone

to have their say before we outline further details of how we can make this ambition

a reality.”

Leon Daniels, Managing Director of Surface Transport at TfL, said: “Walking and

cycling is key to creating a more liveable, healthy city. East London is seeing more

growth than any other part of London and it’s absolutely right that we invest in new

vital river crossings to support this going forward. This new crossing is envisioned to

be a fantastic addition to London and provide a valuable and accessible link to new

and proposed walking and cycling routes on both sides of the river.”

Simon Munk, Infrastructure Campaigner, London Cycling Campaign said: “More

walking and cycling-friendly crossings across the Thames are much-needed,

especially connecting east London. There is huge potential to get more people from

south London cycling to work in the Docklands area but the options currently

available - Tower Bridge, Rotherhithe tunnel and the Greenwich Foot Tunnel – all

have major issues for potential cyclists.

145

“We welcome this new consultation and hope the Mayor moves forward on this

crossing, along with the proposed Cycle Superhighway 4, which will improve access

to the bridge and other major cycling schemes, rapidly for the benefit of all

Londoners.”

Clare Wadd, Chair of the Ramblers Inner London Area, said: “The Rotherhithe to

Canary Wharf Crossing will be an exciting addition to London’s walking routes,

connecting communities and enabling people to easily enjoy The Thames Path on

both banks.”

Based on the responses to this consultation, TfL will determine the most appropriate

form of crossing and continue to develop more detailed designs, together with a

construction timeline. TfL will then look to consult on the designs for the crossing in

2018. This will allow local residents, visitors and commuters to comment on the

proposed designs before they are completed and submitted as part of any consents

application in 2019.

For more information and to respond to the consultation, please visit

www.tfl.gov.uk/R2CW-crossing

http://www.tfl.gov.uk/R2CW-crossing

146

Appendix G Campaigns and Petitions

Campaigns

Below is a copy of the email text that was in the email from respondents of the

London Cycling Campaign.

"Dear Transport for London,

I would like to express my strong support for a new river crossing between

Rotherhithe and Canary Wharf for people walking and cycling.

I support the proposal for a navigable bridge over the other options as a

bridge provides a crossing without wait times (unlike a ferry), and would be

more pleasant to use and cheaper to build than a tunnel.

Of the bridge options, I prefer the Northern Alignment. This is because it

provides the space for ramps on and off the bridge, meaning that cycle

journeys wouldn’t be interrupted by lifts or curtailed by stairs, and the

bridge would be accessible for the widest range of cyclists. It also provides

a more direct connection to the employment centres on the Isle of Dogs, and

to existing and planned cycle routes.

I also prefer the option for the higher bridge, as it will minimize the

number of times the bridge will need to open, reducing any wait time. But it

shouldn't have slopes more than 1:40 overall - more than that and it becomes

a barrier to people walking or cycling over it.

Being able to cycle on and off the proposed bridge is very important to me,

as a different option (stairs or a lift) would drastically change the

accessibility and usability of the bridge for those on bike.

Alongside this proposal, I would like to see more walking, cycling and/or

public transport bridges east of Tower Bridge, to help the Mayor reach his

targets set out in the Mayor's Transport Strategy, increasing the number of

people choosing to walk, cycle and take public transport. What I don’t want

to see is more motor vehicle crossings that would create more motor traffic,

congestion and pollution in east London.

147

==Sent by London Cycling Campaign on behalf of==

First Name:

Last Name:

Postal Code:

Email:

Are you (please tick all boxes that apply):

How would you use the bridge? :

If you chose 'cycle' for the previous question, how would you prefer to

access the bridge deck (as a cyclists)? Ramp (the ramp may require some

detour from the direction of travel to reach this height with a comfortable

cycling gradient)

Why would you use the bridge?

Submitted on”

148

Petitions

Below is the text for the Thames River Protection Group Against The Rotherhithe Bridge petition

The Thames river and Europe's most rapidly developing hub, Canary Wharf (CW), are under threat, as London authorities are planning to build a foot/cycle bridge, linking up Rotherhithe to the western part of the isle of dogs.

There are many reasons why this bridge is a danger for the environment and the well-being of Londoners especially those living and/or working in the isle of dogs, but we tried to isolate a few which we deem worthy of this fight against another ill-thought colossal superfluous cemented structure, on our beloved river.

