Air pollution in Newham and Tower Hamlets – can you help us with our study?

2015 No to Silvertown Tunnel air pollution study

We’ve got the map and the equipment – but can you help us with our study?

We’re planning a new air quality study in Tower Hamlets and Newham. If you live in or near Poplar, Silvertown or Canning Town, we’d love you to take part in it.

No to Silvertown Tunnel has teamed up with Mapping For Change to carry out the survey, which will measure air quality in an area stretching from Poplar’s Aberfeldy Estate through to Britannia Village in Silvertown and Canning Town’s Keir Hardie Estate.

Results from the study will be used in the campaign against the Silvertown Tunnel, which is being proposed by TfL with the support of Newham Council and Poplar & Canning Town MP Jim Fitzpatrick.

Rather than diverting traffic away from the congested Blackwall Tunnel, the proposed Silvertown Tunnel is more likely to increase traffic and pollution in communities on both sides of the Thames.

Earlier this month, London’s deputy mayor for transport, Isabel Dedring, admitted to MPs that City Hall’s planned river crossings would lead to a “doubling of traffic” on local roads.

We’re looking for volunteers who can spare a couple of hours next week to help us install tubes that can measure levels of nitrogen dioxide in the air – and who can spare a couple of hours in early March to take them down again.

If you can spare a couple of hours between 2-6 February and 2-6 March, please get in touch via The dates are chosen to match those used by local authorities when they measure air quality.

It’ll be our third air quality survey, and it’s the first time we’ve worked with Mapping For Change, which promotes empowering local communities to become healthier and more sustainable. Alongside our project, Mapping For Change is also working on studies in Hackney and Catford, as well as another survey covering Vauxhall and Streatham.

Our first study, in 2013, investigated areas affected by the proposed tunnel south of the river, while in 2014 we looked at a broader area of south-east and east London. This new study will home in on areas directly affected by both the Silvertown Tunnel and the existing Blackwall Tunnel.

“Local politicians in Newham and Tower Hamlets don’t want to admit the Silvertown Tunnel will be a blight on east London,” No to Silvertown Tunnel campaigner Chris Taylor says.

“The Silvertown Tunnel will make a bad problem even worse by bringing new traffic to the area. We’re gathering more evidence to show them that they need to work to cut traffic levels in Poplar, Canning Town and Silvertown – not increase them. The more help we can get from locals, the better our work will be.”

No to Silvertown Tunnel is also working alongside Network for Clean Air and community groups south of the river on their own independent air quality studies. The Charlton Central Residents Association, Westcombe Society, East Greenwich Residents’ Association and a group in Slade Green, near Crayford, are all due to begin their studies in the coming months.

Privacy Policy

Join Christian Wolmar at No to Silvertown Tunnel’s AGM on 29 January

Christian Wolmar

Opposed to the Silvertown Tunnel? You’re invited to No to Silvertown Tunnel‘s annual general meeting, which will take place at Mycenae House, Blackheath, on Thursday 29 January at 8pm.

We’re delighted to confirm that transport journalist Christian Wolmar has kindly agreed to be our special guest speaker at the meeting.

Christian is one of the UK’s foremost experts on transport and transport policy; needless to say, he’s implacably opposed to the Silvertown Tunnel. He’s also seeking the Labour Party’s nomination to be its candidate for Mayor of London.

Last year’s consultation may be over, but it’s a busy time for our campaign. We’re finalising plans to carry out an air quality study north of the river, as well as supporting community groups with studies south of the river.

We’ve also submitted evidence to MPs on the Transport Select Committee, who heard Greenwich Council leader Denise Hyland and Newham mayor Sir Robin Wales reaffirm their backing for the tunnel on Monday.

We’re also drawing up new plans to keep on spreading the word against the tunnel – making sure local politicians know that local people are opposed to this blight on our communities.

There’s plenty to do, so if you want to get involved in our campaign, please come along and say hello. Here’s the agenda for the meeting.

There’s a licensed bar at Mycenae House, which will also be open after the meeting. It’s 10 minutes’ walk from Westcombe Park station (trains from Cannon Street, London Bridge, Greenwich and Woolwich Arsenal) and close to bus routes 53, 54, 108, 202, 380 and 386.

So please come along – it’ll be great to see you! As always, if you have any questions, please drop us a line on

Privacy Policy

There’s still time to have your say on TfL’s ultra-low emission zone

Happy New Year!  We hope that you have had an enjoyable and relaxing time.

Transport for London is currently consulting on an Ultra Low Emission Zone (“ULEZ”) to come into effect from September 2020.  The consultation ends on Friday 9 January so there is still time to make your voice heard!

