The eye-watering cost of a bike bus that is to shuttle cyclists through a controversial new London tunnel has been revealed as £2m, a major cycling campaign group saying the proposal “won’t help” cyclists and amounts to “greenwashing”.
Bus company Stagecoach’s successful £1,967,010 bid to Transport for London (TfL) for the contract to operate the shuttle service was today revealed by the Evening Standard — the bike bus and wider Silvertown Tunnel project having attracted consistent criticism from cycling and active travel groups for its failure to provide an alternative route to pedestrians and cyclists, all while potentially encouraging car use and increasing pollution.
A date for the tunnel’s opening has now been set (7 April), with cyclists unable to ride through due to “safety reasons”. Instead TfL has promised a “high-frequency” shuttle service, which will be free “for at least 12 months” and will run five times an hour from 6.30am to 9.30pm, seven days a week.
There will be a ‘north’ stop location that will be located on Seagull Lane in Newham, close to Royal Victoria DLR station, and the ‘south’ stop in Greenwich located on Millennium Way near the junction with Old School Close.
“The service will have a unique look to distinguish it from the regular bus network,” TfL has said. “More details will be revealed in 2025. Maps of local cycle routes will be on display at the branded stops and shelters. This is to help with journey planning and encourage more journeys by cycle. Our plans have been developed using feedback from the Silvertown Tunnel cycling consultation.”
However, as with other aspects of the tunnel project, the bike bus has come in for criticism with cyclists and cycling groups. Social media account, Murky Depths, which covers London housing, transport, politics, has suggested the southern bus stop locations are “extremely hostile and dangerous for cycling when approaching from much of Greenwich”.
Some have predicted the shuttle service could be so unpopular it is soon discontinued, the London Cycling Campaign adding its opinion that the “Silvertown Tunnel formula” is “wrong crossing + wrong place + wrong mitigations = greenwashing”.
The campaign group went on to suggest it “won’t help” cargo bikes, adapted cycles, new riders or current riders and “river crossings for walkers and wheelers” would have been a more desirable outcome than “more roads for cars and lorries”.
Adding to the discussion on social media, Karin Tearle, a former Green party candidate for the London Assembly, said: “It looks to me like this cycle bus was an after-thought, a bit of PR to silence critics. Sadiq Khan says he wants us to use public transport & participate in active travel but this won’t be easy.”
Caroline Russell, a Green party member of the London Assembly, has also highlighted the “clunky” routing that may see cyclists have to sit on the bus in traffic to get to the designated stop on the north side.
“You really want to get off the moment you come out of the tunnel, so that you can access the Lower Lea Crossing,” she said. “Instead, you can only get off after the bus has gone round several roundabouts to get to Seagull Lane, near the DLR station. Cyclists are not going to be happy to be stuck on a bus in queuing traffic. It’s quite a clunky way to cross the river.”
A TfL spokesperson told the Evening Standard: “The Silvertown tunnel cycle-shuttle service will be a new zero-emission service which will have a bespoke design to support cyclists and distinguish the vehicles from the regular bus network.
“Engineers continue to work on the design of this innovative bus to allow it to carry a variety of designs of cycles, and we intend to confirm the final designs and how customers will be able to use the service in the coming weeks.”
The controversy around the tunnel and its cycling offering has been long-running. In October, an FOI request revealed that RideLondon’s “hiatus” in 2025 was due to the tunnel’s opening, London’s walking and cycling commissioner objecting to the closure of the new tunnel for the cycling event as an “absolute no”.
More concerning for cycling campaigners however is the impact the new tunnel, which will see car drivers charged £4 to use at peak times, will have on traffic levels and emissions.
At the time the bike bus was announced there was much discussion about it on social media, one user calling the idea “ridiculous”. Another called it “embarrassing” that London is “a city which cannot afford to build a dedicated bridge or tunnel for cycles and pedestrians, but dedicates countless billions to new infrastructure for more cars”.
Victoria Rance, a local teacher and the founder of the Stop the Silvertown Tunnel Coalition, commented: “This is 2023. The climate is at a tipping point. We must reduce car use by 27-40 per cent according to London Mayor Sadiq Khan’s own carbon plan. So putting bikes on a bus instead of creating bike lanes is bonkers. Please repurpose the Silvertown Tunnel, the sooner the better.”
“Repurposing the tunnel would be so much better. Or building the cycle bridge,” argued the Greenwich branch of the London Cycling Campaign. “All Silvertown will bring is more pollution and more congestion. It is incompatible with a responsible climate policy in its current form.”
61 thoughts on ““Ridiculous” bike bus through controversial new tunnel to cost £2m, as cycling campaign says “greenwashing” project “won’t help” cyclists”
£2mill for a bus?
£2mill for a bus?
You’d think for that, they would throw a roof in as well …
?
I thought we came up with
I thought we came up with some hair brained crap in Ireland, this is making me feel a little bit better
Some pretty pointless
Some pretty pointless comments from the anti campaigners. Regardless of whether it should have been built it has been built and they’ve got to use it somehow, bike lane it by all means but don’t go off on randoms irrelevancies like building a bike bridge.
Bonus – we can spend money on
Bonus – we can spend money on things like buses which aren’t “active travel” but still claim “sustainable” and “active travel” points (and possibly money?)
(Yes – I know that any improvements in the UK will probably involve more bus-capacity building than cycle stuff anyway. Multi-modal transport has way more to offer for alternatives to driving than just cycling or public transport in isolation.)
Many people must be put off
Many people must be put off cycling from South East London to Canary Wharf, because of the hassle of the Greenwich foot tunnel, and its frequently broken lifts. A bike bridge or tunnel would make a huge difference. The Silvertown tunnel is too far out of the way.
At Greenwich the bridge would
At Greenwich the bridge would have to be up as high as the cable car which is why it’s always been a non starter.
stonojnr wrote:
No it wouldn’t, clearly that would be daft (although an excellent climbing challenge); the proposals put forward in the past have always been for either a swing bridge or a bascule bridge that would allow river traffic through – screenshot of one proposal below. The only reason TfL dropped plans for the Rotherhithe – Canary Wharf Bridge was affordability, not practicality.
Ok I was discounting bascule
Ok I was discounting bascule/swing bridges specifically because affordability usually rules them out straight away. Also I don’t know if we’ve ever built a pedestrian/cycling only version in the UK, I’m sure I’ve seen one in Belgium/Holland near a major canal, but don’t recall ever seeing one in the UK.
The point is it’s alot harder to just build a bridge at some points in London than people think. There have been tons of ideas and lots of architects impressions for centuries, but very few ever make it off the drawing board.
stonojnr wrote:
Last time I was in Newcastle I had the pleasure of walking over the splendid cycling and pedestrian Millennium Bridge, a “tilt bridge” which, as the name implies, tilts sideways to allow shipping through (as illustrated). There is also the Scale Lane swing bridge in Hull, Shoreham harbour pedestrian and cycling swing bridge, and the brand-new (opened last year) Govan-Partick bridge. I’m sure there are others. It can be done, and has been.
Rendel Harris wrote:
the brand-new (opened last year) Govan-Partick bridge. I’m sure there are others.
— stonojnr
There are: the Govan-Partick’s near neighbours – the Bells and Science Centre bridges – are both ped/cyclist openers. A couple of miles downstream, the soon-to-open Renfrew-Yoker bridge (for all traffic) will also also open to allow ships to pass.
Dnnnnnn wrote:
What a waste! – spending all that money on infrastructure on ships, when they don’t even pay their bridge tax. And besides – no-one will use it – the shipping lane is always empty.
Pedestrian / cycle only
Pedestrian / cycle only bridges are common in NL at least (see here – and if not solely for cycling and walking bridges usually also accommodate it), and there are also large bascule ones. The traditional small river/ canal design is also available in “active travel only” form.
Meanwhile in the UK, there are “no car” opening bridges – London has a couple of ones here and here (albeit these are more toward the “kinetic scuplture” end of things).
I’m not sure why anyone would
I’m not sure why anyone would take the bus when you can take a bike on the cable car that goes essentially the same route as the tunnel (and for free before 9:30am). Still not a proper active travel route, but better than braving dangerous roads to then sit in traffic on a bus.
I’m guessing because the bus
I’m guessing because the bus is free (for now, I don’t like the sound of that “for at least twelve months”) and although as you say the cable car is free in the mornings it’s £6 coming home; also it’s not entirely reliable as it doesn’t run during thunderstorms and in strong winds, plus you can’t take an ebike on it.
I’d be interested to see what
I’d be interested to see what the Boring company would charge for an active travel tunnel under the Thames.
It’s pretty obvious that infrastructure can be done on a completely different cost basis than TFLs regular contractors.
I suspect that Boring would do it for about £15-20m if there was a good launching spot on either side. Their new TBM just points down and digs. If you don’t have anything combustible in the tunnel your requirements for support run to pumping water out, circulating air and CCTV.
Boring company is absolute
Boring company is absolute vapourware nonsense. It’s just Elon M**k spouting rubbish, their Vegas tunnel is an absolute laughing stock
lukei1 wrote:
It’s only a laughing stock for people who can’t comprehend the concept of a minimum viable product or who are scared of the logical consequences if the concept works.
To put it in context the first tunnel went from an invitation to tender to operation in less time than Cross Rail spent in testing delays, they beat an automated people mover in an open tender. The tunnels won’t always have manually driven Teslas in them, the final vehicle is a 12 person high speed EV “pod”.
Even at a 2 second head way a 12 person vehicle means 20,000 people per hour per direction from a system that costs $15m per route mile.
The Vegas system has several km of tunnels with another being actively constructed. They have permission for up to 68 miles of tunnels.
[Img]
https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/6063b0835f68896079d7d643/03f313de-2a2d-434d-85fc-6b1a51de20f8/Vegas+Loop+Entitlement+Map+08-08-2024+%281%29.png?format=1000w%5B/img%5D
A look on their website shows 45 open positions and 4 intern programmes, I’d suggest that is a lot more than vapour.
massive4x4 wrote:
Everyone understands the concept of minimum viable product, its what you get when you cut corners and don’t worry about the safety of your customers to save money, call me fussy but I like living too much to trust any of Elon’s products.
Backladder wrote:
Everyone understands the concept of minimum viable product, its what you get when you cut corners and don’t worry about the safety of your customers to save money, call me fussy but I like living too much to trust any of Elon’s products.— massive4x4
Minimum Viable Product = deliver the ‘minimum’, and worry about the ‘product’ and the ‘viable’ later…
“Loss leader”? “Venture
“Loss leader”? “Venture capital” being “dumb money”? Users as alpha testers?
massive4x4 wrote:
Sounds like a great idea as long as you don’t mind it boring through your power/broadband/water/sewage/undeground line/etc.
Sounds handy if we ever need
Sounds handy if we ever need to restart the rotation of the Earth’s core with a nuclear bomb, anyway.
I remember seeing the
I remember seeing the documentary about that, seemed a bit theatrical!
Aren’t they principally
Aren’t they principally interested in driving (!) motor traffic use? Being that the main man is separately flogging
responsibility-dodging high-status-signalling conspicuous consumption vehiclesharm-reducing smart and efficient electric transportation solutions?massive4x4 wrote:
Yeah, that would be really useful – a tunnel built without all the usual safeguards and experts checking it. I bet it would suddenly flood or burst into flames if it’s anything like Tesla’s engineering.
Another fan of pettifogging
Another fan of pettifogging regulations, inefficient self-serving bureaucracies and the deep state?
Clearly what we need is a few high IQ geeks with no limiting preconceptions to get disrupting everything old
to cut costsfor massive profitto advance humanity.In fact – hey, we could reuse those fracking boreholes…!
chrisonabike wrote:
Move fast and break other people’s things!
Backladder wrote:
Any one remember the last new
Any one remember the last new tunnel under the Thames in London, me neither. Instead of doing a Daily Mail and moan about everything, look on the positive side. You can always ride over Tower Bridge and get some miles in if you want.
two20 wrote:
Anyone remember the last new cycle crossing built over the Thames in London, me neither because they’ve never built one. We were told we couldn’t have a new cycle bridge from Greenwich to Canary Wharf because it was too expensive, even though it would have cost about 20% of the price of the Silvertown Tunnel and had the potential to revolutionise commuter cycling for a huge section of the capital.
Anyone who has used the
Anyone who has used the Blackwall Tunnel regularly will understand why the new Silvertown Tunnel is needed. The bike bus isn’t a bad idea, though I can see that the points for boarding could’ve been chosen better.
For those complaining about the extra pollution from the new tunnel, you might want to consider the pollution from all the standing traffic around the Blackwall Tunnel at present and what this means for the residents at those portals. My feeling is that the new tunnel will mean exhaust fumes are more widely dispersed and will be reduced overall as the standing traffic will be reduced significantly and perhaps even eliminated.
Both the new tunnel link and existing tunnel link will now be tolled, with revenue going to TfL. Maybe instead of complaining about the tunnel, it’d be more constructive to campaign for a chunk of the toll revenue to be directed towards cycle lanes and other active travel measures?
OldRidgeback wrote:
That would be lovely, but the 25 year running costs of the tunnel have been estimated at £1 billion (if they follow the usual form in public finance costings they will doubtless end up a great deal higher) and there is the £2.2 billion capital cost to be repaid as well. Estimated revenues from both tunnels combined are £100 million, so it’s going to be a good three decades before there is any surplus to be spent on active travel or anything else.
It would be the first vehicle
It would be the first vehicle route ever built that decreases pollution, we all know 10years from now traffic will have increased on the routes, maybe sooner, and the new tunnel will just be like the old one, except we’ll now have two tunnel traffic problems to solve, so build a 3rd right ?
But there we are billions spent on a tunnel, millions spent on a bus, just so TfL can claim not to be hypocrites, whilst the rest of the country watches on at the largesse whilst waiting for pennies to be spent locally to them
OldRidgeback wrote:
Having been a student of roads and traffic for over fifty years, I can confidently predict that none of that will happen. What will happen, what has always happened, is that suppressed demand will be released, traffic will rapidly build up to what existed previously and nothing worth having will be gained.
eburtthebike wrote:
Bear in mind that EVs are replacing IC-powered vehicles in the UK. This has figured in the development of the new Silvertown link. It’s worth bearing in mind too that enormous cost of tunnelling under the Thames due to the crappy geology that requires extensive ground support to ensure structures are secure. Larger bore tunnels featuring additional dedicated lanes for vulnerable road users would’ve been much more costly. That’s why there’s a bike bus rather than separate lanes. And the level of congestion on the existing Blackwall Tunnel meant that doing nothing with regard to new links was not an option.
OldRidgeback wrote:
I hear, and I know “we are where we are”. (However I don’t think the ICE vs. electic cars thing is particularly relevant though. And FWIW the former still pollute with similar levels of particulates and noise. And indeed still emit greenhouse gases – it’s just we absolve ourselves of counting how much or where).
But our choices set where we will be. By choosing to build a new tunnel, it’s extremely likely more people will drive (or rather more journeys will be driven). By reducing congestion (without adding much better alternatives to driving), more people will drive. (The mentality of “there is congestion – that means there is ‘excess demand’ for motoring and the only thing we can do is supply more capacity” is our old friend “predict and provide”, no?) This isn’t quite a “law of nature” but as eburtthebike says the exceptions to it are … exceptional.
The bore size features more than one motor traffic lane in each direction. Again – a choice has been made with space allocation and how much we pay for motoring infra vs active travel infra. (I don’t know what the possible future take up would be for a cycling / walking crossing here would be – all we can say is that we’ve chosen to extend the motoring network and add motoring capacity and not active travel).
As other people have suggested – transitioning to fewer trips driven / alternatives to driving may involve building some motoring infra (e.g. ring roads / making sure “transit” routes bypass town and city centres). But that has to be linked with a coherent strategyand lots of work reducing inner urban motor transit and not merely moving the same congestion to the edge of towns. Does this?
Building the new tunnel has
Building the new tunnel has been a necessity. The congestion levels on the Blackwall Tunnel were not sustainable. I agree that there should be stronger moves to transistion much of London’s traffic to more sustainable options – public transit or active transport. But a high percentage of the traffic using the Blackwall Tunnel is through traffic, not local.
OldRidgeback wrote:
Yes … but it’s not just “but road A can’t be replaced with cycle path B”. That through traffic – while maybe not just going from next to the river on one side to next to the river on the other – is however not all just bypassing London? I strongly suspect it will turn out to be a traffic-inducing measure (as eburtthebike and others allude to).
OldRidgeback wrote:
No, the tunnel was not necessary and the congestion levels were self limiting. It’s been repeated many times but is still beautifully apt:
“Building new roads to cure congestion is like loosening your belt to cure obesity.”
chrisonabike wrote:
I’ve read some of those studies and they are mostly bollocks. For example anyone who’s ever owned an EV will know that they don’t emit any brake dust as corrosion aside you don’t need to replace the brakes because they basically aren’t used.
The “greater weight of EVs” means you’ve bought a shit one, a Tesla for example generally lies in the weight range of an equivalent size/performance ICE cars. At current rates of technology development expect EVs to be lighter within 10-15 years which is a fraction of the life of a tunnel.
It should also be pointed out that tyre particulates and road debris aren’t particularly unique particles compared to the natural environment (dust) that you’ve evolved to handle and it’s basically impossible to disentangle their impacts from the other pollution sources that they are associated with.
Finally the most basic mitigation for road noise and PMs is to maintain roads properly as this vastly decreases tyre wear and noise.
On the emissions front UK power is 60%+ low carbon today and headed for 95% in the next 10 years. Given EVs tend to get electricity when there as a renewables oversupply and hence cheaper power the % of low carbon electrons is likely higher.
Regarding building cars that is a question beyond the pay grade of the automotive industry. The vast majority of the emissions associated with a car is the base materials that made it.
All those base materials need low carbon methods of refining, slightly reducing the amount of cars being bought will have negligible impacts on the amount of steel being produced and thus the emissions. Decarbonising steel production or swapping to alternative materials that can be delivered carbonised gets rid of 100% of steel emissions.
massive4x4 wrote:
You are Elon Musk and I claim my £5 😉
He prefers bitcoin
He prefers bitcoin
Do they kill you any less
Do they kill you any less dead when they hit you?
Rendel Harris wrote:
Only in a very specific and limited way…
You’re spouting complete
You’re spouting complete bollocks there.
Have a look here for some details about tyre wear particles that are completely new to our environment and how it’s extremely toxic to creatures: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/jul/25/tyre-dust-the-stealth-pollutant-becoming-a-huge-threat-to-ocean-life
https://e360.yale.edu/features/tire-pollution-toxic-chemicals
On the low carbon – I haven’t
(This is rather OT now, but…)
On the low carbon – I haven’t checked the detail in a while but are you sure you’re not confusing fraction of UK electric power *generation* with contribution to electricity *used*? We imported 20% of our electricity last year. Of course that could be from more sustainable sources (or not), that’s another calculation.
We have a good story to tell on wind * (the UK is favoured here), but of course not always windy. So quite a lot comes from burning gas – cleaner than the lower grade coal we were burning (because not from the UK – that’s another story…) but neither renewable nor carbon neutral. And we can discount a chunk of the biomass generation because of the Drax greenwash scheme.
That is of course aside from energy for heating and transport. Some of that comes from electricity of course and the percentage is increasing.
We have done an effective job in improving our chemical processes – although again some of that comes because we now import a lot of stuff – so it’s less clear how that is made, and it is definitely transported on bunker-oil burning ships!
So we’ve made progress, but we probably use more energy and other resources than before (because more humans and “progress”).
Beware (confidently oversimplified) bullshit, indeed.
* That’s apart from the high embodied energy and emissions of all the concrete and steel we need for these (the steel is a serious issue for “green industries” but that really is a different rabbit hole). Plus the blades are non-recyclable, though people are working on that…
chrisonabike wrote:
FWIW, I read 11% imported in 2024, French nuclear being the biggest component. We also export – mostly wind-generated, I’d expect – albeit rarely equalling imports – although that may change.
http://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-uks-electricity-was-cleanest-ever-in-2024
The real solution is not to
The real solution is not to get more cars and pollution into London, but to remove it permanently. Either providing better public / active transport links or by moving business out of London permanently. London gets far more money spent than any other other area. Yes, it’s the “financial powerhouse” of the UK, but also, any other major city receiving this level of spend and focus would soon be a genuiine competitor… AS with most billionaires, London benefits from welfare while espousing capitalist values… (To nail my colours to the mast: I worked (and at times lived) in London for 30 years, am now happily retired in semi-rural part of Scotland and honestly can;t see the attraction of London)
Bigfoz wrote:
That’s not true of identifiable public spending. For balance, you’d have to note the much greater contribution to the Exchequer made by London too (which isn’t really surprising given its nature). There is surely a case for investing more elsewhere – but it shouldn’t be a zero-sum game.
Bigfoz wrote:
Isn’t it true that London is the only city in the country that actually contributes more to the Exchequer than it receives? We also have the highest cost of living, the highest public transport fares (some of the highest in the world), some of the highest council tax rates…along with over a quarter of England’s population in the greater metropolitan area. It’s hardly surprising within those contexts that the largest amount is spent on the capital city. It’s also worth noting that TfL only gets £250 million in government spending for capital projects and what might look like money being thrown at the city is in fact being paid for by ourselves, e.g. in this case, the £2.2 billion cost of the Silvertown tunnel was raised through PFI and the repayments are going to be met entirely by TfL, it’s not costing anyone outside London a penny (unless they want to drive through the tunnel and pay the toll, obviously).
Rendel Harris wrote:
No. Bristol.
eburtthebike wrote:
Where did you find that? I’ve never seen figures below regional level (London being the only UK city which is also classed as a region). I’m not sure it’s sensible to calculate such things at a very local level given how much movement there is across small are boundaries – Bristol is a good case, with a large part of the built-up area being in South Glos.
Wonder if this will create a
Wonder if this will create a new route for food deliveries and what those riders will make of the bus…
Dnnnnnn wrote:
The food delivery riders using illegal electric frankenbikes?
My local buses don’t allow even legal e-scooters on board (I’m presuming due to fears about exploding batteries?). Will the Silvertown Cycle Express allow e-bikes on board? Through a busy road tunnel under the river?
Now, what’s that old Stallone film where there’s an explosion in one of the New York road tunnels and he has to get people out…?
Surely they can just ride
Surely they can just ride through, since motorbikes aren’t banned in the tunnel to start with…?
mdavidford wrote:
Good point!
For the 1,000,001th time,
For the 1,000,001st time, this is yet another missed opportunity to build in active travel from the start of a scheme, not shoe-horn in something expensive, unsatisfactory and temporary later. Why wasn’t cycling, and walking for that matter, considered from the outset? Nay, actually specified in the contract? There must be someone on this site who can tell us that.
“Our plans have been developed using feedback from the Silvertown Tunnel cycling consultation.”
I’m guessing that this “consultation” only occurred after the design had been finalised, like so many other civil engineering construction projects, and only related to the colour of the doorhandles rather than anything fundamental, like making it suitable for purpose.
One can only hope that Active Travel England’s involvement in the planning process has brought a stop to this endless parade of projects which exclude Active Travel.
“Engineers continue to work on the design of this innovative bus to allow it to carry a variety of designs of cycles, and we intend to confirm the final designs and how customers will be able to use the service in the coming weeks.”
But it’s not an afterthought. No, no, no. Definitely not, no. Yes.
Not a Londoner but I recall
Not a Londoner but I recall reading (probably here) that quite a few people did try to put that point to Sadiq and co. Not sure if it was was explicitly stated that they weren’t doing bikes or it was just never in?
I can imagine that would have been “because safety” e.g. reducing motor traffic capacity to do so would have been politically impossible? And making the tunnel bigger impossible because cost?
A couple of years back Sian Berry of the Greens was putting forward the view (of many) that this wasn’t going to help the pollution numbers or indeed traffic (also here further back).
History though – this goes back at least as far as Boris.
There was a Tony Robinson
There was a Tony Robinson documentary about the Thames at night on Channel 5 iirc, where they go clean the Blackwall tunnel regularly at night.
And they have to treat working in the tunnel as if its a toxic chemical waste hazard because the pollution that collects on the walls etc is that bad for human health.
It’s not stuff you’d want to be exposed to riding through the tunnel regularly. Which is why cyclists access to the tunnels is always off the table before they start as it’s a public health issue.
They could only have done this differently for Silvertown by building a separate tunnel just for cyclists, with all the attendant costs or issues that bring with it, or built a new bridge or just do what they did spend 2million on a special bus.
And what about those walking
And what about those walking and cycling over the Lower Lea Crossing? Looking at this image, they now have to cross six (6) carriageways before they can finally head towards Excel. Total mess and will sterilise the area for walking and cycling
A million pounds PER YEAR for
A million pounds PER YEAR for the cycle bus. To think of the cycle infrastructure that could buy !