HC Deb 07 December 1981 vol 14 cc329-30W
Mr. Cartwright

asked the Secretary of State for Transport what is his estimate of the impact of the proposed East London river crossing on the volume of traffic on existing roads.

Mr. Kenneth Clarke

There will be more traffic on a few roads and less on others. Our best present estimates are that the biggest increases will be about 1,000 and 650 vehicles in the morning peak on Thamesmead Spine Road east of the crossing and Harrow Manor Way respectively. 13ut our estimates of reductions in the same period include 1,300 at Blackwall tunnel, 1,000 on Thamesmead Spine Road west of the crossing, 750 on part of the South Circular Road, 700 on Plumstead Common Road and 600 on a section of Plumstead Road.

Mr. Cartwright

asked the Secretary of State for Transport what proposals his Department has received for the building of a new tunnel at Blackwall as an alternative to the East London river crossing; and what steps are being taken to evaluate this alternative.

Mr. Kenneth Clarke

None, other than can be read into some of the comments received from members of the public following the recent exhibitions. In my view, a new Blackwall tunnel and the major road improvements that would need to be associated with it would not serve the same strategic purposes as the East London river crossing. The London borough of Greenwich has retained consultants to investigate a Blackwall scheme and the Department has provided it with information to assist it.

Mr. Cartwright

asked the Secretary of State for Transport why, in the public consultation document on the proposed East London river crossing, the normal practice of setting out a number of alternative routes was not followed.

Mr. Kenneth Clarke

I follow the policy of only consulting the public about routes which the Government are genuinely considering and which the Government believe to be worthwhile alternatives.

The consultation document explained that a number of other routes had been investigated and rejected, and gave the main reasons for rejection. The route proposed was the only one justified on environmental and economic grounds. If we had presented for discussion alternatives that are not viable it would merely have produced unnecessary distress to large numbers of people in South-East London and blighted a great deal of property. We are consulting about a number of important modifications to the route where there are serious alternatives and we will make no decision about them until we have considered the views of the public.