TfL's Ultra Low Emission Zone map

The proposed boundaries would be the same as the current central London congestion charge zone. With frequent exposure to high levels of airborne pollutants in this area, such a measure would be welcome. But we feel both the scope and the range of the zone are uninspiring and represent a missed opportunity.

We’d encourage everyone with an interest in air quality across London to respond to the consultation.

You can find our reply to the consultation below. You may like to consider or adapt it while composing your own response. We haven’t included questions that require personal information.

13. In your opinion, how important is it to tackle poor air quality in central London?

(Very important down to very unimportant) – “Very important”

14. Do you support an Ultra Low Emission Zone (ULEZ) in central London to encourage the use of low emission vehicles to improve air quality?

(Strongly support to strongly oppose) – “Strongly support”

15. It is proposed that private and commercial vehicles that do not meet the ULEZ standards must pay a daily charge to drive within the ULEZ from 2020. Do you support this?

(Range of vehicles & options strongly support to strongly oppose) – Chose “Strongly support” for all

16. Do you think the proposed boundary of the ULEZ shown on the map is the appropriate area for charging vehicles which do not meet the ULEZ standards?

(Yes, Should be smaller, Should be larger, No) – “Should be larger”

17.Do you support the proposal that the ULEZ standards would be enforced 24 hours a day, 365 days a year?

(Strongly support to strongly oppose) – Chose “Strongly support”

18. Do you think the proposed charge (£100 for heavy vehicles and £12.50 for cars, vans and powered two wheelers) is appropriate?

(Yes, No too low, No too high, Don’t know) - Chose “No, too low”

19. It is proposed that residents in the ULEZ would not need to meet the ULEZ standards until 2023 (and therefore not pay a daily charge until then). Do you support this? 

(Strongly support to strongly oppose) – “Neither support nor oppose”

20. Do you support the proposal for TfL to operate only hybrid double deck and zero emission single deck buses on bus routes operating through the ULEZ?

(Strongly support to strongly oppose) – “Strongly support”

21-23. Do you support the proposals to reduce emissions from taxis and private hire vehicles by:
a) Introducing a requirement in 2018 that newly licensed vehicles would be zero emission capable for:
(Strongly support to strongly oppose) – “Strongly support”
b) Reducing the Londonwide age limit for non zero emission capable taxis to 10 years and exempting all licensed taxis from the ULEZ standards (and therefore daily charge)
(Strongly support to strongly oppose) – “Strongly support”
c) Requiring PHVs to meet the ULEZ standards for private cars in order to drive in the ULEZ without paying a daily charge (similar to other cars and vans)
(Strongly support to strongly oppose) – “Strongly support”

24. Do you think the proposed date of 2018 for requiring new taxis and PHVs to be zero emission capable is:

(About right, could be achieved earlier, should be achieved later, no opinion) – “Could be achieved earlier”

25. Please write in the box below if you wish to make any other comments about any aspect of the ULEZ proposal including any potential exemptions or expand on any of your responses above.

The ULEZ represents a missed opportunity. It is restricted to the existing Congestion Charge zone which only covers a few of the areas in London which suffer from poor air quality.  While the area of the proposed ULEZ features some areas where pollution is particularly high, the choice of area gives the impression that it was picked for the ease of implementation and monitoring – as infrastructure is already in place and it is an area of the road network that due to its size TfL can really control – rather than for its impact on pollution.

Poor air quality is very much localised, and your crude measure – “the percentage of population living in areas of NOx exceedance” – does not reflect the real health issue facing London.

While we would not wish anyone to have to suffer poor air quality, it is notable that these measures are focussed on an area with just 200,000 residents. It appears one motivation behind the ULEZ is to protect the image of London rather than actually protecting all of the residents of Greater London: “this [the ULEZ area] is where most people visiting and living in London are exposed to pollution on a daily basis.”

It is also not clear whether the current ULEZ proposal would a) solve the air pollution issue, b) get London to just within legal limits, or worse, c) do nothing.

We believe: 

a) the ULEZ should be extended to cover at least all inner London boroughs (to the east, at least as far as Greenwich and Newham) but should probably expand further to cover the whole area inside the M25.

b) In addition to the ULEZ, the mayor should be stopping road building schemes such as the Silvertown Tunnel, a project that will further increase congestion and air pollution. This should be in conjunction with an expanded ULEZ.

We would also question whether the ULEZ is actually that much of a game-changer. The standards would already be quite old: “If approved by the Mayor, the ULEZ standards would be introduced from 7 September 2020 and by this time it is expected many vehicles will already be compliant” and “the oldest Euro VI HGV will be six years old, whilst the oldest Euro diesel 6 car will be five years old”.

