The 14-mile Thames crossing delayed by 66 miles of paperwork
On Monday, there were plenty of congratulatory pats on the back as the Silvertown Tunnel welcomed London's Ultra Low Emission Zone (Ulez) vehicles along its short route under the Thames. But, for a moment, set aside the Teslas, e-Transit vans, and even the bus carrying bicycles speeding through the new 0.8 mile tunnel between Newham and the Greenwich Peninsula. Consider this: the last time a brand new crossing of the capital's river in east London was celebrated by personal vehicle owners, the Ford Model T was still months away from being launched. It was 1908, and the Rotherhithe Tunnel had just opened.
It wasn't until nearly 60 years later, in 1967, that an additional parallel tunnel was opened at the Blackwall crossing (a Victorian-era project still in use today). Even then, the new eastern tunnel was quickly deemed inadequate, with traffic tailbacks soon crippling the area.
It shouldn't have been this difficult to cross the Thames, surely. Yet, nearly 60 years after the Blackwall debacle, you would have been forgiven for thinking otherwise, given the painfully slow progress in developing critical infrastructure. Further downstream, another classic Thames controversy made headlines last month when plans for the £9 billion Lower Thames Crossing – potentially Britain's largest road-building project – were finally given formal Government approval.
A relief route east of the Dartford Crossings was first mentioned in Parliament a staggering 36 years ago, as part of a 'Roads for Prosperity' white paper. In 2011, it was recognised by the Conservative government as a 'top 40 priority project' in its National Infrastructure Plan. The first public consultation was held 12 years ago.
And yet here we are. The latest estimate from National Highways suggests the Lower Thames Crossing won't open to traffic until 2032. If so-called priority projects take 21 years to materialise, it's no wonder no one's holding their breath.
'The Lower Thames Crossing is such a powerful symbol of how seriously wrong the system is,' says Sam Dumitriu, head of policy at campaign organisation Britain Remade. 'A billion pounds has already been spent on this project before a single spade has got into the ground. The planning application alone cost more than Norway spent on actually building the longest road tunnel in the world. It's bonkers.'
Yes, there are some obvious engineering issues crossing over or under the Thames, not least that once you get out towards the estuary it's relatively wide. The project's two tunnels, which will go between the villages of Chalk, in Kent, and East Tilbury, in Essex, are designed to be 2.4 miles long, making them the longest road tunnels in Britain. But it has been the continued lack of joined-up strategy, combined with colossal paperwork, red tape, and endless judicial, environmental and planning reviews, that has effectively scuppered any prospect of anything getting built quickly.
The Silvertown Tunnel is another classic example of what happens when governments get stuck in a directionless mire. It had been clear since at least the 1980s that London needed more river crossings – especially in the east – yet it wasn't until the mid-1990s that a route was finally safeguarded across the Thames from the Greenwich Peninsula to Silvertown (in other words, prioritised above other proposed developments).
An actual tunnel cropped up in the former Mayor of London Ken Livingstone's transport strategy in 2001, and in Transport for London's Thames Gateway River Crossings strategy published a few years later, the suggestion was that it would directly follow the opening of a new 'Thames Gateway Bridge' between Beckton and Thamesmead. Imagine – two new river crossings!
You might also be thinking: 'What Thames Gateway Bridge?' And you'd be right. It was cancelled in 2008 by then Mayor of London Boris Johnson – too expensive, too environmentally damaging, too unpopular locally. This was after the project had first been proposed back in the 1970s, in a previous guise as the 'East London River Crossing'.
Not that Johnson was averse to expensive Thames crossings. Under his mayoralty, Transport for London drew up proposals for 'a bridge or tunnel' at Gallions Reach and another between Rainham and Belvedere, both of which were eventually ditched by Johnson's successor, Sadiq Khan, who concentrated on the Silvertown Tunnel. (Johnson was also a big fan of the Garden Bridge project, a proposal for a pedestrian crossing between Waterloo and Blackfriars, whose price eventually spiralled out of control.)
