Agenda item
National Highways Presentation (to follow)
Minutes:
The National Highways (NH) Representative gave
his presentation, which can be found at the following web link:
(Public Pack)Item 5 - National Highways Presentation
Agenda Supplement for Lower Thames Crossing Task Force, 19/09/2022
18:00 (thurrock.gov.uk)
The Chair questioned the impact that the LTC could have on the
local road network, and asked if NH would commit to monitor the
local roads, and provide funding if traffic on local roads were to
increase. The NH Representative explained that although traffic
would increase in some areas, there would be an overall improvement
in traffic flows on a wider level. He added that NH would be
introducing a traffic monitoring plan on a series of roads, which
would be determined using feedback from Thurrock Council. He stated
that the traffic monitoring plan would be shared at a later date
after it had been approved by the Secretary of State. The NH
Representative commented that the monitoring would be in place one
year before the route opened, although Thurrock would be consulted
with before monitoring began. He stated that the monitoring would
be in place for one and five years after route opening. He
commented that no funding would be given by NH for any mitigation
or local road improvements as central government funded the local
and strategic road network through the Department for Transport.
The Chair queried if monitoring one year before road opening would
be long enough, as this would not take into consideration the
impact of construction on the local road network. The NH
Representative explained that monitoring would also be taking place
during the construction period, and NH would be working with
Thurrock Council to identify appropriate locations. He added that
NH would also be identifying areas where construction traffic could
have an adverse impact on the condition of the road. He explained
that NH would be improving these areas to ensure they were in a
good condition before any works would begin on the route.
Councillor Muldowney highlighted data from the impact consultation
in 2020, and felt that Chadwell St Mary would be surrounded by
roads such as the A1089, A128 and the proposed LTC, which would
increase traffic by approximately 50-80% in the area during
operation. She asked how NH would be reducing the impact of this
traffic in areas such as Chadwell St Mary. The NH Representative
stated that an air quality assessment would be carried out, and
although areas very close to the road would see increased levels of
pollution, the proposed road would improve air quality in other
areas as traffic flow improved and vehicles were moved onto the LTC
and away from the local road network. He added that he did not have
specific figures regarding Chadwell St Mary, but traffic on the
A1089 and A128 could reduce due to the LTC. The Senior Consultant
Stantec added that Thurrock Council had been given a briefing
presentation last week on this issue, but no detailed information
was provided. Councillor Muldowney asked if there would be negative
health impacts because of the proposed route. She stated that no
health data had yet been shared with the Council, and asked when
this would be available. The NH Representative explained that
health data had been published as part of the last Development
Consent Order (DCO) submission in 2020, which included air quality
data. He explained that this had been updated since the change in
the route alignment and the previous consultation had included the
updated outline data. He highlighted that it was normal practice to
submit data at DCO submission, but explained that the process
continued past this point to examination phase whereby Thurrock
Council and individuals could interrogate the data and ask
questions.
Councillor Kent queried if NH had modelled how traffic would
migrate between the two Thames crossings, if one crossing had an
incident. He highlighted that there were currently approximately
six-hour delays due to the closure of the Dartford Crossing. The NH
Representative replied that it was highly complicated to model
incidents at the LTC or the Dartford Crossing as every incident was
different. He stated that on an operational level traffic patterns
would evolve over time as strategic road networks changed,
transport changed, and the government’s net zero carbon
target was developed. The NH Representative added that the NH team
were currently looking at how incidents could be modelled and what
operational plans could be put into place when incidents occurred
at either crossing. Councillor Kent questioned how NH had modelled
traffic capacity on both the Dartford Crossing and the LTC, as he
felt that the proposed LTC would not reduce traffic significantly
at the Dartford Crossing. The NH Representative explained that the
traffic modelling undertaken by NH covered the Southeast of England
and considered residential areas, commuter journeys and freight
patterns to forecast and analyse traffic. He stated that the team
forecast traffic scenarios without the LTC, and then with the LTC,
to compare the difference between the two models. He added that the
model was then validated by using real life traffic data, and the
output produced showed the nature of the changes in traffic.
The Thames Crossing Action Group (TCAG) Representative stated that
the proposed LTC would only reduce traffic over the Dartford
Crossing by approximately 4%. The NH Representative replied that
they were predicting lots of network growth on the Dartford
Crossing by 2030, so the NH team felt that the LTC would remove
traffic in this area by approximately 20%. The TCAG Representative
asked if this would bring Dartford back below its capacity, and if
so for how long. The NH Representative replied that this 20%
reduction in traffic was modelled against peak time traffic flow
rather than design capacity. The TCAG Representative stated that
some roads in Thurrock were already busy with traffic and asked if
NH were concerned regarding the local road impact, and if so, which
junctions were NH most concerned about. The NH Representative
stated that the Orsett Cock junction formed a key part of the LTC
scheme, and this had already had capacity increased due to recent
works, some of which could be lost by the LTC scheme. He explained
that NH utilising some of the local road network was normal
practice, as there would be an overall benefit on a wider Thurrock
scale, for example at junction 30 of the M25, the A128 north and at
A1013 Daneholes roundabout. He felt that the LTC could make roads
such as the A13 more robust, resilient, and safer. The TCAG
Representative disagreed and felt that the LTC lacked adequate
connections and would increase traffic in the borough. She felt
that NH should consider a different crossing in a different
location.