Therefore much of the change you hope for would be down to the natural process of changing vehicles and updating fleets. If the ULEZ is being introduced to reinforce good air quality, it should be designed to be more aggressive than simply reflecting updated standards.  It’s  also not good enough that some of the vehicles that will remain non-compliant would be in TfL’s own fleet, unless retrofit measures are introduced.

In addition, the ULEZ does not address what we see as the core issue – the sheer weight of traffic in Greater London. More needs to be done to tackle this.

26. As vehicle technology advances, TfL may consider strengthening the ULEZ standards at a later date to set a zero emission requirement. Do you support this in principle?

(Strongly support to strongly oppose) – “Strongly support”

27. Would you support a future expansion of the area of the ULEZ to spread the benefits of improved air quality to other parts of London?

(Strongly support to strongly oppose) – “Strongly support” 

Privacy Policy

Greenwich councillors must reject Boris’s toxic tunnel to protect new school

John Harrison Way

St Mary Magdalene school is taking shape behind these hoardings on John Harrison Way, in Greenwich Millennium Village

Greenwich Council should reject plans to build a new road tunnel from the Royal Docks to Greenwich Peninsula to protect children attending a new school it is building close to one of London’s most congested roads, campaigners said today.

The No to Silvertown Tunnel campaign spoke out after MPs recommended that new schools should not be built close to main roads, as the pollution caused by traffic damages children’s lungs for life.

The Environmental Audit Committee recommended that new schools, hospitals and care homes should not be built on main roads, and existing schools by main roads should have air filtration systems included. No to Silvertown Tunnel contributed to the inquiry.

Despite Greenwich Council building a new school on the Greenwich Peninsula – St Mary Magdalene, due to fully open in 2015 – Transport for London plans to build the Silvertown Tunnel, feeding extra traffic into the A102, which passes the school site.

The Silvertown Tunnel will generate new traffic on the existing Blackwall Tunnel approaches, failing to clear northbound congestion, exacerbating southbound queues, and putting the wider road network under heavier strain.

A citizen science study carried out by No to Silvertown Tunnel in January showed high levels of nitrogen dioxide in the air close to the St Mary Magdalene site, which is opposite the existing Millennium Primary School.

Other schools close to roads affected by the Silvertown Tunnel scheme include Halstow Primary in Greenwich and Invicta Primary in Blackheath.

Greenwich Millennium Village pollution

Nitrogen dioxide levels at Greenwich Millennium Village, recorded in January 2014. The St Mary Magdalene school will open on the site marked “coach park”, between Millennium Way and John Harrison Way. Figures over 40 microgrammes per cubic metre break European legal limits.

“The Environmental Audit Committee report underlines that it is insanity to build new roads through urban areas such as ours,” No to Silvertown Tunnel campaigner Jill Austen said.

“This report should be a wake-up call for policymakers and councillors across London and the rest of the UK – they can’t keep on demanding new roads when the effects of those roads damage children’s health.

“The only way you will deal with congestion is by taking traffic off the roads. Expanding capacity has been proved time and time again to be counterproductive.”

On the specific proposals in Greenwich, Jill added:

“Greenwich Council is right to be opening a much-needed new school on the peninsula. But if it’s to follow this policy through properly, it has to oppose a road project that will put the health of children across the borough at risk.

“Councillors can’t cross their fingers and hope there’ll be a magic road tunnel that won’t cause extra traffic or pollution – because that simply won’t happen.

“They need to face up to their responsibilities to children at St Mary Magdalene, Millennium Primary and other schools across the borough and oppose this dangerous scheme. Future generations deserve better than to have their health blighted by this toxic tunnel.”

Transport for London’s latest Silvertown Tunnel consultation closes on 19 December. To respond, please visit Please also tell your local councillors, MP and London Assembly members what you think – get their details at

Privacy Policy

Tell TfL: No to Silvertown Tunnel! Some tips on filling out the consultation

Another southbound A102 jam

Transport for London’s consultation into the Silvertown Tunnel is ongoing. You can find out more about why the tunnel’s such a bad idea on the rest of our webpages. We’ve already submitted our response – and you should submit yours too at

(You can read our FULL response here.)

If you’re looking for some ideas, here are our suggested responses. Everyone will have a slightly different views, so feel free to add your own comments, or amend ours as you see fit.