Destruction of a beautiful natural landscape, that has become a touristic hotspot linking the views of the city to those of Canary Wharf,

Astronomical cost (£200M+) for little value for local residents when the need for surgeries, schools and basic infrastructures for an ever-growing local population is essential,

Damage to an already fragile environmental water life by passers-by who would undoubtedly pollute the river bed on this 24h a day unpoliced structure,

The case for such a crossing at this particular location has not been proven at all, by any study, and the figures of the existing crossing at such location (the Hilton ferry) are insignificant to justify such a massive new expenditure.

PLEASE SIGN THIS PETITION to the decision makers to stop the Rotherhithe Bridge and comment on why you are signing; all feedback is welcome and encouraged. Many thanks for your support.

More info:

Firstly, if built, the so-called Rotherhithe bridge will not only destroy a stunning natural landscape, preventing residents and tourists alike, to enjoy a beautiful view of the river, and the city, including some of the most iconic west end landmarks, but most importantly, it will aggravate further an already ultra-congested area, by increasing the incoming footfall onto CW.

Secondly, the rising cost of construction (from an estimated £85M to £200M and counting) and the burden of annual maintenance, will fall upon the public, whilst at the same time, the isle of dogs residents badly need public expenditure to go on surgeries and schools, in order to cope with an exponentially increasing population. The isle of dogs residents are lacking some basic public services like fire protection (our local fire station is down to a one manned engine at the moment) or police station, since by the time this bridge is built, the latter would have moved from Limehouse to Bethnal Green, making the area even more difficult to secure.

Thirdly, the catastrophic environmental effect of a 24/7 steel structure laying on the river, with the obvious pollution from passers-by throwing their garbage as they cross, should not be underestimated, along with its impact on the river's surroundings wildlife (flora, fauna and sea birds) and a uniquely convoluted landings,

149

making it one of the very few, if not the only bridge in the world, that is not set to cross a river at a 90 degrees angle.

Fourthly, there are already a dozen bridges spanning a few miles crossing the Thames in central London, most of them can be crossed by foot. That is more than is needed. Besides, based on the present traffic between Canada Water and canary wharf, there is no evidence whatsoever that such a bridge would benefit a large enough commuting crowd to be of public interest. A look at the data coming from the Hilton ferry would prove that there is an insignificant number of daily crossings/commutes between Rotherhithe and Canary Wharf. If the authorities wanted to prove the case, for such a structure, a river crossing/traffic test could be easily done by improving the existing ferry services making it available to bicycles and pedestrian alike, and compiling the data after a few months.

Finally, our opposition to the bridge is not an opposition to any change that will benefit our neighbourhood when it comes to commuting infrastructures, but this proposed Rotherhithe link in its essence, location, and design is not the answer, so we would be keen to work with the relevant authorities on finding an appropriate solution that can benefit our local area, the Isle of Dogs, Canary Wharf and Tower Hamlets.

150

Below is the text for The Canary Wharf River Protection Group’s petition.

Support the implementation of an economical, eco-friendly, and flexible crossing between Rotherhithe and Canary Wharf, for cyclists & pedestrians: a solar-powered/electric ferry boat crossing.

The case for the Rotherhithe Eco Ferry (REF):

As you may be aware, the London authorities are currently proposing to build a pedestrian/cycle crossing linking Rotherhithe to Canary Wharf. We would like, with your support in signing up this online petition, to get the authorities, to adopt an eco-friendly ferry boat solution.

An electric ferry boat, propelled for instance by solar panels, has several massive advantages over other solutions, currently being considered by Transport for London (TFL).

Lower drastically the cost of any type of alternative crossings (bridge and tunnel) by dozens of millions of pounds which could be better served, improving the current transport infrastructures around the already ultra-congested isle of dogs, or subsidizing the cost of a tailor-made ferry crossing, making it a free or at least inexpensive (part of an oyster card travel) and enjoyable navigational experience.

It is estimated that a bridge would cost in excess of £200M, when the REF would reduce this cost down to a very small fraction of it.