The Silvertown Tunnel was finally designated a Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project (NSIP) and given the go-ahead by the Department of Transport in 2018.
That wasn't the end of the story, though. It took another 18 months to award the contract to the Riverlinx consortium to design, build, finance, and maintain the tunnel – and construction didn't begin until spring 2021. When you considered it, it had taken a ridiculous 30 years to properly connect Silvertown with Greenwich, and four years of construction didn't sound so bad.
That is, until you remember that other countries were building tunnels at least 10 times the length for a fraction of Silvertown's £2.2 billion price tag.
The Lower Thames Crossing, meanwhile, still has a number of hoops to jump through despite receiving planning permission last month. Ominously, Matt Palmer, National Highways executive director for the Lower Thames Crossing, has said that while they are 'shovel ready' with their delivery partners to build one of the UK's most important infrastructure projects, the decision still only allows them to 'work with the Government on funding and start the detailed planning.'
All of which begs the question: what more detailed planning could they possibly need to do with government? Britain Remade did the maths – if you put all the pages of the interminable documents involved in this project end to end, they would stretch 66 miles, five times longer than the road itself.
National Highways declined to comment on specifics, but Dumitriu is certain there'll be more legal challenges to the planning approval decision, which will end up going to the High Court, and possibly the Court of Appeal.
'The Lower Thames Crossing has had eight separate consultations, and one of the things we're calling for is looking at whether all these legal requirements are appropriate,' he says. 'Part of the reason you end up with a 360,000-page planning application is because there is so much legal risk you end up having to gold plate every aspect of the project.
'Yes, we should look at what the environmental impact is,' he says. 'Yes, we should consider what locals think. But we also have to fundamentally accept that there is a trade off here in terms of getting growth back up in the UK for the long term. All this gold plating has speed and cost implications; this was once a £4 billion project which is now more like £10 billion – and as we heard just this month, the Government doesn't have a huge amount of cash to splash.'
Which is why there's still an element of frustration that Labour's much-heralded Planning and Infrastructure Bill – a critical piece of legislation aimed at easing major projects through – is now stuck in red tape itself, as the Bill shuttles between committee stages, report stages, House of Lords approval, and eventually, maybe, Royal Assent.
The Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government – the department sponsoring the Bill – was asked when there might be a puff of white smoke from Whitehall. A spokesperson simply replied that the planning reforms needed to become law 'as quickly as possible.'
The builders agree – and are just as impatient. Last week, senior executives from 13 UK Tier 1 contractors penned an open letter to MPs urging them 'to grasp the scale of this opportunity and support the Planning and Infrastructure Bill without diminishing its ambition.'
And it's this ambition that actually excites bodies such as the National Infrastructure Commission. Many of the recommendations in its National Infrastructure Assessment of 2023 have made it into the Bill.
'Everybody, I think, would argue that one of the big constraints in this country is consistent policy and strategy,' says its chair Sir John Armitt.
'If you take the Lower Thames Crossing decision, it's very good news. This, to my mind, is a relatively straightforward piece of transport infrastructure which is of critical national importance – and that was recognised some 15 years ago. So it's taken a long time.'
But why so long?
'Well, we pointed out to the government three years ago that the planning process has severely deteriorated since 2010,' he says. 'Back then, you could get an NSIP through in just over two years. Now it's over four on average, with some – like the Lower Thames Crossing – taking even longer. At the same time, the number of judicial reviews on NSIPs has gone up from 10 per cent to 56 per cent.'
Britain Remade say there are 1,800 pages on newts in the Lower Thames Crossing planning document. It's this kind of red tape, combined with legitimate local concerns, which makes multiple legal challenges and consultations inevitable. (Even existing crossings have been put out of action by officialdom. The 138-year-old Hammersmith Bridge was closed six years ago following the discovery of cracks, but its future remains in limbo amid wrangling between three tiers of government – central, city and local.)
'The whole process has to be reviewed,' agrees Armitt. 'One of the reasons it takes so long and costs so much is because of the environmental challenges and assessments that have to be made, the mitigations that have to be made and the sheer amount of statutory authorities who have to be consulted.