Wherever you live, please also tell your local councillors, London Assembly members and MP you object to the Silvertown Tunnel. Find them at

6. What do you think about the consultation itself? (leaflets, websites, publicity, etc)

  • More assessment of traffic flows and environmental and economic impact is required. Much of the evidence I need to reach a final decision on the merits of the Silvertown Tunnel is not available at this stage.
  • The timing of this consultation, and that of the previous consultation into a replacement for the Woolwich Ferry, has been confusing. The Woolwich Ferry consultation assumed that Silvertown would be built, and this consultation assumes there will be some replacement of the current ferry that allows for 30% more volume of traffic. This makes it impossible to deal with each case on its merits, and to have confidence in what the aim of this consultation is.
  • Publicity for this consultation has been inconsistent and has missed key affected areas. Drop-in consultation clinics are not advertised or signposted in the local area.
  • Misleading information was released in conjunction with the launch of this consultation. TfL claimed 98% of those surveyed in the Woolwich Ferry consultation were in favour of ‘new river crossings’, when this figure included those who merely wanted to see the Woolwich Ferry continue with new vessels.

7. We consider that a new crossing is needed to improve the resilience of the road network in east London, relieve congestion at the Blackwall Tunnel and beyond and to support growth in London’s population. Do you agree that a new crossing is needed and could successfully address these issues?


  • In the last decade, London’s population has grown while car use has dropped.
    Resilience will not be improved by adding additional traffic to the pinch points north and south of the tunnel.
  • As TfL’s modelling is not open to scrutiny, we are asked to take assurances that there will be less congestion on trust. I demand greater openness on how TfL models traffic – after all, it us who face living with greater congestion and pollution if you get it wrong.

8. Would you support a user charge that was similar to Dartford charges levels, and during peak periods slightly higher, to help pay for the new crossing and resulting in more reliable journey times and less overall delays?

  • TfL has no evidence that tolling set at Dartford levels would adequately manage demand for the crossing.
  • Greenwich, Deptford, Poplar and Limehouse will be burdened with extra traffic from drivers diverting to the free Rotherhithe Tunnel.
  • If the toll is more expensive at peak times, traffic will mill around areas close to the tunnel until the price for crossing has fallen: this effect can already be seen with the congestion charging zone.
  • Charging tolls for a tunnel (as opposed to a London-wide charging system, for example), will act as a disincentive for businesses to move to areas close to it.

9. Would you sign-up to an account system, with the benefits of auto-pay and a charge that would be lower than what non-account holders would pay?


10. The Silvertown Tunnel would create an opportunity for new cross-river bus connections. What sort of new bus connections do you think are important?

Additional bus routes could cross the Blackwall Tunnel now without the need to build a new tunnel. Commercial operators already use the tunnel for coach services to and from Kent.

11. We will link the new tunnel to the existing road network with new junctions in the Royal Docks and Greenwich Peninsula areas. Do you agree that the new junction in the Royal Docks area on the north side provides the right connections?


12. We will link the new tunnel to the existing road network with new junctions in the Royal Docks and Greenwich Peninsula areas. Do you agree that the new junction at the Greenwich Peninsula on the south side provides the right connections?


13. Please use the space below to let us know any additional comments you may have on our proposals for new junctions to link the tunnel to the existing road network:

I am particularly concerned about the impact of increased traffic volume on junctions on the A102 and A2, and on the Lower Lea Crossing, which already struggles to cope with traffic to events at Excel.

14. What are the key issues TfL should address as we continue to develop our proposals for the Silvertown Tunnel? Please feel free to select as many issues as you wish.

[We suggest ticking all available options]
15. We have published a large number of technical reports. These deal with a number of disciplines, including traffic, the environment, optioneering and engineering, amongst others. If you have any comments on our methodology or approach to any of these disciplines, please let us know in the space below.

TfL needs to make these documents more accessible to the interested lay reader. Guidance upon best order to read and a summary of key assumptions and the contents of each document would be helpful.

Please use the space below to let us know any other thoughts you may have.

I strongly feel East and South East London should be better connected. But spending £753 million on this solution that provides only for road transport is a backwards step: this money could be invested in public transport to give us choice and relieve pressure on the roads, meaning less congestion and delays for those that really must drive.

Further information on question 14:

Proposals for a new user charge: I expect to see a full analysis of the impact of user charging on demand for the Silvertown Tunnel.

Construction impacts: What disruption to the road network will building the Silvertown Tunnel cause? What impact will it have on the environment?

Environment impacts: There should be a full investigation into both air and noise pollution impacts, and proof that TfL has been working with local boroughs on these issues.

Traffic impacts of the Silvertown Tunnel and design of new junctions: TfL needs to open its traffic modelling and explain the assumptions used.

Economic benefits of the Silvertown Tunnel: Full economic cases, both for and against the tunnel, should be provided.