Protect the wonderful natural unabridged view of the river at this particular location, which has become over the years, a famous touristic hotspot, featured in many tv/movie films, documentaries and countless other media outlets,

Shield the river from the environmental damage that a 24/7 unpoliced bridge would cause to the river (unavoidable construction pollution, pedestrians littering the river and endangering the wildlife, not to mention the traditional security risks to people, inherent to any bridge);

Provide a more flexible solution, as a ferry could serve different paths and adapt to the actual need of the residents and visitors alike, when it comes to its docking locations. Ferry boats can travel multiple destinations whilst bridges are obviously static. We can therefore imagine a fast frequent and cheap/free crossing that would provide some rest to cyclists and pedestrians on their journey, especially if the landings of a bridge are expected to prolong the journey time by a considerable amount given that a bridge deck is expected to be at least 20m high as it has been suggested by the Port of London Authorities (PLA);

Solve the many problems that a bridge would cause to the PLA and the boating community at large, at the bend of the river, that would otherwise limit the flowing passage of a significant number of ships, whose height exceed the decks;

Finally, test at the lowest possible cost the real need for a crossing at this particular part of the river, by extending/improving on a service currently provided by the Hilton (but at a very high cost, hence limiting its appeal), and make sure that the authorities are not making an unrepairable financial and environmental mistake, when they

151

assume, without any study, let alone a serious one, that a crossing is needed at this particular spot and that it has to be a bridge;

If you wish to see the London authorities and Mayor Sadiq Khan weigh in in favour of a truly green, flexible and cost saving solution for our city, please support this petition asking for the REF (Rotherhithe Eco-Ferry) option to be trialled.

The Canary Wharf River Protection Group.

Below is the text for David Mansfield’s petition

Public transport to the Isle of Dogs is limited by the River Thames surrounding it on three aspects, with just a foot tunnel to the south, and already overcrowded DLR and Jubilee line trains at rush hour.

Residents and commuters of the Isle of Dogs and Rotherhithe would greatly benefit from additional access points to/from the island, opening up their travel choices with additional low-impact options of walking and cycling, and by providing free and easy access to amenities and resources across the river. Local businesses would benefit from the increased footfall brought in by day trippers and tourists making use of the bridge.

The Mayor of London has approved this bridge, along with some other river crossings, for further consideration. However, a vocal opposition group has started a petition against the bridge and are trying to get the project pulled. To counter the opposition campaign this petition aims to demonstrate support in the same way to allow fair assessment of the proportions of the two views.

With funding not yet in place and local authorities straining under austerity budgets, it's important to show we really do value this option, and encourage funding to be sought from wherever it may be.”

152

Appendix H: Emails

Below is a copy of the text emailed to our Oyster card database registered

customers

Subject: Have your say on proposals for a new river crossing between Rotherhithe

and Canary Wharf

Good afternoon,

We would like your views on proposals for a new river crossing between Rotherhithe and Canary Wharf for pedestrians and cyclists. A new crossing would provide a safe, attractive and direct route for pedestrians and cyclists, reducing journey times and encouraging more active travel among the growing communities on both sides of the river.

For full details and to share your views, please visit tfl.gov.uk/R2CW-crossing

This consultation will be open until Monday 8 January 2018.

Yours sincerely,

David Rowe

Head of Major Projects Sponsorship

https://consultations.tfl.gov.uk/rivercrossings/rotherhithe-canarywharf/?cid=r2cw-crossing

153

Below is a copy of the email that was sent to stakeholders on our stakeholder

list

From: TfL Consultations

Sent: 08 November 2017 14:17

Subject: Have your say on proposals for a new river crossing between Rotherhithe

and Canary Wharf

Good afternoon,

We would like your views on proposals for a new river crossing between Rotherhithe

and Canary Wharf for pedestrians and cyclists.

A new crossing would provide a safe, attractive and direct route for pedestrians and

cyclists, reducing journey times and encouraging more active travel among the

growing communities on both sides of the river.

For full details and to share your views, please visit tfl.gov.uk/R2CW-crossing

This consultation will be open until Monday 8 January 2018.

Yours sincerely,

David Rowe

Head of Major Projects Sponsorship

Transport for London

Rotherhithe to Canary Wharf crossing · Dogs; To improve connectivity from the Rotherhithe peninsula, particularly the ... proposals for a new river crossing between Rotherhithe and

Documents