'There should be the ability, for example, to look at a more strategic, spatial area where a developer can put forward money to compensate communities on a broader environmental basis. That's potentially a very significant step forward.'
That's why the Environmental Delivery Plan and Nature Restoration Fund has been prepared alongside the Planning and Infrastructure Bill, and will be operational for developers to use shortly after Royal Assent.
Yet the Government does concede that streamlining the NSIP regime still has some way to go. Housing and planning minister Matthew Pennycook says that during the Bill's first and second readings in Parliament, several MPs called for further consideration of how long pre-application periods are taking for infrastructure projects, due to the way statutory procedures are being applied.
'This is an issue to which the Deputy Prime Minister and I have already given a significant amount of thought,' he says, 'and I commit to giving further consideration to the case for using the Bill to address statutory requirements that would appear to be no longer driving good outcomes. I can assure those honorary Members that the Government will not hesitate to act boldly if there is a compelling case for reform in this area.'
Acting boldly, many would argue, would mean addressing those statutory requirements now. After all, aren't the experiences of the Silvertown Tunnel and the Lower Thames Crossing compelling cases for reform?
Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Politico
32 minutes ago
- Politico
Mayoral candidate Brad Lander burns through cash, putting him at home-stretch disadvantage
NEW YORK — Brad Lander's day job is overseeing the city's cash. As a mayoral candidate, he is burning through his own. The city comptroller had spent nearly $1 million more than any other candidate in the Democratic primary for New York City mayor, as of the latest data through May 19, yet he's still polling a distant third. And with a mandatory spending cap of roughly $8 million and just two weeks until the election, Lander finds himself at a significant disadvantage to opponents with more money for voter outreach in the final stretch of the race. The fiscal steward vying to replace Mayor Eric Adams has dropped $4.7 million on two television ads, a stable of consultants and staff salaries totaling more than $700,000, according to records from the city's Campaign Finance Board. He's left with $2.8 million, as of the latest disclosure period in May. By comparison, front-runner Andrew Cuomo had $5.7 million and second-place Zohran Mamdani, the democratic socialist lawmaker, had $4.5 million. Also in financial distress is City Council Speaker Adrienne Adams, who got into the race late and has $2.3 million in the bank. The candidates' updated finances will be published Friday. Lander paid $226,500 to fundraiser Jenny Galvin, $195,650 to pollster Global Strategy Group and $161,644 to consultancy BerlinRosen. Digital marketing and fundraising firm Authentic Campaigns netted $135,451, and the campaign even paid $35,677 to a firm that helps campaigns optimize spending. The spending hasn't really helped all that much. Lander is polling significantly behind Mamdani — the state assemblymember who has captured the progressive movement Lander hoped to tap into — and Cuomo, who is benefiting from more than $10 million worth of ads coming from two super PACs and the gratis services of a prominent lobbyist quietly powering his campaign. A government reform group has requested an investigation into Cuomo's use of that firm, Tusk Strategies. 'Conventional campaign wisdom is you unload most of your spending six to eight weeks out from the primary,' said Democratic strategist Trip Yang, who is not affiliated with any of the mayoral candidates. 'Brad is doing what he needs to, but for some reason it is not really breaking through in the polls.' Lander has banked more on broadcast and digital ads than Mamdani. That strategy is reminiscent of former Mayor Bill de Blasio's 2013 campaign, which did not feature a single piece of direct mail. The city comptroller has dropped $2.5 million on TV ads via Great American Media that feature him at the controls of a frontloader crushing Teslas in a junkyard and riding Coney Island's famed Cyclone while calmly taking notes on a legal pad. 