Privacy Policy

Can you help fight the toxic Silvertown Tunnel? Come to our open meeting at Britannia Village Hall

Britannia Village

The Britannia Village development will be directly affected if the Silvertown Tunnel is built, adding traffic to the adjacent A1020 road

Transport for London’s proposed Silvertown Tunnel will hurt communities on the north side of the river Thames – despite what some politicians in the area would have you believe.

It’ll bring more traffic to Silvertown and the Royal Docks, while it’ll encourage Kent commuters to drive to Canary Wharf and the City, adding to congestion through Limehouse and Wapping.

On top of this, it won’t do a thing to solve the poisonous traffic jams on the Blackwall Tunnel northern approach through Bow and Poplar, spewing out pollution past homes and schools.

It’s not just the boroughs of Newham and Tower Hamlets that are threatened by the Silvertown Tunnel; Hackney Council has voiced its concerns about the effects the tunnel would have on its own residents.

Can you help us fight this toxic tunnel? We held an open meeting south of the river last month, now it’s the turn of the north side of the Thames.

We’ll be at Britannia Village Hall, 65 Evelyn Road, London E16 1TU, from 8pm on Tuesday 18 November. It’s a short walk from West Silvertown DLR station and the 474 bus. The Britannia Village development in Silvertown will be one of the areas most affected by the new tunnel, with traffic planned to pour out onto the A1020 which runs past it.

We’ll explain what we’ve done so far, what we’ll be doing in the future, and how you can help us. So we know how many people are coming along, it’d be great if you could register through this link.

Whether you’re from Newham, Tower Hamlets, Hackney, or from south of the Thames, it’d be great to see you. Got any questions? Drop us a line on

Privacy Policy

Video: Why TfL’s Silvertown Tunnel won’t cure Blackwall Tunnel congestion

Transport for London constantly claims the Silvertown Tunnel will cure congestion at the Blackwall Tunnel. That’s simply not true. It’ll do nothing to relieve the queues heading south on the A12 through Bow and Poplar, while additional traffic will merely exacerbate the congestion on the A102 and A2 through Greenwich, Kidbrooke, Eltham, Bexleyheath and beyond.

Don’t believe us? We took a Friday rush hour road trip to find out. Unlike TfL’s video, ours contains real traffic…

Privacy Policy

Fight this toxic tunnel: TfL launches new consultation into polluting, congesting Silvertown Tunnel

Smog and traffic which can only get heavier: Charlton Road, 5pm on 2 April

A typical evening rush hour on the southbound A102 – a jam the Silvertown Tunnel will only exacerbate

Transport for London is launching a new consultation into its Silvertown Tunnel proposals this week, and has released images of what the scheme, which it’s already spent £2.5 million on, could look like if built.

Strangely enough, they don’t show the southbound traffic jam that traffic exiting the tunnel would hit on the A102 – so we’ve included a picture above, which also shows the smog that blights air quality around the tunnel approaches.

In Greenwich, a new flyover would be constructed just north of the remaining gas-holder, to allow traffic leaving the Blackwall Tunnel to cross that heading into the Silvertown Tunnel, which would run roughly under the line of the Thames Cable Car.

Silvertown Tunnel south proposal

The northbound image is slightly harder to fathom out, but at the Silvertown end, the tunnel would emerge at the Lower Lea Crossing roundabout, allowing easy access for Kent car commuters to access Canary Wharf as well as to the Royal Docks.


It’s worth noting that Canary Wharf Group – recently identified as being behind an anonymous campaign against new cycling lanes in central London – is one of the firms backing the Silvertown Tunnel.

Here’s TfL’s video, showing a seamless journey through a computer-generated tunnel.

But this is the current reality, with events at ExCeL already clogging up the Lower Lea Crossing and bringing this part of east London to a standstill. This video was shot by a Royal Docks resident in February during the Cycle Show. Remember, this is traffic that’s already there, and it isn’t looking to cross the river. The Silvertown Tunnel would make this congestion far, far worse.

The consultation will be published at on Wednesday.

Transport for London claims there’s overwhelming public backing for the tunnel – but this has to be taken with a big pinch of salt. Nobody’s been given the full facts about the Silvertown Tunnel. And we’re finding many people simply aren’t aware, or believe the plans have been superseded by proposals for other crossings further down the river.

Current Greenwich Council leader Denise Hyland supporting the Silvertown Tunnel in January 2013. Strangely, the council didn't hand out any of its pro-tunnel postcards in the areas that would be affected by the tunnel...

