Research and analysis

The benefits of the Lower Thames Crossing options

Reviews the merits of the 3 suggested options for the location of the Lower Thames Crossing and the variant to option C.

From:
Department for Transport
Published
21 May 2013

This publication was withdrawn on

This report supports a consultation that has concluded. View the outcome of the consultation.

Documents

PDF, 3.78 MB, 89 pages

This file may not be suitable for users of assistive technology.

Request an accessible format.
If you use assistive technology (such as a screen reader) and need a version of this document in a more accessible format, please email [email protected]. Please tell us what format you need. It will help us if you say what assistive technology you use.

MS Word Document, 30.1 MB

This file may not be suitable for users of assistive technology.

Request an accessible format.
If you use assistive technology (such as a screen reader) and need a version of this document in a more accessible format, please email [email protected]. Please tell us what format you need. It will help us if you say what assistive technology you use.

PDF, 3.26 MB, 252 pages

This file may not be suitable for users of assistive technology.

Request an accessible format.
If you use assistive technology (such as a screen reader) and need a version of this document in a more accessible format, please email [email protected]. Please tell us what format you need. It will help us if you say what assistive technology you use.

MS Word Document, 9.34 MB

This file may not be suitable for users of assistive technology.

Request an accessible format.
If you use assistive technology (such as a screen reader) and need a version of this document in a more accessible format, please email [email protected]. Please tell us what format you need. It will help us if you say what assistive technology you use.

324 KB

This file may not be suitable for users of assistive technology.

Request an accessible format.
If you use assistive technology (such as a screen reader) and need a version of this document in a more accessible format, please email [email protected]. Please tell us what format you need. It will help us if you say what assistive technology you use.

301 KB

This file may not be suitable for users of assistive technology.

Request an accessible format.
If you use assistive technology (such as a screen reader) and need a version of this document in a more accessible format, please email [email protected]. Please tell us what format you need. It will help us if you say what assistive technology you use.

2.09 MB

This file may not be suitable for users of assistive technology.

Request an accessible format.
If you use assistive technology (such as a screen reader) and need a version of this document in a more accessible format, please email [email protected]. Please tell us what format you need. It will help us if you say what assistive technology you use.

Details

This report presents findings from the review of the merits of the 3 location options, and the option C variant. It is intended to provide information during the public consultation on location options to inform government decision-making on the location and means of delivering a new crossing.

The report contains the content of a strategic outline business case for the location options which provides details about the:

  • case for change (鈥榮trategic case鈥�)
  • value for money (鈥榚conomic case鈥� which includes consideration of environmental, economic, social and distributional factors)
  • commercial viability (鈥榗ommercial case鈥�)
  • financial affordability (鈥榝inancial case鈥�)
  • achievability (鈥榤anagement case鈥�)

Correction: the figures in table 4.12 on page 43 of the Final Review Report that detail the percentage of zones where air quality would deteriorate and improve were tabulated incorrectly (figures for improvements were recorded as deteriorations and vice versa) for options B, C and Cvariant. The air quality analysis itself and the reporting of that analysis in the Appraisal Summary Tables (tables 4.4 to 4.7, pages 35 to 38) remain correct.

Updates to this page

Published 21 May 2013

Sign up for emails or print this page

Related content