'We will be up on broadcast, streaming, and digital every day through June 24th thanks to the grassroots support for our campaign from every corner of this city and a hunger from New Yorkers to end the Adams-Cuomo nightmare of corruption,' said Alison Hirsh, Lander's campaign manager, in a statement. A Lander spokesperson argued he has less cash than other top contenders because he started running earlier. Lander began raising money in February 2022, one month into his and Eric Adams' tenures, when each was presumably planning to run for reelection. As the mayor's political standing faltered, the comptroller started to see an opening to challenge the brash, Trump-aligned Democrat. By the time Lander announced his candidacy for mayor last summer, he had already spent a half-million dollars, public records show. In the ensuing three months before Mamdani announced his candidacy in October, the comptroller dropped another $200,000. Taken together, that accounts for the bulk of the discrepancy between Lander and Mamdani, the next-biggest spender in the race. As of last month, Mamdani had dropped $3.9 million, leaving him with $4.5 million in his war chest. Once he maxed out on fundraising, he cut a video suggesting his prospective donors give to Adrienne Adams, instead — a nod to the city's ranked-choice voting system that encourages partnerships to damage the front-runner. The democratic socialist Mamdani is employing a different strategy than the city comptroller, evidenced by a substantial investment in mailers as he inches closer to Cuomo in the polls. Mamdani's campaign paid direct mail firms Moxie Media and Century Direct Solutions — along with a printing company and a sticker firm — more than $400,000. A spokesperson said the campaign wanted to balance the success Mamdani has had producing viral social media videos with an effort to reach more analog voters. (The average age of the city's most active voters suggests they are not on TikTok.) In the home stretch with a significant polling advantage, Mamdani had $1.8 million more to spend than Lander. The comptroller announced May 20 that he had maxed out on fundraising, but some of that cash won't come through until June 20, the next public matching funds payout. Both are chasing Cuomo, who does not have money troubles, despite his disastrous turn before campaign finance regulators. After initially denying him matching funds based on systemic paperwork errors, the Campaign Finance Board fined the former governor $756,994 for improper coordination with a super PAC supporting him called Fix the City. The outfit has raised $10 million and spent around $8 million boosting Cuomo with television ads. A separate super PAC affiliated with the New York Apartment Association pledged to drop $2.5 million supporting the governor. Cuomo has spent $1.9 million and has $5.7 million left in the bank. Adrienne Adams was worse off than the city comptroller as of last month's filing. She entered the race late and has been scrambling for cash since. The board awarded her $2 million in matching funds last month, which led her to announce a broadcast ad shortly afterward. Even without sufficient money, she has been polling near Lander on the strength of endorsements from municipal labor union DC 37 and state Attorney General Letitia James. On Thursday, U.S. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez endorsed Adrienne Adams as her second choice behind Mamdani, making the impact of her remaining cash reserves harder to predict.
Yahoo
44 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Welsh FM accused of doing ‘nothing' to protect pensioners from winter fuel cut
The First Minister of Wales has been accused of doing 'absolutely nothing' to protect pensioners, following a UK Government U-turn on winter fuel payment cuts. Darren Millar, leader of the Welsh Conservatives, called for Eluned Morgan to apologise to the pensioners affected by the change last winter, arguing the Welsh Government should have stepped in to support those in need. Speaking during First Minister's Questions on Tuesday, Mr Millar said the cut had forced vulnerable people to choose between heating and eating. Baroness Morgan, leader of the Welsh Labour Government, said she was 'absolutely delighted' that the UK Government had reversed the cut for many. The payment, worth up to £300, will be restored to the vast majority of pensioners, with anyone with an income of under £35,000 a year now getting the payment automatically. The decision last July to restrict the winter fuel payment to the poorest pensioners was intended to save around £1.5 billion a year, with more than nine million people who would have previously been eligible losing out. Rachel Reeves, the Chancellor, announced the partial U-turn on Monday, following significant backlash from charities, opposition MPs and the Government's own backbenchers. Speaking in the Senedd, Mr Millar said: 'Yesterday we saw a screeching U-turn on the winter fuel allowance by Rachel Reeves, after considerable pressure from the Conservative Party. 