Current Greenwich Council leader Denise Hyland supporting the Silvertown Tunnel in January 2013. We hope Greenwich will change its mind and back residents rather than big businesses

Indeed, in December 2012, Greenwich Council and Newham Council encouraged residents to support Silvertown with a misleading “Bridge The Gap” campaign – with Greenwich’s weekly newspaper, delivered to every home in the borough, carrying eight consecutive issues of pro-tunnel propaganda, tapping into the frustrations of those who get stuck in morning queues on the A102. (Greenwich later shelved a report from Hyder Consulting that pointed out the Silvertown Tunnel would quickly overwhelm local traffic.)

There’s no data to back up TfL’s claims that it’ll be some kind of economic shot in the arm. And promised traffic and environmental studies haven’t been done.

What we do know is that building new roads merely increases traffic – this 1994 Government report, Trunk Roads and the Generation of Traffic, is the most authoritative study into the matter. So the Silvertown Tunnel threatens to reverse the long-term decline in car use in the area.

And it’s increased public transport provision – the Jubilee Line, East London Line, Docklands Light Railway and Crossrail – that’s driven growth in east and south-east London. The Greenwich Peninsula would still be a wasteland if a third Blackwall Tunnel had been built, and the Jubilee Line had skipped it, as was seriously considered in the 1990s.

Nobody likes wasting time sitting in traffic jams. If we give people alternative ways to cross the river, people will use them.

Throwing £753m (and rising) at building a road tunnel that’ll only fill up within a couple of years is a shocking waste of money when schemes like the Barking-Thamesmead Overground link and the Bakerloo Line extension to Lewisham and Catford need funding. To put it in perspective, scrapping the Silvertown Tunnel would pay for Woolwich Arsenal station to be moved into zone 3 – making cross-river transport easier and cheaper for millions – for up to 750 years.

Newham Waterfront Festival

We talked to residents at the Newham Waterfront Festival in September – and found many simply weren’t aware of the tunnel proposals

Over the past two years, the No to Silvertown Tunnel campaign has launched the first petition against the tunnel, held a public meeting outlining the case against the tunnel, talked to locals at summer events, and revealed the shocking levels of air quality along the southbound approaches through two citizen science surveys. Committee members Darryl Chamberlain and Stewart Christie were given Clean Air in Cities awards to recognise our work in highlighting an issue which is killing people in communities north and south of the Thames – one our politicians will only make worse with a new tunnel.

We’ve also contributed to MPs’ questioning of Mayor Boris Johnson on air pollution issues, responded to the last crossings consultation, met local politicians to outline our concerns, and launched a petition to make one of those alternative public transport links – a Barking to Thamesmead and Abbey Wood London Overground extension – a reality.

It’s time to step up the fight against this toxic tunnel. Our politicians need to realise that the Silvertown Tunnel will be lethal for communities on both sides of the Thames. Our committee’s already working hard against the tunnel, but the more you can do to help us, the more of a chance we have of seeing this off.

Please tell your neighbours, lobby your local politicians, come to one of our open meetings – or email if you can offer any help.

Here’s the quote we’ve sent the press today…

“Once again, Transport for London’s pushing its toxic tunnel with no evidence to back up its wild claims that it’ll reduce traffic congestion or boost our economy. TfL and the mayor think this is a done deal – we’ll fight this mad plan all the way.

“The surrounding traffic network in Greenwich, Newham, Lewisham and Tower Hamlets can’t cope with a doubling in capacity – the Lower Lea Crossing won’t be able to cope, the A206 won’t be able to cope, and nor will the A2 a couple of miles south of the tunnel. Southbound queues on the A102 are horrendous in rush hour – why add to them?

“There’s already a body of evidence about road-building that points to the Silvertown Tunnel causing worse queues, worse congestion, and making life miserable for residents on both sides of the Thames. Air pollution is killing people in communities north and south of the river – yet our politicians seem content to make it worse.

“This is the traffic equivalent of moving the deckchairs on the Titanic. Transport for London is deluded if it thinks the Silvertown Tunnel will cure congestion. There’s nothing in this for locals – it’ll just encourage Kent car commuters to drive to Canary Wharf.

“This £753m waste of money needs to be binned – and the money put towards proper crossings for public transport, walking and cycling instead.”

Privacy Policy

We’re holding open meetings in October and November

A Silvertown Tunnel won't cure these jams, despite what Transport for London claim

A Silvertown Tunnel won’t cure these jams, despite what Transport for London claim

We’re holding two open meetings for No to Silvertown Tunnel supporters in the next few weeks, where you can find out more about what we’ve been doing and what we’re thinking of doing next. If we met you at events during the summer, we’d especially like to see you there. If you’d like to help us, please feel free to come and share your ideas.

So we know how many people are coming along, please let us know you’re coming by registering using the links below.

