A question mark hangs over the £9 billion Lower Thames Crossing – just days before the government is due to sign off on it.
Transport minister Louise Haigh is set to rule on a Development Consent Order (DCO) over the coming week for the controversial project.
If granted, it will effectively give the ambitious project the green light.
But with the Chancellor Rachel Reeves seeking to slash public spending to tackle the £22bn “black hole” left by the previous Tory administration, there are fears it could be scrapped.
One campaign group described the plans for the crossing as “nonsensical” and demanded it be scrapped.
There have been some suggestions the government may look to the private sector to fund the project through what is known as a Private Finance Initiative (PFI).
This would see a long-term contract between a private party and the government where the private sector designs, builds, finances and operates the public asset.
It is understood investors would receive returns from the road through toll fees – although they could be caped – in exchange for coming up with the capital.
The project, which would see a tunnel beneath the Thames linking land east of Gravesend to Essex, has been heavily supported by Kent’s business community which believes it will be key to enhancing transport links with the rest of the country.
Nick Fenton, head of the county’s inward investment agency, Locate in Kent, said: “The Lower Thames Crossing is a project that promises to be a game-changer for the county.
“It is critical to keeping UK freight passing through the Channel ports and supporting increased housing and future economic growth for the region.”
It comes just days after the Transport Action Network, an organisation which calls for more sustainable transport, says plans for the crossing – designed to ease pressure on the Dartford Crossing – should have the brakes applied.
It claims the economic return on the project does not make the sums add up.
Its founder Chris Todd said: “It’s a myth debunked 30 years ago that road building grows the economy and eases congestion. Not only is the previous Conservative government’s roads programme unaffordable but even a cursory look at its own traffic projections shows congestion will worsen even if all the new roads were built. This review gives Labour a once-in-a-generation chance to consign this outdated and wasteful approach permanently to the past.”
Its roads and climate campaigner, Rebecca Lush, added: “Some of the funding saved by cancelling the worst schemes should be put to work enacting the Labour government’s vision for rail freight as well as public transport and active travel. It would make trains, buses, trams, cycling and walking far more attractive propositions and bring both environmental and health benefits. This would be far better value than blowing billions on destructive road building.”
It quoted both the Labour MP for Gravesham, Lauren Sullivan, and her Essex counterpart in Thurrock, Jen Craft as opposing the scheme.
Meanwhile, the Campaign for Better Transport group said the government could save £10.5bn by axing the crossing along with the proposed A66 Northern TransPennine upgrade.
Michael Solomon Williams of the group said: “Spending £9 billion on a road that can’t even carry a bus is utterly nonsensical and if approved by the Transport Secretary would completely undermine the government’s net-zero commitments. Building new roads doesn’t cut congestion, it does the opposite. Investing in public transport and rail freight is the best way to cut congestion, free up road space and grow the economy for only a fraction of the cost.”