'You will know that over half a million Welsh pensioners were deprived of their winter fuel payments last year, leaving some very vulnerable people with the unenvious choice of having to choose between heating and eating – it's an absolute disgrace. 'You are meant to stand up for Wales but what did you actually do in terms of this winter fuel allowance? You did absolutely nothing.' Mr Millar argued Baroness Morgan should have implemented a Welsh winter fuel payment or stood up to Sir Keir Starmer and demanded the payment be restored sooner. Baroness Morgan responded that she was 'absolutely delighted' that Sir Keir Starmer had listened to pensioners in Wales and across the country. 'I'm really pleased that because we have made representations to the Prime Minister on this issue that he has changed his mind and that will make a difference to hundreds of thousands of pensioners across Wales this winter, in a country where we do have more older people and housing which is more difficult to heat. 'I don't think that it's bad to listen to people and then to make sure that you respond to them.' Baroness Morgan had previously pushed back against the cut, having called for a 'rethink' in early May, saying it was something 'that comes up time and again'. At the time, the Government said there would 'not be a change to the Government's policy'. On Monday, Ms Reeves suggested that the 'stability we've brought back to the economy' meant the Government was able to change the eligibility threshold for winter fuel payments.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Here's How Much It Costs To Maintain a Tesla vs Other Electric Vehicles
Teslas and other EVs don't need oil changes, but that doesn't mean they're maintenance-free. And when service is needed, the costs still add up. Learn More: Try This: So, how do Tesla's long-term maintenance costs compare to those of other electric vehicles? Let's take a closer look at what you can expect. When it comes to maintenance, EVs and combustion engines have some similarities. According to CarEdge, they both require: Tire monitoring and replacement Battery replacement HVAC maintenance Brake maintenance Cabin air filter replacement But there are also key differences. EVs don't require oil changes, timing belts, radiator fluids or fuel filters. There are fewer moving parts, which means there's less of a chance of mechanical failure, and brakes wear more slowly due to regenerative braking. Trending Now: On the other hand, tires wear out more quickly, and battery or motor work will need to be done at the automaker's service center. EV maintenance can vary depending on the brand, model, how you drive and even where you live. Tesla notes that aggressive driving can wear down tires faster and put more strain on the brakes. If you live in an area with rough roads or colder weather, you might see more frequent maintenance needs. And if service centers are limited in your area, that can drive up both wait times and costs. According to Consumer Reports and CarEdge, Tesla has the lowest maintenance costs over a 10-year period compared to other major car brands, with an estimated average of $5,050. Here are CarEdge's estimated 10-year maintenance costs for different Tesla models: Tesla Model 3: $3,257 Tesla Model S: $3,974 Tesla Model Y: $3,994 Tesla Model X: $4,847 Tesla Cybertruck: $5,359 However, there are other brands and models with similar maintenance costs. According to CarEdge, the estimated 10-year maintenance cost for the Toyota Mirai is $3,222 — slightly lower than the Tesla Model 3. Here is the complete list of EVs, besides Tesla, and their estimated 10-year maintenance costs: Toyota Mirai: $3,222 Nissan LEAF: $3,236 Toyota bZ4X: $3,496 FIAT 500e: $3,549 Hyundai IONIQ 6: $3,930 Honda Prologue: $4,600 Nissan ARIYA: $4,671 Hyundai Kona Electric: $4,727 Volkswagen ID.4: $4,811 Subaru Solterra: $4,825 Kia EV6: $5,029 Hyundai IONIQ 5: $5,043 Chevrolet Equinox EV: $5,096 Volkswagen ID. Buzz: $5,102 Hyundai IONIQ 5 N: $5,265 Kia EV9: $5,285 Ford Mustang Mach-E: $5,331 Chevrolet Blazer EV: $5,403 GMC HUMMER EV SUV: $5,821 GMC HUMMER EV Pickup: $6,384 GMC Sierra EV: $6,253 Ford F-150 Lightning: $6,574 Chevrolet Silverado EV: $6,653 Ford E-Transit-350 Cargo Van: $6,876 RAM ProMaster 3500 EV: $11,649 More From GOBankingRates 7 Things You'll Be Happy You Downsized in Retirement This article originally appeared on Here's How Much It Costs To Maintain a Tesla vs Other Electric Vehicles