Mycenae House, Mycenae Road, London SE3 7SE from 8pm on Monday 20 October.
(53, 54, 108, 202, 286, 386 buses, or train to Westcombe Park)
Register here for the south of the river meeting

Britannia Village Hall, 65 Evelyn Road, London E16 1TU from 8pm on Tuesday 18 November.
(474 bus or DLR to West Silvertown)
This date could move – but please sign up now and we’ll let you know if anything does change.
Register here for the north of the river meeting

What else is happening?

We’re expecting a new consultation into the Silvertown Tunnel (and possible Blackwall Tunnel tolling) to come very soon. We’ll be in touch when it comes out, and we’ll also be in touch with ideas for what you can put in any response.

We’ve launched a petition for TfL to extend the London Overground from Barking to Abbey Wood and Thamesmead – the kind of new river crossing east and south east London is crying out for. Sign up here and please respond to the consultation too.

We responded to TfL’s proposals for road bridges at Gallions Reach and Belvedere. (See also Green Assembly member Darren Johnson’s demolition of the schemes, Liberal Democrat Assembly member Caroline Pidgeon’s opposition; plus responses from GreenwichBexley and Tower Hamlets councils.)

Finally, especially if you’re in south-east London, please add your support to a Bakerloo Line extension to Lewisham, Catford and Hayes – we badly need more public transport, and we feel these plans should be brought forward.

To find out more about what we’re up to, and how you can help us, please come along to one of our meetings.

Privacy Policy

TfL’s Gallions Reach/ Belvedere crossings consultation: How we responded

TfL website
During the summer, Transport for London launched a consultation into two possible new road bridges across the Thames at Gallions Reach and Belvedere, along with the possible scrapping of the Woolwich Ferry.

While this consultation did not directly involve the proposed Silvertown Tunnel, it did assume that the tunnel was going ahead – a reminder that the Silvertown Tunnel is no solution for east and south-east London’s traffic problems. We also believe Transport for London exaggerated the extent of recent improvements to public transport, and excluded from its assessments the effect of the M11 link road, which opened in the late 1990s, on demand for the Blackwall Tunnel.

We understand many of those who are opposed to the Silvertown Tunnel would prefer to see new road river crossings further down the Thames. However, we believe action should be taken to enhance public transport connections across the Thames, clearing road space for those who do need to drive, before any road-based links are considered.

Here’s how we responded to the consultation.

Option 1: A new ferry at Woolwich. – STRONGLY SUPPORT

A free ferry at Woolwich is part of the history and identity of the immediate area, one which is enshrined in legislation. The removal of the Woolwich Ferry and its replacement with fixed road crossings removes one of the already-limited options for cyclists and pedestrians in east and south-east London. Women in particular will be deterred from making short journeys across the river at the point as the only other free option is the unattractive and unstaffed foot tunnel. It also reduces the flexibility of the local road network in Woolwich and the Royal Docks, including the ability to carry the restricted freight materials that cannot travel through the Blackwall Tunnel. Furthermore, we believe the possibility of closing or charging for a river crossing that is held in much affection by its neighbours has been deliberately downplayed by this scheme. As Woolwich is a key regeneration area which has recently attracted many new residents, and Greenwich Council plans to replace small business accommodation at Charlton riverside with new housing, we believe scrapping the Woolwich Ferry would be folly.

Option 2: A new ferry at Gallions by the early 2020s – OPPOSE

Under the terms of this consultation, the establishment of a ferry at Gallions Reach would mean the removal of a ferry at Woolwich. While we are in favour of free passage across the river, if there is to be a single service which caters for pedestrians and cyclists, then it should be at Woolwich. It appears to us that a ferry at Gallions would simply be an interim measure before a fixed crossing was introduced.

We would be more inclined to support a ferry at Gallions if it operated without charge, if the free ferry at Woolwich was to continue, and a fixed road-based crossing was permanently ruled out.

Option 3: Gallions Reach Bridge – OPPOSE

We object to the Silvertown Tunnel on the basis that it will increase traffic and pollution in south-east and east London. We believe the same failing applies to the Gallions Reach Bridge proposal, and so would not wish to see our neighbours suffer this fate. A study prepared for Newham Council last year shows huge increases in traffic generated by the Gallions proposals through Woolwich, Plumstead, Abbey Wood and Bexleyheath – particularly along side streets such as Knee Hill, Abbey Wood and Griffin Road, Plumstead. Such congestion may tempt future administrations to link a bridge to the A2 at Falconwood, threatening homes in Plumstead and natural habitats at Oxleas Woods. These site-specific proposals mean a bridge at Gallions Reach would threaten the future sustainability of the immediate area. Providing a road-based crossing as a replacement for the Woolwich Ferry would remove a realistic crossing for pedestrians and cyclists – nobody will want to walk or cycle across a long, high bridge on a wet, windy day. Indeed, the consultation documents admit this.