Councillor Muldowney questioned how the LTC would improve lives in
Thurrock, as traffic could increase on the local road network
because of the LTC. The NH Representative explained that the LTC
could create new job opportunities, as it would improve traffic
flow, road capacity and journey times. He stated that this would be
beneficial as Thurrock residents could look for jobs in areas such
as Kent, and Thurrock based businesses could employ people from
further afield therefore expanding their business. He felt that
overall, the scheme would be beneficial for the region and local
communities. Councillor Muldowney highlighted the
government’s commitment to stopping climate change through a
net zero target, which included stopping road building. She felt
that as the proposed route ran close to schools, a care home, and
vulnerable communities, they could experience air quality issues,
particularly regarding PM2.5 which was emitted even from electric
vehicles in brake dust and tyre wear. She asked how NH were
planning on mitigating this issue. The NH Representative replied
that electric vehicles were core to the net zero target, and the
government were working to combat challenges such as producing
electric HGVs. He felt that the Dartford Crossing put a constraint
on economic growth in the region and across the UK, and the
proposed LTC would improve economic growth. He stated that NH had
shared data regarding air quality and noise, and as the project was
a Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project (NSIP) any adverse
effects would be acknowledged at DCO submission.
The Resident Representative felt that the proposed LTC would not
make a significant difference to problems and traffic flow at the
Dartford Crossing. He asked if NH could share their traffic
modelling data. The NH Representative explained that the traffic
modelling recognised issues as people from London and Essex would
utilise the LTC, but added that the traffic model had forecasted a
reduction in overall traffic flow and congestion. The NH
Representative added that the model had been shared with Thurrock
Council and had formed part of the consultation. The Senior
Consultant Stantec clarified that Thurrock Council had seen the
operational cordon model in May 2022, and a report had been drafted
on this for Council review. He added that the construction cordon
model had been shared with the Council in June 2022 and the team
were still analysing results from this data. He confirmed that
every local authority received a different cordon model, and were
not allowed to share data, so it was hard to get a full picture
from the traffic modelling. He stated that Thurrock Council had
requested the full model, but this had been refused by NH. The
Assistant Director Regeneration and Place Delivery added that the
Council and NH also disagreed on the outcomes of the model. He
stated that Thurrock had asked for reassurances that NH would get
the proposed route right by design, as modelling could be
inaccurate, and Thurrock did not want to see another crossing
proposal in 15 years’ time or traffic worsen across the
borough. He added that there had been over 300 incidents over the
past year where traffic had been delayed by 29 minutes or more at
the Dartford Crossing, and Thurrock needed to understand better how
incidents at Dartford would affect the LTC. The NH Representative
added that although only the cordon models had been shared with
Thurrock, the traffic results from the full model across all of
Thurrock had been shared. The Resident Representative asked why the
full model had not been shared. The NH Representative explained
that it was standard practice to share the full model at the end of
the DCO process.
Councillor Kent stated that current building cost inflation was
approximately 20%, and asked for the current final building
estimate cost. The NH Representative stated that he did not have
these figures, but committed to sharing this information outside of
the meeting in writing. Councillor Raper asked if the Treasury had
increased the budget for the LTC, and if NH were confident that the
budget would be sufficient. The NH Representative stated that the
budget envelope had remained the same, but NH were confident that
this would be sufficient. Councillor Raper felt that the LTC would
only improve connectivity for the ports such as DP World and
Tilbury Port, and asked if NH could explain how the scheme would
contribute to government growth and growth within Thurrock. The NH
Representative explained that the LTC would benefit growth for the
ports as they would be able to flow freely up the LTC onto the M25,
and would improve traffic flow at the Dartford Crossing. He added
that NH recognised Thurrock’s successful bid for the Thames
Freeport, and explained that NH would be considering a Tilbury Link
Road as part of the government’s RIS3 funding. He added that
the Department for Transport and the Department for Housing,
Levelling-Up and Communities supported the need for a Tilbury Link
Road, but felt it needed to be a separate scheme. Councillor Raper
asked for the current figure for economic growth because of the
LTC. The NH Representative replied that he would provide this
figure after the meeting in writing.
The Chair stated that when NH had developed their business case,
the Thames Freeport had not been agreed, and asked if the business
case had been amended because of the Freeport. The NH
Representative explained that the team were not currently
considering the Freeport as part of the business case because a
planning application had not been submitted, but felt that both
schemes would benefit each other. The Chair queried if the Thames
Freeport was included as part of the traffic modelling. The NH
Representative commented that the Thames Freeport was not currently
included in the traffic model, but the model did allow for growth
in the number of freight and passenger journeys in terms of
specific developments such as Tilbury 2, Purfleet regeneration, and
the Thames Enterprise Park. He stated that once the Thames Freeport
had a planning application submitted, it would be included in the
traffic modelling. The NH Representative added that the team could
run a sensitivity assessment to understand the difference that the
Freeport could have on traffic in the area.
