"Ridiculous" bike bus through controversial new tunnel to cost £2m, as cycling campaign says "greenwashing" project "won't help" cyclists

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 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.

Dnnnnnn wrote:

Wonder if this will create a new route for food deliveries and what those riders will make of the bus...

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 through, since motorbikes aren't banned in the tunnel to start with...?

mdavidford wrote:

Surely they can just ride through, since motorbikes aren't banned in the tunnel to start with...?

Good point!

OldRidgeback wrote:

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?

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 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:

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.

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:

OldRidgeback wrote:

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.

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.

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:

Bear in mind that EVs are replacing IC-powered vehicles in the UK. This has figured in the development of the new Silvertown link. ... 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.

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 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:

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.

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:

Building the new tunnel has been a necessity. The congestion levels on the Blackwall Tunnel were not sustainable.

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 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).

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:

chrisonabike 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).

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.

You are Elon Musk and I claim my £5

He prefers bitcoin

Do they kill you any less dead when they hit you?

Rendel Harris wrote:

Do they kill you any less dead when they hit you?

Only in a very specific and limited way...

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-stealt...

https://e360.yale.edu/features/tire-pollution-toxic-chemicals

(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:

(This is rather OT now, but...)We imported 20% of our electricity last year. Of course that could be from more sustainable sources (or not), that's another calculation.

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.
www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-uks-electricity-was-cleanest-ever-in-2024

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:

London gets far more money spent than any other other area

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:

London gets far more money spent than any other other area. 

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:

Isn't it true that London is the only city in the country that actually contributes more to the Exchequer than it receives?

No.  Bristol.

eburtthebike wrote:

Rendel Harris wrote:

Isn't it true that London is the only city in the country that actually contributes more to the Exchequer than it receives?

No.  Bristol.

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.