Option 4: A bridge at Belvedere – OPPOSE

As with the Gallions Reach Bridge proposal, we believe this will bring congestion and pollution to Belvedere, Erith and Crayford. A recent study into the widening of the A206 through Crayford shows it led to higher levels traffic and a degradation in air quality in the area; while a road-based crossing here would be even less attractive to pedestrians and cyclists than a bridge at Gallions Reach. The public would also need to be reassured about any impact on Rainham Marshes.

Which of these options should we proceed with? WOOLWICH FERRY

We note this consultation assumes the Silvertown Tunnel will be built. This hardly gives the public confidence that issues surrounding the construction of a road-based connection between Greenwich Peninsula and the Royal Docks are being dealt with in a sensible manner.

We also note that the previous Silvertown consultation was misleading because – unlike this consultation – it downplayed the plan to toll both the Silvertown and Blackwall tunnels, while the Bridge The Gap campaign, which was heavily promoted by both Greenwich and Newham councils, did not mention tolling at all.

Indeed, question 9 is a leading question. We would prefer to have been able to tick a box that supported further river crossings – but ones for public transport, pedestrians and cyclists, rather than boxes that supported further road-building.

If improving public transport infrastructure is leading to growth in the east sub-region, it seems clear that further investment in public transport would provide greater returns. Public transport appears to be a blind spot in the consultation document. The traffic impact report does not address modal shift in detail as no bus routes are planned to be added. Neither is it clear that the increased capacity from Crossrail has been taken into account.

We are instead presented with a futile set of choices. Because of the historic lack of public transport connectivity across the Thames, many people choose to drive. Instead of improving public transport to give drivers different options and to ease pressure on the road network, TfL is instead proposing to build new roads, which will make driving a more attractive option, eventually compounding the problem of congestion.

Indeed, recent improvements to public transport are not as impressive as the consultation documents make out. While the benefits in areas such as Brockley and Shoreditch cannot be denied, it is laughable to suggest the East London Railway is a new development – trains between Rotherhithe and Wapping have run since 1869. The Emirates Air Line is little more than a tourist attraction. It is not strategically positioned, charges premium fares and last October was found to carry no more than four regular users.

While the Docklands Light Railway extension to Woolwich is welcome, it is limited in reach and lacks the capacity for further extension. The huge popularity of this route is proof of the demand for better public transport links across the Thames.

It is insulting to suggest that “there has been a period of sustained investment in public transport capacity across the whole of east London over the past 20 years”. There remains a greater density of public transport provision in west London that cannot be merely explained by the radial nature of London’s transport network.

Even when Crossrail opens, there will remain no local public transport connection across the Thames between Woolwich and the limited X80 bus service at the Dartford Crossing. The HS2 rail service is not an option for residents in south-east London, and charges premium fares for those travelling from Kent. Indeed, driving to North Greenwich and using the Jubilee Line from there is a cheaper alternative.

In fact, the loss of two public transport crossings have been ignored – the 395 bus through the Rotherhithe Tunnel was axed in 2006, while the Ford Motor Company’s ferry service between Belvedere and Dagenham ended in 2003.

With the exception of London Overground and the tourist attraction that is the Emirates Air Line, all the public transport improvements have been focused on trips that eventually start and finish in central London, or Canary Wharf. It remains difficult to make purely cross-river trips. Even when the option’s built in, it remains unavailable – the Woolwich DLR service does not normally run to Stratford International, forcing passengers to make an awkward and unattractive change at Canning Town.

Instead of encouraging people to take to their cars, TfL should be increasing the density of public transport connections between east and south-east London, giving people a choice and clearing road space for those who do need to make journeys by car, van, truck or lorry.

We would also question the exclusion of the boroughs of Hackney, Waltham Forest and Redbridge from this study. These boroughs had massive road investment in the 1990s with the construction of the M11 link road. This new road has had long-term consequences, as it has made the Blackwall Tunnel more attractive to drivers heading north than the tolled Dartford Crossing.

We note that demand for a fixed crossing comes from medium-sized firms in the construction industry. Their needs could be accommodated if east and south-east London had a public transport network dense enough to release new capacity on the roads. We also note that firms involved in road-dependent sectors were over-sampled at the expense of those who are less reliant on highways. This indicates to us that the business survey is not representative of the true nature true of east and south-east London’s businesses – especially as land becomes more expensive following regeneration (for example, Greenwich Council’s Charlton Riverside masterplan envisages replacing industry with housing).

Privacy Policy