The TCAG Representative asked if the NH Representative could
provide the latest benefit cost ratio figures, and queried why NH
had not shared the outline business case (OBC) for the scheme with
Thurrock. The NH Representative replied that the OBC could not be
shared with the Council as it was still in draft format, but the
team were considering lodging an appeal following Thurrock
Council’s request to the Information Commissioner’s
Office and ICO’s confirmation that it should be shared with
the Council. He added that the economic information contained in
the OBC had been superseded by information that had been provided
to the Council approximately two years’ ago. The TCAG
Representative highlighted that the LTC would be an all-purpose
trunk road, but was being built to smart motorway standards. She
queried if the route would be safer if classified as a motorway and
if NH had any concerns regarding the safety of the proposed route.
The NH Representative stated that NH were concerned with the safety
of all their roads, and there was strong internal direction to
improve safety across the network. He added that the LTC would be
an all-purpose trunk road and would be designed to the highest
safety standards, including well spaced emergency areas, and
messaging systems for lane closures. He felt that the LTC would be
safer than other roads, including the Dartford Crossing. The TCAG
Representative explained that the government were currently
reviewing smart motorway data, and asked what the difference would
be between a smart motorway and the technology used for the LTC.
The NH Representative clarified that the government were currently
reviewing the conversion of standard motorways into smart
motorways, but LTC would be a smart motorway by design. He added
that NH had taken learnings from smart motorways, and this would be
built into the scheme, and would have capacity for any future smart
motorway requirements. He stated that the LTC control centre would
be integrated into the wider road network control centre, as he
felt it would be better to have one operating centre. The TCAG
Representative disagreed and felt that the LTC would put additional
pressure on the control centre, and this could lead to the LTC
being a dangerous road and increased fatalities. The NH
Representative felt that the LTC would reduce the number of
fatalities, and NH were working towards zero fatalities on their
roads by 2040.
Councillor Byrne asked how the LTC would impact areas in the east
of the borough, such as Stanford-le-Hope. The NH Representative
stated that this area was a challenge due to the parallel road that
ran alongside the A13 from the Orsett Cock to the Manorway. He
stated that the team were concerned about increased traffic on the
A1013, and the subsequent performance of the A13. He added that NH
were considering a proposal to trunk the A13 and bring it within
the NH road network, which could lead to more investment in the
road. Councillor Muldowney stated that the government had recently
changed how it calculated the carbon cost of projects such as the
LTC. She stated that the current carbon cost of the scheme was
approximately £150million, but this could increase to
£500million under the new calculation method, and asked how
NH would finance this. The NH Representative explained that the
carbon cost was not directly spent by NH, but was considered as
part of the route. He added that the carbon cost could make the
economics of the route more challenging, but the LTC was a
designated pathfinder project, so NH would work with communities
and local businesses to mitigate carbon. He added that the carbon
footprint of the scheme was calculated based on the actual carbon
released, and NH were working hard to reduce carbon within the
scheme by implementing new processes and procedures within the DCO;
and by incentivising contractors to measure and offset their carbon
production. He added that NH had gone to market recently and were
trying to experiment with new ideas to reduce carbon, such as
hydrogen. Councillor Muldowney asked if NH would investigate other
modes of transport, such as rail and bus provision/facilitation,
within the scheme. The NH Representative explained that this had
been considered in 2009 and 2016 as an alternative and a
complimentary addition, but the team had found that there was no
need for a north to south rail link, and the rail network would
need to dramatically change to be able to facilitate this. He added
that a rail link directly between Essex and Kent had also been
found not to reduce traffic on the Dartford Crossing.
Councillor Ononaji felt concerned regarding the impact on local
roads in Thurrock, particularly regarding emergency incidents and
operational pressures. The NH Representative commented that
incident modelling had been undertaken and this would be shared
with the Council in the next few months. He added that the economic
benefits of the scheme would also be shared alongside DCO
submission. The TCAG Representative thanked NH for attending the
meeting, but stated that she still felt concerned regarding the
scheme and asked if NH could delay submitting the DCO until
concerns and issues were resolved. The NH Representative thanked
the Task Force for inviting him and felt it was good to have open
conversations and debate. He stated that NH were not able to delay
DCO submission as traffic conditions at Dartford continued to
worsen. He felt that it was not in the public interest to delay as
a process was in place for residents and interested groups to voice
their concerns at examination. He stated that this process was
designed to handle differences in views, all of which would be
considered by the Secretary of State before a decision was made. He
added that the team had shared information via the consultations
and the previous DCO submission documents, which was more than had
ever been shared by any previous scheme of this kind.
The Chair felt that there remained a layer of frustration regarding
data sharing, but thanked National Highways for attending the
meeting.
The NH Representative left the meeting at 8.03pm
The meeting was adjourned at 8.03pm
The meeting was reconvened at 8.06pm
Supporting documents: